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

Re: [802SEC] +++ ECM: IEEE P802.18 response to Ofcom consultation +++

This is a minor point and it is probably more important to get this out on time than to delay it by fiddling with text, but I'm having trouble parsing the response to Question 3 (slide 8):
"Final comment Q3:  There is a need for additional review and discussion of the 57-66 GHz and 66-71 GHz bands. We support  enabling alternative fixed wireless topologies, point to multipoint, mesh, and others as mobile applications. "

Are "point to multipoint, mesh, and others as mobile applications" examples of alternative fixed wireless topologies or are they not fixed wireless? The R3v1a and Ad Hock response said "alternative fixed wireless topologies, e.g. point to multipoint ..." which made them examples (though it probably should have had a colon after topologies instead of a comma. I can see that point to multipoint and mesh could be alternative fixed wireless topologies, but don't understand how "mobile applications" fits in there since fixed and mobile are opposites. Maybe it is clear to someone with more context.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Pat Thaler <pat.thaler@broadcom.com> wrote:
Approve,
Pat

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
Rich,

I'm trying to understand if there is some subtle definition of "fixed wireless technologies" in the context of the consultation. I'm confused because your email says that "fixed wireless technologies are not represented in IEEE 802 standards." As I understand term, fixed wireless could include a number of 802 technologies, including 802.22, 802.16, and 802.11.

Regarding the document:

(1) I'm confused that the Q3 response proposes "enabling.. mobile applications." Given the other answers, which are opposed to mobile-service IMT designations, I can't understand why we are advocating for mobile here. It seems contradictory. Can you explain?

(2) Under Q4, I think that "remove the maximum output power limitation" should be replaced by "remove the maximum output power limitation for equipment operating at eirp level of 40 dBm and below." That's the actual Ofcom proposal we are supporting, and the text reads much differently without the limitation.

For the moment, count me as Dis.

Roger


On January 30, 2018 at 8:34:28 AM, Richard Kennedy (rkennedy1000@gmail.com) wrote:

Dear EC Members:

 

Here is the results of the vote so far:

Vote Role

Name

NV

APP

DIS

ABS

DNV

CH

Paul Nikolich

 

 

 

 

DNV

VC

Pat Thaler

 

 

 

 

DNV

VC

James PK Gilb

 

 

 

 

DNV

TR

Clint Chaplin

 

Y

 

 

 

RS

John D'Ambrosia

 

 

 

 

DNV

ES

Jon W Rosdahl

 

Y

 

 

 

1

Glenn Parsons

 

 

 

 

DNV

3

David Law

 

Y

 

 

 

11

Adrian P Stephens

 

Y

 

 

 

15

Bob Heile

 

Y

 

 

 

16

Roger Marks

 

 

 

 

DNV

17

John Lemon

NV

 

 

 

 

18

Rich Kennedy

 

Y

 

 

 

19

Steve Shellhammer

 

 

 

 

DNV

20

Radhakrishna Canchi

NV

 

 

 

 

21

Subir Das

 

Y

 

 

 

22

Apurva Mody

 

Y

 

 

 

24

Tim Godfrey

 

 

 

 

DNV

ME

Geoffrey Thompson

NV

 

 

 

 

Totals

19

3

8

 

 

8

 

 

Rich Kennedy
President & Chief Regulatory Officer
Unlicensed Spectrum Advocates

rich@unlicensedspectrumadvocates.org
rkennedy1000@gmail.com
+1 (737) 202-7014

 

From: Paul Nikolich
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:32 AM
To: Richard Kennedy
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ ECM: IEEE P802.18 response to Ofcom consultation +++

 

Rich,

 

It will help if you (re)publish the table of EC members who voted and who didn't vote yet.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul

 

------ Original Message ------

From: "Richard Kennedy" <rkennedy1000@gmail.com>

Cc:

Sent: 1/30/2018 9:50:31 AM

Subject: [802SEC] +++ ECM: IEEE P802.18 response to Ofcom consultation +++

 

Dear EC Members:

 

On January 23rd I sent out this ECM, asking for expedited response, which set the close date as January 28th; last Sunday. We received a total of eight votes.

 

There is still a chance that we can get this to Ofcom on time, if members vote today. IEEE 802.18 would appreciate your attention to this matter.

 

Rich Kennedy

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Richard Kennedy

Sent: 23 January 2018 16:02

To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: [802SEC] +++ ECM: IEEE P802.18 response to Ofcom consultation +++

 

 

Dear EC Members,

 

At the January IEEE 802 Wireless Interim, members of the RR-TAG developed and approved responses to question from the Ofcom consultation on Fixed Wireless Spectrum Strategy. Although fixed wireless technologies are not represented in IEEE 802 standards, the spectrum implications potentially could have an impact, requiring us to respond.

 

The consultation: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0003-00-0000-ofcom-fixed-wireless-spectrum-strategy.pdf

 

The group approved https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0009-02-0000-ofcom-questions-and-answers-fixed-wireless-spectrum-strategy.ppt, by a vote of 10/0/0. An r3 was created to help voters to navigate through the consequential responses. No changes were made to the approved text.

 

Before submittal, these approved responses will be put into the Ofcom consultation format.

 

Mr. Paul Nikolich has therefore delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me.  As the closing date for the consultation is February 1, 2018, I am asking for an expedited review and approval.

 

Motion: Approve the responses in document https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0009-03-0000-ofcom-questions-and-answers-fixed-wireless-spectrum-strategy.ppt as the IEEE 802 input to the Ofcom Fixed Wireless Strategy consultation, to be submitted to Ofcom on or before February 1, 2018 in their format.

 

Approved in the TAG 10/0/0

 

Moved by Rich Kennedy

Seconded by Adrian Stephens

 

Start of ballot:        Tuesday 23rd January 2018

Close of Early ballot: Sunday 28th January, 11:59PM ET

 

Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 71.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.

 

Thank you.

 

Rich Kennedy

IEEE 802.18 Chair

Rkennedy1000@gmail.com

 

 

Rich Kennedy
President & Chief Regulatory Officer
Unlicensed Spectrum Advocates

rich@unlicensedspectrumadvocates.org
rkennedy1000@gmail.com
+1 (737) 202-7014

 

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

 

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


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