Re: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** RR-TAG Comments on FCC RM-11325, Amendment of Amateur Service Rules
John,
This document would be filed with the FCC as an 802.18 document. Since it's
to be filed as an 802.18 document rather than an 802 document, the P&P
requires a 5 day EC "review." If, by the end of that 5 day review period,
no member of the EC has made a motion to block filing, 802.18 may file the
document as an 802.18 filing. If a motion to block filing is made (and
seconded) the document may not be filed unless/until that motion fails an EC
ballot.
So, if you have no objection to the document being filed, you simply do
nothing.
This (filing as 802.18, rather than 802) is common practice for documents
created at wireless interims, since, with no EC meeting, it's easier to do
the "review" than to conduct an electronic EC ballot to "upgrade" the
document from an 802.18 document to an 802 document, yet it still gives the
EC oversight.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Hawkins
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:09 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** RR-TAG
> Comments on FCC RM-11325, Amendment of Amateur Service Rules
>
> I'm not sure if we're voting on this.... or not... (our
> practices on what constitutes a "duly approved email ballot"
> still confuse me).
>
> I'd be one to approve.
>
> Like Carl, as an amateur radio operator, I too think the ARRL
> is off base here. While automatic power management may be
> challenging it is not impossible, but moreover, it is key to
> successful cohabitation on the spectrum.
>
> Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but I think 802 is a
> great case study in how this is so. We have first hand
> experience with trying to run a bunch of spread spectrum
> radios in close proximity. Automatic power level management
> has been the key to getting our plenary network running
> reliably. True, it has taken us (and our vendors) a few years
> to figure it out, but we did. I hope we don't have to contend
> with some distant source of high-powered interference (that
> RM-11325 would allow) at our future sessions.
>
> Amateurs do a lot of good in this country and around the
> world, including experimentation with radio technology which
> frequently results in innovations for mainstream markets. But
> on this one, they are off-base.
>
>
> john
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:30 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** RR-TAG
> Comments on FCC RM-11325, Amendment of Amateur Service Rules
>
> Dear EC Colleagues,
>
> I also reviewed and voted approve in .18 on this filing and
> urge you to allow it to go forward in a timely manner.
>
> As an amateur radio operator, I cannot and do not support the
> ARRL's petition ... It is unnecessary and "supported" by
> specious arguments in an attempt to remove a requirement that
> is simply good engineering practice and which, if removed,
> would allow misuse of 802.11 (b/g in
> particular) by amateurs in a way that could cause widespread,
> massive disruption of personal and enterprise networks over
> large areas (imagine blanketing an entire metro area with a
> single "LAN" from a high site at exceedingly high radiated powers ...)
>
> The ARRL proposal is unnecessary and deserves our opposition.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
> > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:37 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** RR-TAG Comments on FCC
> > RM-11325, Amendment of Amateur Service Rules
> >
> > Dear SEC Members,
> >
> > Attached are comments that the RR-TAG proposes to file with
> the FCC.
> > The subject of RM-11325 is "Amendment of the Amateur
> Service Rules to
> > Facilitate Use of Spread Spectrum Communications
> Technology". The ARRL
>
> > is requesting that the FCC remove the require for ATPC.
> ATPC is meant
> > to insure that only the minimum required power to successfully
> > communicate is used by amateur operators. While there are several
> > frequency bands that the rule change would impact the one
> of greatest
> > interest currently is the 2.4 GHz frequency band. It is
> feasible that,
>
> > without the ATPC requirement, an amateur operator could radiate as
> > much as 4 kW in that band. The amateurs make the argument
> that ATPC is
>
> > too complicated to implement. That seems to contradict the
> widespread
> > use of ATPC by a number of technologies. Additionally it was the
> > amateurs that originally requested to use ATPC. The
> potential impact
> > on unlicensed technologies in the 2.4 GHz band could be severe. The
> > RR-TAG believes that ATPC can be implemented without imposing undue
> > hardship on the amateur service.
> >
> > The RR-TAG developed these comments during its May interim in
> > Jacksonville. A quorum was present and these comments were
> approved by
>
> > a vote of 9 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstain.
> >
> > The comment period for RM-11325 closes 30 May. I propose
> that the EC
> > review begins today (24 May) and closes at midnight CDT 29 May.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > +1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
> > +1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
> > +1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile
> >
> > <<18-06-0036-01-0000.doc>>
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.