RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
Joanne, this email indirectly raises the distinction between REQUIREMENTS
and EVALUATION CRITERIA. Consider the task of evaluating a number of
candidate solutions. Assuming that at least one candidate solution meets
all of our requirements, then we can set as a criteria for being in the
final evaluation phase, the requirement that all such candidate solutions
meet all of our requirements.
Now comes the difficult task of deciding amongst the contenders, all of
which meet all of our requirements. To aid us in this decision, we should
have an Evaluation Criteria matrix. This matrix would not have absolute
requirements but desirable charactaristics that we could assign a weight to.
Frequency reusability would likely fall into this latter class of
characteristics.
Best regards.
Robert D. Love
rdlove@ieee.org
>From: "Joanne Wilson" <joanne@arraycomm.com>
>To: "Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]" <khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com>,
>"Neka Hicks" <nhicks@Clearwire.com>, "Stds-80220-Requirements
>(E-mail)" <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Frequency Re-use, 4.1.3
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:30:21 -0400
>
>
>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)
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail