ULTRA WIDE BAND A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Presented by: John Mettrop, UK CAA Dale Stacey, Eurocontrol FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

History, how did it start Projected market The Scenario INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION What is UWB ? History, how did it start Projected market The Scenario Major Stakeholders External View Proposed limits (3 masks) Advantage of European Mask Methodology Aviation S/I limits Aviation band overlay Conclusions Unfinished work FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

What is Ultra Wide Band ? Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Services are not currently covered under the service definitions of the ITU radio regulations UWB technology uses sharp impulses to pass information, of very low power. (By fourier analysis sharp pulses in time domain = broad spread out bandwidth in frequency domain The broad definition that seems to be accepted by the radio community is Ultra Wideband is ‘when the absolute bandwidth of the signal being conveyed is equal or greater than 20% of the central carrier frequency OR a signal whose absolute bandwidth is 500 MHz or more.’ (taken from ECC report 64, and TG1/8 definitions) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

History, how did it start ! The opportunist mass marketeers in the US spotted a loophole in the FCC regulations pertaining to maximum RF emission limits permitted from an electronic box.( FCC part 15 limits -41.3 dBm/MHz flat limit corresponds to a 500μV field strength measured at 3 metres from ‘dirty’ device.) Equipment suppliers saw this as a ‘window of opportunity’ Lobbied the US government trade and industry sector to support developing this opportunity, and won ! FCC announced a standard mask in favour of the UWB community in april ’02’ (Ignored some of the concerns of Aviation, (ie NTIA studies)) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

Communication and measuring equipment (98% of units) Projected Market It is estimated (by FCC and ECC) that there will be three different applications coming under the heading of UWB Wall imaging and medical imaging equipment Through wall imaging and surveillance Communication and measuring equipment (98% of units) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

Aggregate units/km2 - NO ONE KNOWS ! THE SCENARIO Aggregate units/km2 - NO ONE KNOWS ! Guesses are for upto 10,000 per square kilometre an activity factor of 5% max (this is supplied by the manufacturers) outdoor factor of 20% Studies are based on this ! FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

Major stakeholders in UWB FCC (initiators) ITU TG 1-8 formed ‘Compatibility between ultra-wideband devices (UWB) and radiocommunications services’ , specifically to study UWB, first meeting 21-24 january 03 In Europe TG 3 was set up in the ECC specifically to answer the questions of UWB and provide a balanced view Also of recent seen a growth in the pro UWB community in Europe comprising the major communication equipment manufacturers keen to jump on this opportunity (significantly influencial in TG3) TG3 is also balanced by the large user radio community interests in Europe (Producing a more balanced and pragmatic view to study) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

EXTERNAL VIEW FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

3 MAIN OPTIONS. Original US proposed flat limit of -41.3 dBm/MHz PROPOSED LIMITS 3 MAIN OPTIONS. Original US proposed flat limit of -41.3 dBm/MHz FCC Emission mask (of 22nd april 02) Proposal by ECC for a slope mask Nb there are some minor submasks of these not discussed here FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

The advantage to Aviation of the ECC slope mask Aviations requirements have generally been incorporated It presents the limits most favourable to the Aviation community It enables the UWB to develop technology that is less likely to cause problems to Aviation FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

METHODOLOGY FOR ARRIVING AT UNWANTED UWB LIMITS Sequence:- Determine minimum (usually ICAO defined) wanted receive signal levels into Aviation system receiver Establish S/I (or I/N) criteria (again usually from ICAO documentation or ITU recs) Calculate the maximum unwanted (aggregate) interference signal power permissible at an equivalent isotropic antenna input Establish the minimum distance criteria between UWB device and Aviation system receiver Calculate back using fspl, the maximum output EIRP/MHz of UWB signal power (for single and multiple entry scenarios) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

AVIATION S/I LIMITS (STEP 2)(intra system from ICAO Annex 10) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE UWB PSD FOR KNOWN MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE (extract from ECC report 64), (STEP 3,4,5) FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

Unfinished work and further questions Modelling radar antennas and refining compatibility criteria between UWB and radar. Some confirmation of the noise like properties of UWB Some practical validation of system interference limits Some missing values in the Aviation portfolio (ie Radars) Gaining Aviation support to favour the European ECC report 64 approach over the FCC proposals What if the predicted maximum deployment of 500 units/km2 with activity factor 5% and outdoor deployment factor=20% is wrong ! How can we be assured aggregate unit on utilisation will be less than 5% activity per device? And 80% of units will be indoor. FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F

The Aviation community is strongly encouraged :- CONCLUSION The Aviation community is strongly encouraged :- to stand behind the work of ECC TG3. Aviations requirements have been considered and incorporated into the output study document ECC report 64 this position and European proposals provide the best means to protect Aviations spectrum interests from the harmful effects of UWB. Oppose the flat limits of -41.3 dBm and the alternative FCC mask proposed in april 2002 on account that these proposals blatantly disregard Aviations requirement to interference free spectrum ! Note that the values provided so far are largely theoretical and some practical validation is required of the inter system S/I values and validation of the properties of UWB to be truly ‘noise like’. To note that there are still some open ended issues with compatibility between UWB and radar systems, this will require more development work on the radar antenna models, maybe involving a statistical approach Note that for the time being the above steps will alleviate the threat of UWB to Aviation systems, however, this doesn’t guarantee the scenario cannot change and UWB could become a threat to Aviation again ! FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F