732 23.3.5 For aggregated Insert 'Unequal MCSs Rejected. channels, we need to could be applied to add an option for streams assigned to We don’t see the independent MCS per non-contiguous need/benefit for multiple channel, as described channels'. MCS at this point. in See multiple MCS discussion. Unequal MCS is more efficient when conditions varies from channel to channel. 841 23.3.5 As channel conditions Insert 'Unequal MCSs Rejected. in aggregated may be applied to channels will typically streams assigned to We don’t see the vary is seems overly non-contiguous need/benefit for multiple restrictive to not channels'. MCS at this point. unequal MCS in See multiple MCS aggregated channels. discussion. Unequal MCS should allow for more efficient channel use and higher throughput, if allowed. 607 23.6.4.4 Table 23-31: Single FCC rules define Rejected. TXPWR_LEVEL and depending on the single MCS may not combination of We don’t see the be sufficient for TVWS gelocation and need/benefit for multiple operation. Multiple channel location, the MCS and multiple levels power and multiple TX power could be at this point. MCS's for varied from one See multiple MCS TVWS channel to the other discussion. channel should be channel. Single supported TxPOW Level would not be sufficient. Single MCS would not be good for the case where SINRs are highly fluctuated. 856 23.6.4.4 FCC rules define the Table 23-31 should Rejected. TX power depending support Multiple on the combination of TxPOWs and multiple We don’t see the geolocation and MCSs for aggregated need/benefit for multiple channel location, in TVWS channels. MCS at this point. addition the TX power See multiple MCS can vary depending discussion. on the specific frequency channel. A single TxPOW Level is not sufficient to allow for this variation. Also a single MCS applied to multiple aggregated channels does not allow for optimal throughput performance for the case where the SINRs
732 23.3.5 For aggregated channels, we need to add an option for independent MCS per channel, as described in Unequal MCS is more efficient when conditions varies from channel to channel. Insert 'Unequal MCSs could be applied to streams assigned to non-contiguous channels'. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 841 23.3.5 As channel conditions in aggregated channels will typically vary is seems overly restrictive to not unequal MCS in aggregated channels. Unequal MCS should allow for more efficient channel use and higher throughput, if allowed. Insert 'Unequal MCSs may be applied to streams assigned to non-contiguous channels'. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 607 23.6.4.4 Table 23-31: Single TXPWR_LEVEL and single MCS may not be sufficient for TVWS operation. Multiple power and multiple MCS's for TVWS channel should be supported FCC rules define depending on the combination of gelocation and channel location, the TX power could be varied from one channel to the other channel. Single TxPOW Level would not be sufficient. Single MCS would not be good for the case where SINRs are highly fluctuated. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS and multiple levels at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 856 23.6.4.4 FCC rules define the TX power depending on the combination of geolocation and channel location, in addition the TX power can vary depending on the specific frequency channel. A single TxPOW Level is not sufficient to allow for this variation. Also a single MCS applied to multiple aggregated channels does not allow for optimal throughput performance for the case where the SINRs Table 23-31 should support Multiple TxPOWs and multiple MCSs for aggregated TVWS channels. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion.
11-12-1337-02-00af-proposed-comment-resolutions.docx