Re: From WRC Conference (Istanbul) - Terrestial Spectrum discussions highlights - Daily Briefings for 18, 19 May and 22-24 May 2000
[My previous post(s) summarized first 8 days of these discussions]
=============================
<< Istanbul, 18 May 2000 Nø 9
The step-by-step approach for IMT-2000 starts bearing fruit
The step-by-step approach established by Working Group 5A where bands are considered on a broad front and provisional agreement is reached on each proposed band pending an overall consideration and endorsement of a package solution, is starting to yield concrete results despite several difficulties encountered along the way.
Consensus emerged, at the drafting group level, on a list of elements that could be used in a resolution on IMT-2000 and on the inclusion of the band 806-960 MHz in the proposed extension bands for IMT-2000 where a primary allocation to mobile services already exists. The text of a footnote was prepared but still carried some language where agreement had not been possible. Footnotes are, in effect, exceptions made to an agreed allocation (additional or different use made by some countries of that allocation). They are included in the Table of Frequency Allocations only when the exception has international implications.
The text, which contained the contentious words put in square brackets to express a lack of agreement, triggered a lengthy debate when presented to Working Group 5A. What is the issue? The problems lay in two sets of words: first was the clause "could be made available" instead of the language already used in the existing footnote "are intended for IMT-2000". This language was considered by a great majority of delegations as possibly weakening the global deployment of IMT-2000, preferring an affirmative statement in favour of the use of the band by IMT-2000. But those delegations supporting this language showed no sign of compromise. The other was the use of "IMT-2000 and other advanced mobile communication applications" instead of "IMT-2000". Several countries expressed concern and questioned the meaning of "advanced mobile communication applications" as nowhere in the ITU had this term been defined. The lack of an agreed international definition rendered the proposed wording inappropriate for inclusion in regulatory text of an international treaty that countries would be bound to apply. Those backing the inclusion of "advanced mobile communication applications" argued that it was important not to reserve spectrum for a given technology. Opponents, however, stressed that IMT-2000 was clearly not a single technology and had always been conceived as a continually evolving concept. Such wording was therefore unnecessary and undesirable in the context of regulatory texts.
While some delegations expressed the possibility of accepting the text, at this stage, to enable work to proceed, it was made clear that this would in no way preclude the discussion in the other groups that were considering other frequency bands. It was further stressed that this provisional acceptance would not prevent the debate from reopening when the text would be made available for each of the candidate bands. Some delegations simply opposed this move as it would only postpone the debate to another meeting while the proponents of the contested text also strongly opposed the view that the other bands could be treated differently. A lengthy debate ensued on the reason why all the bands should be treated in a similar manner as the problems inherent to each band were different and demanded different treatment. Despite the Chairperson?s ruling that there had been agreement that each delegation would have the opportunity to review all of the draft footnotes and resolution or resolutions once available so as to assess the impact on all the bands and that the equal treatment or not of all the bands would not be discussed until all such material would have been reviewed and the various attempts to find alternative wordings that could accommodate the concerns expressed including the use of the wording of the agenda item, the persisting differences of opinion compelled the Chairperson to stop the discussions. He expressed his disappointment that such a simple matter could not be resolved and requested the drafting group to reconsider the text with a view to resolving the issues before submitting a new text to Working Group 5A.
Band 2.29-2.3 GHz
A small portion of the 2.3 GHz band had been proposed by three countries for IMT-2000 use. It was agreed not to include it as a candidate band for IMT-2000 at this stage but keep it in abeyance until the overall exercise of identification had been concluded. Reasons for this course of action were based on the fact that:
the objectives were to secure 160 MHz of spectrum the size and technical characteristics would limit the deployment options of IMT-2000 this small portion raised a lot of difficulty for a number of countries particularly those involved in deep space research and the progress made in other bands would make it unnecessary to consider this band Band 2.5 GHZ
In the discussions on the possible use of the 2.5 GHz band for IMT-2000, strong support and equally strong opposition were expressed but a number of countries showed considerable compromise in relation to their initial position to accommodate the views of others. Working Group 5A decided to set up a drafting group to consider together, as a package, the bands 1.7/1-8 GHz and 2.5 GHz. The group will also consider wording that would be appropriate for a footnote and for the resolution on IMT-2000.
A matter of footnotes
In anticipation of the outcome of the two drafting groups, the Chairperson proposed to leave aside the existing footnote S5.388 which identifies the core band for use by IMT-2000 as well as Resolution 212 on the implementation of IMT-2000 and consider only the bands to be identified by WRC-2000. Once the work of the drafting groups completed, Working Group 5A would revisit the existing footnote and resolution and decide whether it would be possible to agree on a totally generic footnote and whether the existing footnote should be amended. A long discussion followed between those agreeing with the proposed course of action, considering that the drafting groups should focus on the elements necessary to build the package and those who felt the footnote and resolution had to be considered at the same time as the new footnotes and resolution as they considered that all bands had to be treated in the same manner.
To keep the terms of reference of the drafting group manageable, if it was to succeed, the Chairperson decided to request the drafting group to concentrate on the new elements first, identify what would be appropriate for the 1.7/1.8 and 2.5 GHz bands and then have a debate on how the new identified elements could be incorporated in a single footnote. The actual integration with the existing footnote/resolution would however not be carried out by the drafting group as the decision on whether to merge the texts and how to proceed would be decided by Working Group 5A.
Band 2.7-2.9 GHz
Another point raised on Thursday, was the request made by China for a footnote to identify 2300-2400 MHz for use at national level. In China, mobile communications have developed very fast with a customer base of over 15 million for 2nd-generation systems. With a monthly growth of 2 to 3 million customers, China?s customer base would be 200 million by 2005. In addition, China?s Internet users were doubling every 6 months. The rate of development in in that country suggested that additional spectrum should be needed to meet such high demand. Many delegations argued that footnotes were meant for alternative allocations or additional allocations. In this case, the band 2300-2400 MHz was already allocated to mobile services and nothing prevented China from making use of it, in its country, for IMT-2000. It was suggested that the use of the band could be considered by the IMT-2000 group of experts in the context of their studies on channeling plans. Alternatively, China?s unique situation could be acknowledged in the text of the resolution on IMT-2000 that the Working Group would have to develop. In the meantime, the matter would be left in abeyance to enable China to consider the various options open to it to deal with the request.
Band 2.7-2.9 GHz
The identification of this band for IMT-2000 was not supported because it was used worldwide by airport surveillance, meteorological and other radionavigation radars for safety-critical operations. In addition it was not consistent with the key principles that had been agreed by Working Group 5A which stipulated that only bands already allocated to the mobile service should be considered as candidate bands. European countries stressed however that sharing studies could be invited for the possible use by IMT-2000 of this band if the 160 MHz of globally available spectrum could not be secured in other bands. It was finally decided to leave the matter pending as the evolution of the work could well supersede the need to come back to the issue.
=============================
Istanbul, 19 May 2000 Nø 10
IMT-2000: building blocks painstakingly laid
Working Group 5A decided to devote its Friday session to unresolved issues that were inhibiting progress in the drafting groups. The two areas of contention concerned the use of the terms "intended for", "available for" on the one hand, and "advanced communications applications" on the other (see WRC2000 Highlights of 18 May, under The step-by-step approach for IMT-2000 starts bearing fruit).
The US insistence in using "advanced communications applications" was made on the ground that spectrum was not to be frozen for specific technology and that room was to be left for other technologies that could be implemented in these bands in the future. "Advanced communications applications do not constitute a new type of system, neither are they intended as a replacement for IMT-2000," said the US. "The wording recognizes that there will be uses in the identified spectrum that develops in response to market demands and technological advances that could be other than IMT-2000 tomorrow".
For Europe, it was clear that IMT-2000 and the technologies it uses would evolve and that it was therefore important not to apply restrictions to its evolution in those bands. "Todate, the only one system defined internationally is IMT-2000". Including a notion such as "advanced communications applications" that was not defined anywhere was considered to be a dangerous precedent that could not be accepted.
When debating flexibility, it had been clearly stated that use of bands was not restricted to any technology. Each country?s free choice was to be preserved. Many countries felt that these considerations could be better addressed in a Resolution and that regulatory texts had to be carefully drafted given its binding character. Recalling that the band was not allocated to IMT-2000 but that its use was identified for IMT-2000, all systems operating in conformity with the allocations could use whatever technology deemed appropriate and no restrictions were to be applied. It was also recalled that delegations had made calculations for the identification of the bands on the characteristics of IMT-2000 and not other advanced communications applications and, therefore, it was not appropriate to tag concepts that did not enjoy international recognition.
Another delegate stressed that a clear statement could be included to the effect that "the use of the bands did not preclude their use by other services to which it is allocated and did not establish priority of usage within these bands". "Although difficult to agree, this text would provide all the flexibility needed to introduce systems or applications of advanced communications. There was no way that delegate?s country would accept to include any concept other than IMT-2000 in regulatory text relating to the bands to be identified for IMT-2000.
An overwhelming majority considered that the text of the Resolution being developed would reflect the fact that countries would in no way be constrained on how they wish to implement IMT-2000 and that the flexibility which US sought to gain could be enshrined in the Resolution being developed. Many considered this option more suitable than a footnote that had treaty status like any provision of the Radio Regulations as stated in Resolution 26.
Despite the overwhelming objection to the introduction of "advanced communications applications", no consensus emerged but a sign of compromise became evident when it was agreed that with the useful comments made, a suitable text could be developed. It was decided to return the text to the drafting group in a bid to find acceptable wording.
=============================
Istanbul, 22 May 2000
IMT-2000: time to compromise
Great strides were made towards identifying bands for the terrestrial component of IMT-2000 in bands below 1 GHz. The associated regulatory text was also developed but needed more consultation before it could be finalized. The list of elements to be included in a resolution dealing with the identification of additional spectrum have been discussed but not yet completed. Given the high degree of interrelationships between the work done for bands below 1 GHz and those above, it was decided to await the outcome of the other drafting group (5A-2) responsible for developing the text of the footnote and related Resolution for spectrum in the 1.7/1.8 and 2.5 GHz before winding up the work in drafting group 5A-1. Drafting Group 5A-2 considered a draft Resolution based on the input of all delegations, grouped by topics. Having worked Sunday until 02:00 am on Monday and again on Monday night, the meeting managed to arrive at a consensus text with only minimal unresolved issues.
"We have reached a crossroad and time has now come to compromise", said the Chairperson of Working Group 5A. "A large part of our industry is clearly looking at the progress achieved here and it is now imperative that all delegations work towards accommodating the views of others if results are to be achieved", he urged participants.
The discussions then moved to the question of whether or not a single footnote should be applicable to both the core bands and the additional bands identified by WRC-2000. CITEL countries, by and large, expressed their preference to modify the existing S5.388 and integrate the new elements applicable to additional bands so as to have a single footnote. A majority however expressed their preference to leave unchanged the existing footnote applicable to the core bands (S5.388) and introduce new footnotes for the new bands. Both views were said to be expressed in the name of flexibility and equal treatment. "Footnotes serving a common purpose should be in a common format and where possible, be grouped into a single footnote with appropriate references to the relevant frequency bands. We certainly favour a single footnote that would include the existing bands. In short, one footnote, one resolution and one stop-shopping" argued CITEL countries. "There is no foundation for a single footnote", responded European countries. "The time-frame of availability and time-scales between the core and additional bands differ, it was crucial not to introduce changes that could send the wrong signals to regulators who were licensing spectrum on the basis of footnote S5.388 and there was no regulatory justification for having a single footnote. In view of the polarized views on the subject, the drafting group was invited to continue its work on the basis of the two options for consideration by Working Group 5A at a later meeting.
=============================
Istanbul, 23-24 May 2000
Mostly Satellite Stuff <<
- Eric - |
