[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: stds-802-16: WirelessHUMAN report
In addition to your pro's and cons, IEEE 802 has an important role to play to
assure interoperability between products from different manufacturers. But as
a technical standards body, it is beyond their scope to undertake the political
issue of keeping a frequency band "pure" for products that meet their
standards, and to try to exclude non-interoperable products. In fact, it
violates US antitrust laws.
e-mail : email@example.com
Telephone : UK (+44) (0) 7802 538315 USA (+1) 972 345 5226
Fax : UK (+44) (0) 20 7681 1695 USA (+1) 602 532 7013
From: Roger B. Marks[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 15:48
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: WirelessHUMAN report
Based on reading <http://ieee802.org/16/human/par_comments.html>, I
think I can summarize my guess as to how this debate might go.
Pro and Con (who get their names from their position with respect to
a WirelessHUMAN standard) have the following discussion:
Con: WirelessHUMAN will interfere with Wireless LANs if they share
the U-NII band. Therefore, there should be no WirelessHUMAN in the
U-NII band. Therefore, 802 shouldn't have a WirelessHUMAN standard.
Pro: Quasi-HUMAN or Sub-HUMAN (hominoid?) systems are being deployed
and will continue to be deployed. IEEE is not the regulator. Having
no WirelessHUMAN standard doesn't mean there will be no interfering
Con: While 802 can't stop HUMAN-like deployments, it should at least
avoid promoting their use.
Pro: Wrong. 802 should promote deployments that are, to a large
degree, harmonious with existing IEEE-based systems. Having a
WirelessHUMAN standard that is coordinated with 802.11 is the best
way for 802 to encourage cooperative use. Ultimately, will be the
best thing for 802.11.
Con: Well, maybe, but what do you mean by coordinated?
Pro: I'm not exactly sure, but I think we can work that out.
WirelessHUMAN chose the 802.11a PHY, and we think that should help.
Con: Well, if you also chose the 802.11 MAC, then maybe we could talk business.
Pro: We looked at the 802.11 MAC, and we think that the 802.16
approach is more in line with our needs.
Con: OK, so I ask again, what do you mean by coordinated?
Pro: How about if we agree to work on the problem together?
Con: Maybe. Where do you suggest we start?
I think that our WirelessHUMAN team needs to be prepared for a debate
like this. In particular, they need to be ready to address the last
question. This is going to require some advance work.
My suggestion is that the people interested in WirelessHUMAN get
together and work on this problem. They need a place of their own,
off the 802.16 reflector, where they can get some real work done.
To facilitate this process, I have created a discussion group at
<http://www.egroups.com/group/wirelesshuman>. I have made Durga the
moderator. I suggest that those of you interested in this topic go
over there, sign up, and work the problem. Let me know how it is
going and if you need any help.
At 2:06 PM +0200 00/10/13, zion wrote:
>I don't understand the 802.11a group, their reaction looks as
>misunderstanding of the following points:
>a. If 802.11a wants to have a spectrum just for them then they are taking a
>risk, someone may decided to treat the band as licensed band, with all the
>money involved around that. Some hypothesis: 1) If 802.11a will have the
>UNII band then the FCC will be asked by the industry to allocate another
>band for HUMAN and other license exempt systems. 2) The FCC can split the
>UNII band to two or more groups as well. 3) The FCC will leave the situation
>as is. With all the above scenarios I don't see why 802.11a should act
>especially against HUMAN.
>b. The chance to have the UNII spectrum just for 802.11a currently is very
>low. It is anticipated that more proprietary non-coordinated technologies
>will jump to that spectrum. The risk is bigger if other standard
>technologies will upgrade their frequencies to that band, assuming they will
>fulfill the FCC rules (like upgrade of: 802.16.3 or Hiperlan2, FWA < 11 from
>ETSI). This other standard technologies may be sold in high quantities and
>will occupy the band without any farther coordination.
>c. If the 802.11a will stop HUMAN to develop under IEEE, it will not prevent
>other HUMAN like systems to come from outside IEEE (we can see that from the
>number of participation in the HUMAN study group, even if it runs in
>parallel to 802.16.3). If 802.11a did not developed for environment like the
>UNII is defined today then they should modify it.
>d. In case where HUMAN standard will develop under the 802's wings, some
>coexistent and coordination with 802.11a can be achieved (using the same
>spectral shape, bandwidth, center frequency etc).
>e. HUMAN made a call that was pushed by Naftali Chayat from 802.11a to
>802.11a for help regarding the adaptation of 802.11a. Our technical
>decisions have been taken during the meeting on the reaction to that call
>and a full consideration of the 802.11a has been taken.
>f. Human decided to choose to be close to 802.11a Phy in order to use the
>same spectrum mask, power level, etc... for coexistence reasons and time to
>g. Human decided to choose to be close to 802.16.1 MAC in order to take the
>ACCESS and other advantages, the group has some freedom in the convergence
>MAC/PHY that may be developed for the HUMAN specific needs, where farther
>coexistence consideration will be taken. After all, The HUMAN group wants to
>share the spectrum with 802.11a with minimum mutual interferences.
>h. Effort for HUMAN survival in the UNII band in outdoor environment under
>the FCC rules will be taken. Human understand the fact that UNII band may
>have other non coordinated technologies in that band, HUMAN may incorporate
>farther tools for reducing the mutual interference like APC, highly
>directional antennas where LOS condition exists, strong or optimize FEC in
>order to minimize the usage of ARQ transmissions in order to prevent farther
>possible interferences from HUMAN to the other systems, which will lead to
>less retransmission on the other systems, etc...
>i. Mutual interference consideration:
>802.11a was designed for indoor LAN for short rang (250 m) and most of the
>time the terminal need low transmit power in order to be received correctly
>by the receiver, this means that the 802.11a has power margin against
>interferences in addition to the building power penetration from outside
>interference. The HUMAN RF path propagate throw outdoor environment can
>transmit the same maximum radiated power but need to go for longer ranges
>(~5-10 Km). If one will make the calculations he will fined that the 802.11a
>doesn't have to be afraid from HUMAN that used similar RF parameters.
>President and CEO
>Runcom Technologies LTD.
>Broadband Wireless Technologies DVB-RCT, LMDS, MMDS
>Tel: 972-3-9528440 ext. 102 Fax: 972-3-9528805
>14 Levi Moshe st. 75158, Rishon Lezion, Israel
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Beha
>lf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:54 PM
>Subject: stds-802-16: Wireless HUMAN report
>Here is a report on the status of and plans for Wireless HUMAN:
>*I submitted the PAR:
> <http://ieee802.org/16/human/par.html> or
>to the 802 Executive Committee on time. I have also arranged to get
>it on the agenda of the IEEE-SA Standards Board for possible approval
>on December 7, provided that 802 approves on November 9.
>*The PAR has led to some strong reactions from people in 802.11. Some
>have voiced strong opposition; others have suggested placing the work
>under 802.11. I have collected the comments together and posted them:
>*Based on this reaction, we are planning a Monday evening (6
>November, 8:00-9:30 pm) discussion on "Implications of the proposed
>Wireless HUMAN PAR on the 802 wireless program." The abstract is
>below; the full description (with hardly any more detail) is at:
>We originally discussed holding this session on Tuesday, but it was
>moved to Monday so that it will assist the other Working Groups in
>drafting their comments on the PAR (these are due to us by 5 pm on
>*Notice that the session is rather ill-defined. I would like to have
>some speakers presenting the thoughts from an 802.16 perspective on
>the issues in the abstract. If you would like to be one of those
>speakers, let Durga <mailto:email@example.com> and me
>know. We need to have some people doing some serious preparation for
>this session. Otherwise, I am afraid the current PAR will be in
>*During Session #10, the WirelessHUMAN Study Group needs to focus on
> -Mon afternoon and up to 8 pm: organizing itself for the evening session
> -Mon 8-9:30 pm: advocating a position and looking for common ground
> -Tue: discussing reactions to the meeting and developing a revised
> -Tue at 5 pm: distributing comments received by other WGs
> -Wed by 4 pm: preparing response to comments of other WGs
> -Wed by 4:30 pm: getting WG to approve revised PAR at WG Midweek Plenary
> -Wed by 5:00 pm: getting revised PAR into boxes of 802 ExCom members
> -Thu before 3 pm: preparing Call For Proposals as described in PAR
> -Thu 3-5 pm: getting plans approved at Closing Plenary
> -Thu night: attending 802 ExCom meeting during WirelessHUMAN motion
>"Implications of the proposed WirelessHUMAN PAR on the 802 wireless program"
>This meeting, organized with a more interactive format than a
>traditional tutorial, covers the implications of 802.16's proposed
>Wireless High-Speed Unlicensed Metropolitan Area Network
>(WirelessHUMAN) PAR <http://ieee802.org/16/human/par> on 802's
>wireless program. The WirelessHUMAN PAR targets operation in the
>unlicensed bands between 5 and 6 GHz, where 802.11 already supports a
>physical layer and 802.15 may be considering operation. While the
>draft PAR proposes a PHY based on 802.11a, the intent is to base the
>MAC on 802.16, which the Study Group believes is more suitable.
>Questions to be addressed include:
>* Can we identify a prescription to ensure that WirelessHUMAN systems, as
>described in the draft PAR, can coexist with nearby 802.11a systems?
>* If not, should 802 reject the WirelessHUMAN PAR, and what will be the
>* Would it be wise to radically transform the WirelessHUMAN PAR?
>* Is there a procedural mechanism to ensure that the WirelessHUMAN standard
>development accounts for the interests of 802.11 (and possibly 802.15)