CEPT
ECC
Electronic Communications Committee
Based on (Doc. FM(15)167)
Output WGFM#83
Working Group FM
83rd Meeting
Dresden, Germany, 18-22 May 2015
Date issued:
13 May 2015
Source:
FM 22
Summary of the Questionnaire to CEPT Administrations on
Interference Statistics for 2014
Subject:
Group membership required to read?
N
(Y/N)
Summary:
This document contains the summary and evaluation by FM22 of the answers received
from 39 CEPT administrations including a comparison with the results of the previous
year to provide information on trends such as increase/decrease of the amount of
interference in some categories. This evaluation can be utilised as background
information for decision making. It may also help to indicate applications where more
detailed investigations may be considered helpful.
WGFM#83 in May 2015 endorsed this summary.
The interference statistics questionnaire will be repeated in 2016 for the cases reported in
2015.
Background:
FM 22 work program. The questionnaire was sent out at the end of January 2015 and the
deadline was set to early April giving administrations about 2 months to respond.
1. Introduction
The questionnaire was submitted to the 48 CEPT countries. Contributing countries are
highlighted in bold letters in Table 1.
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Former Yugoslavian Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM)
Malta
Monaco
Montenegro
Moldova
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
The Netherlands
The United Kingdom
Turkey
Ukraine
Vatican City
Table 1: Responses received regarding interference cases in 2014
39 CEPT administrations provided a response. This includes two additional countries
which did not provide a response in 2013 (Turkey, Russian Federation). In addition,
Kosovo* 1 (not a CEPT administration) provided a response (included in the Annex
‘responses’ for information).
Responses from the 39 CEPT administrations reporting about 22 168 interference cases in
2014 have been received. Comparing the responses of the 37 CEPT administrations who
did provide a response in 2013 and 2014, there is a slight increase from about 18 500 to
19 000 interference cases (< 3%).
1
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128138.pdf
2
2. Reported number of cases
The spreadsheets in Attachments 1 and 2 show the number of reported cases (victims) and the number of sources of
interference. The number of cases (victims) is also shown in Figure 1.
7000
6212
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
2639
2422
2341
1875
1731
1220
1000
1214
1122
577
254
168
163
0
Figure 1: Number of interference cases by radio services (victims) in 2014.
3
116
114
7000
6009
6000
5000
4000
3797
3000
2000
1989
1750
1160
1000
1101
721
708
620
556
518
339
129
111
0
Figure 2: Number of interference cases by radio services (sources) in 2014.
4
82
36
28
5
Figure 3: Percentage of interference into public mobile networks in 2014, by country
Ukraine
UK
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovak Rep.
Serbia
Slovenia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Norway
NL
Moldova
Montenegro
Malta
FYROM (Maced.)
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Cyprus
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Bosnia Herz.
Belgium
Belarus
Bulgaria
Austria
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6
Figure 4: Percentage of interference into terrestrial video broadcasting (UHF) in 2014, by country
Ukraine
UK
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovak Rep.
Serbia
Slovenia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Norway
NL
Moldova
Montenegro
Malta
FYROM (Maced.)
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Cyprus
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Bosnia Herz.
Belgium
Belarus
Bulgaria
Austria
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Austria
7
Figure 5: Percentage of interference into terrestrial sound broadcasting in 2014, by country
Ukraine
UK
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovak Rep.
Serbia
Slovenia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Norway
NL
Moldova
Montenegro
Malta
FYROM (Maced.)
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Cyprus
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Bosnia Herz.
Belgium
Belarus
Bulgaria
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
8
in 2014, by country
Ukraine
UK
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovak Rep.
Serbia
Slovenia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Norway
NL
Moldova
Montenegro
Malta
FYROM (Maced.)
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Cyprus
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Bosnia Herz.
Belgium
Belarus
Bulgaria
Austria
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 6: Percentage of interference into land mobile (PMR), professional telecommand and telemetry systems
In 2014 the highest number of interference cases was in the category ‘public mobile
networks’.
Reporting Year
2012
interference
case
5919
2013
interference
cases
4187 (about 30%
decrease)
2014
interference
cases
Broadcast
5148 (includes Turkey and
Reception
Russia)
(4954 for 37 CEPT
countries (w/o Turkey and
Russia) – comparison 20132014, i.e. about 18%
increase)
Public Mobile
4621
4192
6212 (includes Turkey and
Networks
Russia)
(4826 for 37 CEPT
countries (w/o Turkey and
Russia) – comparison
2013-2014, i.e. about 15%
increase)
Table 2: Interference cases (top categories) in 2012, 2013 and 2014
The increase in these two categories was largely compensated by less reported
interference cases in other categories.
FM22(15)XX _ECO
Summary Interference Statistics 9 April 2015 Victim.xlsx
Excel Overview (Victims - 2014)
FM22(15)XX ECO
Summary Interference Statistics 9 April 2015 Source.xlsx
Excel Overview (Source - 2014)
About 19 650 interferences cases (source) were reported of which about 6 000 cases
vanished / source remained unknown.
Victims
2013
2014
2014
(37 countries
w/o Turkey
and Russia)
(37 countries
w/o Turkey
and Russia)
(39 countries)
Maritime including inland waterways (HF, 269
VHF, UHF, EPIRB, AIS etc.)
248
254
Fixed service
595
575
1122
Land mobile (PMR), professional
telecommand and telemetry systems
2244
2091
2422
Public mobile networks
(GSM/IMT/PAMR)
4192
4826
6212
Terrestrial Video Broadcasting UHF
1644
2609
2639
Terrestrial Video Broadcasting VHF
582
59
168
Terrestrial Sound Broadcasting
1840
2286
2341
Satellite broadcasting receivers
121
101
114
Land and satellite navigation systems as
well as radiolocation (civil)
158
158
163
Aeronautical services (communication,
navigation and surveillance)
1823
1738
1875
Radio amateur service
1266
1174
1220
SRD applications including PMSE (ERC
Rec. 70-03)
1333
1202
1214
Satellite services (MSS, FSS, not
counting SAT Broadcasting to home)
34
48
116
Others Radio applications
1731
1567
1731
Illegal use of radio devices
N/A
N/A
N/A
Non radio devices (electric appliances)
665
298
577
Total
18497
18980
22168
Table 3: Interference cases in 2013 and 2014 (victims)
10
3. Particularities by administrations
Belarus
Only 7 cases of interference have been reported.
Belgium
40 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
The figures of cases and the figures of sources are nearly identical.
Bulgaria
59 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Croatia
60 % of the reported cases concern terrestrial sound broadcasting
530 times was terrestrial sound broadcasting the sources of
interference.
Czech Republic
71 % of the reported cases concern terrestrial video broadcasting
(UHF) – 1276 cases. This is the main reason for the changes in
distribution of interferences cases amongst the terrestrial
broadcasting (UHF, VHF, sound) compared to 2013.
43 % of the interference cases reported by all administrations in the
category ‘satellite broadcasting receivers’ can be found in Czech
Republic.
Denmark
Did only provide a total number of interference cases for the
terrestrial broadcast categories (Note: ECO distributed this in
approximate proportions for the statistics).
France
57 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
29 % of the reported cases concern broadcasting
Germany
24 % of all interference cases throughout CEPT and 38 % of cases
in the category ‘professional land mobile (PMR), telecommand and
telemetry systems’ throughout CEPT were reported by Germany.
Greece
37 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
26% of the reported cases concern aeronautical services
sources were illegal use of radio devices
Hungary
48 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
36 % of the reported sources were illegal use of radio devices
Latvia
60 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Malta
The figures of cases and the figures of sources are identical.
Moldova
27 out of 37 of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Montenegro
72% of reported cases concern public mobile networks
The Netherlands
21 % of the reported cases concern radio amateurs
Portugal
36 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
49 % of the reported sources were public mobile networks
11
Romania
68 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Russian
Federation
48% of all reported cases in fixed services category throughput
CEPT
Serbia
72 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Spain
1121 cases were reported but only 17 sources of interference
60 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
Sweden
61 % of the reported cases concern public mobile networks
UK
40 % of the all reported cases (source) throughout CEPT on radio
amateurs
Ukraine
51 % of the reported cases concern the fixed service
Table 4: Particularities by administrations
12
4. Particularities by radio services
Maritime including inland HOL, D, BEL and NOR: 64% of all interference cases (62% in 2013)
waterways (HF, VHF,
UHF, EPIRB, AIS etc.)
Fixed service
UKR, HOL and RUS: 86 % of all interference cases
Land mobile (PMR),
professional
telecommand and
telemetry systems
D: 38 % of all interference cases (51% in 2013 – decrease due to
Russian response)
Public mobile networks
(GSM/IMT/PAMR)
Biggest category, 28 % of all interference cases
Terrestrial Video
Broadcasting UHF
CZE, F, D, I and E: 51 % of all interference cases. Unusual high
number in Czech Republic. (2013: 71%)
Croatia and Italy (and also Malta) suffer from the lack of coordination.
Terrestrial Video
Broadcasting VHF
RUS 65 % of all interference cases
Terrestrial Sound
Broadcasting
D and G: 50 % of all interference cases
Satellite broadcasting
receivers
Very low number of cases in total (114 cases)
Land and satellite
navigation systems as
well as radiolocation
(civil)
CZE: 65 % of all interference cases due to permanent interference into
weather radars at 5.6 GHz (see also ECC Report 192) (2013: 68%)
Aeronautical services
(communication,
navigation and
surveillance)
D and G: 67 % of all interference cases (2013: 62%)
Radio amateur service
D, NL and G with higher number of interference cases (70% of all
cases)
SRD applications
including PMSE (ERC
Rec. 70-03)
D: 54 % of all interference cases (2013: 42%)
Satellite services (MSS,
FSS, not counting SAT
Broadcasting to home)
Very low number of cases in total (116 cases)
Others Radio
applications
D: 69 % of all interference cases, mainly interference into cable TV
and into other telecommunications networks (2013: 70%)
Illegal use of radio
devices
1989 cases were reported as source of interference (2013: 866).
Russia reported 817 cases but total figure in 2014 suggests a certain
increase of about 35% (37 countries comparison 2013-2014)
Croatia and Italy (and also Malta) suffer from the lack of coordination.
The high number in Germany is mainly because of unintentionally
activated emergency location transmitters.
Table 5: Particularities by radio services
13
5. Question 2: Specific interference cases?
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech
Republic
Finland
France
FYROM
Are there specific interference cases for which you would like to provide
additional explanations or you would like to highlight special aspects
with regard to the reported interference cases? If yes, please
inform/explain specific interference problems here. Please include as
much as possible information about the source and the interference
scenario.
Cases of cordless telephones, fully harmonized (EU) DECT Standard, CE certificated –
sudden dysfunctional frequency shifting, after working correctly for some years, up to
the national UMTS frequency spaces caused interference problems with mobile
communication companies in UMTS frequency space.
Our dB system is not able to get statistics on the interference sources
PMR systems causing problems on CATV channels.
Video surveillance equipment is causing problems in UMTS range
The most specific interference cases during 2014 were in the frequency bands of one
of the Bulgarian mobile operator from DECT 6.0 telephones, bought in USA and
Canada. The specific in these cases was that finally the working frequency range by
the licence of that operator was changed at the request of the operator.
.We would like to highlight ongoing problem with long lasting interferences form Italy
along coast line on terrestrial video VHF/UHF and sound broadcasting bands. During
2014 we have reported 87 interference sources to terrestrial video broadcasting on
UHF and 525 interference sources to terrestrial sound broadcasting in VHF.
1. Using frequencies of meteorological radars by WiFi devices (see Land navigation
systems and radiolocation) without DFS.
2. Unwanted radiation of active television antennas of different types (Strong, Sencor,
Skymaster, Hama, Vivanco, Elvolve).
Eight (8) cases of distress and safety services interference were reported and
investigated in the year 2014. Of these five (5) were treated as urgent.
800 MHz band operators have obligations in the network concession to remove
interference to terrestrial tv-reception. The operators have removed 6000 cases of
interference mainly by installing filters to the consumers' antenna systems.
Illegal mobile repeaters have been an interference source also in 2014. Five cases of
interference due to illegal repeaters were reported to the police.
Wireless weather stations are often the source of other SRD device interference.
In France, the interferences sources identified into public mobile networks are mainly:
- Indoor and outdoor TV antenna amplifiers (over 30 %) ;
- CE and non CE marked DECT phones (over 25 %) ;
- Repeaters causing disruptions into these mobile networks (over 15 %).
The total number of cases of electromagnetic compatibility default (antenna amplifier
TV, cable network and other non-radio systems) represent 45 % of the identified
sources of interference in mainland France.
French meteorology
The number of cases of interference in the 5 GHz radar meteorology band remains
constant compared to the previous year. Some twenty cases have been reported. But
their instructions by the technical services take longer due to non-permanent
disturbances observed in 2014.
Most of interference due to malfunctions WLAN network equipment is related to setting
and activation of the DFS. Note that spurious emissions from equipment ODU
(OutDoor Unit) radio links were the cause of two cases of interference.
French Civil aviation
The majority of the fifteen cases of jamming the VHF band of Civil Aviation in France is
located in the southern part of the territory. The filtering of FM transmitters is the
recommended solution to end this type of disturbance. Defaulting aeronautical fixed
transmitters on airports are also the source of the interference of the VHF band.
Department for frequency control and monitoring received two reports form
Aeronautical service M-NAV Macedonia that two channels 119.375MHz and
120.015MHz had interference. Department for frequency control and monitoring find
out that interference source channel frequency 119.375MHz comes from neighbour
14
Germany
Greece
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Norway
Romania
Serbia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
country Albania(intermodulation product from Radio Emanuel city Korca).The colleague
form Albania collaborated professionally and they remove the interference time
effectively. The interference source channel frequency 120.015MHz comes from
neighbour country Greece(intermodulation product from Radio Kanali 3 FM city
Florina).The colleague form Albania not collaborated and they remove the interference
by ITU-Terrestrial department suggestion.
The difference between the sum of “Number of reported cases (victims)” and the “Total
number of cases” is mainly due to interference into cable TV and into other
telecommunications networks.
Interference caused by Aeronautical services (communication, navigation and
surveillance) mainly because of unintentionally activated emergency location
Transmitters.
During 2014 we had a big number of interference cases caused by DECT 6.0 phones
(same problem as 2013)
Interferences to meteorological radar (frequency 5625 MHz) caused by R-LAN
operating on the 5 GHz, not configured correctly.
In the recent years Electronic Communications Office has been increasingly receiving
applications concerning interference in the 1920 - 1940 MHz coverage zone of the
UMTS mobile phone base station. The radio interferences are caused by radio
equipment (cordless stationary phones and various computer appliances) that operates
under the DECT 6.0 standard and is not designed for use in Europe (including Latvia),
but in USA and Canada, which have a different distribution of radio frequency
spectrum.
It was investigated more than 10 cases in which dozens of cars were blocked by
nearby faulty car radio control security system. (433 MHz).
The interference source of the reported cases under Terrestiral Video Broadcasting
UHF and Terrestrial Sound Broadcsting were uncoordinated foreign transmitting
stations.
Most of the victims listed under "Others Radio applications" are metrological radars
operating in the 5.5 GHz band. The source of interference is RLAN.
We still consider the mitigation techniques from ETSI EN 301893 series of standards
quite not enough efficient, as we experience harmful interferences from 5.5 GHz
HIPERLAN equipments on a meteorological radar since 2008 until present. Comment:
DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection, for example, is somehow a DIGITAL method,
from the point of view it's based on a threshold criterium. In the meantime, the radar
receiver has an ANALOG behaviour. Keeping in mind that the potential harmful links
are randomly deployed, how can we suppose that the threshold criterium (which refers,
in the standard, to a unique Rx level) will be satisfied by all HIPERLAN equipments at a
time, so that they'll ALL shift from the radar channel when the radar bursts?
Self-oscillated antenna preamplifiers for terrestrial video broadcasting UHF
A lot of radio interferences to weather radars in 5GHz band. The source of interference
were wireless lan routers in 5GHz.
There is an increasing in interference cases on meteorological radars in 5 GHz band.
The main interferences sources are RLANs (Radio Local Area Network)
The trend in Sweden is that the number of interference cases related to Public Mobile
Networks (cellular networks) increase and the number of interference cases related to
Land Mobile systems decrease. According to the current Swedish regulation a mobile
repeater can be used in a public mobile network in Sweden provided that an
agreement with the relevant public mobile network operator has been established.
Such agreement may include terms and conditions concerning what kind of repeater
equipment that should be used and how it should be configured. During the last year
interference cases related to public mobile networks are the main part of reported
spectrum problems in Sweden. The public mobile network operators report new cases
of interference into their networks to the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority several
times every week. The technical investigations prove the causes to be approximately
distributed as follows: 50% where mobile repeaters are not configured in a correct way
and without a valid agreement with the licensee, i.e. the public mobile network
operator. 25% where DECT telephones, which are technically malfunctioning or
alternatively not destined for the European market (i.e. using a non-designated
frequency range), are used. 25% other, e.g. self-oscillating tv antenna amplifiers in an
adjacent frequency band.
Table 6: Specific interference cases
15
6. Question 3: Illegal Use
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Moldova
What kind of illegal use has caused radio interference (name
examples, main problems with illegal use, e.g. jammers, pirate
broadcasting, other illegal use)?
Cases of private GSM/UMTS repeaters (caused interference problems with mobile
communication companies to certain antenna sections).
DECT 6
Illegal use of DECT devices produced for the US market
As it could be seen in the number of cases in the table above there were reported such
cases of illegal use of radio devices (6), but according to the results of inspections
everything was legal or unusable equipment left in the premises or on the roof.
The most common case of interferences are the GSM amplifiers and repeaters. At the
audio broadcasting the interferences occur by illegal transmissions.
There is inserted in the table the number (9x DECT6.0, 1x RLAN - 5140 MHz, 1x
bugging device, 1x GSM jammer) of illegal use that caused interference.
GSM Repeaters, Wireless DECT telephones imported from USA.
Most of the illegal usage was public mobile networks repeaters. In addition there were
few cases of illegal use of radio amateur bands.
Illegal repeaters used for improving indoor reception, but these defected repeaters are
broadband repeaters which are not authorised by the French operators. Mobile
operators allow only the use of repeaters working in their own frequency bands. Illegal jammers : The regulations on the use of jammers is examined by the French
state with great attention : ANFR monitors the pages of French retailers websites. Illegal used of radio US DECT phones : ANFR have identified a dozen units in the
great cities and over ninety units in the West indies.
40 % of the cases are problems with GSM/UMTS repeaters, 25 % cordless telephones,
the rest is mainly due to mobile phone blockers and FM broadcasting pirates.
DECT 6.0 phones, pirate broadcasting
DECT 6.0
the main cause of interference has been found to be non-compliant equipment, that
was never intended for use in the EU, being put into service.
Illegal use of GSM/UMTS repeaters and amplifiers systems.
Working on customer complaints about radio interferences, in year 2014 ECO detected
6 cases of illegal use of frequency spectrum - 2 of them were caused by jammers, in 2
other cases portable radio stations were used without the permission, in 1 case it was
wireless phone and in 1 case transmitter of octocopter was the reason of interferences.
However, in general over the year 2014 ECO has discovered more than these 6 illegal
use of spectrum during carrying out daily enforcement tasks like monitoring, different
kind of measurement and surveying radio equipment installation sites. In these cases,
we believe that our work has been preventive, because the probability of occurrence of
interferences was excluded. A big number of interferences was caused by using radio
equipment (cordless stationary phones and various computer appliances) that operates
under the DECT 6.0 standard and is not designed for use in Europe (including Latvia).
Because of the large quantity of such cases we classify these cases as a separate
category, however these cases are considered to be illegal use of the spectrum as
well. In 2014 appeared quite much interference cases to SSR (Secondary surveillance
radar) which is located in Riga airport. Interferences were on SSR Rx frequency:
1090MHz. It was discovered that interferences were created by unmanned areal
vehicles like helicopters, quadrocopters, octocopters and the like, equipped with live
video transmitter (illegal) which is working in frequency band ~ 1,0 – 1,1 GHz (several
channels). Couple of unmanned areal vehicles, which created interference, were
catched.
Illegal use of voice communications radio – 4 cases; Professional telemetry -- 5 cases;
FM broadcasting – 2 cases; SRD – 2 cases; Jammers of Public mobile networks – 3
cases.
Only one case of illegal frequency use (unwanted shortwave broadcasting) was noted.
All sources of interference affecting public mobile networks were DECT not intended to
be used in Europe.
In 2014 were fixed about 378 cases of illegal use of terminal equipment DECT 6.0 that
16
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Romania
Serbia
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United
Kingdom
causes harmful interferences to the authorized terrestrial 3G UMTS mobile cellular
network
As you can see from the above table we had 23 cases of illegal use of radio devices. In
all cases we found that the cause was DECT 6.0 device, and one case was jammer in
our state prison. The situation with DECT 6.0 devices is much more difficult and we still
get complaints from our mobile operators almost every week. These devices were
found on private premises (houses, flats...). In all cases, the owners had relatives in the
USA who sent them that DECT devices for the purpose of inexpensive communication.
Jamming devices, broadcast pirates, illegal repeaters, Intruders, License holders
intentional/unintentional using wrong frequencies, defect radio transmitters, Non EU
transmitters, Radioamateurs (high power), Illegal long range telephones DECT6.0
Illegal use of GSM-repeaters has been the most common cause of reported
interference problems. Quite a number of the illegal GSM-repeaters were found aboard
smaller vessels causing a lot of problems for mobile network operation when visiting
cities along the Norwegian coast line.
2G/3G jammers and 2G/3G repeaters mostly.
jammers for public mobile networks, illegal use of repeaters for mobile networks, illegal
use of WiFi equipments below 5 GHz and above 6 GHz
All cases of illegal use were DECT6 phones or repeaters (GSM / UMTS). In these
cases have been interfered base stations of mobile operators (GSM/UMTS).
Interference from no-legal broadcast radio station to the aeronautical band and from
illegal mobile repeaters and jammers to mobile network systems
DECT 6.0 devices import or purchased over the internet. Illegal use of jammer GSM
/UMTS in schools (The use of jammers is strictly prohibited). GSM/UMTS repeater
non-compliant or have not been properly integrated in the Network.
(PMR, Jammers and Pirate Broadcasting/ These systems affected generally
aeronautical services)
1. Illegal radio electronic facilities of broadband wireless access. 2. Radiating devices
for blocking operation of electricity supply meter.
In common with many countries, interference from DECT 6 devices is still prevalent.
There has also been a large increase in the use of cell enhancer problems this year.
Fishermen continue to cause interference to HF Aeronautical frequencies through the
illegal use of ‘easy to remember’ frequencies such as 5678 kHz USB.
Table 7: Illegal Use
20
15
2013
10
2014
5
0
Jammers
DECT6.0 Pirate Broadcast
Repeat./Amp.
Figure 7: Extract from results on illegal use.
It should be noted that no statistics were derived from the 2014 questionnaire (for 2013)
related to repeaters and amplifiers, therefore the comparison with answers to the 2015
questionnaire (for 2014) is not possible in this case.
Jammers and Pirate Broadcasting were named by fewer administrations for 2014
compared to 2013. Illegal Use of DECT 6.0 has been named by 17 (and by 12
administrations in 2013). Illegal repeater/amplifier use is also recognised as a wellknown reason for interference (see Section9).
17
7. Question 4: Proposals for improvement of the questionnaire
In view of the answers provided in 2015, FM 22 has observed a need to further improve
the questionnaire in order to ease the answering process and the analysis of results.
FM 22 has already received some proposals for this improvement, and will continue
working on this issue in its following meetings.
8. Conclusions of the 2015 interference questionnaire on interference cases
in 2014.
The 2015 questionnaire on interference cases reported in 2014 contains answers from
two additional countries (Russian Federation and Turkey), compared to the answers
provided in 2014 for 2013 interference cases (i.e. 37 countries).
The following conclusions compare the answers of the same 37 countries providing
answers for both questionnaires in 2014 and 2015 (i.e. without Russian Federation and
Turkey), as reflected in Table 3. Whenever there are particularities related to the
answers from Russian Federation and Turkey, this is also indicated.
The most of interference cases were related to the following victims, ordered by
percentage of interferences reported:
1. Public mobile networks:
28 %2 of the total reported interference cases are related to interference to
public mobile networks. There is an increase of 15 %2 in the interference
cases reported in 2014 compared with those reported in 2013.
In the Russian Federation it is also observed a big amount of interference
cases related to public mobile networks (45% of the total reported interference
cases by the Russian administration).
17 administrations have reported that illegal DECT6.0 equipment is one of the
causes for interference into public mobile networks.
14 administrations have reported that illegal mobile repeaters are one of the
causes for interference into public mobile networks.
2. Terrestrial video broadcasting (UHF)
12%2 of the total reported interference cases are related to the terrestrial video
broadcasting in the UHF band.
There is an increase of 59 %2 in the interference cases reported in 2014
compared with those reported in 2013.
2
Not including the 2015 answers from Russian Federation and Turkey, as it is not appropriate to
compare 2015 and 2014 data if these answers are included.
18
3. Land mobile (PMR), professional telecommand and telemetry systems.
11%2 of the total reported interference cases are related to the land mobile
(PMR), professional telecommand and telemetry systems.
A decrease of the number of interferences of 7 %2 has been observed.
4. Terrestrial sound broadcasting
10.5%2 of reported interference cases are related to the terrestrial sound
broadcasting.
There is an increase of 24 %2 in the interference cases reported in 2014
compared with those reported in 2013.
5. Aeronautical services (communication, navigation and surveillance).
8.5%2 of the total reported interference cases are related to aeronautical
services.
There is a small decrease of 5%2 in the interference cases reported.
In addition, an increase of 41%2 interference cases related to satellite services
(MSS, FSS, not counting SAT Broadcasting to home) has been observed.
9. Observations and analysis of the answers of the questionnaire:
Some of the interference cases were caused by equipment that can be purchased
over the Internet (sometimes at a low price), that are not compliant with the
European requirements. This is the case for example of DECT6.0, mobile repeaters
and jammers. Private import of such equipment doesn’t fall under the market
surveillance, and therefore is difficult for administrations to filter its import.
Related to the interference from DECT6.0 into public mobile networks, it should be
noted that there is an increase of the use of public mobile networks in the 1.9 GHz
frequency band. There is a need for further investigations on the interference from
DECT6.0 equipment.
It should be also noted that many mobile repeaters don’t comply with the technical
requirements set by ETSI. The problems related to the use of mobile repeaters
should be further investigated.
Interference from jammers into public mobile networks is still an important issue, as
reported by some administrations. In addition, there are still concerns about the use
of GNSS jammers, which may be the source of interference cases in the future.
19
Many of the interference cases reported were attributed to situations where the
source was unknown or had vanished. Administrations explained that this might
be due to the following:


Indeed, some interferences disappear from the time they are reported until the
time when the administration has the possibility to verify them. For example,
some administrations indicated that, when interferences are reported from
aircrafts, it is not always possible to solve each of them from the ground.
Sometimes these interferences are observed only for a short time.
Some administrations are obliged to prioritize their interference investigations,
leading to a limited time to investigate every interference case that is reported. In
such case, some of those interference cases are left unsolved.
One source of interference reported is due to indoor and outdoor TV antenna
amplifiers that start to oscillate. This might cause interference to several services in
different frequency bands (e.g. public mobile networks, public private networks and
terrestrial broadcasting.).
10. Proposal
FM22 proposes to repeat this questionnaire in 2016.
_________________
20