1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 1 ETSI ERM TG11 #23 Meeting Date: 2010-01-18 Authors:

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 2 Abstract This is a Summary of ETSI ERM TG11 #23 Meeting, December 11-12, 2009, Sophia Antipolis, France

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 3 Executive Summary This project is updating the European 2.4 GHz ISM specification for wideband transmission systems (EN 300 328 V1.8.1). Many Short Range Device entities (currently operating under EN 300 440) wish to see their products given preferential treatment within this band, especially as many perceive that WLAN & Bluetooth currently have an unfair advantage. Although progress is being made, incumbents still continue to argue decisions made in previous meetings, making the project unstable. Recommendation is to watch this project and attend the next face-to- face (March 2010) to ensure WLAN representation.

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 4 The Project Purpose –Update document EN 300 328 from V.1.7.1 (the current version) to V.1.8.1 –“Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wideband transmission systems; Data transmission equipment operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and using wide band modulation techniques; Harmonized EN covering essential requirements under article 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive” –V1.7.1 mentions sharing; this revision is intended to define sharing –In other words how various devices are expected to share the 2.4 GHz ISM band within Europe. Problem –Sections of V.1.7.1 are loosely worded and can be interpreted in different ways by different ISM band users. This is the current situation. –By clarifying this document within the update (V.1.8.1), many ISM band users (including WLAN) feel that they may be put to a disadvantage IEEE 802.11 & Wi-Fi Alliance Interest –To protect WLAN operation in Europe and to ensure no changes are required to the IEEE 802.11 & Wi-Fi Alliances standards and compliancy tests.

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 5 Meeting #23 Outputs Medium Utilisation (MU) Formula –The MU formula agreed during the TG11 #22 meeting will be carried forward as the correspondence group failed to come up with a better formula and this was not changed during this meeting. –Specific parameters and values were not agreed Listen before Talk (LBT) –This meeting concentrated on the LBT and other channel access mechanisms. Test Methods –Some investigation will be undertaken to develop test methods for the next meeting The completion of the revision of EN 300 328 is not expected before the spring 2010 meeting of TC ERM. Next meetings: –11 – 12 March 2010 (Sophia Antipolis) –6 – 7 May (Mainz / Frankfurt / Karlsruhe / Antibes)

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 6 Meeting #23 Ongoing Work Items Channel Access Mechanism (CAM) –It was decided that TG11 members should now concentrate and prepare contributions on the CAM rather than to continuing influencing the MU formula and it’s limit. Duty cycle for hoppers –Changes on the observation time for adaptive systems (from 1s to 40s -> this means 1s for non-hoppers and 40s for hoppers). The observation time should be different to the non-adaptive. The revision of the duty cycle section is to be done offline (by correspondence). The objective is to cover duty cycle and TX-on/TX-off times in this section. The terms TX-on/TX- off should not be used.

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/xxxxr0 Submission January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIM January 2010 Stephen McCann, RIMSlide 7 Meeting #23 Ongoing Work Items Hopping frequency separation –Reduce the separation (0.1MHz) in order to make use of the gaps between channels. This is only for adaptive systems. Adaptive Frequency Hopping –Many questions about how to treat that equipment which falls below the MU threshold. The question is what happens with the adaptive systems when going below the [10%] (should it remain adaptive?). Adaptive Frequency Hopping with DAA (Detect and Avoid) Adaptive Frequency Hopping with Blacklisting –For further review