3.5 Comparative analysis Studies 1, 2 and 3 consider the compatibility between FS and EESS on different assumptions/methodologies and some comprehensive elements are necessary for having an accurate understanding before drawing general conclusions. 1 (in Annex A, completed by Annex A1) derives FS maximum unwanted emission level/mask to ensure the EESS (passive) protection criteria is met. Studies 2 and 3 (in Annexes B and C respectively) are based on current FS power/frequency parameters and/or deployments and demonstrate that under these conditions, the EESS (passive) is protected. 3.5.1 FS links density The following table summarizes the FS link density scenarios considered in the three studies: Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 (Annex A) (Annex A1) (Annex B) (Annex C) Urban 0.5 links/km² 0.1 to 0.5 0.1 to 0.19 0.1464 to (hot spots) links/km² 0.2382 1) Rural 0.06 0.01 to 0.06 0.01 to 0.02 (outside hot spots) links/km² links/km² 1) Study 3 used actual licensed deployments not calculated averaged densities. In particular these deployments already show some hot spot deployments with FS densities up to 1.2 links/km² (see Fig. 3B below, 1 259 stations within 1 044 km²). This table shows that the FS link density assumptions considered in the three studies are broadly similar. Existing FS deployment in the vicinity of New York (US) 3.5.2 FS elevations The following summarizes the FS link elevation scenario considered in the three studies: Study 1 Study 1 2 (Annex B) Study 3 (Annex A) (Annex A1) (Annex C) High elevation 0.39% of links 0.1 to 0.5 % of ± 30° (normally Less than 2% of links with elevation links with distributed) links with higher than 20° elevation between elevation between 30° and 45° 20° and 65° This table shows that the FS link density assumptions considered in the 3 studies are similar in that they consider a majority of FS links with elevation below 30° whereas they differ with regards to high elevation FS links.
3.5 Comparative analysis Studies 1, 2 and 3 consider the compatibility between FS and EESS on different assumptions/methodologies and some comprehensive elements are necessary for having an accurate understanding before drawing general conclusions. 1 (in Annex A, completed by Annex A1) derives FS maximum unwanted emission level/mask to ensure the EESS (passive) protection criteria is met. Studies 2 and 3 (in Annexes B and C respectively) are based on current FS power/frequency parameters and/or deployments and demonstrate that under these conditions, the EESS (passive) is protected. 3.5.1 FS links density The following table summarizes the FS link density scenarios considered in the three studies: Study 1 (Annex A) Study 1 (Annex A1) Study 2 (Annex B) Study 3 (Annex C) Urban (hot spots) 0.5 links/km² 0.1 to 0.5 links/km² 0.1 to 0.19 0.1464 to 0.2382 1) Rural (outside hot spots) 0.06 0.01 to 0.06 links/km² 0.01 to 0.02 links/km² 1) Study 3 used actual licensed deployments not calculated averaged densities. In particular these deployments already show some hot spot deployments with FS densities up to 1.2 links/km² (see Fig. 3B below, 1 259 stations within 1 044 km²). This table shows that the FS link density assumptions considered in the three studies are broadly similar. Existing FS deployment in the vicinity of New York (US) 3.5.2 FS elevations The following summarizes the FS link elevation scenario considered in the three studies: Study 1 (Annex A) Study 1 (Annex A1) 2 (Annex B) Study 3 (Annex C) High elevation links 0.39% of links with elevation higher than 20° 0.1 to 0.5 % of links with elevation between 30° and 45° ± 30° (normally distributed) Less than 2% of links with elevation between 20° and 65° This table shows that the FS link density assumptions considered in the 3 studies are similar in that they consider a majority of FS links with elevation below 30° whereas they differ with regards to high elevation FS links.