1. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission May 2009 Presentation Summarizing Contribution on TV Whitespace Coexistence Matrix and Use Cases Date: 2009-05-12 Authors: Slide 1 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

2. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Abstract Propose modification to the co-existence matrix Suggest an additional element of “network operation/ownership” to be considered as part of a use case Provide detailed analysis of 2 use cases –Campus (i.e. college campus, suburban mall, etc.) –Large apartment building May 2009 Slide 2 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

3. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission May 2009 Whitespace Coexistence Matrix Slide 3 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital Coexistence Among TV White Space Devices Within the Context of the US FCC Report and Order 802.11802.15802.16802.22GSMCDMA2000UMTS UWBBlueToothOtherMacro CellsFemto CellsMacro CellsFemto CellsMacro CellsFemto Cells 802.11 802.15UWB BlueTooth Other 802.16 802.22 GSMMacro Cell Femto Cell EVDOMacro Cell Femto Cell UMTSMacro Cell Femto Cell *Protected devices, as defined by the FCC are not listed. They are protected by procedures specified by the FCC. **This Table is meant to be Representative, not complete ***It is Likely that a similar analysis be done for OFCOM, Industry Canada, Netherlands Antilles, etc. rules Full Coexistence Without Cooperation Partial Coexistence Without Cooperation Coexistence Requires Cooperation

4. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Observations from the Matrix It would appear that in general different technologies cannot co-exist except through sufficient geographical separation –UWB is an exception However, this depends on an underlying assumption of passive co-existence In some cases, the notion of an active coexistence enabler is not unreasonable –For example if a single operator of a heterogeneous network is provided such a device Our use-case study needs to address such possibilities –In particular, we should differentiate between co-existence between networks operated by different entities and co-existence of network operated by the same entity –We examine two scenarios which make illustrate this point May 2009 Slide 4 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

5. Submission doc.:802.19/0027r0 The Campus Use Case Key aspects of this Use Case –Presence of macro-coverage Cellular providers Fixed WWAN (Wimax) –Potentially high density of 100mW devices WiFi networks (per store, department, etc.) WiFi hot-spots Femto-cells –40 mW devices –Microphones –Presence of a single coordinating entity Campus owner Mall owner This entity may –Own and sublease all or part of the network –Impose constraints and requirements on network operations by individual operators May 2009 Slide 5 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

6. Submission doc.:802.19/0027r0 The Apartment Building Use Case Key aspects of this Use Case –Presence of macro-coverage Cellular providers Fixed WWAN (Wimax) –Potentially high density of 100mW devices WiFi networks (per store, department, etc.) WiFi hot-spots Femto-cells –40 mW devices –Microphones –Each apartment potentially an independent network May use different broadband/cellular/femto-cell providers No ability to coordinate WiFi usage (except maybe direct human goodwill) May 2009 Slide 6 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

7. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Cellular Provider Use of Whitespace Voice (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies) Femtocell (low power Whitespace frequencies Internet (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies) VOIP (4W or low power Whitespace frequencies) May 2009 Two Different Cellular Providers Different WS Channels Slide 7 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

8. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission WiFi Provider Use of Whitespace Home (low power Whitespace frequencies) Enterprise (low power Whitespace frequencies) WiFi Hotspot (low power Whitespace frequencies) Internet Access (low power Whitespace frequencies) VOIP (low power Whitespace frequencies) May 2009 Slide 8 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

9. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Fixed WWAN (WiMAX, 802.22) Provider Use of Whitespace Voice (low power Whitespace frequencies) VOIP (low power Whitespace frequencies) Internet (low power Whitespace frequencies) Suburban (4W Database) Rural (4W Database) May 2009 Slide 9 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

10. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Local TV Broadcast WS TV Broadcast (4W Database) Non-802 Protocols (4W Database or low power Whitespace frequencies) May 2009 TV Broadcaster Slide 10 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

11. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission May 2009 Microphone Provider Use of Whitespace Voice (low power Whitespace frequencies) Non-802 Protocols (low power Whitespace frequencies) Slide 11 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital

12. doc.:802.19/0027r0 Submission Conclusions Made comments to the matrix Presented 2 use cases (see our text for more detail) Propose that the notion of a “operating entity” is an important factor in considering a use case. May 2009 Slide 12 Richard Paine, Self; Mark Cummings, EnVia; Alex Reznik, Interdigital