| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
APPROVE
-----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 7:36 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.