Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE] The new 802.22 PAR
"J",Ofer, All,
My understanding, after e-mail exchanges with 802.18 members
and discussion with Carl Stevenson, is as follows:
- 802.18 has no requirements in this moment; what they really
addressed is mainly related to the cognitive approach for
recognizing a TV occupied channel and co-channel interference
to TV receivers. There are many not-studied issues, as:
- BWA service range in the FCC proposed contour;
- feasibility of FCC out-of-band requirement in BWA
Subscriber Terminal;
- real protection of TV service with an almost collocated
transmitter (hard show-stopper, as the TV service is protected),
due to out-of-band emissions
- mitigation techniques for BWA BS to TV receiver interference;
- guard bands between TV transmitter and BWA receiver.
A start to study some of these points was done after July meeting.
They expect that 802.22 will respond these points, but this may
be too late for the FCC process, that asked comments related to
proposed rules and Part 15.244 draft.
Are these rules good enough or feasible?
Due to the fact that the NPRM response is due by Sept.3?, and
August is a holiday period, I encourage the interested
companies to respond directly to the FCC NPRM. I also
encourage them to share their studies and conclusions with
802.16 [LE] and 802.18-SG1 e-mail lists, and participate in
802.18 conference calls (next one is Aug.4, you should
register by Monday 2).
The IEEE 802 response to FCC will be drafted by 802.18, and
below you will find the agreed summary of my telephone
conversation with Carl.
"802.18 would welcome inputs from the 802.16 LE SG, as well
from other 802 groups.
The technical work already done in 802.18 addresses primarily
the issue of coexistence with co-channel TV service.
Protecting the licensed incumbents is the major hurdle to
getting access to the band, but .22 will also have to address
coexistence with itself and any other unlicensed occupants of
the band. The coexistence in adjacent / alternate channels
and issues as noise floor were not covered yet (a good start
was done after the July meeting).
The NPRM have questions related to fixed and portable
devices, and help in addressing the NPRM questions is more
than welcome by 802.18."
Regards,
Mariana
-----Original Message-----
From: J Kim [mailto:macsbug@RESEARCH.ATT.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:33 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] The new 802.22 PAR
In addition, I'd like to see any studies, documents and message thread
that the PAR document and responses to .16 comments states to possess to
support the assertion that there is no 802 wireless tech that would
satisfy the perceived requirements.
"J" Kim
-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@ALVARION.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:06 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: The new 802.22 PAR
Ofer,
You have a very nice idea.
Actually we already have in LE Coexistence SG charter to address the
issue
of behavior of 802.16 compliant systems, when primary users are
detected. We
always considered that regulators will provide detection requirements,
as
happened in 5GHz, for radars. Regarding TV bands, may be possible that
802.18 (or 802.22), accumulating already significant knowledge, will
help in
defining these rules. We always considered the detection requirements
being
not part of 802.16 PHY/MAC protocols.
However, 802.18 may try to convince FCC that only 802.22 should be
allowed
in this band, which is similar with some kind of band allocation for a
standard (like GSM, UMTS,etc.). Such a proposal makes sense for improved
co-existence (even if it is not mentioned in 802.22 PAR). Here again,
802.19
and the 802.16 LE Coexistence SG may play a role, to define the
coexistence
between wireless access systems, like 802.16 and 802.22, and for sure,
collaboration is the key word.
I will try to talk with Carl, as 802.22 interim chair, about his views
on
these issues. I hope that we will be able to build a solid collaboration
process.
Another issue may be drafting requirements for PHY/MAC protocols in TV
bands: in spite our opinion, Carl was convinced that 802.16 MAC/PHY do
not
comply with TV bands requirements. We should look in a positive way at
his
views and not exclude that some modifications may be requested for these
bands. Will be very useful if 802.18 SG1 will define "Requirements for
PHY/MAC protocols in TV bands". These will allow us to both assess
compliance with requirements and amend 802.16 standard, if necessary. I
am
not aware of such assessment process in 802.18-SG1, but if actually has
taken place, will be really interesting to see the relevant documents.
Kind Regards,
Marianna
-----Original Message-----
From: Ofer Kelman [mailto:okelman@AIRSPAN.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:49 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] The new 802.22 PAR
Marianna, Roger,
How about approaching the 802.22 interim chair to join efforts with the
LE
group we have? I read in their reply to 802.16's comments that the
802.18
group was not aware of the relaxation of the lower limit to the
frequency
band, and I would think that coexistence with TV broadcasting is very
much
aligned with coexistence with other LE equipment.
Such approaches for joining efforts had been done in the past by the
group.
I recall we sent such a letter to the "First Mile" group (802.?).
Comments are welcomed.
Ofer
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************