MIGS, EXCESS and EQUITABLE ACCESS

1
MIGS, EXCESS and EQUITABLE ACCESS
EBU TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT
2
TOPICS

• MIG
• SYNTHESIS
• EXCESS EQUITABLE ACCESS

3

• MIG

• TOPICS
• DEFINITION OF A MIG
• BIG MIG
• EXCESS ? XS
• SUBTLETIES (1, 2, 3, ..., ?)
• RELATIVE SPECTRUM DEMAND ? RSD
• WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE
• COMPLICATIONS
• CONCLUSIONS

4
MIG MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE GROUP
2 requirements, compatible less than 2 channels
needed
1
1
2 requirements, IN-compatible 2 channels needed
2-MIG
1
2
3-MIG
3 requirements, IN-compatible 3 channels needed
3 requirements less than 3 channels needed
NOT a MIG
4 requirements, IN-compatible 4 channels needed
4-MIG
4 requirements less than 4 channels needed
NOT a MIG
5
Q HOW MANY CHANNELS REQUIRED?
BIG MIG
THIS IS A BIGGER MIG WITH 13 REQS
6
XS EXCESS
CASE B MIG 4 ONLY 2 CHANNELS 1, 2
CASE A MIG 4 5 CHANNELS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2 REQS CAN HAVE A CHANNEL 2 REQS CANNOT HAVE A
CHANNEL THERE IS AN EXCESS OF 2 REQS EXCESS XS
4 2 2
EACH REQ CAN HAVE A CHANNEL WITH NO
INCOMPATIBILITY THERE IS NO EXCESS IN REQS
DRAFT PLAN BAND IV/V MIG SIZE M 358
CHANNELS C 49 EXCESS XS M C 358 49
309
7
SUBTLETIES (1)
2
1
?
? 3
2
MORAL SOMETIMES MORE CHANNELS MAY BE NEEDED
THAN THE MIG SIZE INDICATES
1
2-MIGs
? 2 CHANNELS ?
8
SUBTLETIES (2)
MIG SIZE 4
MIG SIZE 5
MORAL SOMETIMES LARGE MIGs MAY HIDE SMALLER MIGs
MIG SIZE 4
10 requirements
9
SUBTLETIES (3)
MORAL INTERNAL SMALL MIGS MAY COMBINE TO
EXTERNAL LARGE MIGS
10
SUBTLETIES (4)
5 REQUIREMENTS A, B, C, D, E MIG SIZE 2 3
CHANNELS 1, 2, 3 NO XS REQS ???
MORAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCEPTABLE CHANNELS MAY
ALSO CAUSE XS
11
SUBTLETIES (4 CONT)
5 REQUIREMENTS A, B, C, D, E MIG SIZE 2 3
CHANNELS 1, 2, 3 XS 2 3 - 1 ?????
CONSIDER SUBSETS (B,C) OR (C,D) OR (D,E) MIG SIZE
2 1 AC XS 2 1 1
MORAL MIG SUBSETS CAN LEAD TO LARGER XS
12
SUBTLETIES (5)
LETS LOOK AT REQ NUMBER 5
MORAL ADDING ACs CAN LEAD TO LARGER XS
MIG 3
PROBLEM XS 2
MIG 5
MIG 4
PROBLEM XS 3
13
RSD (1) RELATIVE SPECTRUM DEMAND
CASE A MIG 50 M CHANNELS 49
C XS 50 49 1
CASE B MIG 2 M CHANNELS 1
C XS 2 1 1
XS CAN BE REDUCED BY RESOLVING 1 IC AMONGST 1225
ICS MORE FLEXIBILITY
XS CAN BE REDUCED BY RESOLVING 1 IC AMONGST 1
IC LESS FLEXIBILITY
RSD ? M/C ? 100 CASE A RSD 50/49 x 100
102 CASE B RSD 2/1 x 100 200
14
RSD (2) RELATIVE SPECTRUM DEMAND
XS ? M C RSD ? M/C ? 100
OTHER CASES M 50 C 25 XS 25 ,
RSD 200 M 196 C 49 XS 147 ,
RSD 400 M 35 C 1 XS 34 ,
RSD 3500 M 42 C 49 XS (- 7) ,
RSD 85 M 358 C 49 XS 309 ,
RSD 731
15
WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE (1)
EXAMPLE FROM 1ST PLANNING EXERCISE
BIG MIG ZONE
16
WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE (2)
MIG size 227 RSD 463
CLOSER LOOK
SOME MIGS HAVE SIZE 358 IN THE DRAFT PLAN!!
17
COMPLICATIONS UHF vs. VHF
UHF UNIFORM CHANNELING ? 4 ACs 4 x 8 MHz 32
MHz MIG SIZE 10 ? 10 x 8 MHz 80 MHz SPECTRUM
NEEDED XS 10 4 6 REQS 48 MHz
10 x 8 4 x 8 RSD 10/4 x 100
250 (10 x 8)/(4 x 8) x 100
VHF NON-UNIFORM CHANNEL WIDTH ? 4 ACs 4 x ?
MHz MIG SIZE 10 ? 10 x ? MHz SPECTRUM
NEEDED ACs CAN BE 1.75, 7, OR 8 MHz WIDE MIGs CAN
CONSIST OF DAB (1.75), DVB (7), DVB (8 MHz) XS
SPECTRUM NEEDEDSPECTRUM AVAILABLE RSD
(SPEC NEEDED)/(SPEC AVAIL)x100
18
MIG CONCLUSIONS

• MIGs ARE A SIMPLIFICATION OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM
• MIGs ARE USED TO PINPOINT DIFFICULT PLANNING
  SITUATIONS
• MIGs INDICATE MORE REQUIREMENTS THAN THE
  AVAILABLE SPECTRUM CAN HOLD
• MIGs CAN BE RESOLVED BY
• REDUCING THE NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS
• INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ACCEPTABLE CHANNELS
• ACCEPTING INTERFERENCE
• ACCEPTING SMALLER COVERAGE AREAS ...
• RESOLUTION OF ONE MIG MAY REVEAL THE EXISTENCE OF
  ANOTHER MIG, INVOLVING THE SAME REQ
• MORE EXACT METHODS TO DETERMINE RSD SOUGHT
• MIGs ARE NOT JUST THE OTHER GUYS PROBLEM

19
2. SYNTHESIS

• AIM ? ALL REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNED
• ? MAXIMUM NUMBER ASSIGNED
• 2. CONSTRAINTS ? AMOUNT OF SPECTRUM
• ? NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS
• ? ALL REQUIREMENTS EQUAL
• ? NO FAVOURITES, NO PRIORITIES

20
3. EXCESS EQUITABLE ACCESS

• NO EXCESS ? ALL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED
• ? EQUITABLE ACCESS TO SPECTRUM
• EXCESS ? NOT ALL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED
• ? NON-EQUITABLE ACCESS

SIMPLE SELF-CONTAINED EXAMPLES TO ILLUSTRATE
THESE POINTS
21
B
A
MIG size 4 4 channels
PROBABILITIES 2 - 100.0
PROBABILITIES 2 - 100.0
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
NO EXCESS REQUIREMENTS
?
22
ONLY 4 CAN BE ASSIGNED
MIG size 8 4 channels
PROBABILITIES 0 - 1.4 1 - 22.9 2
- 51.4 3 - 22.9 4 - 1.4
PROBABILITIES 0 - 1.4 1 - 22.9 2
- 51.4 3 - 22.9 4 - 1.4
EXCESS REQUIREMENTS
23
ONLY 4 CAN BE ASSIGNED
MIG size 5 4 channels
RESTRICTING ACs WILL NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY
OF ASSIGNMENT
BUT IT WILL DECREASE THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE
SYNTHESIS
EXCESS REQUIREMENTS
RESTRICTED AVAILABLE CHANs

24
ONLY 4 CAN BE ASSIGNED
EQUITABLE ACCESS DESTROYED
MIG size 12 4 channels
PROBABILITIES 0 - 0.2 1 - 6.5
2 - 33.9 3 - 45.3 4 - 14.1

PROBABILITIES 0 - 14.1 1 - 45.3 2
- 33.9 3 - 6.5 4 - 0.2
SUPER-EXCESS REQUIREMENTS
25
MIG SIZE 48 ACs 49
100 PROBABILITY A 16 CHANNELs B 16
CHANNELs C 16 CHANNELs
THIS IS EQUITABLE ACCESS
26
ONLY 49 CAN BE ASSIGNED
MIG SIZE 150 ACs 49
98 PROBABILITY A, B, C 11 22 CHANs
IS THIS EQUITABLE ACCESS ???
12 15, 16, 18 7 16, 16, 17 6 15, 17,
17
27
ONLY 49 CAN BE ASSIGNED
MIG SIZE 350 ACs 49
98 PROBABILITY 50 2 12 CHANs 100 8
20 CHANs 200 21 35 CHANs
THIS IS NOT EQUITABLE ACCESS
28
XS CONCLUSIONS

• EXCESS SUBMISSIONS ? NO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
  SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OVERALL
• EXCESS SUBMISSIONS ? DISTORT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
  SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS
• EXCESS SUBMISSIONS ? DESTROY EQUITABLE EXCESS
• EXCESS SUBMISSIONS ? INCREASE COORDINATION
• EXCESS SUBMISSIONS ? INCREASE DISAPOINTMENT

29
TAKE HEART
I
G
M
DONT LET THE MIGs SHOOT YOU ?
DOWN !!!
30
MIG, XS, EA Terry OLeary
NO EXCESS TIME
THANK YOU!