Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index



I vote yes


At 09:47 AM 9/28/99 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT     802.0/28Sept1999
>Issue Date:   28Sept1999        Closing Date: 1October1999
>Moved By:     Vic Hayes
>Seconded By:  Bob Heile
>Move: Authorize responding from IEEE 802 to the FCC NPRM (Docket No. 99-231)
>with doc.: 11-99/210-r4 (in principal). Approved by 802.11 EMAIL ballot:
>69-Yes, 2-No, 3-Abstain.
>This letter states that  "The Committee supports the CW jammer test,
>together with the additional requirement for mathematical justification for
>systems utilizing codes with less than 10 chips as proposed in paragraph 15
>and advises the Commission of our concerns regarding an alternative Gaussian
>noise test as proposed in paragraph 14. Members of the Committee have
>performed extensive analysis and technical trade-off studies that were
>discussed at the IEEE 802.11 Interim Meeeting (Santa Rosa, 13-17 September
>1999) to ensure that its 2.4 GHz high data rate waveform adheres to the
>processing Gain requirement of at least 10dB.2 As a result of these
>studies, it has concluded that the processing Gain test using the CW jamming
>test as proposed in paragraph 15 of the Notice is a valid method to confirm
>the processing gain requirement.
>Approval is requested for this letter (in principal) to allow for editing by
>Vic Hayes, Bob Heile and Jim Carlo based on various comments (including IEEE
>staff) being provided. The letter needs to be submitted to the FCC by
>If you want to see the document 99/209 in its entirety, please go to the web