From: Jiho Jang [mailto:jiho.jang@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:32 PM
To: Yossi Segal
Cc: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI
Hi, Yossi,
Let me answer your comments.
(1) I agree that the PUSC can use all subcarriers with the 'PUSC with all subchannels'. But the hit property and the diversity gain of the PUSC is worse than that of the O-FUSC.
(2) The FUSC can meet the spectrum mask also.
(3) If you are saying the full loaded situation, the permutation itself has no meaning. For the slightly loaded situation, the SIR with the O-FUSC is better than the PUSC with all subchannels by about 1.5dB.
(4) The difference of diversity gain is small. However, there is no reason why we do not use the O-FUSC which has no disadvantage, but has a bunch of advantages.
Moreover, by employing the OMI, we can use the O-FUSC for the whole DL
subframe when you do not want to deploy the system as 1/3 frequency reuse. In
this case, the use of zone switch IE after the first 1 or 2 symbols is
just an overhead, which sacrifices the throughput.
Regards,
Jiho
 |
Jiho Jang (Ph. D)
NTP Development Team (System Lab. 2) Telecommunication System Division Telecommunication Network
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD
T. 82-31-279-3355 M. 016-9233-8541 |
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Yossi Segal<yossis@runcom.co.il>
Date : 2004-08-10 18:12
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI
I have some comments on your assumptions per your points:
1) As you stated FUSC uses all bandwidth but so can the PUSC, so you may trade BW/footprint and Interference as you like.
2) I am not sure the O-FUSC meets all the spectral masks (I am not sure such an analyses has been done, or at lease
I didn't see any), and it is gets very hard implementing these much carriers (more processing in some digital mechanisms
due to so much used BW). But if I am wrong then you are right.
3) The assumption of the hit probability must be between subchannels but if you use all the spectrum, you are hitting all
subcarriers all the time anyway (and I am not sure that the hit probability will be such a factor in this case - where different permutations
will be used for the PUSC zones, excluding the first 2 symbols).
4) Diversity gain difference is very small as the PUSC already has clusters scattered all over the spectrum, the difference will be between 24
clusters each with 2 subcarriers and 48 individual subcarriers.
And in any case you can switch zones just after the first 2 PUSC symbols, which are heavily coded, has better S/N and better
foot print when used in the 1/3 configuration.
Regards,
Yossi
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jiho Jang
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:33 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMIHi all,
I'm Jiho Jang from Samsung Electronics.
I have uploaded a material which describes the reasoning for the proposal of OMI (operating mode identification) for your information on http://temp.wirelessman.org.
Please find the uploaded file and look it over. Thanks.
Regards,
Jiho Jang
Jiho Jang (Ph. D) NTP Development Team (System Lab. 2)
Telecommunication System Division
Telecommunication Network
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD
T. 82-31-279-3355
M. 016-9233-8541