<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23520"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Does Ofcom actually publish the full criteria for
assessing the availability of channels with regard ot possible interference? I
don't think I have ever come across it. If they don't then I would
suggest feedback in the consultation could include that they review the
requirements according to the performance of reasonably modern radios, and
publish an updated policy on the matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Industry Canada has an admirably clear and
comprehensive document setting out the criteria for assessing channel
availability at <A
href="http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09951.html">http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09951.html</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>At a quick scan through didn't reveal any concern
at all for IF image protection, and I also noticed that the interference
protection contours are assessed using 50% confidence levels for field
strength, whereas I believe Ofcom uses a 90% confidence, which of course results
in a far bigger potential zone of intereference from any given
transmission.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>In the US, the FCC goes one step further by making
a "Low Power FM Channel Finder" tool publicly available. It is
designed to give potential applicants "a simple means to tentatively identify FM
broadcast channels available in their area." They also have a zoomable
nationwide map to give an idea of how many LPFM channels may be available in any
given area. They do apply separation requirements in respect of second adjacent
and +/-10.7MHz channels. <A
href="http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-channel-finder">www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-channel-finder</A>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Alex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=transplanfm@hotmail.com href="mailto:transplanfm@hotmail.com">Ian
Hickling</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=glynroylance@googlemail.com
href="mailto:glynroylance@googlemail.com">Glyn Roylance</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cma-l@commedia.org.uk
href="mailto:cma-l@commedia.org.uk">cma-l</A> ; <A
title=cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk
href="mailto:cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk">cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 30, 2013 3:44
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [cma-l] Ofcom consultation: UHF
and VHF spectrum planning</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I had a look but couldn't find anything solid.<BR>Rather than
compare with other Regulators who will undoubtedly have other parameters and
issues, I'd rather start at the root of the matter - that there is no clear
evidence that IF imaging restrictions or severe protection ratios
are required these days.<BR>It simply needs a few controlled practical
excursions into "forbidden territory" to substantiate the premise.<BR>I wonder
who might have the courage to do that?<BR> <BR>
<DIV>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:19:51 +0100<BR>Subject: Re: Ofcom consultation: UHF
and VHF spectrum planning<BR>From: glynroylance@googlemail.com<BR>To:
transplanfm@hotmail.com<BR>CC: bill.best@commedia.org.uk;
cma-l@commedia.org.uk; cma-l@mailman.commedia.org.uk<BR><BR>
<DIV>Good point Ian - I'd forgotten about the 10.7MHz problem which is quite a
big limit on frequency ability.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the most useful step we can take in the short remaining time is
to assemble some evidence that we can present to Ofcom to avoid them
saing we are arguing with "Hearsay".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've started some googling to look at Protection ration and ACS.
Could you find anything concrete on 10.7 MHz problem (ie evidence other
regulators use more relaxed figures) Ian?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If we can assemble the evidence it will make it easier to formulate a
strong argument. ...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Glyn<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>