Interoperability PAR, Five Criteria

Rationale for a Broadband Wireless Access Standard:
Meeting the Five Criteria

1. Broad Market Potential

A standards project authorized by IEEE 802 shall have a broad market potential.
Specifically, it shall have the potential for:

a) Broad sets of applicability

Access networks in the millimeter-wave region are a rapidly emerging technology
on a worldwide basis. Such networks have the potential to compete with copper-
and fiber-based systems in terms of capacity, and they offer the advantage of
not requiring the installation of buried or pole-based infrastructure. This is
particularly advantageous in countries where the infrastructure is not widely
deployed. In the US, the recent auction of the LMDS frequency bands testifies to
the level of interest in providing communication facilities based on broadband
wireless. Similar allocation of frequencies in the millimeter region (above 10
GHz) is occurring in many other countries.

b) Multiple vendors and numerous users

The interest of many vendors is attested by the attendance at the BWA Study
Group meeting of January 13-15, 1999, which included 66 people representing 49
companies (see Appendix A). NIST¹s N-WEST initiative, which aims for
standardization in broadband wireless access, currently includes 58 supporting
companies, 7 of which have enrolled since the January meeting. Two of the
Supporting Companies are wireless trade associatons representing many more (see
Appendix B).

Although broadband wireless access networks have only recently been deployed,
many users are already on-line using proprietary systems. For example, one
service provider in the US currently has facilities operating in over 40 cities.

c) Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations)

Given that a base station in a point-to-multipoint network can serve many user
stations, and a single user station can serve many users in the building, the
cost of the equipment can easily be spread over many users. Typically it will
represent a small fraction of the total investment in computing and
telecommunications hardware. 

2) Compatibility

IEEE 802 defines a family of standards. All Standards shall be in conformance
with the IEEE 802.1 Architecture, Management and Interworking documents as
follows: 802 Overview and Architecture, 802.1D, 802.1Q and parts of 802.1f. If
any variances in conformance emerge, they shall be thoroughly disclosed and
reviewed with 802.
 
Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards shall include a definition of
managed objects which are compatible with systems management standards.

The proposed standard will conform to the 802 Functional Requirements Document,
with the possible exception of the Hamming distance.

3. Distinct Identity

Each 802 standard shall have a distinct identity. To achieve this, each
authorized project shall be:

a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards.

The BWA standard occupies a distinct place in the family of standards. It is
intended to provide for public access networks operated by a third party, where
the user typically makes use of a wide-area network through an access network.
It differs also from a wireless LAN, which typically is operated by a single
organization over smaller distances and has less-stringent requirements for
system integrity and resistance to unauthorized usage.

The access network is optimized for distances comparable with the propagation of
millimeter waves through the atmosphere, which typically limits the distance
between base stations and users to metropolitan dimensions.

b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem).

It is envisioned that the standard will provide protocols sufficiently flexible
to provide efficiently for a variety of services, some of which may have
stringently bounded delay requirements. Hence it will not be necessary to have a
multiplicity of different and incompatible versions.

c) Easy for the document reader to select the relevant specification.

It is anticipated that the document will be easily understandable for any reader
attending the third and later IEEE 802 meetings, so long as one of those
meetings is a plenary session.

4) Technical feasibility

For a project to be authorized, it shall be able to show its technical
feasibility. At a minimum, the proposed project shall show:

a) Demonstrated system feasibility

The feasibility of such systems has been demonstrated by proprietary systems
covering some if not all of the capabilities intended for this standard and now
going into operation in many cities worldwide.

b) Proven technology, reasonable testing

The radio technology in millimeter-wave systems has been demonstrated for many
years in both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint systems, as used in
commercial and military environments. Many systems are now in commercial use.

c) Confidence in reliability

Commercial deployment of point-to-point and point-to-multipoint systems at
millimeter-wave frequencies by carriers is evidence of proven reliability.

5) Economic feasibility

a) Known cost factors, reliable data

The economic feasibility of the equipment has already been demonstrated at the
level of proprietary systems now going into operation. The willingness of
investors to spend large sums to acquire spectrum rights, plus the large
additional investment required for hardware in public networks, attests to the
economic viability of the wireless access industry as a whole.

b) Reasonable cost for performance.

The use of such methods as point-to-multipoint communication provides
substantial economies relative to earlier point-to-point technologies,
particularly in handling data, which is characterized by high peak demands but
bursty requirements overall. As demonstrated in many IEEE 802 standards over the
years, such shared-media systems effectively serve users whose requirements vary
over time, within the constraints of the total available rate. The cost of a
single base station is amortized over a large number of users.

c) Consideration of installation costs.

Installation of any wireless customer-site system is relatively simple in that
no offsite cabling need be installed. In contrast, with wireline networks the
plant expense to connect the customer to the network is a very substantial part
of the total cost and must be incurred for the first user in a coverage area.
With wireless, the expenses can be incurred as customers come on-line. 

The siting of base stations is a more complex issue, but since one base station
supports many users, the costs involved are very nominal on a per-user basis.

Appendix A: Attendance at January 13-15, 1999 Meeting of 802 Study Group on BWA

3Com
	Scott A. Lery
	Brian Petry
Alcatel USA
	Francois Vigneron
AMP, Inc.
	Zev Bogan
	George Fishel
	Roy J. Hebert
Andrew Corporation
	Mike Wolfe
Angel Technologies Corp.
	Nicholas Colella
	Gene Robinson
AT&T
	Cherry Tom
Belstar Systems Corp.
	Jack Van der Star
BNA Systems
	Reza Ahy
Bosch Telecom, Inc.
	J. Scott Marin
	William Myers
BreezeCOM
	Marianna Goldhammer
Broadband Ventures
	David J. Mallof
C&W Systems, Ltd.
	Narisa Chu
California Amplifier, Inc.
	Kris Kelkar
CircuitPath Network Systems
	Ray W. Sanders
ComStar Communications
	Tom Kolze
Dot.Wireless
	George Eisler
Ensemble Communications
	Rami Hadar
	Jay Klein
Ericsson Inc.
	Peter Nohren
	Asif Rahman
Eurobell
	Gary Debeger
Filtronic Solid State
	Steve Brozovich
Harris Corporation
	Remi Chayer
Harris Corporation
	Al Petrick
	John Tremblay
Hewlett­Packard Company
	Paul Khanna
HRL Laboratories
	Hossein Izadpanah
Industry Canada
	Luc Boucher
	Douglas Sward
Integrity Communications
	Erol Yurtkuran
Kyocera DDI Institute
	Tatsuaki Hamai
LCC International Inc.
	Larry Watkins
Logimetrics, Inc.
	Frank Brand
Lucent Technologies
	Douglas A. Gray
	Adrian Hartman
Millitech Corporation
	Wayne Pleasant
MMAC
	Masaaki Mitani
Motorola Inc.
	Karl Stambaugh
	Takehiko Tsutsumi
Netro Corpopration
	Allan Evans
Newbridge Networks Corp.
	Jung Yee
NIST
	Roger B. Marks
Nortel Networks
	Hongming An
	Jose M. Costa
	Ignatius Lam
NTT Electronics Corp. (NEL)
	Paul Chang
Philips
	Erik Schylander
Philips Broadband Networks
	David Palmer
Raytheon Systems Company
	J. Leland Langston
SiCOM, Inc.
	John Liebetreu
Siemens Information and Communication Networks
	Larry Bowers
Stanford Wireless Broadband Inc.
	Steven Farrell
	Tom Magill
Technical Strategy Associates
	James F. Mollenauer
Telegen Ltd.
	Christopher Cant
TRW
	Chris S. Brown
WaveSpan Corporation
	Keith Bromberg
Wavtrace, Inc.
	David Schafer
	Roland Svensson
WinStar Network Services
	Sherman Ackley
Wireless Communications Association Intl.
	Andrew T. Kreig

Appendix B: N-WEST Supporting Companies (updated 02/04/98)

1	3Com Corporation
2	ADC Telecommunications
3	AMP M/A­COM
4	Alcatel Network Systems
5	Andrew Corporation
6	Anritsu Company
7	Antilles Wireless Cable TV Co.
8	Bellcore
9	Belstar Systems Corp.
10	BroadBand Wireless Inc.
11	C&W Systems, Ltd.
12	Cable AML Inc.
13	Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
14	Charles Brinkman
15	CircuitPath Network Systems
16	E B Systems Limited
17	EDX Engineering, Inc.
18	ETM Electromatic
19	Ensemble Communications
20	Ericsson Inc.
21	Formus Communications, Inc.
22	Fujitsu Compound Semiconductor, Inc.
23	Hardin & Associates, Inc.
24	Harris Corp.
25	Hewlett­Packard Co.
26	IDT Inc.
27	Illinois Institute of Technology
28	Integrity Communications
29	Intraplex
30	LCC International Inc.
31	Lucent Technologies
32	MLJ, Inc.
33	Millitech Corporation
34	Motorola Inc.
35	NEC America, Inc.
36	Netro Corporation
37	Newbridge Networks Corporation
38	Nortel
39	Philips Broadband Networks
40	P­COM
41	Raychem Corp.
42	Raytheon Systems Company
43	Run.com Communications Ltd.
44	Sanders, A Lockheed Martin Co.
45	SiCOM, Inc.
46	Spike Technologies, Inc.
47	Stanford Wireless Broadband Inc.
48	Technical Strategy Associates
49	TelesciCOM Ltd.
50	US WEST Advanced Technologies
51	WFI
52	WNP Communications,Inc.
53	WaveCom Electronics Inc.
54	WaveSpan Corporation
55	Wavtrace
56	WinNet MCS
57	WinStar Communications, Inc.
58	Wireless Communications Association Int'l