| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Eldad,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we “ban standards.” I think people are raising concerns about 40 MHz operation in the 2.4 GHz band. So I think we are talking about whether such an option should be included. This issues has been raised other places. To my understanding the draft-11n product that you refer to have all been configured so that 40 MHz operation is not enabled in the 2.4 GHz band at start-up for this very reason. And of course, building products based on drafts is risky business anyways.
I am sure we will all discuss this further on the upcoming conference call. Anyone who wants to make a presentation on the call please notify me. If you can use the 802.19 template that would be great.
Regards, Steve
From: Perahia, Eldad
[mailto:eldad.perahia@intel.com]
There has been a suggestion to ban 40 MHz 802.11n operation in the 2.4 GHz band because of coexistence issues between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Intel is seriously concerned with this suggestion. We believe that this is counter to the intent of standardization and product development in the unlicensed band. The 40 MHz Wi-Fi operation is already being used in 10s of millions of products that are enabling exciting and new usage models for Wi-Fi. The operations of these devices are clearly within FCC part 15 rules. The standard has provisioned coexistence mechanisms that ensure proper coexistence between the different technologies. It is irresponsible to suggest that the existing mechanisms are not generally effective without any data to back up the assertions. Most companies shipping Wi-Fi modules have Bluetooth on the same platforms and have gone a long way to ensure that there is coexistence in their solutions. IEEE was not created to “ban” standards but to develop them. This suggestion will have a serious business impact on the industry and will open the door to stifling innovation. We look forward to working in the standards to further improve coexistence between the different technologies but strongly disagree with the concept of “banning” standards.
Regards, Eldad
From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM]
IEEE 802.19 TAG,
Paul Nikolich would like the opinion of the 802.19 members on the 40 MHz 802.11n discussion.
If you have an opinion to share please “reply-all” so that everyone can hear your opinion.
Regards, Steve
From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Steve,
What is dot19's opinion on the below debate?
--Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Fischer Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
I will be voting YES on TGn LB129, and I would urge others who are interested in defending 802.15.x devices' access to the ISMii band to vote YES as well.
The current draft of the 802.11 TGn amendment contains normative language describing a mechanism (i.e. the 40 MHz Intolerant bit) that allows non-related devices to signal to the 40 MHz TGn devices that they cannot send 40 MHz transmissions, effectively allowing other users of the ISMii band to restrict the use of 40 MHz transmissions by TGn devices. 40 MHz 802.11 TGn devices are required to obey this signaling whenever it occurs.
If 40 MHz operation is forbidden in ISMii by 802.11 TGn, then 40 MHz operation will be implemented as a set of vendor-specific non-standardized modes with variable degrees of good citizenship regarding spectrum sharing and with little or no opportunity for such devices to be controled by other users of the ISMii band.
For these reasons, it is in the best interest of 802.15.x technology providers and other users of the ISMii band to vote YES on the TGn-standardized mode of 40 MHz operation that includes specific requirements to force TGn devices to cease 40 MHz operation when requested.
Matthew Fischer
|