1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: Why We Want a Single 60 GHz Standard
Date Submitted:18 September 2007
Source: Eduardo (Ed) Casas, Intel Corporation
Address: 2111 NE 25th Ave, Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: ,
Abstract: A common standard for all 60 GHz devices would have many benefits. These include increased utility since more devices can communicate with each other, reduced market confusion, better performance, reduced interference, reduced costs, reduced power consumption and a smaller form factor. Conformance at the lowest protocol stack layers is most useful. Standards development should address the reasons why vendors develop proprietary implementations.
Purpose: This document is submitted as an informative contribution to TG 3c.
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
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

2. Why We Want a Single 60 GHz Standard
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Why We Want a Single 60 GHz Standard
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Example
WiFi and Bluetooth:
incompatible PHY and MAC share the same unlicensed band
is this unavoidable?
do we want something like this at 60 GHz?
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Utility of the Network
Metcalfe’s Law: the value of a network grows as the square of the number of devices that can communicate with each other
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Consumer Acceptance
single standard helps build customer awareness & acceptance
multiple standards creates confusion and delays market growth
single standard enables common user interfaces and authentication methods
VHS vs Beta, HD vs BR
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Performance
conformance to a common standard:
ensures fair and efficient channel utilization
enables QoS guarantees
allows for effective frequency re-use
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Interference
interference between devices can be minimized if all use the same standard
no self-interference if devices only have to support one 60 GHz radio
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Reduced Costs
economies of scale mean lower costs:
hardware components
marketing
software development
customer support
lower implementation and conformance costs
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

9. Power Consumption & Form Factor
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Power Consumption & Form Factor
support for multiple standards may require multiple antennas and multiple active radios in the same device
particularly difficult for portable battery-powered devices
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
What Needs to Be Common?
protocol stacks may peer at different levels:
PHY: preambles, modulation, coding
lower MAC: channel access rules
upper MAC: association, authentication
higher-level protocols (TCP, HDMI, PCI, …)
conformance at the lowest layers (PHY & lower MAC) is required by all devices
services provided by higher layers are more likely to be device-specific
interoperability requires peering at all levels, coexistence requires peering only at some
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

11. Reasons For Non-Standard Products
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
Reasons For Non-Standard Products
reduced design effort and time to market
to enable use of lower-cost hardware
for product differentiation through additional features or better performance
to avoid cost & delay of conformance testing
to avoid paying royalties
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>

12. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
18 September 2007
What to Do?
these issues need to be addressed during standards development
examples (for discussion):
Do we need to publish reference implementations
Do we need to permit subsets and proprietary extensions
extend vendor-specific IE concept to allow proprietary MCS?
Eduardo Casas, Intel Corporation
<author>, <company>