RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
I agree with Mark, Stewart, Arif and Mike on this point. If we adopt
a plan for only 5, 10, 15,... MHz channel bandwidths we will limiting the
market opportunity for 802.20 systems unnecessarily. From an economies
of scale perspective, I don't see how that would be in any of our interests.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Klerer Mark
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:00 AM
To: 'Wallace, Stewart J'; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel
bandwidth resolution
I agree with Stewart and Arif. I believe we are trying to spec a system that
is deployable in the identified spectrum space and is scalable with existing
market demands and constraints.
Mark Klerer
-----Original Message-----
From: Wallace, Stewart J [mailto:Stewart.J.Wallace@team.telstra.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:59 PM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
resolution
section 4.1.4
In the case of Australia, I would just like to highlight that the 3.4GHz
band (covering 3.425 GHz ~ 3.575 GHz) has already been licenced under a
15-year assured tenure regime, based on a lot size granularity of 3.5 MHz.
This approach was taken by our regulator in view of current FWA technologies
as the primary usage at that time. I understand that there are several
other countries with similar band structures (although not necessarily with
the same tenure regime). Thus, a 5MHz minimum channelisation restriction
would seem to potentially exclude Australia (at least) from the MBWA market
for the next 15+ years.
In that context, I would suggest that a more flexible approach as suggested
by Arif would seem to be more prudent.
regards
Stewart J Wallace
Technical Regulatory Manager
Radiocommunications & Wireless Networks
Telstra Regulatory Directorate
Tel: (+61 3) 8627 8053
Fax: (+61 3) 9614 0670
-----Original Message-----
From: Ansari, Arif [mailto:Arif.Ansari@Nextel.com]
Sent: Friday, 15 August 2003 8:33 AM
To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Fujio Watanabe;
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Cc: Dennett, Steve
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
A 1.25 Mhz channel bandwidth is consistent with the preferred North American
granularity and is the motivation for such a channel bandwidth in 3GPP2.
The original text included 1.25 and 5 MHz as examples, again consistent with
other standardization efforts to not make the channel bandwidth a
requirement. This adequately covers the mobile licensed band worldwide, and
the follow-on text also included the possbility of wider channels. At the
minimum, I would suggest that 1.25 MHz not be excluded, while 5 MHz and
multiples thereof can also be included. Ideally I would like to see all
these channel bandwidths as no more than examples.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG] [mailto:khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Fujio Watanabe; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
I would like to add to Fujio's comments and my earlier contribution.
Multiples of 5 MHz is critical for both a technical performance as well
economic viability (capital efficiency) given other performance
parameters (system throughput, number of users, broadband data models
etc.)
Thanks and look forward to any rationales why less than 5 MHz could be
an option for the MBWA system tied to our current performance
requirements.
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: Fujio Watanabe [mailto:fwatanabe@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:57 PM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
I would like to make a comment on John's email of July 23rd on section
4.1.4
as follows.
I don't agree to eliminate this section (John said "stricken") because
the
bandwidth is one of important basic system requirements. A system
cannot be
specified without concrete values of bandwidth.
A broader bandwidth is a current trend of wireless communications, e.g.,
WLAN (e.g., 20MHz), UWB (e.g., >300MHz), possible systems beyond
IMT-2000
(e.g., 100MHz) as well as a general requirement for Mobile "Broadband"
Wireless Access.
I also understand John's rationale to not limit the lower bound of the
bandwidth.
Therefore, how about to have several typical numbers for the bandwidth
as
options in this section?
Best Regards,
Fujio
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fan John [mailto:J.Fan@flarion.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:15 PM
> To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
> Subject: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> These are comments on rev5 of the document from Marc
> Goldberg, Michael Youssefmir, Samir Kapoor, Joanne Wilson,
> Arif Ansari and John Fan.
>
> --John
> 4.1.4. Channel Bandwidth
>
> Action: This section should be stricken.
>
> Rationale: The current text requires "multiples of 5 MHz" for
> deployment. No rationale for 5Mhz has been given on the
> reflector. Beyond that, a 5 MHz minimum bandwidth would
> limit the applicability of the MBWA AI in many of the
> available licensed bands below 3.5 GHz.
>