VICTIM

INTERFERER

Indoor RLAN

(Omnidirectional RLANs assumed)

Outdoor RLAN

(Omnidirectional RLANs assumed.)

Radio Fixed Access

Home RF

Bluetooth

RF Identification Devices

ENG/OBTV

Indoor RLAN

(Omnidirectional RLANs assumed)

Not a significant issue. Problematic only for unrealistically high densities of active indoor RLANs of 800 per km² or more.

Not a significant issue. Problematic for unrealistically high densities of active indoor RLANs, of 100 per km² and more.

Note, use of directional antennas for the victim outdoor RLAN may give rise to moderate concern.

 If more than 40 indoor RLANs per km²  IL (see Note 1) exceeded with 10% probability

Interference from indoor DSSS RLANs may potentially reduce working range of indoor operating Home RF devices

Interference from indoor DSSS RLANs at a distance of 10 metres from Bluetooth device will reduce the range of Bluetooth device to 2 metres. On this basis it is possible that Bluetooth would experience difficulties operating within the vicinity of a high density DSSS RLAN system

This scenario needs further investigation

There is approximately 15% probability that the excessive interference is suffered from FHSS indoor. However, OBTV occurrences are very occasional and most of the time this interference scenario is not considered to be problematic.

Outdoor RLAN

(Omnidirectional RLANs assumed)

Problematic only for outdoor RLANs of 1.5 per km² and higher densities

Problematic even for lower outdoor RLAN densities. The IL will be exceeded over 99% of the time for outdoor RLAN densities of 1.6 per km²

IL exceeded by 30% for density of 0.8 per km²

IL exceeded by at least 10% for density of 0.1 per km² (60% DSSS and 40% FHSS systems)

Interference from outdoor DSSS RLANs may potentially reduce working range of outdoor operating Home RF devices.

No significant problem, due to the very short range requirements of Bluetooth devices. Any interference may only decrease the range of the Bluetooth devices.

This scenario needs further investigation

There is approximately 60% probability that excessive interference is suffered from FHSS outdoor RLANs.  This problem is more significant than when the interferers are indoor RLANs. Although  OBTV occurrence are very occasional, this issue has to be considered when operating either system.

Radio Fixed Access

No significant problem. Even at a density of 10 RFA BS per km²  the interference limit is exceeded by less than 8%

For lowest analysed density of RFA of 1 BS per km²  the IL is exceeded with 60% probability (when the victim outdoor RLAN uses DSSS) or with 80% probability (when the victim outdoor RLAN is FHSS system)

IL exceeded by

·15% for BS densities of 1 per km²

· 60% for BS densities of 3 per km²

·98% for BS densities of 10 per km²

No significant problem from interference from FHSS RFA into Home RF.  The worst case interference may slightly reduce the range of Home RF devices when these are used outdoors.

FHSS RFA systems are unlikely to cause significant interference into FHSS short range Bluetooth devices which have relatively high link margins. Any interference may only decrease the range of the Bluetooth devices.

This scenario needs further investigation

As in the case of interfering outdoor RLANs, interference from RFA into ENG/OBTV will exceed the limit with a high probability. If the ENG/OBTV transmissions are regular within the operating service area of a RFA network, this issue would need to be considered

Home RF

Not a significant issue. Interference limit exceeded by less than 1% for 34 Home RF devices per km²  (also assuming 80% indoor and 20% outdoor  Home RF penetration)

Potentially problematic if we have more than 34 Home RF per km² .The analysis has shown that the interference limit is exceeded by 12% (if the victim is FHSS system) and 6 % (if the victim is DSSS system)

For highest simulated densities of 34 Home RF terminals per km² the probability of exceeding the interference limit is 5%. Potentially problematic if the density of Home RF devices is higher

Because both interferer and victim Home RF devices are most likely to use FHSS modulation, the potential for significant interference is negligible

Interference from FHSS Home RF devices is unlikely to cause significant interference into short range low gain Bluetooth devices.

This scenario needs further investigation

Similar scenario as for FHSS indoor RLANs, except that the realistic density of Home RF devices is smaller and the interference in this case is not believed to be significant

Bluetooth

Not a significant issue. Interference is well below the IL assuming density distribution of 140 low power active Bluetooth devices per km². The interference from Bluetooth devices in higher density  “hot spot” areas may give rise to moderate concern.

Not a significant issue. The IL is exceeded by 2% if the density of interfering low power active Bluetooth devices is 140 per km². The interference from Bluetooth devices in higher density  “hot spot” areas may give rise to moderate concern.

 Worst case ILs are 5 dB or more below the interference limits when the density of interfering low power active Bluetooth devices is 140 per km². The interference from Bluetooth devices in higher density  “hot spot” areas may give rise to moderate concern.

As both of these systems use FHSS and the likelihood of multiple co-located systems in a home environment is small, the potential for interference between these two systems is considered negligible.

A realistic number (up to 22) co-channel FHSS short Bluetooth devices can operate without causing significant interference.

This scenario needs further investigation.

FHSS short range Bluetooth devices are unlikely to cause significant interference into ENG/OBTV systems

RF Identification Devices

 Potential problem with interference from 4W RFID devices with high duty cycles. In the case of victim FHSS RLAN only affects 8MHz of available 79 MHz available bandwidth. In the case of victim DSSS RLAN a bigger issue. Recommended a 2446-2454 sub-band for use of this devices. Consider lower duty cycle (less than 10%) regulation (see Note 2)

Potential problem with interference from 4W RFID devices with high duty cycles. In the case of victim FHSS RLAN only affects 8MHz of available 79 MHz available bandwidth. In the case of victim DSSS RLAN a bigger issue. Recommended a 2446-2454 sub-band for use of this devices. Consider lower duty cycle (less than 10%) regulation

Potential problem with interference from 4W RFID devices with high duty cycles. In the case of victim FHSS RLAN only affects 8MHz of available 79 MHz available bandwidth. In the case of victim DSSS RLAN a bigger issue. Recommended a 2446-2454 sub-band for use of this devices. Consider lower duty cycle (less than 10%) regulation

 Potential problem with interference from 4W RFID devices with high duty cycles. In the case of victim FHSS RLAN only affects 8MHz of available 79 MHz available bandwidth. In the case of victim DSSS RLAN a bigger issue. Recommended a 2446-2454 sub-band for use of this devices. Consider lower duty cycle (less than 10%) regulation

This issue needs to be investigated further (see Note 3). The investigation so far has shown that even interference from high power (4W), and high duty cycle (100%) RFID, the cumulative probability of interference does not exceed 10%.

This scenario needs further investigation.

It is recommended that RFID operate in the sub-band, normally avoided by ENG/OBTV transmissions. This should avoid significant interference problems. Otherwise there is a potential for excessive interference

ENG/OBTV

(victim assumed to be in the main beam of ENG OBTV transmission)

Indoor DSSS RLANs will suffer excessive interference from the ENG/OBTV transmissions caused by 7dBW portable camera across the 2MHz of its bandwidth, and across 18MHz of its bandwidth if the interference is from 40 dBW OBTV point-to-point links. The corresponding probability levels when the victim indoor RLAN is an FHSS system are 8 MHz and 22 MHz.

A 40 dBW point-to-point link at LOS from the RFA system produces interference level exceeding the IL by 20 dB or more throughout the 20 MHz of transmit mask bandwidth

A 7dBW portable camera will exceed the IL in the 16 MHz of the transmit mask bandwidth

A 40 dBW point-to-point link at LOS from the RFA system produces interference level exceeding the IL by 20 dB or more throughout the 20 MHz of transmit mask bandwidth

A 7dBW portable camera will exceed the IL in the 16 MHz of the transmit mask bandwidth

FHSS Home RF devices are unlikely to suffer excessive interference thoughout the band from the ENG/OBTV when transmissions occur. In addition, the OBTV transmissions are very occasional at most of the areas where concentration of Home RF is high.

Short range FHSS Bluetooth devices are unlikely to suffer excessive interference from ENG/OBTV transmissions.

It is recommended that RFID operate in the sub-band, normally avoided by ENG/OBTV transmissions. If this recommendation is followed, there should not be any significant interference problems in this scenario. If the recommendation is not followed there is a potential for excessive interference

It is highly unlikely that two ENG/OBTV systems can operate without significant interference problems at the same location and at the same frequencies.

JFMG co-ordination issue