Re: [802.3_EPOC] another argument for MCS
Good point, but I am afraid that we are in the early stages of these (and other) signals being deployed in our bands, and a lot more bandwidth will need to be given up in the future.
On the GPS signals, I am worried that we will be the aggressor. Transmitters are in outer space and interfering signals should be very weak, I would think.
Tom
From: Rich Prodan [mailto:rprodan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Tom Williams; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 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