th

CONTENT ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2 LTE BAND PLANS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1
O VERVIEW OF 3GPP STANDARDISED BANDS FOR LTE ..................................................................................... 3
2.2
LTE BAND PLAN USAGE : GLOBAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 4
2.3
O VERVIEW MAIN DIGITAL DIVIDEND BAND PLANS ................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 North America: FCC 700 MHz band plan .................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Europe: 800 MHz band plan ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.3 Asia: APT 700 MHz band plan ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.4 Overview main band plans: ECTEL variant of the 700 MHz band plan .................................................... 11
2.3.5 Overview main band plans: International/regional practice ..................................................................... 12
2.4
I NITIAL USE OF SPECTRUM FOR LTE IN L ATIN A MERICA .................................................................................. 16
3 ROAMING ASPECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1
M OBILE D EVICE CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 17
3.2
A NALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
4 COORDINATION WITH FRENCH SAINT MARTIN AND ANGUILLA ................................................ 24
5 OPTIONS FOR SINT MAARTEN .................................................................................................................. 27
5.1
B ELOW 1 GH Z ................................................................................................................................................... 27
5.2
A BOVE 1 GH Z ................................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3
R ECOMMENDED APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 31
6 SUBMISSION .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Sint Maarten Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTPSXM) is preparing for the introduction of LTE based mobile broadband services on the island of Sint Maarten. Given the topography of the island and the close proximity to neighbouring French Saint Martin and Anguilla cooperation with the neighbouring countries is a necessity to allow for efficient use of the spectrum while avoiding major interference problems.
Global developments show a very strong growth of mobile broadband. Existing local mobile broadband networks are based on current third generation mobile technologies, such as 3G/HSPA+ and CDMA
EV/DO but will require future evolution to LTE and fourth generation mobile technologies to provide enough capacity at a lower price per unit to serve the citizens and business users of Sint Maarten.
From a spectrum policy perspective there are two options, typically used both:

In-band migration to newer versions of the 3GPP standards. This is for example applicable to the
850, 800, 1800, 2100, 2300 MHz bands. Vendors provide multi-technology radio basestations making this a commercially highly feasible option.

New spectrum bands. Main options for Sint Maarten involve: o 700 MHz Digital Dividend band. Internationally the Digital Dividend bands are 700 MHz in the Americas, 800 MHz band in Europe and 700+800 MHz bands in Asia. Since the
WRC 2012 potentially also Africa, Middle-East and Europe will get access to the 700
MHz band. These digital dividend bands are very suitable to wide-area coverage although the spectrum available to provide high capacity is limited. On Sint Maarten the
800 MHz band might not be near future option since this band mostly overlaps with the
850 MHz band as used on Sint Maarten. The 700 MHz band can be made available since there is no analogue TV service in that part of the UHF TV band. o 2.6 GHz band. This band offers a lot of spectrum and is very suitable to provide additional capacity at high traffic locations. However this band is less suitable to provide wide-area coverage due to the larger number of basestation locations required to cover the same area. Reportedly MMDS use of the 2.6 GHz band on Sint Maarten has been phased out after the introduction of DVB-T but WiMAX/Wireless Broadband might still be operating in this band.
Therefore the main 700 MHz is the new band, which can be made available for mobile broadband, besides the existing 850, 900, 1800, 2100 and 2300 MHz bands.
Unfortunately globally, and even within the US, there are different 700 MHz band plans. As a result of the different &00 MHz band plans there are incompatibilities with currently available devices. Contrary to the experience in other major mobile bands the current situation in the 700 MHz band is such that mobile phones and tablets are very specific for a particular (sub) band plan.
Further roaming is a key consideration given the importance of the tourism business.
This document outlines the main spectrum policy issues, the challenges and the proposed approach to provide spectrum for LTE and further 4G mobile technologies taking into account the very specific conditions of Sint Maarten and its close neighbours as well as the specific business requirements for both the local market as well as the visitors market.
2

The 3GPP standard facilitates LTE technology, both FDD and TDD, in many different bands:
E-UTRA
Operating
Band
Uplink (UL) operating band
BS receive
UE transmit
F
UL_low
– F
UL_high
Downlink (DL) operating band
BS transmit
UE receive
F
DL_low
– F
DL_high
Duplex
Mode
LTE in PCS band
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
36
37
38
39
40
41
...
33
34
35
42
43
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
7
8
1920 MHz – 1980 MHz
1850 MHz – 1910 MHz
1710 MHz – 1785 MHz
1710 MHz – 1755 MHz
824 MHz – 849 MHz
830 MHz – 840 MHz
2500 MHz – 2570 MHz
880 MHz – 915 MHz
1749.9 MHz – 1784.9 MHz
1710 MHz – 1770 MHz
1427.9 MHz – 1447.9 MHz
699 MHz – 716 MHz
777 MHz – 787 MHz
788 MHz – 798 MHz
Reserved
Reserved
704 MHz – 716 MHz
815 MHz – 830 MHz
830 MHz – 845 MHz
832 MHz – 862 MHz
1447.9 MHz – 1462.9 MHz
3410 MHz – 3490 MHz
2000 MHz – 2020 MHz
1626.5 MHz – 1660.5 MHz
1850 MHz
814 MHz
807 MHz
703 MHz
– 1915 MHz
– 849 MHz
– 824 MHz
– 748 MHz
N/A
2305 MHz – 2315 MHz
452.5 MHz – 457.5 MHz
1900 MHz – 1920 MHz
2010 MHz – 2025 MHz
1850 MHz – 1910 MHz
1930 MHz – 1990 MHz
1910 MHz – 1930 MHz
2570 MHz – 2620 MHz
1880 MHz – 1920 MHz
2300 MHz – 2400 MHz
2496 MHz – 2690 MHz
3400 MHz – 3600 MHz
3600 MHz – 3800 MHz
703 MHz – 803 MHz
Note 1: Band 6 is not applicable.
Note 2: Restricted to E-UTRA operation when carrier aggregation is configured. The downlink operating band is paired with the uplink operating band (external) of the carrier aggregation configuration that is supporting the configured Pcell.
2110 MHz – 2170 MHz
1930 MHz – 1990 MHz
1805 MHz – 1880 MHz
2110 MHz – 2155 MHz
869 MHz – 894MHz
875 MHz – 885 MHz
2620 MHz – 2690 MHz
925 MHz – 960 MHz
1844.9 MHz – 1879.9 MHz
2110 MHz – 2170 MHz
1475.9 MHz – 1495.9 MHz
729 MHz – 746 MHz
746 MHz – 756 MHz
758 MHz – 768 MHz
Reserved
Reserved
734 MHz – 746 MHz
860 MHz – 875 MHz
875 MHz – 890 MHz
791 MHz – 821 MHz
1495.9 MHz – 1510.9 MHz
3510 MHz – 3590 MHz
2180 MHz – 2200 MHz
1525 MHz – 1559 MHz
1930 MHz – 1995 MHz
859 MHz – 894 MHz
852 MHz – 869 MHz
758 MHz – 803 MHz
717 MHz – 728 MHz
2350 MHz – 2360 MHz
462.5 MHz – 467.5 MHz
1900 MHz – 1920 MHz
2010 MHz – 2025 MHz
1850 MHz – 1910 MHz
1930 MHz – 1990 MHz
1910 MHz – 1930 MHz
2570 MHz – 2620 MHz
1880 MHz – 1920 MHz
2300 MHz – 2400 MHz
2496 MHz – 2690 MHz
3400 MHz – 3600 MHz
3600 MHz – 3800 MHz
703 MHz – 803 MHz
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
2
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
FDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
TDD
LTE 1800
LTE in AWS band
LTE 2600
LTE 900
FCC lower 700 A, B & C
FCC upper 700 C, “Verizon”
FCC upper 700 D, Band 14
FCC lower 700 B & C, “AT&T”
LTE 800
LTE in extended PCS band
ESMR800, “Sprint”
APT 700
LTE 2600 TDD
LTE 2300 TDD
LTE 2600 TDD, Sprint
Source: 3GPP 36.104 v12.0.0
3

However at this point in time it is impossible for mobile device manufacturers to cost-effectively produce devices capable to support all bands. It can be observed the 3GPP standard has 5 different FDD band plans just in the 700 MHz band. The FCC alone is using 4 different FDD 700 MHz band plans in the US while Asia Pacific has selected just one 700 MHz band plan.
The 3GPP standards do allow for a lot of different bands to be used for LTE. Unfortunately the device market, and in particular the smartphone market until now, focuses on supporting a handful of the most popular LTE bands. As can be seen from the GSA data the number of networks supporting LTE 1800
MHz is the highest making this almost a de-facto roaming band. The number of networks operating in the digital dividend bands such as 800 MHz in Europe (band 20) and the 4 different FCC 700 MHz bands (12,
13, 14 and 17) in North America is growing gradually. Typically operators already have existing 1800 MHz spectrum holdings and use these to quickly launch LTE 1800 while analogue to digital TV migrations and subsequent auctioning or other methods of spectrum allocation do take time.
Source: GSA Global LTE Market Update, 1 August 2013
Considering the actual subscriber base it can be observed that North America and some particular Asian countries have been leading in terms of subscribers. This has mainly been driven by CDMA operators lacking a competitive proposition to compete with 3G/HSPA+ operators. These operators, such as
Verizon in the US, had a very strong business motivation to migrate to LTE quickly. The 3G/HSPA+ operators had, and still have, ample room in the HSPA+ technology roadmap to increase the capacity of their HSPA+ networks and tend to introduce LTE more gradually. Over time the distribution should be
4

expected to return to the more general distribution of the global mobile subscriber base with about 6% in
North America, 50% in Asia Pacific, 18% Europe and 11% in Latin America.
Source: GSA Global LTE Market Update, 1 August 2013 Source: 4G Americas
From a global perspective the LTE 1800 band is the most popular spectrum for LTE deployments
Source: GSA Status of the LTE ecosystem, 25 August 2013
In terms of the support for different LTE bands in devices similarly the prominence of LTE 1800 capable terminals is evident but it should also be observed that 2600 MHz seems to be broadly supported in devices even though network deployment in this very high band is far more limited:
Source: GSA Status of the LTE ecosystem, 25 August 2013
5

The number of LTE subscribers is increasing rapidly and by May 2013 the 100 million level has reportedly been exceeded. Many projections, such as the Ericsson projection and the projection used by 4G
Americas below, show a gradual migration from GSM to 3G/HSPA to LTE. Even though LTE is of critical importance and shows strong growth it should still be anticipated that the majority of the global mobile subscribers is most likely still using 3G/HSPA by 2018. Like with previous mobile technologies it does take time for ecosystems to develop, to mature and to reach the right price point for different market segments.
Source: 4G Americas Source: Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2013
6

2.3.1 North America: FCC 700 MHz band plan
In North America the LTE market has initially started in the 700 MHz band. Operators continued to use the CDMA and the 3G/HSPA networks for fall back and to complete their coverage footprint. Recently
LTE deployments have started to utilise more inband migration options as well.
The FCC 700 MHz band plan is based on two main sub-bands with different duplex arrangements:

Lower 700 MHz band (BTS TX high, BTS RX Low)

Upper 700 MHz band (BTS TX low, BTS RX high)
Within each of those bands there are FDD allocations and unpaired/TDD allocations. In the upper 700
MHz there is also a special allocation just for public safety applications.
Source: wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/bandplans/700MHzBandPlan.pdf
The main winners of the 700 MHz auction have been:

AT&T, Lower 700 MHz block B and C in the so-called band 17

Verizon, Upper 700 MHz block C in the so called band 13
Further there are the “Lower 700 MHz A Band operators”, mostly smaller regional operator using, or planning to use, the Band 12 plan. Some blocks, such as the Upper 700 MHz D block associated with the adjacent Public Safety block, were not sold in the auction due to lack of interest.
7

698
A
Band 17
AT&T
B C
704
Uplink
710
D
716 722
Unpaired
E
728
A
Band 17
AT&T
B C
734
Downlink
740
Band 13
Verizon
Band 14
C
A
D Public Safety B
Band 13
Verizon
C
A
Band 14
D Public Safety B
746 757 758 763
Downlink
775 776 787 788
Uplink
793 805 806
A B C D E A B C C
A
D Public Safety B
C
A
D Public Safety B
698 704 710 716 722 728 734 740 746 757 758 763 775 776 787 788 793 805 806
Uplink Unpaired Downlink Downlink Uplink
In the US there are specific reasons, due to some high power broadcasting immediately below the 700
MHz band, why mobile devices for Band 12 have to meet much stricter filtering requirements than Band
17 mobile devices.
Most of the current LTE 700 MHz users in the US use either Band 17 or Band 13 mobile devices but it isn’t common for mobile devices to be usable all over the 700 MHz band. For example Apple has launched two different iPad and two different iPhone 5 models: one compatible with AT&T Band 17 and another version compatible with Verizon Band 13.
Notes on subsequent developments on use/allocation of the FCC 700 MHz band plan blocks:

Early 2012 a bill has been approved allocating the Upper 700 MHz band D Block to Public Safety as well.
 Qualcomm’s holding of unpaired Lower 700 MHz band blocks D and E has been sold to AT&T. This seems to be linked to the 3GPP Release 11 functionality “New Band LTE Downlink FDD 716-728
MHz UID_510028 ” supported, among others, by AT&T.

March 21, 2012, the FCC issued a “ Notice of proposed rulemaking on Interoperability in the 700 MHz
Commercial spectrum ” focussing on reducing the mobile device incompatibilities in particular in the lower 700 MHz band. This was based upon a 2009 “ Petition for rulemaking regarding the need for
700 MHz mobile equipment to be capable of operating on all paired 700 MHz frequency blocks ” submitted by the “Counsel for700 MHz Block A Good Faith Purchasers Alliance”.
This process is still on-going with many recent filings. For example a major operator such as AT&T in their latest FCC filing at 26 June 2013 was clearly against any mandate to facilitate band 12 capability for mobile devices as well in lower 700 MHz given cost and complexity.
As of August 2013 the FCC 700 MHz band plan is a fragmented band plan with 4 different FDD band plans, some TDD/unpaired allocations and a Public Safety block. A device/smartphone which works on one FCC 700 MHz network typically doesn’t work at the 700 MHz network of another major mobile operator. Device manufacturers have to provide different models for the North American market to cater for the different LTE band plans used by each of the mobile operators such as AT&T (lower 700 MHz band 17 completed with other in-band migrations, mostly AWS), Verizon (lower 700 band 13 completed with other in-band migrations, mostly AWS), Sprint (via Clearwire 2600 MHz TDD, PCS 1900 and ex-
Nextel 800 MHz spectrum), T-Mobile (AWS) and the smaller regional operators (lower 700 MHz band 12 and other in-band migrations). Of course this has many other far reaching consequences for customers as well since mobile devices are more or less operator specific.
8

2.3.2 Europe: 800 MHz band plan
The European operators typically focus initially on 800 MHz (band 20) as Digital Dividend band for coverage and 1800 MHz (band 3) and 2600 MHz (band 7) as capacity bands. The band plan provides 2 x
30 MHz with BTS TX low and BTS RX high (inverse duplex compared to typical mobile bands):
The 850 MHz band as used in the US and many Caribbean islands is typically not used in Europe and therefore this spectrum could be allocated as Digital Dividend without any conflicts. For the same reason the 900 MHz is 2 x 35 MHz while on Sint Maarten only the original 2 x 25 MHz is used.
The European plan is of additional importance since the France Oversees Territories, including Saint
Martin, typically use the same frequency plan.
In the WRC 2012 also Europe, Africa and the Middle East also decided to make the (part of) the 700 MHz band available for mobile broadband. Although the full 700 MHz band overlaps with the 800 MHz band one of the more likely band plans for ITU Region 1 could be to adopt the APT 700 MHz band plan and only use the lower 2 x 30 MHz thereof. This is currently under study.
2.3.3 Asia: APT 700 MHz band plan
The Asia-Pacific Telecommunity has not embraced the FCC plan but agreed on a fundamentally different band plan, without fragmentation and more in line with the band plans used in other mobile bands:
Source: APT/AWG/REP-24
This plan offers the full 2x45 MHz capacity of the band with just a 10 MHz duplex gap in the middle. To avoid/reduce complications with users in adjacent bands a 5 MHz guard band on the lower end and a 3
MHz guard band on the higher-end have been included in the band plan.
The APT 700 MHz plan was agreed upon in September 2010. Report 24 outlining further guidance was issued in September 2011 and the ITU incorporated the APT 700 MHz plan in the March 2012 M.1036-4.
3GPP incorporated the APT 700 MHz band plan in Release 11 (Band 28).
There is also a TDD arrangement of the APT plan (Band 44) but the main trend seems to focus on the
FDD version with the possible exception of China.
9

The status in Asia is as follows:

Korea allocated

Japan adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan and auctioned 3 pairs of 2x10 MHz FDD in mid-
2012 even though actual availability is taking time due migration to Analogue Switch Off and migration to Digital TV.

Australia adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan and already auctioned the band in early 2013 even though actual full availability might take until 2015

Taiwan has adopted APT 700 MHz and announced the auction for late 2013.

New Zealand adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan and has scheduled the auction for late 2013

India adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan and plans auction only in 2014

China, reportedly the 700 MHz only becomes available in 2015

Papua New Guinea, adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan and reportedly already allocated spectrum (including 2 x 22.5 MHz to Digicel PNG).

Tonga adopted the APT 700 MHz 2x45 MHz plan

Many other countries committed to the APT 700 MHz 2 x 45 MHz plan but have to complete
Analogue Switch Off (ASO) before the spectrum is available for mobile broadband. For example
Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore confirmed their commitment in June 2013
Many Latin American countries are adopting the APT 700 MHz band plan instead of the FCC 700 MHz ban plan. The status in Latin America is as follows:

Mexico committed to APT 700 MHz and intends to auction 3 blocks of 2 x15 MHz each. This is spite of being a neighbour of the US with obvious issues in first about 60 km from the US border

Ecuador committed to APT 700 MHz

Colombia committed to APT 700 MHz

Panama committed to APT 700 MHz

Chile committed to APT 700 MHz

Argentina committed to APT 700 MHz

Brazil committed more or less to APT 700 MHz

Uruguay committed to APT 700 MHz

Bolivia committed to APT 700 MHz

Costa Rica, the regulator advised APT 700 MHz
At the latest WRC 2012 (part of) the 700 MHz has also been made available to Europe, Middle-East and
Africa. Although the 700 MHz band overlaps with the 800 MHz one of the more likely band plans for ITU
Region 1 could be to adopt the APT 700 MHz band plan and only use the lower 2 x 30 MHz thereof.
However mid-2013 there is no known firm commitments in Europe with respect to the future band plan to be used in the 700 MHz band.
The United Arab Emirates are probably the first country announcing adoption of a combination of the full
800 MHz and 700 MHz (lower 2 x 30 MHz of the APT 700 MHz band plan) Digital Dividend bands. This strategy is likely to gain traction in countries which adopted already the 800 MHz (band 20) for LTE.
Overall the prospect of very large economies of scale for the APT 700 MHz band plan are promising but although there is great momentum, the actual development of the eco-system is still in its early years since ASO is taking time in many countries.
10

2.3.4 Overview main band plans: ECTEL variant of the 700 MHz band plan
Besides the two main FCC and APT plans within the Caribbean region ECTEL had prepared a specific variant of the FCC 700 MHz plan, published in 2009. This plan overlaps in some aspects with the FCC plan (Lower 700 band and upper 700 MHz Band) but in the lower band the FCC C block is not by definition offered as a FDD block. In the Upper 700 MHz the 1 MHz channels have been eliminated, all blocks are 6 MHz and Public Safety has been reduced.
Source: ECTEL “Policy on the allocation and assignment of frequencies in the 700 MHz band”, Approved in April 2009
Operators (like Lime and Digicel) have demanded closer alignment with the FCC 700 MHz plan and the final determination of ECTEL shows the following band plan:
Source: FINAL DETERMINATION PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSAL FOR ASSIGNMENT OF SPECTRUM IN THE 700
MHZ BAND, March 2013
11

2.3.5 Overview main band plans: International/regional practice
GSM Association
The GSM Association provided a “Draft Draft Position paper for Latin America on Digital Dividend/UHF band plans ” May 2011:
Globally, the GSMA favours the harmonisation of frequency bands used for mobile broadband services.
With particular reference to the 698-806 MHz band, the GSMA supports two band plan options, namely:
Option 1. The Optimised “2 x 45” MHz conventional FDD band plan in 698-806 MHz, agreed within the
AsiaPacific Telecommunity’s Wireless Forum (AWF) for Region 3 (Asia Pacific)1; and
Option 2. The US band plan in 698-806 MHz as specified by 3GPP for the USA2.
Option 1 (the Asian band plan) may be an option that some countries wish to consider. It has the advantage that it has been designed assuming the spectrum is clear of other users, and therefore does not need to support US specific legacy issues. The Asian band plan could also offer significant benefits from economies of scale (with over 50% of the world’s population in Asia Pacific). However the adoption of the band plan by Asian countries is still work in progress although a large market like India and mature markets and early movers like Australia and New Zealand have indicated they will implement the Asia band plan. The on-going process of countries considering to adopt the Asia band plan mean that the availability of devices for this band will likely lag behind that of option 2 (US band plan).
Option2, the US band plan has the obvious attraction in terms of equipment and device availability that it has been deployed in the USA.
Conclusion
Since use of the 698-806 MHz band is the alternative for Latin America band plan options 1 and 2 are the candidates to be considered in Latin America.
Option 1 is likely to be better for those administrations that prioritize making maximum bandwidth available and that can align with the Asian Pacific countries on timing regarding release of the band and deployment of mobile broadband technology.
Option 2 (US band plan) is likely to be better for those Administrations that prioritize releasing the band for mobile broadband deployments within a short timeline.
Source: Draft Draft Position paper for Latin America on Digital Dividend/UHFband plans, May 2011
12

CITEL
CITEL’s recommendation (November 2011) for the 700 MHz band plan allows for two main options, FCC
700 MHz plan or APT 700 MHz plan:
Source: XVIII MEETING OF PERMANENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE II: RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING
BROADCASTING, November 28 to December 2, 2011, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Final report
13

Canada
The Canadian Regulator has proposed 3 different potential band plans for the 700 MHz band including the FCC plan and the APT plan:
Source: “Consultation on a Policy and Technical Framework for the 700 MHz Band and Aspects Related to Commercial Mobile
Spectrum
”, November 2010
The conclusion of the Canadian consultation has resulted in option 1; harmonize with the US band plan:
Source: www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10122.html
, March 2012
Mexico
Even though Mexico has a long border with the US it seems Mexico has selected the APT 700 MHz plan.
In a press message ( www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/cofetel-plans-tender-for-700-mhzband-confirms-will-opt-for-asia-pacific-standard ) on June 13, 2012, is stated “ Cofetel plans tender for 700
MHz band, confirms will opt for Asia-Pacific standard ” and “ Mexican telecoms regulator Cofetel is considering tendering blocks of 15 MHz for three operators, Cofetel’s General Director…..
”
Chile
Similarly a press message ( www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/govt-adopts-asia-pacificstandard-for-700-mhz-band1 ) of April 24, 2012, states “ Government adopts Asia-Pacific standard for 700
MHz band – Chile ”. The justification offered is clearly related to the better economies of scale anticipated for the APT 700 MHz band plan.
14

Bahama’s
On January 16, 2012, URCA , the Telecom Regulator for the Bahama’s issued a consultation on the “ Draft
Policy for New Spectrum Bands – 700 MHz, 11 GHz, 12 GHz and 42 GHz”, ECS 1/2012 and on March
23, 2012 the “ Policy for New Spectrum Bands – 700 MHz, 11 GHz, 12 GHz and 42 GHz ” was issued.
The 700 MHz band plan adopted is as follows:
Source : URCA “Policy for New Spectrum Bands – 700 MHz, 11 GHz, 12 GHz and 42 GHz”, March 2012
This plan could be characterized as a modified FCC 700 MHz band plan, eliminating the 1 MHz bands, reducing the Public Safety allocation and harmonizing all blocks with the existing 6 MHz TV channels.
Some of the aspects, like the elimination of the 1 MHz channels and all 6 MHz blocks are similar to the
ECTEL 700 MHz plan.
Virgin Islands
The T elecommunications Regulatory Commission Virgin Islands has issued “Spectrum Management
Framework – Final Statement including report on Public Consultation”, November 2011. In this report the options for the 700 MHz band plan are discussed and the usual arguments in the FCC  APT band plan are reviewed:

Operators who wish to launch in the short-term might prefer the FCC 700 MHz band plan and specifically Band 13 (Verizon) and band 17 (AT&T) given the mobile device availability and roaming with the US

The FCC 700 MHz plan is not ideal

The APT 700 MHz plan is more spectrum efficient, not only thanks to its 5 MHz channels but also because it may permit more efficient LTE deployments in wide channel widths

In the long-term the APT plan may prove to be more economical.
The overall conclusion for the Virgin Islands was in favour of the FCC 700 MHz band plan:
Source: “Spectrum Management Framework – Final Statement including report on Public Consultation”, November 2011
Turks & Caicos Islands
The regulator has adopted and through a kind of beauty contest process awarded 700 MHz spectrum based on the FCC 700 MHz band plan early 2013 . The spectrum was clearly divided in “Prime” spectrum and “Non-Prime” spectrum. Prime spectrum was basically the AT&T band 17 and the Verizon band 13 blocks while the rest was considered “Non-Prime”.
15

The initial deployments of LTE in Latin America are distributed over many different bands including the
700 MHz Digital Dividend but also in-band 850 MHz, 1800 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, AWS and 2600 MHz.
Source: 4G Americas
16

Roaming is of critical importance for the mobile operators on Sint Maarten given the large numbers of tourists. The majority of the tourists are coming from North America although there is also a significant percentage of European roaming.
First of all it is important that roaming does not necessarily require the visited network to use the same band as in the home country . This is a common misunderstanding. What is essential is that the mobile device brought along by the visitor supports the frequency band used on Sint Maarten .
3.1
This can be illustrated based on the capabilities of one of the popular phone models used in the US, the iPhone5:
Source: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
IPhone models:
 The first model, the “AT&T” version supports LTE bands 2 (PCS 1900), 4 (AWS), 5 (850 MHz) and 17 (lower 700 MHz B & C as used by AT&T) and 5 bands 3G/HSPA+ and quad-band GSM.
 The second model, the “Verizon“ version supports LTE bands 1 (2100 MHz), 3 (1800 MHz), 5
(850 MHz), 13 (upper 700 MHz band C as used by Verizon) and band 25 (extended PCS 1900) and quad band 3G/HSPA+ and quad-band GSM and tri-band CDMA.

The third model used internationally supports LTE bands LTE bands 1 (2100 MHz), 3 (1800
MHz), 5 (850 MHz) and quad band 3G/HSPA+ and quad band GSM.
Other popular devices, like Samsung Galaxy S4 and HTCOne support again a different mix of LTE band combinations depending on the country and the operator:

Samsung S4 for AT&T: LTE: Bands 1/4/7/17; HSPA+/UMTS: 850/1900/2100MHz; GSM:
850/900/1800/1900MHz. So this version also has band 7 (LTE 2600)

Samsung S4 for Verizon: LTE: Bands 4/13; CDMA 1x/EVDO Rev.A: 800/1900MHz;
HSPA+/UMTS: 850/900/1900/2100MHz; GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz.

Samsung S4 for Sprint: LTE: Band 25; CDMA 1x/EVDO Rev.A: 800/850/1900MHz;
HSPA+/UMTS: 850/900/1900/2100MHz; GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz. So this version seems to have activated only the LTE capability in the extended PCS 1900 band even though Sprint’s network has become tri-band LTE (EMSR-800 band 26, extended PCS 1900 band 25 and LTE
TDD 2600, band 41) in 2013.
17


Samsung S4 for T-Mobile: LTE: Bands 1/2/4/5/7/17; HSPA+/UMTS: 850/AWS/1900/2100MHz;
GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz. So this particular version supports 6 different LTE bands including the “AT&T” 700 MHz version

Samsung S4 for US Cellular: LTE: Bands 2/4/5/12; CDMA 1x/EVDO Rev.A: 800/AWS/1900MHz

Samsung S4 for other US carriers: LTE: Bands 2/25; CDMA 1x/EVDO Rev.A: 800/1900MHz

Samsung S4 for the Netherlands (typical European): LTE B1(2100), B3(1800), B5(850),
B7(2600), B8(900), B20(800) and quad band 3G/HSPA and GSM

HTC One AT&T: LTE 700/850/AWS/1900 MHz

HTC One T-Mobile: LTE 700/AWS MHz

HTC One European: LTE 800/1800/2600 MHz
Sources: Samsung website for US and the Netherlands, HTC website
How would this apply to a Sint Maarten based operator using LTE in particular band?
Band 17
(“AT&T”
700 MHz)
Band 13
(“Verizon”
700 MHz)
Band 3
(1800 MHz)
Band 7
(2600 MHz)
Verizon iPhone 5 No (3G fall-back) Yes
AT&T iPhone 5 Yes No (3G fall-back)
Europe iPhone 5 No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back)
AT&T Sams. S4 Yes No (3G fall-back)
Yes
Band 5
(850 MHz)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) Yes
Yes
No (3G fall-back) Yes
No (3G fall-back) Yes
Verizon Sams. S4
Sprint Sams. S4
No (3G fall-back) Yes
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back) Yes No (3G fallback)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fallback)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fallback)
No (3G fall-back) Yes Yes T-Mobile Sams. S4 Yes
US Cellular S4 ? (supports band
12)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) Yes
Other US carrier
S4
European
Samsung S4
AT&T HTC One
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fallback)
Yes Yes Yes
T-Mobile HTC One
European HTC
One
Yes
Yes
No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fallback)
No (3G fall-back) No (3G fall-back) No (3G fallback)
Yes Yes No (3G fallback)
As can be observed from the table above any choice of FCC 700 MHz frequency band for LTE will exclude a lot of roamers:
 Selection of the “AT&T” band 17 results in AT&T and some T-Mobile roamers but excludes
Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular and European roamers.

Similarly the choice for Verizon band 13 results in Verizon roamers but no one else
Selecting one of the popular in-band migration options results in a mixture of roamers:

The increasingly popular 1800 MHz band does result in most European roamers but also the
Verizon iPhone 5’s.

The 2600 MHz band results in some devices from AT&T, T-Mobile and many European roamers.

The 850 MHz band results in all iPhones from Verizon, AT&T and Europe as well US Cellular, T-
Mobile Samsung and European Samsung S4’s.
With the current ecosystem of mobile devices/smartphones there is no optimum band to get all roamers.
Since the US market is fragmented the result of US roaming will be fragmented as well. The
European/Asian/Rest of the World roamers can be captured using one of the internationally most popular bands such as LTE 1800 but other bands but also 850 and 2600 MHz bands do offer increasing roaming opportunities.
This fragmented LTE spectrum in the US is a major barrier for development of the LTE roaming market.
However it should be observed that all those terminals come with extensive 3G/HSPA capability as well
18

so visitors to Sint Maarten can always fall-back to 3G/HSPA+ for voice and data services in case their device does not support the local LTE band.
Looking forward there are strong reasons to expect the situation to improve. An important reason is the fact that smartphone vendors do not like to make so many different models. In most of the word they can provide just one and the same model but for the US they need several different versions. Chipset developers are addressing the issue to support more LTE bands in one smartphone:

Intel plans to provide a chip supporting up to 15 LTE bands:
Source: August 2013 filing at FCC in response to Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, Promoting Interoperability in the 700
MHz Commercial Spectrum

Even more ambitious is the RF360 chipset of Qualcomm offering support for up to 40 LTE bands between 700 MHz and 2600 MHz. This chipset is due for late 2013 and is anticipated to enable a single mobile phone for the global market.
Qualcomm RF360 Front End Solution Enables Single, Global LTE Design for Next-
Generation Mobile Devices
New WTR1625L and RF Front End Chips Harness Radio Frequency Band Proliferation, Enable OEMs to Develop
Thinner, More Power-Efficient Devices with Worldwide 4G LTE Mobility
SAN DIEGO – February 21, 2013 – Qualcomm Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM) today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., introduced the Qualcomm RF360 Front End Solution, a comprehensive, system-level solution that addresses cellular radio frequency band fragmentation and enables for the first time a single, global 4G LTE design for mobile devices. Band fragmentation is the biggest obstacle to designing today’s global LTE devices, with 40 cellular radio bands worldwide. The Qualcomm RF front end solution comprises a family of chips designed to mitigate this problem while improving RF performance and helping OEMs more easily develop multiband, multimode mobile devices supporting all seven cellular modes, including LTE-FDD, LTE-TDD, WCDMA, EV-DO, CDMA
1x, TD-SCDMA and GSM/EDGE. The RF front end solut ion includes the industry’s first envelope power tracker for 3G/4G
LTE mobile devices, a dynamic antenna matching tuner, an integrated power amplifier-antenna switch, and an innovative
3D-RF packaging solution incorporating key front end components. The Qualcomm RF360 solution is designed to work seamlessly, reduce power consumption and improve radio performance while reducing the RF front end footprint inside of a smartphone by up to 50 percent compared to the current generation of devices. Additionally, the solution reduces design complexity and development costs, allowing OEM customers to develop new multiband, multimode LTE products faster and more efficiently. By combining the new RF front end chipsets with Qualcomm Snapdragon all-in-one mobile processo rs and Gobi™ LTE modems, Qualcomm Technologies can supply OEMs with a comprehensive, optimized, system-level LTE solution that is truly global.
As mobile broadband technologies evolve, OEMs need to support 2G, 3G, 4G LTE and LTE Advanced technologies in the same device in order to provide the best possible data and voice experience to consumers no matter where they are.
“The wide range of radio frequencies used to implement 2G, 3G and 4G LTE networks globally presents an ongoing challenge for mobile device designers. Where 2G and 3G technologies each have been implemented on four to five different RF bands globally, the inclusion of LTE brings the total number of cellular bands to approximately 40,” said Alex
Katouzian, senior vice president of product ma nagement, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. “Our new RF devices are tightly integrated and will allow us the flexibility and scalability to supply OEMs of all types, from those requiring only a regionspecific LTE solution, to those needing LTE global roaming su pport.”
Source: www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2013/02/21/qualcomm-rf360-front-end-solution-enables-single-global-ltedesign-next

GSMA is also assessing the issue of many LTE spectrum bands.
19

Is a ‘world’ LTE smartphone on the horizon?
Achieving global economies of scale for LTE remains a challenge
The mobile industry has made good progress in ensuring LTE spectrum harmonisation on a regional basis. However, it has only recently started tackling the challenge of developing an LTE smartphone that works worldwide. Such a device would improve economies of scale for both device manufacturers and operators, while nurturing global LTE roaming and triggering the faster adoption of LTE services. There are currently close to 200 commercial LTE networks operating worldwide, running on 12 different FDD/TDD frequency bands. About 30% of global LTE deployments are supported by the 1800 MHz band, while the 2600 MHz band makes up a quarter of deployments and the digital dividend bands a further 21%. But the dominance of these existing LTE bands is likely to lessen in the medium to long term as more countries allocate LTE spectrum and additional bands are introduced.
In Europe, LTE spectrum has been harmonised around the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz bands. Meanwhile, many markets in Asia and Latin America are adopting the APT700 band plan, and other operators – notably across the
Americas – are considering the use of AWS 1700 MHz/2100 MHz band for roaming purposes. These are the key bands that are core to a ‘world’ LTE smartphone today, along with 2100 MHz and 2300 MHz/2500 MHz for TDD.
Nevertheless, handset manufacturers’ choices as to which LTE bands they support have typically been driven by market demand at the domestic or regional level, with LTE smartphones designed to suppor t operators’ immediate spectrum requirements. Samsung chose to support six LTE frequency bands on the Galaxy S4, compared to five for recent devices produced by Apple, Nokia and Huawei.
One large Asian handset manufacturer recently told us that supporting multiple LTE bands is likely to remain a compromise between cost and demand, as defined by the operators' requirements. The manufacturer went on to say that at present, China Mobile is the operator that requires its OEM partners to support the most complex LTE band portfolio in a single device, with up to 13 bands.
The LTE specifications set by 3GPP, the telecoms standardisation body, reflect the fact that the technology can be deployed in any of the 44 licensed bands worldwide, a consequence of a general trend towards ‘technology-neutral’ licensing. It is unlikely that an operator would require a handset vendor to support all 44 bands in a single device, but developing a smartphone capable of supporting the core LTE bands would effectively create a ‘world’ LTE smartphone.
With the recent introduction of its RF360 frontend solution, Qualcomm has potentially opened the door for a ‘world’ LTE smartphone that fully enables global LTE roaming. The chipset vendor explained recently that the new technology is capable of supporting 700 MHz to 2700 MHz LTE bands worldwide in a single device, and could generate economies of scale in “the same way that quad-band did for GSM and penta-band did for 3G”.
Qualcomm expects RF360 to be commercially available in the second half of 2013, initially targeting high-end devices.
However, the large Asian handset manufacturer we talked to explained that it will take time for such technical improvements to reach the mass market, and smartphone vendors are therefore likely to continue selecting LTE bands according to immediate domestic and regional market demand – and, of course, cost of production - for some time to come.
Interestingly, Qualcomm has been addressing the ‘real estate’ challenge within smartphones’ printed circuit boards (PCB) whereby supporting more LTE bands demands more discrete radio frequency (RF) front-end components, which are placed between the antenna and the digital modem. The chipset vendor explained that with its RF360 solution, “instead of needing up to ten different designs to competitively support the required LTE band combinations around the world, an
OEM may only need three, or even fewer, and the differences across those can be addressed without a change in board layout, or an increase in board space”.
This is a particularly relevant challenge considering the increasing demand for bigger screens, faster processors and connectivity, and better battery life, which means that today’s sleek smartphone designs leave little room to expand the
PCB space required for further front-end components should manufacturers want their devices to support more LTE bands.
Thus we would expect Qualcomm’s RF360 solution to have a similar impact to its Snapdragon chipsets in the medium to long term. In October last year, US operator MetroPCS explained that the “availability of lower-cost 4G LTE smartphones is in part due to an increasing number of handsets utilising the Qualcomm 8960 (Snapdragon) chipset family. This standardisation is a major positive as it will enable decreasing unit costs over time and we believe lower subsidisation levels in the future”.
% frequency bands (MHz) used in global LTE
deployments, as of July 2013
Source: GSMA Intelligence, August 2013
20

The recent launch of the iPhone 5s and 5c has shown already that all new iPhones support many more
LTE bands, besides quad band GSM and quad/penta-band 3G. Also all models are supporting LTE 1800 which strengthens the use of LTE 1800 as key band for LTE roaming since subscribers using the latest
Iphones from all networks around the world would be able to roam on a LTE 1800 network in Sint
Maarten. Also band 20 (LTE 800) is supported on all models which looks promising towards the future use of that band as well.
The US specific bands 13 and 17 (part of FCC 700) would only be supported by 2 out of the 4 models and contrary to general expectation offers therefore less potential for roaming by recent high-end devices.
With LTE on iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s and iPhone 5, you can browse the web, stream content, or download a movie at blazing-fast speeds. To see if your iPhone works with LTE networks in your country, refer to the chart below.
1
For more details, contact your carrier.
Model Number 2 LTE Band Support 3 iPhone 5c
Model A1532 iPhone 5s
Model A1533
1 (2100 MHz)
2 (1900 MHz)
3 (1800 MHz)
4 (AWS)
5 (850 MHz)
8 (900 MHz)
13 (700c MHz)
17 (700b MHz)
19 (800 MHz)
20 (800 DD)
25 (1900 MHz)
Country



United States
AT&T
T-Mobile
Verizon



Canada
Bell (including Virgin)
Rogers (including Fido)
Telus (including Koodo)


Puerto Rico
AT&T
T-Mobile
Supported LTE Networks iPhone 5c
Model A1456 iPhone 5s
Model A1453
1 (2100 MHz)
2 (1900 MHz)
3 (1800 MHz)
4 (AWS)
5 (850 MHz)
8 (900 MHz)
13 (700c MHz)
17 (700b MHz)
18 (800 MHz)
19 (800 MHz)
20 (800 DD)
25 (1900 MHz)
26 (800 MHz)
United States
 Sprint


Japan
KDDI
Softbank
Puerto Rico
 Sprint
21

iPhone 5c
Model A1507 iPhone 5s
Model A1457 iPhone 5c
Model A1529 iPhone 5s
Model A1530
Source: www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/
1 (2100 MHz)
2 (1900 MHz)
3 (1800 MHz)
5 (850 MHz)
7 (2600 MHz)
8 (900 MHz)
20 (800 DD)
1 (2100 MHz)
2 (1900 MHz)
3 (1800 MHz)
5 (850 MHz)
7 (2600 MHz)
8 (900 MHz)
20 (800 DD)
38 (TD 2600)
39 (TD 1900)
40 (TD 2300)



France
Bouygues
Orange
SFR


Germany
Deutsche Telekom
Vodafone


United Kingdom
EE
Vodafone

Australia
Optus (including Virgin)


Telstra
Vodafone



Hong Kong
CSL
Hutchison
SmarTone

Korea
KT
 SK Telecom
New Zealand
Vodafone



Singapore
M1
SingTel
StarHub
22

3.2
As described in the introduction of the Roaming chapter the capability to roam does not require the use of the same frequency band as in the home country but it requires the use of frequency band supported by the device/smartphone. Most modern high-end device support at least quad-band GSM and quad/penta band 3G/HSPA+ and up to 5-6 different LTE bands. While the quad band/penta band capability is sufficient for GSM and 3G/HSPA it isn’t for LTE given the proliferation of more bands.
At this point in time the 1800 MHz band seems to have the broadest acceptance globally and therefore rapidly increasing support for LTE 1800 in devices/smartphones can be anticipated. A LTE 1800 network layer would be beneficial to support a wide range of roamers from most of the Europe, Asia, Africa,
Middle East, and to some extent from the US and Latin America.
Selection of a particular FCC 700 MHz band offers a roaming opportunity but also carries a major risk of dependency on one single major roaming partner while that partner might be able to use another operator on Sint Maarten as well. This negotiation position can be difficult for a local Sint Maarten based operator:

Band 17 in lower 700 MHz: dependent upon AT&T for most of the inbound roaming revenues.
Most devices, except some T-Mobile devices, of other US operators do not support band 17 and cannot be offered LTE roaming.

Band 13 in upper 700 MHz: dependent upon Verizon for most of the inbound roaming revenues.
Most devices of other US operators do not support band 17 and cannot be offered LTE roaming.
The local operator might be the preferred partner for AT&T or Verizon but the dependency also carries a major risk of marginalisation. If the local Sint Maarten operator does not agree with their terms and conditions they might get almost no LTE roamers while the US operator could enable roaming in another band to another Sint Maarten operator and for those users without the right LTE band support just fallback to 3G/HSPA+.
A Sint Maarten operator offering LTE 1800, LTE 850 or LTE 2600 would be able to offer roaming to most
US based operators but not all devices/smartphones used in the US do offer support for these bands.
Looking forward towards the future the chipset industry, such as Intel and Qualcomm, are in the process of solving this issue and making the local spectrum choice more a decision focused on the optimum local spectrum allocation instead of on roaming. Launch of the first generation of chipset capable to support a much wider range of LTE bands is due in 2013 and smartphones with those chipsets are likely to follow shortly afterwards.
It might be more important to focus initially on an internationally popular band in which a Sint Maarten operator can make a lot capacity cost efficiently. Providing capacity with 2 x 20 MHz of spectrum in the
1800 MHz band might be more attractive and the better coverage but much lower capacity of 2 x 10 MHz in one of the FCC 700 MHz bands. Once the anticipated growth of the APT 700 MHz band plan ecosystem takes of it might be attractive to add 2 x 20 MHz in the APT 700 MHz band.
23

Given the close proximity of French Saint Martin /Saint Barthélemy (France) and Anguilla coordination is essential. Coordination is already crucial if the same band plans are being used but if incompatible band plans will be used it becomes even more critical.
Historically the spectrum policy of French Saint Martin has been more closely aligned with the spectrum policy and band plans used in France. On the other side Anguilla has followed more closely the North
American spectrum plans. Sint Maarten has always opted for a mixture of both taking the best from each side and cater for multiple markets. In the past, in the period before formal coordination between the 3 countries, this has already resulted in incompatible use of spectrum bands such as basestation transmit in the upper part of the 850 MHz band being at the same frequency as basestation receive in the 900
MHz band in a neighbouring country. Thanks to coordination most of these issues have been resolved over time.
Since 2006 a frequency coordination agreement between Anguilla, French and the Netherlands Antilles
(now Sint Maarten and BES) has been in place to resolve such issues. In 2010 also broadcasting in the
FM band and DVB-T in the UHF band (including the 700 MHz band) has been coordinated.
The deployment of LTE is raising new issues and potentially incompatible band plans. At 17 July 2013
ARCEP launched a public consultation on mobile spectrum allocation in overseas territories. In this consultation the complexity of the international coordination around Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy is mentioned. The existing allocation of mobile spectrum is as follows:
Source: ARCEP Public consultation on mobile spectrum in overseas territories, July 2013
The overall France approach is centered around the following bands:

800 MHz (European Digital Dividend): band 20 (incompatibilities with the 850 MHz band and 700
MHz band)

(Extended) 900 MHz band: band 8 (incompatibilities with the 850 MHz band)

1800 MHz band, band 3 (incompatibilities with PCS 1900 band)

2100 MHz band, band 1 (incompatibilities with the PCS 1900 band)

2600 MHz band, band 7 (2x70 MHz) and band 38 (up to 50 MHz TDD)
Future plans for the 700 MHz band are not formal yet but a band plan comparable to the lower 2 x 30
MHz of the APT 700 MHz band plan would be a likely scenario.
24

Anguilla on the other hand is fully focussed on:

700 MHz band according to FCC 700 MHz band plan (incompatibilities with APT 700 MHz and
800 MHz band)

850 MHz band (incompatibilities with the 800 MHz band and the extended 900 MHz band)

1900 MHz band (incompatibilities with the 1800 and 2100 bands)
The figure below highlights the main incompatibilities:
Source: List of incompatibilities as presented between the Administrations
Incompatibilities between BTS TX and BTS RX at the same frequency are very hard to resolve at the small distances between the three countries. These incompatibilities should be avoided. Similar use, both uplink or both downlink also requires coordination but is more manageable through signal levels, antenna patterns, use of different codes, etc.
Specifically for the 700 MHz band the incompatibilities between FCC 700 and APT 700 would result in achieving only 2x20 MHz of spectrum instead of 2x30 MHz or up to 2x45 MHz depending on the use of the 800 MHz band. A realistic scenario for a division of the 700 MHz band would focus on band 12/17 for the FCC 700 country. To achieve an equitable division band 13 would only have 2x5/6 MHz.
APT 700 UL APT 700 DL
703 733 758 788
Band 12 UL
Band 17 UL
Band 12 DL
Band 17 DL
Band 13 DL
698
25
Band 13 UL
788

Coordination for 3G/HSPA+ and LTE can no longer rely on the approach of preferential  nonpreferential frequencies as used for GSM given the large channel bandwidth required. Already 3G/HSPA+ introduced a possibility to have two networks at similar signal level at the border using different preferential and non-preferential codes. These codes are divided over 4 country numbers and this has been implemented previously for 3G/HSPA+ in the 2100 MHz band frequency coordination between
Anguilla, France and Sint Maarten. For LTE a similar approach is possible based on preferential and nonpreferential PCI’s (Physical layer Cell Identity).
On top of the preferential  nonpreferential PCI’s more options to improve LTE coordination are described in ECC Recommendation 08(02), April 2012:

Demodulation Reference Signal (DM RS) coordination

Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) coordination
These aspects could potentially be coordinated between the operators to improve the performance.
26

Taking into considerations the specific local conditions on Sint Maarten, the coordination with the neighbouring countries, the roaming requirements and international trends then a number of main options emerge.
In the bands below 1 GHz the main issues are:
1 900 MHz band, include the extended 900 MHz band (880-890 MHz, 925-935 MHz)
2 Use of either the 850 MHz band and its future extensions (like band 26 used in the US by Sprint) or the 800 MHz band (band 20, European Digital Dividend)
3 Band plan for the 700 MHz band: FCC 700 MHz  APT 700 MHz
Band 12 UL
Band 17 UL
Band 12 DL
Band 17 DL
Band 13 DL
Band 14 DL
Public Safety
Option 1: "North-American plan + 2x25 MHz of 900 MHz"
Band 13 UL
Band 20 DL
Band 14 UL
Public Safety Band 27 UL
Band 26 UL
Band 5 UL
Band 20 UL
Band 27 DL
Band 26 DL
Band 5 DL
Band 8 UL Band 8 DL
FCC 700 or APT 700 FCC 700 or APT 700 850-Ext
814 824
850 MHz 850-Ext
859 869
850 MHz 900 MHz 900 MHz
698 703 748 758 806 807 842 852 887 890 915 935 960
Option 2 "Maximum 900 MHz band, APT 700 and 850 MHz for US compatibility"
703
APT 700
748 758
APT 700
803 807
Option 3, "Both Digital Dividend options full European 800 MHz and 2x30 MHz of APT 700; maximum 900 MHz"
APT 700 APT 700 800 MHz
703 733 758 788 791
850-Ext 850 MHz
814 824 832
821 832
800 MHz
852
850-Ext 850 MHz
859 869 877 880
900 MHz
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
900 MHz
960
862 880 915 925 960
Option 4, "Full APT 700 band, 2x15 MHz European 800 MHz; maximum 900 MHz"
APT 700 APT 700
703 748 758 803 806
800 MHz
821 847
800 MHz
Option 5A, "Both Digital Dividend options, full European 800 MHz and 2x30 MHz of APT 700; maximum 900 MHz; small roaming slot in 850 MHz"
703
APT 700
733 758
APT 700
788 791
800 MHz
821
850 MHz
824 832
800 MHz
862 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
862
850 MHz
869 877 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
698
Option 5B, "Both Digital Dividend options, full European 800 MHz and FCC 700 MHz Band 12, 17 and 13; maximum 900 MHz; small roaming slot in 850 MHz"
Band 12 UL
Band 17 UL
Band 12 DL
Band 17 DL
800 MHz 850 MHz 800 MHz
Band 13 DL Band 13 UL 791 821 824 832
788
862
850 MHz
869 877 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
France would typically be following option 3 while Anguilla would most likely opt for something closer to
Option 1 with the FCC 700 MHz band plan in the 700 MHz band.
Extended 900 MHz band (880-890 MHz, 925-935 MHz)?
Sint Maarten might consider sacrificing some spectrum in the 850 MHz band to gain 2x10 MHz in the 900
MHz band. This offers a number of important benefits.
Pro

Allows Sint Maarten operators to benefit from more bandwidth in the 900 MHz. This would allow them to use multi-technology/Single RAN equipment to provide GSM/3G/HSPA/LTE in the 900
MHz band with one and the same radio basestation. Cost-effective approach.

Synchronises the extended 900 MHz band between French Saint Martin and Sint Maarten
Con

If Anguilla continues with large scale use of the 850 MHz band plan at the same frequencies
French Saint Martin will face major uplink interference problems. Also basestation on Sint
Maarten with line of Sight to Anguilla might suffer from high interference levels requiring proper antenna radiation patterns to bring the interference levels down to acceptable levels.

Reduces the 850 MHz band which might be required for US roaming purposes. Basically only spectrum for one 2x5 MHz 3G/HSPA+ 850 MHz network would be available when taking a guard band into consideration.
Overall the benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages for Sint Maarten but this solution might fail without real support from Anguilla.
27

850 MHz band and its potential future extensions (band 26)  800 MHz band?
Sint Maarten could consider the adoption of the European 800 MHz band (band 20) to align spectrum usage with French Saint Martin.
Pro

Allows Sint Maarten operators to benefit from the 800 MHz band and aligns spectrum usage with
French Saint Martin.
Con

The remainder of the 850 MHz downlink band will be difficult to use. A small part of the band might still be possible to deploy if used with appropriate filtering (824-832 MHz, 869-877 MHz duplex). It would be possible to trade-off some 800 MHz band spectrum against 850 MHz band spectrum if needed.

The use of the 800 MHz band does impact the 700 MHz band. In case the FCC 700 MHz plan is used this would affect the band 14 and public safety bands. There would still be 4 MHz guard band left between the 800 MHz band and band 13 (Verizon) so with good filtering this could be realised. In case of the APT 700 MHz band plan it would reduce the band from 2x45 MHz to
2x30MHz

Results in a significant reduction of 850 MHz spectrum and also blocks the use of the 850 MHz extension through band 26 (and/or band 27). Since the 850 MHz is likely to continue to be important for US roaming this will be reducing compatible bands with the US.

Anguilla is likely to follow the US 850 MHz band plans.
The preferred solution would be coordinated use of the (extended) 850 MHz (including band 26) in all three countries. However preliminary discussions with France have revealed that the likelihood of allowing 850 MHz (band 5 and 26, 27) on Saint Martin is very small. Alignment with the French side is very important to avoid incompatibilities in the 800/850 MHz band so the overall advantages of aligning with French Saint Martin seems to outweigh the disadvantages for Sint Maarten. At this moment the 800
MHz band (band 20) spectrum is not used by any of the mobile networks. Continued use of the band 5
(existing 850 MHz band) by Anguilla should be anticipated. As long as the lower 2x10 MHz is being used on Anguilla there would be neither incompatibility with the 800 MHz (band 20) nor the extended 900 MHz band. This would still require cooperation of Anguilla.
It is still anticipated that with a bit of filtering/antenna coordination effort and a 3 MHz guard band it would also still be possible to use lowest part of the existing 850 MHz band (band 5) on Sint Maarten (869-877
MHz). This could be used for a small roaming network. Anguilla might be able to extend use of the 850
MHz band with a part of band 26 (866-880 MHz) since a guard band would not be required given that there will always be at least 7 km physical separation.
28

FCC 700 MHz  APT 700 MHz?
Given the global and regional developments in the 700 MHz band Sint Maarten has two main options:

Option 1: Adopt the FCC 700 MHz plan

Option 2: Adopt the APT 700 MHz plan
The Pro’s and Con’s can best be summarised by the following table:
Pro’s
FCC Plan
 availability

Aligned for inbound roaming with


Short-term mobile device
AT&T and Verizon
Allows for a quick launch and an existing ecosystem
Aligned with Anguilla
APT Plan

Single band plan

More spectrum efficient

Allows for wider LTE channels (such as 2 x 20
MHz), better throughput and more cost-efficient

In the long –term likely to achieve the better economies of scale (Asia is 50% of global terminal market, North America about 6%)

In the long-term more likely to have a broader range of low-cost mobile device given the market requirements and volumes in Asia

Likely to be aligned with French Saint Martin for the lower 2x30 MHz

Use of FCC 700 band 17 on Anguilla would still be possible but limits APT 700 to 2x30 MHz for
Con’s 
The FCC plan is unique for the US situation, not really applicable or necessary for the Sint Maarten situation

Less spectrum efficient

Does not allow for wide channels
(in practice up to 2 x 10 MHz, in theory up to one channel of 2 x 15
MHz)

Fragmented spectrum resulting in several sub-bands with limited spectrum

Due to several sub-bands the mobile devices are sub-band specific

In the long-term this plan may have lower economies of scale

Not aligned with French Saint
Martin
French Saint Martin and basestations on Sint
Maarten with Line of Sight to Anguilla

Although the prospect for adoption is quite encouraging the actual eco-system is still in the early days

Initially a more limited availability of mobile devices until more major Asian and Latin
American countries have launched the service

Roaming with the US depends on terminal capabilities to use US spectrum bands

Not aligned with Anguilla
The benefits of the FCC 700 MHz band plan are certainly not obvious, in spite of some short-term roaming opportunities with AT&T and Verizon. Roaming is not really requiring use of the same band but requires support of the necessary bands in the mobile device/smartphone. The disadvantages of the fragmented spectrum, less efficient networks and in the mid-term potentially a less developed (in particular in lower cost smartphone segment) ecosystem of devices/smartphones. Most of the Latin
America region has adopted the APT 700 MHz band plan instead of the FCC 700 MHz for very good reasons and also the GSMA advice tends towards the APT 700 MHz band plan for countries which are not in a rush. Sint Maarten could initially launch LTE in other bands, such as the 1800 MHz, and gain a bit of time before taking a final decision on the FCC 700 MHz  APT 700 MHz band plan issue to see if the
APT 700 MHz band plan indeed continues to gain traction globally.
29

The spectrum above 1 GHz is mainly used to provide a lot of capacity cost-efficiently. Lower frequency bands are typically too small to provide enough capacity. Reportedly PCS 1900 (band 2) use has already been phased out on Sint Maarten and PCS 1900 does not play a significant role anymore in International roaming since US GSM terminals are typically at least tri-band and else quad-band GSM and multi-band
3G/HSPA. With PCS 1900 use eliminated on Sint Maarten the following benefits are available:

The full 2x75 MHz of the 1800 MHz band becomes available and therefore allows 2x20 MHz LTE deployments per operator.

The full 2x60 MHz of the 2100 MHz band becomes available allowing operators to grow to 4 channel 3G/HSPA+ or more in this band and potentially also in a later stage offering in-band migration to LTE.
The resulting spectrum allocation in these bands would become as follows:
Band 3 1800 MHz DL
Band 1 UL
Band 2 UL Band 2 DL
Band 33 UMTS/LTE TDD
1800 MHz DECT Band 33 2100 MHz
1805 1880 1900 1920 1980
Further there is the 2300 MHz band, currently used for WiMAX. In-band migration to LTE-TDD would be a logical scenario. Similarly in the 2600 MHz band introduction of LTE-FDD (2x70 MHz) and LTE-TDD
(2x50 MHz minus guard bands) in the gap between the FDD slots would be possible.
The 3500 GHz band could potentially also be used for LTE in the mid- to long-term.
30

Take key decisions:

Preference for use of the extended 900 MHz band . This adds 2x10 MHz in the 900 MHz and allows cost-efficient 2G/3G/4G networks for the local mobile operators.

Aligned use of the 850 MHz band (band 5, 26, 27) in all 3 territories does not seem to be a very realistic option. Therefore it is recommended to align with France and instead use the 800 MHz
(band 20) for LTE. A small block of remaining 850 MHz spectrum (2x7 MHz and 3 MHz guard band) can still be used on Sint Maarten with appropriate filtering/antenna spacing effort.
The full use of the 800 MHz band provides 2x30 MHz of attractive LTE spectrum even though it does block the upper part of the 700 MHz band.

Seriously consider APT 700 instead of FCC 700 MHz . In the mid-term APT 700 MHz band plan is very likely to offer a better proposition to local Sint Maarten citizens (faster service, lower cost of service and a better ecosystem including more low cost smartphones). The short-term roaming benefit are not as significant and most of the revenues can be captured in the short-term with 3G/HSPA+ in 2100/900/850 MHz and LTE 1800 and in the mid- to long- term the device/ smartphone ecosystem is likely to resolve the major LTE spectrum fragmentation.
France indicates the expected adoption of APT 700. Alignment would allow the use of most of the band. Non-alignment with France (opting for FCC 700) would result in major incompatibilities and in such a case band 12/17 might still be usable but band 13/14/Public Safety would face uplink interference caused by APT 700 BTS downlink. Realistically any coordination between France and Dutch Sint Maarten in such a situation would likely result in only band 12/17 (2x15 MHz) and half of band 13 (2x5/6 MHz) for Dutch Sint Maarten and 2x20 MHz for French Saint Martin instead of anywhere from 2x30 to 2x45 MHz depending on the 800 MHz band use.
If required relocation of spectrum from the 800 MHz to the APT 700 MHz band plan would be possible. Making each 2x30 MHz would be reasonable. But it is possible to increase APT 700 up to 2x45 MHz while at the same time reducing 800 MHz to 2x15 MHz. For example 2x40 MHz
APT 700 and 2 x 20 MHz 800 MHz would give three operators access to 2x20MHz LTE below 1
GHz.
The two main options below 1 GHz would become:
Option 5A, "Both Digital Dividend options, full European 800 MHz and 2x30 MHz of APT 700; maximum 900 MHz; small roaming slot in 850 MHz"
703
APT 700
733 758
APT 700
788 791
800 MHz
821
850 MHz
824 832
800 MHz
862
850 MHz
869 877 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
698
Option 5B, "Both Digital Dividend options, full European 800 MHz and FCC 700 MHz Band 12, 17 and 13; maximum 900 MHz; small roaming slot in 850 MHz"
Band 12 UL
Band 17 UL
Band 12 DL
Band 17 DL
800 MHz 850 MHz 800 MHz
Band 13 DL Band 13 UL 791 821 824 832
788
862
850 MHz
869 877 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
Above 1 GHz the full 1800 MHz (2x75 MHz), 2100 MHz (2x60MHz) and the 2600 MHz (2x70 MHz) would be available for FDD as well as the 2300 MHz and up to 50 MHz of 2600 MHz spectrum for TDD. This should provide ample spectrum to cater for near future mobile data traffic growth.
Next steps would be:

Negotiate the sharing and coordination with France and Anguilla at the band plan level. Try to convince each other to avoid the use of incompatible band plans as much as possible.

Make specific arrangements within each band plan to coordinate use within each band plan on both sides of Sint Maarten and where applicable also with Anguilla. For new 3G/HSPA+ bands and LTE based on equal signal levels and preferential codes (3G/HSPA) or PCI’s (LTE).
31

Below 1 GHz
In the 900 MHz band there will be capacity for the existing 15 MHz of GSM spectrum being used as well as 4 x 2x5 MHz carriers 3G/HSPA+ or 2 x 2x10 MHz LTE. This facilitates large-scale 3G/HSPA+ (dualcarrier) in the 900 MHz band to provide better 3G/HSPA+ coverage and additional capacity.
Sint Maarten
Op 1 Op 2 Op 3
791 821
850 MHz
824 832
Op 1 Op 2 Op 3
862 869
Op1
850 MHz
3G
877 880
Op 1
3G
Op 1
GSM
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
GSM
Op 2
GSM
915
Op1
3G
925
Op 1
3G
Op 1
GSM
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
GSM
Op 2
GSM
960
Saint Martin
Op F 1 Op F 2 Op F 3
791 821
850 MHz
824
Op F 1
832
Op F 2 Op F 3
862
850 MHz
869 877 880
900 MHz
915 925
900 MHz
960
Anguilla (as is and assuming North American approach)
807
850-Ext
814 824
850 MHz
842 852
850-Ext
859 869
850 MHz
887 890
900 MHz
915 935
900 MHz
Note: If Anguilla would continue to use the 880-890 MHz part of the 850 MHz band this would imply a
960 spectrum incompatibility. Anguilla 2010 data shows allocation only up to 881 MHz. Basestations sectors with line of sight to Anguilla could suffer uplink interference and might require special antenna arrangements to suppress this interference. Anguilla would suffer similar uplink interference when introducing services in band 26/27. Special measures will be required to mitigate these incompatibilities.
The frequency coordination can initially be based on mix of GSM and 3G/HSPA. For the GSM parts the preferential  non-preferential frequency approach can be sustained. For 3G/HSPA the preferential codes  non-preferential codes approach is recommended while if migration to LTE is due preferential
 nonpreferential PCI’s solution can be applied.
In the 800 MHz band 2x30 MHz of prime LTE spectrum, aligned with the Saint Martin and Saint
Barthélemy spectrum use becomes available. The 800 MHz frequency coordination can be based on
LTE, preferential  nonpreferential PCI’s and further optimisation can be arranged between the operators.
A small 2x7 MHz block in the 850 MHz will be available to support some (US roaming focussed) mobile network. Initially this could be used by the existing CDMA 850 MHz network but migration to 3G/HSPA+ or LTE would be possible.
The decision with respect to FCC 700  APT 700 MHz could be postponed to later point in time once the development of the two ecosystems has matured further. In the short-term LTE 1800 and LTE 800 provides enough spectrum for 3 major mobile operators to offer a dual-band LTE network.
32

Above 1 GHz
Both the 1800 MHz band (2x75 MHz) and the 2100 MHz band (2x60 MHz) will be utilised to the full extend. PCS 1900 is no longer an issue on
Sint Maarten although continued use of PCS 1900 on Anguilla is anticipated.
Refarm
Sint Maarten
Refarm
Op 1
GSM
1710
Op 1 LTE
Op 1
GSM
Op 2
LTE
Op 2
GSM
Op 2
GSM
Op 2 LTE Op 3 LTE/GSM
1785
Op 1
GSM
1805
Op 1 LTE
Op 1
GSM
Op 2
LTE
Op 2
GSM
Op 2
GSM
Op 2 LTE Op 3 LTE/GSM
1880
DECT
1900
Band 33
Op 4
3G
1920
Op 4
3G
Op 4
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
1980 2010
Band 34
2025
2030-2100 Op 4
3G
2110
Op 4
3G
Op 4
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 3
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 1
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
Op 2
3G
2170
Saint Martin
2030-2100
1800 MHz 1800 MHz DECT Band 33 2100 MHz Band 34 2100 MHz
1710 1785 1805 1880 1900 1920 1980 2010 2025 2110 2170
Anguilla
Web links
Web links
C&W Digicel Weblinks C&W Digicel Weblinks
1710 ?
1805 ?
1910 1930 1990
Note: Assuming Anguilla would continue to use (part of) the PCS 1900 band this would imply spectrum incompatibilities. This is already the case today as well but increased use of bands could worsen the interference issues. Basestations sectors with line of sight to Anguilla could potentially suffer uplink interference and might require special antenna arrangements to suppress this interference. Anguilla would suffer similar uplink caused by 1800 MHz basestations on Sint Maarten/Saint Martin. Special measures will be required to mitigate these incompatibilities.
LTE 1800 would be the main initial LTE band capable to provide high capacity mobile broadband cost-efficiently and offers excellent roaming opportunities given increasing global support for LTE 1800 as the main roaming band.
The frequency coordination can initially be shifting from preferential frequencies  non-preferential frequencies towards:


For 3G/HSPA the preferential codes  non-preferential codes approach
LTE preferential  nonpreferential PCI’s approach
Further there are two more important mobile bands:

2300 MHz band, currently used for WiMAX but offering potential for LTE-TDD 2300

2600 MHz band, offering 2x70 MHz for LTE 2600 FDD and up to 50 MHz for LTE 2600 TDD
In these bands frequency coordination for LTE use can be based on the preferential  nonpreferential PCI’s approach

Conclusions:

Short-term the 1800 MHz band offers 2x75 MHz and allows 3 major mobile operators to deploy up to 2x20 MHz high capacity LTE networks cost-efficiently

Short-term the 800 MHz band offers 2x30 MHz and allows 3 major mobile operators to deploy 2x10 MHz LTE networks with good coverage characteristics

Short-term 3 full dual-band LTE networks could be deployed

Short-term additional 900 MHz spectrum could be released allowing 2 major mobile operators to add a dual-carrier 3G/HSPA+ network layer at a below 1 GHz band with good coverage to complete 2 dual-band dual-carrier 3G/HSPA+ network

Short-term additional 2100/1900 spectrum could be released to allow 2 major mobile operators up to 3 carrier operation in 2100 MHz. Also spectrum for 1 or 2 new mobile operators could be released

Additional LTE spectrum for very high capacity would be available in the 2300
MHz and 2600 MHz band. Since there is enough spectrum below 1 GHz and in the
1800 MHz band this spectrum is anticipated to be reserved for future allocation

The decision with respect to the 700 MHz band plan (FCC 700  APT 700) will be postponed to a later point in time and after assessing the actual LTE market developments. This spectrum could be used to add capacity to networks or to provide more than 3 operators with good LTE spectrum below 1 GHz.

Coordination with Saint Martin and Anguilla is essential to minimise interference issues

Sint Maarten Bureau Telecommunications and Post requests submissions to be provided as soon as possible. The closing time for submissions is 5.00pm, Friday November 1 st , 2013. Sint Maarten Bureau
Telecommunications and Post requests that submissions are provided electronically to giovanni.king@sxmregulator.sx
in either Word or PDF format.
Sint Maarten Bureau Telecommunications and Post intends to publish the responses to the consultation on the BTPSXM website. If a respondent considers certain information provided to be confidential then this information should be clearly marked as such allowing Sint Maarten Bureau Telecommunications and
Post to handle the information accordingly.