Thanks for the thoughtful and informative post. It sounds like you have a "rich" background in this particular proceeding! :-)
Scriv

Rich Comroe wrote:

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/

Reply via email to