RE: stds-802-16-tg4: Re: 5GHz Fixed Wireless Access in danger!
Hi Vic,
Are Marianna's assertions true/correct?
Thanks,
Ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:25 AM
> To: stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org
> Cc: Hayes, Vic
> Subject: stds-802-16-tg4: Re: 5GHz Fixed Wireless Access in danger!
>
>
> Dear Marianna,
>
> I understand your concern over this issue, and I agree that TG4 needs
> to watch it closely and participate appropriately. I also would like
> to offer my alternative view of some of the facts.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Marianna Goldhammer
> >Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:12 PM
> >To: stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org
> >Subject: 5GHz Fixed Wireless Access in danger!
> >
> >Dear Collegues,
> >
> >Under our nose, the 802 Regulatory Committee tries to reallocate the
> >5GHz band to mobile applications only. 802.11 and 802.15 joined
> >forces to eliminate the fixed wireless access (HUMAN) market.
>
> There is no "802 Regulatory Committee". Vic Hayes is the "Regulatory
> Ombudsman" and acts alone at the 802 level. He is not in a position
> to create policy; rather, his job is to assist Working Group's in
> getting their point across to regulatory bodies. However, he has been
> moving to try an develop coordinated positions.
>
> >In the proposal for FCC rule change, Vic Hayes, chair of the 802
> >Regulatory Group, propose to reduce the allowed transmitted power to
> >10 dBm/1MHz.
>
> Vic has the right to voice his opinion. Also, note that this was in
> <http://ieee802.org/Regulatory/Meeting_documents/2001_July/11-
> 01-366r0-RR-tel-con-report-June-1.pdf>.
> I don't really understand what kind of activity this was. Based on
> the heading, is the report of an 802.11 activity. However, I believe
> that Vic is thinking of it as an 802 effort, and Vic did invite
> participation over the 802 Regs reflector
> (<http://ieee802.org/Regulatory/private/email/msg00033.html> with a
> correction:
> <http://ieee802.org/Regulatory/private/email/msg00034.html>).
>
> Also, you shouldn't overlook the fact that the meeting report goes on
> to say "For 1 W systems, the group thought that the old rules could
> be maintianed [sic] for outdoor and point-to-point links."
>
> >You will find in one of the attached e-mails these words: "So, in
> >conclusion, the RLAN industry has to find a method to change the
> >rules in some countries, so that there is no fixed service in the 5
> >GHz band......"
>
> Vic <http://ieee802.org/Regulatory/private/email/msg00027.html> may
> have meant to encourage the RLAN industry to work to ban FWA. On the
> other hand, he might have intended to say: "Fixed service is allowed
> in some countries and will continue to be unless rules are changed."
>
> >We have to organize ourselves in order to avoid that the proposed
> >document will be send to FCC as IEEE 802 Recommendation.
> >
> >I think that Roger should bring this issue in the next 802 Executive
> >Committee meeting. The 802.16 Plenary shall have veto rights in
> >approving the IEEE 802 Liaison to FCC.
>
> Procedure 4 of the 802 Rules explain the process for communications
> with government bodies. 802.16 has no "veto rights". A document can
> become an 802 position statement with a 2/3 majority vote at the
> SEC. A document can also proceed as a Working Group position
> statement unless it is blocked by an SEC vote.
>
> I don't need to bring up the issue to the SEC. Whoever wants to
> advance the document, rather on a Working Group or 802 basis, has to
> bring it up before the SEC.
>
> >Durga, please schedule the next meeting TG4 sessions in a way that
> >will permit us to join the 802 Regulatory meetings. We have to
> >appear as a strong group there.
>
> I completely agree that 802 positions are not likely to well
> represent 802.16 unless 802.16 is well represented during their
> development. I have tried to make it clear that I am not going to try
> and drum up participation. It is up to people in TG4 to participate
> as they deem appropriate.
>
> If TG4 people find that the document that arises doesn't suit their
> needs and want me to oppose it at the SEC level, then they ought to
> draft a statement for communication to the SEC. However, we'd all be
> better off if they would get engaged in the process and make sure the
> proposed position is one they support.
>
> >I also propose to have a "Call for Contributions" to both TG4 and
> >TG2, that will demonstrate the advantage of directive antenna in
> >minimization of the interference scenarios, opposed to omni antenna
> >used in mobile applications, The omni applications should be limited
> >to indoor use only.
>
> I think this is fine for TG4. It is not relevant to TG2, though. The
> TG2 draft is limited to licensed bands, as does the proposed
> amendment. People who attend TG2 meetings are welcome to participate,
> but this is not a suitable topic for TG2 meetings.
>
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Marianna
>
> Thanks for bringing this to the attention of TG4 and stimulating the
> TG4 participants to play an active role in 802's regulatory
> discussions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>