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

stds-802-16-mobile: Re: Comments on the 2 Mobile Wireless PARs


I appreciate your comments.  You have put some hard thought into this 
and made some clear observations.

I'll forward your note to 802.16's Mobile Wireless MAN SG for 
consideration next week, along with responses to its open Call for 
Comments on the proposed 802.16e PAR. Your comments will undoubtedly 
help construct a better 802.16e PAR. As far as I am concerned, that's 
the Study Group's top priority.


At 2:01 PM -0800 02/11/05, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>I have been looking at the PARs up for consideration in Hawaii. I 
>have minor detail comments on most of those addressed in a separate 
>message. This discussion is of a more broad-brush philosophical 
>There have been questions about the overlap of scope in these 2 
>proposals (P802.16e and MBWA ECSG Vehicular Mobile Broadband) I 
>would like to see if I can address the issues that have been brought 
>up and should have been brought up.
>We have had many instances in the past where we have issued PARs 
>with overlapping scope. Generally we have done this only because we 
>have FAILED to reach consensus on scope or requirements, not because 
>the market (as opposed to the vendors) actually WANTED separate 
>standards. The last instance that I can recall is the division 
>between deterministic (.4 & .5) and "otherwise". Not even that was 
>important enough for more than one to survive in the market. I 
>believe that the dominant driver for success was (1) ease/cost of 
>generating interoperable implementations and number of significant 
>suppliers committed to bringing product to market.
>The real market (i.e. the end users who don't come to standards 
>meetings) wants a single standard for each application so there will 
>be lots of vendors to beat each other up on price.
>Now, my view of what I see here:
>Two projects that are trying to (appropriately) exploit the obvious 
>market gap between the ubiquity and mobility of cellular telephones 
>and the rapidly rising popularity of 802.11 Wireless LANs.
>What would such a standard need? I can think of:
>	1) Only one standard
>	2) Single, low cost customer equipment, usable everywhere
>	3) Ability to maintain connectivity at vehicular speeds.
>	4) Hi speed transport of packets/IP
>	5) Use of "existing physical infrastructure" (read: cell towers)
>	6) Strong assurance of multi-vendor interoperability
>	7) Developed by an experienced standards group that knows how 
>to write concise, complete standards
>	8) No regulatory issues
>	9) Coexistence with other wireless services
>	10) Ability to be tariffed by common carriers
>	11) Support appropriate security for users in a mobile environment.
>	12) Ability to discover a new (no previous relationship) 
>service provider and start a session from cold start
>Would be nice items:
>	1) Single standard world wide (auto manufacturers would 
>appreciate this).
>	2) Can supplement common carrier infrastructure with ad-hoc 
>	3) Mobile equipment/product can be made economically so that 
>it can be used in fixed/campus locations.
>	4) Power consumption & weight suitable for battery/portable devices
>Arguable items:
>	1) Whether this project needs a clean sheet design or it 
>would be advantageous to reuse existing designs.
>		(There has been a statement from a Dot16 member that 
>backward compatibility is not an issue.)
>	2) Whether this project needs a new Working Group or it would 
>be advantageous to use existing one.
>Bottom line Thompson opinion:
>	No vendor wants to implement both
>	No service provider will want to offer both
>	No way will both of these succeed in the marketplace even if 
>you do get 2 standards out.
>	Both of them may not succeed in the marketplace if you get 2 
>standards out.
>Therefore, I believe the only reason for 802 to charter two groups 
>for this work other than (or maybe including) the items listed above 
>is people and politics. Those are good reasons, just not good 
>enough. We have used them before but they are an admission of our 
>failure to nurture a compromise or reach a true consensus.
>It seems like the task list above is large enough for the sum of 
>folks willing to do work from both groups.
>I am truly eager to hear arguments to the contrary.
>Best regards,
>| Geoffrey O. Thompson                    |
>| Vice Chair,  IEEE 802                   |
>| Nortel Networks, Inc.  M/S: P79/06/B04  |
>| 4655 Great America Parkway              |
>| P. O. Box 58185                         |
>| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185  USA         |
>| Phone: +1 408 495 1339                  |
>| Fax:   +1 408 495 5615                  |
>| E-Mail:               |
>| Please see the IEEE 802 web page at     |