| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Yuza, Joseph, Dave and all:
Link Budget is captured in the requirements document as a substitute for cell size/ range and also as a directional value i.e. >160 dB than a specific value to allow for specific EIRP implementations in different regions of the world.
As a service provider, it is critical for us to have a link budget that meets minimum coverage/ range requirement in different environments. It would not be good to just a have ranges in kms/miles as that estimation would require more information as to base station heights, propagation conditions etc but giving a hardware link budget requirements sets the expectation of not only the minimum power requirements but most importantly technology advancements/ improvements that need to be met to achieve the system performance in terms of range and capacity.
Additionally, I don’t agree with the 150-170 dB figure as 1) The low end seems is near-equivalent to current systems and hence does not meet the PAR requirements to be significantly better 2) The wide range (20 dB delta) seems to make the requirement irrelevant.
In short, I would propose to have the directional statement of link budget performance >160 dB so that we are looking at the advanced technologies that will meet service provider requirements.
Thanks
Khurram
Khurram P. Sheikh Chief Technology Advisor Sprint- Broadband Wireless Tel (SM): 650-513-2056 Tel(KC): 913-762-1645 Mobile: 650-906-8989 khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com
-----Original Message-----
Yuza, Dave and All: I agree with Yuza that the usefulness of link budgets in the functional requirements is questionable. Instead, I suggest a useful place is in evaluation criteria and/or in channel model descriptions. The functional requirements should reflect performance under different propagation conditions (multipath, mobility & doppler, interference, etc.). The link budget reflects implementation for specific RF designs. Joseph Cleveland -----Original Message-----
Dear Dave and all: I have a comment for "Functional Requirements Rev 3.". Section 4.6 Link Budget COMMENT: That makes a possibility of not to implement by EIRP standards in each country, and the value shall not be defined here.
Thank you. Regards, ******************************** ----- Original Message -----
Requirements Correspondence Group Participants, As requested by David McGinnis, revision 3 of the functional criteria CG contribution has been placed in the drop box.
STDS-80220-REQUIREMENTS Drop-Box 802.20 Requirements Document - Rev.3 <http://ieee802.org/20/DropBox/802.20%20requirements%20Document%20rev%203.pd
Best regards, Mark Klerer |