UHF2 realignment study - Ofcom Licensing

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The benefits of using MASTS in particular for UHF2 assignments is the ability to quantify the spectrum quality in terms of interference, and determine the amount of available spectrum for use in the band. Ultimately, MASTS will be used to make more effective assignments due to the predictive nature of analysis of the interference environment. This will result in either more channels available for assignment in the same frequency band or being able to ‘squeeze’ more geographical users from the existing channels. Using the MASTS algorithm a ‘Band Alignment tool’ was developed and in 2004 it was calculated that if the assignments were re-packed in the UHF2 band then Ofcom could have had a spectrum yield of between 2-3MHz 50 . This tool will assign spectrum based on a set of rules and technical criteria (introduced in the new (TFAC)) that will determine the spectrum quality and protection requirements. The tool is also able to take account of terrain and other assignments thereby defining which frequencies can be used in a particular location. This is a change to the current primary practice of establishing a generic protection distance between base stations for particular licence classes. When the MAST tool is used to assign channels in the UHF2 band, in its current unaligned state, it is likely that a few more assignments may be made in spectrum otherwise thought as full. This packing of assignments may lead to incumbents being subjected to more interference than previously experienced. However it should be noted that all assignments suffer from interference; the difference with MASTS is that the level of interference will be planned and part of the licence conditions. The MASTS process is underpinned by the Technically Assigned licence product for shared and exclusive use. An assignment can be identified for an activity factor, which is a measure of what percentage of time an assignment is transmitting. For example, a shared assignment is an assignment that transmits no more than 50% of the time in its busiest hour. An exclusive assignment is one that either transmits up to 100% of the time, more than 50% of the time in its busiest hour or requires extra protection because of either business or safety critical reasons. The activity factor determines the amount of time that an assignment may block another assignment from transmitting at that point in time. With the nature of Business Radio in a shared environment, there may be instances when a user exceeds the activity factor (as defined by their assignment type) over a short period. If there are continual breaches of the guideline criteria then it may be necessary to liaise with the users concerned and move them to Exclusive status or move them to a different channel (where possible). MASTS will benefit users of the UHF2 band as it can be used to help reduce the likelihood of interference by way of more carefully assigning spectrum. MASTS will have the ability to coordinate aligned and non-aligned UHF2 frequencies that should there be alignment of the band there are tools in place to aid the development of new systems helping prevent 50 According to the Radiocommunications Agency/Ofcom 240689 - 450-470 Study Final Print Version (Dec08).doc Page C-4 abc
the likelihood of increased interference. In addition, there is scope for the tool to assist in the market aligning the spectrum, assignment by assignment. C.2.4 International coordination and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Ofcom has a duty to co-ordinate all assignments with neighbouring countries to manage the risk of international interference. Either this is achieved through ITU regional agreement treaties such as Geneva 06, or an agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or in the absence of a formal agreement, the Harmonised Coordination Method (HCM) Agreement (formerly the Berlin Agreement) is used (adhering to the general principals of CEPT Recommendation T/R 25-08 for UHF2). If a proposed assignment is in breach of the requirements in place then it is the responsibility of the country wishing to use the assignment to send a request for International Co-ordination to the countries affected. Assignment will often depend on whether a specified concession can be agreed upon. Such concessions are usually agreed upon in the form of an MOU, where usually, preferential channels to each party are defined where the normal co-ordination level can be exceeded to a specified level. The UK does not have an MoU for the UHF2 band and therefore by default complies with the procedures in accordance with the HCM Agreement. The necessity for adopting these coordination procedures is bound by the ITU Radio Regulations that state that national administration must notify the ITU of any frequency assignment likely to cause harmful interference into a neighbouring administration. A possible consequence of continental interference to licensees operating in the UHF2 band in the UK could be that their service becomes unusable. In the case of mission critical systems and E&PSS this is unacceptable and is not an option that would be tolerated by users and licensees. Currently, the low level activity in the UHF2 band in continental Europe is not posing an immediate threat to UK licensees, so currently there is no cause for concern. The procedure in place, the HCM, is specified for co-ordinating CEPT harmonised spectrum, which the UK is not harmonised to. The problem of not being harmonised, but having a default co-ordination procedure is illustrated in the figure below. 240689 - 450-470 Study Final Print Version (Dec08).doc Page C-5 abc
Page 1 and 2:
Final Report Study to review the co
Page 3 and 4:
About the authors Mott MacDonald pr
Page 5 and 6:
5 Reconfiguration drivers and chall
Page 7 and 8:
0 Executive Summary 0.1 Introductio
Page 9 and 10:
0.4 UHF2 Technology and Market The
Page 11 and 12:
240689 - 450-470 Study Final Print
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
1.2 Background The UHF2 band in the
Page 17 and 18:
2 Spectrum Management of the UHF2 B
Page 19 and 20:
Source: Mott MacDonald 240689 - 450
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1 provides information on the
Page 23 and 24:
spectrum will continue to make awar
Page 25 and 26:
The water industry use 24 national
Page 27 and 28:
and for this type of service. Some
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 5 Wide Area PBR 240689 - 450
Page 31 and 32:
3 Regulatory Environment 3.1 Introd
Page 33 and 34:
arrangement with a 10 MHz duplex sp
Page 35 and 36:
decision, but Ireland and the Nethe
Page 37 and 38:
3.6 Summary & Conclusions This chap
Page 39 and 40:
from Airwave (380-400MHz). Potentia
Page 41 and 42:
4.2.1 DMR 240689 - 450-470 Study Fi
Page 43 and 44:
Assuming that an E&PSS network oper
Page 45 and 46:
4.3.2 UK Market The UK market for t
Page 47 and 48:
5 Reconfiguration drivers and chall
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
6 Interference environment 6.1 Intr
Page 55 and 56:
This scenario would be valid if the
Page 57 and 58:
6.4.1 Interference to narrowband sy
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 16 Base station receiver noi
Page 63 and 64:
6.7 Summary & Conclusions This chap
Page 65 and 66:
The costs in a cost-benefit analysi
Page 67 and 68:
7.2.2 Practical issues in assessing
Page 69 and 70: 240689 - 450-470 Study Final Print
Page 71 and 72: Study Methodology Cost estimates PA
Page 73 and 74: potential complications/interferenc
Page 79 and 80: Table 13 Conclusions on the impact
Page 81 and 82: It is understood that the Public Sa
Page 83 and 84: 7.7 Summary & Conclusions In this c
Page 87 and 88: 8.3.1 The Direct costs of Band Alig
Page 89 and 90: European markets to provide mobile
Page 91 and 92: the UK has skewed the market valuat
Page 93 and 94: We assume that the 4.5MHz paired sp
Page 95 and 96: £2k per annum per assignment. Thes
Page 97 and 98: alignment options. However, there a
Page 99 and 100: We assume that there is no spectrum
Page 103 and 104: Table 24 Sensitivity analysis of ke
Page 105 and 106: 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 9
Page 107 and 108: egulatory uncertainty, which has le
Page 113 and 114: Appendix B: Interference B.1 Types
Page 115 and 116: In Europe harmonised radio equipmen
Page 117 and 118: Appendix C: UHF2 Interference Regul
Page 119: C.2.1 Interface Requirement (IR) In
Page 123 and 124: SURs could also benefit other busin
Page 125 and 126: with the UK and hence may not meet
Page 127 and 128: D.5 Modelling areas of UK base stat
Page 129 and 130: The “Standard deviation of noise
Page 131 and 132: ules. The number of blocking transm
Page 133 and 134: Appendix G: Spectrum Trading and Li
Page 137 and 138: DVB-H Digital Video Broadcasting -
Page 139 and 140: UHF II UHF frequency band from 450
show all

UHF2 realignment study - Ofcom Licensing

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?