1 / 43

IEEE 802.18 Warsaw Interim Meeting Agenda

Explore key items discussed at the IEEE 802.18 Warsaw Interim Meeting, including spectrum management, FCC regulations, and European input. Follow IEEE-SA guidelines for participation.

mccurley
Download Presentation

IEEE 802.18 Warsaw Interim Meeting Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE 802.18 RR-TAGWarsaw Interim Meeting Agenda • Dates: 08 May 18 • 10 May 18 Authors: Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  2. Call to Order / Administrative Items • Number of voters: 41 (8 on EC); Nearly voters: 1; Aspirant members: 7 • A quorum is met since this meeting was announced more then 45 days ago. • Required notices • Affiliation FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • > Be sure to announce you name, affiliation, employer and clients the first time you speak. • Anti-Trust FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Ethics - https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html • IEEE 802 WG Policies and Procedures - http://www.ieee802.org/devdocs.shtml • The 4 administration slides, reminder from your WG opening plenary  new 02jan18 • (note: call for essential patents is n/a, as the RR-TAG does not do standards) • Officers or the RR-TAG / IEEE 802.18: • Chair is Jay Holcomb (Itron) • Vice-chair is open • Secretary is Allan Zhu (Huawei) Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  3. Jay Holcomb (Itron) Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs of different technical approaches that include relative costs of patent licensing terms may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain the primary focus • Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object. --------------------------------------------------------------- For more details, see IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and Antitrust and Competition Policy: What You Need to Know at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf

  4. Participation in IEEE 802 Meetings • Participation in any IEEE 802 meeting (Sponsor, Sponsor subgroup, Working Group, Working Group subgroup, etc.) is on an individual basis • Participants in the IEEE standards development individual process shall act based on their qualifications and experience. (https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf section 5.2.1) • IEEE 802 Working Group membership is by individual; “Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals, and not as organizational representatives”. (subclause 4.2.1 “Establishment”, of the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures) • Participants have an obligation to act and vote as an individual and not under the direction of any other individual or group. A Participant’s obligation to act and vote as an individual applies in all cases, regardless of any external commitments, agreements, contracts, or orders. • Participants shall not direct the actions or votes of any other member of an IEEE 802 Working Group or retaliate against any other member for their actions or votes within IEEE 802 Working Group meetings, see https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf section 5.2.1.3 and the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures, subclause 3.4.1 “Chair”, list item x. • By participating in IEEE 802 meetings, you accept these requirements. If you do not agree to these policies then you shall not participate. (and pleases leave the room.) Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  5. Agenda • Discussion items, few more details: • NPRM Revision of Section 7 on expediting access for new technologies, due 21 May • FCC NOI/PN – Expanding flexible use of the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz band, due 31 May • EU Items, what is the latest from members. Anything we should respond to? • WiFi / UWB at high level, what criteria and use cases should be considered • IEEE European Position Statement on Spectrum Management, IEEE 802 inputs • IEEE 802 Fellowship request on reaching out to all regulators, what can we do? • Thursday: • 6th FNPRM on 4.9 GHz • Call to Order • Attendance server is open • Administrative items • Need a recording secretary • Approve agenda & last minutes • Any interest in being the 802.18 Vice-Chair? • Discussion items • FCC NPRM Section 7 • FCC NOI/PN 4GHz • EU Items • WiFi / UWB points • IEEE EU position statement • IEEE 802 Fellowship request • Thursday’s agenda • Actions required • IEEE EU Position Statement inputs • WiFi / UWB inputs • What happens during the call • AOB and Adjourn Jay Holcomb (Itron) Agenda

  6. Motions - administrative • Motion: To approve the agenda as presented on previous slide • Moved by: Stuart K • Seconded by: Thomas K • Discussion? • Vote: Unanimous consent • Motion: To approve the minutes from the IEEE 802.18 meeting at the Chicago (Rosemont) Wireless Plenary in document: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0024-00-0000-meeting-minutes-march-2018-o-hare.docxPosted: 23-Mar-2018 16:54:50 ET • Moved by: Tim J • Seconded by: Stuart K • Discussion? • Vote: Unanimous consent • Does anyone have an interest in being the 802.18 Vice-Chair? • Needs to be a member of the SA and a declaration of term commitment and affiliation letters to the EC. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  7. FCC NPRM– Section 7 -1 • NPRM Revision of Section 7 on expediting access for new technologies. • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0021-00-0000-nprm-fcc-18-18.docx • https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=18-22&sort=date_disseminated,DESC • It was published in Federal Register on 04 April. • https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/04/2018-06741/encouraging-the-provision-of-new-technologies-and-services-to-the-public • This document has a comment period that ends in 45 days. (21 May 2018). • Is there anything we want to comment on? Would need to approve by Thursday. • The .18 chair highlighted the NPRM and the 6 seek comments. (18-18/0021r01) • Went through it last week, not a lot of interest. • Went through it today and maybe 2 -3 points could be considered: • Clearer guidelines of what they considered new, e.g. moving/adjusting a known technology to the THz? • How would the FCC be sure the integrity of new rules are to the same standards as the process is today that can take much longer than a year? • From the member not present from earlier: 90 days is plenty when expiration/recall/modification is possible, otherwise it is tough when OET is on vacation. • Two members were asked to put a few sentences together on the first 2 bullets for possible comments to review thursdays. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  8. FCC NPRM– Section 7 -2 • We seek comment  on these factors or other factors that would be appropriate with effective implementation of section 7 goals. • In general: • A new technology or service / not next step from an existing technology or service; • From proposed rule 1.6004 • Shall be technically feasible and commercially viable; • Will not considered what is merely theoretical or speculative; • Include results of experimental testing, technical analysis or research. • Will be evaluated using one or more of the following factors: • Has not been previously authorized. • If similar to a previously authorized technology or service, include what the significant enhancements that results in new functionality or improved performance. • other factors by the petitioner. • Would be in the public interest. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  9. FCC NPRM– Section 7 -2 • Additionally, we seek comment  on what the proper notification-and-elevation process should be before releasing the 90-day determination, whether positive or negative. For instance, should OET notify the offices of the Commissioners 48 hours in advance, or some other length of time, of a pending 90-day determination? • We seek comment  on how to apply these procedures in instances where outside parties are either collaborating on or disputing the merits of a new technology or service. Should the Commission take these types of considerations into account when determining how to meet the one-year deadline imposed by a section 7 finding? • We seek comment  on how to ensure the Commission complies with this statutory provision. For instance, what factors should the Commission weigh in deciding whether to initiate a proceeding on its own under Section 7?   Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  10. FCC NPRM– Section 7 -3 • We expect that all the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the proposed rules will be the same for large and small businesses; however, we seek comment  on any steps that could be taken to minimize any significant economic impact on small businesses.   • We seek comment  on whether any of burdens associated with the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in the rules proposed herein can be further minimized for small businesses. • Does IEEE 802 want to do comments this week? Possibly, see previous slides. • Thursday: • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0054-00-0000-ieee-802-comments-fcc-nprm-et-18-22-expedite-rules-section-7.docx • Comments text came in from the members asked, thank you. • A comment document was put together and we reviewed. • A few minor edits and made we made a clean r02 to approve. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  11. Motion – NPRM on Section 7 • Motion:Move to approve the comments in 18-18/0054r02 to FCC’s NPRM (GN Docket No. 18-22), the Commission proposes guidelines and procedures to implement section 7. With the chair of 802.18 to have editorial privileges and send to the EC for review/approval and submission to the FCC by 31 May 2018. • Moved by: Stuart K • Seconded by: Thomas K • Discussion? • Vote: _13__Y / _0__N / _0__A Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  12. FCC NOI 4 GHz -1 • EXPANDING FLEXIBLE USE OF THE 3.7 GHZ TO 4.2 GHZ BAND, DA 18-396 • https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?q=delegated_authority_number:(*18%5C-396*)&sort=date_disseminated,DESC • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0041-00-0000-fcc-noi-expanding-flexible-use-of-3-7-4-2-ghz-band-gn-18-122-da-18-396.pdf • By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology establish GN Docket No. 18-122, which is captioned “Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz Band.” We encourage parties that submit filings related to the potential for more intensive use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band to submit those filings in this docket. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  13. FCC NOI 4 GHz -2 • 03 May: This is the old TV down link band. • Sounds like the EU already re-purposed this band years ago to terrestrial mobile. At the time it was a significant effort. • EU 3.4 - 3.8 GHz is a pioneer band for 5G. • In NAM, there are many fixed links yet in this band. • For IEEE 802, do we want to use this band? • Remember, before 802.11 had no interest in the band below this, with it just NAM. • Though would they now, or 802.15, or ? • 26 April: • Commlawblog.com has discussed some on this. e.g. could this lead to something like CBRS? • There is discussion from the satellite folks to give up some of the adjacent band to possibly help with CBRS and terrestrial use. More to this with several pieces. • There is an ITU-R connection here also with global use. • This summer will see the NPRM for this band. This NOI is to help setup for the NPRM. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  14. FCC Public Notice 4 GHz -3 - New • FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING COMMERCIAL WIRELESS SERVICES, LICENSED OR UNLICENSED, TO USE OR SHARE USE OF THE FREQUENCIES BETWEEN 3.7-4.2 GHz, DA 18-446; GN Docket No. 18-122 • https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=18-122&sort=date_disseminated,DESC • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0049-00-0000-fcc-pn-expanding-flexible-use-of-3-7-4-2-ghz-band-gn-18-122-da-18-446.pdf • Comments due: 31 May 2018; Reply comments due: 15 June 2018 • We would need to approve by teleconference next week, 17 May 2018. • We have been approached by Encina Communication Corp. • They have interest in the 3.7 – 4.2 GHz band and plan to make a detailed filing on how the Commission can make the entire 500 MHz available for PtP, PtMP, nomadic (Wi-Fi) and mobile without causing harmful interference to existing FS and FSS operators or blocking new applicants. • They will join our teleconference next week, 17 May.   • Same call to approve our comments. • It was requested the .18 chair send to Encina now: • 1) A copy of IEEE SA guidelines for meetings, the opening admirative items, e.g. Essential Patents and participation is on an individual basis, etc. • 2) Request for the submission ahead of time, in IEEE 802 normal submission format. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  15. FCC Public Notice 4 GHz -4 - New • 802.15.4 HRP UWB PHY channels 2 and 4 are centered at 3993 MHz, • Need to confirm if 802.15.6 and 80215.8 also have UWB channels here. • We note that there is currently no federal allocation for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the following questions: • How should we assess the operations and possible impacts of sharing on Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band? • How might sharing be accomplished, with licensed and/or unlicensed operations, without causing harmful interference to Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band, and in which parts of the band would such sharing be feasible? • What other considerations should the Commission take into account in preparing the 3.7 - 4.2 GHz Report? Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  16. FCC Public Notice 4 GHz -5 • Does IEEE 802 have anything to reply to this Public Notice docket? • The discussion headed down path to maybe wait till later, reply comments, ex partes or even the NPRM. • With one point outstanding if we do want to comment now, the UWB unlicensed is already there working with the current environment. Similar to the UWB concern at 6 GHz. • Will review again Thursday. • Thursday: • The .18 chair did send a template for a submission and all the IEEE administrative policies to Encina • Per discussions since Tuesday, UWB inputs will hold on this PN, while 802.19 is working the process. • So, any change of mind, do we still hold and not do comments at this time? Yes – • We will not do comments at this time • Next will be the teleconference next week and Encina joining. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  17. EU items • Anything to share on the EU front? Yes, see below. • Anything IEEE 802 should respond to? Nothing specific was mentioned. • CEPT continues with major focus on 6GHz. • 60 GHz –extending with 66 - 71 GHz looks like this will be accepted, with an un-licensed piece. Want to keep our use-cases visible there. • Request from CEPT for input on this. • SRDoc - TR 103 583 Request for band beyond 66 GHz still in process. • Sharing mechanism it not LBT and is being worked on. • The SRDoc needs more work, and it is unclear with SE-19. • EN 302 567, 60GHz Harmonized Std. • Pending since no Rcvr sensitivity. • Also, need to add the adjacent channel rejection. • The basic could be done in weeks, then the process of a few months to finish. • SE45 – doing technical evaluations of RLANs @ 6GHz, e.g. sharing with incumbents. • RLAN request is to be co-primary. With UWB still as secondary. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  18. WiFi / UWB Coexistence -1 • IEEE 802.19 and other WG chairs are working on IEEE 802 single voice. • From a high level, could we list out some of the following. • Do not want to get into detail, just high level points to consider to help. • What criteria should be considered? • Power out needed, different for each technology. • Bandwidth considerations. • Channel sense, e.g. LBT. • Incumbent protection. • Interference types, blocks .vs. range decrease. • Operational ranges themselves. • Different modulation types . • Tuning range of UWB (global considerations). • Thursday: • Is there a way to ID that UWB is there and transmitting? Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  19. WiFi / UWB Coexistence -2 • What Use Cases should be considered? • Higher speed (wider BWs) for WiFi users, e.g. streaming video, etc. • Global availability (S. Korea just this week consultation 6 – 10.2 GHz for UWB) • UWB applications - Many (See 15-17/0660), e.g. location is a significant use case. • Where devices are used, height, indoor/outdoor, etc. • Review 15.2 co-existence of WiFi / BT / … • Co-located in a device, and non-co-located. • Thursday: • Nothing new. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  20. IEEE EU Position Statement -1 • IEEE European Public Policy Position Statement on Spectrum Management • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0028-00-0000-draft-ieee-european-public-policy-position-statement-on-spectrum-management.pdf • We are being asked to review this statement, similar to the one in November, though some focus for the EU. Guidance is to review and comment in detail. • Document 18-18/0028rxx, latest revision is our current review markup. • Please send comments to .18 chair, to integrate, to be reviewed by the TAG. • Becoming clearer the starting premise of the current paper is from several years ago and input is coming in the premise has changed in recent years. • With that trying to understand how to propose edits to the paper. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  21. IEEE EU Position Statement -2 • Went through 18-18/0028r01 review copy, the remaining sections we have not reviewed and found a couple of specific areas that need clarity. • And brought audience up to speed on point premise of paper is from a few years back and had agreement with those that spoke up. • Some general questions: • Should the IEEE SA (the position statement we reviewed in November and January) and the IEEE EU collaborate on these 2 separate position statements in some fashion? • Then move above them. (.18 should still review) • What was original driver to do the statement? • Who is the general audience it is written for? • As it is, there is a concern if it is sent out and organizations our members are working with, CEPT, BRAN, etc. it will cause confusion, and more. • Request that anyone with specific input to continue to please pass on to the .18 chair, sooner. • .18 chair will cleanup the review revision of the paper (should end up r02) and ask the IEEE 802 chair for further guidance on next steps. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  22. Fellowship Request • Fellowship request on reaching out to all regulators. • Enhancing Collaboration between IEEE 802 and World Regulators on unlicensed spectrum regulations • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/11-18-0580-01-coex-enhancing-collaboration-between-ieee-802-and-world-regulators-on-unlicensed-spectrum-regulations.pptx • Thursday: • A start is to keep in touch with the fellowship attendees. • They are welcome to our meetings and calls. • Could something be added to the IEEE newsletter/communication for the regulators, to answer the news letter input? • Can IEEE be more pro-active with some of the other (e.g. regional) regulators? • The challenge is to ID which we can, and being a volunteer / individual organization, the time and money from the volunteers? • Many regulators don’t have IEEE has a point of contact like they do with WFA or other implementing orgs do. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  23. Jay Holcomb (Itron) Thursday Agenda • Reminder of IEEE policies we are under. • Attendance server is open. • Remember to state your name, affiliation, employer and/or clients first time you speak. • Items from Tuesday or new. • FCC NPRM on Section 7 – possible comments to approve today? • FCC PN on 3.7 – 4.2 GHz - possible comments to finish next week? • Any further Criteria or Use Cases for the WiFi/UWB 6 and 4 GHz coexistence? • Review Fellowship paper. • FCC releases proposed rules for 4.9 GHz band. • Actions Required • AOB • Adjourn

  24. FCC FNPRM 4.9 GHz • PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU ANNOUNCES COMMENT AND REPLY COMMENT DATES FOR THE SIXTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE 4.9 GHZ BAND AND CONSOLIDATES DOCKET NUMBERS FOR ALL FUTURE 4.9 GHz BAND MATTERS • WP Docket No. 07-100, PS Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150, DA 18-468 • https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/07/2018-09416/49-ghz-band?utm_campaign=subscription%20mailing%20list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email • PN: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-468A1.pdf • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0051-00-0000-fcc-pn-4-9-ghz-da-18-468-fcc-18-33-wp-07-100.docx • FNPRM: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/03231913715191/FCC-18-33A1.pdf • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0052-00-0000-fcc-fnprn-4-9-ghz-fcc-18-33-wp-07-100.pdf • https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?q=(proceedings.name:((07%5C-100*))%20OR%20proceedings.description:((07%5C-100*)))&sort=date_disseminated,DESC • Comments Due: July 6, 2018; (Approve by 21 June) Reply Comments Due: August 6, 2018 • At this time, not seeing IEEE 802 has an interest, with the narrow bandwidth of this proceeding. • The .18 chair will do a quick review and highlight possible discussion areas at an upcoming teleconference. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  25. Actions Required • Comments to the NPRM on section 7 • .18 chair will work the EC Ballot and uploading to the FCC. • Comments for the IEEE EU position paper on Spectrum Management. • All please continue to send proposed revisions to the .18 chair as you can. • .18 chair will review with IEEE 802 chair. • WiFi / UWB 6 and 4 GHz co-existence. • All please continue to send possible criteria and high level use cases to .18 chair. • NPRM on 4.9 GHz • The .18 chair will do a quick review and highlight possible discussion areas at an upcoming teleconference. • Teleconferences • The .18 chair will bring up in July plenary to move the teleconferences 30 mins later. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  26. Any Other Business • Note: in the 802.19 co-existence <1 GHz meeting it was brought up for IEEE 802 as a whole to put together a document on basic spectrum parameters that would be good for all IEEE 802 standards to co-exist (less interference….) • Actually, need to have this for all IEEE 802 to just work in the spectrum, e.g. BWs needed. Not just coexistence. • Point being that 802.18 can refer to / use when responding to regulators on different consultations, to encourage regulators in general to configure their spectrum to allow all the IEEE 802 standards in a more consistent/friendly way. • For the many in attendance, it was felt many regulators would appreciate at least knowing this. • Additional point to add to the doc, duty cycle is not for the protocol/standard/amendment being discussed, it is a regulation to allow others (and their packet lengths) to have access to the spectrum. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  27. Adjourn • The next face to face meeting of the 802.18 RR-TAG will be at the IEEE 802 Plenary 10-12 July 2018 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA, USA • Usual time slots, Tuesday AM2 and Thursday AM1-2 • Next teleconference: 17 May 2018 – 14:30 ET • Call in info: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/16/18-16-0038-09-0000-teleconference-call-in-info.pptx or the latest. • Note: If the call-in link doesn’t work send the Chair an email right away. • All changes/cancellations will be sent out to the 802.18 list server. • Note: there will not be a teleconference on 24 May • Adjourn: • Agenda is complete; Any objection to Adjourn. • None heard, we are Adjourned at 09:15 • Thank You Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  28. Jay Holcomb (Itron) Safe Travels Back up and/or previous slides follow

  29. Motion – EU Spectrum Management • Motion: To approve document 18-___/00____r__, IEEE 802 comments on IEEE European Public Policy Position Statement (18-18/0028r00), with the 802.18 Chair having editorial privileges. Then send to the EC for approval and return IEEE EPPC WG. • Moved by: • Seconded by: • Discussion? • Vote: ___Y / ___N / ___A Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  30. Google Wavier -1 • Our 4 Points. • Sharing is not clear with 100% duty cycle, it is a 10x e.i.r.p. level, 802.11 has LBT, etc. • Google says not a 100% duty cycle, gave an example, but not obvious what duty cycle they will use. • Didn’t test with 802.11ad with single carrier modulation which is the majority of users. (OFDM is more tolerant which is what they did test with.) • Didn’t really respond to our input, but did talk to WiGi OFDM symbol duration, etc. • Didn’t test in the same device, like a phone. • They say it will only be Google devices. • Didn’t test with 802.15.3e (which is different from 3c which Google mentions). • Google did not respond to this. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  31. Google Wavier -2 • Google would like to work with IEEE 802 on what they can do to answer our questions. • They did contact the IEEE 802 chair and may join us for a Thursday call in the future. • They do not want to interfere and was thinking if meeting EU standards that would help. • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0045-00-0000-google-s-waiver-request-google-reply-comments-motion-sensing-57-64-ghz.pdf • Google has asked to operate Soli technology at the requested power levels only in devices for which Google is the responsible party under the Commission’s device authorization rules. • Devices incorporating Project Soli technology will operate at a much lower duty cycle. For instance, a duty cycle of 0.1% would reduce a Soli device’s time-averaged output power by some 30 dB. • … This assumption that a single WiGig OFDM symbol will be repeatedly affected by Soli emissions, and that WiGig will be continuously affected, led Lovefield Wireless to the highly conservative results in its paper. The considerable amount of time during which Project Soli technology will not interfere with the channel can be taken into account to the extent there are concerns about the requested waiver. Google’s forthcoming data submission will include analysis conforming Lovefield’s results to this real-world circumstance, in response to the comments received. • We need to be sure that any discussions w/Google are in our open meetings. • The reply comments are closed. • These discussions and any results to these, ex partes are optional, and would need to be tied to formal FCC record. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  32. Google Wavier -3 • Facebook is saying a more technical evaluation is necessary before moving forward. • They did contact the IEEE 802 chair and may join us for a Thursday call in the future. • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0043-00-0000-google-s-waiver-request-facebook-comments-motion-sensing-57-64-ghz.pdf • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0044-00-0000-google-s-waiver-request-facebook-reply-comments-motion-sensing-57-64-ghz.pdf • They talk to in-device, or close proximity interference has not been studied. • … behavior of its coexistence mechanisms is not as well known and merits further empirical testing to substantiate the analytical model. • General discussion: • A quick review of the comments, more were against the waiver. • Remember minutes are very high level, unless directly related to a motion. • More details could be in contributions, posted on Mentor. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  33. FCC - NGV • Will close this out in .18 for now, as it is being picked up in 802.11 for next steps. • NGV SG, Next Generation Vehicular, 802.11p • Has the FCC made any progress and possible final action on U-NII-4 itself? • Work now is outside the FCC (OET) and still at US-DOT (includes the safety aspects) • Looking at doing a letter to the OET and copy US-DOT on what is status of U-NII-4? • The NPRM 13-49 came out in 2013 and this is a continuation of that. • The letter should be reviewed in 802.11 and should NGV SG be part of generating the letter? This lead to further discussion. • The letter needs to talk to backward compatible and interoperability also. • There looks to be 2 topics, the NPRM/5.9 GHz and the standard update. • We need to be clear what is regulatory based and what is standards base. • Maybe start with just the NPRM/5.9GHz focused status, and not the 802.11p for now? • Ran short on time, where we were getting to: • Will introduce this to the NGV SG in Warsaw first. • Could do teleconference as needed after that. • FCC WAC documents could add to this……. Maybe start with this. • Peter will put a presentation together for the NGV SG in Warsaw. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  34. IEEE – not connected and underserved (from last week) • IEEE Connectivity Coalition • Internet Inclusion means that all stakeholders are engaged in the planning and implementation of technology systems; that all potential people impacted can access and have certain rights to understand the implications of the technology and know how to use it safely and ethically; and that with these technologies come more services, tools, increased information and opportunities to expand access for communities around the world. As digital technology is increasingly used for educational, employment, health, commercial and informational purposes, Internet Inclusion is critical for full engagement, participation and opportunity in the social, economic and civic life of society. • This ties into the effort brought up at the Chicago meeting on how to connect the 3.8B people, not connected today. • Stayed tuned as we learn more. • Rich will be talking to Senior Director, Technology Policy and International Affairs on this and what we can do. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  35. IEEE 802 (.11) • AANI – review – informational • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/11-18-0583-00-AANI-aani-sc-closing-report-march-2018.pptx • The 802 Chair has asked that 802.18 stay in tune with the 802.11 ANNI SC. • In particular where they stand with IMT 2020. • A debated motion in the 802.11 closing to add to its scope for IMT 2020: • Approve that the AANI SC scope be modified to include the generation of a white paper and/or self evaluation assessing the performance of 802.11 against the IMT-2020 requirements for eMBB indoor hotspot and dense urban use case. • Result: 28-34-8 Fails Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  36. IEEE SA - informational • IEEE-SA draft position on Additional Spectrum Needed • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/18/18-18-0010-02-0000-sa-use-of-spectrum-draft-position-06dec17.docx • The SA Spectrum position needs to be picked up again in the SA Public Policy Advisory Group. They are getting this back in motion. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  37. Jay Holcomb (Itron) IMT 2020: The buzz in the industry on future steps in mobile technology — 5G — has seen a sharp increase, with attention now focused on enabling a seamlessly connected society in the 2020 timeframe and beyond that brings together people along with things, data, applications, transport systems and cities in a smart networked communications environment. In this context, ITU and its partners, sharing a common community of interest, have recognized the relationship between IMT — International Mobile Telecommunication system — and 5G and are working towards realizing the future vision of mobile broadband communications. In early 2012, ITU-R embarked on a programme to develop “IMT for 2020 and beyond”, setting the stage for 5G research activities that are emerging around the world. Through the leading role of Working Party 5D, ITU’s Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) has finalized its view of a timeline towards IMT-2020. The detailed investigation of the key elements of 5G are already well underway, once again utilizing the highly successful partnership ITU-R has with the mobile broadband industry and the wide range of stakeholders in the 5G community.

  38. Jay Holcomb (Itron) IMT 2020-cont: In September 2015, ITU-R has finalized its “Vision” of the 5G mobile broadband connected society. This view of the horizon for the future of mobile technology will be instrumental in setting the agenda for the World Radiocommunication Conference 2019, where deliberations on additional spectrum are taking place in support of the future growth of IMT. ITU has a rich history in the development of radio interface standards for mobile communications. The framework of standards for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT), encompassing IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced, spans the 3G and 4G industry perspectives and will continue to evolve as 5G with IMT-2020. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg5/rwp5d/imt-2020/Pages/default.aspx

  39. EMEA-1-Jan18 • 6 GHz activity • EC mandate, RSCOM17-53rev1, now final and is limited to 5925-6425MHz. • Did not go to 7125MHz, too much opposition. • ERM SR Doc, TR 103 524 has some opposition, still expecting to get published end of January • Ian Marshal (Ruckus/ARRIS) is rapporteur; DTR/ERM-570 (TR 103 524). • More worse case use scenarios; more clarity on power out levels, few more. • 3GPPP RAN#78 (RP-172804) study item, looking at 5925 – 7125GHz also. • The objective of this Study Item is to investigate the existing regulatory framework in different regions for the band 5.925-7.125 GHz and to monitor the ongoing work within the regulatory organisations on this band. This will provide useful information for consideration of this band for potential LTE operations and NR operations if this band becomes available for operation Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  40. EMEA-2-Jan18 • 6 GHz activity – cont. • CEPT ECC SE45 and FM57 had their first meetings. • SE45 updated the draft ECC Report formerly developed under WI SE24_62. In particular, SE45 introduced RLAN parameters as contained in the SRDoc ETSI TR 103 524 currently under approval. • FM57 discussed the opportunity to prepare a questionnaire and obtain information on the actual deployment and technical and operational parameters of FS in the 6 GHz range. Initial views were expressed by the meeting including the ongoing work in SE19 on the revision of ECC Report 173 on FS usage. FM57 agreed to ask for guidance to next WG FM meeting with respect to the workings of the group. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  41. EMEA-3-Jan18 • 60 GHz activity • 60GHz ETSI SR doc being worked on with some points on ITS channelization. • Scott Blue (Microsoft) is the rapporteur; DTR/ERM-575 (TR 103 583) • 1) To provide information on the intended applications of multiple gigabit wireless systems (MGWS) in radio spectrum between 57GHz and 71GHz including outdoor applications; 2) To detail Millimetre Wave communication for Intelligent Transport Systems (mmW-ITS) and propose moving the existing mmW-ITS allocation to a single MGWS channel; 3) To include technical parameters, mitigation techniques, the relation to the existing spectrum regulation, additional new radio spectrum requirements and expected compatibility issues; 4) This document is intended to update and replace TR 102 555 and TR 102 400. Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  42. EMEA-5-Jan18 • ETSI standards • EN 301 893 has a new work item looking at several things. • (1) To consider the possible inclusion of the band 5 725 MHz to 5 850 MHz together with appropriate mitigation techniques for operation in this band; (2) To revise clause 4.2.7.3.2.5 on Energy Detection Threshold (ED) and other sections of Adaptivity related to detection; (3) To revise clause 4.2.8 on Receiver Blocking and to consider the need to include additional receiver requirements; (4) To consider improving existing text throughout the entire document without changing requirements other than those identified in (1) to (3) above; (5) To revise/improve existing test methods where appropriate.  Jay Holcomb (Itron)

  43. EMEA-6-Jan18 • ETSI standards – cont. • EN 302 567, 60GHz, not in OJEU yet, possibly by end of February • It is harmonized with the note: • This harmonised standard does not address requirements relating to receiver performance parameters and does not confer a presumption of conformity as regards those parameters • From the work item: (1) to revise the OOB/Mask, (2) to consider inclusion of RX Sensitivity, (3) to revise existing receiver requirements, (4) where appropriate, to revise/improve the test methods.  Jay Holcomb (Itron)

More Related