1. Rue de la Science 14, 1040 – Brussels [Belgium] T: +32 2 609 53 10 F: +32 2 431 04 89 www.digitaleurope.org - info@digitaleurope.org July2014 2

2.  Background  Present situation  Way forward Antenna Performance in Mobile Networks May 2014 04/07/20143 MATS HANSSON

3. BACKGROUND Beginning 2013: EU Commission (EC) receives question from Danish MEP related to performance of mobile phones Danish MEP asks for improvement of receiver performance of mobile phones and consideration of a labelling scheme for antenna quality EC presents this issue to Member States at TCAM WG3 (Jun 13) and WG4 (Nov 13) EC informs at TCAM WG4 about the launch of a technical study on antenna reception and a possible workshop in 2014 Workshop did take place in Brussels April 10 th 2014 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 4

4. BACKGROUND – WORKSHOP SUMMARY 1 Report done by Eurexcem concluded that new receiver requirements and labelling scheme are technically feasible (it doesn‘t assess, however, whether these are needed) Danish authority believes that coverage is very dependent on phone sensitivity (room for improvement). Confirms that labelling scheme is very high on political agenda in northern Europe Manufacturers and associations consider that existing certification schemes and performance standards (e.g. GCF/3GPP) can be better promoted rather than creating new ones. Receiver performance does not only depend on mobile phones - a labelling scheme would be confusing and would bring very little added value 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 5

5. BACKGROUND - WORKSHOP SUMMARY 2 ETSI offered standardisation options in case new technical requirements were identified as necessary. Involvement of all interested parties would be needed (i.e. network operators, manufacturers, administrations, consumer associations, EC) ANEC welcomes a technical improvement, but linked better performance to increase of SAR values. Important for consumers to have information, but it should be reliable and understandable (e.g. consumers do not understand new energy label) 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 6

6. PRESENT SITUATION  Antenna performance is very complex  Network coverage  Terminal antenna performance  Location, Location, Location......  Network coverage is different for different type of signals  High speed data traffic require much better coverage than a SMS  No formal requirements for quality of network except emergency calls in GSM 900 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 7

7. INDUSTRY  Manufacturers follows requirements including evolution in the technical standards  Through GCF we align with the operators requirement on antenna performance  Typically 20 mobile bands share 2-4 antennas  A optimal Antenna for GSM 900 need to be 30 cm long  Compromises are made to optimise for the intended market/customer/usage of the device  The complexity is creating new problems 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 8

8. GLOBAL CERTIFICATION FORUM  Antenna testing is currently performed on new mobile devices as part of GCF certification scheme to ensure performance levels are met.  Testing is completed for both transmitter and receiver performance according to global industry standard (3GPP) test procedures.  It is mandatory for mobile phones to meet current GCF minimum antenna performance requirements for certification to be completed.  GCF certification criteria for mobile devices is agreed between network operators and manufacturers and is continuously revised with latest requirements. 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 9

9. WAY FORWARD  Mobile device manufacturers and operators are working together within Global Certification Forum (GCF) to continuously evolve antenna performance testing  GCF are currently analyzing the present situation of network and terminal antenna performance needs.  Have developed and continue to review minimum criteria for terminals and networks.  Are working with standard organisations for developing appropriate test methods for existing and new technologies.  Industry promotes 3GPP as open standards forum for setting minimum performance criteria.  Operators are promoting TS.24 for setting the performance criteria.  TS. 24 is a operator forum and is not a standard organisation. 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 10

10. THANK YOU 04/07/2014 MATS HANSSON 11