frequency segments. per frequency We don’t see the This will allow the segment. need/benefit for multiple easy use of different MCS at this point. MCS on different See multiple MCS frequency segments. discussion. 842 23.3.5 Allow for separate Allow separate Rejected. interleaving and coding on different per frequency We don’t see the frequency segments. segment. need/benefit for multiple This will enable the MCS at this point. use of different MCS See multiple MCS on different frequency discussion. segments. 606 Design a single Interleaver needs to Rejected. interleaver across be redesigned. frequency segments We don’t see the that will allow different need/benefit for multiple modulation levels for MCS at this point. each frequency See multiple MCS segment. This will discussion. keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. 735 Design a single Interleaver needs to Rejected. interleaver across be redesigned. frequency segments We don’t see the that will allow different need/benefit for multiple modulation levels for MCS at this point. each frequency See multiple MCS segment. This will discussion. keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. 736 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 power levels at power and multiple TX power could be 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. 846 Design a single Redesign the Rejected. interleaver across interleaver to allow for frequency segments different signal We don’t see the that will allow for constellations for need/benefit for multiple different modulation different frequency MCS at this point. levels for each segments. See multiple MCS frequency segment. discussion. This will allow the code-rate the same,
frequency segments. This will allow the easy use of different MCS on different frequency segments. per frequency segment. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 842 23.3.5 Allow for separate interleaving and coding on different frequency segments. This will enable the use of different MCS on different frequency segments. Allow separate per frequency segment. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 606 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. Interleaver needs to be redesigned. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 735 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. Interleaver needs to be redesigned. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 736 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 power levels at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 846 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow for different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will allow the code-rate the same, Redesign the interleaver to allow for different signal constellations for different frequency segments. 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