Minutes of the fifth meeting of the 450-470 MHz Band Realignment project industry working group held on the 4th October 2000 at Kingsgate House

Those Present

Glenn Everett
Derek Baker
Adrian Noad
Tim Cull (summary notes)
Keith Jones
David Priestley
Michael Thilo
Alan Hudson
Michael Brookes
Stephen Limb

Apologies:

Richard Greenleaf (contribution made by email in advance), David Tripp, Derek Banner, Adrian Grilli

Minutes

Stephen Limb informed the group that Mike Purdom was no longer assisting the group. Thus assistance was needed until a replacement could be identified.

John Winterburn has withdrawn from the group.

The meeting had no formal agenda as only one item was to be discussed. The attention of the group was drawn towards Richard Greenleaf's comments on the questionnaire.

Analysis of Questionnaire

The comments from RG were examined and received general acceptance.

GE introduced version 2. It appears some confusion arose on parts of the questionnaire. Thus GE encouraged the group to analyse the content of the questions.

Points on the Rev 2 Text

a. Rev 2 refers to pagers only, this was accepted but these were only example questionnaires.
b. Should not offer money from the outset
c. Q14, should we ask when they wish to purchase the equipment? However the customers may not know.
d. Q22, This is a very important question for operators. However, it may not be appropriate to include compensation in this questionnaire but handle the matter independently.
e. Q17 & 21, Possibility of confusion between the two questions. Although they are similar questions it is expected that the results will be different..
f. It was agreed that filling in the questionnaire took less than 15 minutes however the research to answer the questions deemed difficult.

This analysis on a question by question basis was interrupted by a discussion of general principles.

Agreements on General Principles

1. The questionnaire should be re-organised into a general section with specific sections dealing with specific systems. Although this means a more complicated form it was agreed it would be much easier for respondents to use.
2. The questionnaire should focus on smaller users and address the biggest organisations through individual arrangements. Thus the questionnaire should include means for identifying big users that are not otherwise known to the agency or other associations.
3. An examination of public data was conducted and by discussion it became clear that systems of value above £100,000 (which very roughly corresponds to fleets of 250 PMR units for example) could be considered as big users. There is only a small number of users of this size. The RA considered this was manageable.
4. The LPRA noted that locating the users may be difficult as they operate licence exempt. The RA was offered assistance in this regard by the LPRA.
5. There is a concern that, though misunderstanding, an operator will devise a re-tuning plan which relies on a second radio system. This is also changing. This should be identified in the questionnaire and thereby avoided if possible.
6. The respondent will have to consult the equipment provider in many cases to be able to answer the questions.
7. Following extensive discussion it was resolved that, in the absence of better information, the size of the allocations for the various services in the new plan would be the same as currently. This does not preclude the introduction of new technologies into those services. Arrangements will be made to facilitate this. Spectrum coming available as a result of this re-alignment will be allocated to services in accordance with the new regulatory environment (technological independence and co-existence etc).
8. Answers are to be treated in confidence.

Overall Conclusion

On the basis of the above it was concluded that the reason for the questionnaire was to determine the difficulty of implementing the band realignment The arrangement of the new spectrum plan was considered a separate matter.

The possibility of flexibility in the date of the re-tuning of systems in individual cases could lead to interference lasting for longer periods than would otherwise be the case.

This leads to a statement of policy

Policy

a. RA will send questionnaire to everyone on the licence database.
b. Questionnaire should note that SMOs will contact their member organisations and those organisations should reply to SMOs on matters strictly relevant to those SMOs.
c. SMOs should contact their users to request an appropriate response
d. SMOs co-ordinate the answers and send them back to the RA.
e. Big users should respond on all matters including systems operating in a context outside any SMO (if they have any).

Specific Areas of Interest

The meeting identified the following specific areas

1. Private Paging
2. Public Paging
3. Telemetry
4. On-site PMR
5. Wide Area PMR
6. Programme Making and Special Events (SAB)
7. Residual Home Office Use (possible special case)
8. CAA Ground Movement
9. Public Mobile Data
10. British Rail Secure Data (possible big user rather than a specific type)

Revisions to the Questionnaire

The meeting undertook a detailed examination and revision of the entire questionnaire. See attached.

It was proposed that the roadshow would be a good occasion to put the questionnaire on trial.

Timing Flexibility

It was confirmed that early changeover to the new band plan can be accommodated on a case by case basis already. This facility will be available to users throughout the process.

Actions - TO BE COMPLETED by 11th October (except (2))

1. MB/DP to provide a paper on managed, deregulated bands
2. SL to provide a decision whether LPDs need to move at all
3. TC to re-write questionnaire for comment (See attached)
4. All to attempt sector specific questions for questionnaire
5. KJ to write a paper on relevant regulation

Contacts

RA informed the group that the format for RA email addresses has changed. They are now of the form:

firstname.lastname@ra.gsi.gov.uk

Date of next meeting

Set for 13 Dec 2000 at 11:00. Place to be advised.