1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [High Frequency Band Plan Proposal]
Date Submitted: [November 11, 2005]
Source: [Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno]
Company [National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)]
Contact: Huan-Bang Li.
Voice:[ ,
Abstract: [High frequency band plan proposal for DS-UWB radios]
Purpose: [Solution proposal for technical parameters to be included in 15.4a draft]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

2. High Frequency Band Plan and Pulse Shape Proposal
Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)

3. Why High Frequency Band Plan
Only the low frequency band plan is included in the accepted band plan ( ). The high frequency band plan has not been specified.
Attractive characteristics compared to the low band
More available frequency bandwidths.
Few existing systems.
The draft spectrum masks proposed by Japan and EU have been adopted as ITU recommendation, which draws strict restrictions on the low band.
DAA is required in Japan for 3.4 – 4.8 GHz.
DAA is required in EU for 3.1 – 4.95 GHz

4. Spectrum Masks Comparison

5. Effects of Low Spectrum Mask

6. Points For The High Band Plan
To be able to better use the “free spectrums” of both Japan and EU.
Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF.
Harmonization with the accepted low band plan (Use of the same PRF).
Use of as small as possible prime factors.
To take the advantage of the available bandwidth of the high frequency band.

7. The Proposed Band Plan EIRP emission level ( dBm ) 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
9633
9262.5
>500 5
8892
8521.5 4
8151
7780.5
3 (mandatory)
8951
7351
~1600 6 2 1
Band No.
7410
7039.5
6669
6298.5
High Freq.
(MHz)
Center Freq.
Low Freq.
Bandwidth
(GHz)
EIRP emission level (
dBm )
741MHz - 40 70

8. PRF Generation
Prime factors: 3, 5, 11, 13

9. PLL Reference Diagram FX (MHZ) R Fcomp (MHz) (13,26) (64 ,128)
Oscillator
Reference
Divider
(R)
XTAL
Phase Det.
F123,c
LPF
VCO
Divider, M ÷4 ÷
2, 3, 5,
11, 13
FX (MHZ) R
Fcomp (MHz)
(13,26)
(64 ,128)
(9.6,19.2)
(96,192)
0.1
(12,24)
(24,48)
0.5
PRF

10. Fitness With Japan and EU

11. Advantages Harmonization with the low frequency band plan.
Three usual frequency bands with one large optional frequency band.
Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF
The same PRF as the low-band plan.
Fitness with the spectrum
Good use of the ‘free spectrum’ for both Japan and EU.
Larger bandwidth occupancy than the low frequency band plan for each usual band as well as large optional frequency band

12. Another candidate?

13. Band Plan (A)

14. PRF Generation (A)
Prime factors: 3, 5, 7, 13, 17

15. PLL Reference Diagram (A)FX
FComp
Oscillator
Reference
Divider
(R)
XTAL
Phase Det.
F123,c
LPF
VCO
Divider, M ÷4 ÷
2, 3, 5,
7, 13, 17
FX (MHZ) R
Fcomp (MHz)
(13,26)
(64 ,128)
(9.6,19.2)
(96,192)
0.1
(12,24)
(24,48)
0.5
PRF

16. View From Japan and EU (A)

17. Facts of Band Plan (A) Advantages
Three same common sub bands for Japan and EU.
Efficient use of channels (more available sub bands).
Disadvantages
Different PRF from the low band plan.
Same bandwidth with the low frequency band plan