Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.19] Fw: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements



I agree with Steve here,
 
Although everybody has the right to use the park and everybody must tolerate that other people can use the park does not grant the right to an individual to monopolise two thirds of the parl to through a personnal praty, thereby bullying everyone else out of the park.
 
I think alot of the problem here is that the fact 11n can eat by itself 40 out of 60 MHz make 11n look like a resource bully who tries to initimidate every body else to move out of their way, as if "they" owned the park. I think we are all there to look at how we could have socail rules that make that 11n can operate gracefully within the confines of this spectrum while allowing other devices to continue to simultaneously have a reasonable shore of the same spectrum.
 
Ivan Reede
 
=========================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [802.19] Fw: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements

All,

 

            This perspective is along the lines of treating RF Spectrum as Property.  This is of course the view taken by the FCC.

 

            So I thought I would make some comments from this perspective.

 

  1. Generally the best solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is to maximize private property.  This is in fact the primary solution applied to Spectrum rights.  Most of the frequency bands are licensed private property (Broadcast, cellular, etc.)
  2. However not all property, or spectrum, is private.  We have public parks, road and beaches and we also have unlicensed frequency bands.
  3. There are two primary methods to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons in public property: laws and civil behavior between individuals
    1. In the public parks we have laws against vandalism and littering.  In the unlicensed bands we have laws limiting TX power, bandwidth constraints, and at one time we had spread spectrum processing gain rules.
    2. In public parks most individuals behave in a civil manner toward one another.  They may even make some agreements (often implied in civil society) so that everyone gets to enjoy the public property.  This civil behavior could be thought of as social etiquette.  This is the closes analogy to coexistence in the unlicensed frequency bands.  Wireless networks behave in a manner that allows other wireless networks to also utilize the public spectrum.  We are currently in a debate about whether these networks should behave in a manner that is analogous to civil behavior between individuals sharing public property.

 

Regards,

Steve


From: Bill Shvodian [mailto:bill.shvodian@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:16 AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] Fw: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements

 

Is everyone familiar with the concept of The Tragedy of the Commons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The idea is that if there is a public resource (like common grazing land) that is free for everyone to use, then individuals will decide it is in their best interest to use more and more of it until eventually it is so overused that it is useless (like overgrazed land).  The analogy could be applied to the ISM band.  It is great spectrum and it is free and everyone can use as much as they like as long as they are willing to accept interference.  However, as devices gradually are built to use more and more of this resource at one time, it becomes more and more crowded and eventually unusable for everybody. 

We have heard anecdotal evidence that a device transmitting on 40 MHz will transmit for a shorter time and so the net interference will be the same.  However, the simulations presented by TI show that the aggregate throughput for the resource is decreased when 40 MHz channels are used.  Likewise other technologies are potentially crowed out when 802.11n uses wider bands.  And the argument we have heard that 40 MHz is required to enable new applications says that individual devices would be using more of the resource themselves.  This push for using more and more spectrum is analogous to overgrazing making the land less useful for all users.

Limiting 802.11n devices to 20 MHz in the ISM band would go a long way to keeping the ISM ban useful to all users, and not befalling the fate of the Tragedy of the Commons.  Alternatively, the TAG has been discussing sensing other technologies to avoid degrading their performance when they are present.  Is it ideal for the 802.11n manufacturer?  Of course not.  Limiting 802.11n to 20 MHz in the ISM band would be much easier for device manufacturers to implement, but that has so far been rejected.  Sensing appears to be the next best option. 

Bill 

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ivan Reede <i_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dave,

 

    I think your comment addresses a fundamental question.

 

    I think you are correct in some ways in your assertion that "nobody owns this spectrum" and "everybody may expect intereference" and "everybody has to live with it".

 

    However, I remember some time back, not so long ago, where 802.11 was really worried about 802.15.1 devices not following CSMA/CD rules and interfereing with 802.11 operations... worry which from my perception ultmiatly led to the EC froming 802.19 ... the intent being that although "noboy owns the spectrum" we also have "and 802 devices should play nice to each other".

 

    So the question is, eihter "we elect to play nice to each other and really work at implementing mechanisms enhancing playing nice to each other within 802 devices" or we drop all that and just start having fun clobering each-other. Personally, I rather work together.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Ivan Reede

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:36 PM

Subject: Re: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements

 

Dave,

 

            Thanks for your comments.

 

            I would just like to point out that 802.19 is just a TAG and as such is a forum for having technical discussions.  The decision on the 802.11n draft is in the hands of the WG and the WG/Sponsor ballot voters, the EC, RevCom and the SB, not the 802.19 TAG.

 

            The TAG is not setting policy it's a forum for technical debate.

 

            There was a request for such a discussion.  Are you suggesting that I tell those who requested such a discussion that the TAG will not allow for such a technical discussion?  I think not.

 

Regards,

Steve


From: David Bagby [mailto:david.bagby@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements

 

Steve,

I honestly do not think that .19 should go down that road.

 

If it does, I strongly suggest that requirements to scan for other 802 family wireless devices would have to apply to ALL 802 wireless devices.

 

Let's consider:

1) The ISM bands are what they are: ISM band devices are required by law to accept any interference received from other ISM devices.

 

2) Another factoid is that 802 devices constitute a small portion of the things found in ISM bands. (ref the tutorial given by the hospital guys re what they saw in ISM bands when they scanned).

 

3) Independent of if we like it or not, the mixture of signals in the ISM bands is not static - what one accounted for in yesterday's design may or may not be good enough tomorrow - the band signal content is dynamic.

 

4) The law has no analogy of a homestead act for spectrum in the ISM bands - Ownership of spectrum is not conveyed by sales of devices.

 

5) The source of what one's device perceives as "interference" is not really relevant (in that it does not matter if it is from another 802 device or a non-802 device).  

 

6) Channel width used by a device is also not relevant (100 1MHZ adjacent channels fill the same amount of spectrum as 1 100MHz channel).

 

My pragmatic conclusion, developed over many years, is that if one wants to play in the ISM bands, one had better be able to operate in the ISM environment, including accepting the interference one is likely to receive. If one's device can't handle that, don't expect to have a successful product.

 

SO then I ask why scan for 802 devices?

Presumably because "someone" wants "something" to happen to make their operation "better" when the "other" devices are found....

 

Who is to say what use of the ISM band is more important that another?

The only consistent answer to those questions I would expect to hear is "mine is more important than yours"; a rat hole argument that can never be "won".

 

I've observed that people tend to react emotionally along the lines of "just don't interfere with me"....

ISM band reality is that if ISM product operation depends on assumptions that can not be guaranteed in the ISM band, one may not have made a good choice of  spectrum for the product design.

 

When I consider these points, I wonder what is the benefit of having 802 devices looking for only other 802 devices?

What will they do when they find them?

Who gets out of the way of whom?

why?

based on what objective or criteria?

Having found 802 devices, does it matter given the full extent of devices operating in the ISM band?

 

Seems to me like a lot of work to address a rather small percentage of the ISM "interference sources".

 

Suppose 802 did eventually require that all 802 devices look for other 802 devices....

to what end?

how would 802 keep that updated as new devices are invented? 

 

Cross coupling operational aspects of different 802 standards in that manner would seem to be an enormous complication; and one that I don't see a payback for. The pace of the 802 standards process pretty much tells me that by the time that "802 family scanning" were standardized, the assumed mixture of devices would be obsolete. And what would old 802 devices do wrt to new ones? they would have no way to know how to scan for them...

 

I think it very unwise for .19 to attempt to extend simple "coexistence" (which is not and has never been a synonym for "zero interference interaction") into "cross 802 wireless standard awareness" or (even more complicated) "dynamic spectrum management between 802 devices". 

 

I suspect that anyone which sticks a toe in that tar pit is unlikely to ever see their toe (or foot or...) again...

 

Dave

 

____________

David Bagby

Calypso Ventures, Inc.

office: (650) 637-7741

email: Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:05 PM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.19] Possible 802.11n spectrum scanning requirements

All,

 

            On the 40MHz 11n coexistence conference call it was suggested that the 802.19 TAG start to look at possible Spectrum Scanning Requirements.   A proposal was made to add include an option for spectrum scanning in the standard.  The proposal was made by John Barr and can be found at,

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-1101-04-000n-additional-40-mhz-scanning-proposal.ppt

 

            While the 802.11 WG discusses the merits of this proposal, the 802.19 TAG is a good forum for having technical discussions on possible requirements and technical feasibility.  This information may be useful to 802.11 in making its decision on how to address this proposal.  The text on Slide 6 of John's presentation beings to discuss possible requirements.  That may be a good place to look at to stimulate thinking on this topic.

 

            During the conference call it was suggested that the primary non-802.11 systems that are of concern are 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) and 802.15.4 (Zigbee) since they both operate in the 2.4 GHz band.

 

            Anyone who would like to prepare a presentation on possible spectrum scanning requirements for these non-802.11 systems please notify me.  We can discuss any such presentations on the next conference call on November 3 or at the Plenary meeting in Dallas.

 

Thanks,

Steve