1. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
February 2015
IEEE Regulatory SC DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team Overview of Straw Poll Results
Date:
Authors:
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

2. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
February 2015
Abstract
Preliminary results of Straw Poll questions, which will be incorporated into the final report of the IEEE (Regulatory Standing Committee) DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team
Note: There may be some slight differences between the wording in the online (Survey Monkey) questions and the wording in these slides. The changes were strictly editorial.
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

3. February 2015
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 it is technically feasible to protect DSRC systems from harmful interference if unlicensed (Part 15) devices share the 5.9 GHz band?
Yes No
Needs more study
No opinion
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

4. February 2015
Q1 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

5. February 2015
Straw poll question #2
Regarding the proposal in document 13/994r0 by Peter Ecclesine of Cisco Systems
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
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

6. February 2015
Q2 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

7. February 2015
Straw poll question #3
Regarding the proposal in document 13/1449r2 by Tevfik Yucek of Qualcomm (and others)
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
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

8. February 2015
Q3 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

9. February 2015
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
Note 1: Both proposals will need additional development before field testing
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

10. February 2015
Q4 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

11. February 2015
Straw poll question #5
Would you support a Part 90/95 rule change to move the V2V Safety Channel (currently in Channel 172) to one of the upper channels (180, 182, or 184)?
Yes No
Not enough information
I don’t support band sharing
No opinion
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

12. February 2015
Q5 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

13. February 2015
Straw poll question #6
Would you support a proposal to use one of the upper channels (180/182/184) for V2V Safety Channel traffic instead of Channel 172? (No rule change. Part 95 still applies to Channel Channel 172 would be shared with Part 15 devices)
Yes No
Not enough information
I don’t support band sharing
No opinion
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

14. February 2015
Q6 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

15. February 2015
Straw poll question #7
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
All 75MHz
Lower 45MHz
DSRC Channels
DSRC Band
173
177
161
165
169
173
177
Wi-Fi Channels
80MHz
80MHz
160MHz
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

16. February 2015
Q7 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

17. February 2015
Straw poll question #8
If sharing is only allowed in the lower 45MHz portion of the band ( MHz), should DSRC only use 20MHz channels 173 and 177 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. Channels 173 and 177 align with 11ac.)
Yes – only 20MHz DSRC channels in the shared band
No – DSRC should use only 10MHz channels
No opinion/Not enough information
I do not support band sharing
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

18. February 2015
Q8 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

19. February 2015
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 any one channel within the band in order to avoid harmful interference?
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 unoccupied parts of the shared band ( MHz) after detecting DSRC signals on one or more channels
No opinion
I do not support band sharing
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

20. February 2015
Q9 Results
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology

21. Conclusion Total of 94 responses
February 2015
Conclusion
Total of 94 responses
Results will be rolled into Section 11 along with comments
49 people wanted name and affiliation included
45 people did not want name and affiliation included
LOTS of comments…several pages
Jim Lansford, CSR Technology