Dear EC,
I am resending this since many of you are not on the .18 reflector. This is a process that needs attention and I believe 802 can have a significant input to the discussion. Obviously IEEE USA has a view and while I do not in principle disagree with that view it would have been good to have had some level of input/review to their letter.
It seems unrealistic at this time to expect NTIA, whose clients include the DoD, DoJ, etc., to support a new or definitive definition of HI. Some of their systems are quite old but function very well, and there is always their argument about the greater requirements for national security. Unfortunately some European administrations may also support that view.
If a reasonable/comprehensive definition of HI is something that 802 sees as important to the success of our technologies, by allowing access to new spectrum or less restrictive use of existing spectrum, then we need to develop a view and express it. That would be both at the US level and internationally in ITU-R.
Regards from Seoul,
Mike
+1.972.814.4901
www.mjlallc.com<
http://www.mjlallc.com>
From:
MJLynch@mjlallc.com [mailto:MJLynch@MJLALLC.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:26
To:
STDS-802-18@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [802-18] Definition of Harmful Interference
RR-TAG,
This is copied for FYI. The definition of HI needs to resolved. In Beijing we need to at least start a discussion on this topic. Obviously IEEE USA has a view. The lack of a definition, to which we can provide input, is not in the best interests of 802.
Regards from Seoul,
Mike
+1.972.814.4901
www.mjlallc.com----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.