stds-802-16: RE: stds-802-18 Things FYI ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl); 'stds-802-18@ieee.org'
> Cc: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-802-18 Things FYI ...
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> I have here 2 issues:
Dear Marianna ...
The document you refer to has already been approved by
802.18, 802.11, 802.15, and 802.16 and passed SEC review.
I do not feel that I am at liberty to make substantive
changes at this time (I was only authorized to make minor
editorial and formatting changes prior to filing.)
Additional comments below ...
> 1. I would like to comment on pct. 6, page 3,of the IEEE
> 802.18-03/006r0
> response to FCC ET-Doc 02-380:
>
> - regarding the world-wide harmonization of the
> 5.47-5.725GHz, is answered:
>
> "In particular, the 5470-5725 MHz band for which access was
> requested in
> the pending "WECA Petition" and as is contemplated as a
> global allocation
> for
> "wireless access systems, including RLANs" in WRC-03 Agenda
> Item 1.5, and,
> additionally, any other spectrum below 6 GHz that can be
> identified. The
> global
> harmonization of the 5470-5725 MHz band for wireless access systems,
> including
> RLANs is crucial to the future ability of the IEEE 802
> wireless community to
> continue to meet the public's demand for such devices and services."
>
> My comment is:
>
> - we should mention the 5.47..5.725GHz use for both mobile and fixed
> application;
> (WRC-03 agenda pct. 1.5 refers only to mobile services )
> - we should ask for a new Agenda Item - WRC 2007 for including FWA
> in this band.
As you point out, WRC-03 agenda item 1.5 only contemplates
an allocation to the mobile service. At least one administration
(Canada) seems to have intentions of implementing some FWA
in this band (using what I interpret as a stretch of the term
"nomadic.")
They have, if I recall correctly, also proposed that the fixed
service be added to the agenda item and that was rejected (more
than once, I believe).
However, I get the sense that the terminology "Wireless Access
Systems, including RLANs" may be able to be interpreted liberally
enough to permit uses such as Canada envisions. (As you know, John
Sydor, of the Canadian Communications Research Center, was involved
with 802.16 for some time.)
I am in Orlando, FL at the CITEL (the "CEPT of the Americas")
meeting and I will have a chance to talk to the Canadian
delegation on their views of this interpretation and to refresh
my memory on the history of proposals to add the fixed service
to this band.
In order to get an agenda item on the agenda for WRC-07,
it will take proposals (and support for them) from administrations.
Perhaps you can persuade Israel to make such a proposal?
> 802.16 community will like to see enough spectrum for FWA
> applications.
I understand your view ...
> The main use of the spectrum will be in Rural areas, for
> Internet access.
> In the same areas, the number of WLAN users is very low. In urban,
> there are better solutions for Internet access, as ADSL and
> Cable, so
> FWA will not interfere with WLANs. Regarding co-existence with primary
> users, FWA can accept lower than WLANs DFS thresholds.
I also generally agree (personally) with your comments above.
(As info ... the US will be proposing DFS thresholds of -62 dBm
for devices with EIRP <200mW and -64 dBm for devices from 200 mW
up to 1W EIRP ... the thresholds are referenced to a 0 dBi antenna.
This is the result of negotiations between US industry and the US
government.)
> 2. Another issue is proposals for WRC-2007 - Agenda Items :
>
> A. spectrum for converged fixed/mobile services:
> - study in ITU-R of new technologies developed by 802.16e
> - recognition of 802.16e as one of the "beyond IMT-2000"
> technologies
>
> B. find new frequencies for fixed/mobile applications
> - co-existence with other users, based on "licensing",
> DFS or both.
Again, in order to get an agenda item on the agenda for WRC-07,
it will take proposals (and support for them) from administrations.
I would suggest that you bring this up at our March meeting.
> Please comment and give more details about the face-to-face meeting.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "give more details about
the face-to-face meeting" ...
Finally, I would like to reassure you and all of the members of
802.16 that 802.18 is committed to representing 802.16's interests.
Regards,
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service: 6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org