1 / 8

REVIEW OF SE 19 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COEXISTENCE IN 24 - 29 GHz - 2

REVIEW OF SE 19 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COEXISTENCE IN 24 - 29 GHz - 2. Agenda: Problems with technical report and recommendation discussed at last SE19 Progress since last meeting Interim meeting Possible conclusions on coexistence. PROBLEMS WITH SE19 REPORT METHODOLOGY. GUARD BANDS

teva
Télécharger la présentation

REVIEW OF SE 19 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COEXISTENCE IN 24 - 29 GHz - 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REVIEW OF SE 19 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COEXISTENCE IN 24 - 29 GHz - 2 Agenda: • Problems with technical report and recommendation discussed at last SE19 • Progress since last meeting • Interim meeting • Possible conclusions on coexistence

  2. PROBLEMS WITH SE19 REPORT METHODOLOGY GUARD BANDS • ISOP analysis incorrect • wrong geometry • inappropriate measure - depends on operator market strategy • gives average not worst case probability • TS-TS analysis incorrect - very pessimistic • Two channel guard band might be needed, for FDD or TDD systems, depending on interference criterion (1% ISOP) • But ISOP not a very useful criterion

  3. PROBLEMS WITH SE19 REPORT METHODOLOGY COORDINATION DISTANCE • ISOP analysis of uplink interference incorrect, and optimistic • TS - TS interference analysis questionable • TDD CS - CS analysis ignores power control, therefore pessimistic • Coordination distance of 33 km between service area boundaries appears reasonable conclusion

  4. PROBLEMS WITH SE19 REPORT GENERAL • No simple criteria without severely constraining technology choice, and potentially wasting spectrum through large guard bands • Areas affcted by adjacent block interference are small, and easily predictable using cell planning system

  5. PROGRESS SINCE LAST SE19 MEETING • TS - TS analysis complete • This relevant for coexistence between TDD systems, and between TDD and FDD systems • Requires Monte-Carlo approach to quantify • Shown not to be a limiting issue on either guard bands or coordination distances

  6. SE19 INTERIM MEETING • Objective - to agree new version of report on “The Coexistence of Two FWA Cells in the 24.5 - 29.5 GHz band” • Scheduled to be held at Reg.T.P., Mainz, Germany, 15 - 16 May 2000 • Will be based on new draft documents currently being prepared

  7. POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS ON COEXISTENCE - 1 GUARD BANDS • Impossible to guarantee coexistence between any system types with reasonable guard band • Areas where interference might occur highly predictable given knowledge of system deployment • Operator could use “internal” guard band (but lose capacity) or deal with potential interference through cell planning tool • Regulator may allocate “comfort” guard bands but will not guarantee no interference

  8. POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS ON COEXISTENCE - 2 COORDINATION DISTANCE • 33 km between service area boundaries appears to be adequate • Smaller separation may actually be adequate because of terrain screening (Aegis report)

More Related