Re: stds-80220-eval-criteria: ECCG conference call, Tuesday Febru ary 24, 12-2pm EST
Farooq and all
I definitely think it is worth continuing this discussion on our
next call. I think the link budget is a great way to summarize
input parameters into our network level simulations.
However, before we establish how to use the link budget information as an
evaluation criteria, I think we need to decide exactly what information the
link budget will give us to separate proposals that is not already subsumed by
other parts of the evaluation criteria.
The overall group consensus has been to use network level simulations
to take into account effects of channel model, interference effects, and a
whole host of other factors on coverage, capacity, and service levels. In my
opinion the output metrics of these network simulations (see section
10 page 17 of http://ieee802.org/20/Contribs/C802.20-04-21.doc) subsume
any information we may hope to glean from the link budget.
I do not think the link budget will add information necessary to
separate proposals in terms of performance beyond what we are already
planning. So we should use the elements of the link budget as a tool
to agree upon and summarize assumptions and not attempt to use it
as an evaluation criteria.
Mike
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 08:05:38AM -0500, Khan, Farooq (Farooq) wrote:
>
> Anna,
> Thanks for the excellent summary.
>
> All,
> Please provide your comments by Monday (3/8) on the parameters outlined in Anna's email if you have any preference one way or the other.
>
> Also please provide your input on if ECCG should use maximum range as a performance metric for proposal comparison or not. I think this was left TBD over the last conference call.
>
> We plan to revisit link budget template topic over the next conference call (3/9).
>
> Regards,
> Farooq
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lai-King Tee [mailto:a.tee@samsung.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:30 PM
> To: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-eval-criteria: ECCG conference call, Tuesday
> February 24, 12-2pm EST
>
>
> As per Farooq's request, the outcomes of discussions on the link budget
> contribution are summarized as follows.
>
> During the evaluation conference call discussions, the following issues have
> been identified for additional information:
>
> 1) Antenna gain for BS and MS
> 2) Receiver noise figure at BS and MS
> 3) Max Transmitter power at the basestation (BS) and mobile station (MS)
>
> The question of whether the link budget template is used to ensure the same
> assumptions are applied to the simulations or, as one of the evaluation
> criteria was discussed. As Farooq has concluded at the end of the call, the
> maximum range may be used as a performance metric for comparison of the
> proposals, provided the maximum transmitter power are the same for the
> different proposals.
>
> The following information has been found after the conference call:
>
> For antenna gain, the 802.20 channel modeling document specifies BS antenna
> gain: 14 dBi for 3- sector cells, 17 dBi for 6-sector cells, as specified by
> 3GPP. For MS antenna, the antenna gain is -1 dBi.
>
> In the 1xEV-DV evluation methodology document, the values used are:
> 1) Antenna gains: 17 dBi for 3-sector BS, -1 dBi for MS
> 2) Receiver noise figures: 5 dB for BS, 10 dB for MS
> 3) Max transmitter (PA) power: 20 W (43 dBm) for BS, 200 mW (23 dBm) for MS
>
> The assumption for cable loss is 0 dB.
>
> In the HSDPA report [3GPP TR25.848 V4.0], the following parameter values for
> the forward link are found:
>
> 1) Antenna gains: 14 dBi, 3 sectors; 0 dBi for MS
> 2) Receiver noise figure: 9 dB (MS)
> 3) Max transmitter power: 44 dBm at BS
>
> While the antenna gains should be the same for vehicular, pedestrian and
> indoor users, I think we may need to include penetration losses in some
> cases.
>
> Please post your comments and suggestions to the reflector for further
> discussions.
>
> Best regards,
> Anna.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Lai-King Tee
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:59 AM
> To: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-eval-criteria: ECCG conference call, Tuesday
> February 24, 12-2pm EST
>
> Hi Farooq,
>
> Please find attached a contribution for the evaluation criteria document -
> link budget template.
>
> Sorry for the late contribution.
>
> Best regards,
> Anna.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Khan, Farooq (Farooq)
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:42 PM
> To: 'stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org'
> Subject: stds-80220-eval-criteria: ECCG conference call, Tuesday February
> 24, 12-2pm EST
>
>
> Tuesday February 24, 12-2pm EST
> Bridge Number: +1-800-450-3848 or 630-979-6500
> Conference Code: 180220
>
> AGENDA:
> - Phased Approach to Evaluation Criteria
>
> Please let me know if you want to add any other items to the agenda.
>
> =Farooq=