I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation. Anything less is a waste. I know -80 isn't full modulation, but it's not far away. Perhaps with more clean spectrum, receivers will be better, but the same was said about 3650 and that hasn't materialized.
When browsing around on Channel Master's site that one of their DACs required -83 to -5 dBm with a SNR of 15 dB to operate. If TVWS devices are supposed to receive 30 dB below TV, then we should be able to receive signals that are -113 dBm. ---------- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:20 AM To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage > I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to > almost -95 > or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and > hopefully > stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that > were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal > required to receive a DTV signal. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM > To: WISPA List > Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage > > > Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 > dB > for all but the lowest of frequencies. > > I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white > spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm > minimum > allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country > land. > > With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but > terrain comes more into play here. > > For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. > For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still > need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. > > Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal > portable > devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very > well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. > > > ---------- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
