View
223
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
1/38
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Presentation on behalf of the
Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
Response to Nokias Paper on Interference Issues ITU-B3 1900 Band and ITU Band 1: 1920-1980/2110-2170 MHz
Dr Y S Rao
Contribution by QUALCOMM & Lucent
13 October 2004 New Delhi
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
2/38
AUSPI Proprietary 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
3/38
AUSPI Proprietary 3
Synopsis of AUSPIs stand
Present allocation in 800 MHz for CDMA Not sufficient for
multiple operators.
Internationally allocation for large operators varies from
10+10MHz to 20+20 MHz (average allocation 15+15 MHz).
CDMA operators need additional allocation in other bands togrow their networks.
Globally, CDMA systems work in 800 MHz and 1900 MHz,
with the exception of Korea
Korean PCS is unique and is not used anywhere else in theworld.
AUSPI has proposed service neutral plan of 800 MHz and
1900 MHz for CDMA and 900 MHz and 1800 MHz for GSM in
line with international standards.
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
4/38
AUSPI Proprietary 4
Main points of NOKIAs presentation
GSM is opposed to 1900 MHz allocation for use by CDMAOperators
It overlaps with WARC92 recommended IMT-2000 Band of 1920-1980 MHz paired with 2110-2170 MHz
Even a small allocation of 10+10 MHz for CDMA2000
operation in the USPCS Band will cause unacceptableinterference to a WCDMA system in the WARC92 IMT-2000band
Adequate protection of the WCDMA uplink will require:
Very high rejection filters at every CDMA2000 and WCDMA Base
Station Guard bands greater than 5 MHz
Site to site coordination
15% additional IMT-2000 sites to account for lost coverage
Several thousand Euros added per site to pay for all this
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
5/38
AUSPI Proprietary 5
Main points of NOKIAs presentation contd
There is no incentive for a CDMA2000 operator to invest
in filters
Experience of mixed CDMA/GSM in 800/900 MHz in
India/Asia show that CDMA operators neglect additionalfiltering
Operators do not coordinate in practice
Adequate protection of the CDMA downlink Interference
from IMT-2000/ WCDMA User Equipment (UE) andUSPCS CDMA UE is not possible
This will result in a USPCS CDMA capacity loss up to 35%
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
6/38
AUSPI Proprietary 6
Our General Response
GSM opposition is unjustified: WARC-2000 has recommended different bands for IMT-
2000/3G allowing flexibility for the administration to chooseany band from:
806 960 MHz,
17101885 MHz,
25002690 MHz.
ITU-R recommendation No. M.1036.2 identified differentpaired frequency arrangements for IMT-2000
A1&A2 B1 to B6
3GPP has already standardised DCS1800 for 3G/UMTS[No. TS25.105(Rel-5)] and has already been requested toquickly standardise 900 MHz for the same
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
7/38AUSPI Proprietary 7
Our General Responsecontd
Notwithstanding its position to have the USPCS band
allocated for CDMA operators, AUSPI now responds to Nokia
interference issues with a mixed band plan of USPCS and
the WARC IMT-2000
As per the ERC-101 Report, there are three methods to study
interference between two adjacent frequency bands:
Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL)
Enhanced Minimum Coupling Loss (E- MCL)
Monte Carlo Method
Method used by Nokia is MCL
As per the ERC-101 Report, the MCL method evaluates the
worst case scenario and gives spectrally inefficient results
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
8/38AUSPI Proprietary 8
TECHNICAL RESPONSE
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
9/38AUSPI Proprietary 9
Clarification on band allocations near 2 GHz(ITU Definitions)
Nokia states on page 3: even the allocation of as little as 10 MHz for PCSCDMA within 1900-1910/1980-1990 MHz will severely interfere the uplink
portion (1920 - 1980 MHz) of the ITU-R globally harmonized IMT- 2000 2 GHz
band.
We believe this is confusing the technical discussion since IMT-2000(3G)
systems can be deployed in both of these bands. In ITU-R M.1036-2 the ITU
has stated that the following 3 bands (in addition to others-i.e. 1710-1770 MHz/
2110-2170 MHz) are equally valid bands for IMT-2000 and that administrations
can implement all or parts of these frequency arrangements for IMT-2000
services in the 2 GHz region. It is up to the Administrations of each country to
decide which arrangement, or mix of arrangements best suits its own needs.
ITU band 1, commonly termed the UMTS band 1920-1980/ 2110 -2170 MHz
ITU band 2, commonly termed the DCS-1800 band
1710-1785/1805-1880 MHz
ITU band 3, commonly termed the USPCS band
1850-1910/ 1930 -1990 MHz
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
10/38AUSPI Proprietary 10
Existing band allocations near 2 GHz(ITU Definitions)
We also note that each Standards Organization, eg
3GPP and 3GPP2, refer to these bands by other
designations
To avoid confusion in this presentation, we will refer to
these bands by their ITU designations, as shown on the
previous chart
The next chart shows these bands as defined by the
ITU.
Red lines indicate mobile transmit bands
Bluelines indicate BTS transmit bands
Green line indicates DECT assigned bands in India
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
11/38AUSPI Proprietary 11
0
1
2
3
4
5
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
1 UMTS 1920-1980/2110-2170
2 DCS-1800 1710-1785/1805-1880
3 USPCS 1850-1910/1930-1990
4 DECT 1880-1900/-
Existing ITU Band allocations near 2 GHz
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
12/38AUSPI Proprietary 12
0
1
2
3
4
5
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
1 UMTS 1920-1980/2110-2170
2 DCS-1800 1710-1785/1805-1880
3 USPCS 1900-1910/1980-1990
4 DECT 1880-1900/-
Frequency allocation arrangementaddressed by NOKIA
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
13/38AUSPI Proprietary 13
NOKIAs claims on a mixed band plan
Nokia claim page 3: allocation of even 10 MHz from the USPCS(ITU B3) band will essentially block the IMT-2000 evolution
The previous figure shows the allocation arrangement addressed byNokia
Our response:
Normal design practice for this arrangement will place the last WCDMA
carrier 2.5MHz below the 1980 MHz boundary and the first CDMA 2000carrier 1.25MHz above the 1980 MHz boundary. This arrangementplaces these carriers 3.75 MHz apart, and provides an inherent guardband of 1.2 MHz
1.2 MHz = 3.75(3.84+1.25)/2
Additional guard band can be obtained without essentially blocking
IMT- 2000 evolution Dropping 1 CDMA 2000 carrier gains 1.25 MHz
Dropping 1 WCDMA carrier gains 5 MHz
Reducing the WCDMA channel spacing to 4.8 MHz gains 2 MHz
These inherent and easily increased guard bands reduce therequirement on any filter designs needed to assure interference is not
an issue
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
14/38
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
15/38
AUSPI Proprietary 15
Interference issues with mixed band planEmissions contd
Nokia claim page 4: Nokia quotes Lucent as saying 77dB of filtering at the CDMA2000 BTS may be required to solve the BTS to BTS noise interference issue.This supports an overall Isolation target of 107dB, as derived by Lucent.
Nokia also concludes that the only way to prevent interference from spuriousemissions coming from CDMA 2000 BTS transmitters in the ITU-B3 band intoWCDMA BTS receivers in the ITU-B1 band is to install additional filters in all ITU-B3 base stations.
Our comments: The requirement for 77 dB of filtering arises from Nokias assumption that
30dB of antenna isolation is all that can be obtained. But this limit onlyapplies to systems sharing the same antenna, and over 50dB of isolation canbe obtained in both collocated and non collocated arrangements that do notshare an antenna.
A more reasonable approach, stated by Lucent, is to assume a filter with
60dB rejection. Then the required antenna isolation is 47dB, well withinstandard practice.
It is not the case that expensive technical modifications of infrastructure mustoccur to permit the use of some of the PCS and ITU-B1 frequency bands. Wewill later show the only modification required is to add filters.
We further believe that 60dB filter rejection is the maximum required and willshow that it can be obtained in real, commercially available designs.
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
16/38
AUSPI Proprietary 16
Interference issues with mixed band planEmissions contdOur comments, contd In computing the -107 dB isolation requirement, Lucent used a worst case
Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL) analysis procedure with CDMA 2000emissions at -73dBm/Hz, plus assuming this interference arrived at theWCDMA BTS receiver 10dB below the noise floor, estimated at -170dBm/Hz. ( i.e. from a 4dB noise figure receiver). This worst case analysis
serves well to establish limits on the interference issue. Even in this worst case condition we believe that coexistence is
achievable.
However, ERC report 101 [1] states that the minimum coupling methodyields pessimistic results when compared to real world results, andrecommends a procedure if more accurate Monte-Carlo simulations are notavailable. One particular comment stands out:
The degradation should be estimated with the desired signal at 3dBabove the minimum sensitivity.
In line with these guidelines, we believe a 1dB degradation in noise figure asmore reasonable for CDMA systems, and which is actually more severe thanthat recommended by ERC-101.
This sets the allowable interference density at -176 dBm/Hz
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
17/38
AUSPI Proprietary 17
Interference issues with mixed band planEmissions continued
Our comments, contd
Given an allowable interference density of -176dBm/Hz at the ITU-B1 BTS receiver, and a specified emission density or 75dBm/Hzfrom the CDMA 2000 transmitter, the required isolation is 101 dB,
not 107dB If the emission density is at a more typical level, as much as 22 dB
below the specified level, the required isolation is 79 dB, far lessthan the worst case estimates
Based on these values, we would consider a reasonable isolationrequirement to be not more than 90 dB, which could be met with a50 dB filter and 40 dB of antenna coupling loss
In any case, the reduction in required isolation can be used toreduce the required antenna coupling loss, the filter rejection loss, orthe guard band
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
18/38
AUSPI Proprietary 18
Interference issues with mixed band planGeneral
Nokia claim on page 5: use of mitigation techniques will not work becausethere is no incentive for the perspective PCS CDMA operator in 1900-1910/1980-1990 MHz to invest and to provide the necessary additionalfiltering. Severe interference has been observed in the 800 MHz band, wherea similar boundary condition occurs.
Our response:
Nokia fails to consider that the ITU-B1 band can be shared** betweenWCDMA and CDMA 2000. CDMA 2000 may well end up on both sides of the1980 boundary. To avoid interference later, the boundary problem must beaddressed now
It is also not true that in case of CDMA 2000/GSM band plans in 800/900 MHzbands in India the operators have neglected the need for filters It is a fact that CDMA filters have been provided to solve the 850MHz
issue In addition there was a resolution between the operators to take the
necessary steps and to the best of our knowledge there are no significantinterference issues between CDMA and GSM in 800/900 MHz bands
** Notwithstanding its position to have the ITU-B3 band allocated for CDMA operators,AUSPI is responding to Nokias interference issues concerning a mixed band plan
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
19/38
AUSPI Proprietary 19
Interference issues with mixed band planBlocking
Nokia claim page 6: Use of mitigation techniques, if imposed upon theoperators, are not viable due to large site coordination distance, large guardbands, high cost and need for additional sites due to degradation. 114dB oftotal isolation will be required, and sites will need to be 300 Meters aparteven when 60dB of filtering is added at WCDMA receivers
Our response:
After reviewing typical data we believe 114 dB isolation is notrequired for the ITU-B3 to ITU-B1 blocking interference condition
In computing this number Lucent again used a worst case analysisprocedure
First, Lucent assumed a CDMA2000 transmitted power of 46.8dBm(for three carriers). We agree with this assumption
Lucent then computed the allowable blocking level at the WCDMAreceiver at -66.8dBm at the receiver input from the WCDMA ACSspecification
The difference of these numbers is 113.6 dB, rounded to theisolation requirement of 114dB
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
20/38
AUSPI Proprietary 20
Interference issues with mixed band planBlockingcontdOur response continued: Actual blocking measurements have been performed in generic programs with co-
operative partner FDD vendors and indirectly as part of co-siting tests on ITU-B1
operators FDD networks. These experiments were performed on six different FDD
vendors equipment and across all TDD channels in the core ITUB1 bands. These
measurements have been averaged to protect confidentiality and are summarised
below. Note these are considerably higher than the default specification of -55 dBm.
At 5 MHz offset the interfering signal was37dBm, 18 dB larger than the specified
level of -55dBm, and about 30 dB larger than the worst case calculated level of66.8
dBm.
Interfering channel (TDD signal) Interfering signal level for 1dB noise
rise in 1922 MHz FDD UL
1900-1905 MHz -9dBm
1905-1910 MHz -17dBm
1910-1915 MHz -27dBm
1915-1920 MHz -37dBm
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
21/38
AUSPI Proprietary 21
Interference issues with mixed band planBlocking contd
Our response continued: As before, after reviewing this analysis, we believe this is too severe
when using the worst case minimum coupling loss (MCL) method ofcomputing system coexistence
Given a transmitted power of 46.8dBm from three CDMA carriers,
and aspecified blocking level of -55dBm at the WCDMA receiver fora 5MHz offset, the computed isolation is 101.8dB, not 114dB
Given a transmitted power of 46.8dBm from three CDMA carriers,and a typical blocking level of -37dBm at the WCDMA receiver for a5MHz offset, the computed isolation is 83.8dB, far less than theworst case 114dB
As before, we would consider a reasonable isolation requirement tobe not more than 90 dB, which could be met with a 50 dB filter and40 dB of antenna coupling loss
In any case, the reduction in required isolation can be used toreduce the required antenna coupling loss, the filter rejection loss, orthe guard band
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
22/38
AUSPI Proprietary 22
Interference issues with mixed band planBlocking contd
Nokia claim page 6: Use of mitigation techniques, if imposed upon theoperators, are not viable due to large site coordination distance, large guardbands, high cost and need for additional sites due to degradation. 54 dB ofantenna isolation will be required, and sites will need to be 300 Meters aparteven when 60dB of filtering is added at WCDMA receivers. (This is to meet the114 dB total isolation requirement)
Our response continued: Site coordination distances: We do not agree with Nokias conclusion that a
300 meter minimum site-site distance is needed when 54dB of isolation isdesired. In line 6 of their table on page 6, we see Nokia has listed 54dB as theavailable antenna isolation. Since the Free Space loss at 300 Meters at 1980MHz is 88dB (as shown in the next chart) this means that Nokia has assumedBTS antenna gains of 17dB each and that they are directed exactly at eachother. Nokia also neglected any cable losses in their analysis
It is recommended ( ERC-101) that 10 dB antenna gains be used whendetermining interference. Using these values reduces the free space lossrequirement to 74dB and the site to site spacing to about 75 Meters
Analytical and measured data ( see later charts) show that 54 dB total isolationis also quite possible when antennas are mounted on the same mast
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
23/38
AUSPI Proprietary 23
Free Space Transmission Loss vs Distance (Assumes Isotropic Antennas)
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
0.01 0.10 1.00
Distance (Km)
Loss(dB)
1980 MHz 15.0 Meter BTS 15.0 Meter
Free Space loss model for BTS to BTSinterference calculations
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
24/38
AUSPI Proprietary 24
Antenna coupling for antennas mountedon a common mast
The above data may be found in prediction of Mutual Coupling between Base Station Antenna
Arrays, RAWCON 2002 conference paper.
These measurements are comparable to the following table found in contribution UK WP8F
WP(04)026, which was aimed at solving the boundary problem between TDD and FDD bands in
Europe. The data applies equally well in the case here
(a) Broadside Configuration
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20-10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Separation Distance (inches)
Coupling
(dB)
Measured
Predicted
(b) Colinear Configuration
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Separation Distance (inches)
Coupling
(dB)
Measured
Predicted
Antenna configuration Coupling lossDual antennas in the same radome 30dBDefault separation on the same mast 1m 55-65dB
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
25/38
AUSPI Proprietary 25
Interference issues with mixed band planFilter Characteristics
Nokia claim page 7: Lucent proposal that interference problems can bemitigated by providing 2.25 MHz guard band and 60 dB additional filteringat the CDMA BS and WCDMA BS is not practical
Our response:
Considering the blocks at the band edges will most likely be 5 or10MHz wide, it is quite possible to design filters that can provide 60
dB rejection in a very small frequency range from the band edge The next chart shows the measured response of a low cost BTS
filter that can meet the objections from Nokia given a 5 MHzallocation at the edge of the band
This filter has 60 dB of rejection within 1 MHz from the band edge,
coupled with less than 0.75 dB of insertion loss. It will easily support3 CDMA2000 carriers or 1 WCDMA carrier
If the edge band allocations at 1980 MHz were 5MHz each, usingthis filter would result in the need for NO added guard band
If this filter replaced the existing filters, rather than added to theexisting filter, there would be essentially no loss in coverage
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
26/38
AUSPI Proprietary 26
Suitable filter for 1980 band edge isolationfor 5MHz allocations
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
27/38
AUSPI Proprietary 27
Interference issues with mixed band planFilter Issue (repeated)
Nokia claim page 7: Lucent proposal that interference problems canbe mitigated by providing 2.25 MHz guard band and 60 dBadditional filtering at the CDMA BS and WCDMA BS is notpractical:
Our response:
The next chart shows the simulated response of a low cost BTSfilter that can meet the objections from Nokia given a 10 MHzallocation at the edge of the band
This filter has 60 dB of rejection 2.5 MHz from the band edge,coupled with less than 0.5 dB of insertion loss in the desired band
This implies that some emissions would pass through and additionalmeans for isolation are required
Some options were discussed earlier, and using the Lucentsuggestion of having 4.8MHz spacing between WCDMA carriers isenough to solve this problem with no loss in the total number ofcarriers in either band
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
28/38
AUSPI Proprietary 28
Suitable filter for 1980 band edge isolationfor 10 MHz allocations
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
29/38
AUSPI Proprietary 29
BTS to BTS interference issues Summary
Using minimum coupling loss methods to establish Isolation requirements
leads to overly pessimistic results, not representative of the real world. Using specified performance values for transmitters and receivers to establish
Isolation requirements also leads to overly pessimistic results, since they arenot representative of the actual equipment performance.
We believe 90 dB isolation is adequate to meet the BTS to BTS interferenceconditions for both the emission and blocking issues. But that up to 114 dB
can be met with a combination of filters and antenna isolation if needed inextreme cases.
60 dB rejection filters are available
50 dB of antenna isolation is quite possible with good practice, for collocatedand non-collocated systems. Only 30 dB is possible for systems that share thesame antenna.
50 dB of antenna isolation can be achieved with site to site spacing of 30Meters.
40 dB of antenna isolation can be achieved with site to site spacing of 10Meters.
If the edge band allocations at 1980 MHz were 5MHz each, filters areavailable which would result in the need for NO added guard band.
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
30/38
AUSPI Proprietary 30
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset tothe PCS CDMA handset, Monte-Carlo method
Nokia claim on page 9: mixed plan will result in interferencebetween the IMT-2000 handset to the PCS CDMA handset whenthey are in close proximity to each other
Lucent has provided TRAI with the results of a Monte-Carlo methodto estimate the issue of mobile station interference We will not repeat that presentation here, but do restate exactly the
results:
Under the assumed conditions, CDMA downlink capacitydegradation is
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
31/38
AUSPI Proprietary 31
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to thePCS CDMA handset, MCL methodcontd
In reviewing the assumptions used in the Monte-Carlo analysis, we believeadding more detailed information using an MCL method will show that the
Monte-Carlo method was pessimistic.
The typical noise floor of a CDMA2000 or WCDMA handset is about -105dBm/Hz, far less than specified. An example is shown in the following chart, for a CDMA2000 handset.
When transmitting at maximum power, this floor is reached at about +/-3.75 MHz from the center of the CDMA2000 carrier, and to not interferewith a CDMA handset, this needs to be reduced to about -170 dBm/Hz.
Allowing 3 dB of body loss, this requires 59 dB of path loss between thetwo CDMA2000 handsets, which at 1980 MHz occurs at less than 10Meter separation. This results from using a 2 slope propagation model, show in a following
chart. If the jammer is a WCDMA handset, the floor is reached at about +/-7.5
MHz.
This is a minimum coupling loss method of analysis and as before willyield pessimistic results compared to monte-carlo methods which betterreflect real world conditions, but only of real world performance is used,not justspecified performance.
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
32/38
AUSPI Proprietary 32
Typical CDMA2000 handset spectrum atmaximum power
Pout=24dBm
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885
Absolute Freq (MHz)
dBm/30kHz
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
33/38
AUSPI Proprietary 33
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to thePCS CDMA handset, MCL methodcontd
Handsets at the extreme combination of maximum power from the
jammer and minimum signal at the victim occur in very few cases
If the TX power of the handset is decreased 10 dB from maximum
the noise floor decreases significantly, reaching -100 dBm/Hz within
2.5MHz and -115 dBm/Hz within 5 MHz This is shown on the next chart
This reduces the interference distance at 5MHz offset to less than 3
meters
If the victim handset signal is 10 dB above threshold, the same
interference distance results
A combination of these reduces the interference range to less than a
meter
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
34/38
AUSPI Proprietary 34
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to
the PCS CDMA handset
If the TX power of the handset is decreased 10 dB from maximum the noisefloor decreases significantly, reaching -100 dBm/Hz within 2.5MHz and -
115dBm/Hz at 5 MHz
Handset TX Spectrum vs Output Power (20 MHz span)
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
1.9125E+09 1.9175E+09 1.9225E+09 1.9275E+09 1.9325E+09
Frequency [Hz]
Power[dBm/30kHz]
28 dBm
26 dBm
24 dBm
20 dBm
15 dBm
aa
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
35/38
AUSPI Proprietary 35
Path loss models for mobile to mobileinterference calculations
Transmission Loss vs Distance (Assumes Isotropic Antennas)
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
0.0 0.1 1.0
Distance (Km)
Loss(dB) 2-SLOPE MODEL
free space loss
Smooth Earth Model
1900 MHz 1.5 Meter BTS 1.5 Meter MS
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
36/38
AUSPI Proprietary 36
Restatement of AUSPIs position
Present allocation in 800 MHz for CDMANot sufficient for multipleoperators
Internationally allocation for large operators varies from 10+10MHz to20+20 MHz (average allocation 15+15 MHz)
CDMA operators need additional allocation in other bands to growtheir networks
Globally, CDMA systems work in 800 MHz and 1900 MHz, with theexception of Korea
Korean PCS is unique and is not used anywhere else in the world
AUSPI has proposed service neutral plan of 800 MHz and 1900 MHzfor CDMA and 900 MHz and 1800 MHz for GSM in line withinternational standards
Notwithstanding this position, we disagree with Nokias conclusionson a mixed band plan
Interference issues at the 1980 MHz boundary can be dealt withby providing filters where needed
Not all BTSs will require filters, and for those that do, these filtersare cost effective
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
37/38
AUSPI Proprietary 37
References
European Radio communications Committee (ERC) Report 101,
A Comparison of Minimum Coupling Loss Method, Enhanced
Minimum Coupling Loss Method and the Monte-Carlo Simulation,
Menton, 1999.
A.H. Mohammadian, L Golovanesky, S.S. Soliman, M.A.
Tassoudji, Prediction of Mutual Coupling between Base Station
Antenna Arrays, Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Radio and Wireless
Conference, Boston, MA, August 11-14, 2002.
7/30/2019 93912740 AUSPI Presentation to TRAI on Spectrum Response to COAI
38/38
Thank you!
Recommended