[CWN-Summit] RE: [Openspectrum] Spectrum updates

[Patrick Leary]

Harold,

I wish to correct your comments regarding the "WiMAX Posse" and 3650MHz. I
am qualified to do so as I was principally involved in the WiMAX Forum
response (I wrote the first draft), the Intel/Alvarion/Redline petition
(obviously), and the WCA petition (splitting the band was an idea I tossed
out).

Where you are incorrect is in your assumption that our efforts are entirely
WiMAX centric. While this is partially true, what we (at least Alvarion) is
most interested in a set of rules that 1) is technology agnostic, 2)
harmonized with other similar allocations globally, 3) enable true QoS.

The "contention-based protocol" requirement is counter productive to the
intent of the rule and also imposed a narrow framework for industry to deal
with interference issues. In fact, the rule simply cannot work, as I will
explain later. Your post also implies that our community is looking to
prevent or otherwise be hostile to Wi-Fi. Nothing is further from the truth
and we prove it in the language of our reconsiderations. In fact, our plans
actually make the environment more conducive to immediate deployment of
802.11-based systems, along with WiMAX and any others, including Motorola's
(very spectrally unfriendly) Canopy.

We (Alvarion) met at length with the staffers at the Wireless Bureau and the
OET who wrote the rule and we impressed upon them that a better approach
would be to impose a technology agnostic rule. For example, 802.16 has
formed Task Group H that is working on unlicensed co-existence. The TG is
trying to establish a joint task group for this with the 802.11 crowd,
because the goal of the TG is to come up with a TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL scheme
that could be software-applied to any 802.11, 802.16, 802.20, etc. device
and would allow all the devices to recognize each other and cooperate via
time slicing. But the 802.11 crowd is rejecting any involvement. In other
words, it is the 802.11 crowd that is openly hostile (and terrified) of the
"WiMAX Posse," not the other way around. The 802.11 crowd does not want
neutral rules, they want protections.

[NOTE: Interestingly, and contrary to the belief of the Wi-Fi folks, the FCC
folks told us that in no way were they attempting to protect 802.11, nor
were they attempting to be hostile to 802.16. But it was clear to us that
they had not realized how problematic was their ruling.]

In terms of harmonization, must I really have to explain this? U.S.
allocations are already all over the map and incongruent with global
allocations. Do we really want another band that forces industry to come up
with a unique technology patch only applicable to the U.S.  

In any event, the rule is unworkable anyway. Why? It forces "industry" to
come up with a scheme to avoid interference and enable others to operate,
but it does not require the various groups to agree and to implement a
single approach. So tell me in practical terms how such a thing is remotely
workable? Should I spend a million bucks to design some advanced protocol
that allows sharing across technologies, only to have it rejected by the
Wi-Fi crowd, etc. who has no obligation to agree to the technique, no matter
how neutral? 

Finally, what of QoS? If wireline equivalent QoS cannot be enabled, then the
band can never create a service competitive against cable or DSL, and
certainly useless for mobile. These type of half-assed rules force wireless
broadband to be the low-rent broadband backwater, never more capable of
providing anything beyond best-effort.

In the end, the rules in reality do nothing but create a sort of limbo of a
Mexican stand-off, where the one for sure it that decent use of the band
won't happen for a long time. ...not unlike 5.4 GHz.

If anyone actually read our reconsiderations (the WiMAX Forum's,
Intel/Alvarion/Redline's, and the WCA's), then one would see that we are
trying to create an environment where both unlicensed and licensed has an
opportunity to thrive, an environment where Wi-Fi or WiMAX can be
immediately deployed (in either the unlicensed or licensed domains), and an
environment where QoS can be truly offered, ...or not. We went out of our
way to make our filing technology neutral, though certainly usable for WiMAX
devices. And if you truly understood the WiMAX vision of "always best
connected", 802.11 (as well as Bluetooth and advanced cellular) plays a
vital role. 

I challenge you or anyone else to show me in any of the three filings one
sentence that favors any WiMAX (or even 802.16) over Wi-Fi (or any 802.11).
On the contrary, one can pull ample examples where those that only can play
using 802.11 have direct hostility and fear of any other technology. [Intel,
as one making perhaps more off Wi-Fi than anyone else, hardly has a
motivation to destroy 802.11 and any theory otherwise is just plain silly.]

Kind regards,
 
Patrick J. Leary
Assist. V.P., Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
cell: (760) 580-0080
Skype: pleary
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Feld [mailto:hfeld at mediaaccess.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:46 AM
To: Network Summit Mailing List; Open Spectrum; CWN Policy; Unlicensed
Advocates
Subject: [Openspectrum] Spectrum updates

(My apologies for any duplicates people see as a result of cross-posting)

Important doings at the FCC and the Hill this summer.

FIRST, a relatively minor thing but with significant applications.  The FCC 
Enforcement Bureau has declared the use, sale, or marketing of cellular 
jammers illegal.  These devices are manufactured and marketed in other 
countries, but are not made in the U.S.  In addition to invoking the 
requirement that such devices must receive Commission certification under 
Sec. 302A, the Commission invoked Sec. 333 which prohibits interference 
with any signal licensed or otherwise authorized by the Commission.  A copy 
of the declaration is available here:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.doc>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.txt>

This has significant implications for what is being referred to as 
"suppression of rogue APs" and also for devices deliberately designed to 
interfere with wireless networks.

SECOND, as some of you may recall, the FCC opened up the 3650-3700 MHz band 
to a new form of "licensed" access.  Although technically licensed and 
therefore under Part 90 rather than Part 15, the "license" is non-exclusive 
and grants no better rights with users based on past use or priority (no 
"first in time, first in right" usual in traditional "licensing-lie" 
schemes).  The rules also require users to use "contention based protocols" 
to share the band.  The rules permit "licensees" to operate fixed base 
stations of up to 25-watts EIRP in power.  Mobile devices may operate on 
the band at a strength of 1-watt, but must receive an enabling command from 
a stationary base station.  The band has geographic carve outs to protect 
incumbent satellite earth receiver stations.  However, because the new 
devices are a licensed secondary service, the FCC has required the 
incumbents to negotiate with those seeking to operate systems in the 
exclusion zones to operate on a non-interfering basis.  The exclusion zones 
effectively eliminate use in the top 25 market areas in the United States.

Other than the incumbent users located along the coasts and in the midwest, 
the band is unused.  The rules prevent an accumulation of "junk" such as in 
2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHGz.  Staff have indicated that they regard this as a test 
case whether developers and those using non-exclusive spectrum for 
broadband can genuinely cooperate.  If this model works, it may be used in 
other areas to create opportunities for non-exclusive use alongside 
exclusive licenses (e.g., broadcasting).

Intel has organized resistance to the new rules from what I will call "the 
WiMax posse."  Approximately ten Petitions for Reconsideration were filed, 
most of which advocate for altering the rules to accommodate WiMax (either 
move to true licensing or eliminate the requirement for contention based 
protocols and create a "first in time, first in right" regime so that the 
first carriers to deploy can set up WiMax networks.

I have received inquiries from some tech companies as to whether the WISPs 
and the community wireless communities will "defend" the 3650-3700 MHz 
band.  The influx of hundreds of comments from WISPs and from community 
network supporters had a huge impact on our defeating the proposal from 
Intel to make this a licensed regime in the first place.  Intel is hard at 
work trying to "recapture" the spectrum, and companies considering 
developing equipment for the band are hesitant to do so unless there is a 
sufficient show of interest from the would-be beneficiaries to give them 
confidence the FCC will keep the rules.

MAP will draft oppositions to the Petitions for Reconsideration.  In 
addition, I would like to urge people to file individual comments in 
opposition to the recon petitions.  For those wishing to file comments, the 
docket number remains the same, 04-151.
Oppositions are due 15 days after the Commission puts the Petitions for 
Reconsideration on public notice in the Federal Register.  Given how fast 
the Fed Reg publication is, we are looking at late July at the earliest for 
Oppositions.  Nothing, however, prevents interested parties from filing at 
any time, as the proceeding is designated "permit but disclose."

In addition to the FCC front, I would be very interested in talking to 
anyone in the open spectrum/open source community about developing open 
source solutions for the 3650-3700 MHz band.  This is a real opportunity 
for open source to get "first mover advantage" in a band.  The IETF 
presents a possible vehicle for a recognized standard that could 
subsequently be adopted by chip set manufacturers.  FCC staff have 
expressed interest in helping open source developers navigate the approval 
process (their certification people are very open and friendly).

THIRD, Congress is considering the digital television 
transition.  Consensus is that this bill represents a "must pass" over the 
objections of the National Association of Broadcasters because they want 
the auction money.  From an unlicensed perspective, however, the DTV 
legislation represents both an opportunity and a threat.  On the 
opportunity side, Congress could either set aside spectrum for unlicensed 
access or order the FCC to set rules to permit unlicensed access in the 
"white spaces."  On the threat side, the NAB is seizing this opportunity to 
get legislative language in prohibiting any unlicensed access in the 
broadcast bands as a danger to the "digital transition."

As members of Congress head home for the July 4 recess, it creates an 
opportunity to educate them about the importance of unlicensed spectrum 
access.  Needless to say, most memebrs of Congress have never even heard of 
"unlicensed spectrum," but education must begin somewhere.  If you can, 
take time to call the in-state office of your Senator or Representative and 
explain that you think the DTV transition should serve ALL Americans by 
getting us all access to spectrum and tell them about the issue.  Even 
better, a fax and a follow up phone call to simply raise the consciousness 
of the possibilities and to make staffers more receptive to the arguments 
of the folks in Washington fighting for unlicensed spectrum will be very 
helpful.

Happy July 4,

Harold

_______________________________________________
Openspectrum mailing list
Openspectrum at listserv.media.mit.edu
http://listserv.media.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/openspectrum
 
 
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
 
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********
 
 
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
 
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********