1 / 21

A proposed methodology for: US and Canadian 700 MHz Border Sharing

This proposal presents a methodology for fair and equitable sharing of the 700 MHz spectrum along the US and Canadian border, taking into account TV interference effects and leveraging successful precedent from the 800 MHz allocation. The goal is to maximize usability, maintain relative spectrum resources, promote international interoperability, and be technology-neutral.

debrastanley
Download Presentation

A proposed methodology for: US and Canadian 700 MHz Border Sharing

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. A proposed methodology for: US and Canadian 700 MHz Border Sharing Sean O’Hara – Syracuse Research Corporation New York Statewide Wireless Network Vice Chair: - National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPTSC) Technology Committee Co-Chair - NPSTC International Border Issues Working Group Co-Chair - NPSTC Broadband Working Group

  2. Goals • Provide a proposal to RABC for a Canadian US border sharing arrangement this meets the needs of Public Safety on both sides of the border. • Utilize successful past precedent (e.g. 800 MHz) where appropriate • Do things different – where they make sense - with regard to this new allocation.

  3. 800 MHz US/Canadian Border Regions

  4. US/Canadian Border Regions- 800 MHz Border Regions I, IV, V, and VI have a 50/50 US/Canadian split Border Regions II and III essentially have a US/Canadian split of 30/70 and 70/30.

  5. Proposed Sharing Arrangement(s) • Goal (1): Fair and equitable sharing • Spread each countries channels out over the entire allocation in order to level off TV interference effects • Goal (2): Rely on precedent • Use population/channel split(s) from 800 MHz • Goal (3): Maximize usability for both sides • “Block-Interleaved” vs. “Block-and-Zone” allows for better trunking combiner spacing (hence lower cost and less loss) • No concerns of adjacent channel interference from spectrum interleaving due to high ACCPR • Goal (4): Keep level ratio of sub-allocations • Each country needs to maintain a relative levels of Narrowband/Wideband, and State/Reserve spectrum resources • Goal (5): Promote international interoperability • Each country shares access to the interoperability and low power channels • Goal (6): Deal with all of 63/64 and 68/69 now • Eventually the entire allocation will be internationally harmonized and available • Goal (7): Be Technology Neutral • The “Block” in “Block-Interleaved” should keep spectrum is 25-kHz blocks in order to allow for 6.25, 12.5, and 25 kHz technology options for users.

  6. Phase I P25 to Phase I P25 ACCPR = 65 dB (w/drift) 50-kHz SAM to 50-kHz SAM ACCPR = 73 dB (w/drift) Proposed Sharing Arrangement(s) No need to worry about adjacent channel interference from interleaving the spectrum allocations, since the ACCPR of the technologies is so high (see FCC Rules). Therefore there will be no international adjacent channel interference.

  7. Primary TV Interference in Band (1 of 2) NB-199 WB-56 WB-86 NB-919 NTSC Video Carriers NTSC Audio Carriers

  8. Primary TV Interference in Band (2 of 2) NB-1159 WB-176 WB-206 NB-1879 NTSC Video Carriers NTSC Audio Carriers

  9. Proposed Region 2 “Split” (1 of 2) NB-199 WB-56 WB-86 NB-919 Joint International Allocation Region 2 US Allocation

  10. Proposed Region 2 “Split” (2 of 2) NB-1159 WB-176 WB-206 NB-1879 Joint International Allocation Region 2 US Allocation

  11. Region 2: Breakdown of Spectrum

  12. Proposed Region 2 “Split”764-806 MHz Block-Interleaved Approach

  13. Proposed Region 2 “Split”764-770 MHz See “Zoom-A” NTSC-63 Spectrum NTSC-63 Video Subcarrier in Joint Narrowband Allocation (see “Zoom-A”) NTSC-63 Audio Subcarrier in Canadian Wideband Allocation

  14. Proposed Region 2 “Split”770-776 MHz See “Zoom-B” NTSC-64 Spectrum NTSC-64 Video Subcarrier in US Wideband Allocation NTSC-64 Audio Subcarrier in US Narrowband Allocation (see “Zoom-B’)

  15. Proposed Region 2 “Split”794-800 MHz See “Zoom-A” NTSC-68 Spectrum NTSC-68 Video Subcarrier in Joint Narrowband Allocation (see “Zoom-A”) NTSC-68 Audio Subcarrier in Canadian Wideband Allocation

  16. Proposed Region 2 “Split”800-806 MHz See “Zoom-B” NTSC-69 Spectrum NTSC-69 Video Subcarrier in US Wideband Allocation NTSC-69 Audio Subcarrier in US Narrowband Allocation (see “Zoom-B’)

  17. Proposed Region 2 “Split”Various “Zooms” “Zoom-B” “Zoom-A”

  18. Other Regions? • Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 can use similar structures • Region 3 would be the “inverse” of Region 2 • Population split changes from 70/30-Canadian to 70/30-US • Regions 1, 4, 5, and 6 would use an “even” split

  19. Region 3: Breakdown of Spectrum (Note, Region 3 is simply the inverse of the Region 2 “Split”)

  20. Region 1, and 4-6: Breakdown of Spectrum

  21. Contact For Further Information Sean O’Hara Vice Chair NPSTC Technology Committee Business Area Manager – Communications, and Collection Systems Syracuse Research Corporation (315) 452-8152 ohara@syrres.com

More Related