Wireless Telegraphy Act and Digital Dividend Review

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (02.04.08) to approve the amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act and Digital Dividend Review.

Decision Reference: MD-E-2008-0065
Decision Summary Title:	Amendment to Wireless Telegraphy Act and Digital Dividend Review		Date of Decision Summary:	31 March 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Jason Lane Director Regulatory Services		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Digital Dividend Review		Date of Written Report:	March 2008
Written Report Author:	Jason Lane Director Regulatory Services		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Digital Dividend Review.
Decision(s): The Minister authorised extension of Section 30 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act and requested the Law Officers to prepare an Order in Council to that effect. The Minister authorised and endorsed the recommended preferences for inclusion in the Ofcom award of the digital dividend. The Minister authorised the Director of Regulatory Services to confirm with Ofcom his preferences for the digital award.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister, having considered the recommendations in the report on the Digital Dividend Review, believes that this is the best way forward for Jersey. The Island can take advantage of Ofcom’s skills and experience to join the process for allocating freed-up frequencies and could receive a monetary benefit if this spectrum is commercially attractive enough to warrant an auction process.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower resource implications with this decision.
Action required: The Director of Regulatory Services is to consult the Law Officers’ Department regarding a timetable for the extension of Section 30 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act The Director of Regulatory Services is to notify Ofcom on the agreement of a way forward. The Director of Regulatory Services is to keep the process under review.
Signature: Senator P.F.C.Ozouf		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Wireless Telegraphy Act and Digital Dividend Review - Amendment

Economic Development

Regulatory Services

Digital Dividend Review

Background

The Digital Dividend Review is the project which will examine options arising from the release of spectrum afforded by the switch to all-digital television broadcasting between 2008 and 2013.

The UK Government has already decided that 256MHz of spectrum will be used for digital terrestrial television (DTT) from digital switchover (DSO). The remaining 112MHz of spectrum, which includes interleaved spectrum, which is the ‘white space’ that exists between television transmitters to prevent interference, will be released for new uses. Two adjacent 8MHz blocks of spectrum also have the potential to be cleared. These are channel 36 (currently used for airport radar) and channel 69 (currently used for programme-making and special events-PMSE). This provides a total of 128MHz of spectrum that will ultimately be available on a nationwide basis. This is the digital dividend.

Spectrum Trading

One significant difference between the Jersey legislation and the UK Communications Act is the provision for spectrum trading. Spectrum Trading is a yet untried system that should allow the market to set both the price and the use of spectrum by allying it more closely to demand. When the instructions were prepared for the 2003 Jersey Orders in Council spectrum trading was deliberately omitted on the grounds that it was an untried or tested system and that the potential impact for Jersey could not be substantiated.

As part of the ongoing development of broadcasting legislation in the UK, Ofcom’s Spectrum Markets Team has written to ask the Insular Authorities whether we wished to follow the UK lead so that public sector bodies interact directly with the market to dispose of surplus spectrum or to add to existing holdings.

Spectrum trading is being rolled out progressively across the various Wireless Telegraphy licence products in the UK and subsequent amending regulations to add licences that have since been auctioned. There are plans to extend trading and liberalisation in Business Radio and to public sector spectrum holdings.

Volume of trading, according to information received from Ofcom, has so far been relatively low. They suggest that this might be for a number of reasons but it is not unexpected that it should take time for a new market in spectrum to develop; and it is possible that the volume indicates that spectrum is generally already in the hands of those who, for the present, are generating greatest benefit from it. Ofcom has stated that trading volume has never been seen as a touchstone for the policy and Ofcom remains convinced that spectrum trading has a valuable role to play in securing maximum benefits from spectrum over time while recognising that circumstances in the Crown Dependencies differ from those in the UK.

While on balance the case for establishing Recognised Spectrum Access and thereby extending spectrum trading is not overwhelming, it would appear prudent to amend the current legislation to make provision for it. The Minister is, therefore, recommended to authorise extension of s30 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

The Way Forward

Officials in the department have also been dealing with Ofcom’s Spectrum Policy Group on how the Island would wish to proceed with the Digital Dividend issue and what, if any, specific provision for spectrum the Island would wish to have post 2013. The Crown Dependencies’ current preferences for inclusion or otherwise in the Ofcom award of the digital dividend are illustrated below. Ofcom is aware that the references to Jersey have not yet received Ministerial sanction. These can be summarised as follows:

	Guernsey	Jersey
Cleared spectrum	Include	Include
Channels 61-62	Include	Include
Local-TV suitable	Consult	Consult
UK-mux suitable	Exclude	Exclude
PMSE band manager	Include	Include

The provisions outlined below are changeable, but represent what the department believes to be the best way forward for Jersey. As a remote and low population density area, it is not realistic to think that Jersey could be accommodated within the possible additional UK mux. The Island should, however, take advantage of Ofcom’s skills and experience to join the process for allocating freed-up frequencies and should receive a monetary benefit is this spectrum is commercially attractive enough to warrant an auction process.

The process for deciding the way forward with regard to the Digital Dividend needs to be approved and no case has yet been made that would provide greater benefit for Jersey other than following that of the UK. The Minister is, therefore, recommended to authorise and endorse the aforementioned preferences for inclusion in the Ofcom award of the digital dividend.

The Minister is asked to consider whether he wishes to authorise the Director of Regulatory Services to confirm with Ofcom his preferences regarding the Dividend award.

Dr Jason Lane

Director of Regulatory Services

March 2008