Chaz,
Re: From WRC Conference (Istanbul) - Terrestial Spectrum discussions highlights (long - boring - somewhat comical).
Daily briefing notes for meetings are available here:
itu.int
Its kind of boring stuff so I have clipped a few excerpts below (and for those bored by spectrum issues, please go to next post:
>> - May 9 -
While supporting the implementation of IMT-2000, one country aired the view that spectrum should not be reserved for a particular technology given changing market demands and rapid technological development. It therefore considered that candidate bands for IMT-2000 should also allow for other advanced communication applications, including wireless systems and devices that provide high-quality voice, data and/or video uses or Internet access. It also proposed that a change to the Radio Regulations be adopted to enable countries to license IMT-2000 spectrum to HAPS when used as a base station for terrestrial IMT-2000 within the bands already identified in the Radio Regulations.
Some countries, on the other hand, expressed doubt as to the need to decide at this conference on additional spectrum for IMT-2000. It was stressed that studies carried out so far lacked practical experience and rested only on estimates and anticipated demand which experience should first validate within existing spectrum before considering reserving additional spectrum. It was also felt that any decision should take account not only of technical aspects but also of the financial impact of spectrum re-farming. To protect the investments already made in second generation systems, some preferred the status quo until further studies are carried out rather than transition period. Some others also felt that the needs of developing countries had not been sufficiently covered or at least clearly spelled out and, on face value, they did not see a need to provide additional spectrum for IMT-2000 in bands that were heavily used and where many other services were competing for access.
- May 11 -
Working Group 5A completed the introduction of proposals and, in particular, the joint proposal on BSS re-planning, the radionavigation-satellite service, non-GSO FSS systems, High-Density Fixed Systems and the terrestrial component of IMT-2000, by countries of the Arab Group, Africa and Europe (<snip>). In the agreement, the countries recognize the need for an additional 160MHz of spectrum for IMT-2000 provided countries retain full flexibility to determine their own implementation requirements and schedules. It is therefore proposed to identify additional frequency ranges on a worldwide basis for IMT-2000 from which countries can select the spectrum they need for national implementation plans.
The ranges for potential IMT-2000 terrestrial use which are proposed by the countries that sign this agreement are: 862-960 MHz, 1710-1885 MHz and 2520-2670 MHz. The bands 2500MHz-2520MHz and 2670MHz-2690 MHz are also proposed for the possible longer-term use of the terrestrial component of IMT-2000 provided that the future development of mobile-satellite services, including the satellite component of IMT-2000, is secured by a Resolution.
Following the introduction of this document, a raft of statements followed where countries re-stated the same positions they had on Tuesday when they introduced their proposals.
- May 12 -
The Chairperson had to use all his talents to keep the discussions on track, several delegations being irresistibly tempted to turn the meeting into a drafting group. The debate was extremely lively and the number of interventions showed the high degree of interest in the issue and the requirement to maintain flexibility in the use of the bands for applications other than IMT-2000 at the national level. For example, it was said that because what is considered is geographic sharing between services, a country may elect to implement IMT-2000 in highly populated areas, whereas, in those with low population density, it can choose to use the same band for other applications that operate in accordance with the Table of Allocations.
Others added that the idea was to ensure that there was no regulatory impediment to the continuation of existing services when countries chose to do so. But one country, wanting to stress that the flexibility should also cover the fact that the bands identified for IMT-2000 could be used by any technology, re-launched the debate where some countries supported the proposal while many others opposed it, considering that the intent behind the proposal was not clear and was pre-empting the discussion.
After several attempts during which the Chairperson reiterated that the idea was to agree on the general guidelines and not on specific elements, and because of the strongly polarized views, he finally decided to ask delegations that had concerns on the text to meet outside the meeting so that they could review the document editorially in the two areas where concerns were expressed. A revised document will be re-issued that will incorporate the agreed new text which both groups of delegations will have prepared.
All proposals for possible candidate bands were consolidated in a single document to facilitate the discussions. The document grouped the proposals into broad categories. The first category includes those proposals for bands below 1 GHz and refers to the existing bands used, by and large, by first-generation systems and some second-generation systems. Many of the proposals talk of evolution or migration to true 3G. They are seeking to ensure that some time in the future, countries will have the ability to access this part of spectrum for IMT-2000 applications.
The second category includes proposals for the band 1 710-1 885 MHz. This is a band used in some parts of the world, quite extensively by 2nd generation systems. These proposals also talk of the potential for evolution to 3rd generation. In other countries, this band is not yet used for high density mobile services. So, there is a possibility to introduce 3G systems in this part of the spectrum quite early. This is a view supported by a large number of countries.
Another category concerns proposals for bands above 2 GHz. These fall into 2 sub-categories: specific country proposals which reflect on national usage and others which focus essentially on the band around 2.5 GHz. Those proposals are in an area of the spectrum already allocated to the mobile service along with other services. The proposals show the opportunity for those countries to introduce 3G early. These proposals are also supported by a large number of countries.
With respect to those major categories, an analysis reveals that there is strong support for the bands just below 1 GHz (40 countries), the bands in the range 1.7/1.8 GHz (50 countries) and the bands around 2.5 GHz (50 countries). At the same time, it also reveals that none of those bands, at this stage of the debate, enjoys majority support.
For the Chairperson, the conclusion was clear: a package solution is inevitable and it will require access to more than one band. This also means that there is a need to consider all of the bands at the same time. This will add to the complexity of the debate because countries supporting one band over the others will want to ensure that those supporting other bands will be equally open to compromise. Therefore, the Working Group will attempt to proceed on a broad front in considering the bands together and no definitive position will be reached on any specific band until all of the bands have been considered. The Chairperson expressed optimism that if that approach was supported by all delegations, the solution would become quite obvious to the satisfaction of all.
The RCC countries however reiterated their position according to which additional spectrum for IMT-2000 should not be made available at this time and should be deferred to the next WRC in 2003 as the flexibility requirements that had been expressed in the debate seemed to be incompatible with the objective of a "harmonized global band".
In response to this move, France recalled that, while the CPM considered that 160 MHz was needed over and above the spectrum used already by 1st and 2nd generation systems, that spectrum would not be needed everywhere at the same time. It was stressed that harmonized bands did not necessarily limit delegations to a single global band. It was further stressed that the use of frequency bands between now and 2003 was not likely to change significantly and that proposals in 2003 would not be very different from today?s. Deferring the identification of additional spectrum would only complicate the replanning of these bands.
"What this conference is set to achieve", said Australia, "is a cessation of divergence in future". "We want convergence which implies that any additional allocation should be worldwide", he added. "Because of the legacy problem in terms of 1st and 2nd systems, we must also achieve maximum commonality to allow for each country to select the best migration path and harness market forces to deliver flexibility and choice," he finally stated.
- May 15 -
Focus on satellite spectrum primarily <<
Thats all she wrote.
- Eric - |
