home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
QRZ! Ham Radio 8
/
QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 8.iso
/
pc
/
files
/
p_misc
/
netconf.arc
/
SPECTRUM.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1988-12-10
|
12KB
|
265 lines
Digital Radio Networks and Spectrum Management
Paul A. Flaherty, N9FZX
Computer Systems Laboratory _a_n_d
Space, Telecommunications, and Radioscience Laboratory
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University
ERL 408A, Stanford, CA 94305
Abstract
Spectrum Management is a vital part of amateur radio.
Questions of where to place services in the available spectrum
continue to plague frequency coordinators. This paper contends
that multiaccess radio systems should be allocated in the spec-
trum below one GigaHertz, and that monoaccess or link oriented
systems be placed above that frequency.
Introduction
Electromagnetic Spectrum is a scarce, sometimes renewable
resource. Much of the research in radioscience today is devoted
to spectrum - efficient methods of communication, including such
mechanisms as amplitude - compandored sideband telephony, and
minimal shift keying data transmission. Only recently, however,
has research touched on the area of spectrum reuse, and the im-
pact of position within the radio spectrum considered.
Propagation characteristics of certain bands make those
spectra valuable to classes of users. Ionospheric propagation
below 30 MHz makes the High Frequency bands valuable to the world
community. Small component size and portability are important to
mobile users, and so the Very High and Ultra High bands play an
important part in mobile communications.
Beyond these characteristics, however, little can be gen-
eralized about the appropriate spectra for certain classes of ap-
plicants. It is not readily apparent that one band should be
preferred for multiaccess applications, and another for link -
oriented systems.
Packet Radio is considered to be a spectrally efficient
mechanism for digital communications. Using time - division
techniques, several users may share spectrum without interfer-
ence, if certain traffic characteristics hold, and if the network
load is limited. Techniques for time - sharing spectrum abound,
but all require some degree of omnidirectionality in the
transmission or reception system, which is characteristic of all
all multiaccess networks.
Using packet switching techniques, it is possible to con-
struct a link - oriented, or monoaccess network, which is func-
tionally equivalent to a multiaccess network. This duality can
be exploited for networks with fixed or portable stations.
In a hierarchal networking architecture, the Terminal
Network is usually defined as that hierarchy or subnet which con-
nects to end users. The telephone local loop plant, and radio
repeaters are two examples of terminal networks. This paper is
primarily concerned with terminal networks, although many of the
principles may apply elsewhere.
Synthesis
The forward gain of a parabolic reflector antenna is
given as: G = eta pi sup 2 d sup 2 f sup 2 over C sup 2
It is of no small consequence that the gain of a reason-
ably sized antenna increases dramatically with frequency; many
digital satellite services exist explicitly because of this fact.
For the purposes of discussion, a "reasonably sized" an-
tenna is considered to be unity, or one meter in diameter, for
terrestrial applications. "Reasonable size" is often a matter of
community tastes and economics; however, the one meter size cov-
ers a large portion of of the contingencies. Thus, the gain of
reasonably sized antenna is:
G sub 0 = eta pi sup 2 f sup 2 over C sup 2
The half power beamwidth of a typical parabolic reflector
is:
A = 139 over sqrt G
Digital modulation schemes may be divided into two
classes: orthogonal modulation techniques, such as phase shift
keying, and antipodal modulation, such as amplitude or frequency
shift keying. In order to add another bit per symbol in a con-
stant - bandwidth channel, an increase in the signal - to - noise
ratio of 3 db is required for orthogonal modulation, and 6 db for
antipodal systems.
Frequency Division Tradeoff
The Frequency Division Tradeoff between multiaccess and
monoaccess networks arises out of the increase in signal - to -
noise ratio that occurs with the use of directional radiators.
With the increase comes the ability to either multiply the bit
rate, or divide the bandwidth to obtain equivalent service. Be-
cause antenna gain is tied integrally with frequency, the ability
to fraction the bandwidth increases frequency, until a point is
reached where each node occupies its own channel. The transition
from a multiaccess network to its monoaccess dual occurs at a
certain Critical Frequency, which is determined in turn by chan-
nel access technique, and network size.
As an example, consider a terminal network of eight
nodes, using a Carrier Sense - Multiple Access, and frequency
shift keying, running at a rate of 19.2 Kbps. Assuming the best
case for CSMA (no hidden nodes), the best aggregate throughput we
can expect from such a network is about 10.6 Kbps.
The dual of this network is a set of eight links connect-
ed to a packet switch. Again assuming the best case for CSMA,
each user has access to a 19.2 Kbps data rate. We wish to accom-
plish this transition using equivalent power and bandwidth;
therefore, we require an eightfold increase in the aggregate bit
rate. Assuming the use of n-ary frequency shift keying, this in
turn requires an increase of 42 db in the signal - to - noise ra-
tio. Such an increase can be obtained by a pair of one meter
aperture antennas, operating at 1.5 GHz, using a 55% efficient
feed. The aggregate throughput for this network is 153.6 Kbps,
in the same bandwidth.
In general, for a large class of terminal networks, the
Critical Frequency lies around one GigaHertz. The extent of the
tradeoff is limited in practice by packet switching speeds, and
the extensibility of multilevel modulation schemes.
Space Division Tradeoff
The propagation characteristics of radio limit the spa-
tial dimensions of any network. However, it is often the case
that the network itself covers far less territory than the radio
spectra used to service it. This is particularly true with mul-
tiaccess networks which require omnidirectional radiators.
Radio propagation models are somewhat involved; the more
exacting models have been implemented as computer simulations by
researchers. However, even a cursory analysis reveals that spec-
trum reuse is much more practical at higher frequencies. In par-
ticular, path loss increases as the square of the frequency, as
does antenna gain (which results from a narrower beamwidth).
Wave polarity separation also increases accordingly. In general,
it should be possible to model the multiaccess - monoaccess
tradeoff, using the available computer tools.
As an example, consider the CSMA network mentioned ear-
lier. The farthest node is at a distance R from the hub. In
order to preclude the "hidden station" problem, stations on the
circle described by R must have enough power for range 2R. In
the limit, as the number of stations grows, the area covered by
the radio network becomes four times as large as the area of the
physical network. The monoaccess dual is no larger than physical
network area at some Critical Frequency, and can indeed be con-
siderably smaller.
Towards a Spectrum Efficiency Quotient
Clearly, a combination of three separation techniques
(spatial, spectral, and polar) can yield a spectrally efficient
monoaccess network at higher frequencies. At lower frequencies,
however, the multiaccess model predominates.
The term "spectrally efficient" has been used to describe
multiaccess networks, without specificity. What is needed is a
"figure of merit" to describe a radio network, and compare it
with other alternatives. Propagation characteristics of the
spectrum below one GigaHertz lend themselves to applications re-
quiring a high degree of mobility and portability. For fixed or
semiportable operation, however, a monoaccess network provides a
spectrally efficient alternative, when operated above the Criti-
cal Frequency.
Summary
The spectral efficiency of monoaccess and multiaccess
networks varies with the frequency used. The exact calculation
of the Critical Frequency of the tradeoff is currently the sub-
ject of research. However, in general, multiaccess networks tend
to be more spectrally efficient below one GigaHertz, and monoac-
cess networks predominate above.
Implications for the Amateur Service
Coordination between different types of services in the
Amateur Service at frequencies above 30 MHz has been accomplished
fairly haphazardly and ad hoc. With the advent of packet radio,
it has been difficult in major metropolitan areas to coordinate
use of spectrum. Repeater links have been traditionally placed
in bands close to repeaters, because of the availability of
equipment, and economy.
Ultimately, some changes need to be made in bandplans for
the Amateur Service. In particular, it is recommended that sta-
tions in Auxiliary Service (as defined in Part 97.86) should be
relocated to frequencies above one GigaHertz. Terrestrial digi-
tal links, used to interconnect multiaccess networks, should also
be placed in the microwave region. In turn, multiaccess digital
networks should be placed in the Amateur VHF and UHF allocations.
References
Wozencraft and Jacobs, _P_r_i_n_c_i_p_l_e_s _o_f _C_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_i_o_n_s _E_n_g_i_n_e_e_r_i_n_g,
1965, John Wiley and Sons, New York. ISBN 0-471-96240-6
William Stallings, _D_a_t_a _A_n_d _C_o_m_p_u_t_e_r _C_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_i_o_n_s, 1985, Mac-
millan Publishing, New York. ISBN 0-02-415440-7