doc.:802.19/0027r0 submission may 2009 presentation summarizing contribution on tv whitespace...
TRANSCRIPT
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
May 2009
Presentation Summarizing Contribution onTV Whitespace Coexistence
Matrix and Use CasesDate: 2009-05-12
Name Company Address Phone E-mail Richard Paine Self 6115 72nd Dr NE
Marysville, Wa 98270 +12068548199
Mark Cummings enVia 348 Camino al Lago Atherton, Ca 94027
+16508544406 [email protected]
Alex Reznik Interdigital 781 3rd Ave King of Prussia, PA 19406
6108785784 [email protected]
Authors:
Slide 1 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Abstract
• Propose modification to the co-existence matrix
• Suggest an additional element of “network operation/ownership” to be considered as part of a use case
• Provide detailed analysis of 2 use cases– Campus (i.e. college campus, suburban mall, etc.)
– Large apartment building
May 2009
Slide 2 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
May 2009
Whitespace Coexistence Matrix
Slide 3 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
Coexistence Among TV White Space Devices Within the Context of the US FCC Report and Order
802.11 802.15 802.16 802.22GSM CDMA2000 UMTS
UWB BlueTooth Other Macro Cells Femto Cells Macro Cells Femto Cells Macro Cells Femto Cells
802.11
802.15UWB
BlueTooth
Other
802.16
802.22
GSMMacro Cell
Femto Cell
EVDOMacro Cell
Femto Cell
UMTSMacro Cell
Femto Cell
*Protected devices, as defined by the FCC are not listed. They are protected by procedures specified by the FCC.
**This Table is meant to be Representative, not complete
***It is Likely that a similar analysis be done for OFCOM, Industry Canada, Netherlands Antilles, etc. rules
Full Coexistence Without Cooperation
Partial Coexistence Without Cooperation
Coexistence Requires Cooperation
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Observations from the Matrix
• It would appear that in general different technologies cannot co-exist except through sufficient geographical separation
– UWB is an exception
• However, this depends on an underlying assumption of passive co-existence
• In some cases, the notion of an active coexistence enabler is not unreasonable– For example if a single operator of a heterogeneous network is provided such a device
• Our use-case study needs to address such possibilities– In particular, we should differentiate between co-existence between networks operated by
different entities and co-existence of network operated by the same entity– We examine two scenarios which make illustrate this point
May 2009
Slide 4 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
Submission
doc.:802.19/0027r0
The Campus Use Case
• Key aspects of this Use Case– Presence of macro-coverage
• Cellular providers• Fixed WWAN (Wimax)
– Potentially high density of 100mW devices
• WiFi networks (per store, department, etc.)
• WiFi hot-spots• Femto-cells
– 40 mW devices– Microphones– Presence of a single coordinating
entity• Campus owner• Mall owner• This entity may
– Own and sublease all or part of the network
– Impose constraints and requirements on network operations by individual operators
May 2009
Slide 5 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
Submission
doc.:802.19/0027r0
The Apartment Building Use Case• Key aspects of this Use Case
– Presence of macro-coverage• Cellular providers• Fixed WWAN (Wimax)
– Potentially high density of 100mW devices
• WiFi networks (per store, department, etc.)
• WiFi hot-spots• Femto-cells
– 40 mW devices– Microphones– Each apartment potentially an
independent network• May use different
broadband/cellular/femto-cell providers
• No ability to coordinate WiFi usage (except maybe direct human goodwill)
May 2009
Slide 6 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Cellular Provider Use of Whitespace
• Voice (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Femtocell (low power Whitespace frequencies
• Internet (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies)
• VOIP (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies)
May 2009
•Two Different Cellular Providers•Different WS Channels
Slide 7 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
WiFi Provider Use of Whitespace
• Home (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Enterprise (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• WiFi Hotspot (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Internet Access (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• VOIP (low power Whitespace frequencies)
May 2009
Slide 8 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Fixed WWAN (WiMAX, 802.22)Provider Use of Whitespace
• Voice (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• VOIP (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Internet (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Suburban (4W Database)
• Rural (4W Database)
May 2009
Slide 9 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Local TV Broadcast
• WS TV Broadcast (4W Database)
• Non-802 Protocols (4W Database or low power Whitespace frequencies)
May 2009
TV Broadcaster
Slide 10 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
May 2009
Microphone Provider Use of Whitespace
• Voice (low power Whitespace frequencies)
• Non-802 Protocols (low power Whitespace frequencies)
Slide 11 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital
doc.:802.19/0027r0
Submission
Conclusions
• Made comments to the matrix
• Presented 2 use cases (see our text for more detail)
• Propose that the notion of a “operating entity” is an important factor in considering a use case.
May 2009
Slide 12 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital