Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI

Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle

Hi, Yigal:

 

The biggest reason for OMI is to meet the Sprint's requirement, as I said in the 'Preamble_Adhoc_OMI_reasoning.doc'.

The requirement by Sprint is that the system is operated as frequency reuse 3 but each segment uses the whole bandwidth and the adjacent segments uses different FA. In that case, the O-FUSC or FUSC is better than the PUSC in terms of spectral efficiency. When comparing the O-FUSC and the PUSC with all subchannels, the O-FUSC is superior to the PUSC with all subchannels in terms of performance (SIR and diversity gain).

 

Consequently, we insist that the OMI should be put in the standard for flexible operation according to the requirement by service providers.

 

 

Regards,

 

Jiho


sec_logo.gifJiho 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

jiho.jang@samsung.com



------- Original Message -------
Sender : Yigal<yigall@runcom.co.il>
Date : 2004-08-12 11:26
Title : RE: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI
Dear Jiho,

 

I think I did understand the OMI reasoning. Sure PUSC also suffers from collisions with imperfect cell planning, but this only effects a few percent of the cell area and not 50% of it. And after colliding (on these few percent), PUSC has the same processing gain capabilities like FUSC or O-FUSC, which means it handles these collisions when they do happen just as well.

 

BR,

Yigal

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiho Jang [mailto:jiho.jang@samsung.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:31 AM
To: Yigal
Cc: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI

Hi, Yigal:

 

You must have misunderstood the reasonings for OMI. Please look over the contribution C80216e_04_128r2 and Preamble_Adhoc_Samsung.doc, carefully.

Also, the PUSC has coverage hole when the cell planning is not perfect, which is the real situation. It is impossible to perfectly deploy the system with frequency reuse 3 by segmentation as the PUSC. Example is shown in the figure below.

 

Regards,

 

Jiho

 

sec_logo.gif 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

jiho.jang@samsung.com



------- Original Message -------
Sender : Yigal<yigall@runcom.co.il>
Date : 2004-08-12 06:40
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI
Dear Jiho,

I regret to say that your contribution fails to relate to the main reason why PUSC mode was invented, and this is the fact that FUSC and O-FUSC have coverage statistics which can go below 50% of the cell for many scenarios. With PUSC such issues can be dynamically controlled and optimized per the specific situation. PUSC supports reuse of 1/3 1/2 and 1/1, so there is no difference in efficiency if you choose to tune your network to sector reuse=1.

As for the others issues mentioned, I fail to see the advantages of O-FUSC as compared to FUSC (apart from making the life of the RF designer harder in order to meet spectral masks).

BR,

Yigal

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Yossi Segal
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:13 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI

Hi Jiho,

 

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 OMI

Hi 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





sec_logo.gif 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

jiho.jang@samsung.com