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-----
From: Joseph
Cleveland [mailto:JClevela@sta.samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16,
2003 9:02
AM
To: 'YUZA Masaaki'; Mcginniss, Dave S
[GMG]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements:
Functional Requirements Rev 3 available in Drop Box
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-----
From: YUZA Masaaki [mailto:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, July 15,
2003
10:02
PM
To: Mcginniss,
Dave S [GMG]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements:
Functional Requirements Rev 3 available in Drop Box
Dear Dave and all:
I have a comment for "Functional
Requirements Rev 3.".
Section 4.6 Link Budget
Page 11, Lines 31-Page 12, Lines
3
COMMENT:
Definition of link budget shall be
involved in the transmission power a part of product performance not the
system performance.
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,
********************************
YUZA Masaaki
NEC infrontia
Corp.
E-mail:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com
tel:+81-44-820-4682(personal)
tel:+81-44-820-4545
fax:+81-44-820-4555
********************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klerer Mark"
<M.Klerer@flarion.com>
To:
<stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Functional
Requirements Rev 3 available in Drop Box
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
f>
<http://ieee802.org/20/DropBox/802.20%20requirements%20Document%20rev%203.do
c>
802.20 Requirements Document - Rev.3
(Dave S Mcginnis, July 10, 2003)
Best regards,
Mark Klerer