ECC PT1#55 (Berlin 24-28 April 2017) agreed to set up a correspondence group on studies with fixed links in the 26 GHz band.

The terms of reference are as follows:

The correspondence group has been set up to make progress on sharing and compatibility studies between Fixed Links (point to point and point to multi-point) and IMT2020 in the 26 GHz band.

1. The correspondence group will consider studies on coexistence between Fixed Links (point to point and point to multi-point) and IMT2020 in the frequency band 24.25-27.5 GHz and adjacent bands, as appropriate
2. The group will develop a document for consideration in ECC PT1 that brings together the inputs it has received on the sharing and compatibility issues
3. The group may prepare draft liaisons to relevant groups for approval by ECC PT1
4. The group will report to ECC PT1 one week before the start of the next meeting

Correspondence group convener: Valeria Petrini (I)

Working methods: ECO forum (in the SWG AI 1.13 section) and web-meetings as appropriate

These Terms of Reference will be reviewed at the next ECC PT1 meeting.

Dear colleagues,

to get started with the correspondence activities, let me please first recall the documents from the last ECC PT1 meeting in Berlin on which we'll need to base our work.

Two contributions on sharing and compatibilities studies between FS links and IMT 2020 in the 26 GHz band from Italy (Document 101) and Orange/Huawei (Document 104) were discussed. During the meeting a liaison statement to WG SE 19 was also agreed to seek their views on the parameters and scenarios for the studies ongoing in this CG.  The three documents are provided in the attachement below.

I am preparing a working document that brings together documents 101 and 104 (for the parts relevant to this CG).

Best regards,

Valeria

Dear all,

please note that the WG SE19 planned a web-meeting on FS parameters in 26 GHz on 28th June 14:00-16:00 CET.

Another web-meeting on FS parameters in 26 GHz has been prescheduled on the 12th July 14:16 CET. It will be held only if it becomes necessary.

Best regards,

Valeria

Dear all,

please find attached the working document where I merged the contributions PT1(17)101 and PT1(17)104.

The following points present alternative or complementary choices:

• proposed fixed link parameters (paragraph 2.2.1)
• protection criteria (paragraph 2.2.5)
• propagation models (paragraph 3.3)
• coexistence scenarios (paragraph 4)

It is important to decide how to move forward on each point in order to progress the studies.

Any comments and contributions on this document would be welcome.

Best regards,

Valeria

Dear all,

please find attached a revised version of the working document.

I am of the view that we should focus on the study of the impact of IMT onto incumbent services, while leaving aside the analysis of the interference from FS link on IMT-2020 service.

My proposal is to start the analysis from the coexistence studies between IMT-2020 and FS P-P link.

Bearing in mind that July will be the holiday period for many of us, it would be useful to receive any initial studies by the end of June.

Regards,

Valeria

Dear all,

the SE19 web-meeting to discuss the FS parameters in response to the ECC PT1 LS has just been held. At the following link you can find the draft reply from SE19 to PT1 on FS parameters

https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/wg-se/se-19/client/meeting-documents/

Another web-meeting to continue the drafting activity for the definition of the FS parameters in the 26 GHz has been scheduled on the 12th July.

Best regards,

Valeria

Dear all,

not participating in SE19 I also would like to place some comments on the working document (WD):

1. Table 4: for the FS (PP) link an antenna gain of 31.5 dBi is specified. The appropriate antenna diameter would approximately be 0.2m which is probably quite unusual. I would expect the use of antenna of about 1ft offering about 35dBi.
2. Table 5. P-MP links, central station:
   - 56MHz channel bandwidth for P-MP is rather unlikely (see EN 302326-2).
   - while the reference to F.1336 is sound for a BS (or CS) the noted gain of 6.5dBi might be unrealistic. If (azimuthal) omni-directional antennas are considered the gain would be in the order of 12dBi for antennas with 10° HPBW in elevation and about 9dBi for antennas with 20° HPBW. If sectoral antennas are considered, the related gains are even larger.
3. An assumption of 0° tilt is quite curious for P-MP since the cells are decoupled one from another by this measure.
4. The reference to F.1336 for a TS antenna is considered as not appropriate. TS (P-MP) could provide better antenna gains compared to UEs in the mobile service since these can be arranged guiding to the central station. The mentioned antenna gain of 31.5dBi however appears as too optimistic.
5. Table 9: regarding the C/Is for 256QAM and 2048QAM: For the 256QAM-system a C/I(coChannel)=40dB and C/I(adjacentChannel)=0dB is specified adressing a system of the spectral efficiency class B (SECl B, better filters, operation in the adjacent channel possible). For the 2048QAM-system two options are mentioned:
   - C/I(coChannel)=50dB with C/I(adjacentChannel)=0dB (SECl B), and 
   - C/I(coChannel)=50dB with C/I(adjacentChannel)=17dB (SECl A, poor filters, no operation possible in the adjacent channel).
   Why are these two options chosen for the 2048QAM system?
   
   Remark: the C/Is are taken from EN 302217-2 (2017-05). The reference to ETSI EN 301213-2 is indentified as „historical“ (more than 15 years old) on the ETSI WebPage.
   It is noted that the C/I value for the 256QAM system is remarkably larger than the relevant value in table 1a of F.1101 (C/I(coChannel, 256QAM)=32.6dB). The difference might be understood considering the status an intended function of the PP product standard.

BR

Meik

Dear All,

Huawei and Organe would like to share our draft paper (without simluation results yet) to seek your views on the parameters, inluding those for the FS antennas, we're going to use in the simulations.

We undersand that the FS parameters could be subject to refinement follwilng the discussion in SE19 and that SE19 meeting 29-30 August 2017 is expected to send a reply LS to ECC PT1.

Regards,
Alexander Gulyaev (Huawei), on behalf of Huawei and Orange

Dear all,

the second SE19 web-meeting to discuss the FS parameters in response to the ECC PT1 LS has just been held. At the following link you can find the updated draft reply from SE19 to PT1 on FS parameters

https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/wg-se/se-19/client/meeting-documents/?flid=6566

Some open issues will be discussed by correspondence by the 19^th of July and then the final response to the LS will be send to the PT1.

Regards,

Valeria

Dear all

I have just received the liaison statement from SE19, replying to our questions about FS parameters. It has been uploaded to the meeting documents for September as document ECC PT1(17)119.

Best regards

Steve