August 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.18-09/0101r0

IEEE P802.18
Radio Regulatory-TAG

[Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group Conference Call Minutes]
Date: 2009-08-26
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Peter Murray / Self Employed / Westfield, NJ / 908-232-9054 /


Meeting agenda:

Call 888-676-3321. Access code 4512943#

1) Roll call

2) Patent policy: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf

3) Review of inputs and general discussion.

4) Any other business.

John Notor created doc 18-09-0098r1 Summary of Broadband Definition Proposals.doc that can be found at:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/09/18-09-0098-01-0000-summary-of-broadband-definition-proposals.doc

  1. The 802.18 chair opened the meeting requesting that attendees e-mail their attendance to the chair and secretary, at: 14:00 CDT
  2. A roll call was made.
  3. The patent policy information is containe in the link shown in agenda item 2.
  4. The chair asked the editor, John Notor, to run through the 0098-01 document.
  5. Charlie Rush suggested that we go through the summary e-mailed to the group summarizing the FCC request contained in the e-mail from Paul Nikolich
    1. Form, Characteristics, and Performance Indicators. Much of the discussion of any proposal to define "broadband" tends to center on download and upload throughput.9 Download and upload throughput are important, but neither is precise or diverse enough to describe broadband satisfactorily.10 For example, advertised throughput rates generally differ from actual rates, are not uniformly measured, and have different constraints over different technologies.11 In addition, it is unclear what the end points of the connection are over which throughput is measured or whether the performance of the end points is reflected in the stated throughput. Moreover, there are network characteristics - such as latency, reliability, and mobility - that are relevant for certain applications but not others. Accordingly, we seek comment on:

a. the form that a definition of broadband should take; [Sugesstion Fixed base and mobile base]

b. whether to develop a single definition, or multiple definitions;

c. whether an application-based approach to defining broadband would work, and how such an approach could be expressed in terms of performance indicators;

d. the key characteristics and specific performance indicators that should be used to define broadband; [suggestion Throughput, Reliability, Latency and Cost]

e. what segment(s) of the network each performance indicator should measure, such as the local access link to the end user, or an end-to-end path;

f. how factors such as latency, jitter, traffic loading, diurnal patterns, reliability, and mobility should specifically be taken into account;

g. whether different performance indicators or definitions should be developed based on technological or other distinctions, such as mobility or the provision of the service over a wired or wireless network;

h. the feasibility and verifiability of measuring different performance indicators.


2. Thresholds After identifying key characteristics and performance indicators, a definition of broadband must identify acceptable thresholds - typically minimums. Accordingly, we seek comment on:

a. what minimum thresholds should be assigned to the performance indicators;

b. the minimum thresholds necessary for broad classes of applications to function properly;

c. whether we should adopt multiple, escalating tiers of minimum thresholds.

3. Updates. The Internet and broadband networks have been characterized by rapid evolution and change. While a static set of objectively measured thresholds may be useful to compare networks at a given time, or over time, a static definition will fail to address changing needs and habits. Accordingly, we seek comment on:

a. what ongoing process should be put in place to update the definition, particularly the threshold

levels;

b. how often should such updates should occur;

c. what criteria should be used to adjust thresholds over time;

d. how modifications over time to the definition will affect the Commission's ability to collect and publish meaningful data on broadband deployment and adoption.

  1. There were differences by attendees in the requirements that the FCC is seeking.
  2. It was suggested that the Broadband definition adopted by the ITU-R is the one that should be adopted.
  3. A suggestion was made that the ITU-R definition be the floor for the FCC and building up the services supplied from that base.
  4. There needs to be an absolute minimum data rate that must be supplied for Broadband.
  5. Ivan Reede as an ISP brought up service provision and the limits they have to work under.
  6. A request for a summary of the suggestions is made and that a second call be scheduled for tomorrow.
  7. The suggestion that all who had proposed input should forward their input to the editor, John Notor who agreed to attempt to provide a précis for tomorrows call.
  8. A suggestion that a review is made every four years to assess increases in performances.
  9. The chair indicated that he would e-mail notice of a second call for Thursday August 27th.
  10. The meeting recessed at 15:08 CDT.
    Thursday August 27, 2009
  11. The meeting reconvened at 14:00 CDT.
  12. There was a roll call and the patent policy announcement.
  13. The editor, John Notor, has uploaded the proposed inputs summary from the Wednesday call. The doscument is: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/09/18-09-0100-00-0000-comments-fcc-defining-broadband.doc
  14. As the document was presented comments on the line items were brought out and discussed.
  15. Some changes were offered and edited into the document.
  16. A long discussion on what the minimum broadband rate should be for wireless and wireline but no clear agreement was reached.
  17. One possible solution would have to be for a different rate for wireless and one for the various wired delivery solutions.
  18. Edits to the document were suggested and incorporated.
  19. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/09/18-09-0100-01-0000-comments-fcc-defining-broadband.doc
  20. John Notor sent the above revision to the document.
  21. A roll call of the voters on the call was made and a quorum is present.
  22. Further suggested edits to the document were suggested.
  23. A revision 2 was uploaded to the mentor server, a spelling correction was made maiking it r3
  24. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/09/18-09-0100-03-0000-comments-fcc-defining-broadband.doc
  25. A motion was made to approve 09/18-09-0100-03-0000-comments-fcc-defining-broadband.doc and to forward it to the EC for a 5 day review, and then to the FCC in the correct format.
    Motion: Ivan Reede
    Second: John Barr
    Discussion: none
    Yes 8 No 2 Abstain 0
    Motion passes.
  26. There being no further business the meeting was closed by the chair.

Attendance:

Name / Affiliation / Attendance / 802.18 Voters/Vote
Mike Lynch / MJ Lynch & Assoc. / Y/y / X/
Peter Murray / Self / Y/y / X/y
John Notor / Cadence / Y/y / X/y
Charles Rush / TMG, Inc / Y/y / X/y
Jayne Stancavage / Intel / Y/y / X/y
Jim Ragsdale / Ericsson / Y/ / X/
Richard Kennedy / RIM / Y/y / X/n
Paul Nikolich / YAS/HP/Samsung / Y/y / X/y
Winston Caldwell / FOX / Y/y / X/
Reza Arefi / Intel / Y/y / X/y
Vijay Auluck / Intel / Y/ / X/
Radhakrishna Canchi / Kyocera / Y/y
Geoff Thompson / Y/
Scott Blue / Sensible Radio / Y/
Ivan Reede / Amerisys / Y/y / X/n
Dan Lubar / Relay Services / Y/y
Bruce Kraemer / Marvel / Y/y / X/y
Karen [no e-mail rcvd] / IEEE / Y/y
Bob Grow / Intel / Y/y
Victor Hou / Broadcom / /y
Gerald Chouinard / CRC / /y
John Barr / JRBarr Ltd. / /y / X/y

August 26-27, 2009 Conference call: Broadband definition page 4 Peter Murray