December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.22-06/0274r0
IEEE P802.22
Wireless RANs
Date: 2006-12-19
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
William Rose / WJR Copnsulting Inc. / 3 Tunxis Road, West Hartford, CT 06107 / 860 313 8098 /
Minutes
The chairman opened the meeting at 6:05 PM EST
1. Attendance
Chris Clantan
Chris Babarskas
Soo Young Chang
Yuchun Wu
Bill Rose
Greg Buchwald
Steve Kuffner
David Mazzarese
K. Sivanesan
Steve Shellhammer
2. The agenda was approved without change.
3. The minutes from 12/12/06 were approved without change.
4. 802.18 Comments to FCC (801.28 draft doc on "whitespace")
a. Greg suggested a change to the posted document 18-06-0073-00-0000: In sections discussing Part 74 licensed devices, replace licensed devices with licensed and otherwise protected devices
b. Shure suggested that some of their wireless microphones include a feature that includes a low baud rate(several baud) signal along with the audion signal that might provide a means to validate the microphone. A discussion followed. This feature could not be used to differentiate existing microphones, but it might be used to do so going forward. Shure will provide more details at the January meetings.
c. There was an agreement to replace the word “illegal” with unprotected use, or similar wording in the TG1 comments.
d. There was an agreement to remove references to making the use of a beacon a requirement to protect wireless microphones. The issue is in regard to whether WRANs must be able to detect wireless microphones, or simply detect the beacon in effect making the beacon the means of protection for wireless microphones, rather than the detection of the microphones themselves. Currently the beacon is in addition to, not in lieu of, the microphones. It was decided this topic requires more discussion at the January meetings.
Action Item: Request that Carl Stevenson add an agenda item early in the week to discuss this topic in .22.
Action Item: Bill Rose will update the TG1 comments to reflect the above and send to the TG1 reflector for comment. It was agreed members will comment by Friday 12/22/06, and the completed draft comments sent to Carl Stevenson. It was further agreed that there will be more discussion on the TG1 comments to the .18 draft at the January Interim meetings.
5. Discussion on Steve Kuffner comments:
a. End of paragraph 25: add the sentence…IEEE 802 recommends the Commission include in its rules a requirement for all devices to be able to respond to a disabling beacon in order to provide protection to Part 74 devices.
b. End of paragraph 73: …but that such use be precluded only in the areas where it is in use by licensed and protected services.”
There was no discussion. It was decided that these comments were directed to .22, not TG1.
6. Continue Discussion on Open Issues/Action Items
a. Aggregation and Quiet Periods
i. Discussed concept of using a database that would be populated by operators of aggregated beacons (see 12/12/06 TG1 minutes). There were several questions raised by Jerry Kalke:
1. How soon before an event the database would need to be populated?
Response: need guidance from broadcasters). Depending on how near to the event the posting might be made, it may be necessary for to “push” the information, i.e. a notice sent to the WRAN operator, versus having the operator “pull” the information, i.e. the WRAN operator polls the database periodically
2. What if there is a late change to the event plan
Response: the beacon itself would provide a means for last minute changes. However, the channel that was reserved for the aggregated beacon in the databse would need to remain on the reserved channel or it might not be detected by WRANs.
ii. Steven Shellhammer suggested that an alternative method to a database would be to increase the vacate time to something longer than 2 seconds: e.g. 200 seconds for aggregated beacons. Non aggregated beacons will stay at 2 seconds since they would be protecting only the channel they are operating on. The assumption is that aggregated beacons would be used at planned events. These events will be able to turn on a beacon well in advance of the need for protection. If the vacate time were long enough, WRANs would have adequate time to sense multiple channels without major disruption to their service.
We still need to address the issue of having to sense over 3 sub bands for aggregated beacons. An alternative would be to ensure there is one beacon per sub band but that it informs the WRAN if there are associated microphones on adjacent sub bands as well.
b. There was no discussion on Gerald’s Spreadsheet – 22-06-0246-0-0000_WRAN_distance_to_ Micro_RX.xls, since he was not on the call.
7. Other Business: There was no other business
8. Next Meeting: January 9, ’07 at 6:00 PM EST
9. The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 PM EST
Submission page 1 William Rose, WJR Consulting Inc.