January 2004doc.: 18-03-0040-00-0000
IEEE 802.18
Radio Resource - TAG
Title
Date:4Aug, 2004
Author:Denis Kuwahara
The Boeing Company
Seattle, WA
Phone: 425-957-5366
Fax: 425-865-6066
Denis
Abstract
These are the minutes of the ad-hoc telecom meeting held on 4 August 2004, scheduled for Noon – 2:00pm EDT, notice for this meeting was announced at the 28 July meeting and a reminder put on the reflector at 8:38pm EDT.
Chairman, Carl Stevenson, calls meeting called to order12:10 pm EDT, with Denis Kuwahara as secretary.
Proposed agenda is the continuation of comment preparation for FCC NPRM 04-186, which was approved by unanimous consent at 12:12pm.
The Chair had prepared, and circulated prior to this telecon, a draft comment document “802.18-04-xxxx Comments to TV Band NPRMd2_CRS.doc” based on John Notor’s previously prepared comments and incorporating the comments that were raised during the telecon of 28 July.
John has also circulated a his “New revised revision of proposed rules for Part 15.244 devices” on the reflector prior to the telecon, Chair suggests that discussion be held in abeyance until after conclusion of the comments on the NPRM.
Discussion on the advisability of asking the Commission to delay the NPRM evolves into asking for an extension of the comment deadlineto allow the interested parties participating in the standards organization an opportunity to work together and resolve technical issues on spectrum sharing. This group effort is in effect is a ‘poster child’ of cooperative efforts between incumbent licensed users working with unlicensed users on sharing studies. Group recommendation is to include in the comments the cooperative efforts by all parties in SG1dealing with formative issues and the cooperative attitude anticipated in the Working Group once it is formed later in 2004.
Bruce asks section 9 bold underline to extend is that asking Commission to delay --- As it captures the sense of what we are asking for, don’t want to derail the train but allow the passengers to catch up and better define solutions . .
C. – We are asking for a delay may serve to knock thing off the track.
A. – The SPTF has a goal for more unlicensed uses – this NPRM is evidence, there is politicalinterest in pushing for universal Broadband availability, thus there is greatpressure to proceed. All interested parties in the standards organization have been cooperatively working together but need a bit more time to define sharing issues.
C. – We should comment on those elements of the NPRM that there is consensus and attach a timing element to those elements that need additional time to resolve. A. – Any requests for delayv must be filed at least seven days prior to cutoff date, and if we provide partial comment the Commission might proceed with those partial rules, and deny our extension request.
C. Requesting a 120 day delay would give us time to solidify our position, but may not be sufficient to attain a common position. Plus there is concern that the Commission might only grant 30 days given that the FCC chairman is under pressure to get something out before November.
C. Amendments to 15.244 is very important to identify industries position on rules changes that we feel necessary for deployment of systems.
C. – We agree that we want to respond to the Commission with a well though out comment and to do this we need more time to create a unified response on how we implement sharing .
C. – Concern about starting a standard without spectrum rules to work within. A. – The 802.11g standard was developed without rules – the Commission’s intent is to be supportive of new technology and is willing to change the rules once industry reaches consensus on what it wants and this document is providing that. We should we ask that they extend the comment time, supplying the concerns that have been voiced as a group. We need to meet with the Commission personnel in person and discuss the issues and timeframe for resolution. Use the formation of 802.22 as one of the impediments in response within the current schedule. Need to have representation by all groups at the Commission meetings to demonstrate our solidarity in working toward a common solution.
C. – There are other groups that might be interested in the spectrum such as the Consumer Electronics Industry,
C. – Concern that the existing NPRM has flaws that would be detrimental to all concerned, thus requiring that we provide some comment in a timely fashion,
Recommend SG-1 RR-TAG
SG1 Motion:
To recommend to the RR-TAG that we request an extension of NPRM comment deadline period to allow all interested parties to arrive at a consensus. The extension draft document be circulated for an electronic vote and that the RR-TAG file by Aug 14 a request for extension.
.
Motion: John Notor
Second: John Ley
Discussion: none heard
Any objections: none heard
Vote: Yes –Victor Tawil, Denis Kuwahara, Marlis Humphrey,Barry O’Mahony, Marianna Goldhammer, Winston Caldwell, Charles Cook, Stefan Mangold,Kirin ???, Gerald Chouinard, Peter Murray, John Notor,Jay Kim,Scott Blue – No: -- none, Abstain: -- None The result is a Unanimous vote
The Chair proceeds to review the draft NPRM commend document, paragraph by paragraph:
Pgh 1 no comments
Pgh4 – added text “the Commission and the affected industries” (related industries) possibly change ‘partner’ to ‘working with’
Pgh 10-13 Extend the comment period to allow all interested parties to arrive at consensus -- need to abstract ideas from this area to be part of the motion to extend. C. – We want FCC to circumscribe boundaries of the sandbox to define playing rules. C. – Add to 13 “developing appropriate standard” C. – draft thought that voluntary standard C. – Should not depend on WG ratification
Pgh 14 – DTV should not be considered as the only broadcast service, analog TV still lives.
Pgh16 Q. – What is the basis for our doubt? Should be more positive and turn the DB issue around as needing to be updated, possibly voice concern that DB can be maintained to support timely control of users. C. – That there are omissions in the DB and question of reliability. Proposal. – change time consuming to be very difficult. C. – don’t recommend killing the DB, should update it and make it accurate. We therefore urge commission update the DB for planning purposes, but don’t feel that it alone would provide interference mitigation.
Pgh. 17 – Starts talking of GPS. C. – 10 M accuracy needs WAS correction. This level of accuracy is too fine for professional installed systems and should be questioned. suggest a level of accuracy on the order of fifty feet – 20Meter. John Notor to craft revision to this section, GPS not needed in CPE, and GPS is not required integral in the Base unit, but the measurement is required to do the installation (could be taken away). Professional installation should not be required for user terminals (CPE) or personal portable devices.
Pgh 18 Gerald to craft comment that exempt CPE devices that operate under Base Station control. Thought is to introduce thought that there are two types of Fixed devices that the Commission needs to address.
Pgh 19 -- C. – Broadcaster does not feel “control channel’ is not relaiable C.— Cost of the demodulator to recover the requisite data is not economically feasible in a $50 box. Chair will address control channel issue from our perspective, and will address cost impact to the broadcasters.
Pgh 23 -- Winston to discuss with colleagues their Views/concerns of potential interference to wireless microphones.
Pgh 25 -- Commission not likely to relinquish their power and support local control.
Heading after Pgh 25 “Two Functional Categories…”
Heading “Spectrum Sensing Techniques…” – Need to discuss sensing –C. -- John feels that portable is still a valid approach in that sensing would not be a problem. He has conducted studies that cover many cases and not found limiting conditions that preclude sharing – agree to disagree. C. – On the issue of Hidden Node -- John comments that distributed sensing is necessary for MESH, devices needs to wait for permission to transmit other than periodic probe with small packets.
GPS is appropriate for to protect Public Safety operations.
Higher power – Chair did study on power levels and modulationtypes: BPSK 10 W 10cBi at each end, range of 110 KM, 64QAM drops to 15Km – we need to justify more than 1 W authorization. Consider DTV as the forward link and unlicensed as return – consider spectral density not necessarily absolute power.
Having extended this meeting by almost an extra hour, Chair comments that significant progress has been made, but that there is still work to be done and calls for another meeting.
Chair announces that this Ad-Hoc group will meet again next week, 11 August 2004, at Noon EDT and details of the call in number will be provided via reflector.
Meeting called into adjournment at 2:59pm EDT, next meeting details will be posted on reflector.
Attendance recorded at the meeting included:
Scott / Blue / Jay / Kim / John / NotorWinston / Caldwell / Bruce / Kraemer / Kiran / of Philips
Gerald / Chouinard / Denis / Kuwahara / Barry / O'Mahony
Charles / Cook / John / Ley / Carl / Stevenson
Marianna / Goldhammer / Stefan / Mangold / Victor / Tawil
Marlis / Humphrey / Peter / Murray
Submissionpage 1Denis Kuwahara, Boeing