RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
David, Walter,
Joanne's proposal to calculate spectral efficiency relative to a 99%
emissions bandwidth is the only quantitative and broadly applicable
proposal I have seen to date for accounting for the real-world effects of
coexistence on spectral efficiency. In the absence of any other proposals,
would your concerns be addressed by employing the 99.9% emissions bandwidth
instead of the 99% emissions bandwidth?
Regards,
Marc
------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
From: "Shively, David" <david.shively@cingular.com>
Sender: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
To: Requirements Reflector <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:29:38 -0500
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
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3BA8C.31C3A900
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Walter,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I agree your points. For a realistic deployment =
in a licensed block of 5 MHz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(and assuming different network operators on either =
side of the block), the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>99% emission bandwidth will have to be somewhat less =
than 5 MHz.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Using "block size" in this way and also in =
the spectral efficiency calculations </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>will enable a consistent evaluation between =
proposals.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Also, the other block sizes (e.g. 1.25 MHz) should be =
treated in the same manner.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Best regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>David Shively</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Rausch, Walter F [GMG] [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com";>mailto:walter.f.rausch@m=
ail.sprint.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:50 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Joanne Wilson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Requirements =
Reflector</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral =
Efficiency (4.1.2)</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Joanne,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Walter Rausch</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3BA8C.31C3A900--
------- end -------