| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hello... I'm somewhat new to this group, and only attended the last plenary meeting. We (France Telecom) have been looking very closely at our requirements and have submitted ours recently.
However, Mark K. suggested that we take this as a basis for recommendations to the existing requirements document. I'll try to break this out and send separate emails regarding these specific requirements.
Regarding repeaters, this is an implementation detail, and not a specific requirement. The requirement would be for us to have better coverage, and shorter delays than our current systems. I'll try to get some
exact numbers.
This is what, in my opinion, should be going into the requirements doc... not whether we use repeaters or not.
Thanks,
Jessie JEWITT
France Telecom R&D
-----Original Message-----
From: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS] [mailto:JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; shigeru kimura; Li Junyi; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Repeaters are going to be part of any deployment solution that requires a high percentage of in-building penetration. It just is not practical to expect to cover the inside of buildings that have 25 dB penetration losses using high power cell sites. Large penetration losses cause the cell radiuses to become small which creates high levels of inter-cell interference. There is a tradeoff between covering inside buildings, using high power cell sites, and the quality of the network in the surrounding area.
The use of repeaters targets coverage into the areas that need it most while minimizing interference into other parts of the network.
There maybe lower cost alternatives that specific vendors have or will develop in the future. However, operators need the flexibility to use newly developed alternatives or to use current technologies. Since every vendor is not going to have a lower cost alternative this needs to remain a mandatory requirement.
John J. Humbert
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
PCS (816) 210-9611
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Marianna Goldhammer
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:46 AM
To: shigeru kimura; Li Junyi; 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Hi All,
I fully agree with Li-san, Junyi-san and Kimura-san.
Issues to resolve are coverage, cost, interference.
Marianna :)
-----Original Message-----
From: shigeru kimura [mailto:shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:40 AM
To: Li Junyi; 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'
Cc: shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Hi Junyi-san
I fully agree with you.
> using a repeater by itself is not the goal;
>the goal is to provide decent coverage at low cost.
Yes, I think exactly same thing.
Shigeru Kimura
Li Junyi <Junyi_Li@flarion.com>@majordomo.ieee.org 2003/10/22 10:11:03
送信者: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
宛先: "'Joseph Cleveland '" <JClevela@sta.samsung.com>, Li Junyi
<Junyi_Li@flarion.com>, "''Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]' '"
<JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>, "''stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org' '"
<stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
cc:
件名: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Hi, Joseph,
Another way is to think about this issue at an even higher level: using a
repeater by itself is not the goal; the goal is to provide decent coverage
at
low cost. If there are alternative solutions to achieve the same goal, why
does
the requirement care whether a repeater is used or not?
Junyi
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Cleveland
To: 'Li Junyi'; 'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]';
'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
Sent: 10/21/2003 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Hi Li,
Perhaps the requirement wording needs to indicate that the capability to
support a repeater is mandatory, not that repeaters are mandatory.
Joseph Cleveland
-----Original Message-----
From: Li Junyi [mailto:Junyi_Li@flarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:12 PM
To: 'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]'; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
Repeaters
Hi, everyone,
Below are my two-cents on the issue of the repeaters.
1. The use of repeaters is a performance enhancement issue. In some
situations, repeaters make sense. While in others, there are alternative
ways as well. A mandatory requirement seems too strong.
2. The impact on the AI is subject to investigation. It may be a
little too early to conclude that the system has to support huge delay
or delay spread.
Best,
Junyi Li
-----Original Message-----
From: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS] [mailto:JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:11 PM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
Repeaters
Joanne et al.,
Support for the use of repeaters needs to be a mandatory requirement
because operators need to have this tool in their tool box to
economically provide in-building coverage and in lightly populated
areas. If you recall from the presentation in Singapore that KTF uses
allot more repeaters than base stations in their network. The same trend
is also occurring in the US.
The impact on the AI is that the system has to support larger delay's
and delay spreads.
John J. Humbert
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
PCS (816) 210-9611
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:10 PM
To: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
Repeaters
John,
It's not clear to me the AI design implications of the changes you have
made. However,."should support" implies that
support for repeaters is optional. Changing to "must not preclude"
makes it a mandatory requirement. This change,
at least to me, doesn't clarify the rationale so much as changes
requirement itself. I support maintaining the previous wording of the
requirement until we have a better understanding of the implications of
the change and the rationale for such.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:28 AM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
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.
************************************************************************************