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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 12:06 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 003CB120089 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:06:01 -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 r7hY6AUXkPK3 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 9239D1201E5 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHC5u2l023184; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:56 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 84E67203D72; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:56 +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 76DD3203CC4; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:56 +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 xBHC5tXt000673; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:56 +0100
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Cc: its <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> <CADnDZ88zRZQkYZOEAUxSQcQSWyRTj3gMGCRcAw-ZAauYBHZ2-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e66d1ad-9a22-ef7b-17d0-950a58c718d8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:55 +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: <CADnDZ88zRZQkYZOEAUxSQcQSWyRTj3gMGCRcAw-ZAauYBHZ2-A@mail.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/nF_ua32gHcCBKMZw_-3vs7zysUE>
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 12:06:02 -0000


Le 17/12/2019 à 12:05, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:59 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     have people elsewhere paid money to get a license to talk in the 5.9GHz
>     space?
> 
> in the article is says the tax payers will be apposing because the 
> cities already used money for the  DSRC, and it mentions that FCC plan 
> will KILL and waste a lot of money of city investment by city covernment.

Right, I think it is the money they spent on deploying the DSRC 
technology, not on spectrum.

That is indeed lots of money in itself.  Even in Europe there are 
numerous deployments of RSUs permanently attached to poles along 
highways.  All these RSUs and their spectrum were created and reserved 
by starting from USA initiatives on DSRC.

I wonder what happens to all these investments in Europe if USA changes 
tack with respect to 5.9GHz allocation to 802.11-OCB.

I think there are large misunderstandings in this FCC plan.

There are other ideas that were discussed privately and publicly about 
reserving spectrum for a particular technology (spectrum should be 
reserved for application kind, not for a particular PHY or MAC - in that 
sense it seems strange to refuse DSRC but allocate for C-V2X), and about 
reserving spectrum but still free of use (how can one reserve something 
but still allow every one to do whatever they want in it).  There are 
many contradictions.

Alex

> 
> AB
> 
>     (not in Europe a single person paid such money)
> 
>     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>
>     <mailto: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> <mailto:its@ietf.org
>     <mailto:its@ietf.org>>
>      >  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>      >  >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > its mailing list
>      > its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> <mailto:its@ietf.org
>     <mailto:its@ietf.org>>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>