stds-802-16-tg3: ITU Meetings Re: 5250-5350 MHz: Loss of Spectrum for Outdoor LE RLANs
Hello to all:
I thought I would give all of you in TG4 and TG3 a heads up as to what is
happening in Geneva next week on an issue that is of considerable
importance to the technology you are developing and the wireless services
you may wish to provide.
I will be attending a meeting of the ITU JRG 8a/9b committee which will
be discussing the coexistence of outdoor WAS ( wireless access service)
devices with Earth Exploration Satellite Systems (Active) (EESS). As you
may or may not know, the 5250-5350 MHz band has EESS as a primary user in
this band. UNII and other regulations (in ITU region 3) allow WAS devices
to use this band on a non-interfering basis with EESS. The debate currently
before the ITU 8a/9b subcommittee is whether outdoor WAS should be allowed
to operate in this manner post 2003. There is tremendous pressure,
primarily from the Europeans, to remove outdoor terminals from the band.
Canada has been pushing for a directive antenna specification to be used on
outdoor WAS. Such antennas would significantly reduce outdoor RLAN
interference to EESS. During the 22-26 October meetings of the ITU
8a/9b, decisions will be made whether to accept this antenna
specification or to reject it. Such a decision would be forwarded up the
ITU regulatory chain via the 8a and 9b study groups and would eventually
become a recommendation tabled at WARC 2003. The US FCC is on record
stating that it will support outdoor license exempt FWA applications within
the 5250-5350 band only if it is shown that co-existence can be achieved.
This co-existence decision will likely be made next week and it is my
personal opinion that the US will in all likelihood adopt the decision
as its WARC 2003 policy regarding outdoor LE in the 5250-5350 MHz band.
The meetings in Geneva will discuss the proposed EIRP mask for outdoor WAS
terminals. There is significant protection afforded to the EESS by this
mask, but there is always a slight chance of interference. It is over the
issue as to what “slight” entails that the arguments will ensue. In such
discussions it is very important that our ITU representatives have a clear
understanding of how important the 5250-5350 MHz band is to RLAN service
providers and manufacturers. The representatives are keen to respond
to private sector input and my experience is that they will work very hard
for the development of an equitable solution that will be satisfactory to
both the RLAN and EESS community. To date the EESS community has been very
active in stating their case. The RLAN community, because of its diversity,
small size of companies, and focus on the current economic climate, has not
been as forthright in stating its perspectives.
It is important that those of you who have an interest in seeing 5250-5350
MHz. preserved for outdoor applications make your concerns known now. This
is probably the last chance in view of the regulatory process that will
transpire over the next year. If permission to operate in 5250-5350 MHz is
lost to the outdoor RLAN community, there will likely be no case for
additional bandwidth in the future considerations at 5450-5560 MHz…..and in
post WARC 2003 there will only be 100 (possibly 125) MHz in the 5725-5825
MHz band only allowed for outdoor LE applications. In such a scenario,
the FDD type systems for which we have be devising specifications in TG4
will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement . TDD systems
developers also should carefully consider the above issues. Bandwidth,
even with the use of directive antennas, is much more valuable than no
bandwidth at all. Currently, 200 MHz is available to the outdoor LE RLAN
community. If there is success in preserving the band in 5250-5350 and the
community works toward additional allocations in the 5450-5560 MHz band,
in post WARC 2003 up to 300 MHz could be available for global outdoor LE
RLAN applications. If success is not forthcoming, then the community will
have a crowded 100 or so MHz…..which is a difficult scenario on which to
build a case for a viable broadband wireless industry.
I strongly urge you to get in touch with your ITU JRG 8a/9b representatives
and make it known that you care about the above issues. Your
representatives want feedback from you. So far, they have been hearing the
EESS side of the story. In Canada you should email Doug Sward at
firstname.lastname@example.org . For the United States email Paul Marrangoni at
pmarrang@FCC.gov . For other countries I will endeavor to find your
representative if you email me.
Even short email messages expressing concern carry weight. Please send them
before Thursday, the 18th of October as your ITU representatives will begin
traveling soon. You can copy me on the emails if you so wish.
Thanks for your time.
Research Broad Band Wireless
Communications Research Centre
3701 Carling Avenue