XPLORNET COMMUNICATIONS INC. 625 Cochrane Drive ● Suite 1000 ● Markham, Ontario ● L3R 9R9 ● www.xplornet.com 

CHRISTINE J. PRUDHAM EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL 

DIRECT LINE: 905‐944‐7952 E‐MAIL: cj.prudham@corp.xplornet.com 

 

January 30, 2013 BY E- MAIL spectrum.operations@ic.gc.ca Manager, Emerging Networks Spectrum Management Operations Branch Industry Canada 15th Floor 300 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0C8 Dear Sir/Madam,

Canada Gazette Part 1, DGSO-006-12, October 2012 Consultation on Renewal Process for 2300 MHz and 3500 MHz Licences

Please find enclosed the reply comments of Xplornet Communications Inc. and

Xplornet Broadband Inc. (collectively “Xplornet”) in response to Canada Gazette Notice DGSO-006-12.

            Yours truly,

CJP/ Christine J. Prudham Enclosure

INDUSTRY CANADA CONSULTATION ON

RENEWAL PROCESS FOR 2300 MHZ AND 3500 MHZ

CANADA GAZETTE PART 1

DGSO-006-12

OCTOBER 2012

REPLY COMMENTS OF

XPLORNET COMMUNICATIONS INC.

AND

XPLORNET BROADBAND INC.

Filed: January 30, 2013

- 2 -

Introduction

1. These reply comments are submitted by Xplornet Communications Inc. and Xplornet

Broadband Inc. (collectively, Xplornet) in response to Canada Gazette Notice DGSO-

006-12 announcing Industry Canada’s Consultation on Renewal Process for 2300 MHz

and 3500 MHz Licences (the Consultation Paper).

2. After a careful and thoughtful review of all the comments submitted in response to the

Consultation Paper, it appears that the respondents were struggling to confine their

respective answers to the questions asked. While Xplornet appreciates that Industry

Canada must work within the framework of the existing licences and has a limited scope

of issues that it can address in this process, as is evident from the responses, the

alternative proposals set out in the Consultation Paper are, at best, trying to put a good

face on a bad situation. They do not address the heart of the issues with the 2300 MHz

and 3500 MHz spectrum bands.

3. The issue is market failure. The Government of Canada has repeatedly stated its

commitment to rural broadband and its willingness to encourage development of

broadband in rural (less densely populated) areas of Canada.1 The technology exists to

provide a reliable, quality broadband service in rural Canada. There is an economically

viable business model to do so. These points are proven every day by the wireless

Internet service providers across Canada that are serving Canadians in rural areas,

including ABC Communications, AireNet Internet Solutions, Andrews Wireless,

ccRoute, Chatham Internet Access, Routcom, Silo Wireless, High Speed Crow Inc., GL

Mobile Communications, Xplornet and others that made submissions in response to the

Consultation Paper. However, the element that distorts the otherwise economic and

viable business model is the inability to purchase rural spectrum without purchasing

urban spectrum because of the way current licence areas bundle urban and rural areas

together. It imposes an extraneous and unnecessary cost on rural wireless Internet service

1 For example, “Policy and Technical Framework, Mobile Broadband Services (MBS) — 700 MHz Band, Broadband Radio Service (BRS) — 2500 MHz Band,” SMSE-002-12, March 2012, and “Harper Government Extends SaskTel’s Transition Deadline to 2012”, September 28, 2012 press release.

- 3 -

providers that hampers or breaks the business model. In short, there is no barrier to entry

for rural broadband providers, except for the barrier to entry created by Industry Canada’s

design of the spectrum licence areas.

4. A few fixed wireless Internet service providers, such as ABC, ccRoute, Chatham

Wireless and Xplornet, have taken on the risk and the financial burden of buying the

bundled spectrum. However, as indicated in the submissions made in response to the

Consultation Paper, these service providers cannot expand their packages to offer higher

speeds and more throughput to meet the demands of the Canadian consumers because no

additional spectrum is available. Inukshuk has quietly been purchasing the 3500 MHz

spectrum. Xplornet and others have learned that we cannot outbid Inukshuk, although we

have tried. The reason is a second point of market failure. The 3500 MHz spectrum has

more value to Inukshuk, on the speculation that it might someday be mobile, than any

business model in rural can support in its current use as a fixed wireless access spectrum

today. In other words, Industry Canada’s willingness to consider changing the rules, such

as making a spectrum band mobile or permitting something other than the original

licensed use, makes the 3500 MHz spectrum more valuable as a speculative purchase for

future use than as an asset to be deployed today in its current designated use. As a result,

the necessary element of rural spectrum is priced out of reach for fixed wireless access

service providers and rural Canadians continue to be deprived of the Internet service they

should have today.

5. It is acknowledged this consultation process was not intended to address the first point of

market failure. However, Xplornet would respectfully submit that this process can and

must address the second point of failure. Industry Canada must hold firm to its

commitment to rural broadband and must require that the spectrum designated for fixed

wireless access be used solely for fixed wireless access. A clear and unequivocal

message must be sent that not all spectrum in Canada will or needs to be mobile and that

the spectrum designated for fixed wireless Internet access must be used to fulfill the

policies goals of the Government of Canada to actually provide primary Internet access to

Canadians. Otherwise, Industry Canada has failed to fulfill its obligation to use the

precious public resource of spectrum for the benefit of all Canadians by instead focusing

- 4 -

solely on the needs of mobile carriers, thereby hindering, rather than promoting,

competition and innovation in rural telecommunications.

6. In addition to this important policy point, Xplornet would like to address a specific

question of fact. It has been suggested in some of the responses to the Consultation Paper

that there is a lack of available equipment for the 3500 MHz band and that a technology

ecosystem never fully developed for the 3500 MHz band.2 Those suggestions are, as a

pure question of fact, false. Contrary to what some parties would have the Department

believe, there are wireless ecosystems available for deployment using the 3500 MHz

spectrum band. Further proof of this fact can be found in the submissions of Global TD-

LTE Initiative, Huawei Technologies Canada Co., LTD. and ZTE Canada Inc. which

describe the robust ecosystem of available technology in the 3500 MHz spectrum band.

Proof is further found in the submission of Silo Wireless Inc. which points out that

Industry Canada has certified 146 radio models for use in the 3500 MHz spectrum band.3

The Consultation Paper itself states that the deployment requirements have been met in

128 (16.9%) of the 3500 MHz spectrum licences and are in progress in another 68 (9.0%)

of the 3500 MHz spectrum licences.4

7. The real proof of an available technology ecosystem can be found by looking at the

deployments. Xplornet has deployed Internet services to end-users in over 90% of its

3500 MHz spectrum licences and appears to be responsible for at least 50% of all

deployment occurring in the 3500 MHz spectrum band. Xplornet first deployed 3G

equipment in the 3500 MHz band in early 2009, is currently two years into its

deployment of 4G equipment in the 3500 MHz band and, early last year, became the first

company in North America to successfully test TD-LTE equipment in the 3500 MHz

band. It is a fact that the ecosystem for the equipment in the 3500 MHz band has existed

for several years, currently exists and will continue to evolve and exist for the foreseeable

2 tbaytel Comments, December 17, 2012, para. 6; Inukshuk Wireless Partnership Comments, December 17, 2012, paras. 3 and 6.

3 Silo Wireless Inc. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 7. 4 Consultation Paper, Table 3, p. 11.

- 5 -

future. Any statement to the contrary should be seen for what it is – a fabricated excuse

that Industry Canada should, once and for all, summarily dismiss.

8. The real question is whether or not Industry Canada wishes to extend the term for

compliance with the conditions of use in the spectrum licences, for public policy reasons,

on the belief that such an extension would improve the use of this scarce and precious

public resource. Xplornet respectfully submits that it is not equitable for Canadian

consumers who continue to wait for service or for companies like Xplornet, who have

invested in and committed to the development of their networks in order to serve

customers in compliance with their terms of licence, to now let the other licensees off the

hook by either modifying the deployment requirements, or extending the period for

compliance. Doing so will only serve to allow large incumbent carriers to continue to sit

on unused spectrum without any serious financial consequences. In the meantime,

companies like ccRoute, Chatham Internet Access and Xplornet, that are in need of

additional spectrum, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to adequate quantities

of spectrum despite the fact that they would immediately deploy it today if they were

licensed to do so.

9. Xplornet agrees with the statements made by Saskatchewan Telecommunications

(“SaskTel”) in its submission:

“SaskTel believes that unused spectrum licences should be made available to parties that are willing and able to serve customers with wireless broadband services. SaskTel believes that licensees that are serious about serving wireless broadband in urban or rural areas would have found the opportunity to deploy using available equipment.”5

10. As discussed below in the detailed comments that follow, other parties have made similar

calls for substantive measures to be taken to limit the ability of large wireless carriers to

sit on undeployed spectrum in rural areas of Canada that are underserved. Positive

measures are required to limit this opportunity and to make more spectrum available to

service providers that actually want to serve these regions. Measures, such as the

proposal to alter the deployment conditions to permit a limited number of fixed links to

5 SaskTel Comments, December 17, 2012, para. 9.

- 6 -

suffice, will simply reward large carriers for sitting on their spectrum in hopes of using it

for other purposes and thereby penalize those service providers who would actually

deploy it. This is inconsistent with the Department’s mandate to manage spectrum in an

efficient manner that serves the interests of Canadians in all regions of the country.

11. Xplornet was impressed with the out-of-the-box thinking put forward by TELUS

Communications Company in its response to the Consultation Paper. While Xplornet

agrees that a radical approach may be warranted to put an end to the hoarding going on,

Xplornet would respectfully submit that the only way to finally solve the issue of

availability of high speed Internet in rural areas is to designate the 3500 band as “rural

fixed wireless access” spectrum that can solely and exclusively be used for the provision

of primary Internet services in rural areas. As the numerous submissions from other fixed

wireless Internet service providers in rural areas of Canada indicate, we have all been

attempting to solve the problem of bringing broadband to rural Canada using whatever

scraps of spectrum that are available. This is not a sustainable solution and an adequate

quantity of spectrum needs to be designated for rural broadband use.

12. The time has come for Industry Canada to take this bold step. Not all spectrum should be

converted to mobile as some parties seem to desire. It is no longer sufficient to talk about

policies that are designed to incent larger carriers to extend service to rural areas. Past

history has demonstrated that these policies do not work. The 3500 MHz spectrum

presents the perfect opportunity to dedicate a band to rural use. The fact that larger

carriers have not seen fit to invest in 3500 MHz ecosystems, while smaller service

providers have, underscores the fact that Canadians will be better served if this spectrum

is dedicated to rural use.

13. In the following section of this submission, Xplornet discusses the position of other

parties on the issues raised in the Consultation Paper and comments on them.

- 7 -

Reply Comments on the Issues Raised by Industry Canada

(1) Industry Canada seeks comments of the proposed wording of the condition of licence related to deployment. Comments are also sought on the following proposals that:

A. deployments of fixed links not servicing an end user directly should be considered as an alternative method to meet WCS and FWA spectrum deployment licence conditions; and

B. when a requirement is considered for fixed links not servicing an end user directly, it should be set at 15 links per million population, per Tier 4 area at the end of the licence term.

14. The current wording of the condition of licence related to deployment is as follows:

“The licensee must demonstrate to Industry Canada that its spectrum is being put to use at a level acceptable to the Department by the end of the licence term. Licensees must demonstrate coverage at the level indicated on Industry Canada’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: Tier 4 Deployment Requirements for 2300 and 3500 MHz Licences.”

15. Xplornet agrees with the vast majority of parties that oppose the substitution of a fixed

link condition for this original condition of licence.6 This spectrum was intended for

fixed wireless access (by its very name) and the condition was well known at the time the

licences were issued. The price paid for this spectrum should have reflected the value

that licensees placed on this spectrum for this specified use. Every purchaser was aware

that making use of it for an alternative purpose, while permissible, would not fulfill the

licence condition. Allowing a different condition now is – for all intents and purposes –

changing a fundamental term of the licence for the sole benefit of a very few specific

licence holders. This is very apparent from the submissions. There are many licensed

bands that are already available today that are specifically licensed on a link-by-link basis

to serve backhaul applications. Since it has already been established that there is a

technology ecosystem available for end-user deployments and there is no need to use this

6 This list includes AireNet Internet Solutions, Andrews Wireless, Canadian Tower Corporation, Chatham Internet Access, Genesis Networks Inc., GL Mobile Communications, High Speed Crow Inc., iTéract, Groupe-Access Communications, NETAGO, EIDOS, Routcom Inc., SaskTel, Silo Wireless Inc., TELUS Communications Company and YourLink.

- 8 -

spectrum to provide fixed link service, the proposal to allow backhaul deployments to

fulfill the licence obligation is nothing more than a shell game to facilitate the continued

hoarding of spectrum. It is also perhaps an indication that a party has too much spectrum

to put to effective use in its service to end-users. Consequently, there may be merit to the

suggestion put forth by TELUS Communications Company that at least some of the 3500

MHz spectrum should be returned to Industry Canada for re-auction, although Xplornet,

unlike TELUS Communications Company, proposes that such spectrum be required to be

put to use exclusively for rural fixed wireless access services to end-users.

16. It is Xplornet’s view that the existing condition remains appropriate and should not be

diminished. The spectrum in question was originally licensed as broadband access

spectrum and the minimum population coverage levels stipulated by the Department were

reasonable. There is no valid policy reason to alter this condition prior to the end of the

existing licence period.

17. Amendment of the conditions of licence to permit deployment of fixed links at a rate of

15 per million of population would make a mockery of Industry Canada’s deployment

condition. Xplornet pointed out in its initial submission and was supported by 12 other

ISP submissions, that in many instances the proposed condition could be satisfied by a

single link in a Tier 4 region.

18. These parties made the following calculation and comment:

“15 links per million population equates to 1 link per 66,666 population. Of the 172 Tier 4 areas, 127 could meet this requirement by deploying a single Point to Point link, an additional 31 areas would meet the requirement by deploying 5 or less links. This policy could effectively tie up 92% of the Tier 4 areas with no benefit to Canadian End Users.

There are existing spectrum bands available for Point to Point Microwave systems with plenty of bandwidth to support this use. While a licence holder should be able to deploy Point to Point systems that complement their Point to Multi-Point network, Point to Multi-Point should always be the primary use of this band and the basis of deployment licence conditions.

We believe that the obligation to the license holder should be that the spectrum be used as it was originally intended - i.e. for Broadband Wireless Access. If a license holder is not able to deploy services in a reasonable amount of time (10

- 9 -

years has been more than reasonable), then that spectrum should be made available to providers who will.”7

19. The proposal to accept fixed links in substitution for the rollout of wireless access

represents a fundamentally different financial commitment than the licence condition that

was supposed to be met and, as submitted by Silo and 5088996 Alberta Ltd. carrying on

business as NETAGO, results in a waste of valuable spectrum - particularly in rural areas

where it is required for wireless access.

20. By way of comparison, the cost of deploying a single backhaul link would be in the order

of $5,000. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of deploying multiple towers

at a cost of at least $100,000 each. The two are not comparable. To change the rules

now - eight years into a ten year licence term - would be totally inequitable to service

providers such as Xplornet that have spent millions of dollars fulfilling their licence

conditions in good faith and would give those carriers that have not yet deployed a free

ride.

21. This would reward non-deployment and permit carriers that have failed to satisfy their

licence conditions to retain their spectrum for another licence term. There is no public

policy served by this type of free pass. The fact that the vast majority of ISPs who

submitted comments on this issue, including larger carriers such as SaskTel and TELUS,

oppose the single link solution underscores the fact that this fundamental change in the

conditions of licence is not necessary.

22. For these reasons, the existing condition of licence respecting deployment should be

retained and deployment of fixed links should not be considered as a substitute for the

required level of deployment specified in the original condition.

7 See for example, AireNet Internet Solutions, Andrews Wireless, Canadian Tower Corporation, Chatham Internet Access, Genesis Networks Inc., GL Mobile Communications, High Speed Crow Inc., iTéract, NETAGO, EIDOS, Routcom Inc. and Silo Wireless Inc. who all made this point.

- 10 -

(2) For the 2300 MHz band, which of the two options is preferred?

(3) For the 3500 MHz band, which of the two options is preferred?

23. For both the 2300 and 3500 MHz bands, Xplornet agrees with a number of the wireless

Internet service providers that neither option is preferable, an extension should not be

given and the required condition of licence should not be accepted. However, if forced to

choose, Xplornet would consider Option 2 narrowly less terrible than Option 1. In either

case, the ability to meet the requirements for spectrum use by simply deploying fixed

links (only one link in many cases) is poor public policy and leaves spectrum being

inefficiently used, if at all, for at least 10 years. In real terms, while the extension delays

the expansion of Internet service to the Canadians who are patiently waiting for fixed

wireless access services, changing the requirement to allow links amounts to a complete

denial of service to those Canadians because the spectrum could be used for backhaul to

fulfill the licence condition and never be put to its intended use. Implementation of the

proposed new deployment test would allow spectrum hoarders to get away with their

strategy. The link solution would allow carriers to renew their licences as if they were in

compliance and keep this spectrum relatively unused, thereby precluding other service

providers from using this fallow spectrum to extend their services.

24. In its initial submission, as an alternative to the current condition of licence, Xplornet

suggested a modified version of Option 2, under which licensees could be given the

option of retaining spectrum in urban areas of a Tier 4 region with greater than 30

households per km2 by deploying a few links (in accordance with Annex A), while

returning the rest of their spectrum in rural areas to Industry Canada for re-deployment.

This would free up rural spectrum that is greatly needed for deployment, while permitting

the larger licensees to retain urban spectrum in areas. This idea would be consistent with

- 11 -

the proposal of Routcom Inc. to split licences along rural and urban lines for the purpose

of opening up competition in the rural areas.8

25. While Xplornet has not had the benefit of comments on its proposal from other parties,

Xplornet would like to emphasize that its alternative proposal should only be considered

in the event Industry Canada decides to accept fixed links as an alternative to the existing

deployment requirements. It is in no way an endorsement of the revised requirement.

(4) For Option 1 (detailed in section 7.1 of this consultation):

A. Should licence terms be extended?

26. Xplornet is in agreement with MTS Inc., Allstream Inc. and other wireless ISPs, and

opposes any extension of the 3500 MHz licence term in its original submission.

a. If so, should they be extended by the same length for all licensees?

27. The responses of interested parties appear mixed on this issue. In Xplornet’s view, if

there is to be an extension of the original licence term, there are valid business and

administrative reasons for having all licences terminate on the same date, rather than

simply extending the term of each licence for the same fixed period of time. The

advantages of having a common termination date are discussed in (b) below.

i. Is three years an appropriate extension?

28. No, as discussed in (a), Xplornet favours a fixed date for expiration of all licences. An

additional three years beyond the remaining term is unnecessarily long given the

availability of equipment today.

8 Routcom Inc. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 2, para 4.

- 12 -

b. Or, should the licence terms be extended to a fixed date for all licensees?

29. Xplornet agrees with TELUS Communications Company and many other parties that

favour a licence term that expires on a fixed date that is common for all licensees. This

approach would facilitate licence swaps in the spectrum market, which leads to a more

efficient use of spectrum. It would also ensure that any review of spectrum usage occurs

at a common stage in the life of the licences for all licensees.

i. Would December 2017 be an appropriate extension date?

30. No, December 31, 2016 would be appropriate and more than adequate given the state of

technology development discussed further in sections C and D below. This is the date

that the last of the currently issued licences expires and it would give licensees

approximately four more years to deploy. Inukshuk acknowledged that deployment

could be accomplished in as little as 12 months when it commented that a minimum of 12

months was required to satisfy the deployment requirements from the time Industry

Canada made its decision.9 This clearly suggests no extension is warranted beyond 2016.

B. Should the deployment requirement also be extended to the end of the proposed term?

31. Xplornet strongly believes sufficient extensions have been given on the deployment

requirement and there is no valid argument regarding the absence of equipment. If

Industry Canada decides otherwise, Xplornet renews its suggestion that the deadline for

fulfilment of the licence condition requirement should not be extended beyond December

31, 2016.

C. In considering an extension of the licence term, do you expect equipment in the 2300

MHz band to become available soon enough to achieve the deployment requirements by

December 2017?

32. In its initial submission, Xplornet pointed out that this question is premised on the

incorrect assumption that equipment in the 2300 MHz band is not currently available.

9 Inukshuk Wireless Partnership Comments, December 17, 2012, at paras. E5 and 59.

- 13 -

Xplornet noted that globally 2300 MHz is the primary band for the deployment of TDD-

LTE. In 2013, tens of thousands of 2300 MHz based stations will be deployed in Asia.

33. In their comments, other parties have also provided evidence that this equipment is

already available.

34. In the submission of Huawei Technologies Canada Co. LTD., the company points out:

“According to the Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA) report Nov. 2012, there are 11 LTE TDD commercial networks launched globally, 4 of them using 2300 MHz including Australia, India, Saudi Arabia and Oman. More countries such as China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Sweden have announced deployment plans at 2300 MHz to take place within the next 2 years.

According to GSA, 70+ commercial devices supporting 2300 MHz are now available on the market, including multi-band and multi-frequency user devices, dongles, portable hotspots, tablets and Smartphones.”10

35. As a further example, ZTE Canada Inc. made the following statements:

“The ability for TD-LTE to support asynchronous traffic patterns makes it an efficient spectrum for wireless data usage. As such, usage has attracted the attention of carriers in a number of countries. For example, Softbank, Japan’s number three carrier, launched commercial TD-LTD services in the first half of 2012, and has already gained nearly 200,000 users within five months. China Mobile has expanded trial networks to a total of 13 cities in 2012, covering a population of around 100 million. As one of the major TD-LTD system providers, ZTE has won 8 TD-LTD commercial contracts, deployed TD-LTD networks in 19 countries and serving over 33 operators as of Q1, 2012.

…

However, what is appropriate is to report that we do see global market support for the deployment of TD-LTD into these areas and to make Industry Canada aware that there is no cause for delay or extension based on technical challenges or product availability on the infrastructure side. On the device ecosystem side, 2.3 GHz has seen earlier development than 3.5GHz but we do see the ecosystem for 3.5GHz in the early stage of development with chipsets now being commercially available to support market testing with engineering and trial units.”11

10 Huawei Technologies Canada Co. LTD. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 1. 11 ZTE Comments, December 2012, at pp. 1 and 2.

- 14 -

36. In its submission, Global TD-LTE Initiative (GTI) reported in detail on TD-LTE industry

developments, including on the development of system equipment, chipsets, terminals

and test instruments. It reported that end-to-end TD-LTE products are commercially

available and have already been proved with large-scale commercial network

deployment. According to GTI, TD-LTE system equipment is commercially available

with proven performance in large-scale commercial and trial networks in many countries

globally; both TD-LTE single mode and multi-mode chipsets have reached commercial

availability; and TD-LTE data terminals are available with diverse selection and smart

phones became available in 2012.

37. Given the current availability of equipment, the December 31, 2016 date is more than

adequate for licensees to build out their networks over the next four years.

D. In considering an extension of the licence term, do you expect LTE equipment in the

3500 MHz band to become available soon enough to achieve the deployment requirements

by December 2017?

38. Again, in its initial comments, Xplornet pointed out that equipment is already available

and there has been early deployment by UKBB (United Kingdom), 2K (Romania) and

BTC (Bahamas), with many other trial implementations around the world. In 2013, it is

expected that these trials will turn into commercial operation and the ecosystem will

mature with the introduction of mobile devices in the 3500 MHz band.

39. Xplornet’s facts have been confirmed by the submissions of other parties in this

consultation. For example, the submission of Global TD-LTE Initiative states:

“According to the industry status, the main bands of TD-LTE would include 1.9 / 2.3 / 2.6 / 3.5GHz. All these bands have the strong commercial support from network equipment, chipset and terminal products, and global operators such as China Mobile, India Bharti, Saudi STC and Mobily, US Clearwire, Australia Optus, South Africa Telkom, Vodafone and Hi3G group etc. Multimode is the main trend and 12 TD-LTE supported smartphones are already available. Roaming between TD-LTE and LTE FDD has already realized since mid Jun 2012. More major device vendors such as Apple and Samsung would be coming

- 15 -

in 2013. GTI believes that LTE TDD industry is now ready and would be a good option for Canada to release 2.3GHz and 3.5GHz.”12

40. GTI also noted that:13

“d) Terminals

TD-LTE data terminals are commercially available with diverse selection. The TD-LTE smart phones have been commercially launched to the market since 2H of 2012. According to the GSA (Global Supplier Alliance) statistics, the total number of TD-LTE terminals has reached 115 by November 21, 2012. The type and frequency distribution are shown in the below tables.

The point GTI was making is that the existence of a terminal ecosystem is the last step in

the delivery of service. This validates that base station, core and test equipment have

already been deployed and are ready for service in the relevant band.

41. In its submission, Huawei Technologies Canada Co. LTD. confirms that deployment is

possible today when it stated:

“It is possible to deploy 3GPP TDD LTE equipment today in the 3475 – 3650 MHz Canadian band (based on 3GPP band 42 and/or band 43).

3.5 GHz LTE TDD equipment available today is specified to work across 3400 – 3700 MHz on the RAN, and 3400 – 3800 MHz on subscriber devices. Given this broadband specification, LTE TDD provides agility to accommodate band and channel plan changes in future, and mobility, which need to consider legacy systems at that point in time.”14

12 Global TD-LTE Initiative, Letter, December 17, 2012, p. 2.

13 Ibid, Comments, p. 8. 14 Huawei Technologies Canada Co. LTD. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 5.

- 16 -

42. In its submission, Silo Communications reported that:

“A search if the Industry Canada Radio Equipment List (REL) for the band 3450-3650MHz yields results of 146 models of certified radio equipment. There is no reason for deployment conditions not to be met.” 15

43. Given the rate of technological change, adequate LTE equipment will be available by

December 2014 - which is two years off, giving licensees a further two years to deploy

after that. In light of these developments, no extension is required. If one is given, the

December 31, 2016 date proposed by Xplornet is more than adequate for licensees to take

advantage of available and anticipated equipment to build out their networks.

44. Xplornet agrees wholeheartedly with the position of Chatham Internet Access on the

issue of hoarding spectrum while waiting for next generation equipment to become

readily available:

“We do not believe that a third extension should be granted for those spectrum holders who have not deployed in that spectrum. The licence holders that have already deployed should not be handcuffed by a lack of spectrum for an additional three years. Currently the licence holders who have not deployed are saying they need to wait for LTE equipment. There is plenty of equipment available for that band today; therefore we feel that waiting for LTE equipment is not a valid reason for not meeting deployment requirements. We do not support extending the terms of current licences that have not met deployment requirements. Licences should be returned to Industry Canada at the end of the term.

That proposed extension poses another problem in that, within three years’ time new technology will most likely be available that is better and faster. That will provide those service providers sitting on licences to have an additional excuse to delay launching a service again. In the meantime, with each delay, many rural Canadian Internet users suffer from lack of service or speed. Many rural areas have been waiting for any service. Other areas are waiting for faster service.

Many potential providers have been sitting on the sidelines - sitting on valuable spectrum for 8 ½ years, keeping it out of the hands of the more progressive rural wireless providers’ hands that have launched using the best available equipment. We believe that the extensions that have been granted in the past have not served the rural Canadian population very well and those rural Canadians will once again be left behind if another extension is granted.”16

15 Silo Communications Inc. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 6. 16 Chatham Internet Access Comments, December 17, 2012, para 21.

- 17 -

45. As expressed succinctly by ccRoute:

“Although it would be beneficial to a licensee or applicant, we do not believe that any conditions of license should consider or be tied to the availability of the latest and greatest in technology. This would be akin to parking your car on the 401 waiting for gas prices to drop.”17

46. The point is that if the carriers hoarding the spectrum in question really wanted to use it

for rural service, they would already have deployed. It is apparent they are waiting for

the development of mobile equipment to use on a spectrum that is not licensed for mobile

use. Given this evidence, it is respectfully submitted that the Department should ignore

the comments of other parties, such as tbaytel, Quebecor Media Inc., Cogeco Cable Inc.,

Cintek and Inukshuk Wireless Partnership that assert no equipment is available.

E. Are there any additional considerations that should be taken into account by Industry

Canada?

47. As discussed above, licensees ought not to be permitted to retain rural spectrum that has

not been deployed as required in the original licence conditions. This spectrum is

required by service providers that actually will deploy it. It is totally contrary to public

policy to permit unused rural spectrum to be retained by large carriers that currently sit

on this spectrum without using it and can offer no better use than backhaul links for it.

Unused spectrum, particularly in rural areas, should be returned to the Department for

redeployment.

48. Xplornet notes that it is not alone in making these recommendations for a two tier

approach to rural and urban regions or for measures to be put in place to limit the ability

of large wireless carriers to hoard spectrum.

17 ccRoute Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 2.

- 18 -

49. In its submission, Silo Wireless Inc. made the following comment in this regard:

“…We are not in support of spectrum being held by a few entities for the purpose of keeping competition out of the market place. Radio Spectrum is a resource that belongs to Canadians and needs to be used in an efficient manner.”18

50. AireNet Internet Solutions, Andrews Wireless, Canadian Tower Corporation, EastLink,

Genesis Networks Inc., GL Mobile, HighSpeed Crow Internet, NETAGO, Routcom, and

EIDOS all supported this position.

51. As indicated by Silo Wireless Inc. and Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business

as EastLink, the Department should be considering measures to ensure that most of the

spectrum is not aggregated by a few large carriers. Such measures have been considered

necessary with respect to other types of mobile wireless spectrum in order to ensure a

role for smaller carriers. It is not clear to Xplornet why similar considerations are not

applicable to the 2300 MHz and 3500 MHz spectrum. It is easy to see that the same

carriers that hold large quantities of restricted spectrum also hold large quantities of 2300

MHz and 3500 MHz spectrum. As the Department is aware, it is prohibitively expensive

for companies like Xplornet that serve rural markets to obtain AWS, 700 MHz or 2500

MHz spectrum in auctions in competition with the large mobile (cellular) carriers since

the tiers used for auctioning that spectrum are so large that they inevitably include large

urban areas. Rural carriers, therefore, have to rely to a large extent on spectrum in the

2300 MHz and 3500 MHz bands. This spectrum is already scarce with very few

companies holding most of the licences. There is an urgent need to include this spectrum

in an overall cap applicable to all spectrum holdings in order to ensure that rural

broadband competitors can obtain spectrum, in at least one band, in each area of the

country. Today, that is not the case and certain areas are unserved as a result of the

spectrum juggernaut of certain large carriers.

18 Silo Wireless Inc. Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 7.

- 19 -

(5) For Option 2 (detailed in section 7.2 of this consultation):

A. Given the potential upcoming changes, is 10 years an appropriate term for new licences

issued through the renewal process?

52. Most parties agreed with a 10 year renewal term. Xplornet agrees that 10 years allows

for a reasonable return on invested capital and a reasonable expectation of service by

customers. Customers might hesitate to sign up if they thought their service could end in

5 years or less.

B. Should deployment requirements apply to new licences under the renewal process? If

so, what should the deployment requirements be?

53. Xplornet agrees with the comments of Saskatchewan Telecommunications and other

wireless Internet service providers that the deployment requirements should remain in

place in the renewed licences.19 Xplornet does not agree with any proposal to liberalize

or remove the deployment requirements. As previously submitted, licensees should be

required to maintain this level of coverage during the licence term to insure there is no

frustration of the public policy objective of using spectrum for broadband wireless access

services for the benefit of Canadian end-users through temporary deployments.

54. Regrettably, there is a readily available example of what can happen without the

deployment requirements. In its submission, Inukshuk Wireless Partnership commenced

by stating:

“Inukshuk has taken significant risks and invested several hundred million dollars in developing the 2.5 GHz band so that fixed wireless broadband services could be extended across Canada. Now that this band has been globally harmonized, we are taking steps to use our licensed 2.5 GHz spectrum for the implementation of LTE mobile broadband services. The implementation of LTE in the 2.5 GHz

19 See for example, the submissions of ABC Communications, AireNet Andrews Wireless, Axis SuperNet Ltd., Canadian Tower Competition, EastLink, Genesis Network Inc., GL Mobile Communications, High Speed Crow Inc., SaskTel, Silo Communications Inc. and EIDOS.

- 20 -

band will ensure that Canadians will have faster mobile broadband speeds and a superior level of service.”20 It concludes its submission by confirming: “Inukshuk has a proven track record of taking the risk and making the investments necessary to develop key spectrum bands in Canada so that Canadians will have access to the most advanced mobile broadband services in the world. We are prepared to make additional substantial investments to develop the 2.3 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands for the implementation of LTE.”21

55. Xplornet respectfully submits that Inukshuk’s track record does speak for itself.

According to the statements made at the time, Inukshuk Wireless Partnership was formed

in September 2005 to provide wireless Internet services to two-thirds of Canadians in less

than three years.22 In the news released put out on Friday, September 16, 2005, it was

proclaimed by Bell Canada’s group President of National Markets, Stephen Wetmore,

that “[t]his is an efficient, effective and responsible approach to getting more high speed

Internet services to more Canadians more quickly,” and “[w]ireless broadband offers

exciting opportunities for the delivery of these services, particularly for many of those

living in unserved and remote communities.” Further, “[t]he promise of wireless

broadband is here and Bell and Rogers have the expertise, resources and commitment to

make it happen,” stated Bob Berner, Rogers' chief technology officer.

56. According to its own submission in this matter, Inukshuk used several hundred million

dollars to create a fixed wireless network in what is reported to be 10 licensed areas of

Canada. However, once the 2.5 GHz band was “globally harmonized” and became

mobile, Inukshuk shut down its fixed wireless network. Customers across the country

received notices in late 2011 and the service ceased by March 1, 2012. Inukshuk openly

admits in its submission that it shut down its network because it is “taking steps to use

our licensed 2.5 GHz spectrum for the implementation of LTE mobile broadband

services.” It now promises to do the same in the 2300 MHz and 3500 MHz bands when

20 Inukshuk Wireless Partnership Comments, December 17, 2012, para E-1. 21 Ibid., para 56. 22 CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2005/09/16/inukshuk_internet20050916.html?ref=rss.

- 21 -

it states: “We are prepared to make additional substantial investments to develop the 2.3

GHz and 3.5 GHz bands for the implementation of LTE.” It could not be more obvious

that Inukshuk is hoarding spectrum that the Government of Canada intended to be used

for fixed (primary) wireless Internet access to benefit Canadians, with the full intention of

having it deployed for another mobile use.

57. Without the ongoing deployment requirements, it is patently obvious that the 2300 MHz

spectrum and 3500 MHz spectrum, which is specifically intended for fixed wireless

access, will at the first opportunity be redeployed as yet another mobile spectrum that

does not provide the primary residential and business access to the Internet that is

desperately needed in rural Canada. Xplornet strongly encourages Industry Canada not

to break its commitment to rural Canadians by allowing any deployment of fixed access

services providing a primary Internet connection to be discarded when it becomes more

lucrative to deploy shiny new smartphones in the mobile services market.

C. Are there any additional matters that should be considered by Industry Canada when

issuing a new licence for a new term?

58. In its submission, Ciel Satellite LP (Ciel) raised concerns that out of band emissions from

a terrestrial 3.5 GHz wireless deployment may potentially result in interference with C-

band satellite deployments. Ciel give accounts of cases where interference has occurred

in other jurisdictions and a recent study that was completed:

“Further, it should be recognized that the Extended C-band (3400 MHz – 3700 MHz) is heavily used for critical satellite services in many countries outside of Canada, in particular in many developing countries, and that this band is becoming particularly vulnerable to encroachment from rapidly growing terrestrial services.”23

“This section presents the analysis on the potential interference caused by the deployment of BWA systems in the 3.4 – 3.6 GHz band (“3.5 GHz band”) to FSS networks in the 3.4 – 4.2 GHz band.”24

23 Ciel Satellite LP Comments, December 17, 2012, para. 8. 24 Ibid., Appendix A, Section II.

- 22 -

59. However, in Canada satellite operators only have co-primary allocation in the standard C-

band (3700 – 4200) as Ciel outlines in its submission:

“It is important to stress at the outset that the FSS in the Table has a co-primary allocation with only the Fixed Service in the band 3700-4200 MHz. The 3700-4200 MHz band is the space-to-earth segment of the “Standard C-Band”, which is used extensively throughout Canada by satellite operators and Customers”25

60. As noted, the widely deployed C-band FSS deployments in Canada are using the standard

C-band of 3700-4200 MHz and do not include the extended band of 3400 – 3700 MHz

that are primarily referred to in the examples of interference cited in the Study. Ciel

acknowledges that the Study does not disclose any examples of interference being

reported in Canada.

61. Xplornet offers satellite broadband services to all Canadians and has a vested interest in

making sure that no harm comes to satellite deployments. Even though the examples

Ciel used are not directly related to the Canadian deployment of FSS C-band (because the

satellite frequency band that was subject to the interference is not used in Canada),

Xplornet shares Ciel’s view that Industry Canada should be mindful, in general, of the

potential impact on satellite deployments when making future changes to terrestrial

spectrum:

“Ciel urges Industry Canada to always be mindful of the negative impact that future modifications to the allocations in the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations in the band 3700-4200 MHz may have on the Fixed-Satellite Service”26

62. For example, these interference issues should be considered if, at some point in the

future, Industry Canada considers making the 3500 MHz band mobile, as some parties

have proposed in their comments.

25 Ibid., para. 4.

26 Ibid., para. 13.

- 23 -

(6) Are there any other options for the licence renewal process that Industry Canada

should consider?

63. A number of parties have advocated a fundamental change to the way in which 3500

MHz spectrum is licensed. These proposals include the following steps.

1. Move the complete 3475 to 3650MHz band into the same licensing structure as the 3650 to 3700MHz band, shared spectrum lightly regulated licensing. This approach provides 225MHz of spectrum space for the delivery of broadband services.

2. Reallocate the current 3500MHz band in the following manner. Blocks G,H,I,J (3550 to 3650MHz) be aligned with the FCC decision to make this shared spectrum. Blocks D,E,F (3475 to 3550MHz) be converted to TDD exclusive license blocks.

3. A hybrid system where Tier-4 blocks with a population over 150,000 people retain the current licensing policy, and all other Tier-4 blocks use one of the two above options. This allows the 31 Tier-4 Urban areas to benefit from exclusive licenses without restricting the delivery of broadband services in rural areas which will benefit the most from the additional spectrum.

While extremely sympathetic to the desire of these ISPs to have spectrum made more readily

available to rural service providers, Xplornet has a number of fundamental problems with this

proposal.

64. The first part of this proposal suggests making the complete 3475 MHz to 3650 MHz

band subject to light licensing requirements. While Xplornet could see an argument for

considering perhaps 25 MHz at the top end of the band being made available for light

licensing, suggesting that 175 MHz be light licensed is not appropriate and would

materially impact the service quality of those Canadians receiving service today through

the spectrum that has been deployed.

65. Xplornet, has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in deploying spectrum in

this band with a view to providing high quality, long-term service to its customers. It

would be unfair to Xplornet and to its customers to jeopardize this service by turning it

into shared spectrum subject to increased risk of interference and less certainty as to

availability to locations within the relevant Tier where other suppliers are present.

- 24 -

66. A similar point was made by ABC Communications, a smaller service provider serving

the interior of British Columbia:

“ABC’s access to 3500 MHz licensed spectrum, won in the 2004 spectrum auctions, has been transformative to our business plan and to the services we are able to offer to our customers. Due to our ownership of licensed spectrum and the business certainty provided by this ownership, ABC is able to make significant capital investments into our network. The use of unlicensed spectrum, by contrast, provides no assurance of business continuity, due to the risk of interference.”27

67. The second part of this proposal is to reallocate the 3500 MHz band. Although several of

the submissions recommended harmonization with the United States, Xplornet would

respectfully submit that is not necessary and not the best route for Canada to take. As

noted in other submissions, the propagation characteristics of 3500 MHz are far more

limited than other frequencies such as 700 MHz or even 2500 MHz. As a result, the need

for co-ordination at the border is much more limited and could be more easily done. The

LTE multimode handsets work for both FDD and TDD. As a result, there is no need to

worry about consistency in the broadcast standard with the United States because, if the

band becomes mobile in Canada, the handsets can adjust to whichever mode of broadcast

is being used. Further, one radio is now capable of covering 3400 MHz to 3800 MHz.

Worrying about which band plan to adopt is less of an issue as the equipment covers both

band plans. In Europe, the Electronic Communications Committee of the European

Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations has adopted two

harmonized frequency-division duplexing (FDD) and TDD frequency arrangements for

the band 3400-3600 MHz, and one TDD frequency arrangement for the band 3600-3800

MHz. and, consequently, equipment is available now that supports both the existing

Canadian band plan and the European band plan, Xplornet would encourage Industry

Canada to get in front of the curve and adopt the European standard without fear of any

issues regarding the approach taken in the United States.

68. It should be noted that the 3500 MHz band is very unlikely to ever be a national primary

band because of the licensing regime chosen by the Federal Communications

27 ABC Communications Comments, December 17, 2012, p. 1.

- 25 -

Commission in the United States and the carve out for military areas. As Inukshuk noted

in its submission:

“the eventual use of the band for wireless broadband services will almost certainly be subject to significant geographic restrictions near U.S. government radar system installations. This may limit the extent to which the spectrum will be used for large scale, national systems in the U.S. and may impede the extent to which a viable ecosystem will develop relative to the anticipated European ecosystem.”28

69. Furthermore, the U.S. model is not a workable solution for Canada and there are not the

same reasons for coordination of spectrum policies on a North American-wide basis, as

are often present in the wireless market. This is because the FCC rules assume that there

will never be a complete Tier 1 rollout in the United States. Since this band is

extensively used by the U.S. military, there are a patchwork of areas where it may be

utilized for non-military uses. The spectrum does not have good propagation

characteristics and can be easily coordinated in border areas.

70. Consequently, there is not likely to be pressure for harmonization to facility mobile

roaming nor will there be a primary service at 3500 MHz in the US that drives a large

ecosystem. Therefore, Canada has a unique opportunity with the 3500 MHz spectrum

band to set its own policies to address the need for rural spectrum. For these reasons,

there are no compelling reasons to follow the U.S. model in this instance.

71. The third part of the proposal is to create a hybrid system wherein Tier 4 blocks with

populations over 150,000 are retained under the current licensing policy and those under

150,000 become non-exclusive licences. Xplornet would respectfully suggest this is

upside down.

72. While Xplornet welcomes the attempt to develop a licensing framework that treats rural

and urban spectrum separately, unfortunately this particular proposal is too blunt an

instrument. While it might limit the ability of the large carriers to hoard rural spectrum, it

is more likely to have the effect of hurting the businesses of some rural service providers.

28 Inukshuk Wireless Partnership Comments, December 17, 2012, para. 48.

- 26 -

Most Tier 4 areas with a population in excess of 150,000 people include a combination of

rural and urban areas. It is this fact that makes the spectrum needed to serve the rural

parts of such tiers so expensive. It is also these areas that companies like Routcom Inc.

seek to serve and, as described in its submission, have trouble obtaining spectrum to

provide Internet services. With regard to the Tier 4 areas with less than 150,000 people,

subjecting these areas to a shared spectrum licensing regime will diminish the quality of

rural service and devalue the licences acquired by companies like Xplornet that have

already purchased licences and have deployed networks in these areas.

73. Xplornet agrees with the wireless Internet service providers that the problem is a lack of

spectrum available for use in rural areas and that there is spectrum in those areas that is

not being used. However, the proposal takes aim at the service providers using the

spectrum. This problem is not solved by removing the exclusivity of companies like

ABC Communications, Chatham Wireless or Xplornet which have deployed fixed access

Internet services in their licensed areas for the benefit of rural Canadians. The real issue

is addressing the unused spectrum.

74. In Xplornet’s view, the time has come for Industry Canada to take a bold new step to

implement its long standing policy of encouraging the extension of broadband services to

remote and rural areas of Canada. If Industry Canada is serious about finding a solution

for rural broadband, Industry Canada needs to designate spectrum specifically and

exclusively for rural broadband. Xplornet believes this is necessary to insure there is an

adequate supply to spectrum to provide Internet services today and in the future to

Canadians living in rural areas.

75. Rather than continue its failed policy of auctioning rural and urban spectrum in common

tiers, a far better solution would be to dedicate 3500 MHz spectrum to rural uses in

Canada and to significantly advance Industry Canada’s commitment to broadband

expansion in this way and adopt the European band plan as suggested by Inukshuk. This

would result in ample spectrum becoming available for rural services and would not

prejudice the larger carriers who have not seen fit to deploy 3500 MHz spectrum over the

past eight years.

- 27 -

76. This proposal would also satisfy the concerns of other ISPs who have advocated adoption

of the FCC model. For example, a rural only band would negate the rational for light

regulation since sufficient spectrum would become available for exclusive licences.

77. Given the lack of deployment in the 3500 MHz band except primarily in rural areas, there

is little or no prejudice created by making this change in designation to any service

providers who deployed networks since they would be in compliance with the new rural

use for the spectrum.

78. Industry Canada might reasonably wonder if such a change is unfair to the existing

licensees of the spectrum who purchased it without such a designated rural use

requirement. However, one would have to question if such purchasers had any intention

to use the spectrum for the purpose and in the manner for which it was originally

licensed. As an example, Inukshuk states:

“The proposal that licensees will be permitted to deploy “fixed links that will not service an end user directly” is justified in light of the fact that this relatively high band 2.3 GHz and 3.5 GHz spectrum, which has more limited propagation capabilities than lower band spectrum, may not be ideally suited for wide area contiguous coverage. To the extent that the use of the spectrum for fixed links will be more economic than the provision of wide area access services, licensees should be provided with the flexibility to deploy fixed links and to count their fixed link deployment towards the fulfilment of their deployment requirement.

This increased level of flexibility will result in a more efficient use of spectrum, since spectrum could be put to use for fixed links rather than remain unused in areas where wide area coverage is not economic.”29

79. Inukshuk is stating that deployment of fixed wireless access using 3500 MHz band is not

economic in less densely populated areas and that the 3500 MHz spectrum may not, in

Inukshuk’s view, be ideally suited for wide area coverage. As noted above, in paragraph

56 of its submission, Inukshuk has indicated that its primary goal is the most advanced

mobile broadband service. As indicated in its submission, Inukshuk has not invested in

any infrastructure or equipment for a fixed wireless access deployment using the 3500

MHz spectrum in eight years. It is asking Industry Canada to wait for LTE mobile

29 Inukshuk Wireless Partnership Comments, December 17, 2012, paras. 11 and 12, emphasis added.

- 28 -

equipment and to allow an alternative use as backhaul links. Clearly, this spectrum was

not purchased for fixed wireless access use and Inukshuk never had that intention. They

were simply hoarding spectrum and waiting until it becomes mobile. Inukshuk cannot,

with any degree of credibility, argue that requiring rural only fixed wireless access

deployment would prejudice its plans when it clearly never had any plans for the

spectrum that were permitted under the existing licensing scheme.

80. Further, Inukshuk is a partnership of two entities whose respective executives made

countless public statements over the last two years regarding the need for rural

broadband, particularly in the context of the auction rules for the 700 MHz band.30

Xplornet respectfully agrees with Inukshuk. Rural broadband and spectrum for rural

broadband are urgently needed. Xplornet and the other wireless Internet service

providers that have made submissions have proven that the 3500 MHz spectrum is ideally

suited for use in rural fixed wireless Internet service deployments. Surely Inukshuk

cannot object to Industry Canada requiring spectrum intended for fixed wireless Internet

access being designated specifically for rural fixed wireless Internet access use after all

the public statements made by Inukshuk and its partners regarding the need for rural

broadband when Inukshuk itself clearly had no intent to otherwise use that spectrum for

any other permitted purpose.

81. Now it is time for Industry Canada to deliver on its promises to rural Canadians.

82. Finally, TELUS has proposed that the entire FWA band should expire and be recalled on

December 31, 2017 (or some other date as appropriate) and re-auctioned as a new mobile

band based on a 3GPP compatible mobile band plan and ecosystem and designating 3500

MHz as rural will finally demonstrate that commitment.

83. Xplornet applauds the thinking behind this proposal as a bold solution to the spectrum

hoarding taking place. However, Xplornet fundamentally and respectfully disagrees with

this proposal.

30 See for example, Rogers Press Release, May 31, 2011 - Fair and Open Auction for 700 MHz Spectrum Critical to Deliver Next Generation Wireless Network for Canadians, http://www.rogers.com

- 29 -

84. First, this would seriously prejudice companies like Xplornet that have purchased 3500

MHz spectrum and deployed it in accordance with its intended purpose. Xplornet would

lose hundreds of millions of dollars in investment if TELUS’ proposal were approved and

over a hundred thousand rural Canadians would lose their Internet service.

85. Secondly, turning this spectrum into mobile spectrum for re-auctioning would make it too

expensive for rural service providers to purchase thereby perpetuating the current

underservicing of rural and remote areas and encouraging larger carriers to buy it all up,

leaving rural portions of the licence territory fallow.

86. Thirdly, there is no evidence of a lack of mobile spectrum. Industry Canada has gone to

great lengths to insure spectrum is being made available for mobile, including the two

upcoming auctions for 700 MHz and 2500 MHz spectrum. There is spectrum available

for public safety and Industry Canada has recently increased that allocation further. Yet,

there is not a single spectrum band designated for rural fixed wireless Internet use,

despite the significant need for it. If the Government of Canada is serious about finally

addressing the need for broadband in rural Canada, it needs to give rural Canada its own

spectrum band and enforce the use requirements to insure deployment of this precious

public resource for the good of all Canadians.

(7) Industry Canada invites comments on the proposed wording of the condition of licence

related to the licence term (detailed in section 8 of this consultation).

87. The wording is satisfactory to Xplornet. In particular Xplornet agrees with the proposal

to make renewal of the spectrum subject to a “high” expectation of renewal (provided of

course that all conditions of licence have been met.). This recognizes the investment

made by those service providers that have met the deployment requirements in their

licences.

88. Xplornet thanks Industry Canada for this opportunity to provide comments on some of

the critical issues involving the licensing of the 2300 MHz and 3500 MHz spectrum

bands.

- 30 -

***End of Document***