RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
1) Rex,
In the case of the repeater contribution it is assumed that these are
all terrestrial based repeaters. Supporting satellites in the AI has a
substance impact on other parts of the document i.e. System
Architecture, RT delay times and HO's.
2) Marianna,
The proposal does not specify how the repeater is connected to the
network, i.e. analog retransmission of the signal, fiber optics, or as
you suggest, the use of stand alone access points.
On similar subject, there is a recent contribution for section 3.1 that
enables the use of a mesh network solution along with a requirement that
the standard must support macro, micro and pico cells.
John J. Humbert
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
PCS (816) 210-9611
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Buddenberg [mailto:budden@nps.navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Marianna Goldhammer
Cc: 'Dohyung Choi '; "'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org "'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
Repeaters
Would 'repeater' include one that happens to be called a communications
satellite in, say, geosynchronous orbit? If so, I'm happy.
On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 03:36, Marianna Goldhammer wrote:
> All,
>
> I also missed the discussion about repeatears.
>
> I wonder if the group has evaluated the stand-alone Access Points, at
1k$
> cost, with optional remote radio activity co-ordination, and/or
in-band
> feeding, as an alternative to Repeaters?
>
> I think that the requirement should address the micro-cell support;
the
> technical solution should be kept open.
>
> I recognize the importance of micro-cell support, and the KTF paper
was
> extremely valuable in bringing deployment data.
>
> Marianna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dohyung Choi
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Sent: 10/17/2003 2:58 AM
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
Repeaters
>
> Humbert, John J,
>
> I am sorry that I couldn't attend last conference call for repeater
> issue discussion.
> But I agreed with your proposal completely.
> Reflectors as well as repeaters can be good solutions to solve a
> coverage hole.
> Operators can choose which one is proper by service circumstance.
> I think you pointed what I missed very well.
> I support your proposal.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dohyung Choi
> KTF
> Ilsan-Gu , Koyang-Shi,
> Kyunggi-Do, Korea
> Tel: +82-32-909-0801
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS] <mailto:JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> <mailto:stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:27 PM
> Subject: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Current Text
>
> Support for the use of Repeaters (Open)
>
> The system should support the use of repeaters
>
> Proposed Text
>
> The AI must not preclude the use of repeaters or reflectors to bypass
> obstructions and extend cell coverage.
>
>
> Rational
>
> 1) This text clarifies the rational given at the meeting in Singapore
>
> John J. Humbert
>
> 6220 Sprint Parkway
>
> Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
>
> Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
>
> PCS (816) 210-9611
>
>
>
> 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.
>
************************************************************************
************
--
b