Jerry, All,
One of the main points of differentiation between 802.16 and 802.20 is the
channel spacing. The 802.20 PAR approval was based on a process, that showed
the market differentiation between the 2 projects. IEEE 802 is not allowed
to produce 2 standards addressing the same market.
See: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/SG_Docs/802m_ecsg-02-15.pdf (MBWA
and 802.16e: Two Markets - Two Projects), claiming that typical channel BW
for 802.20 will be lower than 5MHz, and 802.16 typical channel BW will be
higher than 5MHz.
In order to keep 802.20 Requirements consistent with PAR approval process,
please take this limitation into consideration.
Marianna
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:36 PM
To: scrowley@attglobal.net; trinkwon@compuserve.com; M.Klerer@flarion.com;
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
resolution
I fully support the proposals from Steve Crowley, David Trinkwon, Mark
Cudak, Fujio Watanabe, and Daichi Imamura. We should include 10 and 20MHz
channels in the Requirements and use for evaluation purposes.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 8/28/2003 9:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
scrowley@attglobal.net writes:
I agree with David for the reasons he states. I support the proposals for
channel bandwidths from 1.25 Mz to 20 MHz in the requirements.
Regarding concatenation of smaller-bandwidth channels, I note that an
operator might not want to be required to implement "wider channel bandwidth
. . . supported by deploying (N) x (Basic Bandwidth)", due to reduced
capacity caused by (depending on the technology used) guard bands between
the concatenated channels, and redundant common channel structures in each
of the smaller channels, such as for pilot signals. Deploying 10 MHz and 20
MHz bandwidths conguously allows reduction of both inefficiencies, resulting
in more data available to the user.
I would also like to add that 3G technologies in 3GPP and 3GPP2 continue
to evolve and may soon exceed the assumed 1.25 MHz performance
characteristics for the MBWA system that were used for the PAR and Five
Criteria. This could result in the MBWA system specification failing to meet
the tests of Broad Market Potential and of Economic Feasibility in the Five
Criteria, resulting in lack of approval by RevCom. Thus, I believe we need
to look at the performance improvements that can be had through the use of
wider bandwidths.
As an example, consider 3GPP2's 1xEV-DO (also known as HRPD, HDR, IS-856,
and C.S0024). The next revision of that system, Revision A, is now under
development in 3GPP2 and is scheduled for completion in December 2003. There
are several proposals to improve that 1.25 MHz system which include the
following specifications:
Peak downlink data rates to 3.072 Mbps
Peak uplink data rates to 4 Mbps
Uplink capacity comparable to downlink capacity resulting in a symetric
system
Latencies on the order of 10 ms
(See, e.g., 3GPP2 contributions C30-20030414-067 (QUALCOMM MAC proposal),
C30-20030414-068 (QUALCOMM Forward-link proposal), and C30-DOAH-20030428-015
(Lucent reverse-link proposal).)
After Revision A is completed, one can expect consideration to begin of
the next version of 1xEV-DO (Release B), with further improvements.
Best regards,
Steve Crowley
DoCoMo USA Labs
-------
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel. +1-202-544-5400
Fax +1-202-478-1763
E-mail scrowley@attglobal.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David
Trinkwon
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:04 AM
To: Klerer Mark; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
resolution
With respect, Mark, the MMDS band is already available (for mobile) in the
US and gross bandwidths of several contiguous 6MHz "channels" are already in
the hands of potential operators (although there is still a lot of
commercial and regulatory uncertainty about the actual band plan and service
rules pending FCC resolution of the WCAI restructuring proposals). Certainly
(multiples of) 2 x 10MHz blocks" are available and probably 2 x 20MHz per
operator in most markets. To deny these capabilities is imposing an unfair
restriction on would-be competitors to the established mobile operators in
the PCS and cellular bands.
Regarding 802.16e, the main distinguishing factors were the targeted
mobility speeds (250km/h for 802.20) and the dependence on an 802.16 MAC and
existing PHYs (802.16e is intended to be incremental on 802.16a whereas
802.20 is a clean sheet - as you rightly insisted many times). If the
(current) membership of 802.20 believes that 10 and 20MHz channels should be
allowed for then that is their prerogative.
The discussion on multi-channel did not (mean to ) say that "wider channel
bandwidth would be supported by deploying (N) x (Basic Bandwidth) in order
to fill the total channel BW of the wider channel." The word COULD rather
than SHOULD is applicable, and there are as many technological / economic
arguments for it as against it, especially when combined with adaptive
beamforming and other space / time / frequency diversity techniques. It
should not be precluded form appropriate evaluation if someone submits such
a PHY proposal in due course.
I propose that the 1.25, 5, 10 and 20MHz proposals should stand.
David Trinkwon
Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Klerer
Mark
Sent: 28 August 2003 03:48
To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
resolution
With respect to the channel bandwidth issue I would like to review some of
the history in definition of the charter of the 802.20 project and why the
bandwidth "examples" were chosen, address some of the concerns about future
bandwidth extensions that I believe are based on misunderstandings and
propose a way forward.
1. Project History and Reasons for Channel Bandwidth Selection
a. Timeliness: The project and its timeline were defined to allow for
early deployment of real world systems in licensed spectrum below 3.5 GHz
and available for mobile services, rather then as a long term study item.
This requires that the specification address channel bandwidth that are
currently available. This was discussed extensively and the conclusion that
waiting for spectrum reallocation was not consistent with these goals.
Future work could address broader channels when these become available.
b. Economic Viability: The economic viability of the project, for both
service providers and equipment vendors, was predicated on it being
deployable in the near term in existing spectrum allocation and with channel
bandwidth that service providers would be willing to allocate to data
services. This would be feasible if the new system is co-deployable with
existing cellular mobile systems. This was documented in
http://ieee802.org/20/SG_Docs/802m_ecsg-02-08.pdf. which was included as an
attachment to the PAR submission to the 802 Executive Committee (see excerpt
below).
Spectrum: The AI should be designed for deployment within existing and
future licensed spectrum below 3.5 GHz. The MBWA system frequency plan
should include both paired and unpaired channel plans with multiple
bandwidths, e.g., 1.25 or 5 MHz, to allow co-deployment with existing
cellular systems. Receiver sensitivity, blocking and selectivity
specifications should be consistent with best commercial practice for mobile
wide-area terminals.
c. Differentiation from 802.16e: In order to get the executive committee
and NesCom to approve both P802.16e and P802.20 extensive discussions were
held and agreed too. Differences between the two projects and their approach
to the market were identified and documented 802.16sgm-02/16. One of the
differences was the 802.16e would concentrate on channels with a bandwidth
greater than 5MHz, reflecting its legacy of evolving off Fixed BWA; and that
802.20 would concentrate (at least initially) on bandwidth below ~5MHz
reflecting the goals stated above including the capability to coexist in
existing cellular deployments. Actually this is also consistent with the
approach in ITU-R for systems beyond IMT-2000, where the higher channel
bandwidth first appear for technologies supporting lower degrees of
mobility.
2. Support of Multiple Channel Bandwidth: As a result of the granularity
discussion it seems the impression has been created that wider channel
bandwidth would be supported by deploying (N) x (Basic Bandwidth) in order
to fill the total channel BW of the wider channel. I agree with Mark Cudak
that that is not desirable (I actually believe that most people that
discussed this did not have that intention). Instead the 802.20 (family of)
standard(s) should support that wider channel BW as a single fat pipe. I see
the advantage of these "fat-pipes" being multiples of some basic bandwidth
in facilitating deployment by displacing an integral number of these
"skinnier-pipes".
3. A Proposed Way Forward:
I would like to propose that 802.20 start the first set of requirements
with bandwidth of 1.25 and 5 MHz, and then developing requirements for
greater than 5 MHz, e.g. 20MHz. This rollout of successive requirements need
not be "calendar based" but can be done as soon as the technological and
business needs are understood - with some more precission then just "wider
is better".
The rationale for the proposal is:
a. This allows a first standard to go out that accommodates existing
well defined and understood markets; i.e. markets based on the needs filled
in the wired world by DSL and cable modem services.
b. In order to develop the wider channel bandwidth systems I think we
need additional requirements work to determine whether the wider channels
are required to increase the number of users that can be supported in a cell
or whether these are required to accommodate new services that require more
bandwidth per user. I believe that such concerns would have significant
impact on how these wider channel systems are designed. To my knowledge
there is no good existing base at this time on which to base such
requirements. Experience of individualized wired wide-area wide-band
services (beyond DSL/Cable rates) (such as video on demand as compared to
pay-per-view) have all indicated that commercially these services have not
been viable.
The above discussion should also make it clear that we will need to keep
an open mind on how the PHY and MAC for the wider channel systems would be
optimized for best performance.
Finally, in the debate of whether 1.25 Mhz channels with 3-4 Mbps peak are
considered broadband, I would like to point out that in the real wireless
world at least one prominent international cellular service provider defines
384Kbps DL and
64Kbps UL as broadband capability.
Mark Klerer
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************