Re: stds-802-16-tg4: draft letter to ETSI BRAN
Roger, thanks for your response. One of my main concerns is that we seem
to be caving in to ETSI requests on the use of the UNII bands. We have the
right to use both the 5.25 and the 5.725 bands for FWA applications here
in the USA. We should adamantly defend that right and not cave in to the
ETSI demand that the 5.25 by used only for mobile and nomadic (whatever
they are) devices - in Europe now, and possibly worldwide after WRC-2003.
It is my understanding that ETSI wants to grab all the spectrum it can for
mobile and nomadic devices (including 5.47-5.725) for Europe, and then
propose that also for worldwide use after WRC-2003. Even the USA FCC
seems to be considering giving up the use of 5.25 band for FWA applications.
I want to make sure we do everything we can to defend the use of 5.25 band
for FWA applications. We could live with part of the 5.47 band instead, but
let's not give anything back! We need 200 MHz of bandwidth plus for FWA
applications. Thanks.
Heinz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: "Heinz Lycklama" <HeinzL@Vectrad.com>
Cc: <stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org>; <jay@ensemblecom.com>;
<mariannag@breezecom.co.il>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: stds-802-16-tg4: draft letter to ETSI BRAN
> Heinz,
>
> Even though this is a Working Group letter, it needs to be reviewed
> by the IEEE 802 SEC before we can send it. In IEEE 802.161-01/18r1
> (which was drafted with significant 802.16 input and which 802.16
> endorsed by vote), IEEE 802 has taken a position on the use of the
> bands. So we need to live within the bounds of that 802 position.
>
> In the draft letter, I editorially restructured text that had been
> approved by TG4. I tried not to change the technical content but only
> to revise the tone. The real purpose of the review is to make sure
> that I did this correctly. The TG4-approved letter did not advocate
> for anything but Band C, as you can see from the original text:
>
> >Following up on the liaison letter from IEEE 802 (IEEE
> >802.161-01/18), IEEE 802.16 would like to request EP BRAN to
> >consider examining the suitability of license-exempt FWA operation
> >in 5GHz, band C (5725-5875 MHz) and consider IEEE 802.16b
> >(WirelessHUMAN) as a suitable baseline standard.
> >
> >As you may be aware, several European regulatory administrations are
> >already considering opening this band for license-exempt FWA. For
> >example, RA UK, after receiving a report from 5GHz Advisory Group
> >recommending studying of FWA in this band using 2 to 4 Watts EIRP,
> >is actively considering opening this band for license-exempt FWA.
> >
> >Recognizing that band B (5.470-5725 MHz) is currently allocated to
> >HIPERLAN Type 2 only, and insufficient spectrum may be available for
> >sharing this band with license-exempt FWA operation, IEEE 802.16 has
> >concluded that band C would be the more suitable allocation for
> >license-exempt FWA.
> >
> >Noting that the HIPERMAN WG is already actively considering the IEEE
> >802.16a standard, of which IEEE 802.16b is largely an extension,
> >802.16 would suggest and request this activity to be undertaken by
> >the HIPERMAN WG. IEEE 802.16 would gladly assist the HIPERMAN WG in
> >examining the suitability of license-exempt FWA operation in 5GHz,
> >band C. To initiate this effort, IEEE 802.16b has already started a
> >comprehensive sharing study with regards to this band, which is
> >included in the current draft standard.
> >
> >As outlined in the IEEE 802.16 Wireless HUMAN PAR 5 Criteria, IEEE
> >802 is of the opinion that license exempt FWA has a broad market
> >potential.
>
> As for your comment that we seek clarification of ETSI's definition
> of nomadic devices, we are not limited by the 802 position, but we
> are still limited by the fact that it's not in TG4's version. My
> personal view is that it would be a mistake to ask this as an open
> question; we would be better off stating our _own_ view on the matter
> and asking if ETSI agrees. At this time, we don't _have_ an official
> view of our own. If TG4 wants to develop such a view, they should
> have a look at the published dictionaries. I recommend ITU-R F.1399
> "Vocabulary of Terms for Wireless Access". Jose Costa provided us
> with a draft revision approved by ITU-R Study Group 9 (see IEEE
> 802.16l-00/40 <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/80216l-00_40.pdf>).
>
> Roger
>
>
> >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 (as well as TDD) mode to take advantage
> >of chipsets available today. This also allows us to use both the
> >upper and middle UNII bands.
> >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
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >---------------
> >Dr. Heinz Lycklama
> >Chief Systems Architect
> >Vectrad Networks
> >Ph: 425-354-1402
> >Cell: 425-501-5075
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >-----------------------------------
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org <mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>>
> >To: <stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org <mailto:stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org>>
> >Cc: <jay@ensemblecom.com <mailto:jay@ensemblecom.com>>;
> ><mariannag@breezecom.co.il <mailto: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,
> >>
> >> ...
>