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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>> 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
>>  > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>  >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its