C.1 strength versus pre-Viterbi cBER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 C.2 Field strength versus MER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 C.3 Pre-Viterbi cBER versus MER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 2 UHF Band IV Inland New Wales and Queensland – UHF Band IV digital signals with modulation parameters 64-QAM, ¾ FEC, 1/16 Guard Interval. Minimum median strength under Australian DTTB planning handbook (March 2005) in UHF Band IV: Urban 71 dBV/m • Suburban 63 dBV/m • Rural 50 dBV/m • Sample size: 176 Observations from Fig. C.4: Correlation between field strength and cBER could not be easily generalized. Observations from Fig. C.5: Relationship of MER and field strength exhibits a strong correlation trend with the first asymptotic MER level identified at 31 dB for field strength exceeding 100 dBµV/m, the second asymptotic MER level at 33 dB for field strength between 85 and 90 dBµV/m, and a possible third asymptote approximately at 36 dB. Observations from Fig. C.6: Sample size is too low to generalize any correlation between MER and cBER. C.4 Field strength versus pre-Viterbi cBER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 C.5 Field strength versus MER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 C.6 Pre-Viterbi cBER versus MER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 3 UHF Band V Inland New South Wales and Queensland – UHF Band V digital signals with modulation parameters 64-QAM, ¾ FEC, 1/16 Guard Interval. Minimum median strength under Australian DTTB planning handbook (March 2005) in UHF Band V: Urban 74 dBV/m •
C.1 strength versus pre-Viterbi cBER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 C.2 Field strength versus MER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 C.3 Pre-Viterbi cBER versus MER for VHF Band III, sample size 659 2 UHF Band IV – Inland New Wales and Queensland UHF Band IV digital signals with modulation parameters 64-QAM, ¾ FEC, 1/16 Guard Interval. Minimum median strength under Australian DTTB planning handbook (March 2005) in UHF Band IV: • Urban 71 dBV/m • Suburban 63 dBV/m • Rural 50 dBV/m Sample size: 176 Observations from Fig. C.4: Correlation between field strength and cBER could not be easily generalized. Observations from Fig. C.5: Relationship of MER and field strength exhibits a strong correlation trend with the first asymptotic MER level identified at 31 dB for field strength exceeding 100 dBµV/m, the second asymptotic MER level at 33 dB for field strength between 85 and 90 dBµV/m, and a possible third asymptote approximately at 36 dB. Observations from Fig. C.6: Sample size is too low to generalize any correlation between MER and cBER. C.4 Field strength versus pre-Viterbi cBER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 C.5 Field strength versus MER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 C.6 Pre-Viterbi cBER versus MER for UHF Band IV, sample size 176 3 UHF Band V – Inland New South Wales and Queensland UHF Band V digital signals with modulation parameters 64-QAM, ¾ FEC, 1/16 Guard Interval. Minimum median strength under Australian DTTB planning handbook (March 2005) in UHF Band V: • Urban 74 dBV/m
R-REP-BT.2252-3-2017-MSW-E.docx