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:[+81 46 847 5104, E-Mail: lee@nict.go.jp] 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 P802.15. 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 P802.15.

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)

Why High Frequency Band Plan Only the low frequency band plan is included in the accepted band plan (05-0250-03). 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

Spectrum Masks Comparison

Effects of Low Spectrum Mask

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.

The Proposed Band Plan EIRP emission level ( dBm ) 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 10003.5 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 ) 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 741MHz - 40 70

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

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) 0.203125 (9.6,19.2) (96,192) 0.1 (12,24) (24,48) 0.5 PRF

Fitness With Japan and EU

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

Another candidate?

Band Plan (A)

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

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) 0.203125 (9.6,19.2) (96,192) 0.1 (12,24) (24,48) 0.5 PRF

View From Japan and EU (A)

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