We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJayson Fishwick
Modified over 2 years ago
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 RLANs and weather radars in the 5 GHz band rev 3 Jan Kruys Dec 7, 2006
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 2 Purpose Collect and document that technical side of the issues – at a high level Get all concerned on the same line
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 3 Intro The ITU-R in 2003 defined sharing criteria for WLANs operating in the 5GHz range (5.25 – GHz) These criteria include detection requirements: 1 usec pulse length >> 1 pulses per sweep (depending on radar sweep rate) Canada has always insisted on special protection for its weather radars (5.6 – 5.65 GHz) They are economically important They are hard to detect due to their pulse type and scan patterns Other countries, notably Australia and Japan, are adopting Canadas stance This could lead to blocking of the 5.6 GHz subband by the ITU-R The loss of capacity is significant Airborne Wi-fi is not considered here due to its very different nature
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 4 The technical problem at first sight Weather radars use short pulses (necessary to get resolution): typically.5 usec Detection requires high sensitivity which potentially leads to many false positive detections Detection during PACKET RECEIVE is also a problem Weather radars use complex and sometimes fast scan patterns while analyzing cloud systems Means we see few pulses per burst and therefore we cannot separate false positive detections from real detections This leads to a high false alarm rate and therefore significant service disruption due to the 30 minute re-entry delay Means long intervals in which we see nothing: as much as 10 minutes Radar operators worry that we will be transmitting in their band while they are looking the other way and cause interference when they do look our way
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 5 Looking more closely The service interruption issue arises from the requirement to do in- service monitoring of the channel: Traffic interferes with detection and therefore we may not see a short burst of pulses New trends in weather radar design point towards less but longer pulses (with pulse compression) The industry does not want to vacate this band for no good reason A (false) detection means vacating the channel for at least 30 minutes Service interruption is an issue but only close to radar sites and on- channel Locally determined channel selection in the footprint of the radar can avoid interference without closing the band nation/world-wide
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 6 Short pulse detection Off-line detection of weather radars should not be an issue The RLAN receiver has nothing to do but listen – see also below. The channels that need extra care are known/can be known locally At the edge of the radar (horizon) footprint, the radar signal is still very strong: Approx -20 dBm for a 20KW radar with a 40 dBi antenna This is easily detected - even if the pulses are shorter than 1 usec but not while the channel is being used for WLAN traffic We need many pulses to assure no false detection Weather radars have variable scan patterns – in sweep rate and elevation. We will only see them at low to medium scan rates that deliver enough pulses to compensate for the shorter pulse widths
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 7 Weather radar activity and footprint These radars operate 24/365 – if you see them once you will see them always Allows RLANs to employ off-line detection to establish being in view of a weather radar or not If a radar is seen, it will always be seen If no radar is seen in the weather radar band, it will never be seen Radar footprints are limited geographically Inside that footprint, the above applies Outside that footprint, the radar is not seen or affected This example was provided by Environment Canada
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 8 Analysis 1.Some radars / radar scan types cannot be detected while the RLAN is using the channel (ISM) Because of short pulses or short burst length There is no issue during Channel Availability Checking (CAC) 2.All of these radars are fixed and in more or less continuous service 3.All of these radars are stationary and have fixed footprint Short pulse detection is required only within the foor print 4.A 10 minute CAC + channel blocking would meet the needs of the (fixed) radar community and the RLAN community Once per 24 hours would be enough Mark the channel as available or not available Requires that operators maintain consistent operational schedules 5.ISM assures protection of mobile radars that appear out of the blue Due to ISM, no RLAN will interfere with a weather radar for more than 5 minutes –at any time of day: one sweep at the right scan rate will silence all RLANs within range
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 9 Conclusion The weather radar issue stems mostly from imprecise regulatory language Does not distinguish between CAC and ISM as means to achieve the applicable protection requirements The issue can be removed by: Restricting the requirement to detect sub micro second pulses to CAC in MHz Allowing a 24 hr validity period for a CAC for fixed (weather) radars Detection means the channel must be blocked for 24 hrs No detection means use of the channel is allowed – with ISM and with normal 60 second re-entry CAC Regulatory Impact: Rule change as per above (partially already implemented in EU)
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 10 Another perspective Knowledge = power. By ignoring the cognitive side of the story we limit our capability to solve these problems Knowledge of channels, location, operational patterns, etc The FCC is committed to Cognitive Radio techniques to facilitate spectrum sharing TGY is riding that commitment – it develops means to share presence information between spectrum users We should leverage this FCC policy and propose off-air means to facilitate spectrum sharing with, in this case, weather radars Cognitive spectrum sharing can use geographical data to allow systems outside a given radars horizon to rely exclusively on the current DFS profile Government, the radar operators or a third party can maintain the necessary data base on the web System installers would have to check that data base – in fact it can be automated
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 11 Summary The weather radar issue can be solved by resorting to off-line detection and a validity period for fixed radars Assures that the radar channel is not used - but only within the radar horizon Removes the motivation to block the MHz band (Australia) Data base access to check proximity of weather radars would add resilience Regulators and radar operators have to be engaged First talk with key regulators, then involve WFA formally. Eventually we want the regulatory language to be changed to broaden the means of radar detection and avoidance
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 12 Questions/Comments?
ITU/WMO Seminar on use of radio spectrum for meteorology: Weather, Water and Climate monitoring and prediction September RLAN 5 GHz interference.
Airborne RLAN and Weather Radar Interference Studies at C Band Paul Joe 1, Frank Whetten 2, John Scott 1 and Dennis Whetten 2 1 Environment Canada 2 The.
Submission Page 1 January 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.RR-02/018A-d1 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Report of ad hoc group relating to DFS and JPT5G proposal Andrew.
Doc.: IEEE /0016r0 Submission March 2008 Rich Kennedy, OakTree WirelessSlide 1 DFS Update from the European Union Date: Authors:
Meteorological Spectrum Issues- Outcome of the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference Presented By: David Franc National Weather Service December 2,
1 Ground Based Meteorological Radars Presented By: David Franc NOAAs National Weather Service September 2005.
1 RLAN and C Band Weather Radar Interference Studies* Paul Joe 1, John Scott 1, John Sydor 2, Andre Brandao 2, Abbas Yongacoglu 3 1 Meteorological Service.
Doc.:IEEE /0007r0 Submission Doc.: IEEE /0007r0 January 2009 Whetten (Boeing), Auluck (Intel), Kennedy (ETS)Slide 1 [5GHz RLANs and Radars.
July 2014 doc.: IEEE /0819r0 Tevfik Yucek, Xinzhou Wu, Qualcomm Inc.Slide 1Submission Authors: Date: Technical discussion on Re-channelization.
Page 1 January 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.RR-02/018A-d5 IEEE 802 IEEE 802 proposal relating to DFS and JPT5G proposal.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.WLAN-RF-Principles-1 Wireless LAN RF Principles.
Aviation Use of Radar WP8B/8D Radar Seminar September 2005.
Doc.: IEEE /543r0 Submission April 2006 Richard van Nee, Airgo NetworksSlide 1 Transmitter CCA Issues in 2.4 GHz April /543r0 Richard van.
Doc.: IEEE /0090r1 Submission November 2007 Rich Kennedy, OakTree WirelessSlide 1 EU 5GHz Regulatory Changes Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1537r1 Submission January 2016 Rich Kennedy, Unlicensed Spectrum Advocates, LLCSlide 1 IEEE Regulatory State of Affairs Date:
Licence-Exempt Spectrum - Emerging Challenges DOCUMENT #:GSC13-GRSC6-08 FOR:Presentation SOURCE:ISACC AGENDA ITEM:4.2 (GRSC) Wireless access including.
Doc.: IEEE /146r0 Submission May 2000 Vic Hayes, Lucent TechnologiesSlide 1 Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Response to the.
Doc.: IEEE /1238r4 Submission November 2008 Peter Loc & KiranSlide 1 Proposal to Add Optional non n Radio Scans for 40 MHz Operation in.
Functional Skills Support Programme OfQual Functional Skills Qualifications Criteria – Issued November 2009.
October 2013 doc.: IEEE /1276r0 Xinzhou Wu, Qualcomm Inc.Slide 1Submission Authors: Date: Proposal for DSRC band coexistence.
RALI FX3 Microwave Fixed Services Frequency Coordination Glenn Odlum Senior Engineer Spectrum Engineering Section
Doc.: IEEE /106 Approved by and May 2000 Vic Hayes, Lucent TechnologiesSlide 1 Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.
Review Question. Q1 Name the mandatory requirements of an wireless site survey. (Choose all that apply.) A.Application analysis B.Coverage analysis.
Fifth SADC Preparatory Meeting for the WRC-15 AGENDA 1.18 To consider a primary allocation to the radiolocation service for automotive applications in.
Doc.: IEEE /0587r0 Submission May 2009 Vinko Erceg, BroadcomSlide 1 40MHz BT Over the Air Demonstration Date: Authors:
WMO Workshop on Radio-Frequency for meteorology20-21 March Ultra Wide Band (UWB) technologies Philippe TRISTANT Frequency.
A study on the coexistence between Direct Air to Ground Communication (DA2GC) and Radars in the 5 GHz band Peter Trommelen, Rob van Heijster, Arne Theil.
$ Network Support for Wireless Connectivity in the TV Bands Victor Bahl Ranveer Chandra Thomas Moscibroda Srihari Narlanka Yunnan Wu Yuan.
Chapter 14: Network Design and Facility Location.
SSC Page 1 Frequency Agile Spectrum Access Technologies Presentation to FCC Workshop on Cognitive Radios May 19, 2003 Mark McHenry Shared Spectrum Company.
Doc.: IEEE /455r0 Submission July 2002 Mika Kasslin, NokiaSlide 1 Harmonized Standard from BRAN#29 Mika Kasslin.
Doc.: IEEE Submission January 2004 Bill Byrnes, Shared Spectrum Co. Frequency Agile Spectrum Access Technologies This Presentation.
Signal Propagation sender Propagation: How the Signal are spreading from the receiver to sender. Transmitted to the Receiver in the spherical shape. When.
Capacity Planning IACT 918 July 2004 Gene Awyzio SITACS University of Wollongong.
Doc.: IEEE /0192r0 Submission September 2006 Edgar Reihl, Shure IncorporatedSlide 1 Shure Comments to TG1 IEEE P Wireless RANs Date:
CSMAC Spectrum Sharing Sub- Committee Discussion Materials March 2012.
Introduction to MS-Aloha R. Scopigno, Networking Lab – 1.
Doc.: IEEE /106-Draft 1 Submission May 2000 Vic Hayes, Lucent TechnologiesSlide 1 Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. IEEE 's.
Doc.: IEEE /315 Submission September 2000 Jim Zyren, IntersilSlide 1 Regulatory Ad Hoc Group Report Scottsdale, AZ, USA September 2000.
2007 PRESENTATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON THE ASTRONOMY GEOGRAPHIC ADVANTAGE BILL [B ] 31 July 2007.
Doc.: IEEE /1062r2 Submission Zhendong Luo, CATR September 2010 RF Feasibility of 120 MHz Channelization for China Date: Authors: Slide.
Doc.: IEEE /0046r0 Submission July 2009 Ari Ahtiainen, NokiaSlide 1 A Cooperation Mechanism for Coexistence between Secondary User Networks on.
Doc.: IEEE /1899r1 Submission December 2006 james woodyatt / Apple Computer, Inc.Slide 1 Issues for Coexistence in 2.4 GHz ISM Notice: This document.
Submission October 2011 doc.:IEEE /1517r0 Santosh Abraham, Qualcomm Incorporated Efficient Device and Service Discovery for Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
Doc.: IEEE /015r0 Submission March 2003 Andy Gowans - UK RA Bands A & B update Andy Gowans Private Business Systems Unit UK Radiocommunications.
Cellular Telephones How Do They Work and Are They Safe? Meagan Morrell May 3, 2000.
Doc.: IEEE /016r0 Submission March 2003 Andy Gowans - UK RA Andy Gowans Private Business Systems Unit Radiocommunications Agency
Washington Laboratories (301) web: Lindbergh Dr. Gaithersburg, MD Desert William H. Graff President and Director of Engineering,
Doc.: IEEE RR-02/036 Submission March 2002 Rebecca Chan, Industry CanadaSlide 1 Simulation on Aggregate Interference from Wireless Access Systems.
Regulatory Impact on Deployment in the United States - or - Non-commercial deployment of un- licensed radio networks will be more successful than.
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.