stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Comment 132

["Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>]

>Comment 132 had been rejected and a note said "Awaiting input". The 
>input was received from Remi, but has not been checked by Barry who 
>was responsible for the comment (but he is in France at a meeting).
>
>I have just now inserted that new section in the comment resolution. 
>I think we should include it so that the original commenter can see 
>it (even in draft form pending review by Barry).
>
>Muya


Muya,

Sorry I overlooked this email from you before I started the ballot.

This will have to be submitted in Letter Ballot #2. Anyway, that 
makes more sense, since it should come in as a comment, not as a 
resolution to a comment.

Roger
------------------------------------------

"Complete section as ""D.3 Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC) 
""with text as follows: ""The Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC) 
has also conducted technical studies dealing operator-to-operator 
coordination issues. A paper was issued as an input to the Industry 
Canada regulation.

This paper entitled  "RABC Pub. 99.2: RABC Study Leading to a 
Coordination Process for Systems in the 24, 28 and 38 GHz Bands 
recommends a coordination process using the distance as first trigger 
and two spectral pfd levels that trigger different actions by the 
operators.

If the boundary of two service areas is within 60 km of each other, 
then the co-ordination process is invoked. Two spectral pfd levels 
are proposed for co-ordination. The first one, level 'A', represents 
a minimal interference scenario where either licensed operator does 
not require co-ordination. A second level, 'B', typically 20 dB 
higher than 'A', represents a trigger for two possible categories: if 
the interference is above A but below B, then co-ordination is 
required with existing systems only. If the interference is greater 
than level B, then co-ordination is required for both existing and 
planned systems. The table below summarises spectral pfd levels A and 
B for the three frequency bands.

Table D.2 - Proposed spectral pfd levels in the 24, 28 and 38 GHz bands
Frequency Band (GHz) spectral pfd Level A(dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz) 
spectral pfd Level B(dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz)
24 -114 -94
28 -114 -94
38 -125 -105


The much lower spectral pfd levels at 38 GHz are to ensure protection 
to point-to-point systems allowed in this band in Canada. The 
coordination procedure is summarized in the Figure D-1 - Coordination 
Process Recommended in RABC paper.(Figure to be inserted)

The paper can be found at 
http://www.rabc.ottawa.on.ca/english/pubs.cfm and shows how the 
values were derived.
"