HGS Coordination Methodology: Initial Concepts 400 MHz Project

Objectives >The review of government use in the 400 MHz band aimed to improve harmonisation and to minimise ACMA intervention >The 400 MHz Plan now provides HGS >A way of reducing ongoing ACMA involvement in the band is to put in place more effective licensing and band management arrangements for the jurisdictions > The 400 MHz team is working on a long term licensing (LTL) solution for HGS that aims to reduce the complexity of management in the 400 MHz band and reduce the involvement of the ACMA >The goal is to enable state and territory governments to better manage HGS

Harmonised Government Spectrum (HGS) Frequency boundaries are the edges of HGS segments that are adjacent to non- government segments

Geographical boundaries >The geographical boundary of a licence will be the state/territory border

Proposed LTL Solution >The LTL solution is based on: >Having a single licence holder for each jurisdiction coordinating use of HGS >An area-wide apparatus licence for each jurisdiction >The regulatory, licensing and technical elements are being developed >The initial concepts for the technical arrangements will be discussed today

Coordination requirements >Technical coordination requirements need to be set up to cover frequency boundary and geographical border scenarios >Services will be required to coordinate as per the coordination requirements unless agreement is reached >In the event of interference, priority is given to the pre-existing service >Issues are to be raised with the relevant licence holder/jurisdiction representative >The ACMA should only be approached if a resolution cannot be reached

Coordination options >Three approaches are being considered for the implementation of suitable coordination criteria: >New coordination criteria >RALI LM08 coordination criteria >Criteria derived from RALI LM08

New coordination criteria >Coordination criteria would be developed to allow maximum flexibility within HGS >Advantages: >Allows maximum flexibility, as the coordination methodology will be specifically designed to allow the band manager to specify coordination criteria for HGS services

New coordination criteria…continued >Disadvantages: >Time consuming – need to design new coordination criteria that: >Caters for cross-jurisdiction coordination scenarios >Caters for coordination between HGS services and adjacent band non-government services >Is consistent with RALI LM08 >The criteria would likely be more complicated – may impact on APs currently active in the band >May require the modification of AP software tools

RALI LM08 coordination criteria >The existing coordination criteria in LM08 would be specified and HGS services would be required to adhere to all the power limitations in LM08 >Advantages: >Will not require time to implement as it applies the existing coordination criteria as is >Will not require the modification of AP software tools >Will facilitate the involvement of APs in the coordination of 400 MHz services

RALI LM08 coordination criteria…continued >Disadvantages: >Will require limitations to be placed on the operating parameters of services in HGS >Allows the jurisdictions the least flexibility as all LM08 power and height restrictions will apply: undercuts LTL’s objective of providing the jurisdictions with more flexible and effective spectrum management

Proposed approach: Criteria derived from RALI LM08 >LM08 to be used for coordination when coordinating: >Services in HGS against services in non-government spectrum >Services in HGS against services in neighbouring jurisdictions >Pre-existing licences in HGS >Maximum power limit not to be exceeded at the geographical border of the HGS licence >Emissions not to be exceeded at the frequency boundaries

Proposed approach: Criteria derived from RALI LM08 …continued >Advantages: >Will not require much time to implement as it largely reuses the existing coordination criteria >Minimal need modifications to software tools >Will facilitate the involvement of APs in the coordination of 400 MHz services

Proposed approach: Criteria derived from RALI LM08 …continued >Disadvantages: >Will require limitations to be placed on HGS services that are: >Within higher density areas: due to the possible impact on services outside of HGS >Within a specified distance of a border with another jurisdiction >Within a specified frequency range of segments that aren’t covered by the licence >Unless agreement is reached

Proposed approach: Criteria derived from RALI LM08…details >The existing coordination criteria in LM08 would apply when coordinating with others, and all power restrictions (max EIRP = 83 W, Power-Height limits) would apply in the following cases: >In High and Medium density areas >Within 120 km of the geographical boundary of the licence >Within 200 kHz of the frequency boundaries of the licence >When coordinating with other licences in HGS (licences that have yet to reach their milestone compliance deadline or those granted exceptions) >In all other cases, the power must not exceed an EIRP of 200 W

Proposed approach: Criteria derived from RALI LM08…details >Intermodulation must be calculated and assessed using LM08 criteria: where the affected receiver falls outside of the jurisdiction’s licensed area or frequency range, the assignment cannot proceed unless agreement can be reached >Jurisdictions that take-up the proposed HGS long term licensing solution will determine the coordination methodology to be applied between services in their jurisdiction >The in-band interference threshold that must not be exceeded at the geographical boundaries of a licence is -124 dBm/12.5 kHz

In-band interference threshold assessment

Example

Before JA can proceed, R1 must be coordinated as follows: 1.If R1 is in an HDA or MDA, within 120 km of the geographical boundary or within 200 kHz of the frequency boundaries, its EIRP must not exceed 83 W 2.Calculate coverage for the max allowable interference threshold at the geographical limits of the licence: a)If the max interference level is exceeded in jurisdiction B: negotiate with JB – If agreement cannot be reached then R1 cannot be operated as proposed: the location/power/gain of the service will need to be changed and the process restarted >As the max interference level is exceeded in JB, the assignment cannot proceed without negotiation

R1 coordination…continued b)If the max interference level is exceeded in jurisdiction C: negotiate with the JC NCCGR representative – If agreement cannot be reached then R1 cannot be operated as proposed: the location/power/gain of the service will need to be changed and the process restarted >In this example, the max interference level is not exceeded in JC so the assignment can proceed 3.Coordinate with services in jurisdiction A as follows: a)Coordinate R1 against R2 >As R2 is operating under the same HGS licence, JA will determine the criteria to be applied

R1 coordination…continued b)Coordinate R1 against R3. >As R3 is operating in HGS under a pre-existing licence, JA will need to protect R3 to the levels specified in RALI LM08 using RALI LM08 coordination methodology c)Coordinate R1 against R6 >As R6 is operating outside of HGS, it is an adjacent channel service: If R1 is proposed on a frequency that is within 200 kHz of a frequency edge of the HGS licence, R1 is restricted to 83 W EIRP and RALI LM08 must be used to coordinate

R1 coordination…continued 4.Coordinate with services in jurisdiction B as follows: a)Coordinate R1 against R4 >RALI LM08 should be used for coordination unless otherwise agreed with JB 5.Coordinate with services in jurisdiction C as follows: a)Coordinate R1 against R5 >RALI LM08 should be used for coordination 6.Run intermodulation calculations as specified in RALI LM08: >Any resulting transmitter intermods or receiver intermods above the levels specified in LM08, where the victim receiver falls outside of JA, will mean that R1 fails coordination unless agreement can be reached