>
> As reference, the current wording in Document 26r1
IS:
>
> The purpose of this document is to lay the foundation for
developing mechanisms that can be used by industry in White Space spectrum to
prevent the type of problems suffered by the Citizen Band (CB). In the CB
bands, interference became such an issue that wide spread use ceased and low
cost widely available equipment became uneconomic.
>
> --- ---
---
>
> DISCUSSION
>
> Firstly, the proposed wording
change addresses correctly (I believe) what the purpose and goals of this
document are as decided by the Study Group decisions/polls. I believe this
proposed wording is not contentious, but time will determine that.
>
> Secondly, I would like more discussion before the group sets in stone
the reference to "the type of problems suffered by the Citizen Band (CB)."
I believe the CB reference is a very effective statement for use informally
within our Study Group, as we try to explain concepts and get at the heart of
problems as we grapple with them, but upon reflection I am questioning this
wording and analogy in an official document from our Study Group. The CB
reference misses the mark for our study, in my opinion, on several key
points:
>
> 1) CBs are entirely one technology attempting to share
bands, and the CB technology is not separate technologies attempting to coexist,
which is what we are dealing with in TV Whitespace.
>
> 2)
The "type of problem encountered" by CBs in the '70s, which is what I believe is
being referenced in the existing text, has a name in networking --- "congestion
collapse." This happened with CBs, owing to CBs' own brief, boom for a
period of a few years. This exact problem has occurred with many different
technologies in their early generations. However, CB technology has not
addressed pushing a higher point of efficiency for onset of "congestion
collapse", whereas other technologies have. CB technology "has chosen" ---
in a sense --- to remain what it was. CBs are still in use today, serving
their core users; the technology is what it is. The core CB users are
probably very glad that the bulk of the fad users have moved on to other
technologies, and that their CB technology has remained simple. The
economy of the technology may not be suitable to the fad users, but it very well
may be suitable to the core users. If not, something will change.
That is the market.
>
> 3) This exact same issue of "congestion
collapse" which occured with CB also occurred with Ethernet, and Aloha, and
perhaps other technologies --- the simplicity of the technology led to a
limitation --- a threshold of "congestion collapse" which was lower than could
be provided by more advanced (and more complicated) sharing techniques.
However, in these technologies, unlike with CB, more advanced sharing techniques
were developed. For example, Ethernet and ultimately 802.11 and many other
technologies, eventually developed techniques that pushed up to higher
efficiency (throughput as a fraction of dedicated channel capacity) the onset of
"congestion collapse" in their networks. These are better examples to use
in our report, since these are examples where techniques were developed and
adopted to push up the onset of "congestion collapse," enabling higher
efficiency on their networks.
>
> 4) CBs are still in use
today. Although the advancement in other technologies over the last 30
years has almost certainly had an impact on the CB business, it is not correct
(I believe) to characterize the CB business as a failure, which is a "take away"
I get from the existing wording. It serves its core users and it is what
it is. It may eventually be "mothballed", as is probably the fate of all
technology. Bottom line, citing a technology which had its heyday over 30
years ago, but is still serving a purpose today, does not deliver our message
most effectively (my opinion). I think we can make the same point but with
more fitting examples or references.
>
> I hope this isn't overkill
for making the case for my simple suggestion.
>
> Later,
tjk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Chouinard
[mailto:gerald.chouinard@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:59
AM
> To:
STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [802.19] WhiteSpace Coexistence Use Cases
>
>
Richard, Mark, Alex,
>
> Thank's for the effort in putting this
white paper together. See my
> comments in 'track change' in the
attached copy. I guess this could be
> discussed on the
teleconference calls if time permits.
>
> Gerald
>