National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part ... · 1.3.3 The European Union The...

National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part 4

Risk analysis

Final report to Ofcom

March 2004

Contributors: Chris Davis John Berry Charles Chambers Nick Kirkman

Quotient Associates Limited ATDI LimitedPO Box 716 15 Kingsland CourtComberton Three Bridges Road, CrawleyCambridge, CB3 7UW West Sussex, RH10 1HL

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]: www.QuotientAssociates.com Web: www.atdi.co.uk

National Autonomy – Risk analysis Contents

CONTENTS Page

1. Introduction .........................................................................................................11.1 Methodology ...........................................................................................11.2 Identifying potential changes ..................................................................21.3 On-going changes in spectrum management .........................................3

2. Risk assessment.................................................................................................52.1 Classification of total risk ........................................................................52.2 Summary of assessed risks ....................................................................6

3. Results and conclusions .....................................................................................83.1 The level of risk.......................................................................................83.2 Sources of risk ........................................................................................93.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................10

4. Annex A ............................................................................................................12

Quotient/report/qa0324 i

© 2004. Hard copies or higher resolution versions of the documents are available on application to the Ofcom ContactCentre, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA.

National Autonomy – Risk analysis Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

The overall objective of the National Autonomy study is to develop an understanding of the extent to which it would be feasible for the UK to make use of spectrum autonomously whilst still behaving responsibly towards its neighbours and meeting itsinternational treaty obligations. Part 1 of the project analysed several potential examples of autonomous1 use covering a range of frequency bands, applications andregulatory regimes.

The objective of Part 4 of the project, reported here, is to assess the risk that futureautonomous use of spectrum in the UK could be compromised by changes in theregulatory environment. Such changes could result from actions at the international level (ITU-R), the European level (EU, CEPT) or at the national level by the UK’sneighbours. Of course there would be other risks to autonomous use of spectrum suchas the availability of suitable equipment, the lack of a market for the service provided orobsolescence due the development of a superior technology, or it may turn out to beimpossible to reach a suitable agreement with the neighbouring administration or spectrum user. However, these risks would either be solved in advance of anassignment for autonomous use, or would be risks that the spectrum user would be expected to understand and accept. Therefore they are not considered here.

It should be noted that the examples of autonomous use (the scenarios) referred toin this report have been developed solely for the purposes of this study. They in noway reflect the views, plans or expectations of Ofcom and no inferences can bedrawn from their inclusion here.

1.1 Methodology

In assessing the overall risk that there might be to autonomous use of a particular piece of spectrum it is necessary to take account of both the probability of a changeoccurring and the impact that the change would have on the spectrum user. Ourapproach in assessing the overall risk is to:

��Identify changes to the regulatory environment that could occur and the likelihoodof occurrence;

1The study considers varying degrees of autonomy. These range from the use of non-standardised

technologies to the operation of services outside the ITU-R Frequency Allocation Table on a nointerference, no protection basis although the focus is on the lesser degrees of autonomy. The results from Part 1 are given in the report, National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part 1: Technicaloptions.

Quotient/report/qa0324 1



��Assess the impact that the change would have on the spectrum user;

��For each change to assess the overall risk by multiplying the likelihood of occurrence by the impact on the user;

��Sum the scores for each change to obtain an overall measure of risk for eachscenario.

This analysis is summarised in Chapter 2 and detailed in Annex A. The result is anoverall risk “score” for each of the 13 scenarios developed and analysed in Part 1 of the project. The set of overall risk scores is then used to:

��Identify any correlations between risk and other attributes of autonomous use. Inparticular we look for correlation between risk and the degree of autonomyinvolved, the application or service, and the frequency concerned. The purpose is to identify what types of autonomy would be relatively low risk, and what typeswould be relatively high risk;

��Assess the overall level of risk to a programme of autonomous spectrumassignments. This assessment will be based on assumptions as to future events and will therefore be approximate. Nevertheless, it is expected to provide a usefulindicator of the risks associated with autonomous spectrum use.

For the purpose of this exercise, potential changes will be considered over a timeperiod of 10 to 15 years, this being the time span over which a piece of spectrum mightbe selected and assigned for autonomous use and give time for the associatedbusiness to make a return on its investment.

1.2 Identifying potential changes

Spectrum management practices have evolved considerably over the past decade, andsignificant further changes are planned or under active consideration both in the UK and by neighbouring administrations. These plans and debates are clearly useful indicators of potential future changes, and were therefore reviewed at the start of thiswork. A brief summary is given in the following section. In addition, the Study teamexamined:

��The agendas for WRC-07 and WRC-10;

��The programmes of work of the EU Radio Spectrum Policy Group and the Radio Spectrum Committee;

��EU research programmes (under the Information Society Technologiesprogramme);




��Ofcom’s programme responding to the Independent Review of Radio Spectrum Management.

Potential changes of relevance to future autonomous use of the spectrum were then identified through a two step process.

��A Study team brainstorm was used to generate a range of potential changes covering all scenarios analysed in Part 1 of the project;

��A Workshop was held with the Ofcom project Steering Group to review the ideas already generated, to identify additional potential changes, and to assess thelikelihood of each change taking place.

1.3 On-going changes in spectrum management

1.3.1 The introduction of market mechanisms

Market mechanisms have already been introduced into spectrum assignment andlicensing through spectrum auctions and administrative incentive pricing, in the UK andelsewhere in Europe. A further development of the market approach, transferablespectrum rights, is currently being discussed with a view to its possible introduction. This has the potential to give rise to changes that could compromise autonomousspectrum usage within the UK.

Spectrum trading within a neighbouring country would permit a spectrum owner to sellhis spectrum, in whole or in part, to a third party. Depending upon the rights associatedwith the spectrum concerned, the new owner might deploy new technology or, potentially, a new application. Such a change could take place at short notice and lead to a change to the cross border environment in which the UK spectrum user had been operating. For example, a UK spectrum user operating on a no interference, noprotection basis could find their operations disrupted by higher levels of interference from across the border. Furthermore, sales of subsets of an assignment could result inspectrum fragmentation and require a UK-based spectrum user to co-ordinate in adifferent way with each new spectrum user in a neighbouring country, depending upontheir application or technology.

1.3.2 The Commons approach

In this approach anyone is permitted to make use of a particular band or bands ofspectrum. As with some of the current licence exempt assignments, rules on thetechnology or protocols to be used may be imposed in order to ensure reasonablyequitable sharing of the spectrum between users.




Should this approach gain enough support, it is possible that further tranches of spectrum could be assigned for licence exempt use on a European or an internationalbasis. This has the potential to change the cross border environment although,typically, radiated powers would be low and cross border issues would be expected tobe minor. More importantly, and if widely adopted, the result could be the uncontrolledimport and use of equipment in a band used for an autonomous (but licensed)application in the UK with the clear potential to cause disruptive interference.

1.3.3 The European Union

The recent EU Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/EC) established a policy and legalframework in the EU for the co-ordination of radio spectrum policy approaches. In linewith this the Commission has established both the Radio Spectrum Policy Group andthe Radio Spectrum Committee. The remit of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group is to provide policy and strategic advice radio spectrum policy issues, on co-ordination ofpolicy approaches and on harmonised conditions with regard to the availability andefficient use of radio spectrum. The role of the Radio Spectrum Committee is torecommend and adopt technical measures necessary for the implementation of EU policies. Where appropriate these measures are to be developed in cooperation withthe CEPT.

Thus, it is likely that the EU will continue and indeed expand its activities in the area of spectrum harmonisation. Clearly, the identification of additional spectrum for harmonised applications (depending on the precise legal process adopted in each case) and the reassignment of existing harmonised bands at the end of the effectivelife of their current application has the potential to constrain the UK’s freedom to assignspectrum for autonomous use.



National Autonomy – Risk analysis Risk assessment

2. RISK ASSESSMENT

The analysis of the potential changes, their likelihood and possible impact on the autonomous spectrum user are detailed in Annex A.

Each potential change was classified into one of four classes of likelihood, Veryunlikely, Small, Medium or High, with a corresponding score of 0 to 3 respectively.Similarly, the possible impact on the spectrum user was classified into one of fourclasses: None, Small, Medium or Large again with a corresponding score of 0 to 3 respectively. Each change could therefore contribute a “risk score” of between 0 and 9, with a score of 9 corresponding to a high likelihood of a change occurring that wouldhave a major negative impact on the spectrum user. The total risk score for eachscenario was determined by summing the risk scores for all the applicable changes.

We note that spectrum which is little used or for which there is no obvious near term demand is a potential candidate for a change of use nationally, internationally or on aEuropean basis. There is, therefore, a higher risk of a change within such bands.Where appropriate this general risk of change has been included in the riskassessment for the corresponding scenario.

2.1 Classification of total risk

The total risk scores range from two to twenty four. For the purposes of analysis it is helpful to group the scenarios into a smaller set of risk classifications. These werederived as follows.

��First, we consider the situation in which a band of spectrum has been identified assuitable for some autonomous usage but for which there is a high probability of afuture change with a large, negative impact. In this case, a potential spectrum user would likely consider investment in a business that relied on access to the band to be high risk. If there were two such potential high risk changes, autonomous use ofthe band would most probably be considered untenable. The first case correspondsto a risk score of 9 and the second to a score of 18.

��Secondly, we consider the situation in which there are a small number of potential changes but each has a low probability of occurrence and each would have a small impact on the autonomous user. In this case, the potential spectrum user would likely consider the risk acceptable. This would correspond to a risk score of aroundfour.

Taken together this suggests that the total risk scores be classified as follows.




Score Classification

In excess of 14 Very high risk

9 or higher High risk

5 or higher Medium risk

4 or less Low risk

Table 2.1: Classification of the total risk scorefor each scenario.

2.2 Summary of assessed risks

Based on the above classification, the risk assessments detailed in Annex A aresummarised in the table below.

No. Scenario Total risk score

Riskclassification

1 Community sound broadcasting on HF Public Correspondence channels

3 Low

2 Local VHF sound broadcasting in the 66 to 87.5 MHz mobile band

4 Low

3 Digital wide band PMR with digital TV in Band III (200 MHz)

11 High

4 Unrestricted wide band PMR in the 450 - 470 MHz band with narrow band in France

2 Low

5 UTRA TDD in spare DVB-T channels (500 MHz) 11 High

6 Fixed wireless access in 900 MHz TETRA band 12 High

7 Re-farming of GSM spectrum to UTRA (900 MHz & 1800 MHz)

7 Medium

8 Terrestrial DAB local radio at 1800 MHz 18 Very high

9 Part of 1800 MHz band reallocated to fixed links 24 Very high

10 Portable Wireless DSL in the 2010 - 2020 MHz IMT-2000 band

17 Very high




No. Scenario Total risk score

Riskclassification

11 Use of 2.7 - 2.9 GHz Aeronautical band for fixed links

3 Low

12 FWA spectrum used for OB links (3.5 GHz) 13 High

13 Disregard technical standards and channelplans for terrestrial fixed services at 32 GHz

8 Medium

Table 2.2: The total risks assessed for each scenario.

Note that scenarios 1, 9 and 11 in the above list are considered unlikely to be practical in the light of potential cross border interference problems2. They are included in thetable for completeness but will not be considered further.

2 See the report, National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part 1: Technical options.



National Autonomy – Risk analysis Results and conclusions

3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 The level of risk

The number of scenarios that fall into each of the four different risk classifications isshown in Figure 3.1. Although the classifications are of necessity approximate, theresults show that:

��A useful proportion of the scenarios (40%) would be subject to a relatively small risk of disruptive future changes;

��However, the practicality of 60% of the scenarios could be called into doubt by thelikelihood that future changes could seriously disrupt any assignment toautonomous use.

0

1

2

3

4

Low Medium High Very high

Figure 3.1: The number of scenarios assessed at each of the fourdifferent levels of risk.

Figure 3.2 demonstrates the correspondence between the level of risk assessed foreach scenario and the degree of autonomy involved. This suggests a degree ofcorrelation between the two with the greater risk being associated with larger degrees of autonomy. The number of samples, however, is small and given the variety ofchanges that can contribute to the risk (as identified in Table 4.1) any correlation would be expected to be weak.

The results were also examined for correlation between the level of risk and the applications involved, and between the level of risk and the severity of thecorresponding cross border restrictions. No useful correlations were identified.

Overall, we conclude that future regulatory changes could have a significant negative impact on autonomous use of spectrum by the UK. The level of risk can vary from lowto very high and will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.




UTRA/DVB-T (5)

Change of

technology /

relaxed stds

Change within

Region 1 FAT

Change outside

Region 1 FAT

FWA/TETRA (6)

OB/FWA (12)

T-DAB/GSM (8)

PMR/TV (3)

PMR/PMR (4)

UTRA/GSM (7)

FS stds (13)

PWDSL/UTRA (10)

Radio/PMR (2)

Very high

High

Medium

Low

UTRA/DVB-T (5)UTRA/DVB-T (5)

Change of

technology /

relaxed stds

Change within

Region 1 FAT

Change outside

Region 1 FAT

FWA/TETRA (6)

OB/FWA (12)

FWA/TETRA (6)

OB/FWA (12)

T-DAB/GSM (8) T-DAB/GSM (8)

PMR/TV (3)PMR/TV (3)

PMR/PMR (4)PMR/PMR (4)

UTRA/GSM (7)

FS stds (13)

UTRA/GSM (7)

FS stds (13)

PWDSL/UTRA (10)PWDSL/UTRA (10)

Radio/PMR (2)Radio/PMR (2)

Very high

High

Medium

Low

Figure 3.2: The level of assessed risk (vertical axis) is shown foreach scenario as a function of the degree of autonomy

3. Each

scenario is identified by the technologies involved and the scenario number (corresponding to that given in Table 2.2).

3.2 Sources of risk

The risks considered here arise from the potential for future changes in the regulatoryenvironment to compromise the utility of autonomous spectrum assignments. Suchchanges may come about as a result of decisions at the international level (ITU-R), atthe European level (EU, ECC/CEPT), or at the national level by the UK’s neighbours.Figure 3.3 shows how the changes, identified in the analysis in the previous chapter(see Table 2.2), breakdown into the three levels. Both the number of potential changesand the contribution to the total risk score are given.

The results show that the number of changes and the consequential risk are most likely to arise from actions at the European level or at the national level by our neighbours.To minimise such risks to any autonomous assignments by the UK, it would be prudent to consider:

3 In line with Part 1 of the study the scenarios have been grouped into three levels of autonomy. The first

covers a change of technology or a relaxed adherence to technical standards whilst maintainingconformance to harmonised applications. The second encompasses a change of application or service in conformance with the ITU-R Frequency Allocation Table for Region 1. The third covers changes outsidethe Frequency Allocation Table and operation under Article 4.4 of the Radio Regulations.




��Seeking agreement to the change within the appropriate European bodies or withneighbours as appropriate;

��Registration of station assignments made under a primary or secondary allocationwith the ITU Radiocommunications Bureau.

ITU-REurope

Neighbours

No of changes

Risk score0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 3.3: The number of potential changes to the regulatoryenvironment, and their cumulative contribution to the total risk score, broken down according to the presumed source ofchange.

3.3 Conclusion

The results from this part of the National Autonomy study show that there are risks toautonomous use of the spectrum that will arise from changes to the regulatoryenvironment at international, European and national levels. The level of risk for anyindividual autonomous assignment can vary from minor to very high, and a separate assessment will be necessary in each case. It is likely that the level of risk will requireserious consideration (high or very high in the classification used here) by the potential spectrum users in around 60% of cases. In addition, it should be noted that:

��The likelihood of a high level of risk may be less for autonomous use whichinvolves a change of technology or the relaxation of adherence to technical standards but maintains conformance to harmonised applications. Even here,however, high levels of risk are expected to arise in some cases;

��Spectrum which is either little used or where there will be a major future change(such as a step change of technology or wide spread closure of networks) is more likely to be subject to a change in its regulatory status. Consequently, autonomoususe of such spectrum is more likely to be at risk from such future changes.




There are opportunities to reduce the level of risk and the following are recommendedfor consideration:

��Preference should be given to spectrum which is already widely used in Europe for applications that are expected to remain stable for some years;

��Agreement to the intended change by the UK should be sought within theappropriate European bodies or with the UK’s neighbours wherever practical;

��Consideration should be given to the registration with the ITURadiocommunications Bureau of stations within an autonomous assignment wherethe use falls under a primary or secondary allocation.



National Autonomy – Risk analysis Annex A

4. ANNEX A

The following table lists all the potential changes identified for each scenario and thepotential impact on the autonomous spectrum user. The right hand columns give theassessed risk score for each change and the total risk score for each scenario.



National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

1C

om

munity

sound

bro

ad

castin

g o

n H

F P

ub

licC

orr

esp

on

de

nce c

ha

nn

els

Outs

ide F

AT

there

fore

on

NIN

P b

asis

ITU

-R s

tudie

s c

om

e u

pw

ith

an

alte

rnative

use

. V

ery

un

like

ly(w

ithin

tim

escale

s)

Co

uld

pre

ve

nt

or

de

gra

de

au

ton

om

ous u

se

in U

K.

La

rge

Th

is a

pp

licatio

n is

no

tse

en

as v

iab

le,

the

refo

re t

here

is

no

ris

k o

f it b

ein

gcom

pro

mis

ed

03

Aneig

hbour

reassig

ns for

PC

use

V

ery

un

like

lyW

ould

cause a

nd s

uffer

inte

rfe

rence

Larg

e0

Aneig

hbour

reassig

ns

fre

qu

encie

s fo

re

g s

ho

rtra

nge tele

metr

y

Very

un

like

lyS

mall

due t

o low

pow

er

Sm

all

0

CE

PT

recom

mends n

ew

sta

nd

ard

fo

r e

ma

il in

PC

ch

an

ne

ls

Lo

wC

ou

ld p

reve

nt

or

de

gra

de

au

ton

om

ous u

se

in U

K.

Larg

e3

2LocalV

HF

sound

bro

adcasting

in the 6

6 t

o88 M

Hz m

obile

band

Outs

ide F

AT

and E

CA

T

the

refo

re u

se

d o

n a

NIN

P

ba

sis

Mobile

lim

its n

ot

accepte

db

y n

eig

hb

ou

rs,

have

to

red

uce e

xp

ort

ed

em

issio

ns

by 1

0d

B

Me

diu

mS

teri

lise

d a

rea incre

ase

d t

o2

5,0

00 k

m2 a

nd/o

ru

se

dire

ctio

na

l a

nte

nn

a

Mediu

m4

4

No

use

fou

nd f

or

up lin

kband

Mediu

mH

alf

of fr

eed s

pectr

um

waste

dT

his

is n

ot a r

isk to

au

ton

om

ous u

se

Aneig

hbour

uses

frequencie

sfo

r F

ixed lin

ks

in lin

e w

ith

FA

T

Very

un

like

lyW

ould

cause m

ore

inte

rfe

rence in

UK

,a

nd

ne

igh

bo

ur

cou

ldcla

imp

rote

ctio

n.

Larg

e0

Continuin

gharm

onis

atio

no

f pu

blic

sa

fety

sp

ectr

um

co

uld

le

ad t

o r

edu

ce

du

sa

ge b

y s

om

e n

eig

hb

ou

rs

Mediu

mN

oim

pact

None

0

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

13

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

3D

igital w

ide b

and P

MR

with

dig

ita

l T

V in B

an

dII

I(2

00 M

Hz)

With

in F

AT

Fo

otn

ote

(exclu

din

g t

he R

epublic

of

Ire

lan

d)

an

d E

CA

T,

an

d in

lin

e w

ith

cu

rre

nt U

K /

Fra

nce M

OU

Fre

nch

de

cid

e to

co

ntin

ue

with a

nalo

gue T

V for

years

Mediu

mR

estr

ictions

would

be

sim

ilar

to c

urr

ent,

so q

uite

exte

nsiv

e b

ut

wo

uld

be

kn

ow

n a

t tim

e o

fassig

nm

ent.

Low

2

11

Aneig

hbour

auto

nom

ously

intr

od

uces

fixe

d lin

ks (

as

FA

T f

or

Regio

n 3

)

Very

un

like

lyO

uts

ide F

AT

so U

K c

an

cla

im p

rote

ctio

n f

or

exis

tin

ga

nd

fu

ture

mo

bile

insta

llations u

nder

Footn

ote

Low

0

RR

C s

ets

str

ict

limits o

n

use

for

mo

bile

ap

plic

atio

ns

(e.g

. g

ive

sp

rote

ction

on

lyto

bro

adcast usage).

Me

diu

mH

igh

er

leve

ls o

f p

rote

ctio

nw

ou

ld in

cre

ase

co

ord

inatio

n a

rea a

nd

/or

leave m

obile

assig

nm

ents

vuln

era

ble

to la

ter

DV

B-T

de

plo

ym

en

ts.

Mediu

mF

irm

and fin

al coord

ination

arr

an

ge

me

nts

co

uld

take 2

to

3 y

ea

rsto

ag

ree.

4

With

the c

ha

ng

e t

o d

igita

lte

chn

olo

gy t

he F

ren

ch

wis

hto

am

end the

agre

em

ent

to p

rote

ct

the

bo

rde

r but

the

cu

rre

nt

MO

U w

ou

ld b

e th

esta

rtin

gp

oin

t fo

r n

ego

tiation

s.

Mediu

mT

he p

rote

cte

d a

rea

inF

rance w

ould

incre

ase

Mediu

m4

Fre

nch

sw

itch

toP

MR

,cla

imco-p

rim

ary

use u

nder

Fo

otn

ote

, a

nd w

ish

top

rote

ct th

e b

ord

er.

Sm

all

The p

rote

cte

d a

rea

inF

rance w

ould

incre

ase

although the m

obile

technolo

gie

s w

ould

be

expecte

d to b

e r

easonably

com

patible

Sm

all

1

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

14

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

4U

nre

str

icte

d w

ide b

and

PM

R in the 4

50 -

470 M

Hz

ba

nd

with

narr

ow

ba

nd

in

Fra

nce

Inconfo

rmance w

ith F

AT

an

d E

CA

T b

ut

outof

line

with

EC

CR

ecom

mendations o

n t

he

intr

oduction

of

wid

e b

and

dig

ital P

MR

A n

eig

hbour

intr

oduces

fixe

d lin

ks o

n a

co

-pri

ma

ryb

asis

and

cla

im p

rote

ctio

nfr

om

futu

rein

sta

llatio

ns

Very

un

like

lyP

ote

ntia

lly s

eve

re im

pa

ct

on a

ll subsequentP

MR

de

plo

ym

en

ts in t

he

ba

nd

.

La

rge

Ch

an

ge

, o

ther

tha

n o

f th

e

techn

olo

gy,

isco

nsid

ere

dvery

un

like

ly in

th

isb

an

d.

02

Oth

er

mo

bile

tech

no

log

ies

are

deplo

yed in

neig

hbouring c

ountr

ies.

Mediu

mT

he t

echnolo

gie

s a

reexpecte

d to b

e r

easonably

com

patible

.

Sm

all

2

ITU

-R R

eg

ion

al con

fere

nce

allo

cate

s B

roa

dca

st

he

rea

s a

dd

itio

na

l co

-prim

ary

se

rvic

eto

exp

an

d a

mo

un

to

f bro

adca

st

sp

ectr

um

fo

rh

igh

ca

pacity a

ccess lin

ks.

Very

un

like

lyM

obile

and b

roadcast

technolo

gie

s w

ould

be

expecte

d to b

e r

easonably

com

patible

Sm

all/

mediu

m0

5U

TR

A T

DD

in s

pare

DV

B-

T c

hannels

(500 M

Hz)

Outs

ide F

AT

prim

ary

allo

catio

n b

etw

ee

n 4

70

-790 M

Hz b

ut

within

Footn

ote

(exclu

din

gB

elg

ium

and

the R

epublic

of Ir

ela

nd)

Bu

to

pe

rate

s a

s N

INP

Neig

hbours

decid

eto

co

ntin

ue w

ith

an

alo

gu

e T

V

for

ma

ny y

ea

rs

Me

diu

mL

ike

ly t

o le

ad t

osevere

co

nstr

ain

tso

n U

K u

sa

ge o

r re

tun

ing o

f entire

UT

RA

ne

two

rk o

nch

an

geo

ve

r to

d

igita

l T

V.

Mediu

m4

11

RR

C s

ets

str

ict

limits o

n

use

for

mo

bile

ap

plic

atio

ns

(e.g

. g

ive

sp

rote

ction

on

lyto

bro

adcast usage).

Me

diu

mH

igh

er

leve

ls o

f p

rote

ctio

nw

ou

ld in

cre

ase

co

ord

inatio

n a

rea a

nd

/or

leave m

obile

assig

nm

ents

vuln

era

ble

to la

ter

DV

B-T

de

plo

ym

en

ts.

Mediu

mF

irm

and fin

al coord

ination

arr

an

ge

me

nts

co

uld

take 2

to

3 y

ea

rsto

ag

ree

so

the

re is r

isk in

the

meantim

e.

4

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

15

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

RR

Cre

quires

sta

tion

by

sta

tio

nco

ord

inatio

n f

or

all

tra

nsm

itte

rs.

Mediu

mW

ould

constr

ain

rate

of

ne

two

rk d

eplo

ym

en

t.S

mall

2

Neig

hbours

assig

nfo

rm

ob

ile u

sa

ge w

ith

adiffe

rent

TD

D t

echnolo

gy

(eg P

WD

SL)

Sm

all

Mobile

technolo

gie

sare

expecte

d to b

e r

easonably

com

patible

.

Sm

all

1

6F

ixed w

irele

ss a

ccess in

900 M

Hz T

ET

RA

band

With

in F

AT

but

outs

ide

EC

AT

and H

arm

onis

ation

for

dig

ital P

MR

Neig

hbours

intr

oduce

fixed

links o

n a

co

-prim

ary

ba

sis

Lo

wS

ign

ific

ant

imp

act

on

subsequent

deplo

ym

ents

in N

I

Larg

e3

12

Neig

hbours

intr

oduce

bro

adcasting

on a

co-

prim

ary

ba

sis

Very

un

like

lyE

xpecte

d to b

e s

imila

r to

T

-DA

B a

t 1800 M

Hz.

Mediu

m0

Neig

hbours

assig

nth

isband to G

SM

-R

Lo

wS

imila

r to

co

-exis

ten

ce

with

TE

TR

A b

ut

limitin

gco

ve

rag

e t

o r

ailw

ays w

illm

itig

ate

the

impact.

Sm

all

1

Ne

igh

bo

urs

assig

nto

FW

AM

ed

ium

FW

Aa

nd

FW

A c

an c

o-

exis

t fr

om

ER

Cstu

die

sS

mall

2

As

a b

an

d w

ith

little c

urr

en

tu

sa

ge a

nd p

ote

ntia

lly lo

wfu

ture

usa

ge it

is a

p

ote

ntia

l ca

nd

ida

tefo

rh

arm

on

isatio

n t

o m

ee

ta

futu

re n

ee

d.

Hig

hIm

pact depends u

pon

the

applic

ation.

Mediu

m6

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

16

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

7R

e-f

arm

ing o

f G

SM

spectr

um

to U

TR

A (

900

MH

z &

18

00 M

Hz)

Inco

nfo

rmity w

ith

FA

T a

nd

E

CA

T b

ut

pote

ntia

lly o

ut

of

line w

ith E

CC

H

arm

on

isatio

n in

itia

tive

s

Th

e F

ren

ch d

o n

otre

mo

ve

the lim

ited n

um

ber

offixed

links in

the

1800 M

Hz b

and

Low

Gre

ate

r chance o

f conflic

t w

ith U

K U

TR

A b

ase

sta

tions b

ut

UK

opera

tor

will

als

o h

ave

at

least

2U

TR

A F

DD

carr

iers

Sm

all

17

EU

mandate

sth

atall

mobile

lic

ences b

em

ade

techn

olo

gy n

eu

tra

la

nd

som

e n

eig

hbouring

opera

tors

deplo

y T

DD

syste

ms

Mediu

mW

e c

an e

xpect

agre

em

ent

on

measure

s to p

rote

ct

exis

ting F

DD

mobile

syste

ms (

GS

M o

r U

TR

A)

Sm

all

2

Mobile

opera

tors

in F

rance

de

plo

y D

VB

-T t

o p

rovid

eh

igh

ca

pacity m

ob

ile d

ow

nlin

k s

erv

ices

Low

DV

B-T

would

be r

ela

tively

low

po

we

r a

nd

de

sig

ne

dto

fit in

with

a m

ob

ilen

etw

ork

,so

the e

ffect

wo

uld

be

expecte

d to b

e s

mall.

Sm

all

1

Part

sofspectr

um

are

de

sig

nate

d f

or

DV

B-T

retu

rn c

ha

nn

els

.

Sm

all

Re

turn

ch

ann

el lik

ely

to

be

lo

w p

ow

er

an

d n

arr

ow

band im

ply

ing a

sm

all

impact

on U

TR

A.

Sm

all

1

EU

Directive o

rders

2G

Hz

ba

nd

to b

e u

se

d f

irst

for

3G

Very

un

like

lyP

ossib

le r

eb

an

din

g o

f a

lle

qu

ipm

en

t to

2G

Hz.

Larg

e0

Atth

e t

ime o

fth

e c

losu

reofG

SM

netw

ork

s u

se o

fth

e b

an

ds fo

ro

the

ra

pp

licatio

ns b

eco

me

sa

po

ssib

ility

in

ne

igh

bo

urin

gco

untr

ies.

Mediu

mT

he im

pact

would

depend

on

th

e a

pp

lica

tio

n b

utth

ein

tro

ductio

n o

f a

new

ap

plic

atio

n w

ou

ld t

ake

a

cco

un

t of

exis

tin

go

pe

ration

s.

Sm

all

2

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

17

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

8T

err

estr

ial D

AB

local ra

dio

at

18

00

MH

zO

uts

ide F

AT

and E

CA

T

the

refo

re u

se

d o

n a

NIN

P

ba

sis

Tig

hte

r N

INP

crite

ria

ap

plie

d b

y n

eig

hbours

Mediu

mR

estr

ictions

becom

ese

ve

reL

arg

eW

ou

ld b

e k

no

wn

at

the

tim

e o

fassig

nm

ent.

018

Neig

hbours

assig

nnew

fixe

d lin

ks in

the b

an

d.

Low

Becom

es

unusable

Larg

e3

Neig

hbours

assig

nT

-DA

Bouts

ide the

FA

T.

Low

Would

require

coord

ination

but pro

bably

manageable

Mediu

m2

Neig

hbours

mig

rate

toU

TR

AH

igh

If E

RC

/RE

C/(

01

)01 a

pp

lies

em

issio

n lim

its w

ou

ld b

esim

ilar.

Sm

all

3

EU

Directive m

andate

s u

se

for

mobile

serv

ice o

nly

Low

UK

would

have t

o c

ancel

bro

adcasting lic

ences

with

in s

om

e p

eri

od

Larg

e3

ITU

-R a

lloca

tes p

art

ofth

eband for

aero

nautical

tele

metr

y.

Lo

wA

ffecte

dsp

ectr

um

wo

uld

be

co

me u

nusa

ble

fo

r b

roa

dcastin

g.

Larg

e (

for

part

of

band)

3

Atth

e t

ime o

fth

e c

losu

reofG

SM

netw

ork

s u

se o

fth

e b

an

d fo

roth

er

ap

plic

atio

ns b

eco

me

sa

po

ssib

ility

.

Mediu

mT

he im

pact

depends o

nth

eapplic

ation.

Mediu

m4

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

18

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

9P

art

of

1800 M

Hz b

and

reallo

cate

d t

o fix

ed lin

ks

With

in F

AT

an

d E

CA

T b

ut

dis

regard

s h

arm

onis

ation

for

dig

ita

l ce

llula

ruse

Ne

igh

bo

ur

assig

ns

fixe

dlin

ks in a

cco

rd w

ith

FA

TLow

Coord

ination

with

neig

hbours

would

be

req

uire

d,

aff

ectin

gsu

bse

qu

ent

insta

llatio

ns.

Larg

e (

for

part

of

band)

Th

is a

pp

licatio

n is

no

tse

en

as v

iab

le,

the

refo

re t

here

is

no

ris

k o

f it b

ein

gcom

pro

mis

ed

324

Neig

hbours

assig

nT

-DA

Bouts

ide the

FA

T.

Low

UK

fix

ed lin

ks w

ould

have

prim

acy.

None

0

Neig

hbours

mig

rate

toU

TR

AH

igh

Coord

ination w

ould

be

required.

Larg

e (

for

part

of

band)

9

EU

Directive

mandate

use

for

mobile

serv

ice o

nly

Low

UK

would

have t

o c

ancel

fixed lin

k lic

ences

within

som

e p

eriod

Larg

e (

for

part

of

band)

3

ITU

-R a

lloca

tes p

art

ofth

eband for

aero

nautical

tele

metr

y.

Lo

wA

ffecte

dsp

ectr

um

wo

uld

becom

e u

nusable

for

fixed

links.

Larg

e (

for

part

of

band)

3

Atth

e t

ime o

fth

e c

losu

reofG

SM

netw

ork

s u

se o

fth

e b

an

d fo

roth

er

ap

plic

atio

ns b

eco

me

sa

po

ssib

ility

.

Mediu

mT

he im

pact

depends o

nth

ea

pp

licatio

n b

utfixe

d lin

ks

are

susceptible

toin

terf

ere

nce.

Hig

h6

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

19

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

10

Port

able

Wirele

ss D

SL in

the 2

010 -

2020

MH

z IM

T-

2000 b

and

With

in F

AT

an

d E

CA

T b

ut

outs

ide h

arm

onis

ed

allo

catio

n t

oIM

T-2

00

0

Neig

hbours

deplo

yP

WD

SL o

r sim

ilar

lice

nse

dte

chn

olo

gy

Mediu

mS

imila

r to

GS

M w

ith

GS

MS

mall

217

EC

C p

air

s it

with

part

of

2.5

GH

z u

npaired b

and

for

IMT

-2000

Low

Part

of

2.5

GH

z I

MT

-2000

ba

nd

co

uld

be r

ed

uce

din

ca

pacity o

r p

ossib

ly b

e

unusable

Larg

e3

Euro

pe w

ide a

llocation f

or

air

bo

rne P

MS

E lin

ks.

Me

diu

mIn

terf

ere

nce lik

ely

to

be a

sig

nific

ant

pro

ble

m.

Larg

e6

Neig

hbours

do

notre

move

fixed lin

ks

Low

Coord

ination d

ista

nces a

rela

rge

Larg

e3

Ba

nd

allo

cate

das

exte

nsio

n to

2.4

/5 G

Hz

"IS

M"

ba

nd

Very

un

like

lyE

qu

ipm

en

t w

ou

ld b

e lo

wp

ow

er

bu

t d

ep

loym

en

tw

ould

be u

ncontr

olle

d.

Larg

e0

As

a H

arm

onis

ed b

and

with

little

use t

he

reis

the

po

tentia

l fo

rth

is b

an

d t

o b

eharm

onis

ed for

anoth

er

applic

ation.

Mediu

mT

he a

pplic

ation is

un

kn

ow

n.

Mediu

m4

11

Use

of2

.7 -

2.9

GH

zA

ero

nautical band

for

fixed

links

Outs

ide F

AT

and w

ould

o

pe

rate

on N

INP

basis

ITU

-R r

ecom

mends h

igher

leve

ls o

f p

rote

ctio

nL

ow

Re

du

ces

furt

he

rth

eu

sa

bili

ty o

f th

e b

and

for

oth

er

ap

plic

atio

ns

La

rge

Th

is a

pp

licatio

n is

no

tse

en

as v

iab

le,

the

refo

re t

here

is

no

ris

k o

f it b

ein

gcom

pro

mis

ed

33

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

20

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

12

3.5

GH

z s

pectr

um

used

for

OB

lin

ks

With

in F

AT

an

d E

CA

TH

igh

er

de

nsity u

sag

e in

Fra

nce

Sm

all

Incre

ases p

robabili

ty o

f in

terf

ere

nce.

Sm

all

113

EU

Directive m

andate

s u

se

for

4G

- lik

ely

to h

ave

fle

xib

ility

bu

ilt in

Mediu

mU

K h

as to d

iscontinue u

se,

butth

ere

are

oth

er

EN

G/O

B b

an

ds

Sm

all

2

No

t m

an

date

d f

or

4G

but

ne

igh

bo

urs

de

plo

y 4

G

Hig

hM

ore

lik

ely

to

inte

rfe

re w

ith

4G

syste

mb

ut sim

ilar

mitig

tion m

easure

sw

ould

apply

Sm

all

3

Neig

hbours

use

retu

rned

sp

ectr

um

to O

BM

ed

ium

Inte

rfe

ren

ce b

eco

me

s less

pre

dic

table

Mediu

m4

Allo

cate

dto

fixe

dsate

llite

se

rvic

e lin

ks.

Lo

wS

eve

rein

terf

ere

nce

possib

leLarg

e3

13

Dis

regard

technic

al

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

ch

an

ne

lpla

ns

for

terr

estr

ial fixed

se

rvic

es a

t 3

2 G

Hz

In lin

e w

ith

FA

T a

nd

EC

AT

b

ut

ign

ore

s h

arm

onis

ed

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

ch

an

ne

lp

lan

s

A f

utu

reW

RC

ha

rmo

nis

es

these

bands for

the

Hig

hD

en

sity F

ixe

d S

ate

llite

Se

rvic

e

Lo

wF

urt

he

r d

ep

loym

en

t in

UK

would

require c

oord

ination

with

ne

igh

bo

urs

' H

DF

SS

.

Mediu

mT

hese r

isks a

pply

even t

o

sp

ectr

um

use

rs o

pe

ratin

gin

lin

e w

ith

Eu

rop

ean

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

ch

an

ne

lp

lan

s.

08

EC

Cre

com

mends

Radio

navig

ation s

erv

ice

inth

ese

ban

ds in lin

ew

ith

FA

T a

nd E

CA

T.

Fix

ed

Se

rvic

es m

ad

e a

secondary

allo

cation

Very

un

like

lyF

urt

he

r d

ep

loym

en

t lik

ely

to b

e p

reve

nte

d w

ith

tim

efo

r re

pla

cem

ent

of curr

ent

insta

llations.

Larg

e0

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

21

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National A

uto

nom

y –

Ris

k a

naly

sis

Annex A

No

.S

cen

ari

oR

eg

ula

tory

mo

del

Ris

ks

Pro

bab

ilit

yIm

pli

cati

on

s f

or

the U

K

sp

ectr

um

user

Imp

act

Co

mm

en

tS

co

res

To

tal

sco

re

EU

mandate

s (

part

of)

the

ba

nd

fo

rve

hic

le c

olli

sio

navoid

ance r

adar.

Lo

wL

ow

po

we

r b

ut

ub

iqu

ito

us

de

plo

ym

en

t w

ou

ld lim

it

are

as w

here

fix

ed lin

ks

co

uld

be u

sed

.

Hig

h3

EC

CD

ecis

ion

allo

cate

s(p

art

of)

the b

and f

or

HA

PS

fee

de

r lin

ks.

Lo

wF

urt

he

r d

ep

loym

en

t in

UK

mig

ht

req

uire c

oo

rdin

atio

nw

ith

ne

igh

bo

urs

'fee

de

rlin

ks.

Low

1

Th

e f

actth

atth

is b

an

d is

cu

rre

ntly u

nu

sed

makes it

mo

re lik

ely

th

at

it w

ou

ld b

ese

lecte

dfo

r a

ne

wapplic

ation.

Mediu

mF

ixed lin

ks a

re s

usceptible

to inte

rfe

rence b

ut

mitig

ate

d b

y s

hort

er

pro

pagation d

ista

nces.

Mediu

m4

Tab

le 4

.1:

Assessm

en

to

f p

ote

nti

al

ch

an

ges

an

dth

eir

po

ten

tial

imp

act

on

an

au

ton

om

ou

s s

pectr

um

user

for

each

scen

ari

o,

an

d t

he

ove

rall

ris

k s

co

res

in

ea

ch

ca

se

. T

he

fo

llo

win

ga

bb

revia

tio

ns

are

us

ed

in

th

e t

ab

le:

FA

T f

or

the

IT

U-R

Fre

qu

en

cy A

llo

ca

tio

n T

ab

le f

or

Reg

ion

1;

EC

AT

for

the

Eu

rop

ean

Co

mm

on

Allo

cati

on

Ta

ble

; N

INP

fo

r n

o i

nte

rfere

nce

, n

o p

rote

cti

on

: R

RC

for

ITU

-R R

eg

ion

al

Rad

ioC

on

fere

nc

e.

Qu

otie

nt/

rep

ort

/qa

03

24

© Q

uo

tie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

20

03

22

Co

mm

erc

ial in

Co

nfid

en

ce

. N

o p

art

of

the

co

nte

nts

of

this

do

cu

me

nt

ma

y b

e d

isclo

se

d,

use

d o

r re

pro

du

ce

d in

an

y f

orm

, o

r b

ya

ny

me

an

s,

with

ou

t th

e p

rio

r w

ritt

en

co

nse

nt

of

Qu

otie

nt

Asso

cia

tes L

td.

National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part ... · 1.3.3 The European Union The...

Documents

Transcript of National Autonomy in the use of spectrum in the UK – Part ... · 1.3.3 The European Union The...