RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Khurram,
Thank you for your reply. I see your point and agree that we shouldn't
establish a requirement that eliminates certain what could be attractive
technology solutions. Since all possibilities would be allowable, are you
proposing that we eliminate any requirement related to frequency reuse?
Shouldn't there be a preference for proposals that eliminate the need for
frequency planning? This seems like a very tangible benefit that should
be promoted. Also, I have a concern that cell splitting, which is an
effective way of increasing network capacity, will be presented as a way
to increasing spectral efficiency. This is obviously not the case, so we
need to be sure that we have appropriately accounted for different
re-use factors in when computing spectral efficiency.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG] [mailto:khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:29 AM
To: Joanne Wilson; Neka Hicks; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Joanne
Thanks for your comments. It is heartening to see vendors promoting
interests of service providers!
Although I agree with you that frequency re-use of N=<1 is a more
elegant implementation, I think we should not dis-allow N>1 re-use
schemes. We should hold all systems to minimum spectral efficiency
requirements but operators also have to think about network/capital
efficiency (can be translated into Mbps/sector or Mbytes/sub) and N>1
systems might allow an operator with adequate spectrum to improve their
network economics drastically.
Regards
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: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:51 PM
To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Neka Hicks; Stds-80220-Requirements
(E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Khurram,
Eliminating frequency re-use > 1 eliminates the need to do cell planning
which should be avoided if at all possible. For example, N=7 (typical
in
some 1G or 2G
systems) means that specific sets of channels can only be used in 1 in 7
cells.
When a service provider wants to increase their capacity by
cell-splitting,
they
then have to replan their whole network (or at least all neighboring
cells
and
their neighbors, and so on until they get to a stable new plan).
Systems
requiring N > 1 are
inherently less spectrally efficient than those with N <= 1, because an
operator is
not able to utilize all of the licensed spectrum in every cell. Beyond
that, cell planning
(and replanning, and re-replanning) is a sufficiently onerous burden
that it
should be
avoided by establishing a requirement for N<=1.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG] [mailto:khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:57 PM
To: Joanne Wilson; Neka Hicks; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Joanne
What is the rationale to omit frequency re-use >1?
Thanks in advance
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: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:30 PM
To: Neka Hicks; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Neka,
I agree with you that the current text, "allow for system deployment
with
frequency reuse factors of less than or greater than 1" is confusing.
The
intention was to require that the air interface
support configurations where all frequencies could be used in all
sectors
(e.g. N=1). My understanding was that the air interface should be
allowed
to support configurations where
frequencies could be used more than once in each sector, i.e. to provide
for
but not require support for spatial diversity. This is often referred
to as
N<1. For example, N=.5 means that each frequency is used twice in a
sector.
Note: Cell sectorization is not a means by which one can reduce N. It
is
probably clearest for this requirement to be stated on a "per sector"
basis
and to recognize that
an omni-directional cell is considered to be a "single sector" cell.
So, the following is my "friendly amendment" to your proposal.
Proposed Deleted text
"universal frequency reuse but also allow for system deployment with
frequency reuse factors of less than or greater than 1"
Proposed New text
The AI shall support any frequency reuse scenario, on a per sector
basis,
with N <= 1.
Frequency reuse (N) is defined as the reciprocal of the number of times
a
frequency
can be used in a single sector, recognizing that an omni-directional
cell is
referred to as a
"single sector" cell.
Rationale
This change is recommended in an effort to provide a little more
clarity.
Best regards,
Joanne Wilson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Neka Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:15 PM
To: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
All,
Here's a contribution regarding frequency re-use:
<<clearwire contribution 072903 - frequency reuse.doc>>
Neka C. Hicks
Director of Network Engineering
Clearwire Technologies
469-737-7555 (office)
817-706-2548 (cell)