|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Maybe I’ll be fortunate this time. I started to respond this earlier but when I said to save the message to “drafts” it simply disappeared.
Yes indeed, Study Group 5 and the four Working Parties, are alive and well. But having spoken to the WP5A chair for the study cycle that ended with this WRC he clearly stated that he wouldn’t be chairing the Working Party in the new session. Likewise for the person that chaired WP5D. The NTIA person who chaired WP5C told me that he was moving over to SG6, Broadcast Services. What is odd is that on the SG5 webpage the list under “List of Study Group Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen” includes names only of government representatives. The norm is that the WP chairs would be listed as SG vice chairs. The list of WP Chairs and Vice Chairs has not been updated. Maybe that will occur prior to the scheduled meeting of WP5D in Beijing which begins on February 23rd.
The CPM Report in Chapter 5, Table 1, includes frequencies in the 24.25 – 52.6 GHz range for IMT and notes that there are several overlaps with proposals for other services. It will be up to the different SGs to try and work out agreements, or proposals, in the form of a report for the next CPM meeting where hopefully many of the issues can be resolved. The CPM Report which will be produced by that meeting (six months prior to WRC-19 whose date is still not confirmed) will serve as the basis for decisions to be made by WRC-19. That report can indicate that some issues have been resolved or that there are several possible solutions to other issues. It also should be noted that WRC-19 is not bound to accept the recommendations in the CPM Report. No WRC (and I started in that process with WRC-95) has “thrown out” the report, which they could do, but they have not accepted all of the suggestions. A WRC is considered “sovereign”, just as any Member State is, and cannot be told what it must do.
The reference to “above 6 GHz” in my memory began at the CPM for WRC-97. While it wasn’t formally introduced at that time it certainly was promoted by at least one Asian Administration and publicized using informal documents made available in the conference center. That term has reappeared at times since then. The context then was that what is now IMT needed an additional 1 GHz of contiguous spectrum to grow in.
You are correct, the term IMT has a defined meaning in the ITU-R. This evening, as I am waiting for the sounds of reindeer on the roof, I’ll go through the Provisional Acts and see if I can identify where they came up with the term “mobile broadband”. The purpose of having Provisional Acts is to give the Radiocommunication Bureau time to go through all of the various meeting minutes. The time that can take has ranged from a few months to more than a year. However at the end of the WRC the Member States either sign the treaty agreement or, as in the case of the US, bring the text back for review which may call for submissions to be made to the Radio Regulations Board for clarification, after which it would be passed to the Senate for approval. At some point in time the Treaty must be ratified (as in the US case) or non-conforming Administrations are penalized.
Have a good holiday!
Thanks for the post. I’d like to add some alternative views that I think are relevant to 802’s future activities:
The Radiocommunication Assembly (RA) report is available. It’s called the Book of Resolutions <http://www.itu.int/pub/R-VADM-RES-2015>. I don’t believe that the Radiocommunication Assembly (RA) restructured SG 5. It did appoint the chair and vice chairs, including a new chair to fill a vacancy, and it assigned questions to the SGs. This information is in the Book of Resolutions.
Following the RA, it’s my understanding that SG 5 leadership decided to maintain the current structure of Working Parties (WPs). Also, I believe that the chairs of the WPs will be unchanged, at least with respect to the WPs that 802 has been mostly engaged with. I don’t anticipate any rotation from private sector to government leadership of the SG 5 WPs.
There will be one change to the SG 5 structure, driven by the Conference Preparatory Meeting for WRC-19 (CPM19-1). CPM decided <http://www.itu.int/md/R00-CA-CIR-0226/en> “on an exceptional basis” to “invite” SG 5 to create a new Task Group 5/1 (TG 5/1) to conduct preparatory studies on WRC-19 agenda item 1.13, with the TG 5/1 chair to be determined by SG 5. This new TG 5/1 will be relevant to 802, as it deals with IMT in some specific bands between 24.25 and 86 GHz. The WRC press release talks about “bands above 6 GHz,” but I’m not sure if it includes anything below 24.25 GHz. Note that
“the organization of the work of TG 5/1 should be carried out making maximum use of modern means of communication, including remote participation to the extent practicable.”
Also, I have some different views about the WRC results. While the press release refers to “mobile broadband,” that term is not typically used by WRC. Instead, the WRC identifies bands for “IMT”, which narrowly refers to a particular set of ITU standards, not to general mobile broadband technologies. Also, while historically IMT would probably be considered “mobile broadband,” is appears that the WRC believes it may grow beyond that application. In particular, the resolution underlying the work of TG 5/1 considers “that IMT systems are now being evolved to provide diverse usage scenarios and
applications such as enhanced mobile broadband, massive machine-type communications and ultra- reliable and low-latency communications.”
I think that a number of these issues are worth considering within 802.