tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post7476910733496748296..comments2023-07-28T08:32:23.662-04:00Comments on SpectrumTalk: MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-44420008059388769822009-01-10T06:17:00.000-05:002009-01-10T06:17:00.000-05:00The Australian Regulatory Model (Space-centric Man...The Australian Regulatory Model (Space-centric Management)<BR/><BR/>The cited December 2007 report on radio interference regulatory models was released by the EC in April 2008. It explores “the possibility of using interference definitions as a method of defining the rights of spectrum users in a liberalised environment.” The report “suggests that a single universal definition of harmful interference suitable for all applications and technologies is unlikely to be realisable”. This result was not unexpected given the many years the ITU wrestled with trying to quantify and give practical meaning to ‘harmful interference’. The only situation where the ITU had a measure of success was with the simple case of the satellite service. <BR/><BR/>For flexible spectrum access, an interference level which causes problems for one technology may be inconsequential for another. Therefore, spectrum rights based on unacceptable levels of field strength/aggregate power flux density are not practical. Interference temperature turned out to be more a cause for embarrassment for the USA Task Force than a solution. Similarly, Ofcom’s attempt to “specify in a licence the interference a licensee is allowed to cause - SURs”, began with an already long unsuccessful history and has been rejected by most of UK industry. Both the USA and Ofcom proposals can not produce practical outcomes for spectrum licensees. <BR/><BR/>What a legal right comprises depends on what is said by what confers it. A right may be conferred ‘positively’ or ‘negatively’. Lawyers have for some time recognised it is much more practical in drafting terms to establish the content of a right by defining it negatively i.e. permission is conferred to use the spectrum subject to certain restrictions, rather than trying to describe the extent of the right in positive terms. Therefore, explicit (primary) transmit rights with implicit (secondary) receive protection is more practical. <BR/><BR/>In principle there is a logical nexus between transmitting and receiving with one element not being more important that the other, but in practice, limits at a transmitter(s) antenna or antenna array, which have been designed to embed a predictable level of receiver protection in relation to all interference mechanisms, are clearly superior because they lead to much better managerial efficiencies. <BR/><BR/>In early 2008, the EC adoption of a transmit based limit (BEM) for introducing spectrum liberalisation throughout Europe (WAPECS) provided further supporting evidence as to the superiority of explicit transmit rights. BEM is now rightly preferred by European industry over Ofcom’s proposals for primary limits of aggregate power flux density.<BR/><BR/>The BEM of WAPECS was a good start for increasing equipment choice in Europe. Unfortunately, BEM deals only with one aspect of interference at the frequency boundary. It is a partial solution. Similar benchmarks are needed for all the other interference mechanisms.<BR/><BR/>The provision of partial spectrum rights and/or rights based on explicit receive parameters is the primary reason why there is so much regulatory uncertainty in both Europe and the USA, uncertainty that has never been experienced under the Australian regulatory model. <BR/><BR/>Australia employs a complete set of transmit rights. For new services, the transmit rights are established as mathematical functions of device separation from boundaries of a spectrum space i.e. geographic, frequency and time. For legacy services, separate device-specific and site-specific receive rights which can override the explicit transmit rights legacy services are usually used for political reasons. <BR/><BR/>A complete set of explicit transmit rights in relation to all interference mechanisms enables a licensee to authorise and operate devices completely independently of the regulator and adjacent spectrum licensees, and if desired, without a formal equipment standardisation process. With a complete set of rights, any type of new equipment can be independently authorised by a spectrum licensee essentially in the time it takes to make a minimum number of laboratory measurements and check its field deployment against the spectrum access conditions of the licence. <BR/><BR/>A high level of engineering skill is necessary to establish a coherent set of benchmarks to achieve self-consistent levels of notional receiver protection. Australia provided such benchmarks in 1997 and they have been successfully used in practice to introduce innovative wireless services into Australia for over a decade, without any reported cases of interference or related litigation.<BR/><BR/>Further information can be found at http://www.futurepace.com.au/_lib/pdf/DSA.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-54925953287989104742008-12-19T11:12:00.000-05:002008-12-19T11:12:00.000-05:00It's time for SPTF-II, especially with a new leade...It's time for SPTF-II, especially with a new leadership FCC. Personally, I don't think that quantified, measurable and enforceable "harmful interference" is possible without taking into account the heretofore ignored receiver topology.<BR/>In other words The FCC could give more flexibility to manufacturers that produce Rx less prone to interference provided the Rx meet certain minimum specs.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08838676196712514656noreply@blogger.com