RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
Hello Hank,
Thankyou for your comments. The market decides which will survive, but what
drives the market? The mere sound of, "Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplex", sounds far superior to the boring, "Single Carrier". For that
reason alone, those who know no different will purchase the OFDM(A)
solution, and pay the higher price for it too, thinking they have the
superior solution! Hey, that's life!
I've had 22 replies to my email on this subject, all of whom agree there
should be a single phy, 20 of whom agree the Single Carrier to be the main
contender and 18 of whom mentioned the nightmare of trawling through so much
(quality) information.
Did you ever see Dr. Falconer's tutorial in Ottawa, where he compared OFDM
and the Single Carrier (and maybe a tad of CDMA)? He clearly demonstrated
OFDM has no advantage and is a more expensive solution.
Take good care of yourself,
Joanne
>From: "Eilts, Hank" <eilts@ti.com>
>To: "'Joanne Brett'" <joannebrett66@hotmail.com>,
>"'stds-802-16@ieee.org'" <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:14:13 -0600
>
>Hello Joanne,
>
>You make some very good points. However, those points been made before,
>and
>the group chose a different course (than a single phy). The group members
>know the benefits of a single phy standard. They also know the cost to
>their companies if their particular technology is not included. It's a pro
>and con debate within each voter. It's a small debate -- they don't have
>to
>think about it very long. As it stands now, the market will decide which
>will survive.
>
>You are a single carrier advocate. The OFDM advocates would rephrase your
>statement to say "the OFDM approach can achieve all that single carrier and
>OFDMA can achieve." Likewise, the OFDMA camp would say "the OFDMA approach
>can achieve all that single carrier and OFDM can achieve." Your problem is
>not the phy, as any of the 3 phys will work acceptably. Some better or
>cheaper than others, but they all work. Your problem is one of
>concensus.
>
>We could discuss this forever, but that won't change the standard. If you
>feel strongly about this, I suggest making a contribution to 802.16 and
>asking Roger Marks to be placed on the agenda for one of the meetings. You
>won't be treated rudely for voicing your opinion. Many people have similar
>feelings, but with hardware on the line, I don't think you will be
>successful.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Hank
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Brett [mailto:joannebrett66@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 2:07 PM
>To: Eilts, Hank; stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
>
>
>Dear Hank,
>
>Do you not think as I do that a standard is by definition designed to focus
>the
>required implementation within a given subject area? It is most desireable
>that
>the wireless world and their customers should take this standard seriously.
>Having succumbed to the attitude that the working group couldn't make a
>decision so decided on the, "lets use all three", rather makes a nonsense
>of
>the standard. We all agree that the input has been of a very high quality,
>but
>why have a standard if the subject matter isn't standardised. You and
>RevCom
>will agree, the single carrier approah can achieve all that OFDM and OFDMA
>can
>achieve.
>
>Kind regards,
>Joanne
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger