1. December 2010
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]
Source: [Khurram Waheed] Company [Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.]
Address [USA]
Re: [Supporting IEEE g LB59 Comment Resolution CID’s 569, 560, 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 569, 560, 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
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

2. GH requirement in 2.4 GHz Channel for US and the rest of the world
December 2010
GH requirement in 2.4 GHz Channel for US and the rest of the world
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

3. December 2010
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.
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

4. Background (Excerpt from d2P802-15-4g_Draft_Standard.pdf)
December 2010
Background (Excerpt from d2P g_Draft_Standard.pdf)
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

5. 802.11 b/g Channel Assignment
December 2010
Channel
frequency (MHz)
North America
Japan
Most of world 1
2412
Yes 2
2417 3
2422 4
2427 5
2432 6
2437 7
2442 8
2447 9
2452 10
2457 11
2462 12
2467
NoB 13
2472 14
2484 No
.11b onlyC
Reference: IEEE  — Table 18-9
^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 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 §15.205[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 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)
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

6. Excerpt from FCC 47 CFR §15.205 December 2010
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)

7. December 2010
Excerpt from FCC 47 CFR §15.209
§ 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:
This is equivalent to dBm/MHz in – 2500 MHz band (see backup slides)
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

8. Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.15.4-2006
December 2010
Channel Assignment in IEEE
Channel #
Center Frequency 11
2405 12
2410 13
2415 14
2420 15
2425 16
2430 17
2435 18
2440 19
2445 20
2450 21
2455 22
2460 23
2465 24
2470 25
2475 26
2480
5 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.
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

9. Proposed Option 1: Location agnostic channelization (preferred)
December 2010
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)

10. Table for Proposed Option 1
December 2010
Table for Proposed Option 1
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”
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

11. Proposed Option 2: Location aware channelization
December 2010
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)

12. Table for Proposed Option 2
December 2010
Table for Proposed Option 2
USA
Rest of the World
* Need to discuss USA allocation for 2.4GHz OQPSK in USA, if applicable
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

13. Exclusive sub-bands in 868-870 MHz Channel
December 2010
Exclusive sub-bands in MHz Channel
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

14. Background (Comment by Michael Schmidt)
December 2010
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)

15. December 2010
Executive Summary
The commenter has pointed out the existence of alarm channels in the 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 two possible ways to resolve the channel allocation in this band.
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

16. December 2010
Excerpt from EN
** Refer to table 5 in EN for regulatory details on maximum radiated power, channel spacing and spectrum access.
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

17. December 2010
Excerpt from 10/957r0
The frequency band MHz is already excluded from channel assignment using a formula
Resolution: Reject; No change required. The section would continue to use a table with 3 entries (Table 3a in IEEE P g/D2) for this band
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)
868
870 2
OQPSK
Regulated Channel Center Frequencies
from IEEE P g/D2
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

18. December 2010
Backup Slides
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

19. Channel Numbering Comments
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
December 2010
Channel Numbering Comments
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 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)
<author>, <company>

20. Spurious Emission Limit (ITU-R Specification)
December 2010
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 exceeded1
9 kHz to 30 MHz
40 dB, 50 mW  2, 3, 4
30 MHz to 235 MHz
– mean power above 25 W
60 dB, 1 mW  5
– mean power 25 W or less
40 dB, 25 mW
235 MHz to 960 MHz
– mean power above 25 W
60 dB, 20 mW  6, 7
40 dB, 25 mW  6, 7
960 MHz to 17.7 GHz
– mean power above 10 W
50 dB, 100 mW  6, 7, 8, 9
– mean power 10 W or less
100 mW  6, 7, 8, 9
Above 17.7 GHz
The lowest possible values achievable shall be employed (see Recommendation 66 (Rev.WRC )*).
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)

21. December 2010
FCC Regulation Overview (1/2) Ref: ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers;  by Shahin Farahani
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)

22. December 2010
FCC Regulation Overview (2/2) Ref: ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers;  by Shahin Farahani
Khurram Waheed (Freescale)