| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
In certain bands (e.g. 3.5MHz) ETSI has a convention based
around 1.75, 3.5, 7, 14 and 28MHz allocations / channels / block sizes etc,
which is not compatible with a 1.25MHz raster. However, ETSI in fact species an
n x 250kHz raster for channel / block size, and in some bands (e.g. MMDS) the
FCC specifies n x 125kHz.
So perhaps a granularity based on n x 0.125 MHz
(for TDD) and 2n x 0.125 MHz (for FDD) would satisfy everyone. There are
technologies which can simultaneously "stack" a number of "narrow" channels to
provide more aggregate bandwidth to specific users, especially in conjunction
with adaptive arrays and other frequency techniques (e.g.
Beamreach)
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of
Michael Youssefmir
Sent: 18 August 2003 20:20
To: Kapoor
Samir; fwatanabe@ieee.org; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Cc: 'Gal, Dan
(Dan)'; Klerer Mark; 'Wallace, Stewart J'; Bharatula,
Ganesh; Michael
Youssefmir
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 -
Channel
bandwidth resolution
Khurram, Fujio, et
al.
Here's an effort to get to consensus:
In line with the
comments on Channel Bandwidth, we propose that 802.20 should
not mandate
overall system-wide channel bandwidths (i.e. license
bandwidths)in the
requirements document. However, we could include a
requirement
regarding the bandwidth granularity such as,
Proposal:
"802.20 shall
be deployable in system-wide spectrum allocations with a
granularity of N x
(2x1.25MHz) for the FDD systems and N x 2.5MHz for TDD
systems."
Rationale:
Spectrum allocations and licenses vary on a
per country basis in accordance
with national regulatory decisions. To
afford 802.20 the opportunity to be
deployed in as many markets as possible
globally, the 802.20 standard should be
designed to accommodate deployments
in mobile licenses of varying sizes. A 1.25 Mhz
bandwidth granularity
is consistent with that preferred in North American
and adequately covers the
licensed mobile bands worldwide. It is also consistent
with other
standardization efforts to not make the overall channel bandwidth
a
requirement. This proposed requirement also accommodates the interests
of
operators who would like to deploy 802.20 systems in wider channel
bandwidth
licenses and have access to such.
Mike
On
Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:54:49PM -0400, Kapoor Samir wrote:
>
> I
agree with Dan's view that the PAR provides good guidance in this
matter.
> The examples of 1.25 MHz and 5 MHz (for FDD) are by far the
predominant
> licensed channel bandwidths available worldwide. Moreover,
the group
> certainly has the option of reevaluating the standard in
future releases to
> take advantage of higher bandwidths as and when they
become available. Also,
> having too many typical bandwidths can
complicate the task of evaluating
> different proposals that might each be
proposed for very different
> bandwidths.
> Samir
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Gal, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dgal@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday,
August 15, 2003 3:48 PM
> To: 'Fujio Watanabe'; Joanne Wilson; Klerer
Mark; 'Wallace, Stewart J';
> stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc:
Bharatula, Ganesh
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
- Channel
> bandwidth resolution
>
>
>
>
All,
>
> My view is that we should stick to the PAR definitions:
1.25 MHz and 5 MHz
> channel-bandwidths for FDD, and, if I understand
correctly, 2.50 MHz and 10
> MHz channels BWs for TDD. In future releases
of IEEE 802.20, we may evaluate
> and adopt broader channels, as the
evolving mobile wireless market may
> require.
>
>
Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fujio Watanabe [mailto:fwatanabe@ieee.org]
> Sent:
Friday, August 15, 2003 3:09 PM
> To: Joanne Wilson; Klerer Mark;
'Wallace, Stewart J';
> stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc:
Bharatula, Ganesh
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
- Channel
> bandwidth resolution
>
>
>
>
>
It is not practical to have one AI to fit a number of different
bandwidths,
> although one may argue that SDR will enable it in the
future. Since the
> technologies for an AI corresponding to a specified
bandwidth (e.g., narrow
> band) are most likely different from those for
another AI corresponding to
> another bandwidth (e.g., broadband), a
system cannot be specified without a
> concrete value of bandwidth. For
example, even if we tune some parameters of
> AI's in a PCS band, I don't
think this AI can work in a broad bandwidth
> case, such as 100MHz
required for the systems beyond IMT-2000 according to
> WRC'2003.
Therefore, I would like to see several typical bandwidths
> specified for
the MBWA.
>
> By the way, if 1.25MHz is called "broadband",
what will we call 100MHz?
> -- super broadband :)
>
>
Fujio
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanne
Wilson" <joanne@arraycomm.com>
> To: "Klerer Mark"
<M.Klerer@flarion.com>; "'Wallace, Stewart J'"
>
<Stewart.J.Wallace@team.telstra.com>;
<stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Bharatula, Ganesh"
<Ganesh.Bharatula@team.telstra.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003
11:42 AM
> Subject: 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.
> > >
> >
>
>
> >
> >