| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Joseph et
al:
Yes, as I and
others argued before, I think we should clearly separate out the
regulatory issue of guardbands from the issue of spectrum nom. blocks to be used
for the purpose of assessing spectrum efficiency etc. As Joanne pointed out, we
are sort of also straying into the issue of evaluation and eval. criteria, but
this is inevitable.
The 99% rule
is in fact that of occupied bandwidth, which has a sound heritage and is well
understood.. A common definition is :
for a single carrier is the width of a frequency band such that, below the lower and above the upper frequency limits, the mean powers emitted are each equal to 0.5% of the emitted power. This is also known as the 99% bandwidth. For transmitters in which there are multiple carriers, contiguous or non-contiguous in frequency, the occupied bandwidth is to be the sum of the occupied bandwidths of the individual carriers. I would point out again that we are getting rather hung up with the issue of considering this or that item of IMT-2k. I appreciate that spectrum used or potentially used for 3G is a factor, but there are many permutations of possible scenario here for 802.20 worldwide - and some of those I am involved in are not at all so-called 3G. Depending on the circumstances, there are different guardband situations, and I additionally don't think it is always enough to just say, as you do below, Joseph, that "normally, they are part of an assigned block". Yes, but not always by any means. It seems to me that the network wide bandwidth concept is pretty clear - but maybe we should clarify with the occupied bandwidth (99%) terminology (?) - and that the guradband issue should be kept separate (but impoirtantly explained and assessed in teh overall process of examining candidate proposals).. The evaluation group can surely assemble a simple set of text that reminds the group that guardbands may be required in many/some situations etc. As Bob Love reminded us at the ABQ mtg and in a note afterwards, we should not try to be assembling an all-embraccing legal web of inter-related parameters and statements too early, rather we should try to iterate to what we are trying to say at a reasonable pace (= much faster than hitherto !). Getting too hung up on particular party/ies' perception/s of how he/they would deploy in one favorite scenario, is just Part of The Plan and Not The Plan .......... The CG team would then pick up deplyoment guidelines work in due course next year, as discussed at the ABQ mtg. What guardbands would be recommended/necessary in different common situations would then be determined. Proposers of different AIs could also make suggestions, show results if desired for different situations if they so liked - and as I mentioned before explain to what extent the spec efficiency scales simply - or not - with larger blocks or sub-blocks. So can I raise, too, the issue of nominal 'default' blocks of 10 MHz or 2 x 5MHz again for a notional deployment - w/o guardbands - for the purpose providing a (reasoned) spectrum efficiency rating inc "internal " overheads.? See earlier correspondence on the other thread on this subject. BR, Dave James -----Original
Message-----
|