1. FCC 15-47 Spectrum Sharing in the 3.5GHz Band Comments Approval
April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
July 2015
FCC Spectrum Sharing in the 3.5GHz Band Comments Approval
Date:
Authors:
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

2. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
July 2015
Abstract
This presentation is intended to explain the Comments for FCC 15-47, previously approved by the Regulatory SC and the WG, the process we should use to have it submitted to the FCC, and why we should use this process in future regulatory responses.
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

3. Summary The 3.5 GHz Band Today and the Report & Order
July 2015
Summary
The 3.5 GHz Band Today and the Report & Order
The FCC Comments reflect what is important to IEEE
Why did the 802 EC not approve our May document
What the current EC rules allow
Modification of the May document
Approval and submittal
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

4. The 3.5 GHz Band Today 3550-3650 MHz 3650-3700 MHz Exclusion zones
July 2015
The 3.5 GHz Band Today
MHz
Federal radars
Fixed Satellite Services (FSS)
MHz
FSS
WiMAX including utility networks
IEEE y
Exclusion zones
Naval radars
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

5. July 2015
The 3.5 GHz Band
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

6. July 2015
Footnote US349: The band MHz is also allocated to the Federal radiolocation service on a non-interference basis for use by ship stations located at least 44 nautical miles in off-shore ocean areas on the condition that harmful interference is not caused to non-Federal operations.
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

7. Federal Exclusion Zones
July 2015
Federal Exclusion Zones
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

8. FSS Protection Zones in 3650-3700 MHz
July 2015
FSS Protection Zones in MHz
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

9. FCC 15-47 Report & Order Final rules for operation in this band
July 2015
FCC Report & Order
Final rules for operation in this band
Three level spectrum sharing
Spectrum Access System (SAS) database control
Licensed incumbents
Part 96: Priority Access Licenses (PALs) and General Authorized Access (GAA)
Changes from FCC NPRM
3-year PAL non renewable term vs 1-year renewable 5 times
Federal exclusion zones reduced by 77%
No 5-year limit on grandfathered FSS
Addition of Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC)
New categories:
Category A CBSDs for lower-power (e.g., small cell)
Category B CBSDs, authorized for higher-power, directional, higher-gain use
No reservation for Contained Access Facilities (“CAFs”).
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

10. The Tiers First Tier - Incumbents
July 2015
The Tiers
First Tier - Incumbents
Federal users
Fixed Satellite Services (FSS)
Second Tier – Priority Licenses (PALs)
Must not interfere with Tier 1
10 MHz channels in the MHz band [none in MHz]
On a census-tract basis, for three-year terms, no option to renew
Dynamically assigned via Spectrum Access System (SAS)
A maximum of 70 MHz in any census tract
Licensees may hold a maximum of four licenses in any area, i.e. 40 MHz
Third Tier – General Authorized Access
Must not interfere with Tiers 1 and 2
License-by-rule framework
May access PA spectrum when it is not in “use”
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

11. Maximum Conducted Output Power
July 2015
TX Power Limits
 Device
Geographic Area
Maximum Conducted Output Power
(dBm/10 megahertz)**
Maximum EIRP
(dBm/10 megahertz)
Maximum Conducted
PSD (dBm/MHz)
End User Device
All
n/a 23
Category A CBSD 24 30 14
Category B CBSD*
Non-Rural 40
Rural 47 20
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

12. Comments Approved in May
July 2015
Comments Approved in May
IEEE will not develop a standard, and the industry will not develop silicon with the current restrictions
Coastal exclusion zones prevent use in some major metropolitan areas; timing of proposed further reductions is unclear
FSS protection zones eliminate other population centers
Similar restrictions prevented hindered y development
Unclear spectrum availability slowing af development
The FCC should understand that Wi-Fi’s success is based on low-cost silicon, enabled by spectrum certainty
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

13. Why the EC Rejected the May Comments
July 2015
Why the EC Rejected the May Comments
Two members asked to make wording changes which would have softened what needs to be a strong message
Although the document claimed to represent IEEE 802, it was actually narrowly representative of
There was concern that the message was not aligned with what would like to see in the response
did not develop a response of their own
The Chair abstained because he objected to /15 sending it directly to the EC, and not through his group
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

14. How We Will Submit it to the FCC
July 2015
How We Will Submit it to the FCC
What the 802 EC allows
Working Group documents can be submitted to government agencies under their WG name and the WG Chair’s signature
Sponsor subgroup communications shall be identified in the first paragraph as the view of only the Sponsor subgroup and shall be issued by the Sponsor subgroup(s) Chair(s) and shall include the Sponsor Chair in the distribution. Such statements shall not bear the IEEE, the IEEE-SA, or IEEE 802 LMSC logos
This effort
Adrian has submitted the updated document to the EC for 5-review in the expectation that the WG will approve the updated document.
TBC – no motion to block was made, and we can proceed with the motion on the updated document.
TBC – or a motion to block was made, and failed, and we can proceed.
TBC – A motion to block succeed.
TBC …
Approve the updated document in the Opening Plenary
Edit options when outcome of opening EC known
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

15. What I Changed in the May Document
July 2015
What I Changed in the May Document
Changed all references to IEEE 802 to IEEE
Added a sentence to the conclusion
IEEE will continue to monitor progress towards resolving the exclusion zone and FSS protection limitations, and will re-evaluate our position as conditions dictate.
This will prevent some of the potential blocking votes
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek

16. July 2015
Motion
Approve transmission of document 11-15/683r4 ( to the FCC in response to FCC docket 15-47, granting the WG chair editorial license
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Discussion?
Vote:
The motion is approved / not approved
Rich Kennedy, MediaTek