1. 1 PROGRESS REPORT on CHANNEL MODEL DOCUMENT Al Wieczorek 16 Sept. 2004

2. 2 Channel Model Document Completion Plan 1.Primary objective is to prepare in the CG v6 draft revision to Channel Model v5 document for adoption at the Nov. plenary meeting. CM document purpose is to serve as a reasonable technology evaluation aid, not necessarily the most realistic. 2.Additional objective is to prepare draft Evaluation document text to contribute to the Nov. plenary meeting for the following sections; 6.2 Channel models for Phase 1 of the Simulations 9 Channel Modeling and 11 Link Budget Test Environment. 3.Two correspondence group (CG) conference call meetings (and, possibly more) will be held 10/8 and 10/29 (tentatively) to progress the work; 4.Agenda to consist of open items from this meeting and all reflector contributions delivered by 1 week prior to the calls. Call attendees are expected to have read and understood all of these. 5.Use Channel Models v5 document (04/66r1) to be added to the drop box as point of departure. 6.Review and decide upon contributions.

3. 3 v6 Call Agenda Items Six items listed in document C802.20-04/61 (copied in slide 11) with consideration of contributions C802.20-04/70, C802.20-04/75, C802.20-04/76 and C802.20-04/77, and comments received during AW presentation (attached herein). Content for 3 Evaluation document sections (see slide 10 herein) Any other timely relevant contribution.

4. 4 Comments Received During 9/15/04 Channel Model Presentation 1.Need and desire to de-randomize parameters (Huo) facilitates comparisons and fall back to ITU-R SISO models, but (per -04/75) conflicts with ITU-R Rec. M.1225 ANNEX 2 §1.1(Guo). If fixed parameters approach is adopted, then consider Table 2.1 parameter value changes proposed in C802.20-04/70 (Huo), else skip. 2.Case 4 (Typical Urban) in Table 2.1 should be deleted (Ragsdale). 3.It was proposed that a mix of models be used for Phase 1 simulations (see Eval. Document 9.1). Because some thought the mixed method seemed to be an unnecessary complication there was not a consensus on the need to use a mixed method. If a mixed method is pursued there is a need for a specific mix. 4.Need to define Phase 1 evaluation and calibration simulation model(s), and parameter values to use (all) 5.There is a need to capture references to contributions incorporated during the evolution of revisions. (e.g.- 3GPP2 SCM-134 v6.0) 6.Need nomenclature consistency between Requirements, Evaluation and Channel Model documents

5. 5 ATTACHMENT

6. 6 Channel Models Al Wieczorek for Qiang Guo 15 September 2004

7. 7 v5 changes from v4 2.4 Added intro text 2.5.2 Added AS = 25 degrees 2.6.3 Added AS = 104 degrees 2.7.2 Added table 2.2 3.1 Enhanced matrix description text 3.3 Added indoor pico-cell and associated assumptions 3.4 Supplemented descriptive text

8. 8 Requirements Document 4.2.2 Performance under Mobility The system shall work in dense urban, suburban, rural outdoor-indoor, pedestrian and vehicular environments and the relevant channel models shall be applicable

9. 9 Channel Model v5 Document 2.4 MBWA Channel Environments Suburban macro-cell Urban macro-cell Urban micro-cell Indoor pico-cell

10. 10 Evaluation Document v11 6.1 Channel models for Phase 1 of the simulations Current Recommendation is to use suburban macro, 3 Km/h pedestrian B and 120Km/h Vehicular B models. 9 Channel Models 11 Link Budget - Test Environment table Suburban/urban macro-cell, micro-cell, indoor pico-cell

11. 11 Output from the Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG 05/13/2004: (from 802.20-04/61) 1) Link-system interface: Use random phase in the link channel model; Use AOA/AOD as random phase to do the link/system simulation; 2) Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible; 3) Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models; 4) Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapse to ITU SISO model; 5) Channel mix needs to be addressed; 6) Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users;

12. 12 Output from the Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG 05/13/2004: (from 802.20-04/61) 1) Link-system interface: Use random phase in the link channel model; Use AOA/AOD as random phase to do the link/system simulation; 2) Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible; 3) Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models; 4) Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapse to ITU SISO model; 5) Channel mix needs to be addressed; 6) Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users;

13. 13 Channel Models (from 802.20-04/74) Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG (05/13/2004) Link-system interface: –Use random phase in the link channel model –Use actual AoA/AoD in the link/system simulations Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapses to ITU SISO model Channel mix issue needs to be addressed; Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users