Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Duane, I see what you mean. I will try to submit a simple contribution
for Dallas session.
Best, Rick
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:30 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Rick,
I suspect some MSO's would not agree with 8 MHz spectrum chunks, 6 would
also be objectionable to some. That leaves 2 MHz or 96 bits. Might work
if someone were to make such a proposal.
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
From: Rick Li [mailto:Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:15 PM
To: Duane Remein; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Duane, thank you.
If we choose 8Mhz as the fixed block, 192MHz/8Mhz = 24 bits are needed
to represent the EPoC band. For exclusion bands, various pieces can be
similarly and explicitly defined by a separate bit map. As a result,
this approach can either have a single bit map to represent either EPoC
(inclusion) band or exclusion band, or both (the two bit maps would be a
full set representing the entire spectrum from lower limit to upper
limit bound).
Best, Rick
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Rick,
Currently we have not set a limit on the number of internal exclusion
bands. I recall this being briefly mentioned some time ago but I am not
aware of any straw poll of vote on the idea. I suspect operators are
well aware that if they chop up the spectrum they will get less than
optimal performance.
The bit mask idea has not been proposed at this point (I'm assuming you
would need a mask of 192 bits, is that the idea?). You are certainly
free to make such a contribution. IEEE is contribution driven as I'm
sure you are aware.
These questions would be addressed in the RF Spectrum Ad Hoc not the
Channel Model.
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
From: Rick Li [mailto:Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:56 PM
To: Duane Remein; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Duane and all,
(1) With up to 3 exclusion bands, and the minimum contiguous DS
spectrum of 24MHz, it is likely to create small fragments of unusable
spectrum in between the exclusion bands and EPOC bands, especially below
1002MHz as there are various existing services and different
regions/MSOs have different channel allocations.
(2) Are three exclusion bands adequate or there might be scenarios
where more than 3 exclusion bands may be valuable or even necessary (to
protect pieces of legacy services for example)?
(3) Instead of trying to define up to three exclusion bands of
variable width, should we entertain the approach where many fixed width
(small) exclusion bands can be use and represented by a bit map and bit
mask? For example, 8MHz (or 6MHz) fixed width, if a bit is set in the
mask, then this band is excluded.
As I have not been able to attend the channel Ad hoc, perhaps these
questions were already discussed and addressed.
Best, Rick
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:32 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Slides from today's RF Spectrum call
Attached
Mark,
Please post
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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