RE: stds-802-16-tg4: Re: 5GHz Fixed Wireless Access in danger!
Marianna,
Thanks for bringing these issues to our attention. Can you please email me
the attachments which require a password, which I dont have for the other
IEEE groups. ie.
<http://ieee802.org/Regulatory/Meeting_documents/2001_July/11-01-366r0-RR-te
l-con-report-June-1.pdf>.
Thanks,
Sanjay Moghe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-tg4@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-tg4@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Marianna
Goldhammer
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:53 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-16-tg4@ieee.org
Cc: Hayes, Vic
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-tg4: Re: 5GHz Fixed Wireless Access in danger!
Dear Roger,
For clarification, the FCC notice 01-158, makes no distinction
between indoor/outdoor installations. OFDM falls in the class of
"digital modulation system".
All the systems in 5GHz ISM band are "1Watt", for more than 700KHz BW
direct sequence, in case of the old rules.
My interpretation of the text in the teleconf is:
- digital modulation systems are limited to a power density
under 10dBm/MHz and a transmitted power under 100mW;
- outdoor and P-P systems are allowed to transmit 1W, according
to the old rules, meaning no more than 8dBm/3kHz, while keeping
the processing gain rule - being DIRECT SEQUENCE
(not OFDM!) systems.
I will be the first to be happy if my interpretation was wrong.
Marianna
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:25 PM
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-te
l-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