Forum Forum

Go to forum

UHF Long Term Vision

Eric Fournier 11/04/13 16:03
Creation of the Forum to discuss ECC future activity on UHF long term vision.
Jaime Afonso 11/04/13 18:02

Dear All,

As you are aware the ECC approved the creation of a correspondence group (CG) on the long term vision for the UHF broadcasting band. The details concerning this CG are contained in ECC minutes, ECC(13)027 ANNEX 20.

This CG will use this forum facility in order to respond to ECC request. It has to be noted that the ECC needs to have the output of this CG by its next (June) meeting.

Some remarks concerning our task:

-    As stated in our ToR the CG should:

  • frame the studies to support the development of a long-term vision for the UHF-band in Europe focusing primarily on technical issues, but addressing also economical, social and regulatory aspects.
  • formulate key questions which have to be answered by the group which will be responsible for these studies, taking into account the need to collect data on existing situation in each CEPT country.


-    If the CG comes to the view that the options on the future handling of the UHF band should be studied within a new group, the correspondence group should propose at least key elements for ToR for such a group, too.

-    I've drafted some initial ideas to launch the discussions (see doc. attached).  I invite you to contribute to the CG, possibly concentrating your proposals in these initial ideas

Best Regards

Jaime Afonso

[member was deleted] 17/04/13 15:53

Two suggestions in the list of key questions to be addressed:

i) the first question should be: Identify and analyse possible scenarios for the development of the band (this should cover the range 470-790 MHz at least) in the short, medium and long term;

ii) the current 5th bullet should read as: Cross-border coordination issues between different network topologies and between different types of network (mobile, broadcasting, etc.), and impact on equitable access taking into account GE-06 Agreement;


Best regards,

Jim Connolly

René Tschannen 19/04/13 07:51

Dear Jaime,
dear All,

We consider the document prepared by Jaime as a very good starting point for our discussions in the CG. In particular, the studies listed in the document provide a good framework for the eventual ECC activities on the issue.  However, we would like to formulate the key questions in a way that concrete objectives for such studies are set.

Therefore, we have provided some suggestions to the document drafted by Jaime. We have also taken into account the comments by Jim.

With best regards,
René Tschannen



Amela Hatibovic Sehic 19/04/13 15:20

Dear Jaime,

Dear all,

Thank you for you inputs. God work so far!

Please find enlosed our comments to the latest version. I hope you will find them useful. Please do not hesitate to ask for explanation if something is not clear. 

Wishing you a nice weekend!


Amela Hatibovic Sehic, M.Sc.E.E

Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS)
Spectrum Department

Phone: +46 8 678 56 21
Mobile: +46 708 45 50 52
[email protected]




Chris Seifert 23/04/13 17:50

Dear Jaime and all,

Thanks for the inital document. Please find some comments from our side based on Amela´s version.

Best regards,

Chris Seifert

[member was deleted] 06/05/13 16:20

OK, so the scene setting document is under development from the previous contributors.  That is good to see.

I think there is a basic point of principle which either we need to agree and state, or else agree another vision and state it more explicitly.

I'd attempt to express it like this; that the work should seek to:

"define an underlying long term technical approach which is harmonised but which recognises significant differences in the balance of requirements that different countries in Europe may have to the different uses, both in respect of a long-term equilibrium (if there is one) and the timescales along which different countries may need to develop towards it."


a very difficult task, I'm sure you'd agree.  Heterogeneity brings technical inefficiency, quite probably too much.  But in principle is it a better alignment to need when considered across all of Europe and across all sectors  in this frequency range?  When we do the analysis we may see things differently, but that is part of the purpose of the study, to take control of our own destiny.  Slicing salami may turn out to be a good thing, a sort of modular approach, but we shouldn't do it just because we had run out of ideas and the will to study different options.

Best regards,

Mark Thomas


Rory Hinchy 17/05/13 14:01

Thanks Jaime for the initial document.

I cannot say that I support the points in all the amended texts.


My original remarks at fora, such as RSPG last June, were aimed at causing a mature discussion of the future use of the whole of 470-790/862MHz in order to get an understanding of the needs of the AV content industry, the needs for DTT, and the needs for Broadband, PMSE, PPDR etc.


It will be helpful for all industry players if the decision makers are fully briefed and have fuly explored the options and the effects of choices before making decisions. There are otherwise too many lobbyist who are selling the vision that suits their commercial interest or technology claiming the ear of decision makers and politicians. These cases of pressure from corporations are compounded by policy pressures.

For instance in Ireland, I have broadcasting legislation which requires the specturm management agency (ComReg) to make spectrum for 6 national DTT multiplexes available. But we also have a political deisre to move on the Digital Agenda for Europe and provide  meaningful broadband to our citizens, in an environment where 70% of the population live in major towns/cities (though these are not as densely populated as many european cities) but where 30% of the population live in commercially less viable areas for Broadband providers.

Ireland and the UK had planned for 8 DTT layers in UHF in GE06, the 800MHz band effectively removed 2 layers, a further reduction for the 700MHz band would result in much tighter planning for 6 DTT layers than is preferred by broadcasters. I have seen no move from the Broadcasting Policy section of Government to revise the legislation to fewer national layers in order to ease the planning.

Quite appart from those policy concerns, I understand that there are reservations about abandoning UHF DTT network, which might be a medium/long term visions of some countries. For those interested in some of these aspects, the attached file (not a formal document) sets out some points which reflect on the social, economic and cultural impacts of relying on broadband for AV content delivery. I should state that about 20% of the Irish Population rely on DTT to view Irish PSB content. 12% of the population have Irish DTT delivered content only. Cable subscription networks whcih must carry Irish PSB pass about 35% of homes and other households (~45%) subscribe to Satellite TV packages offering the Irish PSB services.




Rory Hinchy

Véronique Demilly 24/05/13 15:39

Dear all,

Does anybody wonder if there is a possibility to avoid exclusive access to this spectrum? Is there any possibility that mobile broadband use white spaces left by DTT for example?

DTT needs large spectrum in order to reach a near 100% of national coverage in each european country avoiding damaging interferences but at any place there are some unused frequencies of UHF band.

Allowing a shared access to spectrum may avoid a refarming of all existing broadcast frequencies and new cross-border coordinations...


Véronique Demilly.

France Télévisions


Jaime Afonso 24/05/13 20:41

Dear All,

Many thanks for your contributions so far.

Attached you'll find a revision of initial document which tries to capture the main suggestions and comments I've received in this forum.

Broadly speaking there is a general agreement on the frame of the studies that needs to be performed. Besides some changes more of an editorial nature, there were some particular questions/comments which I've taken onboard by making the topics less specific. More importantly, at this stage, I think we need to simply highlight those issues (stated in a more general way as possible) that needs to be studied (more than finding the answers right now).

On the specific “key questions” (section 4) there were some more substantial changes. In fact in this revision I've taken the comment that the frame of the studies (section 3 of the doc.) will in fact address those key questions - which were already identified beforehand at the last ECC. Therefore the items contained in this revised version underlines only those cross-cutting issues to the overall studies as suggested.

One other issue we have to tackle is the request from the ECC on how to deal with the studies in CEPT/ECC. Given the contributions, I assume that there is a common view confirming that there is a need to setup a group within the ECC family. If this is the case, then we need to define the key elements of that group. I’ve have no firm ideas but as a first suggestion we could draft those ToR essentially based on the document we're discussing now (that we need to finalize very soon) . What do you think?

Best Regards

Jaime Afonso