Forum Forum

Go to forum

ECC Report on major events

[member was deleted] 21/06/11 07:49
Dear Colleagues,
With this letter i would like to start further work on consideration of frequency management issues related to major events.
Here is a minutes of 72nd meeting of WGFM held in May which defined actions to be taken by our group untill next meeting in October.

6.3 Frequency management during sport events

(1)        The Chairman of the Correspondence group on major sport events presented the report (Doc. FM(11)107) regarding its activity.

-               The Correspondence group worked during March and April 2011 under coordination of The Russian Federation. There were two main topics for discussion: identification of currently available information on the frequency management during major sport events and the identification of appropriate ECC Deliverable(s).

-               With respect to the first item, several sources of such information were identified as available from several administrations and PT FM 22. As for the second issue administrations expressed their support for the development of an ECC Report to address the frequency management issues at sport events. The intention to further contribute to the development of an ECC Report was also expressed by some administrations.

-               The CG briefly discussed the structure of a possible ECC Report. Two possible options were presented in Doc. FM(11)107 for information.

(2)        WG FM chairman presented a LS from WGRA (doc.FM(11)106). WG RA was of the view that WG FM and WG RA should cooperate to update ECC Report 044 in order to include all information on practical arrangements concerning radio usage at special events into one Report.

(3)        The question on how to further progress on sport events issue was raised by the WG FM chairman.

(4)Germany supported the development of ECC Report and proposed two options: either to allow FM22 to deal with this issue and to liaise with other groups as appropriate or to continue the work in the correspondence group.

(5)        The Netherlands asked for more clarification with regard to alternative options like a data base with contact persons from administrations and possible revision of ECC Report 44. The CG Chairman informed that these options were identified within the CG, however only support for the development of a new ECC Report was expressed and other options were not commented.

(6)        The CG Chairman proposed that further work may be concentrated on definition of a structure of the ECC Report. He noted that administrations have a lot of experience in frequency management at big sport events and in order to collect information and to present it in a suitable way in the ECC Report, he proposed to develop a questionnaire which could be aligned with the ECC Report structure.

(7)        France supported the development of new ECC Report within the CG as well as the preparation of an appropriate questionnaire.

(8)        APWPT proposed to expand the scope of this ECC Report and not to limit it to sport events only since there is a range of other events (e.g. Eurovision) which are interesting in terms of frequency management aspects. This was supported by Germany.

(9)        The Netherlands expressed its support to work within the CG, at the same time preferred a revision of ECC Report 44 rather than creation of new ECC Report. It also supported the widening of the scope of this ECC Report.

(10)    Norway, Ireland, the United Kingdom also supported the continuation of the work on an ECC Report. However the United Kingdom informed that it had some difficulties with contribution to this work before Olympic Games in London in 2012 because complete information about the issue will be available only after the Games. Ireland proposed to consider FM 45 as a possible project team for consideration of major event issues as well as to use electronic working methods as far as possible.

(11)    After discussion WG FM concluded that an ECC Report is the most appropriate deliverable for addressing the frequency management issues for major events. The CG was tasked to develop proposals on the structure of Report and also a questionnaire to collect the relevant information. WG FM agreed that this Report is not limited to sport events only and the CG may consider other big events if needed. CG should consider whether a new Report should be developed or a revision of ECC Report 44 will be more appropriate. WG FM encouraged CG to use electronic working methods however, recognised that there may a need to meet physically.

(12)    The WG FM meeting agreed that the Russian Federation will continue to coordinate the work of CG. The CEPT administrations were invited to participate in this CG.

(13)    The FM 22 Chairman invited to discuss the structure of the ECC Report and other relevant materials at the next FM22 meeting in October 2011. WG FM agreed that if FM22 has any proposals on the ECC Report it may contribute to CG directly and it may not be necessary to meet together at FM 22 meeting.

[member was deleted] 21/06/11 08:19
According to the minutes above the main tasks of CG are:
-  to develop proposals on the structure of Report;
- to develop questionnaire to collect the relevant information.
There is also some thoughts which have to be taken into account:
- this Report is not limited to sport events only and the CG may consider other big events if needed.
- CG should consider whether a new Report should be developed or a revision of ECC Report 44 will be more appropriate.
- WG FM encouraged CG to use electronic working methods however, recognised that there may a need to meet physically.
We can work on above matters until begining of October. So we have more than three months.
[member was deleted] 21/06/11 08:31
Dear Colleagues,
There was question raised on changing the name of CG from "sport events" to "large events". (See one of the last posts under another topics).
I guess it is in line with WGFM discussion. The same was also proposed at WGFM. i.e. to consider other large events like Eurovision.  
There is another word "major" we usually used before. So we have a choice between "major" and "large".
What could be your preferences?
[member was deleted] 21/06/11 08:48

As for ECC Report structure I assume we have two ways here.

1) To continue development of what we have started before May WGFM meeting. We can start from two proposals made so far. See them below.
2) To consider the structure of ECC Report 44 and to compare it with what we develop in 1). (The structure of ECC Report 44 will be provided latter).
So here is two proposals menshioned above. Your comments and proposals are invited:
Proposal 1

1      Introduction

2      General considerations

· Organisation team

· Co-ordination with other organisations

· Frequency planning

· Licensing

· Fees and money collection

· Labelling

· Interference investigation

· Logistics

· Appearance in public

3 Monitoring activities during major events

· Preparatory actions

· Plan of action (Activities before, during and after the event)

4  Conclusions


ANNEXES (with information from administrations)



Proposal 2

1 Introduction

2 Feasibility analysis

< This part represents the first stage of the organisation of the event:>

The Organisation committee expresses its wishes in terms of

o                    Radio Networks requirements,

o                    Radio coverage areas,

o                    radio services requirements,

o                    radio equipments,

o                    and also on expectations from frequency management/monitoring activities.

o                    Regulator/National Administration draws the attention of the organisation committee on the inventory of the spectrum and defines requirements for spectrum usages.

<The first stage is finalised when a clear plan of spectrum occupancy is achieved (balance on what is expected and what is achievable)>

3 Preparatory stage

< When a global spectrum plan is agreed, the preparatory stage consists in processing of spectrum requests and organising the work on the field.>

3.1 Frequency management

This include

o                     frequency planning,

o                     fees and money collection,

o                     licensing

3.2 Organisation

o                    Working facilities (availability of working infrastructures, logistics, management of authorisations and accreditations...),

o                    Working procedures Staff and arrangements (how many staff on each event hot spot, which equipment/facilities, how many technical vehicles, who makes what, monitoring facilities, ....)

4. Spectrum matters during the events

o                    User registration and labelling,

o                    organisation of the monitoring activities during the events,

o                    interference investigations

5. Conclusion

<It may be proposed to have a dedicated place on a server in order to collect reports of such events for the benefice of other administrations>

ANNEXES (with information from administrations)

(case studies)

Ralf Trautmann 21/06/11 13:24
Dear colleagues,
I clearly prefer to keep the term "major events". Its known and everybody will understand what the Report will be about.
The term "large" would leed to the question: What is large?
If anybody is of the opinion that "major" is not suitable and a new term has to be identified, then we could alternatively say "special events".
Best regards
Ralf Trautmann
Site will periodically be offline Monday 22nd April between 0800 CEST and 1200 CEST - IMPORTANT - please read here for changes in functionality after update
Do not show again