The success of wireless standards and use of spectrum require a number of
coincidental factors: Volume mechanism(s) for adoption. Low barriers of
entry ie. IPR as needed to achieve low cost and wide adoption. Efficient
use of spectrum. Development of an enabling IC/SOC, RFIC supply chain.
Access to capital which is largely determined by achieving the other
factors. Interworking with other standards. Interoperability within and
between incorporated standards. And others.
A common goal of regulators is to promote efficient use of
spectrum. Another goal is to become more agnostic and flexible in
policies in order to take advantage of progress and promote innovation.
Meanwhile, regulators, operators, suppliers, advocacy groups and other
vested interests must remain cognizant of the need to harness existing
streams of commercial momentum and harmonization among standards. The
rationalization of these sometimes disparate means is to achieve optimal
evolution of technology and harnessing of capital and human resources.
----
A problem is created by the competition between standards groups and
sub-groups. Competition and realms of authority between IEEE, 3GPP,
802.16, 802.11, 802.22 etc. create a dynamic tension that is eventually
thrashed out in the marketplace if not in the standards process.
The generally IEEE promotes fair and open access to technology and choice
of standards. Thus it seems very appropriate to be agnostic in this instance.
It also seems to me to seek common ground to promote effective means for
adoption of IEEE standards, specifically license-exempt use of 802.16,
802.11, 802.22 in relative harmony.
The competition between standards groups comes up in how 3GPP positions as
a furtherance of UMTS/GSM preponderance of adoption. From recent 3GPP
announcement of IMT-Advanced acceptance:
"the 3GPP technology family supports the evolving and expanding needs of
the broad international base of mobile operators and allows the users of
wireless mobile broadband to experience, on a global basis, a rich and
innovative range of service and capabilities that is unparalleled by any
other technology."
The question might be legitimately asked, "Given that the 3GPP standards
have been widely adopted then why is an alternative or complimentary set
of standards needed?"
A counter argument as to why alternative standards work out to be
beneficial is that 802.11 which has become incorporated out of necessity
delivers higher bandwidth per unit of spectrum and area and per cost basis
than has been achieved in a the body of mobile standards.
Without getting into a dissertation about tendencies for coalescence of
IPR and commerce into the hands of the few, it can be simply stated that
IEEE provides alternative standards that benefit open competition and
diverse participation in creation and adoption of evolving communications
technologies that has proven valuable to society.
A suggested way to express that in the current situation is exampled by
the impact of 802.11 and 802.16. I'll use 802.11 since it applies directly
to license exempt and provides a strong example:
---
IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) has been widely adopted due to its ability to be
deplored at low cost in small coverage areas by end users. Owing to its
rapid 'viral' adoption in international license exempt spectrum, Wi-Fi has
been taken advantage by incorporation into most 3GPP based 3G mobile
phones and other devices. Furthermore, Wi-Fi is now depended upon to help
average achieve the high bandwidth rates demanded by the market as use of
web-enabled devices capable of file transfers and video stress the
capacity of wide area mobile networks.
Recent studies by the US FCC and others show that while operating in
limited available spectra, Wi-Fi has achieved 3X-5X the spectral
utilization per unit area, per unit time, compared to operation of
licensed networks.
It is appropriate for regulators to consider the impact of license exempt
spectrum allocation in context of its ability to be used in conjunction
with existing and new allocations of licensed spectrum as this has
demonstrated significant benefits in current commercial deployments.
---
Furthermore, where spectrum allocation is contested between licensed and
license-exempt and conditions deemed favorable, consideration should be
given to dual-MAC pairing of licensed and license-exempt allocation for
the purpose of promoting capitalized deployments and development of common
supply ecosystem. For example, if sufficiently broad spectrum is
available, such as over 60 MHz in a contiguous or nearby sub-bands, a
consideration should be given to allocation of a portion for licensed and
a portion for license-exempt. Consideration should be given to
requirements that devices that operate in licensed spectrum must also
operate in license-exempt.
The appropriateness of use of divisional standard 802.1x or other
standards should be determined through the standards groups with an eye
towards harnessing of both the flow of technology and commercial momentum
and benefits.
Robert Syputa
206-367-6931
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:39 AM, zhengyanxiu
<<mailto:zhengyanxiu@itri.org.tw>zhengyanxiu@itri.org.tw> wrote:
Dear all,
I would share further consideration on unlicensed band usage model.
In fact, if there is geographical information regarding spectrum usage,
all technologies could be used even for current 16e. This has happened in
some application relating to environmental surveillance system.
When we consider the coverage of unlicensed band , it could also be large
as WAN/RAN or be small as PAN/LAN similar as WLAN and Bluetooth in ISM
band. If there is geographical information, I guess all 802 wireless
technologies are applicable.
Another point is the price. The main difference between unlicensed and
licensed band is price. The unlicensed band is more cheap than licensed
band. In India, we may more agree price first if the Letter is to India
administration. If the price of com requires 100USD, I guess there is
still no market in India. By the way, collisions has high probability
occurring in the unlicensed band like WLAN and Bluetooth. The spectrum
efficiency would be much poor. High price with poor performance is hard to
attract end users. End users may still consider WiFi, low price with
acceptable performance.
I would support to escalate from IEEE 802.22 to IEEE 802 level. In my
point of view, some combination of IEEE 802 technologies can support.
Further comment to PAR of 1900.7, a good strategy for P1900 is to reuse
existing PHY and MAC instead of new PHY and MAC especially when WiFi only
costs couple dollars. Leveraging existing specification or market proven
technology would be more helpful for the success of P1900 or DySPAN. Even
P1900.7 have a specific PHY and MAC, without chip vendor, the future of
this standard is still doubtable.
Best regards,
Zheng Yan-Xiu
From: Kiernan, Brian G [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@INTERDIGITAL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:11 AM
To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz
Operation (India)
Mike,
I m glad to hear that, as it fits directly with my main premise, that the
spectrum not be technology specific. I assume the letter has been
modified appropriately to remove the 802.22 references.
Brian
From: Mike Lynch [mailto:freqmgr@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:59 PM
To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz
Operation (India)
Brian and Reza,
Based on the discussion on yesterday s conference call the letter is to
lobby for more technology neutral spectrum and not touch on the licensed
or unlicensed use. Administrations will implement these bands as they feel
is best for their requirements.
While many 802 technologies are used in an unlicensed mode that is not
always the case. For example in some administrations the use of 802.11 in
the 2.4 GHz band requires users to have a license. So it doesn t seem
useful to label some 802 technologies as unlicensed only as that may imply
that they should not be permitted where an administration require users to
obtain a license.
Regards,
Mike
From: Arefi, Reza [mailto:reza.arefi@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:11
To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz
Operation (India)
I support Brian s comment below.
Regards,
Reza
From: Kiernan, Brian G [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@INTERDIGITAL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:58 AM
To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz
Operation (India)
If the intent of the letter is to lobby for unlicensed operation in that
frequency band (TV White Spaces), then it should NOT be limited to just
802.22, but should encompass any 802 unlicensed technology aimed at that
spectrum to include 802.11af, 802.19, or even 802.16h. From both a market
and regulatory perspective, making a band technology specific is too
limiting and is counter to the direction of where the industry (and most
regulators) are heading. The EC should change any references to 802.22 to
something like IEEE 802 unlicensed technologies .
Brian
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:37 AM
To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz
Operation (India)
Please let me know if you have any comments on this letter.
Roger
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Mody, Apurva (US SSA)"
<<mailto:apurva.mody@baesystems.com>apurva.mody@baesystems.com>
Date: 8 February 2011 10:26:34 PM PST
To: "Roger B. Marks" <<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: "<mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com>MJLynch@mjlallc.com"
<<mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com>MJLynch@mjlallc.com>, John Notor
<<mailto:gnu@notor.com>gnu@notor.com>, Gerald Chouinard
<<mailto:gerald.chouinard@crc.ca>gerald.chouinard@crc.ca>, Winston
Caldwell <<mailto:Winston.Caldwell@fox.com>Winston.Caldwell@fox.com>
Subject: 802.22 Letter to the WPC for 470 - 698 MHz Operation (India)
Hi Roger,
The 802.22 Working Group would like to submit the following letter
<https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0021-00-0000-letter-for-the-indian-regulator.doc>https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0021-00-0000-letter-for-the-indian-regulator.doc
to the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination (WPC) Advisor in India through
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay. This letter was discussed
during the 802.18 telecon held on Tuesday, Feb. 8th.
We (802.22) would like to endorse the IIT Bombay proposal for
license-exempt use in the 470 698 MHz spectrum in India. IITs are the
premier Engineering institutes in India. IIT academics are very well
respected all around the world and they have been known to work closely
with the Indian Govt. in the advisory role. The IIT-Bombay proposal has
been attached for your reference.
Please review the letter and let us know your comments if any by Monday,
Feb. 14th COB.
Many thanks
Apurva
Apurva N. Mody, Ph. D.
Chair, IEEE 802.22 Standard Working Group
BAE Systems
Technology Solutions
130 Daniel Webster Highway, Mail Stop 2350
Merrimack, NH 03054
Work: (603)885 2621, Mobile: (603)-809-0459
E-mail: <mailto:apurva.mody@baesystems.com>apurva.mody@baesystems.com
Attachment:
<http://210.212.79.13/DocFiles/IITB_proposal_TV_White_Space.pdf>http://210.212.79.13/DocFiles/IITB_proposal_TV_White_Space.pdf
¥»«H¥ó¥i¯à¥]§t¤u¬ã°|¾÷±K¸ê°T¡A«D«ü©w¤§¦¬¥óªÌ¡A½Ð¤Å¨Ï¥Î©Î´¦ÅS¥»«H¥ó¤º®e¡A¨Ã½Ð¾P·´¦¹«H¥ó¡C
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or
disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
--
Over 8 Years Serving the Emerging ICT Industry
Research in IPR, operator and supplier metrics, and markets
IMPORTANT: Information contained in, and documents accompanying this
transmission are confidential and are intended for use of the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us and return the
transmission to us. The confidential nature of the information contained
in, and accompanying this communication is not waived by reason of
mistaken delivery of the documents to other than intended recipient
Certain information is protected under copyright laws and no rights are
waved unless explicitly agreed. All information and attachments are
copyright Robert Syputa, Maravedis.com, Maravedis, Inc., Cloud 4G LLC,
Green4G, 4G Counts, 4G Gear and contributing sources and editors. Use is
prohibited unless expressly permitted in writing.