doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 1 IEEE Regulatory SC DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team Final Report Straw Poll Questions Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 SubmissionJim Lansford, CSR Technology Abstract List of Straw Poll questions, the results of which will be incorporated into the final report of the IEEE (Regulatory Standing Committee) DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team January 2015 Slide 2

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Ground rules for straw poll Only recorded participants as of the end of the January IEEE meeting will be allowed to participate The answers to the questions will be tabulated and included in Section 11 of the final report Each question will have a comment field to allow text input These comments will also be included in the final report. The name of the commenter will be included UNLESS the respondent says to omit his/her name January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 3

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #1 Objective of the Tiger Team: “Create a document that describes and quantifies possible coexistence mechanisms between DSRC and extensions of the base standard in the proposed UNII-4 band, if the FCC allows such band sharing in a future R&O.” Do you believe that sharing of the 5.9GHz band by unlicensed (Part 15) devices should be allowed? Yes No Needs more study No opinion January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 4

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #2 Regarding the proposal in document 13/994r0 by Peter Ecclesine of Cisco Systems devices.docx {additional links?} Do you believe this proposed band sharing technique has merit and, after developing a more complete definition and field testing, should be considered a basis for a band sharing solution? Yes No Not enough information/needs more study No opinion January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 5

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #3 Regarding the proposal in document 13/1449r2 by Tevfik Yucek of Qualcomm (and others) coexistence.pptx Do you believe this proposed band sharing technique has merit and, after developing a more complete definition and field testing, should be considered a basis for a band sharing solution? Yes No Not enough information/needs more study No opinion January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 6

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #4 Which proposal do you support for further specification development and field testing? The 13/994r0 proposal by Ecclesine [1] The 13/1449r2 proposal by Yucek [1] I support a combination of both proposals with additional details added I believe further study of both proposals independently is needed Neither – I do not support any band sharing While I support band sharing, I do not believe either approach can form the basis for an acceptable band sharing solution – we need something different January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 7 Note 1: Both proposals will need additional development before field testing

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #5 If it would enhance band sharing, would you support a proposal to move the V2V Safety Channel (currently in Channel 172) to one of the upper channels (180, 182, or 184)? (Note: this could require a rule change) Yes No Not enough information I don’t support band sharing No opinion January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 8 Need to finalize language….

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #6 Would you support a proposal to use one of the upper channels (180/182/184) for BSM traffic instead of Channel 172? (No rule change. Part 95 still applies to Channel 172. Channel 172 would be shared with Part 15 devices) Yes No Not enough information I don’t support band sharing No opinion January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 9

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #7 January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 10 DSRC Band DSRC Channels Wi-Fi Channels 160MHz 80MHz If band sharing is allowed, would you prefer that the upper edge of the U-NII4 band be at GHz (all 75MHz) or GHz (only the lower 45MHz)? Only lower 45MHz All 75MHz No opinion I do not support band sharing Lower 45MHz All 75MHz Keep/reword the question, or delete it?

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #8 If sharing is only allowed in the lower 45MHz portion of the band ( MHz), should DSRC only use 20MHz channels in that shared portion of the band? (Note: Channels 172 & 178 in Part 95 are defined as 10MHz in bandwidth, so a rule change may be required) Yes – only 20MHz DSRC channels in the shared band No – DSRC should use 10MHz channels No opinion I do not support band sharing January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 11

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Straw poll question #9 If a Clear Channel Assessment approach is adopted as outlined in document 13/994r0 by Ecclesine, would unlicensed devices need to vacate the entire MHz band after detecting a DSRC signal on one channel within the band in order for sharing to be feasible? Yes – unlicensed devices would need to vacate the entire shared band ( MHz) after detecting a DSRC signal on one channel No – unlicensed devices could still operate in other parts of the shared band ( MHz) after detecting a DSRC signal on one channel No opinion I do not support band sharing January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 12

doc.: IEEE /0240r0 Submission Conclusion Questions finalized on January 30 Survey Monkey poll will go out ASAP Proposed: 2 weeks to respond Results rolled into Section 11 Comment resolution will proceed in parallel Everything must be complete by March 6 Final straw poll to indicate approval to forward? January 2015 Jim Lansford, CSR TechnologySlide 13