3.8 Mobile-satellite 137-138 148-150.05 161.9625-161.9875 162.0125-162.0375 235-322 312-315 335.4-399.9 387-390 399.9-400.05 400.15-401 406-406.1 T/T criterion of 1% (to be used in analogy to Recommendation ITU-R S.1432) See Recommendation ITU-R M.1478 NOTE – Special protection required for Cospas-Sarsat (406406.1 MHz, see Nos. 5.266 and 5.267 of the Radio Regulations) 3.9 149-9-150.05 399.9-400.05 T/T criterion of 1% (to be used in analogy to Recommendation ITU-R S.1432) 3.9bis Meteorological aids 401.15-406 Interference level at receiver not to exceed –187.8 dBm/Hz ** Where services or frequency bands are not specified in Table 2, an increase in the total noise floor due to PLT of less than 0.05 dB should be taken as the protection criteria. Annex 2 Examples of national regulations Some administrations have adopted or are in the process of adopting national regulations including technical and operational restrictions that may have been derived using different parameters and/or methodologies, taking into account, in particular, specific national deployment scenarios and technical characteristics, as well as other considerations. Examples can be found in the following Appendices to this Annex. These Appendices are provided for information.
– National administrations could decide to take special measures regardless of the level of disturbing field if it is justified by the importance of the victim radiocommunication service, e.g. for safety and/or emergency services (see Section 2 of this Annex). – Field strength measurements at the interference site will show if a decrease in the unwanted field strength might improve the interference scenario. 2 Economic and political aspects – Burden of costs to achieve compatibility for the victim and interferer (NOTE – Administrations should have to take account of the proportionalities of the – Importance of the victim service (safety related services etc.) Setting more stringent parameters or limits for particular devices or frequency bands. NOTE – This is a political rather than an economic aspect. The need to protect special services (e.g. safety related services) should not be influenced by an economic argument. – Alternative delivery of the service NOTE – This is a political decision. Freedom of access to existing sources may potentially be restricted if alternative delivery is by a non-radio medium. An alternative delivery of a service will also have an economic impact for the operator and the user of this service. – Number of interference complaints NOTE – The number of interference complaints may be far the number of interference events. A user subject to interference may not recognize the cause as interference from a wire-line network. As a result an interference complaint is not made to the administration. Administrations are expected to intervene only when interference complaints are notified. – Perspectives for the future – New technologies NOTE – New technologies may not improve the interference scenario. New technologies are usually introduced for economic reasons. – New users to take account of existing users (“First come – first served” principle) NOTE – This principle provides a general protection of existing services. However administrations have to assess if this general principle has to be maintained under all circumstances. 3 Regulatory aspects – Responsibility NOTE – The responsibilities of the interferer and the victim have to be identified. – Administrations may invoke coordination procedures between the affected parties to solve a case of interference. 4 Assessment of all criteria and circumstances Administrations should assess all criteria in a balanced and proportional way. Especially in a “Conflict of standards” case, administrations are expected to avoid any unnecessary burden for the victim service.