Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
It is not practical to have one AI to fit a number of different bandwidths,
although one may argue that SDR will enable it in the future. Since the
technologies for an AI corresponding to a specified bandwidth (e.g., narrow
band) are most likely different from those for another AI corresponding to
another bandwidth (e.g., broadband), a system cannot be specified without a
concrete value of bandwidth. For example, even if we tune some parameters of
AI's in a PCS band, I don't think this AI can work in a broad bandwidth
case, such as 100MHz required for the systems beyond IMT-2000 according to
WRC'2003. Therefore, I would like to see several typical bandwidths
specified for the MBWA.
By the way, if 1.25MHz is called "broadband", what will we call 100MHz?
-- super broadband :)
Fujio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanne Wilson" <joanne@arraycomm.com>
To: "Klerer Mark" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>; "'Wallace, Stewart J'"
<Stewart.J.Wallace@team.telstra.com>; <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Cc: "Bharatula, Ganesh" <Ganesh.Bharatula@team.telstra.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
resolution
>
> I agree with Mark, Stewart, Arif and Mike on this point. If we adopt
> a plan for only 5, 10, 15,... MHz channel bandwidths we will limiting the
> market opportunity for 802.20 systems unnecessarily. From an economies
> of scale perspective, I don't see how that would be in any of our
interests.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Klerer Mark
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: 'Wallace, Stewart J'; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel
> bandwidth resolution
>
>
>
> I agree with Stewart and Arif. I believe we are trying to spec a system
that
> is deployable in the identified spectrum space and is scalable with
existing
> market demands and constraints.
>
> Mark Klerer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wallace, Stewart J [mailto:Stewart.J.Wallace@team.telstra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:59 PM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth
> resolution
>
>
> section 4.1.4
>
> In the case of Australia, I would just like to highlight that the 3.4GHz
> band (covering 3.425 GHz ~ 3.575 GHz) has already been licenced under a
> 15-year assured tenure regime, based on a lot size granularity of 3.5 MHz.
> This approach was taken by our regulator in view of current FWA
technologies
> as the primary usage at that time. I understand that there are several
> other countries with similar band structures (although not necessarily
with
> the same tenure regime). Thus, a 5MHz minimum channelisation restriction
> would seem to potentially exclude Australia (at least) from the MBWA
market
> for the next 15+ years.
>
> In that context, I would suggest that a more flexible approach as
suggested
> by Arif would seem to be more prudent.
>
> regards
>
> Stewart J Wallace
> Technical Regulatory Manager
> Radiocommunications & Wireless Networks
> Telstra Regulatory Directorate
> Tel: (+61 3) 8627 8053
> Fax: (+61 3) 9614 0670
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ansari, Arif [mailto:Arif.Ansari@Nextel.com]
> Sent: Friday, 15 August 2003 8:33 AM
> To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Fujio Watanabe;
> stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc: Dennett, Steve
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
>
>
>
> A 1.25 Mhz channel bandwidth is consistent with the preferred North
American
> granularity and is the motivation for such a channel bandwidth in 3GPP2.
> The original text included 1.25 and 5 MHz as examples, again consistent
with
> other standardization efforts to not make the channel bandwidth a
> requirement. This adequately covers the mobile licensed band worldwide,
and
> the follow-on text also included the possbility of wider channels. At the
> minimum, I would suggest that 1.25 MHz not be excluded, while 5 MHz and
> multiples thereof can also be included. Ideally I would like to see all
> these channel bandwidths as no more than examples.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG] [mailto:khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:19 PM
> To: Fujio Watanabe; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
>
>
>
> I would like to add to Fujio's comments and my earlier contribution.
> Multiples of 5 MHz is critical for both a technical performance as well
> economic viability (capital efficiency) given other performance
> parameters (system throughput, number of users, broadband data models
> etc.)
>
> Thanks and look forward to any rationales why less than 5 MHz could be
> an option for the MBWA system tied to our current performance
> requirements.
>
>
>
> Khurram P. Sheikh
> Chief Technology Advisor
> Sprint- Broadband Wireless
> Tel (SM): 650-513-2056
> Tel(KC): 913-762-1645
> Mobile: 650-906-8989
> khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fujio Watanabe [mailto:fwatanabe@ieee.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:57 PM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
>
>
>
> I would like to make a comment on John's email of July 23rd on section
> 4.1.4
> as follows.
>
> I don't agree to eliminate this section (John said "stricken") because
> the
> bandwidth is one of important basic system requirements. A system
> cannot be
> specified without concrete values of bandwidth.
> A broader bandwidth is a current trend of wireless communications, e.g.,
> WLAN (e.g., 20MHz), UWB (e.g., >300MHz), possible systems beyond
> IMT-2000
> (e.g., 100MHz) as well as a general requirement for Mobile "Broadband"
> Wireless Access.
>
> I also understand John's rationale to not limit the lower bound of the
> bandwidth.
>
> Therefore, how about to have several typical numbers for the bandwidth
> as
> options in this section?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Fujio
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fan John [mailto:J.Fan@flarion.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:15 PM
> > To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
> > Subject: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > These are comments on rev5 of the document from Marc
> > Goldberg, Michael Youssefmir, Samir Kapoor, Joanne Wilson,
> > Arif Ansari and John Fan.
> >
> > --John
>
> > 4.1.4. Channel Bandwidth
> >
> > Action: This section should be stricken.
> >
> > Rationale: The current text requires "multiples of 5 MHz" for
> > deployment. No rationale for 5Mhz has been given on the
> > reflector. Beyond that, a 5 MHz minimum bandwidth would
> > limit the applicability of the MBWA AI in many of the
> > available licensed bands below 3.5 GHz.
> >
>
>
>
>