Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-REG] Suggested improvement for Straw Poll Q5

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your comments.  I think Jim stated in Atlanta that he hopes to finalize the wording of the questions this week.  You and I actually discussed the wording of this question #5 briefly in Atlanta, and I believe you were going to gauge support for rewording among your colleagues. I thought in the mean time I would put a specific proposal in front of the whole group so we can be efficient in discussing it on Friday.  So, thanks for this email exchange. 

I consider "if it would enhance band sharing" to be a leading question. I think pollsters would tell us that a leading statement like that is apt to create a biased response.  I think it is more neutral to simply ask if one supports a rule change, yes or no, without attaching an optimistic hypothetical to one of the answers.  

Also, if we included the leading statement, we would want to add not only a "I don't support band sharing" answer but also a "I don't believe such a rule change will enhance band sharing" answer (i.e. I disagree with the premise upon which the question is based). I think this process will be more meaningful, both for the voters and for those interpreting the results, if we can word the questions so that the number of distinct answers is smaller rather than greater.

I note that none of the other questions includes such a leading statement.  You could probably attach "if it would enhance band sharing" in one form or another to every question.   

So, I believe the question will be better without such language.

Thanks,
John


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Andy Scott <AScott@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

John,

 

Thank you for your ideas here. I thought we had reached consensus on the questions as currently written; however, if group determines the changes are warranted, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. I think we should append "...if it would enhance band sharing" to your last sentence. After all, that was the whole point of the approach.

 

So, from:

 

Would you support a change to FCC parts 90 and 95 so that this designation is removed from Channel 172 and instead is applied to Channel 180, 182 or 184?

 

to:

 

Would you support a change to FCC parts 90 and 95 so that this designation is removed from Channel 172 and instead is applied to Channel 180, 182 or 184 if it would enhance band sharing?

 

This may necessitate adding back in the "I don't support band sharing" answer.

 

Comments welcome.

 

 

Andy Scott

Vice President of Engineering

National Cable & Telecommunications Association

25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Suite 100

Washington DC, 20001

202.222.2475

 

 

 

From: *** Regulatory and Spectrum Allocation Topics *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-REG@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Kenney
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:49 PM
To: STDS-802-11-REG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-REG] Suggested improvement for Straw Poll Q5

 

Hi All:

 

I realize not all Tiger Team participants are on this mail list, but I hope enough are that it will be useful to initiate a discussion here on a TT topic.

 

In preparation for our further discussion of Straw Poll questions this Friday, I want to make a comment and a suggestion concerning Question 5, which currently (11-15-0174/r0) reads:

 

If it would enhance band sharing, would you support a proposal to move the V2V Safety Channel (currently in Channel 172) to one of the upper channels (180, 182, or 184)? (Note: this could require a rule change)

 

Question 6 is a companion question that was split out in order to separately test two related ideas.  I believe the intent of Question 5 can be stated as follows (corrections or alternate views welcome):  Test whether people support changing which channel carries the FCC designation as the V2V Safety Channel.  Currently that is Ch. 172, and the questions asks if a voter favors moving that designation to one of the upper three channels.  By contrast, Q6 asks if a voter supports moving the Basic Safety Messages from Ch. 172 to one of the upper channels, but with no change in FCC designations. 

 

To help the voter understand the difference, we discussed including something about rule changes in the question language.  As noted above, currently Q5 includes a parenthetical "Note: this could require a rule change".  Q6 has a similar parenthetical stating "no rule change".

 

I believe Q5 would be more effective if it clearly asks whether the voter favors a rule change.  This way the voters will all interpret the question the same way.  My suggested revision is:

 

In Memorandum Opinion & Order FCC 06-110 the FCC designates DSRC Channel 172:

 "exclusively for vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications for accident avoidance and mitigation, and safety of life and property applications". 

Would you support a change to FCC parts 90 and 95 so that this designation is removed from Channel 172 and instead is applied to Channel 180, 182 or 184? 

 

The offered answers would be:

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not Enough Information
  • No opionion

We would no longer need the "I don't support band sharing" answer because I deleted the leading "If it would enhance band sharing"

Comments welcome.

 

Best Regards,

John

 

 

--

 

John Kenney

Principal Researcher

Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA

465 Bernardo Avenue

Mountain View, CA 94043

Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644

_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-REG and then press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________




--
John Kenney
Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644
_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-REG and then press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________