IMT Standardisation and Spectrum Identification: Impact on Technology Neutrality

Abstract

The lack of interoperability between 2G standards motivated the radio sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) to become involved in the standardisation process of personal mobile telecommunication. The efforts of the ITU-R ended with a family of five radio interfaces called International Mobile Telecommunication 2000 (IMT-2000) that collectively constitute 3G standards. ITU-R also identified several spectrum bands for IMT-2000. Later on, The ITU-R grew the IMT-2000 family to six standards by the inclusion of WIMAX (802.16e) after great resistance from several countries and vendors. The ITU-R work on 4G standards (IMT-Advanced) accommodates only two standards: LTE and WIMAX (IEEE 802.16m). The decline of the latter and the global adoption of the former have achieved the original target of the ITU-R to have one global standard. The paper examines the influence of IMT standardisation and spectrum identification processes within the ITU-R on the position of national regulators on technology neutrality. Furthermore, the paper assesses the impact of these processes on the 3G and 4G technology developments and deployment with a focus on the decline of WIMAX and diffusion of LTE. To do so, a case study approach is adopted that draws on two case studies of national regulators that are in favour of technology neutrality and supported inclusion of WIMAX into the IMT family but have not subsequently introduced it. The paper also analyses the activities of the IMT standardisation and spectrum identification in the various ITU-R working parties and previous WRCs. The paper draws on primary data from semi-structured interviews with the ITU and IMT standards representatives in addition to the main stakeholders in the selected case studies (e.g., regulators, operators, vendors). Moreover, secondary data are gathered mainly from the contributions regarding IMT in the ITU-R. The paper argues that while the IMT standardisation process has accelerated the development of 3G and 4G technologies and encouraged the global harmonisation of spectrum bands, it has also influenced negatively national regulators’ position on technology neutrality for several reasons. Firstly, defining and standardising 3G and 4G technologies have enabled regulators to differentiate between similar services according to the deployed technologies to claim additional license fees. Secondly, the ITU-R identification of several spectrum bands for the family of IMT standards has excluded the non-IMT standards from accessing the spectrum which has delayed the adoption of these standards. On the other hand, it has also restricted access of IMT standards into spectrum bands allocated to mobile service but not identified to IMT standards. In addition, the paper demonstrates that the IMT standardisation process has been used as a tool by the industry to have additional spectrum identified to IMT and to put the ITU stamp on their technologies without achieving the original aim of ITU-R of having interoperability between the different technologies. The selected case studies show also that the ITU-R definitions on IMT-2000 and IMT-advanced speeds are not used by operators to define commercial 3G and 4G speeds. Instead, it is the technology that defines the mobile generation. For instance, LTE is considered as 4G technology even if some of its releases are not part of IMT-Advanced family. In addition, technologies such as EDGE are not considered by operators as 3G although they are part of the IMT-2000 family. Moreover, it is found that ITU-R definitions are used in some cases by regulators to restrict access of 3G or 4G technologies to spectrum identified to IMT even if these technologies do not in practice achieve IMT requirements.