On 19 Sep 2013, at 15:30, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps this is a terminology issue.
Perhaps :) > There must be some specification for emissions (intended or not) that the > device must meet during certification / testing. Indeed. The OFCOM / ETSI WSDB device<->DB interface only specifies intended in-block emissions. All "Unintentional" out-of-block emissions are constrained by the ETSI draft specification. > I believe you're focusing on intentional emissions, and Andy is speaking to > any emissions. That's my understanding. > I don't think it's reasonable to state that a device it must have 0W -Inf dBm > emissions at channel 38, if it intends to use any channels nearby? I disagree - OFCOM are stating 0W -Inf dBm *intentional* in-block emissions at channel 38. They are not requiring that there be absolutely no emissions into channel 38. Leakage from adjacent channels will be managed through a combination of the device's emission class and OFCOM's rules on maximum permitted power levels in those nearby channels. For example, in channels 37 and 39, OFCOM require Class 5 devices to transmit at 11 dBm max, Class 4 at 21 dBm and Class 3 at 31 dBm, with no constraints on Class 1 or 2. OFCOM have proposed that this is sufficient to ensure that the unintentional leakage into channel 38 is not harmful to the PMSE devices operating in that channel. kind regards, Ray _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
