UMTS - 3G rollout - final report 2004 - PTS-ER-2005:4 - February 2005
22/02/2005
On 1 March 2004, the UMTS licence holders reported on how they had satisfied the licence conditions regarding population coverage. PTS thereafter processed the information obtained and could conclude that the licence holders did not sat-isfy the requirements for population coverage. PTS subsequently formally notified the licence holders that they had not satisfied the conditions. This notification stated that the licence holders were given reasonable time for rectification and to satisfy the population coverage conditions up to 1 December 2004.
In June 2004, Hi3G, Vodafone, Svenska UMTS licens AB (SULAB), Tele2 and TeliaSonera jointly applied for an amendment to the licence conditions. The op-erators applied for an extension of the time for the rollout until 31 December 2007 (with graduated building requirements for the years 2004 to 2006) and for an amendment of certain technical parameters (the requirement for a pilot signal and surface probability). By a decision of 7 December 2004, PTS found that the same advanced services retaining the same high quality could possibly be provided by a lower pilot signal in those areas outside urban areas. The application for amend-ments of the other parts of the licence conditions was rejected.
After 1 December 2004, PTS requested details of what population coverage the licence holders had achieved by the said date. It transpired, from the information received by PTS in January 2005, that Hi3G had achieved a population coverage amounting to 7 445 699 people, Vodafone 7 423 778 people and SULAB 7 619 507 people. This corresponds to 84%, 84% and 86% respectively of a population of 8 860 000 people.
PTS commissioned AB Stelacon to survey the 3G rollout in Europe and through-out the world. The report reveals that Sweden enjoys good position from the European perspective as regards the rollout of infrastructure for third generation mobile telephony - which to some extent can be explained by the procedure for the allocation of licences in Sweden - and that the conditions linked to the 3G operators’ licences have probably contributed to the rollout being more rapid than if it had been driven by a purely commercial impetus. Approximately 85% of the population of Sweden currently have 3G coverage. This can be compared with approximately 75% in Great Britain and approximately 60% in Italy, which are the two European countries that have together with Sweden advanced furthest with 3G rollout.
Set against the background of amendments having been made to the licence con-ditions, PTS considers that the licence holders must be formally notified once again that they have still not satisfied the requirements of the licence conditions imposed. The companies shall thus, in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 4 of the Electronic Communications Act (EkomL), be notified and given a new rea-sonable time for rectification. However, when determining a new reasonable time for rectification, PTS has only taken into account the need for changed radio planning (which was attributable to the amendment of the licence condition’s definition of coverage) as a factor for which the operators should be credited time as part of a reasonable time for rectification. PTS has consequently determined the period for rectification as the minimum period of one (1) month prescribed by the Act. If the operators have not, by 28 February 2005 at the latest, implemented rectification and achieved coverage in accordance with the licence conditions, PTS may issue an order in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 5 of EkomL. Such an order may, if necessary, be combined with a default fine.
On 30 December 2003, Orange and Svenska UMTS Licens II AB (SULAB II) submitted a written communication where the companies applied for consent to transfer Orange’s UTMS licence to SULAB II. On 26 May 2004, PTS decided not to consent to a transfer of the licence. PTS has subsequently, during the autumn of 2004, on the application of Orange, revoked the company’s UMTS licence. At present there has been no decision made on how the revoked frequencies should be used.
PTS has during 2003 and 2004 dealt with a number of matters with requests for a decision on co-location on masts. In a few of these matters, the companies have concluded voluntary contracts for co-location. However, the provisions of Chap-ter 4, Section 14 of EkomL have not resulted in PTS being able to impose an or-der for a co-location obligation to the extent desired to reduce the impact on natural and cultural values. Two contributory factors are first that it is a precondi-tion for a review of co-location by PTS that the party applying for co-location does not have alternative possibilities for the location of transmitters owing, for instance, to rejection of a building permit for its own mast, and second the ab-sence of powers to compel an operator to rebuild a mast to facilitate co-location.
Co-location should, in the first instance, be established by means of voluntary agreements. However, the experience of PTS to date regarding the rollout of UMTS is that cooperation in this respect does not function satisfactorily. This applies although the majority of UMTS operators today have now concluded mu-tual framework contracts with each other regarding attachment to masts.
On 17 February 2005 the Government appointed a committee which, considering the relevant aspects, should investigate the need of amendments to the rules for shared use of masts etc. that form part of the public communications network. PTS welcomes this initiative and proposes, without wishing to pre-empt the work of the committee, an amendment to EkomL, whereby the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 14 of EkomL, should be worded as follows.
An operator may also in other cases than those according to Section 8, item 5, be ordered to provide, in return for commercial reward, co-location or other opportunities for shared use of prop-erty or other resources, if it would not be suitable for the purpose to erect further infrastructure in the area in question considering the protection of the environment, public health or public security or in order to achieve the objectives of physical planning.
An obligation according to the first paragraph may also include an obligation to implement, in return for commercial reward, such rebuilding or adaptation of property or other resources as may be required to facilitate the provision of co-location or other opportunities for shared use of property.
PTS is of the view that a provision with the above wording would constitute an effective tool that could be used to overcome impediments that are identified regarding the establishment of infrastructure.