RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

-----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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >

RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution