What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich?
I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that
this was desirable to keep usage separate. What can I say? I worked for
Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy! I left the activity when the
committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC
products to that standard. I actually had initial success selling the Moto
concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to
committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned
for Canopy. 802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the
common technology to promote lower cost through volume. They were obviously
trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours. Many users,
however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a "bridge". This needs
further explaining.
For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become
possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side
units. But it's a chicken and egg situation. If transmitters are there
every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC
trasceivers for their cars. Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers,
one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway
transceivers. What comes first?
Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose?
As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll
collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were
beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that
might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a
common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered
attractive.
To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band. Mobile
based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware
common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated. They contemplate
every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line
But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8
UNII band. But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ...
the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within
mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels "above" the
UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard. DSRC functions are public
safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed. It wouldn't
make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels. But
it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC
that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates
trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public
will "want on their own" is much preferred). Hope that makes sense.
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they
want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they
even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also
overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here?
What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why
Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I
think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which
discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about
commenting to the FCC.
Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this
was outside our existing bands and you never replied.
Scriv
Rich Comroe wrote:
Howdy,
I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee
for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I
appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.
John wrote:
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies
we use for our networks.
Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the
existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by
DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of
the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from
being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the
commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this
order.
Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:
yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but
makes
926 and above useless. See ... ?
Yeah, that is a valid concern. They're contemplating a lot of outdoor
units (like one in every American car). FYI, when I left the activity
ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited
power, and road-side units of limited height. They're not trying to do
multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into
short-medium-&-long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short, like
electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium,
like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency traffic light
control).
So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity
to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels.
However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the
5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than
bleed-over from DSRC band usage.
Rich
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies
we use for our networks.
Scriv
Rick Smith wrote:
potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to
know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for
me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
All,
Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.
WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND),
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE
5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE
And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this
in further detail.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
