Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB465120255 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:11:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1lw6shLT_uO for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D496612022D for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHDBUga017606 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:11:31 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D6831203DAB for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:11:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C751D203B56 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:11:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.20] ([10.11.240.20]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHDBU5U021511 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:11:30 +0100
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: its@ietf.org
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <c680bd31-5f87-6fc9-60c8-2a0af9787483@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_aW4x4LevDY9DGCDic6OpA1==WcVKb9S+1x93apjBYDw@mail.gmail.com> <cfe932bc-999d-1d68-f657-52c8e24d5c6b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5c9aed0-17fe-30b2-db49-65e97a9c6c88@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:11:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cfe932bc-999d-1d68-f657-52c8e24d5c6b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/LCFGToMMpVWpS9pWXPlwWP2gZHw>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:11:35 -0000


Le 17/12/2019 à 11:59, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> have people elsewhere paid money to get a license to talk in the 5.9GHz 
> space?
> (not in Europe a single person paid such money)

while reading my own text...

often the RSU manufacturers sell expensive boxes for various reasons:

- a true reason is that these boxes are still produced in small numbers; 
the economy of scale does not apply yet, so they are expensive.  A 
typical RSU box here ranges between 2000 and 5000 Eur even if the 
motherboard is around 500Eur and the OCB cards can be cheap.

- a true reason in Europe might relate to licensing of GeoNetworking 
technologies to a few manufacturers (list available);  but the 
artificial part of this is that these licenses are not expensive, being 
under F-RAND conditions at ETSI.

- several artificial reasons: the software stack distributed under 
binary form when the source code is available from ETSI, ISO and asn1c.

- a true reason: very high dynamics of standards with new version almost 
every year (new CAM options, new SRMs, etc), make support to be 
expensive to pay.

In reality, an IP-RSU box should not cost more than 1000Eur hardened 
enclosure including.

So one pays large money to deploy and then the deployment is not used. 
It is indeed a curious situation.

Alex

> 
> Le 17/12/2019 à 11:56, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I think it is still a debate and not final decision, IMO it is not 
>> possible change the spectrum while people are already using it and 
>> paid money for it, therefore, it is only a future plan and may not be 
>> applied in all locations in the US. Also I would like to know the 
>> opinion of US participants on this issue please.
>>
>> AB
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     Le 17/12/2019 à 01:01, Russ Housley a écrit :
>>      >
>>     
>> https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/fcc-moves-plan-forward-to-chop-up-vehicle-safety-airwaves/ 
>>
>>     [...]
>>      > The FCC plan would divide 75 MHz of the safety spectrum between 
>> WiFi
>>      > and auto safety applications. The FCC proposal allocates 20 MHz 
>> for a
>>      > newer V2X technology, known as C-V2X, and leaves 10 MHz for either
>>      > C-V2X or DSRC.
>>
>>
>> AB> they will need to deliver the technology and implement it,
>>
>> It is indeed a plan that invites to think about the future.
>>
>> An implementation of IPv6 over OCB that uses a 20MHz channel, instead of
>> 10MHz, would no longer be 'illegal'.
>>
>> I would like to ask whether FCC considers this potential C-V2X 20MHz
>> channel to still be free of use for everyone (like the current 5.9GHz
>> band) or will it be licensed and paid for? (like e.g. the 2.6 GHz band
>> of LTE).
>>
>> AB> I think it should be like WiFi usedby all free,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > its mailing list
>>  > its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>  >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its