| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Michael,
My assumption here is that the allocated spectrum for the service is 5 MHz, which includes any required guard bands. For example, the D block is the PCS band is 5 MHz and supports 3 CDMA2000 channels, each 1.25 MHz wide. The "extra" spectrum left over represents guard bands.
For TDD a 5 MHz spectrum allocation means the DL and UL split this spectrum. For FDD it might mean 5 MHz for DL and 5 MHz for UL including guard bands for each.
Joseph Cleveland
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Youssefmir [mailto:mike@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:11 PM
To: fwatanabe@ieee.org; khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com
Cc: Arif.Ansari@Nextel.com; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org; Dennett, Steve; Michael Youssefmir
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: Channel Bandwidth (was comments on rev5)
Khurram/Fujio,
I agree with Arif's comments and also wanted to clear up a point of confusion (at least for me). What does the current text mean by "channel bandwidth"?
"The AI shall support channel bandwidths in multiples of 5MHz in downlink and the uplink."
Is it the system wide bandwidth? That is, base station must support transmit and receiver front ends that cover 5MHz increments so that minimal system bandwidth increments are 5MHz?
If so, I believe John Fan's (and also Arif's) rationale stands -
"5 MHz minimum bandwidth would limit the applicability of the MBWA AI in many of the available licensed bands below 3.5 GHz."
An allocation of 5MHz typical for a wide area cellular systems requires guard bands and many operators today deploy in 1.25MHz increments.
-OR-
Is it the per user carrier bandwidth? That is, user terminal receive and transmit front ends must utilize the entire 5Mhz.
If so then we have at least three systems that have been described as part of various contributions. All these presmably meet the performance targets of the PAR and all of these have "carrier increments" of well under 5Mhz. I therefore disagree that our performance requirements dictate 5MHz carriers.
Mike
Michael Youssefmir
ArrayComm, Inc.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 06:33:11PM -0400, Ansari, Arif wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
>
>