Eighth Meeting Of The Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Technical Sub Group Held At Wyndham House On 3 November 2000

Barry Lewis Chairman RA

Barry Goodyear RA

Peter Jessup Acting Secretary RA

List of all those present in Annex A

1. Apologies

Dave McKone(Norweb Telecom), Phil Whitehead (Radiant Networks), Mike Crowther (Kingston Communications), John Wood (P-Com), Peter Scrope (Tele2 UK), Steven Lowe (Broadband Wireless Association and Eurobell), Jim Nixon (RA), Nicola Watts (RA)

Some last minute changes to the Agenda (ie rev 1) were made as a result of the 42.5-43.5 GHz – BFWA/Radio-Astronomy presentation being postponed by Transfinite.

2. Minutes of the Seventh Meeting (BFWAtg(00)48

A BFWAtg Member raised the following two points regarding corrections to the minutes of the last meeting:

It was Mr Goodyear that had announced RFI had been confirmed as a UK notified body to test antennas, and not Mr Nixon.

Also, there was no mention of the NFAP in the minutes. Therefore, the associated action point that was raised regarding the NFAP could not been taken. Mr Lewis added that section 3.3 of the Information Memorandum does recommend co-ordination of Access Point Transceivers through the NFAP. This is desirable if assignments are to be protected especially in a band that is shared with other radio services.

2.1 Matters Arising

BFWAtg Members agreed that finding out the 3G approach to guardbands for mobile operators seem irrelevant now. ACTION: Deleted

The effect of using an I/N of –6dB or –10 dB was examined by Aegis. Mr Lewis said that ITU 758-2 referred to both I/N of –6dB and –10 dB and that they were both suggested as a tolerable interference threshold for long term interference into fixed services. (N = receiver thermal noise floor). ACTION: Complete

This action point is outstanding and considering recent developments in CEPT FM34 suggested that it be broadened more generally to address possible HDFSS developments and their impact on the 40GHz band. The meeting agreed with this approach. ACTION: B.Lewis to update group on FM34 issues.

2.2 NFAP Issues

In reply to a question, Mr Lewis explained that operators will be required to register their base stations with the NFAP via the Agency. Mr Lewis explained that the NFAP provides "protection" of the frequency assignment against other services.

There is also a requirement to be registered on the Agency’s Radiocommunications Unified Licensing Executive System (RULES) system too. Some investigation will be needed to minimise the bureaucratic and administration issues affecting deployment. In a Point-to-Multipoint system, the base-station, not the terminal station will need to be registered. Mesh systems will need some thought.

Mr Goodyear said that by registering the base-station, this clears the area covered by the base-station for terminal stations. Hence there is no need to register every terminal station.

One member sought clarification on what NFAP is for and who is on the NFAP board. Mr Lewis explained that this issue is more relevant to the licence holders, once we know who they are. This procedure for registering equipment is the same as the procedure for other radio systems.

Mr Lewis thanked members for the comments regarding the Draft ERC Recommendation on the use of the band 24.5 – 26.5 GHz for Fixed Wireless Access, and stated that these had been channelled through the Agency SE19/SE co-ordinator.

With regard to the 28GHz ERC Decision on use of the band by FS and FSS systems, this decision had been approved at the ERC level unamended.

3. Interface Requirement for 28 GHz (BFWAtg(00)42 Rev 2

Mr Jessup explained the action regarding the Interface Requirement had been completed. The document had been sent to BFWAtg Members by correspondence and then forwarded to Mr Fenton for approval by the Commission.

Mr Goodyear explained that a block of interface requirements has been submitted to the Commission and they were all returned due to reference to TBR and MPT specifications. The whole batch had been returned. The turn around time for Interface Requirements is in the region of three months. But some have taken longer.

A BFWAtg Member said that Germany had their IR rejected because of reference to receiver and antenna parameters. If we need to wait three months for IR approval, then what interim solution could be used on a temporary basis? How will RA address this? Mr Lewis said that since the content of the Interface Requirement was "well known" and reflected established ETSI standards, a draft IR should not be a block to deployment. Interest was expressed in feedback from members on the matters being addressed by Germany. ACTION: A BFWAtg Member agreed to provide feedback on the issues in Germany

BFWAtg Member asked why the IR "assumed" certain equipment parameters were fulfilled. Mr Lewis explained that we cannot insist equipment meets the voluntary ETSI specifications. However, we have assumed that equipment conforms to the specification as a basis for establishing workable and effective coexistence guidelines. The philosophy being that if equipment is not in accordance with the "non-essential" parameters of the voluntary ETSI standard then its ability to work within the coexistence guidelines may need examination. It is a licence condition that operators respect the inter-operator co-ordination procedures. Paragraph 2.7 of the IR explains this.

A member asked how the operator demonstrates compliance with the Directive. Mr Lewis said that there was no need to demonstrate "compliance" in the type approval sense with the R&TTE Directive, however, it was an operator’s responsibility to ensure they meet their licence conditions, which include respecting the inter-operator co-existence guidelines and cause minimal interference.

A BFWAtg Member said that the Directive should be implemented equally across administrations. Mr Lewis said that if evidence was available to support these concerns then he undertook to find the appropriate body as the issue was outside the scope of the BFWAtg. ACTION: A BFWAtg Member agreed to collate the required evidence.

BFWAtg Member asked for a more explicit statement in the IR regarding TDD systems. Although it was agreed that the Interface Requirement was explicit with regard to TDD in the tables, it was not very explicit in paragraph 2.2. Mr Lewis agreed if the IR was rejected, then paragraph 2.2 should be modified accordingly.

Alternatively, BFWAtg Members also agreed that there is some benefit in making the IR very general, but only being explicit when excluding parameters.

Mr Lewis confirmed that the IR applied to mesh systems too.

4. 42.5-43.5 GHz – BFWA/Radio-Astronomy (ITEM DELETED)

The chairman undertook to make the final report on this topic available to members once finally approved. A presentation is still scheduled for a future BFWAtg.

5. Inter-operator Co-ordination Guidelines (BFWAtg(00)47 Rev 1)

Mr Lewis went through the Co-ordination guidelines with BFWAtg Members. The origins of new text were highlighted and some editorial points were discussed during the pass through the draft. Two interesting points were raised. The first concerns a time percentage that should be associated with boundary pfd calculation. This issue requires further examination. Secondly some discussion was had over the issue of an "adjacent area/adjacent frequency block" interference scenario. Members could not agree whether this was an issue or not. Further consideration was needed

BFWAtg Members agreed that the draft document for co-existence guidelines is headed in the right direction. Mr Lewis announced that we should continue with the document adding summaries of work from IEEE, CEPT, etc to complete it. This can be done through correspondence.

Mr Lewis led BFWAtg members through the various documents and no substantive comments.

Doc 50 – SE19 contribution proposing an ERC Recommendation for FWA in the 28GHz band.

Docs 51, 14r3 and 8r1 – referring to 40GHz frequency plans and MWS standard.

Doc 49 – WG-SE extract referring to the conclusions of the 26/28GHz co-existence report and associated Recommendation.

7. AOB, DONM

A date for the next meeting was not set. It was decided there was no need to have future meetings until after the next Consultative Group whose date was not yet known.

Annex A

Top