Several months ago, the release of the so-called ‘digital dividend’ was the subject of much debate in Europe, in which several industries (and often their regulatory bodies) were fighting to acquire (or retain) some part of this precious spectrum. In most cases, the established users of the spectrum – the broadcasting and SAB/SAP1 industries – argued that they should retain it at the expense of potential new users, such as telecoms operators.
Analysys Mason has always been at the forefront of this debate, having worked on the Digital Dividend Review in the UK for Ofcom (one of the first regulators to analyse the digital dividend in Europe) as well other regulators in Western Europe (including in Belgium and France) and the European Commission (EC).
As part of our current study for the EC on devising a co-ordinated European approach to the digital dividend, we held workshops with potential users and the EU27 Member States in March and April 2009, respectively. One of the most interesting outcomes of these workshops is the discovery that industry players and policy makers seem to be converging in terms of their opinion on how to treat the digital dividend.
Several broadcasting stakeholders appreciate that it may be beneficial for some of the digital dividend to be used for services other than broadcasting (such as wireless broadband in the 790–862MHz sub-band, which is often referred to as the 800MHz band, as suggested at the World Radiocommunication Conference 2007), as long as the spectrum is actually used.
All telecoms stakeholders agreed that there is clear economic value in terms of GDP and job creation in using digital dividend spectrum for telecoms services – for example, the spectrum could be used to provide coverage in rural areas and reduce the so-called ‘digital divide’, although a co-ordinated approach to this throughout Europe would be crucial if equipment manufacturers are to invest further in R&D and benefit from economies of scale.
Member States that have already decided to make the sub-band available indicated that they would favour European action to encourage other Member States to follow their example.
However, some Member States and stakeholders mentioned that they have to contend with several issues that make the release of the spectrum for new uses extremely difficult.
Broadcasting industry players expressed concern that reallocating DTT assignments in order to release some spectrum would be costly and that it is still unclear who would pay for these reallocations. They also emphasised the need to preserve and extend broadcasting services (highlighting the unique value that broadcasting generates, including benefits to consumers and society as a whole).
Telecoms stakeholders suggested that the allocation of the 790–862MHz sub-band (and possibly other bands) should not be mandatory, and that ‘voluntary harmonisation’ may be preferable for political reasons.
Strong concern was expressed over the prospect of SAB/SAP spectrum being made unavailable – particularly in countries that have nationwide allocations. This would cause disruption and would be costly because established equipment would become redundant.
It is still unclear whether Europe should follow the example set by the US regulator, the FCC, in allowing the use of cognitive technologies in the UHF band.
Some neighbouring non-EU countries use the 790–862MHz sub-band for other services (for example, military or aeronautical applications). This may prevent several Member States from making the sub-band available for wireless broadband.
If you would like to know more about the high-profile study that Analysys Mason is carrying out for the EC, as well as download summary reports and materials from the different events held as part of this study, please visit www.analysysmason.com/EC_digital_dividend_study. The study is due to be completed in September 2009, and will include a public workshop in which we will present the findings of the study.
1 Services ancillary to broadcasting/services ancillary to programme- making.