Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
Stewart et al,
I agree that we should set "a "floor" to the bandwidth of (say)
minimum 2.5MHz (for TDD) and 2 x 1.25MHz (for FDD)." However, nx125kHz
granularity seems too fine a granularity for many systems that are intended to
support a broadband service. This requirement would eliminate
otherwise valid technical proposals of systems that use sub-channels
broader than 125kHz. In fact, I believe it would surely mandate
an MBWA system with 125kHz subchannels or some sub multiple
thereof. If systems can achieve or exceed the performance in the PAR
by using such granularity, we should certainly consider them, but to
limit all systems under consideration to this granularity I think is
a step too far.
So I think we need to strike a good balance that would be granular enough to
allow MBWA systems to be deployed in different width licenses and not so
granular as to eliminate otherwise valid MBWA proposals. I believe the n x
2.5MHz for TDD and 2 x (nx1.25MHz) for FDD systems is an appropriate balance
between these two objectives.
Proposal:
"802.20 shall be deployable in system-wide spectrum allocations with a
granularity of N x (2x1.25MHz) for the FDD systems and N x 2.5MHz for TDD
systems."
Mike
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:03:15AM +1000, Wallace, Stewart J wrote:
> I agree with the principle of David's proposal - however, I think that we just need to somehow put a "floor" to the bandwidth of (say) minimum 2.5MHz (for TDD) and 2 x 1.25MHz (for FDD). The difficulty then seems to be that we may well be evolving a rather complicated definition of the minimum bandwidth requirements.
> 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: David Trinkwon [mailto:trinkwon@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 5:56 AM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org; fwatanabe@ieee.org; Kapoor Samir; Michael Youssefmir
> Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh; Wallace, Stewart J; Klerer Mark; 'Gal, Dan (Dan)'
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
>
>
>
> In certain bands (e.g. 3.5MHz) ETSI has a convention based around 1.75, 3.5, 7, 14 and 28MHz allocations / channels / block sizes etc, which is not compatible with a 1.25MHz raster. However, ETSI in fact species an n x 250kHz raster for channel / block size, and in some bands (e.g. MMDS) the FCC specifies n x 125kHz.
>
> So perhaps a granularity based on n x 0.125 MHz (for TDD) and 2n x 0.125 MHz (for FDD) would satisfy everyone. There are technologies which can simultaneously "stack" a number of "narrow" channels to provide more aggregate bandwidth to specific users, especially in conjunction with adaptive arrays and other frequency techniques (e.g. Beamreach)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Trinkwon
> Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
> USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
> UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [ mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Michael Youssefmir
> Sent: 18 August 2003 20:20
> To: Kapoor Samir; fwatanabe@ieee.org; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc: 'Gal, Dan (Dan)'; Klerer Mark; 'Wallace, Stewart J'; Bharatula,
> Ganesh; Michael Youssefmir
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel
> bandwidth resolution
>
>
>
>
> Khurram, Fujio, et al.
>
> Here's an effort to get to consensus:
>
> In line with the comments on Channel Bandwidth, we propose that 802.20 should
> not mandate overall system-wide channel bandwidths (i.e. license
> bandwidths)in the requirements document. However, we could include a
> requirement regarding the bandwidth granularity such as,
>
> Proposal:
> "802.20 shall be deployable in system-wide spectrum allocations with a
> granularity of N x (2x1.25MHz) for the FDD systems and N x 2.5MHz for TDD systems."
>
> Rationale:
>
> Spectrum allocations and licenses vary on a per country basis in accordance
> with national regulatory decisions. To afford 802.20 the opportunity to be
> deployed in as many markets as possible globally, the 802.20 standard should be
> designed to accommodate deployments in mobile licenses of varying sizes. A 1.25 Mhz
> bandwidth granularity is consistent with that preferred in North American
> and adequately covers the licensed mobile bands worldwide. It is also consistent
> with other standardization efforts to not make the overall channel bandwidth
> a requirement. This proposed requirement also accommodates the interests of
> operators who would like to deploy 802.20 systems in wider channel bandwidth
> licenses and have access to such.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:54:49PM -0400, Kapoor Samir wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Dan's view that the PAR provides good guidance in this matter.
> > The examples of 1.25 MHz and 5 MHz (for FDD) are by far the predominant
> > licensed channel bandwidths available worldwide. Moreover, the group
> > certainly has the option of reevaluating the standard in future releases to
> > take advantage of higher bandwidths as and when they become available. Also,
> > having too many typical bandwidths can complicate the task of evaluating
> > different proposals that might each be proposed for very different
> > bandwidths.
> > Samir
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gal, Dan (Dan) [ mailto:dgal@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:48 PM
> > To: 'Fujio Watanabe'; Joanne Wilson; Klerer Mark; 'Wallace, Stewart J';
> > stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> > Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
> > Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel
> > bandwidth resolution
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > My view is that we should stick to the PAR definitions: 1.25 MHz and 5 MHz
> > channel-bandwidths for FDD, and, if I understand correctly, 2.50 MHz and 10
> > MHz channels BWs for TDD. In future releases of IEEE 802.20, we may evaluate
> > and adopt broader channels, as the evolving mobile wireless market may
> > require.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fujio Watanabe [ mailto:fwatanabe@ieee.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:09 PM
> > To: Joanne Wilson; Klerer Mark; 'Wallace, Stewart J';
> > stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> > Cc: Bharatula, Ganesh
> > Subject: 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>