Brief from latest WG FM

Go to ECO main page Print current page Send e-mail to ECO Map of this site Browse Meeting Documents Info on use of web





Brief Summary of Report from the

Frequency Management Working Group Meeting

Koblenz, 26 – 30 September 2005

Prepared by ERO based on the official minutes of the meeting


The meeting was attended by 86 delegates from 31 Administrations, the ERO and 9 international organisations.

1.   Issues in Progress  

1.1  FM PT 22 (Monitoring)       

Besides the ongoing work on various items like FFT and noise-measurements, FM PT 22 had conducted a HF‑monitoring campaign on the request of ECC CPG-PT4 and this campaign took place in May 2005.  The relevant spectrum was divided into 200 kHz sub-bands, which could be observed automatically and partly manually. 22 monitoring stations from 14 Administrations participated in this campaign. The results of the campaign were reported to ECC CPG-PT4 and to the WG FM Chairman on CD-ROM. The structure is similar to the structure of the report of the previous campaign.


Doc. FM(05)129, which is the analysis on co-operation in the field of HF monitoring, summarises the answers of 19 Administrations who responded. The answers were evaluated in a special meeting of FM PT 22 which took place in Paris, June 2005.  A majority of answers highlighted the importance of the HF-band and a significant interest in cooperation in the field of radio monitoring. A second conclusion was that technical and human resources are necessary in all CEPT countries to cover their individual requirements.  The answers showed that these resources are basically available.  However, there is a concentration of these in the western part of Europe.  Concerning the procedure for cooperation, over 90% showed a general interest in cooperation by means of sharing technical resources e.g. interconnection of HF-direction finders.



The questionnaire offered four options for cost-sharing:

-          Cost sharing according to the ERO contributory units,

-          cost sharing among interested Administrations similar to the Satellite Monitoring MoU,

-          reimbursement on a case by case basis, and

-          no reimbursement (principal of reciprocity).


No clear preference for any of the four cost-sharing mechanisms could be retrieved from the answers. In Doc. FM(05)139 the  ECC CPG-PT4 expressed the need and importance of cooperation in HF monitoring and of spreading the work geographically.

WG FM took note of the results of the questionnaire. Apart from the technical cooperation, which is still established, no further activities towards sharing mechanisms are seen.

1.2. FM PT 34 (High Density Applications in the FS and FSS bands above 10.7 GHz)

The report of the project team to WG FM (Doc. FM(05)148) underlined that the only issue dealt with by FM PT 34 since the last WG FM meeting was a further analysis of the ERC Decisions falling under its scope (ERC Decisions (00)02, (00)07 and (00)08), provided in Doc. FM(05)141.


FM PT 34 concluded that that there was no need to revise these ERC Decisions but noted that, without challenging this conclusion, the UK view that “as far as the ERC/DEC(00)08 is concerned, evidence be given about demand for the various services suitable for this band. In absence of the latter, the Decision should continue in force but it may be beneficial to return to the Decision at some later time when further information is available, possibly prior to the next 3 year review.”


WG FM endorsed this conclusion and asked ERO to incorporate it into the overall table of “ERC/ECC Decisions Review” (Doc. FM(05)158 Rev 1).


The FM PT 34 Chairman then reported that this project team has completed its work.  As a consequence, WG FM decided to close FM PT 34. 

1.3   FM PT 38 (PMR/PAMR)        


1.3.1 CEPT/ERC Recommendation T/R 25-08


WG FM noted that SE PT7 is continuing its studies on developing new coordination methods and FM PT 38 is following this work.  After the results of the SE PT7 studies are available, there may be a need to revise the Recommendation T/R 25‑08.


1.3.2.  Licence exempt digital PMR446


The draft ECC Decision (05)HH on licence exempt digital PMR446 applications had been under public consultation. The deadline for comments was 5 September 2005.  The comments were reviewed by the ERO and are given in Doc. FM(05)145 Rev 1.


ERO reported to WG FM that the comments were mainly related to decides 2 of the draft Decision. Decides 2 had been put in square brackets in the public consultation because administrations did not have sufficient time to consider this late proposal in detail during the WG FM meeting in May 2005:

[“Decides 2. that in order to provide the widest introduction of digital PMR 446 applications, the frequency band 446.0-446.1 MHz, currently designated for the use by analogue PMR 446, may also be made available for the digital PMR 446 applications on a national basis, especially by countries not able to designate the band 446.1 – 446.2 MHz for digital PMR446;” ]


From a summary of the comments it could be seen that 5 administrations were in favour of keeping decides 2 and 3 Administrations were in favour of deleting it.  ETSI TG DMR and the Business Radio Council (UK) were also proposing the deletion of decides 2.


Regarding the comments from ETSI TG DMR in Doc. FM(05)145 Rev 1, the ETSI Liaison Officer informed the meeting that it would be better to consider these comments only as feedback from individual companies/members of TG DMR as there are no rules defined within ETSI for individual ETSI bodies bringing positions into CEPT.


Regarding Doc. FM(05)160, the ETSI made an oral statement explaining the status within ETSI of the feedback provided by TG DMR members on the draft ECC Decision.  The following was stated:

1.      the input received by ERO after the public consultation is from the ETSI members actively participating in ERM TG DMR,

2.      there is no consolidated ETSI view that represents the opinion of all ETSI members concerning the “decides 2” question,

3.      there is no implication on the ETSI Technical Specifications.


ETSI was also requested to clarify during the meeting whether industry is willing to produce equipment that, in addition to operating in 446.1 to 446.2 MHz frequency band, can also operate in the range 446.0 to 446.1 MHz.  In addition, WG FM also asked if ETSI could conclude on a consolidated ETSI position on whether decides 2 should be deleted or should stay in the draft Decision. The ETSI liaison officer confirmed that these questions were forwarded to ETSI with a request for an immediate response.


Later, ETSI informed the WG FM that there are still opposing views within ETSI with regard to decides 2.  As such, ETSI still has no consolidated view on whether or not to keep decides 2 in the Decision.


The ETSI, however, confirmed that the proposals made in the clause “Other comments to the draft Decision” in Section 4 of Doc. FM(05)145 Rev 1 should be taken into account as this reflects the position of the manufacturers involved. There were no opposing views expressed by other manufacturers within ETSI.


Taking into account the results of the public consultation WG FM continued the discussions on decides 2. Those in favour of retaining decides 2 were of the opinion that it would allow wider implementation of the Decision.  Those in favour of deleting it were of the opinion that the analogue PMR446 band is already so heavily used that introducing digital PMR446 in the same band would cause problems.


There was also a proposal to move decides 2 to the considering part of the Decision, but it was not seen to solve the problems raised.


In conclusion, 12 Administrations supported the deletion of decides 2 and 9 administrations supported keeping it. Based on this, WG FM decided to delete decides 2 from the draft Decision.


Some other changes were also made and with these modifications the draft Decision was sent to the ECC Plenary for final adoption.


1.3.3  Individually licensed DMR


WG FM had agreed at its meeting in May 2005 that an ECC Decision identifying frequencies for digital narrow band PMR/PAMR should be kept in force and that the easiest way to cover the frequency requirements of licensed DMR would be to revise the ECC Decision (02)03.


WG FM took also note of the guidance from the ECC meeting in Reykjavik:

“the ECC advised WG FM to take into account the issues raised by NATO regarding ERC/DEC (96)04 and the remaining 2x5 MHz in the 380-400 MHz band which is designated by NATO FMSC for use by military services and to take into account the results of discussions of the civil military meeting in October 2005. Therefore it was agreed that WG FM should put the issue on hold until its meeting in January 2006 before further considering a draft revision of ECC/DEC(02)03.”


FM PT 38 had also noted the ECC guidance, but was of the opinion that the bands 385- 390 / 395-399.9 MHz should not be included in the revised Decision (02)03 for narrow band PMR/PAMR, as these bands are proposed to be used for emergency services, e.g., TETRA TEDS (wide band) and thus be covered by another Decision, e.g., a revised Decision ERC/DEC(96)01 or a new Decision (see also section 5.3.6). Therefore FM PT 38 had continued to work on this item and had agreed to add the 80 MHz and 160 MHz bands into the draft revised ECC Decision (02)03 but exclude the bands 385-390 / 395-399.9 MHz.  FM PT 38 had also discussed the bands 870-876 / 915-921 MHz and a common view within FM PT 38 was that there is no market demand for the narrow band applications to go into these bands. FM PT 38 will, however, still consider whether or not to include the 870 MHz bands in the revised Decision (02)03.


WG FM agreed that FM PT 38 would continue with the revision of the ECC Decision (02)03 on this basis.  FM PT 38 plans to present the draft revised Decision (02)03 to WG FM in January.





1.3.4 Possible enlargement of (DMO and) AGA channels in 380-400 MHz band


Regarding the Direct Mode Operation (DMO) of the emergency services the WG FM meeting (Vilnius 2005) had concluded that additional DMO channels should be identified on a national basis and therefore no further work on additional harmonised DMO channels was needed.


In order to get more information concerning the need for additional harmonised AGA (air-ground-air) channels the WG FM had invited Administrations to contact the relevant users/operators in their countries, especially to consider:

§         whether there is a need for further harmonised AGA and/or DMO channels;

§         whether or not this can be done on a national basis.


The views given in the responses were quite evenly split and even though the WG FM had not yet decided whether to continue with this issue, FM PT38 had started the work and proposed to add a new considering and a new decides to the Decision (01)20 on AGA:

new considering:

that according to the ETSI TR [x] there may be a need for further spectrum in addition to the core bands (384.8000 - 385.0000 MHz / 394.8000 - 395.0000 MHz);


new decides “1bis”:

to designate the paired frequency bands 384.750 – 384.800 MHz and 394.750-394.800 MHz as preferred extension bands to be used by airborne applications of the Digital Land Mobile Systems for the emergency services.


This compromise approach would still leave the flexibility to administrations to consider on a national basis if these additional channels are to be used for AGA. The core bands for AGA would still remain as before, i.e. 384.800-385.000 MHz / 394.800-395.000 MHz.


The draft revised Decision (01)20 as given in Doc. FM(05)150 is a working document and was only for information to WG FM at this time.


WG FM supported the approach proposed by FM PT38, and work on the revision of the Decision (01)20 will continue in the next meeting of FM PT38. The draft revised Decision is expected for the January 2006 meeting of WG FM.


WG FM also noted the statement from ISC, the emergency service network operator in the Netherlands, but concluded that no further action should be taken on DMO, as had already been decided by WG FM at its meeting in Vilnius in May 2005.


1.3.5 PPDR (Public Protection and Disaster Relief)


The ECC had agreed that WG FM should include work on PPDR in its work programme and the following issues should be addressed:

§         quantify spectrum needs in wideband and broadband PPDR in CEPT;

§         identify possible candidate bands for wideband and broadband PPDR to meet these needs on the basis of tuning ranges;

§         initiate the necessary sharing and compatibility studies, both in the civil and military bands (this would involve liaison with WG SE);

§         if appropriate, develop proposals for ECC deliverables on wideband and broadband spectrum allocations for public safety across CEPT countries.


In order to give WG FM some views and initial ideas on how to proceed, FM PT 38 had already had preliminary discussions on this topic. Public Protection (PP) wideband networks were seen to be permanent solutions that will at least partly be covered by TETRA TEDS. DR (Disaster Relief) broadband networks were seen as non-permanent ones (case by case basis) with high traffic densities. Broadband networks could possibly also be built with products that are commercially available.


ETSI informed WG FM in a liaison statement (Doc. FM(05)163) that the ERM-RM had received a proposed new work item to develop an ETSI Systems Reference Document (SRDoc.) for Broadband Disaster Relief (BB-DR) applications used by emergency services in disaster situations. The SRDoc. is intended to support the ongoing work within CEPT on Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR), however addressing and limited to BB-DR. The SRDoc. is intended to cover applications that provide incident communication, data and location information exchange. The system will be used temporarily by emergency services in disaster situations only, including disaster prevention (e.g. during special events) scenarios. As a consequence, the spectrum requested for this purpose is expected to be only required on a non- permanent basis.


Regarding the work plan and the timeframe, WG FM was of the opinion that more information from the PPDR users and operators is needed before the four bullet points above can be addressed in detail. For example, the discussions concerning the identification of frequency bands can only take place after the user requirements have been studied.


In order to collect the relevant information WG FM agreed to take a two-phase approach to this issue. The first step will be to develop an ECC Report, e.g., to identify and characterise different kinds of wide band (WB) and broadband (BB) services, taking into account the user requirements. As a second step, based on this ECC Report, it would then be decided if, e.g., sharing and compatibility studies were needed, and if there is a need for additional ECC deliverables (Recommendations or Decisions).


The ECC Report will be developed in FM PT 38 and the final draft of the Report is expected for the May 2006 meeting of WG FM and for the July 2006 meeting of the ECC.




WG FM decided at its meeting in May 2005 to separate the TEDS frequency issues into two parts:

i)        Use of TETRA TEDS for emergency services in the 385 ‑ 390/395 ‑ 399.9 MHz bands;

ii)       Use of TETRA TEDS in the other frequency bands above 400 MHz.


The working assumption in FM PT 38 is that above 400 MHz the generic wideband PMR/PAMR ECC Decision (04)06 would be modified.  In practice this would mean the addition of TEDS as a new system to the annex of this Decision after the relevant compatibility studies have been finalised. Below 400 MHz either Decision ERC/DEC(96)01 would be modified or a new Decision would be developed.  Further information on the future use of the 385 - 390/395 - 399.9 MHz band is expected after the Civil‑Military meeting in October 2005.


Concerning the High Spectrum Efficiency Modulations WG FM noted that the issue is now covered by TETRA TEDS and therefore no separate work on this topic is needed. 


WG FM also noted that a new work item for studies on TETRA TEDS had been agreed in WG SE. SE PT 7 will conduct sharing and compatibility studies between TEDS and other systems and services at the same or adjacent bands. SE PT7 will liaise with FM PT 38 about the progress of the work and FM PT 38 will continue its own work on the issue when further information from SE7 is available.


1.3.7 Future use of the band 385-390/395-399.9 MHz


FM PT 38 had received a document from NATO in which the importance of the bands 385 - 390/395 - 399.9 MHz for the NATO and military systems in general was strongly emphasised.


The FM PT 38 view was that instead of only considering civil or military frequencies in the band the user perspective should also be taken into account.  FM PT 38 had also considered that the possibilities for shared civil-military usage of the band should be studied.


In this context it was noted that SE PT7 would also study the TEDS sharing with military systems in the band 380 - 400 MHz.


Further information on the use of these bands is expected from the Civil-Military meeting in October 2005 and WG FM will come back to this issue in January 2006.

1.4   FM PT 43 (Strategy for SRDs)

There had been two meetings of FM PT 43 since the last meeting of WG FM at which there had been good representation from both Administrations and industry. During the meetings it had been noted that industry places great value on ERC REC 70-03 which it sees as an important reference document. .  


Concerning the Civil/Military meeting, Mrs. Athanassiou indicated that she would make a presentation on the work of FM PT 43 and SRDs, with the support of ERO and the participants of the FM PT 43.


With regard to the preparation of the draft interim report, FM PT 43 decided to split the work into separate elements to be analysed by different subgroups. 


Doc. FM(05)164 contained the work done so far by the FM PT 43 on the draft report in response to the Second EC Mandate to CEPT to develop a strategy to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of spectrum availability for Short Range Devices. The report identifies the progress to date on harmonising frequency bands for SRDs and examines the principles that should be applied in the consideration of new frequency bands for SRDs.


It was noted that as yet Doc. FM(05)164 did not contain preliminary conclusions as required by the EC by the interim deadline of 1 December 2005. A drafting group was formed to draft some initial conclusions and recommendations to include them in the interim report.  The conclusions and recommendations formed by the drafting group were agreed by WG FM and were included in the draft interim report and sent to ECC meeting in October. In the meantime, this report should be regarded as work in progress and should not be taken to represent the views of CEPT or of any of its member administrations.

1.5  Short Range Devices / Maintenance Group


1.5.1   Status of ERC/REC 70-03


Level of implementation of ERC/REC 70-03 within CEPT:

i) SRD/MG, while reviewing the implementation status of ERC REC 70-03 noticed that in a number of cases frequency bands which were in previous versions of the implementation table marked as “implemented” or “limited implemented” are now shown as “not implemented”.  This was the result of instructions given by the ECC, however, SRD/MG was of the opinion that the implementation table of ERC-REC 70-03 has to be regarded as an information document of high value to the industry.  Industry is very much interested to know which frequency bands of ERC-REC 70-03 or parts of it are available in CEPT countries rather than knowing whether a country has implemented an ERC/ECC Decision.  Therefore, SRD/MG asked ERO to restore the previous version of the implementation table taking into account actual changes reported to ERO by the individual Administration.

ii) A contribution from Austria to the SRD/MG concerned the indication of “Class 1” in the implementation table of ERC REC 70-03.  In order to clarify the differences between the parameters of the annex to ERC REC 70-03 and the parameters of the specific sub-classes SRD/MG agreed to introduce an explanatory note to the end of implementation table.  This course of action was endorsed by WG FM; however, Austria was not satisfied with this action and reserved the right to come back to this issue at the next SRD/MG meeting.

iii)     A request from the ERO to review the “Nearly harmonised” and “Proposed Class 1” columns at the end of the implementation table was considered by WGFM and it was agreed that, since these columns do not have any added value for the industry and are confusing in some cases, they should be deleted.


Annex 1 - Non-specific SRDs: WG FM considered the revised version of Annex 1. It was decided to delete the note under “Frequency Issues” regarding CT2. WG FM adopted it finally for publication keeping in mind that the latest changes were structural rather than substantive. 


Annex 7 – Alarms: The public consultation results, provided by the ERO, in document FM(05)146 Rev 2 were considered by WG FM.  It was indicated by France that there was a discrepancy between the band ‘g’ in Annex 7 and the channel ‘8B’ (169.5875-169.6 MHz) for exclusive use by social alarms shown in ECC Decision (05)02.  The SRD/MG chairman stated that he already coordinated this with some SRD/MG members and confirmed that this error should be corrected by replacing the frequencies shown for band g with the correct frequency range as shown in ECC Decision (05)02.  As this was a typographical error WGFM agreed that there was no need for a public consultation.  The meeting endorsed these views and adopted the revised version of Annex 7 for publication with the corrected band ‘g’.


Annex 9 – Inductive Applications: The SRD/MG July meeting considered the WG SE conclusions on a possible revision to Annex 11 covering inductive applications operating in the band 400-600 kHz which was provided in document SRDMG(05)042.  After some deliberations it was agreed to revise the Annex 9 instead of Annex 11, since all of the inductive applications are covered by Annex 9. The table proposed by WG SE was therefore added to Annex 9. 


France expressed concerns on the relevance of incorporating in ERC/Rec.70-03 the proposed specific regulation for RFID in the band 400–600 kHz in addition to the proposed generic limit below 30 MHz.


Annex 9 was further revised to reflect the WG SE conclusions on generic limits below 30 MHz as explained below. The revised version of Annex 9 covering these two sets of changes was adopted by WG FM for public consultation.


Annex 10 – Radio Microphones: WG FM at its Vilnius meeting (May 2005) approved the changes to Annex 10 covering radio microphones.  WG FM also agreed the further changes to Annex 10 to cover the hearing assistive devices subject to some editorials.  A revised version of the Annex was approved with some minor editorials.  However, it was agreed to ask SRD/MG to give further consideration to the technical details of hearing aid equipment at 169 - 174 MHz and respond to WG FM at its September 2005 meeting for final approval prior to going to public consultation.


SRD/MG has considered the technical details of the hearing assistive devices at 169-174 MHz, and concluded that there is no need to introduce any further changes to the version revised by WG FM Vilnius meeting, since this band is heavily used by particularly PMR systems in many European countries and harmonisation of any single band segment would prove very difficult. Therefore, SRD/MG proposed to WG FM that the revised version given in Annex 17 of the minutes of the Vilnius meeting of WG FM (Doc. FM(05)125) should be finally adopted and sent for public consultation.  WG FM endorsed the conclusion of SRD/MG on the issue and finally adopted the revised Annex 10 for public consultation.


Hungary reserved its position for the use of the band 169-174 MHz as tuning range for hearing assistive devices and stated that Hungary will not open this band for this application.


Annex 12 - Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants: A proposal from Germany (Doc. FM(05)140 Rev1) to align the title of Annex 12 to “Wireless applications in healthcare” and the scope to “This annex covers frequency bands and regulatory as well as informative parameters recommended for wireless applications in healthcare”, was agreed by WG FM.  WG FM also agreed to publish it without a need for public consultation since the changes are only editorial. 


Generic limit below 30 MHz for inductive applications: The results of the studies conducted by SE24 and WG SE were considered by the SRD/MG meeting in July. The following generic limit was proposed by WG SE in the frequency range 148.5 kHz–30 MHz:

- a maximum field strength of -15 dBµA/m @ 10m in a bandwidth of 10 kHz allowing,

- a total field strength up to -5 dBµA/m @ 10m for systems with an operating bandwidth larger than 10 kHz whilst keeping the density limit above.


It was suggested by WG SE that this limit should be considered by SRD/MG for inclusion in Annex 9 (Inductive Applications) to Recommendation 70-03.


Based on the compatibility study of SE24 the Netherlands proposed to split the bands below 30 MHz in two parts with different PSD (power spectral density) limits.  The PSD limit in the bands below 12 MHz should be -15 dBuA/m/10kHz at 10m.  In the bands above 12 MHz the PSD should be limited to -25 dBuA/m/10kHz at 10m to protect existing services in those bands.  Inductive systems should not use the bands which are allocated to radio astronomy (13.36 -13.41 MHz and 25.55 – 25.67 MHz).  This proposal was not accepted by the SRD/MG.  After some debate, SRD/MG agreed to introduce the limit into Annex 9 as suggested by WG SE and made the necessary amendments to Annex 9.


WG FM endorsed the agreement reached by SRD/MG on the issue and adopted the revised Annex 9 for public consultation.


Review of the Structure of the Recommendation ERC/REC 70-03: WG FM welcomed the revised structure of ERC REC 70-03 prepared by SRD/MG and adopted it for publication.


1.5.2   EC Related Activities:

Consideration of Sub Class 22: A proposal submitted by R&TTE CA to revise the sub class 22 in order to address digital systems in the bands covered by sub class 22 was considered by the SRD/MG.

ETSI requested WG FM to await the adoption of the new sub-class 22.  ETSI informed WG FM that it received a Liaison Statement from SRD/MG which was discussed at the last ERM RM meeting.  ERM RM decided to ask advice from ETSI ERM TG11 before responding to the SRDMG. The ETSI Liaison Officer explained that sub-class 22 corresponds to Annex 3 of Recommendation ERC/REC 70-03 which is an “application specific annex” dealing with wireless networking, so-called RLANs. In Annex 3 three frequency bands are identified for use by RLANs (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 17 GHz).  Making the change proposed by R&TTE CA would now bring non-RLAN devices within the scope of this sub-class, as well as within the ETSI Standard and the corresponding Annex 3 of Recommendation ERC/REC 70-03. The intent of the original proposal presented to the SRD/MG was to be clarify whether this sub-class could be used by wireless audio or video applications. It was clarified that Annex 3 of CEPT Rec. 70-03 as well as EN 300 328 are for wireless networking applications. Whether the data being transmitted over the network is actually digitized voice or video is not relevant, it remains data.  As such there is sufficient flexibility already present. WG FM was informed that ETSI will further consider the issue and will respond with an official answer before the next meeting of WG FM. Therefore, WG FM decided to wait until ETSI clarifies its position. SRD/MG was asked to consider the issue further at its next meeting by taking into account the ETSI reply to the Liaison Statement sent by SRD/MG.


1.5.3   LP transmitters in FM broadcast bands


The ECC had agreed in June in Reykjavik on the regulatory parameters for micro FM transmitters and revised the Annex 13 to ERC/REC 70-03 accordingly. The revised version of Annex 13 was then sent for public consultation with a deadline of 15 September 2005.


The results of the public consultation, provided in Doc. FM(05)157 Rev1 were considered by WG FM.  Some participants supported the maximum power of 50nW for these transmitters, while others were in favour of 15 nW.


The UK stated that 30nW was insufficient for these devices and did not reflect the outcome of studies carried out by SE24 where it was agreed that 50nW was the appropriate value.  The UK added that the proposed regulation would be more likely to find favour amongst users if the permitted power level reflected what the market showed was actually required.


Finally, after further consideration, WG FM agreed that a value of 30 nW e.r.p should be adopted in Annex 13 to ERC Recommendation 70-03. The revised Annex will be forwarded to the ECC for final adoption.


WG FM did not support a proposal made by France during the public consultation on Annex 13 to forbid operation at fixed outdoor locations.


France and Italy expressed the concern that the main ground for not retaining the proposed restriction on operation at fixed outdoor locations seemed to be its claimed “non-enforceability”. Those two administrations were of the opinion that such a restriction would basically not affect the vast majority of users which will use FM transmitters as a portable / handheld device. It is believed to be enforceable in the sense that fixing the FM transmitter to an outdoor infrastructure will be the responsibility of those few skilled users who could e.g. envisage an unlicensed broadcasting-like activity on the basis of this regulation.


1.5.4   Wireless Applications in Healthcare


The SRD/MG chairman reminded the meeting that this issue is under consideration by the European Commission and a tender was out recently to investigate the needs for wireless applications in healthcare. He added that he will inform the SRD/MG and WG FM frequently about the developments in this study since he will be part of the steering committee for the tender.


1.5.5   Tank Level Probing Radars (TLPRs)


An information text submitted by SRD/MG regarding tank level probing radars stated that these products have been on the market during the last 20 years without any interference problems. Currently no standard exists for these products and consequently ETSI decided to develop a Harmonized standard.  A Systems Reference Document (SRDoc) was developed by ETSI in order to start the ETSI ECC coordination on this matter. The SRD/MG requested its members to consider whether a compatibility study was needed.  Based on the above mentioned information and comments from the SRD/MG members, SRD/MG discussed the need for a compatibility study at its July meeting and concluded that “a compatibility study for TLPR is not necessary”. This conclusion was endorsed by WG FM.


The issue of the protection of purely passive services - and more specifically of bands covered by RR Article 5.340 - from TLPR (tank level probing radars) emissions was raised.  It was noted that the frequency band 0.5 GHz to 3 GHz is not planned to be used in Europe for TLPR applications, which should resolve possible concerns within this range. France indicated however that it would give specific consideration to the effect of undesired emissions from TLPR in the band 10.6 - 10.7 GHz within the frame of the Public Enquiry (PE) of the draft ETSI standard for TLPR, EN 302 372-1 & -2, which is scheduled until October 27, 2005.  France will inform WG FM of the outcome of this consideration.


ETSI informed the meeting that the status of TLPR was reviewed during the Augsburg meeting of ETSI ERM RM.  The draft ETSI standard for TLPR, EN 302 372-1 & -2, which are currently on Public Enquiry (PE) until October 27 2005, do not include the frequency band 0.5 GHz to 3 GHz, which is included in Recommendation ITU-R SM.1538-1.  ETSI pointed out that the frequency band 0.5 GHz to 3 GHz is not planned to be used in Europe for TLPR applications. As such it was suggested that the CEPT may wish to submit this information to the ITU-R for inclusion in updates to Recommendation ITU-R SM.1538-1.



1.5.6   Review of ERC/ECC Decisions:

Doc. FM(05)156 was presented to the meeting for information, which was a preliminary analysis of the responses received to date in respect of SRD related Decisions. WG FM noted this document.


1.5.7   Other Issues:

Meter Reading, and Tracking and Asset Tracing Systems: A contribution from UK (Doc. FM(05)132) on Meter Reading, and Tracking and Asset Tracing Systems  were considered by WG FM.  It was noted that in its final report, FM PT42 identified a number of allocations for the ex-ERMES spectrum at 169.4-169.8125 MHz including four preferred applications for the low-power part of the band.  Of these, two (Aids for the Hearing Impaired and Social Alarms) have been incorporated into Recommendation 70-03 but no consideration has been given to the other two preferred applications (Meter Reading, and Tracking and Asset Tracing Systems).  In this context, UK proposed that WG FM consider whether Meter Reading, and low-power Tracking and Asset Tracing Systems in the 169 MHz band should be incorporated into Recommendation 70-03, and if so, to ask the SRD/MG to develop suitable proposals.  WG FM agreed that this issue should be taken on board by SRD/MG.


LPRA Representation on SRDs at SRD/MG meeting: At the request of UK administration, SRD/MG considered the wish of the Low Power Radio Association (LPRA) to be represented at SRD/MG meetings and concluded that the LPRA could a presentation on the LPRA to the next meeting of the SRD/MG. Furthermore, it was stressed that, in order to be represented in SRD/MG meetings LPRA would need an MoU or LoU with the ECC similar to those which exist with bodies such as EICTA and ETSI.  WG FM endorsed this course of action.

1.6   ECC PT1 (IMT-2000 and Systems Beyond IMT-2000)  


1.6.1    Revision of ERC Decision (99)25


On the revision of ERC Decision(99)25 the ECC, at its last meeting, had decided to widen the scope of the work for ECC PT1, to review the whole Decision, including to consider all TDD bands (1900 - 1920 MHz and 2010 - 2025 MHz) and also to allow consideration of FDD use in the TDD bands.


ECC PT1 finalised the revision of the Decision and presented it to WG FM for adoption for public consultation.  It was proposed that:


§   the revised Decision(99)25 should replace the two other earlier ERC Decisions covering the core 3G spectrum at 2 GHz (ERC Decision(97)07 and ERC Decision(00)01);

§   the Decision supports FDD uplink use of the TDD bands, but excludes FDD downlink use of the TDD bands;

§   the Decision does not contain information on which bands should be paired with the bands 1900 – 1920 MHz and 2010 – 2025 MHz. The conclusion was that this should be left open and no definitive pairing should be proposed at this stage.

§   at the band edge 2010 MHz two guardbands are defined:

·    for FDD uplink use, the guardband is reduced to 300 kHz. It was noted, that based on technical grounds, there was a possibility that this may be re-evaluated at some future date after further study;

·    for TDD use, a 500 kHz guardband is maintained;


It was proposed that if it is decided to replace the old ERC Decisions, guidance should be given to the JPT MSS 2GHz on the bands 1980 – 2010 MHz and 2170 ‑ 2200 MHz (these bands are mentioned in ERC Decision(97)07, Decides 3).  Based on this, it was proposed that at the next WG FM meeting a cross-reference should be made to the decision under development in JPT MSS 2GHz.  It was agreed by WG FM that this could be done by introducing a new considering.


Furthermore, WG FM was informed that in a liaison statement to 3GPP, ECC PT1 requested 3GPP to initiate the development of standards work for the bands 1900 ‑ 1920 MHz and 2010 - 2025 MHz paired with portions of the band 2570 ‑ 2620 MHz and to provide feed back on progress to ECC PT1.


After some discussions and some minor modifications to the revised Decision, it was agreed that, before the Decision can be adopted for public consultation, the ECC has to support the replacement of the two old Decisions by this revised version. Therefore the Decision was forwarded to the next ECC meeting in Cascais 24–28 October 2005 for adoption for public consultation.


1.6.2    Revision of REC T/R 20-08 and T/R 22-07


As requested by WG FM, ECC PT1 had considered the revisions of REC T/R 20-08 and T/R 22-07.  At the Maisons-Alfort meeting, ECC PT1 considered whether the Annexes to the Recommendation should be retained or deleted.  Based on a request from one Administration it was decided that the Annexes should remain part of the Recommendation.  However, it was recognized in ECC PT1 that this would not have any impact on the “Agreement 2003” and it was agreed that the relationship between the Annexes and the “Agreement 2003” should be clarified in the Recommendation.  Therefore, a footnote making reference to the “Agreement 2003” was added to the revised Recommendation.


After some discussions and some modifications to the revised and combined Recommendation, the Recommendation was adopted for public consultation.


1.6.3    Items for information of WG FM


Based on Doc. FM(05)152, some items of interest for WG FM from the ongoing work of ECC PT1 were highlighted in particular, on the review of ERC/ECC Decisions. ECC PT1 had reported to the last WG FM meeting that, in relation to ERC/DEC(94)01, clarification is needed from the European Commission on whether this Directive 87/372/EEC applies and if it prohibits migration from 2G to 3G. As this information has not yet been forwarded to the European Commission, the ECC PT1 decided that the ECC PT1 Chairman should report on this issue directly to the ECC, inviting the ECC to forward this request for clarification to the European Commission.

1.7   EFIS / Maintenance Group         


Since May 2005, two more countries have submitted EFIS information to the system, raising the total number of countries which could be searched in EFIS to 24.


WG FM noted that EC is studying a European portal for spectrum information and the EFIS system was regarded as a candidate for such a portal. In the next RSCOM meeting (5 October 2005), a possible mandate to CEPT will be discussed on the feasibility of introducing this and associated costs.


WG FM also agreed that new terminology, given in Doc FM(05)143, should be incorporated into Annex 2 of ECC/DEC(01)03 as requested by EFIS/MG.

2.  New work items

2.1    Future use of the former TFTS bands

The ECC has adopted the Final CEPT Report in response to EC Mandate on “the harmonised uses for the frequency bands 1670-1675 MHz and 1800-1805 MHz (the “TFTS Bands”)” at its meeting in June in Reykjavik and sent it to the EC. While adopting it the ECC also requested WG FM to continue to work on the issue to find a solution, noting that harmonised uses (plural) should not be excluded, and to report on progress to each meeting of the ECC, including a possible timeframe for concluding the work. 


WG FM considered the issue and tasked a drafting group to work on the issue and propose a timeframe for the study within WG FM. The drafting group worked on the matter and concluded that it has been more than one year since the consultation has been conducted on the use of upper TFTS band (1800-1805 MHz) and some Administrations have changed their minds and have already licensed some applications.  Therefore, the information on the use of the band and the projections of some administrations have changed. In order to be able to decide on the further work to be done for the band and to set a timeframe, it is advisable to perform another round of consultation. The drafting group also proposed a time table for the second round of consultation. It was proposed that ERO should send a questionnaire to the administrations seeking inputs from the relevant industry proponents right after the WG FM meeting.


WG FM agreed to this course of action and requested ERO to prepare and send out the questionnaire as soon as possible with a deadline for responses of 16 December 2005.  The responses will then be received and analysed by ERO and presented to the January 2006 meeting of WG FM. WG FM would decide at the January meeting on the requirement for further work, if any, and the necessary timeframe.

2.2    WRC-07 Preparations

2.2.1    WRC Agenda Item 1.1


The 4th CPG meeting (Stralsund 31 May – 3 June 2005) had requested WG FM to review the revised brief taking into account the removal of a reference to an obsolete ITU Convention and the inclusion of a reference to ITU Resolution 26.


An additional table has been added to indicate countries affected in footnotes that cross-reference footnotes in the main table.  A list has also been included to indicate the names of Administrations that have announced their intentions regarding the deletion of footnotes. 


WG FM approved the modified brief for presentation to the 5th CPG meeting at its meeting to be held 17 – 20 January 2006.  Administrations were requested to notify the CEPT coordinator (Mr. Samuel Ritchie, email: of any intended deletion of country footnotes or country names from footnotes.


The ITU requested that the references to footnotes in Annex 3 should be corrected e.g. 5.28 should be 5.280, etc. 

2.3     Regulatory framework for MSS in the 2 GHz band

The discussions in the JPT MSS are mainly dealt with:

§   Conditions applicable to a possible authorisation of complementary ground component (CGC);

§   Mechanisms to address situations of potential spectrum shortage;

§   Additional ECC Decision;

§   Adjacent band compatibility studies.


It was mentioned that during the fifth meeting, JPT MSS 2GHz agreed to welcome as an observer a representative of TerreStar Network Inc., a US company that develops a MSS system including a complementary ground component in North America and envisages to develop a similar system in Europe.


With regard the first issue mentioned above, “conditions applicable to a possible authorisation of a complementary ground component within a mobile satellite system”, he mentioned that several contributions were received dealing mainly with refinement of the definition of CGC and with the conformity of the conditions proposed to be associated with CGC with the EC legal framework, in particular with regard the Authorisation Directive and the competition law.


The JPT MSS 2GHz Chairman introduced the proposed definition for CGC as prepared by JPT MSS 2GHz. He underlined that the issue of the coverage that was questioned at the May meeting of WG FM is now clearly addressed by condition 3 and not any more in the definition.


The UK, supported by some Administrations, made general comments on the issues related to legal and competition compatibility with the EU framework. Noting these general comments, WG FM noted without any more specific comment the definition of CGC as proposed by JPT MSS 2GHz.


With regard the conditions associated with the authorisation of CGC proposed by the JPT MSS 2GHz, Portugal indicated that the confusion about the coverage/service area was only partially solved since both concepts still appear in condition 3.  It was agreed that the heading of the condition (“coverage”) should be removed and that the same should be done for conditions 4 and 5.  For that last condition, it was recognised that some rewording of the condition was necessary and that JPT MSS 2GHz should do it for the next WG FM meeting. Norway also stressed that the reference to ITU documentation provided in condition 3 did not point to a definition of “service area” and proposed another wording.  The principle of the latter was agreed by WG FM but the exact formulation and reference will need to be determined by JPT MSS 2GHz.


The JPT MSS 2GHz Chairman also reported that, so as to provide elements to WG FM, as required by the latter during its May meeting, the Joint Project Team collected information about the national authorisation regimes in force in various CEPT countries:

§         some Administrations do not require authorisations for satellite transmission or may exempt terminals from individual authorisation and obviously, these administrations will require only one authorisation, the one for the CGC;

§         other Administrations may require one licence for the uplink only or for the uplink and downlink transmission(s) with the satellite.  Among those administrations, due to their national regulations, some may provide one single authorisation for both the satellite and the CGC, while others may provide one authorisation for each segment of the system.


WG FM noted the above possible situations that can be envisaged depending of the national regulation as far as the authorisation regime of a mobile satellite system incorporating a CGC is concerned.


The draft document specifically on the CGC issue requested by the ECC at its June meeting was also introduced (Annex 2 of document FM(05)151).  The United Kingdom considered that the document was only to be noted by WG FM and that the detailed information provided for the S-DMB and NEMO systems are only examples. The JPT MSS 2GHz Chairman agreed on that point and recalled that the Joint Project Team welcomes any detailed information about other MSS systems.


With the agreement that editorial changes regarding the wording of conditions 3, 4 and 5 will be improved by JPT MSS 2GHz, WG FM noted the document and agreed that the Joint Project Team should continue to work on it before sending it to the ECC for its October meeting


Concerning the mechanisms to address situations of potential spectrum shortage, WG FM noted the progress made by JPT MSS 2GHz and in particular the fact that there was a convergence of views towards the MRP solution within the Joint Project Team, as stressed out in Annex 3 of document FM(05)151.  WG FM also noted that the table of pros and cons for each of the three potential solutions was only modified to incorporate the EC comments and preliminary reflections on those solutions, and in particular that the MRP was considered by the EC experts a priori, as being the only solution without drawbacks as far as the criteria of non‑discriminatory, openness and transparency are concerned.


The UK supported the approach of an MRP but considered that such a work should be transferred to the RSCOM. Germany underlined that this proposal might not be consistent with the fact that the EC is expected to issue a mandate on MSS 2GHz to CEPT. Sweden and France supported also that the MRP be developed within CEPT.  The Russian Federation indicated that due to national legislation, the MRP should not be included in an ECC Decision but preferably in an ECC Recommendation. The UK pointed out that the draft mandate was due to be discussed at the forthcoming RSCOM meeting.


With the above comments, WG FM noted Annex 3 of JPT MSS 2GHz Report.


WG FM also noted the positive conclusions with regard adjacent band compatibility studies involving terrestrial IMT-2000/UMTS systems and the W-CDMA radio interface of the NEMO mobile satellite system.  It noted that other compatibility studies are ongoing.


The Chairman of JPT MSS 2GHz introduced the draft progress report (document FM(05)144) to be addressed to RSCOM#13 (5th October) as requested by ECC at its June meeting.  It was decided that it was too early to provide the RSCOM with the draft ECC Decision and, as a consequence, the latter should not be attached to the progress report.


The following comments from some administrations arose out of discussion of the issue and it was agreed that they be included in the progress report to the RSCOM:

“While recognising the important role that MSS can play in supporting the communications requirements of Europe and fully supporting the efforts to create a pan-European framework that enables MSS to make use of the 2 GHz bands, some concerns were expressed.  In particular: 

- that the approach proposed by the JPT risks being incompatible with the provisions of the electronic communications framework in the EU. One example of this is the proposal to exclude stand alone mobile operation in the bands. There are concerns that this may be incompatible with competition rules;

- that the present approach creates artificial boundaries between MSS, CGC and terrestrial mobile applications. These are technical differences in the way services are delivered but they would be indistinguishable from the user perspective;

- there is a lack of clarity about how the authorisation process for use of these frequencies will operate across Europe to create a pan-European framework in a manner consistent with the EU directives.

- that the work of the JPT, as indicated in its terms of reference, is limited to technical aspects of spectrum management whereas the development of a suitable regulatory framework needs to integrate the associated legal, economic and competition issues.”


A discussion took place on this proposal that was supported by some Administrations and opposed by others.  France underlined its disagreement with some views expressed by the United Kingdom for the following reasons:

§   taking into account the technical characteristics of the systems and of the propagation (in particular, use of omni-directional antennas, relatively large coverage of satellite beams), it is not technically feasible to operate co-frequency and adjacent or co-coverage MS and MSS systems, as CEPT studies have shown at 2.6 GHz band;

§   the JPT MSS 2GHz has always worked closely together with the EC experts so as to avoid an incompatibility with the EU Law, and such incompatibility was not a priori detected by the EC experts;

§   the ToR of JPT MSS 2GHz are not as restricted as considered by the UK, and the legal and competition issues have to be worked on through a collaboration with the EC, as for any other project team.


It was finally agreed to include these comments in the progress report as comment from some Administrations, and with other editorial changes, WG FM agreed to send the latter to the RSCOM.


The JPT MSS 2GHz Chairman made a presentation of the draft ECC Decision prepared by the Joint Project Team (Doc. FM(05)144) so as to explain the organisation of this Decision and how it deals with the most important issues.  On the basis of proposals made by Austria and the Russian Federation, WG FM agreed to modify some considerings.  The WG FM Chairman proposed that WG FM considers the draft ECC Decision at its meeting in January 2006 with a view to adopting it in principle for public consultation subject to approval also by WG RA at its meeting in February 2006.


WG FM sent the draft ECC Decision as modified to WG RA which was holding its meeting at the same time as WG FM.  WGFM authorised JPT MSS 2GHz to send an improved version to ECC PT1 as the Joint Project Team will have the opportunity to work on it before ECC PT1 meets.


WG RA responded to WG FM that further comments on the draft ECC Decision may be sent by PT RA5 and that WG RA may send others during the public consultation period.  WG RA also questioned the possibility to work further on the authorisation issue.  WG FM asked JPT MSS 2GHz to deal directly with that proposal and to respond to WG RA.


With regard the issue of the structure of the draft ECC Decision, JPT MSS 2GHz Chairman explained that two options were envisaged by JPT MSS 2GHz:

§         to have one single document (the ECC Decision) that would encompass the regulation adopted at CEPT level and the lists of candidates systems.  It was underlined that it would require regular modification of 2 or 3 Annexes of the ECC Decision according to the fulfilment of the milestones by the mobile satellite systems.  JPT MSS 2GHz could support this approach if such modification could be easily done, i.e. without requiring a public consultation after each modification;

§         to take the 2 or 3 evolving Annexes out of the ECC Decisions and to have them maintained by the GMR.  While this would a priori avoid any public consultation, it was noted that it scatters various linked elements (the regulation and the lists of candidates systems) over several deliverables. It was also questioned what would be the regulatory validity of the lists of candidates mobile satellite systems when outside of the ECC Decision.


Finally, WG FM noted the preliminary draft modifications of the ToR of GMR proposed by JPT MSS 2GHz in case the ECC would decide to restore this Working Group if an MRP is adopted.

2.4   Implementation of the ECA table (ERC Report 25)

Doc. FM(05)131 highlighted the two different proposals on EU16 from Germany and the Russian Federation. Germany proposed deletion of footnote EU16, based on national considerations. However, it indicated its intention to withdraw its proposal if it caused a problem for another Administration.


The Russian Federation proposal was based on its national situation. It pointed out that it has not yet implemented IMT-2000 and would therefore prefer to have the flexibility to allow the fixed services to be moved from a primary allocation to a secondary one. 


WG FM decided to maintain the wording of EU16 without change i.e. “On the introduction of IMT-2000 the fixed service will become secondary in appropriate parts of the band”.


Doc. INFO 002 was presented by Mr. Yurdal (ERO).  He informed the meeting that during the period between the 54th and 55th WG FM meetings the ERO had reviewed the ECA table to achieve some consistency between the EFIS database and the ECA table. The ERO would welcome comments and further refinements and contributions from Administrations. All of the updates will be presented in a draft with revision marks to the WG FM meeting in January 2006. The deadline for contributions is 1 December 2005.  A revised draft of the ECA table will be available by mid-December 2005.


On the examples on ECA/EFIS synchronisation provided in Doc. INFO 002, Germany pointed out that terrestrial UMTS/IMT-2000 is not the same as UMTS/IMT‑2000, nor is GSM railway systems the same as UIC railway systems.  This was noted by the ERO. 

2.5  Use of the Fixed Service in the 64 ‑ 66 GHz, 71 ‑ 76 GHz and 81 ‑ 86 GHz bands

Doc. FM(05)127 Rev 1 was presented to the meeting which contained a liaison statement from WG SE on the ECC Recommendation on Fixed Service (FS) channel arrangements in bands 71-76 / 81-86 GHz. 


SE PT19 had reviewed the draft recommendation taking into account comments received from WG FM and WG SE and updated it accordingly. In particular, the revised draft includes:

§         an improved wording on military usage in this band, and

§         a new Annex 4 which contains examples of characteristics of civil FS systems in these bands which could be used by administrations in national sharing and compatibility studies, when required.

WG SE had provisionally adopted this revised draft Recommendation for public consultation.


WG FM was invited to consider this final draft and to provide any further comments for the October 2005 meeting of WG SE, at which point the WG SE would consider the possibility of final adoption of the draft Recommendation.


Dr. Grad (Hungary), who had participated in SE19, noted that there were a number of responses to the public consultation and that there is a high level of interest in the use of these bands by the fixed services. The comments from the public consultation were taken into account by SE PT 19 in Doc. FM(05)166 Annex 1. 


Austria proposed that WG SE should liaise with WG RA to request the development of an appropriate licensing process for these systems. However, this proposal was not supported by the meeting.   


In conclusion, WG FM agreed to send a liaison statement to WG SE to indicate the following points:

§         that it would be helpful to point out in the draft Recommendation that point to multipoint systems are also allowed to be used in the 71-76 / 81‑86 GHz bands.  

§         the reference in considerings a and b to ERC Report 025 should be aligned with the correct title of that report. 

2.6  Secondary Allocation for Amateur service in the     7100 ‑ 7200 kHz bands

Doc. 147 Rev 1 was presented to the meeting, which contained the results of the public consultation on draft ECC Recommendation (05)05 on “Early Access for the Amateur Service to the band 7100-7200 kHz”, which was sent for public consultation by WGFM at its meeting in Vilnius, in May 2005. Since there were no comments of substance, WG FM agreed to adopt the draft Recommendation for publication.

2.7    Broadband Fixed Wireless Access in the 3.5GHz and 5.8GHz bands

Doc. FM(05)138, the progress report of JPT BFWA was presented to the meeting.  Annex 1 summarised the results of the work done to date regarding the frequency bands 3400 - 3800 MHz and 5725 ‑ 5875 MHz and was provided for the consideration of JPT conclusions to its parental working groups (WG FM).


JPT BFWA believes that the definitions concerning fixed, nomadic and mobile wireless access of Recommendation ITU-R F.1399 could be accommodated and there is no need for new definitions.  The responses to the ERO questionnaire clearly showed that there is a higher degree of availability of the band 3.4 ‑ 3.6 GHz compared to 3.6 - 3.8 GHz.  Results of the questionnaire also showed that the situation with the 5.725 - 5.875 GHz band had not yet passed beyond the stage of initial considerations in the vast majority of CEPT Administrations.


In particular, while nomadic applications (i.e. non-line of sight (NLOS) propagation, indoor terminals with low gain antennas) are possible in the range 3.4 ‑ 3.8 GHz, similar applications in 5.8 GHz band might be difficult to realise with presently expected central station power limitations and intended coverage range, especially for indoor operation.


Estimates of market demand for future converged-nomadic BWA services have been developed in the framework of ETSI BRAN work, leading to the estimation of the required spectrum to satisfy this demand.  Generally there is a quantifiable requirement for 56 MHz (2 x 28 MHz paired or 56 MHz unpaired) per operator for DSL-like services.


2.7.1    Bands 3400 - 3800 MHz


JPT BFWA considered whether some additional measures may be taken by CEPT to further clarify the existing provisions with regard to the band 3.4 – 3.8 GHz.  This could be done by upgrading the status of designation of this band for F&NBWA ("Fixed and Nomadic Broadband Wireless Access systems") by means of an ECC Decision.  Such a new Decision would give higher visibility to the F&NBWA designation and would provide more confidence for the administrations in making this band available.


A new ECC Decision regarding the bands 3400 - 3600 MHz (preferred band) and 3 600 - 3 800 MHz (possible extension) would provide a high visibility to the designation for BFWA including nomadic applications and would provide more confidence for Administrations in making these bands available.  This would be supported by the Draft ECC Recommendation (04)05 proposed, subject to WG SE approval in October 2005, for public consultation. Flexible, technologically-neutral conditions should be developed in order to ensure fair competition between the available technologies.


On this proposal the UK felt that it is too early to decide on a harmonised measure such as a Decision.  Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia and Switzerland supported the JPT BFWA proposal to develop a Decision for 3.4 - 3.8 GHz.  However, Austria, Germany, Greece and the Russian Federation pointed out that they have a lot of point to point systems in use in the 3.6 ‑ 4.2 GHz bands and that this band is therefore not available for BFWA in the near term.  In the Russian Federation this frequency band is also heavily used by satellite Earth stations. 


The Russian Federation supported the development of a Decision for the 3.4 - 3.6 GHz bands.  Sweden supported the development of the ECC Decision for the 3.6 ‑ 3.8 GHz band.  Greece supported the Russian Federation and Italian proposal not to extend the bands under consideration beyond 3.6 GHz band. 


Slovakia supported Denmark’s suggestion to extend the bands for consideration by JPT BFWA to 4.2 GHz. 


WG FM concluded that there was an adequate number of Administrations supporting the development of an ECC Decision on the bands 3400 – 3600 MHz and 3600 – 3800 MHz.  The Chairman of JPT BFWA agreed to draft the necessary text supporting the proposal. 


2.7.2    5.8 GHz bands


Currently there is no European regulatory regime for F&NBWA in the band 5725–5875 MHz.  Nevertheless, some European Administrations have already opened this band on national basis. Some CEPT Administrations expressed concerns on the possible sharing between F&NBWA systems and existing systems/services in the 5.8 GHz band. A detailed report on practical DFS (dynamic frequency selection) field tests has been provided to JPT BFWA by the French Administration.


In addition, NATO explained the vital importance of the band 5250–5850 MHz for the military radars and expressed the need that all of these radars require protection from F&NBWA systems in all modes including frequency hopping. It was also pointed out that these systems can potentially be deployed and operated worldwide and therefore countries without a 5 GHz option in their national defense forces should not use that as an argument.


JPT BFWA proposed that an ECC Recommendation regarding the 5.8 GHz band could provide an appropriate regulatory framework for the time being. The Recommendation would provide guidance to Administrations on the implementation of F&NBWA systems in this band.


Austria opposed this proposal in order to protect defence radars and RTTT systems.  The Chairman WG FM noted that RTTT systems operate as SRDs in this band and therefore on a licence exempt basis.  Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Lithuania supported the development of a Recommendation.  Germany also considered that there should be some guidance for Administrations on the opening of this band for BFWA systems. 


Hungary supported continuing studies on the unlicensed use of FWA in the 5.8 GHz band. 


The UK felt that it is too early to develop such a Recommendation.  France considered that JPT BFWA should not develop a Recommendation in the 5.8 GHz band.  Instead it would prefer that the JPT BFWA deals with the 3.6 GHz band.  The WG FM Chairman pointed out that the JPT’s Terms of Reference identify the 3.4 - 3.8 GHz band as a priority for consideration by JPT BFWA.  The Russian Federation suggested a Decision rather than a Recommendation as all relevant compatibility studies have been done in CEPT.  The WG FM Chairman concluded that there was adequate support for the development of a Recommendation noting that priority should be given to the work on the 3.6 and 3.8 GHz bands.


WG FM then discussed other inputs relating to this topic. The first input from NATO in Doc. FM(05)153 was presented by Mr. Poplawski (NATO). He stressed the need for all BFWA systems to employ frequency mitigation techniques to protect 5 GHz military radar including those that use frequency hopping.


The JPT BFWA Chairman presented Doc. FM(05)137, a response to the NATO policy document on the use of the 5 GHz by the military. ETSI felt that it was necessary to emphasise that close cooperation between radar experts and representatives of the FWA industry was required to achieve the above objectives, in particular for the frequency hopping radars. CITEL indicated it will provide info on the laboratory tests in the USA to the relevant parties including JPT BFWA. 


Doc. FM(05)136 containing a liaison statement to SRDMG from JPT BFWA was noted by WG FM. The UK indicated that, as yet, there has not been a decision on where ITS will go in the 5 GHz band.  It asked for clarification on whether compatibility studies would be required in this regard. The JPT BFWA Chairman responded that if it is decided that ITS would be put into the 5875 - 5925MHz band, adjacent band studies may be required. On the other hand, if ITS is put into the 5725–5875 MHz band full sharing studies will be necessary. 


2.7.3    Terms of reference: Economic Aspects


The Terms of Reference for the JPT BFWA include a reference to “Economic Aspects”.  WG FM and WG SE were asked to provide guidance to JPT BFWA on what is meant by “Economic Aspects” and whether it is necessary for the project team to carry out a full assessment of these aspects.


WG FM concluded that the JPT BFWA could do something on this if possible but that it was not to spend to much time on it as the ToR give the group some leeway in this regard since they state that “The deliverable for this study will be an analysis, which may include economic aspects, of the possible actions.”


2.7.4    SRDoc on BFWA


The JPT BFWA Chairman introduced Doc. FM(05)135, a liaison statement to ETSI ERM RM relating to the SRDoc on Converged and Fixed Nomadic Broadband Wireless Systems which outlined some issues that JPT BFWA had with the SRDoc.


ETSI introduced document FM(05)154, containing a Liaison Statement from ERM ‑ RM to WG FM on the preliminary draft SRDoc which had been prepared by ETSI TC BRAN.


ETSI informed WG FM that the comments received from the JPT BFWA and contained in Doc. FM(05)135 will be taken into account in the revision of the SRDoc.


The meeting was further informed that ETSI ERM RM has also made a number of suggestions to ETSI BRAN on how to amend the document.  ETSI TC BRAN will be requested to consider splitting the preliminary draft SRDoc into two parts in order to improve the clarity of the spectrum request:

i) Part 1 to cover Broadband Fixed Network Wireless Access systems operating in the frequency range from 3.4 GHz to 3.8 GHz. This part would support the ongoing work in JPT BFWA;

ii) Part 2 to cover Converged Fixed/Nomadic Broadband Wireless Access. Part 2 would include proposed candidate frequency bands below 3.4 GHz for study for this kind of service and would possibly initiate new work inside the ECC.


Working Group ERM RM expects to be in a position to send WG FM further material on this subject in early 2006.

2.8    Review of ERC/ECC Decisions and Recommendations

ERO presented Doc. 158 Rev 1 and addendum which contains comments from France, Denmark, Ireland and the UK on the ERC/ECC Decisions not under study by any project team. As yet the only comments from project teams on the review of ERC/ECC Decisions were from FM PT 34.  


FM PT 34 worked by correspondence on the review.  The additional review was decided at the WG FM meeting in May 2005 due to the modification of the list of criteria to be used to analyse the ERC/ECC Decisions.  Additionally, it should be noted that at its meeting in June 2005, the ECC decided not to retain the criteria proposed by ECC/PT7 with regard the designation of a band by an ECC Decision. As a consequence the related criteria were not relevant any more. As far as FM PT 34 was concerned, the following ERC Decisions needed to be reviewed: ERC/DEC(00)02, ERC/DEC(00)07, ERC/DEC(00)08, ERC/DEC(00)09.


Doc. FM(05)156 was presented by the ERO which contained a summary of the comments from Administrations on the review of the SRD related ERC/ECC Decisions for the information of WG FM.  It was noted that this has not been finalised by SRD/MG.  The UK was of the view that, while the Decisions meet most of the review criteria, they serve little purpose and can be abrogated.  WG FM noted the remarks from the UK.


WG FM agreed that FM PT 43 should consider the role of ECC Decisions in creating certainty for SRDs versus the possible constraints in flexibility which might arise compared to the use of ERC REC 70-03, noting also the pending EC Framework Decision on SRDs. 


The Chairman indicated that a finalised table needs to be sent to the ECC.  Administrations are encouraged to review all of these Decisions under review and provide comments to the ERO as soon as possible.


WG FM will consider this at its January 2006 meeting, with a view to making proposals to the March 2006 meeting of the ECC. 


The UK noted that according to the terms of Decision ERC/DEC (99)06 on the Harmonised introduction of S-PCS<1GHz a detailed review of this Decision should be carried out before further consideration of it in this exercise. The Chairman stated that WG FM would propose to the ECC that ERO should carry out the study.

2.9    Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in the 5 GHz and 63 GHz bands

Doc. FM(05)128 contained a liaison statement from WG SE on ITS Applications at 5 GHz. WGSE noted that some studies may be needed to find “effectively protected channels” for ITS applications around 5 GHz and that SRD-MG will take a decision on the relevant group to conduct further studies on this issue.


Doc. FM(05)153 outlined the requirements for access to spectrum of NATO radar systems in the 5 GHz bands.  WG FM noted the document. 


With regard to document FM(05)153, ETSI said that part 1 of ITS SRDoc was aiming at spectrum outside the 5.4 RLAN and 5.8 GHz ISM band and as such there should be no radar issues there.


The SRD/MG is awaiting a final version of the SRDoc. on ITS from ETSI.


ETSI informed WG FM that an error may have been made in the SRDoc for ITS systems in the 63 GHz bands submitted earlier. ETSI will clarify this situation as soon as possible.


It was confirmed that the SRD/MG will consider which bands should be used for the ITS at its November meeting.


The EC indicated that there will be a presentation at the forthcoming RSCOM on the requirements for ITS.


ETSI was not aware of a request from SRD/MG for additional information with regard to the ITS systems as the final version of Part 1 of the SRDoc for ITS systems was submitted during the Vilnius meeting (Doc. FM(05)118 Annex 1). The SRD/MG chairman promised to clarify this request and if needed to ask ERM RM for additional information required to make a proposal for a possible allocation for these critical road safety applications.

2.10  Draft Model for “Flex-Bands”

ECC PT8 had asked WG FM to identify possible candidate bands for “flex-bands”.  These bands would allow flexible conditions to be implemented and would have minimal technical constraints and no market constraints.


Doc. FM(05)167 contained a further liaison statement from ECC PT8.  ECC PT8 has not yet had time to establish a definition of Category 3 bands. However, ECC PT8 suggested that WG FM should continue the identification of a candidate “flex‑band”. 


A liaison statement from WG SE to ECC PT8 contained a suggested framework for technical consideration of a “flex-band”.  The band 1800‑1805 MHz (upper TFTS band) mentioned in the provisional response from WG FM received both support and opposition during the meeting, though it was recognised that bands below 3 GHz were both most useful for the study and most in demand. The pool of bands potentially identified for WAPECS was also noted.  However, France did not agree with merging the two concepts i.e. WAPECS and “flex‑bands” at this stage. 


Germany pointed out that WG FM should take account of the 5 requirements for WG SE on compatibility studies on “flex-bands”. 


As ECC PT8 now considered their proposals sufficiently mature for study, a drafting group was formed to select one or more bands that could be notified to ECC PT8, WG SE and WG RA for evaluation of the “flex-band” concept.


Following challenging discussions the drafting group sought advice from WG FM on how to proceed on four points:

§         Concern had been expressed that the liaison statements from ECC PT8 report were neither finalised nor clear on the actual operation of the bands, and there was consequential unwillingness to nominate bands before ideas had been finalised;

§         Administrations had indicated unwillingness to nominate bands that are under discussion within CEPT or ITU, are the subject of recent Decisions where usage should be developing, or where there is successful use, which collectively left very few bands;

§         Divergent views had been expressed on whether selection of a band for the study would lead it to become a de-facto initial strong candidate “flex-band”, or whether this was an exercise to prove the concept, without future implications for these bands, but potentially involving work by other Working Groups not directly leading to a harmonising measure;

§         Ideally several bands with a range of such characteristics would be appropriate to exercise the concept.  However it would be more difficult to reach agreement and would involve more work by other groups.


Following advice from WG FM, the drafting group continued discussions and agreed the selection of the whole or parts of the bands 862‑870 MHz, 1785–1805 MHz and 57 – 59 GHz as candidate frequencies for study in the development of the “flex-band” concept.


The Russian Federation indicated that, even at this early stage, it will be difficult for the Russian Federation to implement the “flex-band” concept in the band 862 - 870 MHz as it is used for safety of life applications. 


WG FM also emphasised that bands which are the subject of recent ECC Decisions should not be identified, and that it might be possible to identify bands for consideration as “flex-bands” as part of the regular review of ERC and ECC Decisions.  A liaison statement to ECC PT8 was adopted by WG FM, copied to WG SE and WG RA for information, including a caution that the proposals for bands were made without detailed consideration of the implications if the bands were eventually made “flex‑bands” and as such the selected bands should be viewed solely for this exercise.

3.   Other Business       

3.1    Pseudolites

Doc. FM(05)159 from the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU) was presented by the Chairman. The GJU felt that the development of pseudolites (PLs) in large quantities, under the form of low power devices in each of the RNSS allocations, should be considered.  This raises a number of issues in relation to the different installations of PLs in the L1 GPS band including technical issues on the compatibility of PLs and other services in these and adjacent bands, regulatory aspects on the appropriate allocation needed in these bands to cover PL operation and licensing aspects on the national authorisation process for PLs.


WG FM agreed to await further studies on this issue and no further action was required at this time.  


3.2    Protection of Property

Doc. FM(05)168 on the PDNR on Harmonized frequency channel plans for the protection of property using data communication was presented by Mr. Walter (Germany).  WG FM had decided during its meeting in Vilnius, May 2005 to send a European multi-country proposal regarding the above mentioned PDNR to ITU‑R WP 8A.  This PDNR had been presented by Germany at the ITU-R WP 8A meeting held in Geneva, 22-28 September 2005.  WG 3 of WP 8A considered the PDNR.


This result on Annex 2 of the PDNR is as presented in Doc. FM(05)168.  The result was based on a compromise which has been developed during the meeting. The amended Annex 2 (under Region 1 / Europe) of the PDNR refers to the 169 MHz band which has been harmonised by ECC Decision (05)02. Additionally, the frequency 164.175 MHz and other individual frequencies are mentioned which are currently in use in European countries (e.g. in Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden).  WG 3 will propose to upgrade the PDNR to a DNR.  It was noted that the WG 3 result had not been discussed in the WP 8A plenary.  Therefore, further changes are possible but are not expected.


Related Links

Access Meeting Documents



Class 1 - equipment

HCM agreement, Vilnius 2005