Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to approve 802.18 doc+++

Bob, et al,

Thanks for your approve vote, Bob.

Answers to your questions in-line below ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to
> approve 802.18 doc+++
> I vote to approve the filing.  However, I have the following
> questions.
> My vote is not dependent on the answers.
> The filing is titled "Comments of IEEE 802.18 and the
> footnote says it is represents 802.18.  Is the intent to have
> this filing be limited to only the few members of 802.18, or
> to be a filing of 802?

The document was drafted in a .18 Word template format with a .18 doc number
(our usual method).

If approved by the EC as an 802 filing, the 802.18's in the text would be
replaced with 802's and the
SA-required boilerplate "who we are footnote/disclaimer" would be adjusted
accordingly, as
has routinely been done in the past.

> A question on paragraph 9: Why is it the request of 802.18 to
> preclude channel bonding?  If adjacent channels are available
> and independent monitoring of each 6 MHz channel is
> performed, why should bonding be prevented?

Channel bonding is not precluded ... However, there is a requirement that
you be able to drop use of each channel independently to protect the
incumbent licensed services, thus the text " ... the use of more than one TV
channel should be possible as long as persistent channel bonding is not used
(I.E. any 6 MHz channel may be vacated or removed without affecting the
operation of the others.)   As a result, interference protection will be
based on a 6MHz TV channel."  (Note the use of the word "persistent" -
again, the intent is that you have to be able to stop using a channel if to
use it would cause interference to the licensed services.)

> A question on paragraph 29: Do you really want a professional
> verification of the CPE antenna?  This would make any network
> that uses this type of equipment, such as 802.22,
> prohibitively expensive to deploy, especially in sparely
> populated regions where the drive time between verifications
> might exceed the verification time by an order of magnitude..

Verification is not tied to "profesional" - we discussed several means of
automatic/semi-automatid verification, but did not want to get implemenation
specific because options, including ones we may not have envisioned, exist.
The intent is that the CPE be user installable.  Note again the text
"Alternatively, the broadband service subscriber may elect to have the
equipment professionally installed.  However, it is believed that assuming
professional installation and maintenance for CPEs would be counter to the
provision of low cost broadband access in the TV bands." which says the
subscriber may *elect* to have the CPE professionally installed - but does
not require him/her to do so.


This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.