| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
petere
§ 90.7 Definitions.
* * * * *
Contention-based protocol. A protocol that allows multiple users to share
the same spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two or more
transmitters attempt to simultaneously access the same channel and establishing
rules by which a transmitter provides reasonable opportunities for other
transmitters to operate. Such a protocol may consist of procedures for
initiating new transmissions, procedures for determining the state of the
channel (available or unavailable), and procedures for managing retransmissions
in the event of a busy channel.
===
Relevant
Extract of 8 June telecon minutes:
Discussion of Need for a Co-existence
Statement
Peter brought in two
references:
LMSC P&P November 2004, last
page
If indicated
in the five criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a coexistence
assurance (CA) document in the process of preparing for working group letter
ballot and sponsor ballot. The CA document shall accompany the draft on all
wireless working group letter ballots.
The CA
document shall address coexistence
with all relevant approved 802 wireless
standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The working group should consider other
specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document.
FCC 47CFR90.1
(a) Basis. The rules in this part are
promulgated under Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended which
vests authority in the Federal Communications Commission to regulate radio
transmission and to issue licenses for radio stations. All rules in this part
are in accordance with applicable treaties and agreements to which the
(b) Purpose. This part states the conditions under which
radio communications systems may be
licensed and used in the Public Safety, Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and
Radiolocation RadioServices. These rules do not govern the licensing of radio
systems belonging to and operated by the
[43 FR 54791, Nov. 22, 1978, as amended at 65 FR 66650, Nov. 7, 2000]
In
its latest discussion ExCom clearly indicated that they consider the text above
to apply “as is” to this (CBP) issue. Since there are no approved 802 standards
for unlicensed operation in this band, the formal requirement for a CA document
is absent.
Notwithstanding the above, we had an
extensive but inconclusive discussion on the need for a CA document in this
proceeding. Some points brought up
(in no particular order):
1)
The CA
document is not about assuring co-existence but about ensuring that co-existence
issues have been considered – if applicable. Assuring actual co-existence
between different 802 standards is another matter.
2)
802 has a
history in putting out standards that specify potentially conflicting systems –
see the FH and DSSS parts of the 802.11 standard. After a while the market made
a clear choice. The same will apply here.
3)
The FCC
has not clarified what “Contention Based” means
4)
Request
for Reconsideration may be filed and as a result, the rulemaking may
change
5)
It makes
sense to do a CA document because we do not know what will be the outcome of the
work of a new TG – if it is started off.
6)
We are
entering new territory with spectrum that is neither unlicensed nor exclusively
licensed.
7)
802.11
has built-in spectrum sharing, 802.16 (still) has not.
8)
Excom is
likely to keep this study group alive to provide Excom with technical assistance
on this subject if it does not start a Working Group/Task
Group.
As
the bridge time had expired, the meeting was adjourned without a conclusion
being reached.
Peter Ecclesine, Technology Analyst, New Markets & New
Technologies
MS SJ-10-5 170 West Tasman Dr, San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Ph
408/527-0815, FAX 408/526-7864
"Time doesn't fool around."
"Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207