RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

["Eilts, Hank" <eilts@ti.com>]

Title: RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

Hello Joanne,

You make some very good points.  However, those points been made before, and the group chose a different course (than a single phy).  The group members know the benefits of a single phy standard.  They also know the cost to their companies if their particular technology is not included.  It's a pro and con debate within each voter.  It's a small debate -- they don't have to think about it very long.  As it stands now, the market will decide which will survive.

You are a single carrier advocate.  The OFDM advocates would rephrase your statement to say "the OFDM approach can achieve all that single carrier and OFDMA can achieve."  Likewise, the OFDMA camp would say "the OFDMA approach can achieve all that single carrier and OFDM can achieve."  Your problem is not the phy, as any of the 3 phys will work acceptably.  Some better or cheaper than others, but they all work.    Your problem is one of concensus.

We could discuss this forever, but that won't change the standard.  If you feel strongly about this, I suggest making a contribution to 802.16 and asking Roger Marks to be placed on the agenda for one of the meetings.  You won't be treated rudely for voicing your opinion.  Many people have similar feelings, but with hardware on the line, I don't think you will be successful.

Good luck,

Hank

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Brett [mailto:joannebrett66@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 2:07 PM
To: Eilts, Hank; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

Dear Hank,

Do you not think as I do that a standard is by definition designed to focus
the
required implementation within a given subject area? It is most desireable
that
the wireless world and their customers should take this standard seriously.
Having succumbed to the attitude that the working group couldn't make a
decision so decided on the, "lets use all three", rather makes a nonsense of
the standard. We all agree that the input has been of a very high quality,
but
why have a standard if the subject matter isn't standardised. You and RevCom
will agree, the single carrier approah can achieve all that OFDM and OFDMA
can
achieve.

Kind regards,
Joanne

>From: "Eilts, Hank" <eilts@ti.com>
>To: "'stds-802-16@ieee.org'" <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
>Subject: Re:  stds-802-16:  802.16 and the Single Carrier
>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:22:01 -0600
>
>To all,
>
>I do not recall any relevant inputs from RevCom when the 3 phy modes were
>being discussed.  It was simply a case of three factions, each with their
>own approach, refusing to compromise on choosing a single phy mode. 
>Putting
>all 3 modes into the standard was recognized as undesireable, but seemed
>like the only way forward.
>
>Hank Eilts
>Texas Instruments, Inc.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
>Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:00 PM
>To: Joanne Brett; stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
>
>
>Joanne,
>
>Could you point to where in the minutes it shows that "RevCom realise
>that everything could be achieved with a Single Carrier FDE approach and
>the OFDM and OFDMA were just added as a fashion statement of the time.".
>I'm not aware that such a resolution has been made.
>
>Some of us may want to discuss the matter with RevCom if that is what
>they think, although I'm not convinced that they do actually think that.
>
>Regards,
>DJ
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joanne Brett
>Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:32 PM
>To: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>My colleagues inform me that it was widely agreed at the last meeting
>that
>the 802.16
>standard is full of quality input from a wide range of technical
>personnel
>contributed
>over the last 4 or so years. They also agreed that having 3 phys tended
>to
>take away
>the optimum quality that could be achieved. RevCom realise that
>everything
>could be
>achieved with a Single Carrier FDE approach and the OFDM and OFDMA were
>just added as a fashion statement of the time. OFDM and OFDMA are a
>fantastic
>piece
>of wireless technology, but totally unrequired in the standard. I
>therefore
>agree that
>the standard would be far more readable if the OFDM and OFDMA sections
>were
>deleted.
>We all want our products to be 802.16 compliant but very few people have
>any
>desire
>to read an 800 page standard in the first place.
>
>Long live the Single Carrier.
>
>Jo
>
>
> >From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> >To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> >Subject: stds-802-16: Conformance03 approval schedule
> >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:17:28 -0700
> >
> >As you recall, the P802.16/Conformance03 draft was 100% approved in
> >Sponsor
> >Ballot, with comments. At our WG Closing Plenary of 15 January, we
>approved
> >comment resolutions, agreed to initiate a recirc, and agreed to
>"request
> >conditional approval from the 802 EC to forward the final balloted
>draft to
> >RevCom." However, the motion did not specify a time frame.
> >
> >Though TGC had been considering a submittal in February, I have
> >discussed
> >the schedule with TGC Chair Ken Stanwood and Editor Lars Lindh. We have
>
> >decided to postpone the schedule a few weeks. The primary reason is so
>that
> >we can seek 802 EC approval at the March plenary instead of in an email
>EC
> >ballot. The EC doesn't really like to make this kind of decision by
>email.
> >We already have one major email motion in front of them, and I don't
>want
> >to push them harder. We have decided that the delay is not concern.
>RevCom
> >approval will be delayed to late April, instead of late March.
> >
> >Lars is preparing a draft for recirc.
> >
> >The revised schedule is here:
> >     http://ieee802.org/16/tgc/C3/schedule.html
> >
> >Let me know if you have any concerns.
> >
> >Roger
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself with cool new emoticons
>http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo