Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Presentation on behalf of the

Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
– Response to Nokia’s 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUSPI Proprietary 2
Synopsis of AUSPI’s 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 to
grow 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 the
world.
 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.

AUSPI Proprietary 3
Main points of NOKIA’s presentation
 GSM is opposed to 1900 MHz allocation for use by CDMA
Operators
– It overlaps with WARC’92 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 unacceptable interference to a
WCDMA system in the WARC’92 IMT-2000 band
 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

AUSPI Proprietary 4
Main points of NOKIA’s 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 additional
filtering
 Operators do not coordinate in practice
 Adequate protection of the CDMA downlink Interference
from IMT-2000/ WCDMA User Equipment (UE) and
USPCS CDMA UE is not possible
□ This will result in a USPCS CDMA capacity loss up to 35%

AUSPI Proprietary 5
Our General Response

GSM opposition is unjustified:

□ WARC-2000 has recommended different bands for IMT-
2000/3G allowing flexibility for the administration to choose
any band from:
 806 – 960 MHz,
 1710 –1885 MHz,
 2500 –2690 MHz.
□ ITU-R recommendation No. M.1036.2 identified different
paired 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 to
quickly standardise 900 MHz for the same

AUSPI Proprietary 6
Our General Response – contd…

 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

AUSPI Proprietary 7
TECHNICAL RESPONSE

AUSPI Proprietary 8
 Clarification on band allocations near 2 GHz
(ITU Definitions)
 Nokia states on page 3: “even the allocation of as little as 10 MHz for PCS
CDMA 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
AUSPI Proprietary 9
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
□ Blue lines indicate BTS transmit bands
□ Green line indicates DECT assigned bands in India

AUSPI Proprietary 10
Existing ITU Band allocations near 2 GHz

1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
0

1 1 UMTS 1920-1980/2110-2170

2 2 DCS-1800 1710-1785/1805-1880

3 3 USPCS 1850-1910/1930-1990

4 4 DECT 1880-1900/-

AUSPI Proprietary 11
Frequency allocation arrangement
addressed by NOKIA

1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
0

1 1 UMTS 1920-1980/2110-2170

2 2 DCS-1800 1710-1785/1805-1880

3 3 USPCS 1900-1910/1980-1990

4 4 DECT 1880-1900/-

AUSPI Proprietary 12
NOKIA’s 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 by Nokia
 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 2000
carrier 1.25MHz above the 1980 MHz boundary. This arrangement places
these carriers 3.75 MHz apart, and provides an inherent guard band 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 the requirement
on any filter designs needed to assure interference is not an issue

AUSPI Proprietary 13
NOKIA concern number 1 – CDMA2000 BTS
TX Emissions to WCDMA BTS RX
 Nokia claim on pages 3 and 4: “-13dBm/MHz limit for CDMA BS does not
consider mixed band plan.” CDMA BS will transmit unfiltered spurious
emissions and wideband noise across the uplink portion of the ITU-B1 band
 Our response:
□ Nokia assumes the worst case noise density from a CDMA2000 BTS of –
13dBm/MHz (or -73dBm/Hz)*, but commercial BTS typically perform
better, as much as 22dB better. Given that a significant number of Base
Stations have been deployed, it would seem reasonable to use real data
rather than worst case limits
□ The specification says nothing about whether a mixed band plan will work.
We believe it is possible to have a mixed band plan such that operators
get a fair and equitable opportunity to offer IMT-2000 services as soon as
possibleIf a mixed plan is anticipated, more appropriate emissions can be
specified.
□ The entire ITU-B1 band is not affected equally. Only the first WCDMA
carrier below 1980 MHz is an issue.

* Note: this is a specification from an early version standard, which has been recently
changed to -30dBm/30KHz ( or -75dBm/Hz)

AUSPI Proprietary 14
 Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Emissions contd…
 Nokia claim page 4: Nokia quotes Lucent as saying 77dB of filtering at the CDMA
2000 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 spurious
emissions coming from CDMA 2000 BTS transmitters in the ITU-B3 band into
WCDMA 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 Nokia’s assumption that
30dB of antenna isolation is all that can be obtained. But this limit only
applies to systems sharing the same antenna, and over 50dB of isolation can
be obtained in both collocated and non collocated arrangements that do not
share 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 within
standard practice.
□ It is not the case that expensive technical modifications of infrastructure must
occur to permit the use of some of the PCS and ITU-B1 frequency bands. We
will later show the only modification required is to add filters.
□ We further believe that 60dB filter rejection is the maximum required and will
show that it can be obtained in real, commercially available designs.
AUSPI Proprietary 15
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Emissions contd…
Our comments, contd…
 In computing the -107 dB isolation requirement, Lucent used a worst case
Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL) analysis procedure with CDMA 2000
emissions at -73dBm/Hz, plus assuming this interference arrived at the
WCDMA BTS receiver 10dB below the noise floor, estimated at -170 dBm/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 method
yields pessimistic results when compared to real world results, and
recommends a procedure if more accurate Monte-Carlo simulations are not
available. One particular comment stands out:
□ The degradation should be estimated with the desired signal at 3dB
above the minimum sensitivity.
 In line with these guidelines, we believe a 1dB degradation in noise figure as
more reasonable for CDMA systems, and which is actually more severe than
that recommended by ERC-101.
□ This sets the allowable interference density at -176 dBm/Hz

AUSPI Proprietary 16
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Emissions 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/Hz
from 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 less
than the worst case estimates
 Based on these values, we would consider a reasonable isolation
requirement to be not more than 90 dB, which could be met with a
50 dB filter and 40 dB of antenna coupling loss
 In any case, the reduction in required isolation can be used to
reduce the required antenna coupling loss, the filter rejection loss,
or the guard band

AUSPI Proprietary 17
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
General
 Nokia claim on page 5: use of mitigation techniques will not work because
there is no incentive for the perspective PCS CDMA operator in 1900-
1910/1980-1990 MHz to invest and to provide the necessary additional
filtering. Severe interference has been observed in the 800 MHz band, where a
similar boundary condition occurs.
Our response:
 Nokia fails to consider that the ITU-B1 band can be shared** between WCDMA
and CDMA 2000. CDMA 2000 may well end up on both sides of the 1980
boundary. To avoid interference later, the boundary problem must be
addressed now
 It is also not true that in case of CDMA 2000/GSM band plans in 800/900 MHz
bands 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 significant
interference 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 Nokia’s interference issues concerning a mixed band plan

AUSPI Proprietary 18
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Blocking
 Nokia claim page 6: Use of mitigation techniques, if imposed upon the
operators, are not viable due to large site coordination distance, large guard
bands, high cost and need for additional sites due to degradation. 114dB of
total isolation will be required, and sites will need to be 300 Meters apart
even when 60dB of filtering is added at WCDMA receivers
Our response:
 After reviewing typical data we believe 114 dB isolation is not
required for the ITU-B3 to ITU-B1 blocking interference condition
 In computing this number Lucent again used a worst case analysis
procedure
 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 WCDMA
receiver at -66.8dBm at the receiver input from the WCDMA ACS
specification
 The difference of these numbers is 113.6 dB, rounded to the
isolation requirement of 114dB

AUSPI Proprietary 19
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Blocking contd…
Our 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 was –37dBm, 18 dB larger than the specified level
of -55dBm, and about 30 dB larger than the worst case calculated level of –66.8 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

AUSPI Proprietary 20
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Blocking 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 of
computing system coexistence
 Given a transmitted power of 46.8dBm from three CDMA carriers, and
aspecified blocking level of -55dBm at the WCDMA receiver for a 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 a 5MHz
offset, the computed isolation is 83.8dB, far less than the worst case
114dB
 As before, we would consider a reasonable isolation requirement to be
not more than 90 dB, which could be met with a 50 dB filter and 40 dB
of antenna coupling loss
 In any case, the reduction in required isolation can be used to reduce
the required antenna coupling loss, the filter rejection loss, or the guard
band

AUSPI Proprietary 21
 Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Blocking contd…
 Nokia claim page 6: Use of mitigation techniques, if imposed upon the
operators, are not viable due to large site coordination distance, large guard
bands, high cost and need for additional sites due to degradation. 54 dB of
antenna isolation will be required, and sites will need to be 300 Meters apart
even when 60dB of filtering is added at WCDMA receivers. (This is to meet the
114 dB total isolation requirement)
Our response continued:
 Site coordination distances: We do not agree with Nokia’s conclusion that a
300 meter minimum site-site distance is needed when 54dB of isolation is
desired. In line 6 of their table on page 6, we see Nokia has listed 54dB as the
available antenna isolation. Since the Free Space loss at 300 Meters at 1980
MHz is 88dB (as shown in the next chart) this means that Nokia has assumed
BTS antenna gains of 17dB each and that they are directed exactly at each
other. Nokia also neglected any cable losses in their analysis
 It is recommended ( ERC-101) that 10 dB antenna gains be used when
determining interference. Using these values reduces the free space loss
requirement to 74dB and the site to site spacing to about 75 Meters
 Analytical and measured data ( see later charts) show that 54 dB total isolation
is also quite possible when antennas are mounted on the same mast
AUSPI Proprietary 22
Free Space loss model for BTS to BTS
interference calculations
Fre e S pac e Trans mis s io n Lo s s vs Dis tanc e (As s ume s Is o tro pic Ante nnas )
1980 MHz 15.0 Me te r BTS 15.0 Me te r
-50

-60

-70

-80
Lo s s (d B )

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

-140
0.01 0.10 1.00
Dis tanc e (Km)

AUSPI Proprietary 23
Antenna coupling for antennas mounted
on a common mast
(a) Broadside Configuration
(b) Colinear Configuration 0
0 Measured
-10
Measured Predicted
-10

Coupling (dB)
Predicted -20
Coupling (dB)

-20 -30
-30 -40
-40 -50
-50 -60
-60 -70
-70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Separation Distance (inches)
Separation Distance (inches)

 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

Antenna configuration Coupling loss

Dual antennas in the same radome 30dB
Default separation on the same mast <1m 45-48dB
Careful separation on the same mast >1m 55-65dB

AUSPI Proprietary 24
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Filter Characteristics
 Nokia claim page 7: Lucent proposal that interference problems can be
mitigated by providing 2.25 MHz guard band and 60 dB additional filtering at
the CDMA BS and WCDMA BS is not practical
Our response:
 Considering the blocks at the band edges will most likely be 5 or
10MHz 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 MHz
allocation 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 support
3 CDMA2000 carriers or 1 WCDMA carrier
 If the edge band allocations at 1980 MHz were 5MHz each, using
this filter would result in the need for NO added guard band
 If this filter replaced the existing filters, rather than added to the
existing filter, there would be essentially no loss in coverage
AUSPI Proprietary 25
Suitable filter for 1980 band edge isolation
for 5MHz allocations

AUSPI Proprietary 26
Interference issues with mixed band plan –
Filter Issue (repeated)
 Nokia claim page 7: Lucent proposal that interference problems can
be mitigated by providing 2.25 MHz guard band and 60 dB
additional filtering at the CDMA BS and WCDMA BS is not
practical:
Our response:
 The next chart shows the simulated response of a “low cost” BTS
filter that can meet the objections from Nokia given a 10 MHz
allocation 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 additional
means for isolation are required
 Some options were discussed earlier, and using the Lucent
suggestion of having 4.8MHz spacing between WCDMA carriers is
enough to solve this problem with no loss in the total number of
carriers in either band
AUSPI Proprietary 27
Suitable filter for 1980 band edge isolation
for 10 MHz allocations

AUSPI Proprietary 28
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 are
not representative of the actual equipment performance.
 We believe 90 dB isolation is adequate to meet the BTS to BTS interference
conditions 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 in
extreme cases.
 60 dB rejection filters are available
 50 dB of antenna isolation is quite possible with good practice, for collocated
and non-collocated systems. Only 30 dB is possible for systems that share the
same antenna.
 50 dB of antenna isolation can be achieved with site to site spacing of 30
Meters.
 40 dB of antenna isolation can be achieved with site to site spacing of 10
Meters.
 If the edge band allocations at 1980 MHz were 5MHz each, filters are
available which would result in the need for NO added guard band.
AUSPI Proprietary 29
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to
the PCS CDMA handset, Monte-Carlo method
 Nokia claim on page 9: mixed plan will result in interference
between the IMT-2000 handset to the PCS CDMA handset when
they are in close proximity to each other
 Lucent has provided TRAI with the results of a Monte-Carlo method
to 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 capacity
degradation is <5%
 Leads to the conclusions that mobile to mobile interference is
expected to occur a relatively small percentage of the time
□ Analysis assumed conservative full load for UMTS
□ Analysis assumed full-shifted overlay, which is conservative
□ UMTS mobile and CDMA mobile must both be active for interference to
occur (all mobiles assumed active in the simulation)
□ CDMA mobiles could be given more power if cells are running at less
than full load
□ If UMTS mobile spurious emissions are better than standards,
interference effects are reduced. Spurious also reduces with power.
AUSPI Proprietary 30
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to the
PCS CDMA handset, MCL method – contd…
 In reviewing the assumptions used in the Monte-Carlo analysis, we believe
adding 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 interfere
with 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 the
two CDMA2000 handsets, which at 1980 MHz occurs at less than 10
Meter 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 will yield
pessimistic results compared to monte-carlo methods which better reflect
real world conditions, but only of real world performance is used, not
justspecified performance.

AUSPI Proprietary 31
Typical CDMA2000 handset spectrum at
maximum power
Pout=24dBm

10

-10

-20
d B m /3 0 k H z

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70
1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885
Absolute Freq (MHz)

AUSPI Proprietary 32
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to the
PCS CDMA handset, MCL method – contd…

 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

AUSPI Proprietary 33
Interference issues: IMT-2000 handset to
the PCS CDMA handset
 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 -115dBm/Hz at 5 MHz

Handset TX Spectrum vs Output Power (20 MHz span)

-10

-20

-30
P o w e r [d B m /3 0 k H z ]

-40

-50

28 dBm
-60 26 dBm
aa 24 dBm
-70 20 dBm
15 dBm
-80

-90

-100

-110

1.9125E+09 1.9175E+09 1.9225E+09 1.9275E+09 1.9325E+09

Frequency [Hz]

AUSPI Proprietary 34
Path loss models for mobile to mobile
interference calculations
Trans mis s io n Lo s s vs Dis tanc e (As s ume s Is o tro pic Ante nnas )
1900 MHz 1.5 Me te r BTS 1.5 Me te r MS
-50

-60

-70

-80
Lo s s (d B )

-90 2-SLOPE MODEL

free space loss
Smooth Earth Model
-100

-110

-120

-130

-140
0.0 0.1 1.0
Dis tanc e (Km)

AUSPI Proprietary 35
Restatement of AUSPI’s position
 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 to grow
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 the world
 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
 Notwithstanding this position, we disagree with Nokia’s conclusions on
a mixed band plan
□ Interference issues at the 1980 MHz boundary can be dealt with
by providing filters where needed
□ Not all BTSs will require filters, and for those that do, these filters
are cost effective
AUSPI Proprietary 36
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.

AUSPI Proprietary 37
Thank you!

AUSPI Proprietary 38