| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Walter,
I agree your points. For a realistic deployment in a licensed block of 5 MHz
(and assuming different network operators on either side of the block), the
99% emission bandwidth will have to be somewhat less than 5 MHz.
Using "block size" in this way and also in the spectral efficiency calculations
will enable a consistent evaluation between proposals.
Also, the other block sizes (e.g. 1.25 MHz) should be treated in the same manner.
Best regards,
David Shively
-----Original Message-----
From: Rausch, Walter F [GMG] [mailto:walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Joanne Wilson
Cc: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Requirements Reflector
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
Joanne,
I have great concerns that while your proposal is likely suitable for systems whose adjacent block operators are utilizing the same technology and concur with the shared operation, it falls short of protecting such adjacent block operations that may be utilizing other technologies. The reality of field deployability dictates that emissions that fall outside of the authorized channel block(s) must conform to applicable regulatory constraints. As a consequence, guardbands must be incorporated into the channel bandwidth AND the spectral efficiency calculations. Channel bandwidth is then the sum of the "occupied bandwidth" (the 99% power bandwidth in your proposal) plus the required guardbands.
Walter Rausch