| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Correction: I forgot to double the 5Mhz number
in item 1 of the proposal-sorry Mark Proposal for a Way Forward: It is becoming obvious that there are
constituencies for both the 1.25 - 5 MHz channel bandwidth range and for
the channel bandwidth range of 10-20 MHz. I would, therefore, like to propose
that we accommodate both ranges (see below). I would, first like to point out that when
we were speaking about 1.25 and 5 MHz that is for paired FDD spectrum, i.e. the
total bandwidth a service provider will need is 2 x 1.25 and 2 x 5 MHz (I.E.
2.5 and 10MHz allocations). For TDD systems that translate to 2.5 and 10 MHz
unpaired spectrum, respectively. (This is made clear in a footnote to the Table
in item 18 of the PAR { 802.20
- PD-02 } for the 1.25 MHz system - the PAR table does not show the 5
MHz parameters). I propose we stick with this convention of referring to
bandwidth of the channel in this way. This will imply that when we speak about
10 MHz and 20 MHz channel bandwidth we are speaking about allocations of 20 and
40 MHz, respectively (with TDD free to split this bandwidth asymmetrically). I would like to propose that we agree to
the following: 1. Accommodate channel bandwidths of 1.25, 5,
10 and 20 MHz (i.e. systems requiring allocation of 2.5, 10, 20 and 40
MHz). 2. The individual systems are allowed to
optimize their PHY and MAC designs for bandwidth and duplexing
scheme. 3. The Requirements document either includes a
separate section or we create an Addendum that addresses requirements for the
10 and 20 MHz systems. [I propose that we need to get some closure on the
issues raised on the conference call and prior e-mails as to, e.g. whether we
envision this to be used only for capacity increase (and CAPEX reduction
- as noted by Jim) or whether we (also) envision the introduction of new
services that require more bandwidth (as indicated by David McGinnis) so that
there is some guidance for the design of these systems]. I believe the
above would allow us to move forward on a common basis creating a specification
(or specifications) that will satisfy the various international needs for now
and the foreseeable future. With the understanding
that the 20MHz design will require an allocation of 40 MHz I would be
interested in opinions whether we already need to address this at this time. Regards, Mark Klerer |