The decision to handover the licenced use of 3.7-3.98 GHz for telecoms use came after many within satellite industry voiced concerns over its impact on satcom services, especially within broadcast. Important questions were asked; Would there be an increase in cases of RFI? Would it be possible to identify the cause? 

The industry was quick to develop solutions to mitigate 5G’s impact on RFI, and yet, there have been early instances of 5G causing issues with RF signals for neighbouring users. This isn’t exclusive to 5G having an impact on satcom; there have been instances in which 5G has caused interference within the telecom industry, with mobile operators impacting on each other’s services. With much of this RFI being location based, how is regulatory approach differing from region to region? 

How was the handover managed?

Initially, Europe appeared to have a more detached approach from 5G management and anecdotally there appeared to be cases of RFI caused by 5G. However, it is worth noting that during our Workshop in March, our European satellite operators confirmed that everything below 3.8GHz is now given over to 5G and the mobile industry (compared with the US satellite operators who consider all frequencies below 4GHz as out of bounds). Additionally, it was noted that there are no official statistics showing any 5G interference cases. 

However, this is caused by the regulator’s rules and behaviour – satellite operators just cannot file for interference protection below 3.8 GHz in C-Band in Europe any longer. Any complaints are discarded administratively as “invalid injunction” and hence do not appear in any records. It is up to the satellite operator to find a solution inside their remaining C-Band capacity. Everything below 3.8 GHz is shared band and interference must be accepted.  

It appears that the dust may have settled and that clearer boundaries are making it easier for regulators and operators to manage spectrum sharing. 

What regulatory approaches are we seeing across the globe?

The regulatory processes are important within the handling of spectrum. Many countries have adopted a ‘negotiate and agree’ type system in which the communications operators are required to solve any instances of RFI between themselves. There have been challenges as to whether this is the most effective way of managing incidents; many decisions are being left to good will, best practice and the flexibility of operators. What happens when operators disagree on the cause of the RFI? Will the region regulator have the capacity to review and oversee each case? Or even worse – will the one having higher reception levels in RF power just win eventually? 

How can regulation within 5G’s use of spectrum be improved?

It is imperative that regulators take on an active role in spectrum management; it is not good enough to manage C-Band auctions and simply move on once the spectrum has been sold – especially while signal power levels are massively different between GEO reception and local 5G transmitters. The challenge has already been made difficult due to how spectrum has been assigned; in terms of spectrum, there are now two industries working very closely aside one another with very different technical characteristics and power levels. Managing industries with separate needs and expectations from their use of spectrum is going to take coordination; there must be clear regulation in place to dictate who is responsible to mitigate instances of RF interference. 

This could also be put into place with certain “No 5G Zone” agreements around important teleports that are already in place. But they need to be enforced by measurements and power limitations. Joint collaboration between both industries, Satcom and Mobile, can help here – supported by the local regulator offices. In the same way regulation is implemented for public broadcasting transmitters in FM, DAB, or television, 5G transmitters shall have restrictions with regards to registered C-Band teleports of public interest, operating also below 3.8 GHz. As such, SatCom and 5G can have planning safety and operate parallel without hindering each other’s interest. 

Ultimately, we would like to see that the 5G and Satellite communications industries talk to each other. The war-like attitude has been very wrong and has led to both sides shutting doors. Let’s solve problems for both sides for once and for all. 

Read the full article in SatMagazine now.