UHF Long Term Visionurn:uuid:ed49b5a5-aa13-46f4-a8cc-3e768dc827d42024-03-29T11:47:21Zurn:uuid:e45b0bc4-f77f-4d2e-865a-7f272a547b3cNoName2013-06-11T16:47:43+02:002013-06-11T16:47:43+02:00NoName<p >
Well of course there is no agreed CEPT reference scenario for mobile, and the text says 'a' reference scenario rather than 'the' reference scenario. In principle there should be one against which to judge all the alternatives (i.e how inefficient is the salami approach?). For broadcasting we have RRC06 in its original form as a realistic reference scenario - and it is used as such e.g. in the latest RSPG documentation.</p>
<p>We could say 'a realistic reference scenario (to be considered) of an optimised'.. etc.. However, Jim's reliance just on the bullet is also acceptable, as it clearly covers the issue, and Jaime you will be keen to draw a line under this phase of work.</p>
<p>That still leaves concerns about the technical/policy balance of the study elements, which aren't helped by removing a technical point. On the other hand keeping it isn't going to solve that problem, either.</p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:4075e422-b097-4b20-b214-ebc40c9e2d0dJaime Afonso2013-06-10T17:10:27+02:002013-06-10T17:10:27+02:00Jaime Afonsohttps://www.cept.org<p>Dear All,</p>
<p>I think that Jim may be right if the first bullet of section 4 is understood to cover the point. No problem to delete the text as proposed, unless i hear some other suggestion or text improvement of that bullet in section 4.</p>
Jaimeurn:uuid:a9b06093-900e-4b17-9aba-ee8e421de5adNoName2013-06-10T12:43:06+02:002013-06-10T12:43:06+02:00NoName<p>Dear Jaime et al,</p>
<p>In general I think the documents are now at a good stage to form the basis for initiating the relevant studies. However, with regard to the Studies document, I feel a little uneasy with item 4 under 'Technical Issues', in particular "a reference scenario of an optimized and fully harmonised allocation across the band for each of the services". The implication appears to be that CEPT has already agreed that such a reference scenario is feasible. The first bullet under section 4 'Key questions' proposes a more open approach, i.e. examine all possible scenarios identifying the pros/cons and likely prospects for success.</p>
<p>I propose deletion of the quoted text above in item 4 of 'Technical Issues'</p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:509898e9-bc69-48ed-9591-f05675574cf2Jaime Afonso2013-06-07T16:55:59+02:002013-06-07T16:55:59+02:00Jaime Afonsohttps://www.cept.orgDear All,<br />
<br />
I believe that it is time to try conclude our task. There are 3 main items I want to address:<br />
<br />
1) STUDIES: I've reviewed the contributions and overall it seems that we have a general understanding of what are the issues we want CEPT to examine. In any case, one topic on which it seems that we have still some discussions is the idea of "convergence". I got from the exchange we had so far, that this issue cannot be ignored, instead we need to better define it. Therefore I've made a change in bullet 1 (technical issues, section 3) to take onboard this matter. I've also made some other non substantial changes .<br />
<br />
2) ToR: I'll take the ToR as i 've proposed and change it editorially, based on the document above<br />
<br />
3) There was a proposal from Mark Thomas for us to look to some additional questions. I've seen no real reaction to these proposals.From my side, I guess that many (if not all) can be seen as part of the document we're dicussing now and could even be taken as an (useful) input to guide further discussions in the group that will deal with this subject in ECC. Therefore I'm proposing not to take them onboard now, but certainly they can be examined in detail at a later stage.<br />
<br />
<p>For your convenience, I'm attaching our output docs:</p>
<p>1) The document on STUDIES (I've also added the trkchg version to keep track on what has been changed) </p>
<p>2) The ToR </p>
<p>Given the short time you'll have to look to these proposals, I will leave you some additional time before closing the activities of CG. I'll close this CG activity by Monday (17:00 Portuguese Time) in order to input my report to the ECC meeting </p>
<p>Best regards</p>
<p>Jaime </p>
<br />urn:uuid:cc4ba55d-31c6-4bae-bcee-69af98ad2221Amela Hatibovic Sehic2013-06-07T14:30:56+02:002013-06-07T14:30:56+02:00Amela Hatibovic Sehichttp://www.pts.se<p>Dear Jaime, dear all</p>
<p>We would like to join to the comment made by Mr. Marc Thomas this morning: this document has got more policy question than technical ones now. We were supposed to produce the elements for the framework for a mainly technical study.</p>
<p>Furthermore we wish to express our support to Mr. Bernad Pauchon when asking for a clarification regarding the definition of “convergence”. We are afraid that the term “convergence” has many different interpretations and that the CG should agree on its definition prior any joint effort related to that. </p>
<p>We have quite the same comment regarding the term “dynamic broadcasting”. What is the definition of “dynamic broadcasting”? Do we have a common understanding on that term?</p>
<p>Regarding all the parts in this document related to the cultural issues, such as the national cultural policies or the cultural impact we are not that sure that these are the true objects of our work. </p>
<p>Please find enclosed the revision based on the latest document.</p>
<p>Wishing you a nice weekend!</p>
<p>Amela</p>
<p>Amela Hatibovic Sehic, M.Sc.E.E<br />
<br />
Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS)<br />
Spectrum Department<br />
Spectrumanalysis<br />
<br />
Phone: +46 8 678 56 21<br />
Mobile: +46 708 45 50 52<br />
<a href="mailto:amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se">amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se</a><br />
<a href="http://www.pts.se/" title="http://www.pts.se/">www.pts.se</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:3f3bc76f-8d2d-4e7e-98df-5c79d7ec04d8NoName2013-06-07T10:21:42+02:002013-06-07T10:21:42+02:00NoName<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dear Jamie and all,</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Yes, I like your proposal for a very short ToR with an annex based on the core document being elaborated by this CG. The various inputs have generally attracted support, although some have been questioned. I think all the contributions are well founded and relevant, although perhaps some objectives may be more difficult to achieve than others. A few questions on the policy side are unlikely to reveal clear answers in the timeframe of the study. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Second point. The document has more policy questions than technical ones (it was good to see France add two further questiohs this morning). The preamble for the document expects a mainly technical study. The CEPT has a strong role to play in policy, of course, but our technical expertise is our more unique strength. I would like to see a further technical objective set out under 3. “Key elements to frame the studies required…”:</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Technical Issues related to:…</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5. The compromises to the optimum technical efficiency of both mobile and broadcasting services in the scenarios considered, compared with an exclusive and fully harmonised allocation across the band, which arise from the compromises in how the band is used, and how transitions between use are managed over time.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I would also recommend including ‘asymmetry’ as an item to study under the first set of technical issues studied in relation to mobile (3. Key elements…., 1. In this context….Mobile services should….data traffic, traffic asymmetry, network topologies…...</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Document attached with revisions.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Best regards, Mark</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></p>urn:uuid:5f97bf4c-b44d-450a-803a-64b933c55075NoName2013-06-07T09:40:29+02:002013-06-07T09:40:29+02:00NoName<p>Dear all, </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Please find attached the comments from France. We have taken into account the comments made by Ireland and EBU. </p>
<p> I also would like to indicate that we are happy with the proposed ToRs as stated by Jaime. </p>
<p> best regards</p>
<p> Laurent </p>urn:uuid:bfb7555c-9189-49f4-a212-de390103e3aaNoName2013-06-04T17:41:25+02:002013-06-04T17:41:25+02:00NoName<p>Dear Jaime and All</p>
<p> It is BNE view that the main origin of opening consideration of a possible need for a long term strategy related to the whole UHF band lies in assumption of potential interest of convergence of broadcast and mobile broadband networks</p>
<p>But so far the notion of convergence has neither been substantiated nor demonstrated to be practical. Further, a number of Administrations have indicated that the UHF band should be retained for DTT when responding to previous ITU and RSPG questionnaires.</p>
<p>Therefore, before consideration of any scenario for the development of the band, it appears that the first key question in section 4 of the document should be:</p>
<p> <i>to define and describe what is meant by convergence of networks, and to evaluate the potential interest or lack of interest of such a concept, taking into account technical, economical and societal aspects all together</i></p>
<p>Best Regards</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bernard Pauchon</p>
<p>Broadcast Networks Europe</p>urn:uuid:a4ab9273-6ec0-4aba-b76d-07c06677e8eaJaime Afonso2013-06-03T19:42:54+02:002013-06-03T19:42:54+02:00Jaime Afonsohttps://www.cept.org<p>Dear All,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even though it looks that we have broadly agreed on issues to be examined, there are still some fine tuning ongoing. Nevertheless, in order to prepare the report to the next ECC meeting, I need to finalize the output of the CG by Friday at latest (June 7th). </p>
<p>Concerning the ToR of the group, attached you'll find a simple draft, essentially linking its tasks and outputs to document we're now discussing. </p>
<p>Therefore I invite everybody to concentrate on the finalization of :</p>
<p>1) our output document containing issues to be studied</p>
<p>2) the ToR</p>
<p>Best Regards</p>
<p>Jaime</p>urn:uuid:33b9a4b5-0118-405c-bfec-c6e10f675fafRené Tschannen2013-06-03T16:25:40+02:002013-06-03T16:25:40+02:00René Tschannenhttps://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage.htmlrene.tschannen@hotmail.ch<p>Dear Jaime, dear All,</p>
<p><b>Re: Terms of Reference</b></p>
<p>The working document, which we are developing in the CG, outlines the issues and sets the objectives for the CEPT studies in relation to the long term vision for the UHF broadcasting band. Therefore, it is natural to use this document, in order to define the key elements for a possible new task group within the ECC. In this respect we support Jaime’s suggestion to draft the Terms of Reference of that group essentially on the basis of the working document. </p>
<p>With best regards,<br />
René Tschannen</p>urn:uuid:5a552590-c701-473a-951d-a2b65bdc5e9bDarko Ratkaj2013-05-31T21:59:54+02:002013-05-31T22:00:55+02:00Darko Ratkajhttp://tech.ebu.chDear Jaime, dear colleagues.<br />
<br />
Please find attached the EBUs proposals for some additional changes, on the basis of the latest version of the document provided by Sweden. It is our view that a long term vision for the UHF band should also reflect the following:<br />
<br />
<p>1. The importance of this band for social and cultural policies</p>
<p>2. A true consumer demand for audiovisual services. The foreseen studies should propose a mechanism to ensure that. One possibility is to identify the relevant market indicators to inform the decision making process.</p>
<p>3. The role of the DTT platform in maintaining the competition in the market for broadcast services</p>
4. The importance of PMSE applications, since it extends beyond broadcasting production and also includes cultural and sporting events, theatres, conferences and community events (such as religious and educational institutions).<br />
<br />
Thank you for taking our proposal into consideration.<br />
<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Darko<br />
<br />
DARKO RATKAJ<br />
Senior Project Manager<br />
EBU, Technology & Innovation<br />
L’Ancienne-Route 17A<br />
1218 Le Grand-Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland<br />
Phone +41(0)22 717 2713; Mob +41(0)79 827 35 88<br />
www.ebu.ch – tech.ebu.ch<br />urn:uuid:5542eb94-ff97-4b25-8dd7-7d49fd745c98NoName2013-05-30T13:14:03+02:002013-05-30T13:14:03+02:00NoNamethe Swedish proposal looks good.urn:uuid:e16f6b81-5fc7-4cee-a2fb-2a55f82b5d7fAmela Hatibovic Sehic2013-05-29T12:50:16+02:002013-05-29T12:50:16+02:00Amela Hatibovic Sehichttp://www.pts.se<p>Dear Jaime, dear colleagues</p>
<p>It seems to me that we have caught the essence of the document and that we can be quite satisfied with the results that we achieved so long.</p>
<p>We believe that CG is on the right way. </p>
<p>Here below I enclose a new revision from our side, which is more or less of the structural nature.</p>
<p>Wishing you a nice day!</p>
<p>Amela</p>
<p>Amela Hatibovic Sehic, M.Sc.E.E<br />
<br />
Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS)<br />
Spectrum Department<br />
Spectrumanalysis<br />
<br />
Phone: +46 8 678 56 21<br />
Mobile: +46 708 45 50 52<br />
<a href="mailto:amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se">amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se</a><br />
<a href="http://www.pts.se/" title="http://www.pts.se/">www.pts.se</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>PTS works to ensure that everyone in Sweden shall have </p>
<p>access to efficient, affordable and secure communications services.</p>urn:uuid:f6074519-2eaf-4bcb-b1a5-62f290283d0dNoName2013-05-27T13:49:23+02:002013-05-27T13:49:23+02:00NoName<p>Dear Jaime and colleagues,</p>
<p>I am sorry if this is later as a contribution than I would like, only a few weeks now to the ECC. But I have framed some questions, attached, which we may consider to include in the study. Some of these take up the themes in the existing working document and some are new. Some maybe need to be considered at the start, and some maybe at a later stage, within the broad framework set out by the existing paper.</p>
<p>But they are all questions; no implied answers at this stage. </p>
<p> I submit these as separate as I would prefer to see a consensus in favour or against the questions themselves before dropping them into the existing, largely agreed, document and hence destabilising it.</p>
<p>Many thanks,</p>
<p> Mark</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:92b0bbb6-3702-4e11-80fa-02ea9e4f8a50Jaime Afonso2013-05-24T20:41:02+02:002013-05-24T20:41:02+02:00Jaime Afonsohttps://www.cept.org<p>Dear All,</p>
<p>Many thanks for your contributions so far. </p>
<p>Attached you'll find a revision of initial document which tries to capture the main suggestions and comments I've received in this forum.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>Best Regards</p>
<p>Jaime Afonso</p>urn:uuid:4886b9ca-ea78-4d5d-be64-29ffe992d293Véronique Demilly2013-05-24T15:39:06+02:002013-05-24T15:39:06+02:00Véronique Demillyvero.demilly@laposte.net<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Allowing a shared access to spectrum may avoid a refarming of all existing broadcast frequencies and new cross-border coordinations...</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Véronique Demilly.</p>
<p>France Télévisions</p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:0bb72f31-b058-431c-8c48-d1653ff73ec6Rory Hinchy2013-05-17T14:01:04+02:002013-05-17T14:01:04+02:00Rory Hinchyhttp://www.gov.ie/deccrhinchy@gmail.com<p>Thanks Jaime for the initial document.</p>
<p>I cannot say that I support the points in all the amended texts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>regards</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rory Hinchy</p>urn:uuid:874cec72-0959-4837-b520-8de06e7b69e2NoName2013-05-06T16:20:33+02:002013-05-06T16:20:33+02:00NoName<p>OK, so the scene setting document is under development from the previous contributors. That is good to see.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I'd attempt to express it like this; that the work should seek to:</p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">"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."</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>Mark Thomas</p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:baba54d2-ca72-44c6-aa95-3b709e4d9cb2Chris Seifert2013-04-23T17:50:54+02:002013-04-23T17:50:54+02:00Chris Seifert<p>Dear Jaime and all,</p>
<p>Thanks for the inital document. Please find some comments from our side based on Amela´s version.</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>Chris Seifert</p>urn:uuid:9287fc63-a232-43e3-8371-10d246cd3dcfAmela Hatibovic Sehic2013-04-19T15:20:37+02:002013-04-19T15:53:44+02:00Amela Hatibovic Sehichttp://www.pts.se<p>Dear Jaime,</p>
<p>Dear all, </p>
<p>Thank you for you inputs. God work so far!</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Wishing you a nice weekend!</p>
<p>Amela</p>
<p>Amela Hatibovic Sehic, M.Sc.E.E<br />
<br />
Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS)<br />
Spectrum Department<br />
Spectrumanalysis<br />
<br />
Phone: +46 8 678 56 21<br />
Mobile: +46 708 45 50 52<br />
<a href="mailto:amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se">amela.hatibovic-sehic@pts.se</a><br />
</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:4aee2a9d-d064-4b33-aa1a-89182c03a5b5René Tschannen2013-04-19T07:51:48+02:002013-04-19T07:51:48+02:00René Tschannenhttps://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage.htmlrene.tschannen@hotmail.ch<p>Dear Jaime,<br />
dear All,</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Therefore, we have provided some suggestions to the document drafted by Jaime. We have also taken into account the comments by Jim. </p>
<p>With best regards,<br />
René Tschannen</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>urn:uuid:75773011-0b8d-4de5-9435-27c7f709d3f3NoName2013-04-17T15:53:06+02:002013-04-17T15:53:06+02:00NoName<p>Two suggestions in the list of key questions to be addressed:</p>
<p>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;</p>
<p>ii) the current 5th bullet should read as: Cross-border coordination issues between different network topologies and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">between different types of network (mobile, broadcasting, etc.),</span> and impact on equitable access taking into account GE-06 Agreement;</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>Jim Connolly</p>urn:uuid:5d006ae7-eda0-4fbd-a09f-6c1b31fa253aJaime Afonso2013-04-11T18:02:39+02:002013-04-11T18:02:39+02:00Jaime Afonsohttps://www.cept.org<p>Dear All,</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
Some remarks concerning our task:
<p>- As stated in our ToR the CG should: </p>
<ul style="list-style-type: disc;">
<li>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. </li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>- 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. </p>
<p>- 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 </p>
<p>Best Regards</p>
<p>Jaime Afonso</p>urn:uuid:8b36a8f8-4c03-41ce-8ea3-fb51d144dc4aEric Fournier2013-04-11T16:03:40+02:002013-04-11T16:03:40+02:00Eric Fournierhttp://www.anfr.frCreation of the Forum to discuss ECC future activity on UHF long term vision.