RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Joanne-
Your response to John assumes a specific hardware implementation of a
specificaiotn that is not written. it appears that you are not open to the
any idea that 802.20 could define a repeater that is no more than phy to phy
(layer 1 to layer 1) implementation.
I would urge you not to create and define a solution before we have a
completed specification.
alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:28 PM
To: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Marianna Goldhammer; shigeru kimura; Li
Junyi; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
John,
While I recognize that the need you describe is valid, I respectfully
disagree with your conclusion that therefore
this must be mandatory within the standard. Certainly, any operator can
make this a mandatory requirement
on any equipment supplier that they select for their network deployments.
However, since many responses have
stated that there are alternative ways to provide in-building coverage,
certainly with different performance and
deployment cost implications, I would logically conclude that this
requirement should be optional for the standard.
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: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:08 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.
****************************************************************************
********