RABC subcommittee on 2 5 and 3 5
RABC subcommittee on 2. 5 and 3. 5 GHz Spectrum for FWA systems - harmonization with ETSI/FCC Prepared by: Dave Sherman Motorola June 6, 2007 1
Mandate Of Sub-Committee • To make recommendations to Industry Canada on wording changes to RSS-192 and RSS-193 that would harmonize the spectrum mask requirements for equipment certification in Canada with the equivalent ETSI (3. 5 GHz band) and FCC (2. 5 GHz band) requirements 2
Progress Update • Working group has met 3 times since April 20, last on May 17 • First priority has been to deal with 3. 5 GHz changes (RSS-192) • Have proposed a new block edge spectrum mask in which: – The adjacent channel mask rolls off at the same rate as the ETSI OOBE mask – Spurious emission mask remains unchanged, (respects traditional 43+10 Log(Pmean) spurious emission limit) 3
Progress Update • General consensus with following exceptions: – Proposed changes apply to harmonization for OFDM systems only • Have made some further proposals, one of which is to leave existing mask as is for non-OFDM systems – Mike Razi has expressed concern that spurious emission mask above 3650 MHz does not provide adequate protection for satellite systems operating in the 3650 -3700 MHz band • While currently only 1 such system operating in this band (in Weir, Quebec), there is nothing in place to prevent licensing of new systems in this band in non-remote areas • Consensus of working group is that a change should be made in SRSP-303. 4 to specify requirements for spurious emission limits at the edge of 3475 -3650 band to provide such protection 4 • Mike has agreed to propose suggested wording
Next Steps • Next call will deal with: – RSS-192 wording for non-OFDM systems – SRSP-303. 4 wording for spurious emission limits above 3650 MHz – Proposal for harmonizing RSS-193 (2. 5 GHz) with FCC 5
Backup 6
References • 3. 5 GHz band – IC RSS-192 Issue 2 – January 2004 – IC SRSP-303. 4 Issue 2 – January 2004 – ETSI Spec – EN 302 326 -2 v 1. 2. 1 (2007 -01) • 2. 5 GHz band – IC RSS-193 Issue 1 – July 2003 – IC SRSP-302. 5 Issue 2 – January 1, 2000 – FCC Spec 7
Why the need for harmonization? • Manufactures develop equipment for world markets. If Canada has more restrictive equipment certification requirements: – Manufacturers will need special designs for Canada, which will increase the cost of equipment sold in Canada – Manufacturers may choose not to offer equipment in Canada because it does not meet current certification requirements, reducing the choices available for Canadian consumers – Manufacturers may choose to get equipment certified as is, but the large guard bands required to meet certification requirements will result in inefficient use of the spectrum – Roamers into Canada will be using user equipment that meets ETSI or FCC certification, but may not meet current IC certification 8
Process • Industry Canada has agreed in principal to harmonize RSS-192 with ETSI and RSS-193 with FCC • Propose to deal with 3. 5 GHz first, 2. 5 GHz later • Review RSS-192 and SRSP-303. 4 against ETSI to see where differences are wrt: – – Emissions mask Tx output power Test requirements Other important differences 9
3500 Frequency blocks A 3400 B C 3450 D E 3500 F G 3550 H J 3600 K L M 3650 3700 -Blocks D-K are available for FWA systems in Canada (with some limitations) -No new FWA systems to be licensed in Blocks A, B, C, L and M, although there are ongoing consultations regarding blocks L and M 10
Harmonization Strategy • Unwanted emissions are addressed in 2 areas – Adjacent channel mask (<250% of channel separation) – Transmitter spurious emissions (>250% of channel separation) • Preference is to harmonize with FCC for both 2. 5 and 3. 5 GHz. There is no 3. 5 FWA spectrum available in the US, so need to use ETSI as the guide for 3. 5 GHz 11
Adjacent Channel Mask • RSS-192 adjacent channel mask specifies steeper roll-off than ETSI mask • For compatibility with broadband modulation technologies and products, we recommend that Industry Canada relax the spectral mask in RSS-192 to roll-off at the same rate as the ETSI mask 12
Transmitter Spurious Emissions • We recommend that the RSS-192 spurious emissions mask remain unchanged – FCC and IC have a long standing spurious emission limit of -13 d. BM / MHz, expressed as 43+10 Log(Pmean) 13
Why not harmonize entirely with ETSI? • ETSI spec is generic in nature, covering all frequency bands, with different masks defined in tables for different modulation schemes. It consists of 3 parts, and references other documents, e. g. CEPT 74 -01 defines Transmitter Spurious Emissions • ETSI specifies a channel mask, whereas RSS 192 is a block mask • It is a complex document, and is overkill for the requirements of RSS-192 14
Focusing on the problem • The problem area in RSS-192 is the rate of rolloff of the transmitter spectrum density mask • Adopting the ETSI spectral mask roll-off rate is a reasonable option, given that 3. 5 GHz equipment will be built to ETSI standards • There is no problem with the spurious emissions mask, it is consistent with IC and FCC OOBE limit masks (including for 2. 5 GHz), and can therefore be left unchanged • The proposal solves the problem while maintaining the spirit of RSS-192 – Clear, uncomplicated and easy to interpret 15
RSS-192 - 6. 3 Unwanted Emissions i) In any 30 k. Hz bandwidth, the unwanted emission spectral density that is relative to the inband spectral density shall be attenuated by at least: (a) 10 d. B at the band edge; (b) 10 d. B at the band edge to 25 d. B at 200 k. Hz offset from band edge, linearly interpolated; (c) 25 d. B at 200 - 400 k. Hz offset from band edge; (d) 25 d. B at 400 k. Hz to 50 d. B at 3. 0 MHz offset, linearly interpolated; and (e) 50 d. B beyond 3 MHz offset, or see (ii), whichever is less stringent. ii) In any 1. 0 MHz band that is removed from the assigned centre frequency by more than +250% of the necessary bandwidth, the power of any emission must be attenuated below Pmean by at least 43 + 10 log 10(Pmean) d. B, or 70 d. B, whichever is less stringent. Pmean is the mean output power of the transmitter in watts. 16
Some clarification necessary • First need to clarify that the attenuation in (ii) is the ultimate attenuation required of the xmitter (ii) In any 1. 0 MHz band that is removed from the assigned centre frequency by more than +250% of the necessary bandwidth, the power of any emission must be attenuated below Pmean by at least 43 + 10 log 10(Pmean) d. B, or 70 d. B, whichever is less stringent. Pmean is the mean output power of the transmitter in watts. 17
Comparison of spectral mask to OOBE transition applying 6. 3(ii) to 6. 3(i)(e) after 250% offset 18
Comparison of spectral mask to OOBE transition applying 6. 3(ii) in 6. 3(i)(e) 19
Proposed changes to 6. 3 (i) In any 30 k. Hz bandwidth, the unwanted emission spectral density that is relative to the inband spectral density shall be attenuated by at least the amount shown in Table 6. 1 using linear interpolation between turning points: Table 6. 1 Turning Point (F/Ch. S) 0 0. 21 0. 56 1. 5 2. 0 EMO 2 8 d. B 25 d. B 27 d. B 50 d. B 4 8 d. B 27 d. B 32 d. B 50 d. B 6 8 d. B 32 d. B 38 d. B 50 d. B Or at any offset where attenuation exceeds the limit in (ii), the limit in (ii) shall be used. (ii) In any 1. 0 MHz band that is removed from the assigned centre frequency by more than +250% of the necessary bandwidth, the power of any emission must be attenuated below Pmean by at least 43 + 10 log 10(Pmean) d. B, or 70 d. B, whichever is less stringent. Pmean is the mean output power of the transmitter in watts. 20
Proposed changes to 6. 3 (cont. ) The offset frequency of each turning point can be determined as follows: F = Ch. S * (Turning Point); where Ch. S is the channel spacing and F is the offset frequency from the block edge. EMO is the equivalent modulation order of the transmitter. 2 = 4 QAM 4 = 16 QAM 6 = 64 QAM 21
Comparison of original RSS-192, harmonized RSS-192 and ETSI at 32 d. BW 22
Comparison of original RSS-192, harmonized RSS-192 and ETSI at 4 d. BW 23
RSS-192 - 6. 2 Transmitter Output Power • The average output power, Pmean, shall be within +/- 1. 0 d. B of manufacturers rated power 24
Proposed changes to 6. 2 • The average output power, Pmean, shall be within +/- 2. 0 d. B of manufacturers rated power 25
- Slides: 25