doc.: IEEE g Submission January 2011 Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Channel Assignment in 2.4GHz and 868MHz Band] Date Submitted: [December 13, 2010] Last Revision: [January 18, 2011] Source: [Khurram Waheed] Company [Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.] Address [USA] Re: [Supporting IEEE g LB59 Comment Resolution CID’s 34, 569, 570, 649, 650, 651] Abstract:[This spreadsheet reviews the proposed channel assignment in Draft 2 of the IEEE g draft standard and proposes ways to differentiate the assignment in US and the rest of the world for the 2.4GHz Band. ] Purpose:[Supporting Draft 2 Comment Resolution. CID’s 34, 569, 570, 649, 650, 651] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE g SubmissionSlide 2 Channel Numbering Comments CID 34 –As written GL is not defined for the 2.4GHz band. –Proposed text: Add "and GL is ChanSpacing/2" after "5MHz" and before the period, CID 569 –For uniformity, it is best to use the same terminology and the parameters for defining channel numbering for all PHYs CID 570 –To avoid confusion, it is best to include a table of parameters such as BandEdge, GL, GH, Chan Spacing, etc. for all bands in this section CID 649 –Specifying the GL and GH parameters in text is clumsy. –Proposed: Use a table for the GL and GH values for each band. CID 650 –GL and GH need to be specified for the dedicated use bands to arrive at the proper first channel center frequency. CID 651 –The numbering scheme assumes channel width and channel spacing are the same, but they need not be; this might complicate future standard amendments if the numbering scheme has to change again. It would be better if the scheme were more flexible from the outset. The original 15.4 case of 2MHz channel with 5MHz spacing is one example. Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission GH requirement in 2.4 GHz Channel for US and the rest of the world January 2011 Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 3

doc.: IEEE g Submission Executive Summary This document studies the regulatory requirements pertaining to the 2.4 GHz (2400 – MHz) band and also looks carefully at how the channel assignment has been done in IEEE and IEEE standards FCC 47 CFR § (in US) places a stringent requirement (i.e., dBm/MHz) on the emission level in – 2500 MHz spectrum Channelization of the complete band in US places impractical phase noise requirements for the radio specification IEEE (in US) takes care of this issue by not using (blacklisting) the highest two channels in the band. This restriction does not apply outside of USA and as such the whole band can be used without any restriction. This document proposes solutions regarding the allocation of 2.4GHz in US and rest of the world. Slide 4Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Background (Excerpt from d2P g_Draft_Standard.pdf) Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 5

doc.: IEEE g Submission b/g Channel Assignment Channel frequency (MHz) North America Japan Most of world 12412Yes 22417Yes 32422Yes 42427Yes 52432Yes 62437Yes 72442Yes 82447Yes 92452Yes Yes Yes No B B Yes No B B Yes No.11b.11b only C C No Reference: IEEE — Table 18-9 ^A^A Earlier, in Spain the only allowable channels were 10-11, and in France These restrictions have been removed since, and these countries are currently following the common European policy (channels 1-13). ^B^B In the USA, operation in the channels 12 and 13 is actually allowed under low powered conditions. The 2.4 GHz Part 15 band in the US allows spread-spectrum operation as long as the 50-dB bandwidth of the signal is within in the range of MHz [8] which wholly encompasses both channels 12 and 13. A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) document clarifies that only channel 14 is forbidden and furthermore low-power transmitters with low-gain antennas may legally operate in channels 12 and 13. [9] However, channels 12 and 13 are not normally used in order to avoid any potential interference in the adjacent restricted frequency band, MHz [10], which is subject to strict emission limits set out in 47 CFR § [11]. [8]Federal Communications Commission [9] [10] [11] In Canada, 12 channels are available for use, 11 of which at full power and channel 12's transmit power limited. However, few devices have a method to enable a lower powered channel 12. ^C^C Channel 14 is valid only for DSSS and CCK modes (Clause 18 a.k.a b) in Japan. OFDM (i.e g) may not be used. (IEEE §19.4.2)DSSSCCKa.k.a bOFDM802.11g Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 6

doc.: IEEE g Submission Channel Assignment in IEEE MHz wide channels Using a formulas as specified in IEEE g/D2, this Implies –GL = 2.5MHz –GH = 1.0 MHz Note, the complete band is channelized irrespective of the FCC regulation. Channel #Center Frequency Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 7

doc.: IEEE g Submission Proposed Option 1: Location agnostic channelization (preferred) Remove the text “For 2.4GHz, GH is 5MHz”. Channelize the complete 2.4GHz band, resulting in a higher number of possible channels Define one set of GL, GH, parameters for each 2.4GHz PHY combination (for details, please refer to P g/D2 or 10/955r0) Blacklist the additional channels in US, by adding a statement in the standard and referring to FCC regulations, i.e., Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 8 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Table for Proposed Option 1 Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 9 Current Proposed Proposed text (to be added) “Due to strict FCC regulations, no channel using spectrum within 5MHz of the MHz band edge will be used in the USA” OR “For the ISM band, SUN implementations in the USA will not use a channel that encompasses spectral frequencies higher than MHz to avoid violation of FCC regulations” See Slide 18 for the agreed text to be added January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Proposed Option 2: Location aware channelization Remove the text “For 2.4GHz, GH is 5MHz”. Channelize the 2.4GHz band separately for US and the rest of the world This would result in a different number of allocateable channels in the 2.4GHz band for US and the rest of the world Define two separate sets of GL, GH, parameters for each 2.4GHz PHY combination (for details, please refer to P g/D2 or 10/955r0) Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 10 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Table for Proposed Option 2 Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 11 USA Rest of the World * Need to discuss USA allocation for 2.4GHz OQPSK in USA, if applicable January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Exclusive sub-bands in MHz Channel Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 12 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Background (Comment by Michael Schmidt) Just a few comments with regard to the following documents: * DCN 957 For MHz (using SUN PHYs other than MR-O-QPSK), the regulation according to ERC/REC and EN seem to be ignored. Here is the list of alarm channels (ERC/REC a Annex 7 Alarms) a) MHz 10 mW e.r.p. < 1.0 % duty cycle 25 kHz b) MHz 10 mW e.r.p. < 0.1 % duty cycle 25 kHz c) MHz 25 mW e.r.p. < 10 % duty cycle 25 kHz d) MHz 10 mW e.r.p. < 0.1 % duty cycle 25 kHz Social Alarms e) MHz 10 mW e.r.p. < 1.0 % duty cycle 25 kHz I recommend a table based description for center frequency assignment within MHz MHz, avoiding overlap with alarm channels. Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 13 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Executive Summary The commenter has pointed out the existence of alarm channels in the as well as MHz band and proposed a table based approach Steve Jillings pointed out that “ERC is purely a recommendation, EN is the instrument of law”. –However, EN also defines these spectral exclusions in the band This presentation proposes a channel assignment scheme and the accompanying text, which avoids conflicts with regulatory requirements. Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 14 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Excerpt from 10/957r0 The frequency band MHz is already excluded from channel assignment using a formula No change required for MHz. The section would continue to use a table with 3 entries ( Table 3a in IEEE P g/D2 ) for this band To cover the issue of overlapping alarm channels in MHz band; see slide 18 for the agreed text to be added to the draft Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 15 BandEdge Low (MHz) BandEdge High (MHz) Width of Band, W (MHz)PHY Mode ChanWidth (MHz) ChanSpacing (MHz) Guard Low, GL (MHz) Guard High, GH (MHz)TotalNumChan min ChanCenterFreq (MHz) Mid Channel mid ChanCenterFreq (MHz) max ChanCenterFreq (MHz) OQPSKRegulated Channel Center Frequencies from IEEE P g/D2 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Clarification for Other PHYs in MHz Band As per the standard, MHz is intended only for MR-OQPSK, for which Table 3a specifies the specific center frequencies while avoiding any alarm channels. Spectrally, this band overlaps with the MHz band, which supports MR- FSK and MR-OFDM modes. As suggested for the ISM 2.4GHz band in document 10/962r0, my proposal remains to be “region agnostic” and do a contiguous assignment of channels. Blacklisting of channels is an implementation detail, which is region and implementation specific and it is best left for the network implementer to specify to a silicon/SW vendor, as needed. To cover all the exceptions, we can just include one sentence at the end of section stating: “Wherever applicable, SUN allocated channels conflicting with local regulatory requirements should not be used” Alternate Statement (adapted from James Gilb’ proposal): “The availability of SUN channels varies among different regulatory regions. A SUN implementer will need to reference the latest regulations applicable to a local region” Do we need to include any informative text? (to be discussed; see next slide) January 2011 Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 16 Editor’s to use the proposed text with edits if needed.

doc.: IEEE g Submission Informative Text At this point the identified exception cases are In US, IEEE g allocated channels with center frequencies higher than MHz in the 2.4GHz ISM band will not be used to comply with FCC regulations as per 47 CFR; part 15 (see § and §15.209) In EU, IEEE g allocated channels coinciding with EN mandated alarm channels in and MHz spectrum will not be used. It is proposed that, if agreed by the group, the informative text (edited as needed) is added by editors (preferably to an annex) to simplify the interpretation for implementation. Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 17 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Backup Slides Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 18 January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission Excerpt from FCC 47 CFR § Except as shown in paragraph (d) of this section, only spurious emissions are permitted in any of the frequency bands listed below: (b) Except as provided in paragraphs(d) and (e) of this section, the field strength of emissions appearing within these frequency bands shall not exceed the limits shown in § Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 19

doc.: IEEE g Submission Excerpt from FCC 47 CFR § § Radiated emission limits; general requirements. (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this subpart, the emissions from an intentional radiator shall not exceed the field strength levels specified in the following table: Khurram Waheed (Freescale) This is equivalent to dBm/MHz in – 2500 MHz band (see backup slides) January 2011 Slide 20

doc.: IEEE g Submission Spurious Emission Limit (ITU-R Specification) Frequency band containing the assignment (lower limit exclusive, upper limit inclusive) For any spurious component, the attenuation (mean power within the necessary bandwidth relative to the mean power of the spurious component concerned) shall be at least that specified below and the absolute mean power levels given shall not be exceeded 1 9 kHz to 30 MHz40 dB, 50 mW 2, 3, 4 30 MHz to 235 MHz – mean power above 25 W60 dB, 1 mW 5 – mean power 25 W or less 40 dB, 25  W 235 MHz to 960 MHz – mean power above 25 W60 dB, 20 mW 6, 7 – mean power 25 W or less 40 dB, 25  W 6, MHz to 17.7 GHz – mean power above 10 W50 dB, 100 mW 6, 7, 8, 9 – mean power 10 W or less 100  W 6, 7, 8, 9 Above 17.7 GHzThe lowest possible values achievable shall be employed (see Recommendation 66 (Rev.WRC- 2000)*). 1 When checking compliance with the provisions of the Table, it shall be verified that the bandwidth of the measuring equipment is sufficiently wide to accept all significant components of the spurious emission concerned. 2 For mobile transmitters which operate below 30 MHz, any spurious component shall have an attenuation of at least 40 dB without exceeding the value of 200 mW, but every effort should be made to comply with the level of 50 mW wherever practicable. 3 For transmitters of a mean power exceeding 50 kW which can operate on two or more frequencies covering a frequency range approaching an octave or more, while a reduction below 50 mW is not mandatory, a minimum attenuation of 60 dB shall be provided. 4 For hand-portable equipment of mean power less than 5 W, the attenuation shall be 30 dB, but every practicable effort should be made to attain 40 dB attenuation. 5 Administrations may adopt a level of 10 mW provided that harmful interference is not caused. 6 Where several transmitters feed a common antenna or closely spaced antennas on neigh­bouring frequencies, every practicable effort should be made to comply with the levels specified. 7 Since these levels may not provide adequate protection for receiving stations in the radio astronomy and space services, more stringent levels might be considered in each individual case in the light of the geographical position of the stations concerned. 8 These levels are not applicable to systems using digital modulation techniques, but may be used as a guide. Values for these systems may be provided by the relevant ITU ‑ R Recommendations, when available (see Recommendation 66 (Rev.WRC-2000)*). 9 These levels are not applicable to stations in the space services, but the levels of their spurious emissions should be reduced to the lowest possible values compatible with the technical and economic constraints to which the equipment is subject. Values for these systems may be provided by the relevant ITU-R Recommendations, when available (see Recommendation 66 Rev.WRC-2000)*). * Note by the Secretariat: This Recommendation was abrogated by WRC-03. Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 21

doc.: IEEE g Submission Excerpt from EN Khurram Waheed (Freescale)Slide 22 ** Refer to table 5 in EN for regulatory details on maximum radiated power, channel spacing and spectrum access. January 2011

doc.: IEEE g Submission FCC Regulation Overview (1/2) Ref: ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers; by Shahin Farahani Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 23

doc.: IEEE g Submission FCC Regulation Overview (2/2) Ref: ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers; by Shahin Farahani Khurram Waheed (Freescale) January 2011 Slide 24