Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to approve 802.18 doc+++
I vote to approve the filing. However, I have the following questions.
My vote is not dependent on the answers.
The filing is titled "Comments of IEEE 802.18 and the footnote says it
is represents 802.18. Is the intent to have this filing be limited to
only the few members of 802.18, or to be a filing of 802?
A question on paragraph 9: Why is it the request of 802.18 to preclude
channel bonding? If adjacent channels are available and independent
monitoring of each 6 MHz channel is performed, why should bonding be
prevented?
A question on paragraph 29: Do you really want a professional
verification of the CPE antenna? This would make any network that uses
this type of equipment, such as 802.22, prohibitively expensive to
deploy, especially in sparely populated regions where the drive time
between verifications might exceed the verification time by an order of
magnitude..
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:36 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to approve 802.18
doc+++
Importance: High
Dear EC members,
As agreed at the closing EC meeting, this is a 7 day email ballot to
make a
determination on the below motion to
approve the attached document 18-04-0056-00-00 (TV Band NPRM Comments)
as an
802 Document.
Moved: Carl Stevenson
Second: Jerry Upton
The ballot opens Friday 19 September 2004 7pm edt and closes the sooner
of
Friday 26 September 2004 7pm edt or 24hours after all EC member have
cast a
vote (a vote consists of an explicit APPROVE, DISAPPROVE or ABSTAIN).
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" <wk3c@wk3c.com>
To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Urgent motion to approve 802.18 doc
> Motion:
>
> To immediately and urgently
>
> approve the attached document 18-04-0056-00-00 (TV Band NPRM Comments)
>
> as an 802 Document, authorizing Carl Stevenson and Michael Lynch to
>
> make necessary non-substantive editorial cleanups and formatting
>
> changes, and to file the document with the FCC on behalf of IEEE 802
>
> in a timely fashion. (NOTE: the filing deadline is Nov. 30, 2004 and
>
> additionally, we need time to do the editorial cleanups and final
>
> Formatting for filing.)
>
> Moved: Carl R. Stevenson
>
> Seconded: Jerry Upton
>
> Information for the EC:
>
> The attached document was approved *unanimously* by 802.18 with broad
>
> representation by voting members of 802.18 from both 802 as well as
the
>
> licensed incumbent services which future 802 wireless standards would,
>
> by FCC rule and the ITU Radio Regulations, be required to protect from
>
> harmful interference as a condition for access to the spectrum in
> question.
>
> There are currently *NO* 802 wireless standards operating in the band
in
>
> question (the TV broadcast bands), so the recommendations in this
document
>
> would impose NO additional constraints on existing 802 wireless
standards.
>
> Any future 802 wireless standards desiring to operate in the band in
> question
>
> *will* be *required* by the FCC to afford the incumbent licensed
services
>
> protection from harmful interference.
>
> (The standard to be developed by 802.22, under the scope of its PAR,
is
>
> specifically intended to operate in the TV broadcast bands, using
> cognitive
>
> radio techniques to protect the incumbent licensed services from
harmful
>
> interference.)
>
> This document was reviewed by an ad hoc group from 802.11 (none of the
> other
>
> Wireless WG Chairs responded to an invitation for review).
>
> Any future 802 wireless standard proposing to use the TV bands under
the
> rules
>
> proposed by the FCC would, by definition, be required to operate on a
> strictly
>
> non-interfering basis to the incumbent licensed services.
>
> Additionally, the attached document is a delicately crafted, yet fair,
>
> compromise, based on UNPRECEDENTED cooperation between the
"traditional"
>
> 802 community and licensed incumbents, some of whom have gained voting
>
> membership, and others who have met the attendance requirements at
this
>
> session and will gain voting membership at the March plenary.
>
> These folks came to OUR table to work cooperatively with us in an
effort
>
> to avoid conflict over the FCC's proposal to allow unlicensed devices
to
>
> operate *in spectrum for which they hold licenses and have legal
rights to
>
> protection from harmful interference*.
>
> After months of cooperative work, NOT filing the comments that were
> mutually
>
> Agreed between the RR-TAG and these incumbents will severely damage
the
>
> cooperative working relationship that has been forged between the
> incumbents
>
> and "traditional 802 participants" and will almost certainly result in
> their
>
> withdrawing from their attempts to work cooperatively with us and make
our
>
> prospects of gaining access to the spectrum.
>
> Finally, since IEEE 802.18 requested, and was granted, an extension of
> time
> in the
>
> comment period, which the FCC granted - something that they normally
don't
> do - on
>
> the basis that we had all of the incumbents at the table working
> cooperatively
>
> with us to bring a broad industry consensus position to the FCC, it
will
> virtually
>
> certainly *trash* 802's reputation with the FCC if we do not deliver
this
> document
>
> by the Nov. 30 filing deadline established by the extension of time
that
> was
> granted
>
> at our request - a relationship that we have worked hard to cultivate
and
> has been
>
> very productive.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Carl R. Stevenson (outgoing Chair, IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG)
>
> Michael Lynch, Interim Chair, IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG
>
>
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.