Re: stds-802-16-tg4: draft letter to ETSI BRAN
Roger, thanks for running your letter by the group first. The position
stated regarding the use of the UNII band does not represent all of us.
Here are some of the reasons why, from Vectrad's perspective. Others
can chime in as appropriate:
1. We want to be able to use FDD mode to take advantage
of chipsets available today. This also allows us to use both the
upper and middle UNII bands today.
2. We want to keep the ability to use the middle (5.25) band for
FWA (fixed wireless access) applications in the USA. The use of
another band, say
5.46 to 5.57, for FWA applications in the USA would also be OK
instead, in the future.
3. We would like to be able to use the middle UNII band (5.25) in Europe
as well for FWA applications. The use of part or all of another
band, say 5.47 to 5.725, would also be OK instead.
4. We want clarification from ETSI that the use of FWA devices
would come under ETSI's definition of nomadic devices.
Thanks for your consideration.
Heinz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: <stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org>
Cc: <jay@ensemblecom.com>; <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: stds-802-16-tg4: draft letter to ETSI BRAN
> In Session #15, we approved a letter to ETSI BRAN, subject to my
> editorial revisions. The main editorial issue had to do with issues
> of license-exempt BWA. This was based on draft text approved by TG4.
>
> I offered to post my draft for comment and allow people a few days to
> see if this is agreeable.
>
> The draft is below. Let me know what you think by September 27.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>
> ------------------------
>
> Dear Jamshid:
>
> In our Session #15 of 10-14 September, IEEE 802.16 read your
> announcement postponing the following week's scheduled BRAN meeting
> until 23-26 October. We sympathize with the difficulty of this
> decision and wish you best of luck in maintaining your progress in
> spite of the delay.
>
> We have published an overview of our session in the Session #15
> Report. I'd like to highlight the following:
>
> * The base IEEE 802.16 draft (including the base 802.16 MAC and the
> 10-66 GHz PHY) was given initial approval in IEEE Sponsor Ballot and
> is being finalized through comment resolution. The document remains
> on track for completion in late October. The draft (P802.16/D4-2001)
> was published by IEEE and is now available for sale in the catalog.
> * Our 802.16a and 802.16b projects (covering 2-11 GHz licensed and
> 5-6 license-exempt, respectively) completed comment resolution and
> finalized important technical work. This led to a joint working
> document that, for the first time, was elevated to Working Group
> status. A Working Group Review of the document will run through
> Session #16 in November.
> * Our 802.16.2a project held its first meeting to develop an
> amendment to the recently-published IEEE Std 802.16.2 ("Coexistence
> of Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems"). The amendment will
> extend coverage to the 2-11 GHz licensed bands and expand the
> recommendations regarding point-to-point systems.
>
> In addition, we note the two following specific issues:
>
> * We understand that Marianna Goldhammer, IEEE 802.16's Liaison to
> the HIPERMAN effort, has forwarded to BRAN the two documents
> "HIPERMAN DLC - Base line proposal: IEEE 802.16 MAC" and "HIPERMAN
> PHY - Base line proposal: IEEE 802.16a PHY." We endorse these
> submissions. However, we note that the references therein to our
> current 2-11 GHz Working Document (IEEE 802.16ab-01/01r1) need to be
> updated to the revised version (IEEE 802.16ab-01/01r2).
>
> * We continue to be interested in adding an addition to Annex 1 to
> the ETSI/IEEE-SA agreement to cover 802.16/BRAN cooperation. We are
> awaiting word from you on the approval of the new BRAN Terms of
> Reference so that we may proceed.
>
> We would also like to follow up on your 29 June letter
> (BRAN24d129/IEEE 802.16l-01/15) to IEEE 802 and 802's 11 July reply
> (IEEE 802.161-01/18r1). Your letter reported "a decision within ETSI
> EP-BRAN not to develop any FWA standards" for the bands 5150-5350 MHz
> and 5470-5725 MHz. You also encouraged a "unified position between
> the worldwide standards bodies" on this issue. IEEE 802 supported a
> unified position in these bands, noting, however, that "IEEE 802
> reaffirms its support for fixed wireless access application
> development in the 5.8 GHz band based on the applicable IEEE 802.16
> standards now under development."
>
> At this point, we would like to request BRAN's interest in a unified
> position on license-exempt fixed wireless access in the 5.8 GHz band
> (more specifically, Band C, covering 5725-5875 MHz). As you know,
> IEEE 802.16 is developing fixed wireless access (FWA) specifications
> for both licensed and license-exempt bands. The license-exempt
> situation is certainly distinct, but we believe that it has much in
> common with licensed bands. This is why we are developing both the
> 802.16a (licensed) and 802.16b (license-exempt) projects in a
> simultaneous effort.
>
> We are aware that several European regulatory administrations are
> considering opening the 5 GHz Band C for license-exempt FWA. For
> example, we understand that the UK's RA, after receiving a 5 GHz
> Advisory Group recommendation to study FWA in this band using 2-4 W
> EIRP, is actively considering opening this band for license-exempt
> FWA.
>
> We believe that our IEEE 802.16b (WirelessHUMAN) project is
> well-suited to applications in Band C. Noting that BRAN's HIPERMAN
> project is already actively considering the IEEE 802.16a standard,
> IEEE 802.16 would gladly participate with HIPERMAN in examining the
> suitability of license-exempt FWA operation in Band C. To initiate
> this effort, we have already started a comprehensive sharing study
> with regards to this band. This is included in the current working
> document (IEEE 802.16ab-01/01r2).
>
> We are very interested to better understand BRAN's position on this
> issue and are hopeful of a unified position.
>
> As usual, we welcome your members to participate in our process in
> any way. Please let me know if there is anything we can do to assist
> in this process.
>
> Best regards,
>
> ...