DOC

CEPT Report 21 1 July 2008 DRAFT CEPT Report 21 Report A from CEPT

By Eleanor Greene,2014-03-26 20:10
7 views 0
The current international regulatory framework, as settled by the Radio with those defined in EMC standard IEC 62216-1 [5] is plotted in Figure 3.

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    CEPT Report 21

    Report A from CEPT to the European Commission

    in response to the Mandate on:

    “Technical considerations regarding

    harmonisation options for the Digital Dividend” Compatibility issues between “cellular / low power transmitter” networks

    and “larger coverage / high power / tower” type of networks”

    Report approved on 30 March 2007 by the:

    CEPT

    Electronic Communications Committee

    Electronic Communications Committee (ECC)

    within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)

     1

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    Table of contents

     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3 0

    1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 10

    2 MANDATE TO CEPT ......................................................................................................................... 10

    3 REPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 THE CO-EXISTENCE OF RPC1 AND RCP2/3 NETWORKS IN BANDS IV AND V ..................................... 11 3.1.1 The issue .................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.1.1 General description........................................................................................................................ 11 3.1.1.2 The GE-06 Plan ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1.3 Bases for technical solutions .......................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Compatibility studies ................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.2.1 Protection requirements ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.2.2 Field strength required for planning of multimedia broadcasting services ........................................ 16 3.1.2.3 Antenna discrimination and cross-polarisation ................................................................................ 17 3.1.2.4 Summary of compatibility studies .................................................................................................. 17 3.1.2.5 Possible mitigation techniques ....................................................................................................... 19 3.1.2.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 THE POSSIBILITY HARMONISING A SUB-BAND OF BANDS IV AND V FOR DOWNLINKS OF MULTIMEDIA

    APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.1 Technical elements in relation to the potential harmonisation of a sub-band for the

    implementation of downlinks of multimedia applications in the band 470 - 862 MHz............................... 20 3.2.1.1 Terminal design............................................................................................................................. 20

    3.2.1.1.1 Relation between antenna bandwidth and antenna performance .................................................. 20

    3.2.1.1.2 Filters ...................................................................................................................................... 21

    3.2.1.1.3 Integrated vs. external antennas................................................................................................. 21

    3.2.1.1.4 Consequence in terms of network planning................................................................................ 21 3.2.1.2 Interference envelope concept ........................................................................................................ 22 3.2.2 Frequency management and market elements in relation to the identification of a sub-band for the

    implementation of downlinks of mobile multimedia applications in the band 470 - 862 MHz ................... 22 3.2.2.1 Status of the current digitalization of the band 470 - 862 MHZ ........................................................ 22

    3.2.2.1.1 DVB-T..................................................................................................................................... 22

    3.2.2.1.2 Mobile multimedia deployment in Europe and worldwide .......................................................... 23

    3.2.2.1.3 Other services........................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2.2 Spectrum requirement for the operation of downlinks of mobile multimedia networks in a sub-band 24 3.2.2.3 Effect of sub-band harmonisation on existing layers and consequence in terms of cross-border

    coordination and GE-06 plan ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.2.2.4 Possible consequences in terms of cost, affected markets and delay ................................................. 27

    3.2.2.4.1 Consequences in terms of costs ................................................................................................. 27

    3.2.2.4.2 Consequences in terms of delay ................................................................................................ 27

    3.2.2.4.3 Long term aspects of the harmonization of a sub-band ............................................................... 28 3.2.2.5 Cost and availability of terminals ................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2.6 Scenarios for the introduction of a sub-band ................................................................................... 29 3.2.3 Potential approaches for the implementation of mobile multimedia ........................................... 29 3.2.3.1 Approach 1: Implementation based on existing GE-06 plan entry .................................................... 29 3.2.3.2 Approach 2: Harmonisation of a narrow sub-band .......................................................................... 29 3.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................... 30

    4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 31

     2

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Introduction st Mandate This Executive Summary is an extract of the text of CEPT Report 21 - Report A in response to the 1on Digital Dividend and highlights the positions found. Throughout this Report mobile multimedia and

    multimedia broadcasting services or applications are understood as downlink services e.g. no up link is included

    in the present considerations.

The detailed contributions will be found in the main body of this report.

Justification

    It was noted that the EC has mandated the ECC to explore the technical feasibility of relevant potential uses of

    the future digital dividend, to identify any major coexistence limitations of these potential uses due to

    interference issues, and to assess possible spectrum management strategies to address those issues.

Digital dividend

    TG4 accepted the definition as given by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) as a bases of the work: “The

    digital dividend is understood as the spectrum made available over and above that required to accommodate the

    existing analogue television services in a digital form, in VHF (band III: 174 - 230 MHz) and UHF bands

    (bands IV and V: 470 - 862 MHz)”.

This Report covers in particular ECC Mandate on downlinks of multimedia applications relating to

    harmonization options for the digital dividend:

    ? the practical coexistence between high and low power density networks (i.e. co-existence of RPC-1 and

    RPC-2/3 configurations in adjacent channels;

    ? the possibility of harmonising at EU level a sub-band for multimedia applications, minimising the impact on

    the GE-06 plan.

    Geneve 2006 (GE-06) in relation with the Mandate The Geneva 2006 (GE06) Agreement establishes a Plan containing frequency allotments and assignments for the

    transmission of DVB-T and T-DAB services in Band III (174 - 230 MHz) and DVB-T services in Bands IV/V

    (470 - 862 MHz).

Flexibility is an integral part of GE06. In other words, the Plan does permit assigned frequencies (digital entries)

    to be used for implementing broadcasting services with different characteristics or other applications, provided

    the interference and the protection requirements are kept within the envelope of the corresponding entry in the

    Plan. An administration can modify its entries in the Plan by applying the provisions of Article 4 of the GE06

    Agreement.

Multimedia broadcasting and the future

    “Hybrids” of traditional broadcast and mobile multimedia applications, are considered as promising candidates for multimedia broadcasting applications. For example, the development of the Digital Video Broadcasting to

    Handheld (DVB-H) standard makes it possible to deliver live broadcast television to a mobile handheld device.

    Although these mobile multimedia broadcasting technologies may use the same frequency spectrum as DVB-T,

    they are likely to require dedicated networks. These networks will be designed taking into account that reception

    on a handheld device requires higher field strength values compared to fixed DVB-T reception in order to

    compensate for the low antenna gain, lower receiving height and, when indoor operation is targeted, building

    penetration loss.

Practical coexistence between high and low power density networks

    Following the Mandate the report describes compatibility issues which may appear between DVB-T and

    multimedia broadcasting type networks due to differences in received field strength when using non-co-sited

    transmitters in adjacent channels and beyond and proposes solutions to overcome these conflicts.

     3

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

Explanation of the issue

    As part of the GE06 Agreement the “Reference Planning Configurations” (RPCs) incorporate the different

    system variants and the different reception modes which are possible with digital broadcasting technologies. Three RPCs were assumed for DVB-T planning: RPC 1 for fixed reception, RPC 2 for portable outdoor or mobile reception, RPC 3 for portable indoor reception.

    In general, broadcasting and multimedia services for indoor reception, as for example DVB-H, need a higher density of transmitters in order to provide a sufficiently high field strength across an entire planned service area (e.g. RPC 3-type networks). Fixed DVB-T reception using roof top antennas is provided by sparsely located high-power transmitters (e.g. RPC 1-type networks). Consequently, adjacent channel interference may occur between overlapping (or nearby) DVB-T and multimedia broadcasting coverage areas. The problem should be considered on the first adjacent channels (N?1) and beyond (N?M, M>1).

    Adjacent channel interference is caused when a receiver tuned to the wanted service is subject to interference in the wanted channel from another service operating in an adjacent channel. If the two services are transmitted from the same location using appropriate power levels and an appropriate spectrum mask it is possible to ensure that there is no harmful interference in the coverage area of both services. However, if the two services are transmitted from different locations and/or at significantly different power levels it is much harder to specify how to protect both wanted services across their entire coverage area.

    This situation is especially relevant to the protection of DVB-T services broadcast from a high power/tower transmitter network (which typically employs a relatively small number of sites) from another service operating at medium or even low power using a dense network. In the vicinity of the transmitters of a dense network the relative field strength of the service transmitted using the dense network signals could be significantly higher than that of the high power network near the edge of its coverage area, due to the different propagation distances from the transmitters. This is particularly true when the required field strength of the dense network intended for multimedia broadcasting is high. This can result in adjacent channel interference (referred to as hole punching) to receivers close to the transmitters used in the dense network.

    It should be, however, pointed out that the compatibility issue of co-existence of DVB-T and multimedia broadcasting networks planned for different types of reception appears primary at national levels and is to be considered as a domestic problem, in terms of geographic location. European countries have selected different RPCs, depending on their national requirements. In some areas this selection has been based on compromises found in long and intense bi- and multilateral negotiations, in order to have an equitable access to the frequency spectrum.

How incompatibilities should be treated and can be solved or mitigated using different engineering solutions

    Mobile multimedia networks could use the GE-06 Plan by applying the provisions of the GE06 Agreement including the envelope concept.

    Compatibility issues between DVB-T fixed reception and mobile multimedia broadcasting type of networks may be relevant within any country wishing to deploy multimedia broadcasting networks and having DVB-T fixed reception networks. Any cross-border conflicts are to be solved under the GE06 Agreement.

    The Report indicates that the risk of adjacent channel interference exists only in close vicinity of the interfering multimedia broadcasting transmitter, located within the coverage area of the non-co-sited service. Therefore, it should be considered as a domestic problem and be treated on a national basis. In some cases, where the interfering transmitter is located very close to the borders, cross-border interference may occur, requiring treatment involving neighbouring Administrations. In general, the problem should be assessed technically on an area by area basis.

    Different methods can be used on an area by area basis in order to minimise the impact of adjacent channel interference. Use of one or another technique or their combination depends largely on planning assumptions made both for DVB-T and multimedia broadcasting services. Some multimedia broadcasting networks target services mostly in urban areas, whereas others foresee operation across large territories.

    In general, the best transmitting configuration to cover the same area by several transmitters still is to co-site them and to use the same antenna system noting that coverage area of multimedia transmitters will be smaller than the fixed reception DVB-T coverage. A less good solution could be to use the same site but with different antenna systems or to use very close sites. The most difficult configuration is to use different and widely

     4

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    separated sites. In this case several measures are recommended in the Report in order to ensure the compatibility between the non co-sited DVB-T and multimedia broadcasting transmitters.

    Conclusions Adjacent channel interference should be considered for a large frequency offset between wanted (DVB-T) and interfering (mobile multimedia broadcasting) services, although the first adjacent channel is a more problematic scenario. Currently, DVB-T receiver protection ratios were shown to be slightly better than IEC standards at frequency offsets N?2 and considerably better beyond in cases when the front-end receiver is not overloaded. In

    order to ensure better performances with regard to high level out-of-channel interference in the future an improvement of the relevant standards should be sought.

    The risk of adjacent channel interference exists only in close vicinity of the interfering multimedia broadcasting transmitter, located within the coverage area of the victim service. Therefore, it should be considered as a domestic problem and be treated on a national basis and on a bilateral level when it extends across a local border. In general, the problem should be assessed technically on an area by area basis.

    In summary, co-existence of “cellular / low-power transmitter” networks and “larger coverage / high

    power/tower” type of networks in Band IV/V is possible within the GE06 Agreement by applying the available

    mitigation techniques together with careful network planning.

    Concerning possibility of harmonising a sub-band of bands IV and V for downlinks of multimedia applications The RSPG was noting that: “There may be EU-wide benefits to the use of the digital dividend by broadcasting

    services. The current international regulatory framework, as settled by the Radio Regulations and the GE-06 Agreement, provides an appropriate framework for this development. Within this framework:

    In the absence of significant re-planning activities, it would in general be feasible to make available one or more layers per country suited for high field strength downlink services. Within this harmonised sub-band, the channels used for that purpose may differ from area to area.

    A common (but not dedicated) sub-band of the UHF band for high field strength downlink services could permit improved terminal performance/reduced network costs and improved compatibility with fixed reception broadcasting, and facilitate interactive services using the 900 MHz band for the return channel.”

    The GE06 Plan does permit assigned frequencies (digital entries) to be used for other services under the spectrum mask concept as long as they are notified under the envelope of broadcasting assignment and do not require more protection or cause more interference than is allowed according to the GE-06. Therefore the conclusion is valid that the GE-06 agreement already allows the introduction of mobile multimedia applications. It is assumed that spectrum harmonised for these application will improve their introduction.

    The spectrum that could be harmonised for these services in the UHF band is currently worldwide being identified in the context of the digital dividend. Various countries outside Europe are currently assessing the future use of the digital dividend for new services including mobile multimedia services. This is particularly the case in Japan, Korea and the United States. In Europe, UK has identified its digital dividend to be 112 MHz. Mobile broadcasting television has already been launched in a few countries. In others, different trials and pilot tests have been carried out.

Technical elements in relation to the potential harmonisation of a sub-band

    Terminal design is an important issue to be considered. Antenna performance and implementation within a mobile terminal are highly dependent on the required operating frequency bandwidth. In general, narrowband antenna gain improvements can be expected over a bandwidth around 10% or less of the centre frequency.

    The use of filters need to be considered where mobile broadcast UHF receiver in a mobile terminal needs to be well designed since the receiver may need to co-exist and simultaneously operate with multiple other radio sources that are already integrated in the same terminal. Limiting the mobile broadcast receiving spectrum range to a narrower sub-band would allow to either increase the mobile broadcast receiver sensitivity with lower filters insertion loss if the sub-band is below 750 MHz, or to increase the possible operating frequency for mobile broadcast beyond the current limit of 750 MHz at constant filters insertion losses.

     5

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    Today, almost all products available at present for mobile broadcast have external antennas which are so far accepted by customers, however, considering the market for mobile terminals, it is expected that consumers would prefer in the future integrated antennas. Narrowband operation allows the integration of small fixed antenna in the new generation of thin phones.

    Some manufacturers are developing terminals with multiple narrow band internal antennas which are able to cover the whole UHF band, in order to have an integrated device. However, as a consequence, the devices have larger size and are more costly.

    Mobile broadcast operation over a narrow band leads to an improvement in terminals design (better antenna gain and lower filters insertion loss) which translates directly into an overall improvement in the link budget of the mobile broadcast network. This improvement in the link budget leads to an increase of coverage or alternatively to an increase in the network capacity through the implementation of better coding schemes.

    With regard to technical elements in relation to the potential harmonisation of a sub-band it should be also mentioned that the GE-06 Agreement has been optimised for digital terrestrial broadcasting using common planning criteria and parameters. Provisions contained in the GE-06 Agreement, including the interference envelope concept (Figure 4) already allow the introduction of multimedia applications

Status of the current digitalization of the Bands IV and V

    DVB-T has already been introduced in 14 European countries (see Figure 5), and other countries are planning to launch within 2007/2008.

    Successful commercial implementation of Mobile TV in the UHF band has already taken place in Italy based on a strong market push, and Finland launched DVB-H in 2006 as well. Others countries like Germany (in 2007) and Czech Republic are planning to start soon. Spain has already developed several trials and has announced that the launch of the commercial service will take place soon. Mobile broadcasting television has already been launched in a few countries. In others, different trials and pilot tests have been carried out.

    As a consequence, mobile multimedia networks in the near future are likely to use channels located in a wide range of frequencies and terminals will have to cope with this situation from the start. For the medium term, in the context of the digital dividend and the analogue switch off, narrow band operation may be envisaged for mobile broadcasting and would lead to better terminal performances. However, by that time, existing infrastructure and terminals may not benefit from this narrow band operation, since they will not be optimized for this special sub band.

Other services

    Assignments to other services having primary status in the Radio Regulations have been taken into account at RRC-06. These services include radio navigation and fixed or mobile services for military applications. In addition there are services with secondary status in the Radio Regulations in Band IV/V. There is an additional increase in demand due to the trend towards wireless solutions for the back link to the artist, such as in-ear monitors and talkback links and due to the new demand for high quality wireless microphones for HD TV content. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the use of SAB/SAP in Band IV/V is becoming more restricted since the band is more densely planned for DVB-T, leaving less room for SAB/SAP.

    Spectrum requirement for the operation of multimedia mobile networks and the effect of the harmonisation on existing layers

    Theoretically, a 32 MHz sub-band (i.e. 4 channels) would enable the deployment of mobile broadcast networks based on a 4 frequency reuse pattern and large area SFN. Such area could be a country, a region, a linguistic area, depending on the national specificity and on the need to broadcast local programs over such mobile multimedia networks, noting that other networks may also be used for such local programs (e.g., broadcasting like mobile multimedia networks, 3G networks …). The 4 channels are available inside such areas, however, when approaching the boundary, interference between different SFN networks would require frequency reuse pattern. According to the graph theory, the availability of 4 channels would guarantee the possibility to have at least one channel available at each border between countries, regions or linguistic areas.

    In frequency planning for high power broadcasting systems this theorem does not apply. At least 6 channels are normally needed to achieve full coverage. However, using cellular networks might make it possible to reach this

     6

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    lower bound or at least come close to it in multi-countries or inter service border areas. Therefore, for conventional high power broadcasting networks, it will be difficult to reach the same level of coverage within the 4 channels approach.

    If 2 channels have to be available everywhere, then 2 sub bands of 32 MHz (i.e., 64 MHz) needs to be defined. Some countries may wish to operate more than two multimedia services across their territories. This would involve a large (? 96 MHz) band dedicated for implementation of multimedia services and, as a consequence, a

    loss of the benefits of harmonization in terms of antenna gain.

    It should be noted that the above considerations may not apply to networks which would use channels narrower than 8 MHz.

Consequences in terms of cross/border coordination and GE06 Plan

    Overall the GE06 Plan has been highly optimised to provide a very intricate balance of allocations to all countries. It is also highly optimised to fit together the national requirements of all neighbours. The high level of interlocking dependencies means that any change to an assignment or an allotment characteristics (power, frequency, …) could result in consequential changes being required across several adjacent countries. The mask

    concept allowing for versatile reuse of the allocations also provides for the introduction of new applications in the future as a natural evolution without the need for a replan. All CEPT countries are signatories to Declaration 42 which allows for this flexible reuse while retaining the Plan structure as a whole. This provision means that each country already has the necessary mechanisms to allocate future resources internally without causing any additional interference beyond the existing agreements.

    In case an assignment or an allotment of the GE-06 plan is to be changed for deploying multimedia applications, Article 4 procedures of the GE06 Agreement should be applied in each single case. This would probably be necessary for a limited number of plan entry if an harmonised sub-band is explicitly reserved for a certain application. Coordination will also be necessary with GE06 Plan entries of other countries not directly involved in this re-planning.

    Furthermore, the outcome of such a re-planning process needs to ensure the same level of equitable access as the GE06-plan.

    Identifying an harmonised sub-band would create holes in some of the layers obtained at RRC-06 in countries implementing such band and would require them to accept constraints to protect and to accept interference from the GE-06 entry plans of their neighbours. It would not be possible to make up for these losses in the remaining available spectrum without significant cross-border coordination activities. CEPT considers that there should not be a new planning conference such as GE06 nor a European conference at CEPT level, so that the issues should be solved on a national or bilateral basis.

Consequences in terms of costs, affected markets and delay

    It was already recognised by the RSPG that “modifying the frequencies of existing or planned broadcasting

    services, which may make such modifications extremely difficult if not impossible.”

    Due to the ongoing digitisation throughout Europe, there are existing licences, services and many hundreds of digital stations in operation.

    In principle, there would be different categories of costs which would have to be balanced to the eventual benefits of the creation of a sub-band. Cost for re-planning, modification of antenna systems, when informing the public or in penalty clauses etc.

    In case of a harmonised allocation of a sub-band, the necessary re-planning process would most likely be complex and time-consuming.

Cost and availability of terminals

    Harmonisation of spectrum has an impact on the cost and availability of terminals. The development of multi-band terminals, resulting from a lack of harmonisation, also has an impact on the handset performance, such as more insertion loss and lower sensitivity, and on its complexity.

    Therefore, harmonisation of frequency bands used in a mobile terminal leads to economies of scale and reduces their cost.

    A wideband terminal that could cover the whole UHF band could achieve more economies of scale than a narrow band terminal, depending on the respective market in which these equipments will be used.

     7

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

    It should be noted that in case of harmonisation of a narrow sub-band, the new narrow band terminals will not be compatible with transmissions spread across the range 470 - 750 MHz.

Scenarios and approaches for the introduction of a sub-band

    Two possible scenarios for sub-band harmonisation could be envisaged, a narrow sub-band located above 750 MHz, and a narrow sub-band located below 750 MHz

    The second scenario would also ensure the backward compatibility with wide band mobile broadcast terminals that operate over the band 470 - 750 MHz as these terminals will be able to operate within the sub-band.

Two potential approaches for the implementation of mobile multimedia are:

    1. implementation based on existing GE-06 plan entries and

    2. harmonisation of a narrow sub-band.

Conclusions

    Two approaches to implement downlinks of mobile broadcast networks in the UHF-bands IV and V have been discussed in this report

    ? Approach 1: Implementation without a harmonized sub-band, based on the GE06 Plan entries

    ? Approach 2: Implementation based on a harmonized sub-band These two approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented by administrations jointly or in a different timeframes:

Approach 1

    GE-06 Agreement has de facto harmonized the entire band IV and V for all forms of broadcasting including multimedia applications. According to the GE06 Agreement on average 7 UHF layers have been allocated to each European Administration. On a national basis the flexibility is given to arrange the frequencies of the GE06 Plan such that several national layers result with assigned frequencies below a certain threshold (e.g. <750MHz) or within certain sub-band(s).

    Those layers may be assigned to mobile multimedia broadcasting services. The network structure of such mobile multimedia broadcasting services may be based on conventional (broadcasting like) or cellular like networks or on a combination of both (distributed networks).

    In European countries, the implementation of mobile multimedia broadcasting services is possible and has already started in many countries on the basis of the GE06 Plan and its provisions. Up to 7 multimedia-layers may be deployed in border areas and up to 49 SFN networks away from borders, out of range of interference.

    Depending on the outcome of bi-lateral negotiations between neighboring administrations, with regard to the transition period, an immediate implementation of mobile multimedia broadcasting services is possible.

Approach 2

    The harmonization of a narrow sub-band (up to 10% of the centre frequency) would allow an improvement of the technical characteristics of receivers (better antenna gain). As a consequence the implementation costs for networks will be reduced irrespective of the network topology.

    Harmonizing a narrow sub-band of 10% of the centre frequency (e.g. 64 MHz at 650 MHz) would enable the deployment of at least 2 SFN networks in multi-country border areas, providing successful coordination, and up to 8 SFN networks away from borders, out of range of interference.

    Receivers designed to operate in a specific sub-band will consequently not be able to receive available services operated in accordance with approach 1 outside the sub-band.

    Based on the new GE06 Plan, many licenses for digital broadcasting or mobile multimedia broadcasting services have already been granted in Europe for the next 10 to 15 years. Therefore, the European wide harmonization and implementation of a sub-band for mobile multimedia broadcasting services is not realistic before at least 2020.

     8

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

Therefore, in the near and medium term, harmonisation of a sub-band for mobile multimedia may only be

    considered on a non-mandatory basis, with countries adopting harmonised channels for mobile multimedia

    where feasible and beneficial. The harmonised sub-band would need to be known in a relatively short time frame.

    It may also need to be reviewed in the future, taking into account the progress of technology and service

    deployment, with a view to enable other countries to benefit from harmonisation.

Recommendations

    For the deployment of mobile multimedia applications, option 1 minimizes the impact on the current status of

    GE-06 Plan. Since this plan may evolve continuously through the application of its modification procedure, it is

    possible for it to evolve towards a harmonised sub-band for mobile multimedia applications.

List of Terms (Abbreviations)

    Band III VHF Channels 5 12 (174 230 MHz) Band IV UHF Channels 21 34 (470 582 MHz) Band V UHF Channels 35 69 (582 862 MHz) DVB-H Digital Video Broadcasting to Handheld DVB-T Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial EBU European Broadcasting Union

    ERP Effective Radiated Power

    ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute FLO Forward Link Only

    GE06 The Geneva 2006 Agreement and Plan HSDPA High Speed Downlink Packet Access ITU International Telecommunications Union ITU-R ITU Radiocommunication sector MBMS Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Service RPC Reference Planning Configuration SAP/SAB Services Ancillary to Broadcasting and Programme making

    SFN Single Frequency Network

    T-DAB Terrestrial Digital Audio Broadcasting T-DMB Terrestrial Digital Multimedia Broadcasting VHF Very High Frequency

    WCDMA Wideband Code Division Multiple Access WiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

     9

    CEPT Report 21

    1 July 2008

1 INTRODUCTION

    The Geneva 2006 (GE06) Agreement [1] establishes a Plan containing frequency allotments and assignments for the transmission of DVB-T and T-DAB services in Band III (174 - 230 MHz) and DVB-T services in Bands IV/V (470 - 862 MHz) as well as other primary services.

    Flexibility is an integral part of GE06. In other words, the Plan does permit assigned frequencies (digital entries) to be used for implementing broadcasting services with different characteristics or other applications, provided the interference and the protection requirement are kept within the envelope of the corresponding entry in the Plan. An administration can modify its entries in the Plan by applying the provisions of Article 4 of the GE06 Agreement.

    “Hybrids” of traditional broadcast and mobile multimedia applications, are considered as promising candidates

    for mobile multimedia broadcasting applications. For example, the development of the Digital Video Broadcasting to Handheld (DVB-H) standard makes it possible to deliver live broadcast television to a mobile handheld device. Although these mobile multimedia broadcasting technologies may use the same frequency spectrum as DVB-T, they are likely to require dedicated networks.

    These networks will be designed taking into account that reception on a handheld device requires higher field strength values compared to fixed DVB-T reception in order to compensate for the low antenna gain, lower receiving height and, when indoor operation is targeted, building penetration loss.

    This preliminary report describes compatibility issues that may appear between DVB-T and multimedia broadcasting type networks due to differences in received field strength when using non-co-sited transmitters in adjacent channels and beyond, and proposes solutions to overcome these conflicts.

    Throughout the Report mobile multimedia broadcasting services or applications are understood as high field-strength downlink services, e.g. no up-link is included in the present considerations.

    It is acknowledged that mobile multimedia services can be provided by various systems, such as DVB-T, DVB-H, T-DMB, FLO, WiMAX, WCDMA/HSDPA, MBMS or other cellular services. These services may require high downlink field strengths, potentially causing problems within DVB-T services using adjacent channels. A key issue is the large difference in field strength requirements between a DVB-T service and an interfering mobile multimedia application. The conclusions of the studies on DVB-H networks in this Report are, therefore, also valid for other mobile multimedia services using high field strength downlinks. However, the differences in transmission masks between different systems will need to be taken into account.

    The report also broadly distinguishes between two different types of mobile multimedia networks: networks based on existing TV sites, using high tower and high power transmission (i.e., broadcasting like), and large area SFN networks using also low power and dense transmitters (i.e., cellular like).

    2 MANDATE TO CEPT

    Having considered the RSPG opinion on multimedia services [2], EC mandated CEPT to carry out activities relating to harmonization options for the digital dividend, in particular to study:

    ? the practical coexistence between high and low power density networks (i.e. co-existence of RPC-1 and

    RPC-2/3 configurations) in adjacent channels;

    ? the possibility of harmonising at EU level a sub-band for multimedia applications, minimising the

    impact on the GE-06 plan. This Report has been developed by the European Conference of Postal and

    Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) in response to these two above elements of the mandate.

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com