Broadband Non Radio Technology Update

Fax: 0207-211-0035

Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Our Ref: RB/L/103 Your Ref: Date: 27 March 2002

I am writing to bring you up to date with the position on the measures that the UK intends to put in place to handle interference to radio use from digital subscriber line (DSL), Power Line Technology (PLT) and Home LAN systems, should such interference occur.

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament.

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

After consideration and discussion with the Commission, it appeared that the different approaches could be solved by the UK notifying any action it took to enforce the MPT 1570 to the Commission under Article 6(1) of the EMC Directive. This permits Member states to take special measures in respect of EMC problems at specific sites. The

cr719 1 mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

For clarification, it must be stressed that notification of the use of section 10 procedures to the Commission will only be under the provisions for specific cases under Article 6 of the EMC Directive. The limits in MPT 1570 would not be notified as national standards to be used for the purpose of compliance with the protection requirements in the Directive.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions on this you are welcome to contact myself at the above address or at [email protected] or Neil Marr (020 7211 0461, [email protected] ).

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

cr719 2 Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr R Elliott Federation of Electronic Industries Russell Square House Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 10-12 Russell Square Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WC1B 5EE Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Elliott

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

cr719 4 Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr M Crowther Technology Strategy Manager Kingston Communications (Hull) plc Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Telephone House Our Ref: RB/L/103 Carr Lane Your Ref: Hull, HU1 3RE Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Crowther

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr I Savoullis cr719 6 Nortel Networks plc London Road Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Harlow Our Ref: RB/L/103 Essex Your Ref: CM17 9NA Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Savoullis

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the cr719 7 EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Professor John O'Reilly Chairman NICC Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 cr719 8 University College London Our Ref: RB/L/103 Torrington Place Your Ref: London WC1E 7JE Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Professor O'Reilly

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any cr719 9 complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

Yours faithfully

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr J F Droubday Chairman, PLC forum, EDF Direction du Marketing Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 3 Rue de Messine Our Ref: RB/L/103 75384 Paris Your Ref: cr719 10 France Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Droubday

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before cr719 11 they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr I J Worthington MOD Defence Radiocommunications Branch Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Room 344 Northumberland House Our Ref: RB/L/103 Northumberland Avenue Your Ref: London WC2N 5BP Date: 27 March 2002 cr719 12 Dear Mr Worthington

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified cr719 13 the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr R Page-Jones Radio Society of Great Britain 34 Edwards Way Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Hutton Our Ref: RB/L/103 Brentwood Your Ref: Essex CM13 1BT Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Page-Jones cr719 14 I am writing to bring you up to date with the position on the measures that the UK intends to put in place to handle interference to radio use from digital subscriber line (DSL), Power Line Technology (PLT) and Home LAN systems, should such interference occur.

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement. cr719 15 For clarification, it must be stressed that notification of the use of section 10 procedures to the Commission will only be under the provisions for specific cases under Article 6 of the EMC Directive. The limits in MPT 1570 would not be notified as national standards to be used for the purpose of compliance with the protection requirements in the Directive.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr P Brown Chief Executive The Commercial Radio Companies Association Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 77 Shaftsbury Avenue Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WIV 7AD Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Brown

cr719 16 I am writing to bring you up to date with the position on the measures that the UK intends to put in place to handle interference to radio use from digital subscriber line (DSL), Power Line Technology (PLT) and Home LAN systems, should such interference occur.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Dr H Porter BEMCA Westminster Tower Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 3 Albert Embankment Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: SE1 7SL Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Dr Porter

Yours faithfully

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr A M Heath Network Control & Telecommunications Manager National Grid Company plc Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 St Catherines Lodge Our Ref: RB/L/103 Bearwood Road Your Ref: Sindesham, Nr Wokingham Date: 27 March 2002 Berkshire RG41 5BN

Dear Mr Heath

After consideration and discussion with the Commission, it appeared that the different approaches could be solved by the UK notifying any action it took to enforce the MPT 1570 to the Commission under Article 6(1) of the EMC Directive. This permits Member

states to take special measures in respect of EMC problems at specific sites. The mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement. cr719 21 For clarification, it must be stressed that notification of the use of section 10 procedures to the Commission will only be under the provisions for specific cases under Article 6 of the EMC Directive. The limits in MPT 1570 would not be notified as national standards to be used for the purpose of compliance with the protection requirements in the Directive.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr N Negus Government Communications Headquarters Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Room 4/404 Our Ref: RB/L/103 Fiddlers Green Lane Your Ref: Cheltenham GL52 5AS Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Negus

I am writing to bring you up to date with the position on the measures that the UK intends to put in place to handle interference to radio use from digital subscriber line (DSL), Power Line Technology (PLT) and Home LAN systems, should such interference occur. cr719 22 On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

For clarification, it must be stressed that notification of the use of section 10 procedures to the Commission will only be under the provisions for specific cases under Article 6 of the cr719 23 EMC Directive. The limits in MPT 1570 would not be notified as national standards to be used for the purpose of compliance with the protection requirements in the Directive.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr O Roberts The Civil Aviation Authority Directorate of Airspace Policy Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 K6 Gate 6, CAA House Our Ref: RB/L/103 45-49 Kingsway Your Ref: London WC2B 6TE Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Roberts

I am writing to bring you up to date with the position on the measures that the UK intends to put in place to handle interference to radio use from digital subscriber line (DSL), Power Line Technology (PLT) and Home LAN systems, should such interference occur. cr719 24 On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

For clarification, it must be stressed that notification of the use of section 10 procedures to the Commission will only be under the provisions for specific cases under Article 6 of the EMC Directive. The limits in MPT 1570 would not be notified as national standards to be used for the purpose of compliance with the protection requirements in the Directive. cr719 25 In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr J Savage General Manager Meteor Communications (Europe) Ltd Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Alexander Road Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Coloney, St Albans Your Ref: Herts AL2 1JG Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Savage

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package cr719 26 included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

cr719 27 In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr P Craine Director of Government Relations Marconi plc Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 One Broton Street Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WIY 8AQ Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Craine

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be cr719 28 given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity cr719 29 from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr S Roper N Sine Apex Plaza Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Forbury Road Our Ref: RB/L/103 Reading Your Ref: Berkshire RG1 1AX Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Roper

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the cr719 30 operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing cr719 31 harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr P Laven European Broadcasting Union Technical Department Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Ancienne Roule 17A Our Ref: RB/L/103 CH-1218 Grand Saconnex Your Ref: Geneva, Switzerland Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Laven

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference cr719 32 caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance cr719 33 standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr M Thomas Director of Engineering The Radio Authority Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Holbrook House Our Ref: RB/L/103 14 Great Queen Street, Holborn Your Ref: London WC2B 5DG Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Thomas

On 9 November 2000 Patricia Hewitt, the then Minister for small business and e- commerce, announced a package of measures in relation to this issue. This package included the announcement of limits in the standard known as MPT 1570 which would be given statutory force through interference regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It also includes the placing of an obligation on the operators of DSL and PLT systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused. It is intended that this obligation will be in the form of a Telecommunications Act licence condition and OFTEL informally consulted on such a condition at the end of 2001. cr719 34 The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly. cr719 35 While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr M Gleave Technical Policy Adviser BBC Technology Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 16 Langham Street Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WIA 1AA Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Gleave

cr719 36 The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament.

In relation to the Commission’s mandate to the ETSI/CENELEC Joint Working Group (JWG) to develop European standards, it would appear that there is still a lack of clarity from the Commission on whether the limits to be developed will be used as a compliance or interference standard. However, the issuing of the mandate in terms of producing harmonised standards for use under the EMC Directive effectively indicates a compliance standard. We have pointed out to the Commission the impracticality of using the limits as a compliance standard and the JWG has, independently, argued similarly. cr719 37 While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr G Baker Head of Public Affairs Alcatel Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 19 George Street Our Ref: RB/L/103 Banbury Your Ref: Oxon OX16 8BH Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Baker

The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical cr719 38 barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament.

While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is cr719 39 possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr C B Mathias EAMA Regional Director Lucent Technologies Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 101 Wigmore Street Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WIH 9AB Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Mathias

The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August cr719 40 informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament.

While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not cr719 41 the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Natasha Hobday European Regulatory Counsel First Telecom Plc Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 One Harbour Exchange Square Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: E14 9GB Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Natasha Hobday

The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament. cr719 42 On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. cr719 43 Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr O Blank European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Diament Building Our Ref: RB/L/103 A Regerslvan-80-bld A Reyers Your Ref: B-1030-Brussels, Belgium Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Blank

The draft section 10 regulations and MPT 1570 were notified to the European Commission on 29 August 2001 in accordance with Directive 98/34 EC which concerns technical barriers to trade. My colleague Neil Marr wrote to interested parties on 24 August informing them of this and that if no comments were received from Member States or the Commission in 12 weeks, the regulations would be able to be placed before Parliament. cr719 44 On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

While the UK now considers itself able to proceed with implementation of the regulations, a need has arisen to consider whether some relaxation of the limits below 150 kHz is possible. We will therefore be conducting a short, one month, consultation on this. It is not the intention, however, to revisit the limits between 150 kHz and 1.6 MHz at this time. Laying of the regulations in Parliament will thus await the outcome of this further consideration. cr719 45 I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions on this you are welcome to contact myself at the above address or at [email protected] or Neil Marr (020 7211 0461, [email protected] ).

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Ms K Wray Manager, Regulatory Policy Cable & Wireless Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Bedford House Our Ref: RB/L/103 21A John Street Your Ref: London WCIN ZBC Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Ms Wray

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of cr719 46 national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

cr719 47 I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions on this you are welcome to contact myself at the above address or at [email protected] or Neil Marr (020 7211 0461, [email protected] ).

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr J L Ryan Protection Engineer Electricity Association Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 30 Millbank Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: SWIP 4RD Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Ryan

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion cr719 48 essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr G M Welch White Box Solutions Limited PO Box 82 Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Kendal Our Ref: RB/L/103 LA9 7GT Your Ref: Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Welch

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr T Haynes Sensor Systems The Grove Warren Lane Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Stanmore Our Ref: RB/L/103 Middlesex Your Ref: HA7 4LY Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Haynes

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr A Mollett Chief Financial Officer Virgin Radio Limited Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 No 1 Golden Square Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: WIR 4OJ Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Mollett

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr N Glover Head of Technical Services BREMA Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Landseer House Our Ref: RB/L/103 19 Charing Cross Road Your Ref: London WC2H 0ES Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Glover

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr A P Cobb Director General Telecommunications Industry Association Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Douglas House Our Ref: RB/L/103 32-34 Simpson Road Your Ref: Fenny Stratford, Bletchley Date: 27 March 2002 Milton Keynes MK1 1BA

Dear Mr Cobb

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of cr719 58 national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

After consideration and discussion with the Commission, it appeared that the different approaches could be solved by the UK notifying any action it took to enforce the MPT 1570 to the Commission under Article 6(1) of the EMC Directive. This permits Member

states to take special measures in respect of EMC problems at specific sites. The mechanism within the UK for implementing MPT 1570 will remain through regulations made under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Notification under Article 6 of the EMC Directive will therefore not affect the enforcement procedures previously set out. Indeed, for completeness the UK has also offered to inform the Commission about any complaints of DSL, PLT or home LAN interference that it has solved under the proposed Telecommunications Act licence condition. That is, complaints that are resolved before they are considered under the section 10 procedures. The UK has now formally notified the Commission of its intent in this respect and the Commission in turn has signified its agreement.

Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr I Anderson Fujitsu Solihull Parkway Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Birmingham Business Park Our Ref: RB/L/103 Birmingham Your Ref: B37 7YU Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Anderson

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's cr719 60 view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions on this you are welcome to contact myself at the above address or at [email protected] or Neil Marr (020 7211 0461, [email protected] ). cr719 61 Yours sincerely

C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr K Gutmann Oneline AG Steinfeldstrabe 3.39179 Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Barleben Our Ref: RB/L/103 Germany Your Ref: Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Gutmann

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to cr719 62 demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

Yours sincerely cr719 63 C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr J Porter ntl House Bartley Wood Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Business Park, Hook Our Ref: RB/L/103 Hampshire Your Ref: RG27 9XA Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Porter

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 cr719 64 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

Yours sincerely

cr719 65 C H RICHARDS

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Professor D Crawford Director of Research & Development Crown Castle UK Ltd Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 PO Box 98 Our Ref: RB/L/103 Warwick Your Ref: CU34 6TN Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Professor Crawford

Yours faithfully

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Ms L Flawn BT 4th Floor Downgate Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 London Our Ref: RB/L/103 EC4R 2SU Your Ref: Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Ms Flawn

Yours sincerely

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr D Robinson Regulatory Affairs Global Crossing Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 9 St Clare Street Our Ref: RB/L/103 London Your Ref: EC3N 1LQ Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Robinson

Yours sincerely

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr J Maundrell CIS9 D508 DERA Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 St Andrews Road Our Ref: RB/L/103 Malvern Your Ref: Worcs WR14 3PS Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Maundrell

Yours sincerely

Fax: 0207-211-0035 Mr A Roberts Director of Technology Centrica plc Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Millstream Our Ref: RB/L/103 Maidenhead Road Your Ref: Windsor, Berks, SL4 5GD Date: 27 March 2002

Dear Mr Roberts

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into cr719 74 service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

Yours sincerely

Fax: 0207-211-0035

Direct Line: 0207-211-0485 Our Ref: RB/L/103 Your Ref: Date:

On 29 November the Commission delivered a detailed opinion on our notification. This is a standard procedure provided for under Directive 98/34 EC and it stays implementation of national measures, in this case the regulations, by a further 12 weeks. The detailed opinion essentially raised questions about the legal basis for our regulations. The Commission's view was that MPT 1570 should have been notified under Article 7.2 of the EMC Directive, 89/336/EEC. This procedure permits the use of national standards as a means to demonstrate compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive, where European cr719 76 harmonised standards do not exist. The UK position was that this would make MPT 1570 a compliance standard for the purpose of placing apparatus on the market or taking into service, which we did not consider practical in the case of existing cables used for DSL, PLT or home LAN purposes. Rather, we wished to use MPT 1570 for the purpose of determining whether interference, if it occurred, was undue.

Yours sincerely cr719 77 C H RICHARDS

cr719 78