Hi Yigal,
Thanks for comments.
I don't understand why we have to respect the current system
design, which start with PUSC, if the OMI is applicable to systems with FFT
size less than or equal to 1K. By incorporating OMI, we can
flexibly configure a system we want according to application
and can optimize the performance of the
system.
Regards, Jaeho
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:02
PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd:
[STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] reasonings for OMI
Dear
Jiho,
I
respect your insistence, but I think you should respect the
following:
1.
The preamble should be compatible with the current system design, which starts
with PUSC
2.
The system should work (coverage = 50% is not acceptable by my
criteria)
3.
O-FUSC, as its name implies is optional, and cannot be mandated by the BS on
MSS that do not support it
4.
PUSC DOES support the whole BW with different FA (as one operator requires),
and it also supports other options (as other operators may
require).
BR,
Yigal
P.S.
I
will not argue on your claims about better SIR and diversity gain (although I
do have what to say) because I think they are besides the
point
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
|
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
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
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
|
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
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
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
|
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
|
| |
|