FCC Logo - Return to the FCC Home Page
Skip Primary FCC Navigation LinksSearch|RSS |Updates |E-Filing |Initiatives |Consumers |Find People
Office of Engineering and Technology

  

Print This Window
There have been 5 comment(s) made on this document:
  • Fred Goldstein (Tech. Consultant, Wireless ISP Ass'n) commented on 2019-03-22 15:58:03.116:
    The Comment of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association is attached. View attachment associated with this comment
  • Lee Pucker commented on 2019-03-22 11:24:19.343:
    Please find attached the comments of the Wireless Innovation Forum. View attachment associated with this comment
  • Steve Ostroff commented on 2019-03-21 17:29:37.746:
    As a comment to Answer 1 in document 940660 D02 CBSD – CBSD Handshake FAQ DR02-43519, NetComm and Airspan have concerns about the proposed restriction of 1 second of transmit in any 10 second window. In evaluation of the existing WinnForum WINNF-15-S-0112 requirement, the CPE-CBSD would need to perform security measures for certificate verification and related overhead as part of the Registration process. Existing analyses shows that a two second window at minimum would be required to accommodate this step of the process. All other proposed restrictions would be achievable, so no change in total transmission time in 60-second, 300-second or 3600-second periods is required.
  • Nilesh Khambekar commented on 2019-03-21 16:45:29.34:
    Tarana Wireless is happy to see the CBSD-CBSD communication proposal moving forward. We have been and are actively waiting for CBSD-CBSD communication permitted for CPE-CBSD bootstrapping purposes. This scheme would be definitely a key element in propelling innovation enabled by CBRS band. We have the following specific questions/feedback regarding the document. [Comment1] Answer 1 mentions “equipment authorization program”. What is the nature of this program? Would this be part of the SAS protocol certification process that the manufacturer will go through, or will this be a separate certification step? If it is part of the SAS protocol certification process, will it have to be adopted and implemented by WinnForum before the manufacturer's equipment can be certified under this rule? [Comment2] Regarding the first sub-bullet from Answer 1: “Used only for communicating to the SAS…” How would the equipment be tested for this requirement? Would a description of our protocol suffice? [Comment 3] Regarding the second sub-bullet from Answer 1: “… after receiving an authorization signal from the BTS-CBSD”: What kind of authorization signal does the CPE need to get from the BTS-CBSD before starting its transmission? Does this refer to the protocol between CPE-CBSD and BTS-CBSD which is proprietary? [Comment4] Regarding the sentence “The submission should also explain how the protocol will be verified with the specifications and other technical requirements” from “Equipment Authorization Procedures”: Will the manufacturer be responsible to create test cases to show compliance with each and every one of the requirements given in “Answer1“? Can the test cases rely on statistics collected by the manufacturer's equipment, or would it have to rely on any information from the SAS such as timestamps of various messages? Also, what are the “other” technical requirements mentioned here? Thanks for the opportunity. Looking forward to formalization of the CBSD-CBSD handshake scheme. View attachment associated with this comment
  • Ethan Zhou commented on 2019-03-06 14:57:49.37:
    regarding following CPE transmission power requirement: "at the lowest power level necessary for communications with the BTS-CBSD but at levels no higher than those authorized by SAS for the BTS-CBSD;" Comment: How do CPE know what's the authorized power for BTS-CBSD? For LTE, there is no mechanism in place for CPE to know the power level of BTS. Suggest to remove the requirement of "no higher than those authorized by SAS for the BTS-CBSD". The interference is very limited considering the short period of transmission required in the guidance.

Note: It is important to understand that the staff guidance provided in the KDB is intended to assist the public in following Commission requirements and does not constitute rules. Accordingly, the guidance is not binding on the Commission and will not prevent the Commission from making a different decision in any matter that comes to its attention for resolution.