Re: [802.3_EPOC] another argument for MCS
I was going to ask whether the next step would be also protecting against
GPS signaling as well as satellite radio and such . it seems to me that it
is the problem which has been solved in the past, as Rich points out.
Marek
From: Rich Prodan [mailto:rprodan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 13:12
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] another argument for MCS
On the other hand, it is easier to avoid LTE interference by carrier nulling
the small amount of spectrum impacted. This is also why premium services
today are not placed in the 88 to 108 MHz FM band on many systems.
From: Tom Williams [mailto:T.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:58 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] another argument for MCS
All-
Here is a another good reason to use different MCS'es: some homes will have
LTE interference and will need a more powerful (and less efficient) FEC to
overcome the ingressing interference.
Again, it makes little sense to force everybody to the lowest common
denominator when the lowest comment denominator is low and the spread is
high.
I personally think a big value of multiple MCS'es may be 1-1.8GHz downstream
band. At these frequencies, the attenuation differences will be huge due to
different cable lengths between the subscriber right off the node and
subscriber at the end of the line. Once attenuation gets too high, S/N
falls.
Tom Williams
Cablelabs
_____
<="" p="">
_____
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1