Exhibit B Intertek Report

Exhibit B

Intertek Report

This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek and its Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Intertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss, expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this report and then only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement of the tested material, product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by Itself does not imply that the material, product, or service is or has ever been under an Intertek certification program.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.

731 Enterprise Drive Lexington, KY 40510 Telephone: 859-226-1000 Facsimile: 859-226-1040 www.intertek-etlsemko.com

Final Report

Cricket Wireless 5887 Copley Drive

San Diego, CA 92111

EVALUATION OF THE RF COEXISTENCE LTE OPERATION

ON 700 MHz A Block

(formerly channels 52 / 57) AND

TV CHANNEL 51 RECEPTION

Date: January 14, 2013 Job: G1002WX445

Report: G1002WX445LEX-02

Prepared By: _________________________________________Date: 1/14/2013 Stephen Berger Reviewed By: ________________________________________Date: 1/14/2013 Justin Harbour

Intertek Evaluation for: Cricket Wireless Revision 1.0 - 1/14/2013

Report: Page 2 of 146

Table of Contents

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................9

1.1 – PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................10 1.2 FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................................11

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................15

2.1 EVALUATION STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................15 2.2 LTE BANDWIDTHS ...............................................................................................................................17 2.3 TEST ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................................................................................19 2.4 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................................................19

SECTION 3 - TEST PLANNING ANALYSIS & STRATEGY..............................................................21

3.1 LTE (SOURCE) DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................................22 3.2 DTV (RECEPTOR) DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................................28

SECTION 4 - TEST PREPARATION ACTIVITIES..............................................................................29

4.1 THESHOLD OF SENSITIVITY ..................................................................................................................29 4.2 DTV SIGNAL QUALITY.........................................................................................................................29 4.3 LTE SAMPLE SELECTION ......................................................................................................................30 4.4 LTE PRE-TEST CHARACTERIZATION .....................................................................................................30 4.5 DTV SAMPLE SELECTION .....................................................................................................................31 4.6 DTV PRE-TEST CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................................................................36

SECTION 5 –CONDUCTED TESTING...................................................................................................40

5.1 OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................................................40 5.2 TEST SETUP...........................................................................................................................................40 5.3 TEST MATRIX........................................................................................................................................41 5.4 REFERENCE CHECKS .............................................................................................................................42 5.5 TEST PROCEDURE – MAIN TEST LOOP ..................................................................................................43 5.6 PERFORMANCE METRICS ......................................................................................................................43 5.7 DTV SIGNAL QUALITY.........................................................................................................................43 5.8 CONDUCTED TEST RESULTS..................................................................................................................46

SECTION 6 OVER-THE-AIR TESTING ................................................................................................49

6.1 TEST SETUP ..........................................................................................................................................49 6.2 PRE-TEST..............................................................................................................................................51 6.3 TEST PROCEDURE.................................................................................................................................52 6.4 OTA TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................................................52

SECTION 7 FOCUSED EVALUATIONS................................................................................................67

7.1 COMPARISON OF A VS B BLOCK DEPLOYMENT.....................................................................................67 7.2 LTE SIGNAL GENERATOR VS LTE UE DEVICES....................................................................................68 7.3 EVALUATION OF D/U RATIO LINEARITY...............................................................................................69 7.4 LTE WAVEFORM EVALUATION ............................................................................................................72 7.5 STRONG SIGNAL EVALUATION..............................................................................................................72

SECTION 8 FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................74

8.1 COMPARISON OF CONDUCTED AND OTA .............................................................................................74 8.2 SELECTION OF UNITS FOR OTA............................................................................................................76 8.3 INTERFERENCE DISTANCES...................................................................................................................77

SECTION 9 FIELD PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................................81



9.1 LTE POWER CONTROL .........................................................................................................................82 9.2 RELATIVE ANTENNA POSITION & ORIENTATION ..................................................................................83 9.3 CALCULATING COVERAGE LEVELS .......................................................................................................85 9.4 PHONE USAGE ......................................................................................................................................88

SECTION 10 TEST EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES...............................................................................89

10.1 DTV ANTENNAS ................................................................................................................................89 10.2 DTV MONITORING.............................................................................................................................90

APPENDIX A - LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................1

APPENDIX B – BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................1

APPENDIX C – LTE SIGNAL SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................1

APPENDIX D – DETAILED CONDUCTED TEST DATA .....................................................................2

APPENDIX E – OTA TEST DATA ............................................................................................................1

APPENDIX F – LTE UE TRP DATA .........................................................................................................1

APPENDIX G – DTV ANTENNA PATTERN DATA...............................................................................1

APPENDIX H – BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................1



INDEX OF TABLES



TABLE 1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS...........................................................................................................19


TABLE 2 – OOBE ENERGY PLACED IN DTV CHANNEL 51 FROM LTE UE .................................................24 TABLE 3 – ATSC RECEIVER PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES............................................................................28


TABLE 4 - LTE UE TO BE TESTED..............................................................................................................30 TABLE 5 - TESTED RECEIVERS...................................................................................................................34 TABLE 6 - TESTED MOBILE DTV RECEIVERS.............................................................................................35 TABLE 7 – DTV RECEIVER SENSITIVITY .....................................................................................................38 TABLE 8 – MDTV RECEIVE SENSITIVITY....................................................................................................39


TABLE 9 – TEST MATRIX FOR THE PRIMARY TEST LOOP ..............................................................................41


TABLE 10 – TOV THRESHOLD AS A FUNCTION OF LTE UE DISTANCE AND RELATIVE ORIENTATION..........52 TABLE 11 - WORST CASE INTERFENCE DISTANCES – TOS + 3 DB .............................................................54 TABLE 12 - INTERFENCE DISTANCES AT 98% COVERAGE LEVEL – TOS + 3 DB ........................................55 TABLE 13 - WORST CASE INTERFENCE DISTANCES – -68 DBM...................................................................56 TABLE 14 - INTERFENCE DISTANCES AT 98% COVERAGE LEVEL – -68 DBM..............................................57 TABLE 15 - WORST CASE INTERFENCE DISTANCES – -53 DBM...................................................................58 TABLE 16 - INTERFENCE DISTANCES AT 98% COVERAGE LEVEL – -53 DBM..............................................59 TABLE 17 - WORST CASE INTERFENCE DISTANCES – -28 DBM...................................................................60 TABLE 18 - INTERFENCE DISTANCES AT 98% COVERAGE LEVEL – -28 DBM..............................................61 TABLE 19 – OTA TEST RESULTS FOR THE LG 42LK450.............................................................................62 TABLE 20 – OTA TEST RESULTS FOR THE SONY BRAVIA KDL46NX720...................................................63 TABLE 21 – OTA TEST RESULTS FOR THE PANASONIC VIERA TC-L32C3 ..................................................64 TABLE 22 – OTA TEST RESULTS FOR THE SAMSUNG UN32EH4000 ..........................................................65 TABLE 23 – OTA TEST RESULTS FOR THE TOSHIBA 24SL41OU.................................................................66


TABLE 24 – LINEARITY OF THE D/U RATIO (LTE SIGNAL CENTERED AT 702.5 MHZ) ................................70 TABLE 25 – LINEARITY OF THE D/U RATIO (LTE SIGNAL CENTERED AT 701.5 MHZ) ................................70 TABLE 26 – TOV LEVELS 1 DB OVER THRESHOLD OF THE DTV AND 3 MHZ LTE UE SIGNAL ..................71 TABLE 27 – TOV LEVELS 1 DB OVER THRESHOLD OF THE DTV AND 5 MHZ LTE UE SIGNAL ..................71


TABLE 28 – DIFFERENCE IN VALUES AND STANDARD DEVIATION BETWEEN THE FULL DTV SET AND

THOSE SELECTED FOR OTA TESTING.....................................................................................................77


TABLE 29 – COVERAGE LEVELS SHOWN AS IN TERMS OF THE FRACTION OF THE MAXIMUM FOR THE 12

COMBINATIONS TESTED ..........................................................................................................................85






TABLE 30 - APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS.........................................................................................................1


TABLE 31 – LTE SETUP (HANDSET 5 MHZ BW)..........................................................................................1


TABLE 32 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 1.4 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT TOS + 3 DB)...........................................................................................................................3 TABLE 33 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 1.4 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT -68 DBM)................................................................................................................................4 TABLE 34 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 1.4 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV



SIGNAL AT +3 DB)....................................................................................................................................7 TABLE 37 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 1.4 MHZ WITH 6 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT -68 DBM)................................................................................................................................8 TABLE 38 – TOV LEVELS ( LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 1.4 MHZ WITH 6 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV


SIGNAL AT -28 DBM)................................................................................................................................9 TABLE 40– TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 3.0 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT +3 DB)..................................................................................................................................10 TABLE 41– TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 3.0 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT -68 DBM)..............................................................................................................................11 TABLE 42– TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 3.0 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV








SIGNAL AT -68 DBM)..............................................................................................................................20 TABLE 50– TOV LEVELS ( LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 5.0 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT -53 DBM)..............................................................................................................................21 TABLE 51 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 5.0 MHZ WITH 1 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV


SIGNAL AT TOS+3 DB) ..........................................................................................................................23 TABLE 53 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 5.0 MHZ WITH 25 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV

SIGNAL AT -68 DBM)..............................................................................................................................24



TABLE 54 – TOV LEVELS (LTE UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTH 5.0 MHZ WITH 25 RESOURCE BLOCK / DTV


SIGNAL AT -28 DBM)..............................................................................................................................26


TABLE 56 – WORST CASE AND 98% THRESHOLD OF VISABILITY (TOV) DISTANCES FOR TOS+3 DB..........2 TABLE 57– WORST CASE AND 98% THRESHOLD OF VISABILITY (TOV) DISTANCES FOR -68 DBM ..............3


TABLE 58 – TRP FOR LTE UE USED ............................................................................................................1


TABLE 59 – TRP FOR LTE UE USED ............................................................................................................2


TABLE 60 – FCC DTV SERVICE AREA DEFINITIONS, , ..................................................................................1

TABLE 61 - INTERFERENCE CRITERIA FOR CO- AND ADJACENT CHANNELS .................................................1



INDEX OF FIGURES


FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED LTE DEPLOYMENT PLAN........................................................................................10 FIGURE 2 – FCC 700 MHZ BAND PLAN WITH 3 GPP BAND CLASSES

,..........................................................11 FIGURE 3 – DEPICTION OF THE BAND PLAN WITH TRANSMITTERS AND RECEIVERS SUPPERIMPOSED ...........11 FIGURE 4 – LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT THE THRESHOLD OF VISABILITY...................................................12 FIGURE 5 – DESIRED-TO-UNDESIRED (D/U) RATIO AS A FUNCTION OF DTV SIGNAL LEVEL .....................13 FIGURE 6 – 98% COVERAGE LEVEL FOR A 5 MHZ LTE SIGNAL AND A DTV SIGNAL OF TOS+3 DB...........14


FIGURE 7 – COEXISTENCE EVALUATION PROCESS......................................................................................16 FIGURE 8 – REPRESENTATIVE LTE UE TRANSMIT POWER DISTRIBUTION .................................................17 FIGURE 9 – GUARDBAND FOR LTE DEPLOYMENT PLAN ............................................................................18 FIGURE 10 – UE SIGNAL BANDWIDTHS EVALUATED...................................................................................19


FIGURE 11 – INDEPENDENT TEST VARIABLES ............................................................................................21 FIGURE 12 – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OOBE AND D/U RATIO ILLUSTRATED WITH A 5 MHZ BW LTE

SIGNAL ...................................................................................................................................................23 FIGURE 13 – OOBE FROM LTE UE USING 5.0 MHZ BANDWIDTH..............................................................25 FIGURE 14 – OOBE FROM LTE UE USING 3.0 MHZ BANDWIDTH..............................................................26 FIGURE 15 – OOBE FROM LTE UE USING 1.4 MHZ BANDWIDTH..............................................................27


FIGURE 16 – LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT THE THRESHOLD OF VISABILITY.................................................29 FIGURE 17 – SAMSUNG’S CONSUMER ORIENTED TV CATEGORIES ..............................................................32 FIGURE 18 – PRE-TEST SETUP DIAGRAM .....................................................................................................37


FIGURE 19 – CONDUCTED TEST SETUP USING AN LTE UE SIGNAL GENERATOR .........................................41 FIGURE 20 – CONDUCTED TEST SETUP USING ACTUAL LTE EQUIPMENT.....................................................41 FIGURE 21 – IMPACT OF SIGNAL IMPAIRED EVM ON SIGNAL CONSTELLATION DIAGRAM.........................45 FIGURE 22 – INFLUENCE OF EVM ON TOV LEVELS...................................................................................46 FIGURE 23 – MAX AND MIN LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT DTV TOV FOR 1.4 MHZ BANDWIDTH...............47 FIGURE 24 – MAX AND MIN LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT DTV TOV FOR 3.0 MHZ BANDWIDTH...............47 FIGURE 25 – MAX AND MIN LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT DTV TOV FOR 5.0 MHZ BANDWIDTH...............48 FIGURE 26 – AVERAGE LTE SIGNAL STRENGTH AT DTV TOV FOR ALL BANDWIDTHS.............................48


FIGURE 27 – RADIATED TEST SETUP USING LTE UE SIMULATOR ...............................................................50 FIGURE 28 – RADIATED TEST SETUP USING ACTUAL LTE UE.....................................................................51 FIGURE 29 – WORST CASE TOV DISTANCES FOUND WITH AN LTE UE WITH 18 DBM MAXIMUM TRP......53 FIGURE 30 –TOV DISTANCES AT 98% COVERAGE LEVEL FOUND WITH AN LTE UE WITH 18 DBM

MAXIMUM TRP ......................................................................................................................................53


FIGURE 31 – LOWER 700 MHZ BAND PLAN ................................................................................................67 FIGURE 32 – COMPARIONS OF INTERFERENCE DISTANCES BETWEEN BAND CLASSES 12 AND 17.................68 FIGURE 33 – VARIATION IN D/U RATIO AS A FUNCTION OF DTV SIGNAL STRENGTH.................................73


FIGURE 34 – COMPARISON OF AVERAGE THREAT DISTANCES – DTV SIGNAL LEVEL – TOS + 3 DB.........79 FIGURE 35 – COMPARISON OF AVERAGE THREAT DISTANCES – DTV SIGNAL LEVEL – -68 DBM ..............79



FIGURE 36 – COMPARISON OF AVERAGE THREAT DISTANCES – DTV SIGNAL LEVEL – -53 DBM ..............79 FIGURE 37 – COMPARISON OF AVERAGE THREAT DISTANCES – DTV SIGNAL LEVEL – -28 DBM ..............80


FIGURE 38 – THE PROBABILITY OF LTE TO DTV INTERFERENCE IS HIGHEST WHERE THE DTV SIGNAL

IS WEAK AND THE LTE UE IS TRANSMITTING AT ITS MAXIMUM POWER. IN OTHER REGIONS THE

PROBABILITY IS MUCH LESS AND OFTEN VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT. .....................................................83 FIGURE 39 – VARIATION IN RELATIVE PLACEMENT CAN INFLUENCE THE COUPLING EFFICIENCY

BETWEEN AN LTE UE AND DTV ANTENNA. ..........................................................................................84 FIGURE 40 – PLOT OF DTV RECEIVING ANTENNAS WITH COVERAGE LEVELS SHOWN.................................87








FIGURE 41 – ANTENNA PATTERN TESTING OF BANDRICH C525 USB DONGLE TO MEASURE TOTAL

RADIATED POWER (TRP) ..........................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 42 – COMPARISON OF THREE LTE UE DEVICES AT THE AZIMUTH 90 ..............................................3 FIGURE 43 – COMPARISON OF THREE LTE UE DEVICES AT ELEVATION 0O ..................................................4 FIGURE 44 – COMPARISON OF FOUR BANDS OF BANDRICH PHONE AT AZIMUTH 90O...................................5 FIGURE 45 – COMPARISON OF FOUR BANDS OF BANDRICH PHONE AT ELEVATION 0O .................................6 FIGURE 46 – COMPARISON OF FOUR BANDS OF SAMSUNG R930 AT AZIMUTH 90O.......................................7 FIGURE 47 – COMPARISON OF FOUR BANDS OF SAMSUNG R930 AT ELEVATION 0O .....................................8 FIGURE 48 – COMPARISON OF TWO BANDS OF GALAXY NOTE AT AZIMUTH 90O .........................................9 FIGURE 49 – COMPARISON OF TWO BANDS OF GALAXY NOTE AT ELEVATION 0O ......................................10


FIGURE 50 – COMPARISON OF SIX DTV INDOOR ANTENNAS .......................................................................3 FIGURE 51 – GENERIC DTV INDOOR ANTENNA ............................................................................................4 FIGURE 52 – ZENITH VN1ANTP1................................................................................................................5 FIGURE 53 – GE ENHANCE 34760 ................................................................................................................6 FIGURE 54 – RCA MULTIDIRECTIONAL FLAT ANTENNA ANT1600R ..........................................................7 FIGURE 55 – RCA INDOOR ANTENNA ANT112R.........................................................................................8 FIGURE 56 – RCA DIGITAL FLAT ANTENNA ANT1050R.............................................................................9


FIGURE 57 – ATSC SIGNAL FORMATS ..........................................................................................................6 FIGURE 58 - ATSC BROADCAST SYSTEM WITH TS MAIN AND M/H SERVICES (FIGURE 4-1 FROM

ATSC A/153-7) .......................................................................................................................................6



Section 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary provides an overview of the findings from this study of the potential for interference to DTV receivers of a broadcast channel 51 signal caused by Long Term Evolution (LTE) User Equipment (UE) transmitting in the adjacent band, the former channel 52 frequency band. Three deployment scenarios are explored, assuming the LTE UE transmit with a 5.0, 3.0 and 1.4 MHz signal. One of the findings is that with a 1.4 MHz bandwidth there is little difference from the interference distance for an LTE UE operating at full bandwidth in the next adjacent channel, the B block. This finding is shown in Figure 6. The interference distance for a 3.0 MHz bandwidth signal increases moderately, compared to that from either a B block or 1.4 MHz A block signal. The interference distance for a 5.0 MHz bandwidth signal increases more significantly, to 8.9 m, at a 98% coverage level. This distance is less than 10 m. Here 98% coverage level refers to the variation in coupling loss between the LTE UE and DTV receiving antenna due to relative placement and orientation. The 98% coverage level is level at which 98% of the positions and orientations will be below. The significance of comparing the results to a 10 m separation distance is that past FCC actions have used 10 m as the dividing line at which the FCC would assume that both devices were under the control of a single household, making a number of mitigation options available. As an example in FCC 79-555 the Commission states:

54. We are most interested in protecting an individual who is receiving interference from his neighbor's computer. To a lesser extent, we are concerned about devices in the same household. In a household, the homeowner or apartment dweller can choose which device he wants to operate. For example, if a second TV set in the same house is receiving interference from a computing device in a adjacent room, there are a number of steps he can take to remedy or minimize the problem, or as a last option, he can always choose which is most important to operate—the TV set or the computing device. One of the first and easiest corrective steps he can take is to move the two pieces of equipment further apart. Another step is to reorientate the receiving antenna. Since there is a lobing effect associated with all antennas, by reorientating the antenna he can reduce the interfering signal picked up by the antenna. Reorientation of the equipment is another easy remedy, since radiated emanations from most electronic equipment is directional. These simple corrective steps can help correct such interference problems in most households. On the other hand, these remedies may not work when a second party is receiving the interference. 55. Assuming a separation distance of 10 meters, our analysis (as given in Appendix C)shows that the minimum limit necessary for protection of TV reception from a computing device operated in an adjacent household is essentially the limit that had been proposed in Section 15.13(b)--100 µV/m at 3 meters. The Commission recognizes, of course, that there will be instances when the separation distance is less than 10 meters. In many such cases, we anticipate there will be mitigating circumstances which will counteract the shorter separation distance, such as greater attenuation due to additional walls between the computer and the TV receiver. We also anticipate that, in many cases, the orientation of the TV receiver with respect to the computer will help reduce pickup of the undesired computer signal.1

This basis makes the distance of 10 m a significant benchmark when evaluating the results found in this study. As will be discussed in more detail at the conclusion of this overview the 98% coverage level for a 5 MHz bandwidth LTE signal on a DTV signal only 3 dB above the threshold-of-sensitivity (TOS) was found to be 9 m.

1 First Report and Order in Gen Docket 20780, FCC 79-555, released October 11, 1979, 44 Fed. Reg. 59530 (October 16, 1979), Appendix C.



1.1 – Purpose

This test project was tasked with evaluating the potential for interference from an LTE deployment, with UE operating in the 698-704 MHz band (former TV channel 52), to DTV reception of a DTV channel 51 broadcast signal. This test report presents the findings of this evaluation. The proposed deployment is depicted in Figure 1.

TVBroadcast

CN 51

6 MHz

692 MHz 698 MHz

90 dBm ER(1 MW)

UE Signal Bandwith 23 dBm ERP(0.2 W)

5 MHz

704 MHz

3 MHz1.4 MHz

LTEBasestation

6 MHz

728 MHz 734 MHz

60 dBm ERP(1 kW)

Figure 1 – Proposed LTE Deployment Plan

Three LTE signal bandwidths, 1.4, 3.0 and 5.0 MHz, each of which is a possible deployment scenario, were evaluated. Figure 1 depicts the LTE bandwidths tested.

A secondary objective was to evaluate the relative interference performance of band class 12 and band class 17 devices operating in the B block.

This deployment plan is a specific implementation under the larger FCC & 3GPP band plan for the 700 MHz band, depicted in Figure 2.



Figure 2 – FCC 700 MHz band plan with 3 GPP band classes2,3

Figure 3 shows the bandplan with transmitters and receivers superimposed above and below the frequency bar. The area of interest is highlighted in the red rectangle. As can be seen the focus for the potential for interference is from a transmitting LTE UE to a DTV receiver with an indoor antenna. DTV receivers with outdoor antennas would be unlikely to be close to a transmitting LTE UE in almost all circumstances.

Figure 3 – Depiction of the band plan with transmitters and receivers supperimposed

1.2 Findings

The potential for interference under the full range of DTV signal strengths was evaluated. The possibility was considered that different interference mechanisms might be dominant under strong signal condictions

2 § 6 of the March 21, 2012, FCC WT Docket 12-69 NPRM (FCC 12-31). 3 “BCxx” indicates band classes proposed as part of the international 3GPP industry LTE technical standards processes.



versus weak signal conditions. Accordingly tests were conducted at strong, moderate and weak DTV signal levels.

Little evidence was found of a potential strong signal interference risk. The levels at which significant high signal level effects manifested themselves were measured and found to be greater than the levels achievable by LTE UE operating with a 23 dBm power limitation.

LTE UE interference was found to be highly correlated to the DTV signal level. For most of the region from -28 to -68 dBm of DTV receive signal strength at the DTV receiver input, the tested DTV receivers showed a tolerance for LTE UE emissions that was proportional to the DTV signal level as demonstrated in Figure 4.

In Figure 4 the red crosshatch area is the region that cannot be created with an LTE UE during radiated testing or in actual use. The testing shown was conducted and so there was a direct wire connection between the LTE source and the DTV receiver. With a direct conducted connection it is possible to achieve much higher levels than are possible with a radiated connection. In testing with LTE UE it was difficult to get above 1 to 2 dBm of LTE signal at the DTV receiver port even when the LTE UE was almost or actually in contact with the DTV antenna.

Resource blocks are also introduced in Figure 4. The LTE protocol divides its bandwidth among resource blocks. A device is allocated a number of resource blocks by the network. The size of the allocation is controlled based on the amount of data a device has to transmit and also the networks loading. For a 5 MHz bandwidth the maximum number of resource blocks an LTE UE can be allocated is 25. For a 3 MHz signal 15 resource blocks is the maximum. For 1.4 MHz the maximum is 6 resource blocks.

Figure 4 – LTE Signal Strength at the Threshold of Visability

The interference level can also be analyzed in terms of D/U ratios, Figure 5. As LTE signal strength increased some degradation can be seen in the D/U ratios shown in Figure 5. This may be due to non-linearities in the OOBE (Out-of-Band Emissions) from the LTE UE or adjacent channel selective of the DTV receiver, producing in-band mixing products. However the degradation appears to be reasonably mild in the mid-signal range, becoming more pronounced with very weak and very strong DTV signals, and correspondingly very weak and very strong LTE signals.



Figure 5 – Desired-to-Undesired (D/U) Ratio as a function of DTV Signal Level

A baseline assessment was prepared by exposing a selection of 26 DTV receivers to the LTE signal. Using the LTE signal strength at the threshold of visability threat distance estimates were calculated using the link budget discussed later in this report. These distances were then confirmed with over-the-air (OTA) testing. The distances at which threshold of visibility (TOV) occurred in the presence of a weak, TOS+3 dB DTV signal are reported in Figure 6.4

The data used and results for individual DTV sets is reported in Appendix D.

4 Most detail on the test data, the analysis and computations leading to this summary of the results is found in the body and appendices of this report.



Figure 6 – 98% coverage level for a 5 MHz LTE signal and a DTV signal of TOS+3 dB5

5 In this figure as in the rest of the document 98% coverage level is only accounting for variations due to the relative position and orientation of the LTE UE and DTV antenna. The 98% coverage level is the threshold at which 98% of the position fall below and only 2% of the position have have more efficient coupling and so more interference.

Other variables also influence the energy coupled from an LTE UE into a DTV receiver. These are not included in the coverage level but they could be for a more complete treatment of the problem. Howver, adding in other variables would only decrease the interference distances reported in this study.



Section 2 - Introduction

2.1 Evaluation Strategy

This project seeks to evaluate the potential impact LTE UE operating in the 698-704 MHz band on DTV broadcast receivers operating on DTV Channel 51, 692-698 MHz. There are only a few LTE UE devices that operate in band class 12 currently on the market, although the number is expected to increase and perhaps increase rather rapidly. The number of DTV receivers on the market is much greater. The challenge of this evaluation is that it seeks to understand the composite impact of group of LTE UE devices on the DTV receivers currently on the market and in use. Simply put, how will DTV receivers and LTE transmitters coexist? The evaluation is intended to understand the potential impact of the proposed deployment of LTE devices, the source device population, on the population of DTV receivers, the receptor population. Viewed at a summative level the project sought to answer three questions:

At what D/U (Desired DTV signal to undesired LTE signal in the adjacent band) ratio will interference occur with the current generation of DTV receivers?

For the three LTE bandwidths measured, at what distance could an LTE UE, operating at maximum power, reach the TOV for the DTV when the DTV signal is at different signal levels?6

How does the TOV distance change as a function of the induced signal power from the LTE UE?

The evaluation is structured following guidance found in:

IEEE 1900.2-2008, IEEE Recommended Practice for the Analysis of In-Band and Adjacent Band Interference and Coexistence Between Radio Systems

Draft report of the ANSI C63 Task Group on Wireless Coexistence Analysis

The test methodology used benefited significantly from previous FCC studies of DTV interference:

FCC OET Bulletin 69, Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference

FCC ET Docket No. 05-182, Report To Congress The Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Reauthorization Act Of 2004 Study Of Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures

FCC OET Report 07-TR-1003, DTV Converter Box Test Program - Results and Lessons Learned

The report follows the logical progression shown in Figure 7. The process is started with a test planning analysis of the two populations of devices being evaluated. The planning analysis provides the necessary information to develop a test plan. That plan directed that first conducted testing be performed, followed by radiated OTA testing. The results of conducted and radiated laboratory tests are then extrapolated to predicted field performance. Logically there is an intervening step of consequential chain mapping, which points to other relevant factors that come between laboratory testing and field performance.

6 Four DTV signal levels were chosen to evaluate the potential to interference over the range of DTV signal levels most likely to occur. The weakest signal level was set at 3 dB over each DTV receiver’s threshold of sensitivity (TOS), approximately -82 dBm for most DTV receivers. The other signal levels were -68 dBm, -53 dBm and the strongest DTV signal, -28 dBm.



The test planning analysis guided the sample selection of units to be tested and the testing parameters to be used. The objective was to select a sample from which defensible estimations can be extrapolated for the entire population of devices. The analysis was also intentended to be used to focus the testing on the most important variables for coexistence of these two populations of devices. In the background discussion, Appendix H, some examples can be seen of the need for and value of test planning analysis. Lessons learned by the FCC in its own testing provided valuable insight into how the receptor devices, the consumer-grade DTV receivers behave.

The test planning analysis identified the characteristics of the two populations and the critical variables require study. Conducted testing was done first because it is generally simpler and more repeatable than radiated testing.

Conducted testing assumes that both the desired and undesired signal primarily enter through the DTV antenna port. Radiated testing verifies this assumption. A subset of five DTV receiver’s were selected for radiated OTA testing. These units were selected to include three of the poorest performing DTV receivers and two with mid-range performance.

The conducted and radiated test results create a body of information from which a prediction of field performance can be developed.

Field performance brings in a variety of other variables, which must be understood to accurately understand the implications of the laboratory testing. The consequential chain that must occur for laboratory results to be experienced in the field needs to be mapped. As a point of comparison, the FCC’s Part 15 requirements are designed to provide protection from interference that may be caused by unintended radiators, such as personal computers, which are within a distance of 10 m. The underlying assumption is that at closer distances a single user will have control of both devices and therefore have available a variety of mitigating actions, the most obvious being that the user can simply turn one device off. Another obvious mitigation is to move one device farther from the other. Hence, the ability of a user to implement mitigation measures is important to selecting what protection distance should be required. However the amount of energy an LTE UE will induce into a DTV receiver’s antenna input port will vary widely, depending on factors such as the relative position of the LTE UE and DTV, their relative orientation, the amount of RF absorbtion due to walls and furniture in the path and other variables. Taken together these factors are called the coupling efficiency or the coupling loss, which means the efficiency the LTE UE has to transmit energy into the DTV receiver, or alternately how much loss there is from the LTE UE to the DTV receiver.

An important issue in understanding the consequential chain is the LTE’s power control. Networks manage their UE devices, maintaining their power at the lowest level consistent with a targeted performance level. However, the laboratory testing focuses on interference caused by UE operating at maximum transmit power, which is the worst case condition. In reality UE only operate at maximum transmit power a small percentage of the time. Figure 8 presents a representative distribution of LTE UE transmit powers. This data was obtained during a drive test in an optimized LTE nextwork and is typical of what can be expected once a network is built out. As can be seen, in this test, the LTE UE operates at maximum power only 16.3% of the time. 83.3% of the time the LTE UE is transmitting 2.5 dB or more below its maximum power. 66.0% of the time it is 5.0 dB or more below its maximum transmit power.

Figure 7 – Coexistence Evaluation Process



Figure 8 – Representative LTE UE Transmit Power Distribution

Cross-polarization is another variable. The DTV receiving antenna can be assumed to be oriented for maximum reception, although that will be more an approximate truth than an absolute fact. In contrast to being able to assume that a DTV receiving antenna is reasonably aligned for best reception of the DTV signal, no assumption can be made about the relative orientation between the DTV receiving antenna and UE transmitting antenna. The UE can be in any relative orientation to the DTV receiving antenna, and in addition to relative position can be cross-polarized. The relative position and polarization of the two will be random.

Field experience will ultimately be a complex probability distribution. It is the probability of interference will vary from being highly improbable to highly probable, based on a number of independent variables. It is the probabilistic nature of the interference that makes it difficult to analyze, measure and mitigate. This reality guides the way results are analyzed and projected onto field performance. It is demonstrated in the way the FCC defines the service contours for DTV:

“For digital television stations, service is evaluated inside contours determined by DTV planning factors in combination with field strength curves derived for 50% of locations and 90% of the time from curves which are also found in Section 73.699 of FCC rules.”7

2.2 LTE Bandwidths

Some guardband is necessary between the DTV signal and the LTE signal, Figure 9. One purpose of this project is to determine how much of a guardband is required.

7 FCC OET Bulletin 69, February 6, 2004, pgs 2-3.



GU

AR

DB

AN

D

Figure 9 – Guardband for LTE Deployment Plan

The three potential LTE signal bandwidths, 1.4, 3.0 and 5.0 MHz, depicted in Figure 10, were evaluated. Each signal was placed at the maximum frequency separation (frequency offset) from DTV channel 51 as the LTE A block channel will allow. With decreasing bandwidth a larger guardband between Channel 51 and the proposed LTE signal becomes possible. A 1 MHz guard band is possible with the 5.0 MHz signal, 3 MHz with the 3 MHz signal and 4.6 MHz with the 1.4 MHz signal. The intention is to produce as much guardband as the channel will allow.



Figure 10 – UE signal bandwidths evaluated

2.3 Test Assumptions

Test assumptions will be kept to the fewest feasible number. However, some assumptions must be made. Many are in the area of how representative the test sample is of the population it is drawn from. Care was taken in the sample selection plan to ensure that the test sample is representative of its larger population. Variables such as manufacturing variance and changes in performance with age and handling are assumed to have relatively small impact.

2.4 Applicable Documents

Table 1 is a list of applicable standards and other documents for this project.

Table 1 Applicable Documents

Document Number

Title Revision & Date

3GPP TS 36.101 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception (Release 11)

2012

ATSC A/53 Part 1 Digital Television System 2009



ATSC A/53 Part 2 RF/Transmission System Characteristics 2011

ATSC A/153 Part 1 ATSC Mobile DTV System 2011

ATSC A/153 Part 2 RF/Transmission System Characteristics 2011

IEEE 1900.2-2008 IEEE Recommended Practice for the Analysis of In-Band and Adjacent Band Interference and Coexistence Between Radio Systems

2008



Section 3 - Test planning analysis & Strategy A number of independent variables have the potential to influence the interference threshold. This study evaluated all of the major relevant variables. However, to test every combination of every independent variable would quickly lead to an unreasonable number of test steps. Figure 11 illustrates the multiplying effect of each variable, which is the core challenge to be addressed. In order to be more efficient with the available test time two optimization strategies were employed. First, the devices to be tested were tested in flights of approximately five to ten units. After each flight was tested a check point was used to review the data and the testing process, allowing improvements to be made from one flight to the next. Improvements in the test setup were made during the course of the testing, resulting in more accurate and repeatable results.

The second strategy was to implement a main test loop which had the focus of moving as many devices through the evaluation process as possible. Some variables were selected to be the focus of targeted side evaluations, outside the main test loop. The results of these focused evaluations are presented in Section 7.

An example of how this strategy was be implemented is the ATSC signal type. Testing was conducted using the most complex 1080 60i DTV signal. This was done for two reasons. First, the analysis of the signal types concluded that this is the most fragile DTV signal type. Second, the FCC’s studies of DTV interference found it to be the most sensitive signal type.8

Similarly, variables that affect the LTE waveform were set to what were assumed to be worst case settings. The validity of these assumptions was to be verified as a separate evaluation.

The LTE signal source was another variable. The R&S® model SMU-B12 LTE Uplink Signal Generator and several commercially available LTE UEs were used to produce the LTE UE signal. Care was taken to insure that the signal generator’s mask was representative of the UE mask. The mask used was selected because it meet the minimum requirements of the 3GPP standard.

In the end the primary testing was focused to allow the largest feasible sampling of DTV receivers with simplifying assumptions, confirmed through side evaluations. In most cases the primary test loop used worst case settings and the side evaluation sought to understand the range and probability distribution of each variable.

8 In FCC OET Report 9TR1003 Chapter 9, "Lessons Learned", portion of the FCC testing of coupon-eligible converter boxes (CECBs), page 9-1, reports that DTV signals with motion rather than static video results in the most rigorous testing. Such signals were used in the tests for this project.

ATSC Signal Type

LTE Signal Type

TV Signal Level

LTE Signal Level

LTE Bandwidth

LTE Center Freq

LTE UE/Base/Both

TOV Transition

Figure 11 – Independent Test Variables



3.1 LTE (Source) device characteristics

3.1.1 Transmission Power

The maximum transmit power is 23 dBm with a ±2 dB tolerance for UE in this band.9

The signal bandwidth and with it the number of resource blocks used is a variable explored in the testing.

3.1.2 Out-of-Band Emissions

Out-of-band-emissions (OOBE) are a significant consideration for this issue. OOBE that fall within DTV channel 51, 692-698 MHz, will be of particular concern because it constitutes a co-channel interfering signal to the DTV Channel 51 signal. In its 2007 test report the FCC found:

Co-Channel Interference Rejection

Tests conducted by the FCC Laboratory in 2005 on 28 consumer DTV receivers demonstrated that the receivers differ very little in their immunity to broadband co-channel interference. In those tests, receivers were found to produce pictures that were free of visual errors when the TV signal power exceeded broadband interference power within the same TV channel by a threshold ranging from 14.9 to 15.8 dB, with the median threshold being 15.3 dB.10‡ These results closely match the 15.2 dB threshold of the Grand Alliance receiver.11§

The small variation of co-channel interference rejection performance among the receivers and the close match to the older Grand Alliance results are in line with the expectation that co-channel interference rejection threshold is determined primarily by the structure of the ATSC DTV signal format adopted by the FCC.12

The co-channel interference rejection sets a floor to expectations for D/U ratio. The desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio cannot exceed the OOBE levels within the DTV Channel 51 band by more than ~15 dB. A measure of the OOBE falling into DTV Channel 51 versus the LTE fundamental plus 15 dB will be an effective limit on the D/U ratio defining A-block-into-DTV-Channel-51 interference. But that best case will only be possible if interference from OOBE is the dominant interference mechanism. If other interference mechanisms dominate then D/U ratios below that level may be observed as defining A-block-into-DTV-Channel 51 interference.

The FCC OOBE limits in the service rules for the 698-746 MHz band set a worst case level for OOBE since these requirements prevent LTE UE from having higher levels of OOBE.

(g) For operations in the 698–746 MHz band, the power of any emission outside a licensee’s frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. Compliance with this provision is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 100 kilohertz or greater. However,

9 See 3GPP TS 36.101 V9.9.0 (2011-09) Sections 6.6.2.1.1 and Table 6.2.2.1.1-1 or 3GPP TS 36.101 V11.0.0 (2012-03) Section

6.2.2 and Table 6.2.2-1, which specifies the maximum emission limits for LTE UE. UE in this band operate as power class 3 devices under the 3GPP standard. The 3GPP standards define several power classes and set maximum transmit power limits for each class.

10 Martin, <SHVERA Study>, 2005, chapter 3. 11 Federal Communications Commission Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, “Final Technical Report”, Oct 31,

1995, p.19. 12 March 30, 2007, OET Report FCC/OET 07-TR-1003, “Interference Rejection Thresholds of Consumer Digital Television

Receivers Available in 2005 and 2006”, pg. 1-2.



in the 100 kilohertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to a licensee’s frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be employed.13

By the FCC rule the OOBE from an LTE UE, which operates at 23 dBm or -7 dBW, cannot exceed 43 – 7 dB, or 36 dB below the transmission power. Measurement of OOBE in DTV Channel 51 from current LTE UE devices was found to be in the range of 43 to 62 dB below the LTE fundamental, which equates to -20 to -39 dBm from a full power 23 dBm transmission. The high end of this range, 43 dB, was measured with a 5 MHz bandwidth LTE signal, which not surprisingly places the most OOBE energy into channel 51. Using the 5 MHz bandwidth signal as an example, Figure 12 shows that a D/U ratio of 27.12 is would be the expected D/U ratio. However, the measurements found that the D/U ratio were significantly better under most DTV signal conditions. Of course the actual D/U ratio could be worse that this if the DTV receiver front end allowed additional energy into the DTV from the adjacent band with the LTE fundamental. The low end of the range, 62 dB, was measured with the 1.4 MHz bandwidth LTE signal. Thus the practical best case limit for D/U ratios is approximately 15 dB above the OOBE in-channel power or about 45 dB, and that would be expected with a 1.4 MHz bandwidth LTE signal.

42.

12

dB

– L

TE

Fu

nd

ame

nta

l to

OB

E

15 d

B27

.12

dB

D/U

42.1

2 d

B –

LT

E F

un

dam

en

tal t

o O

BE

15

dB

27.

12 d

B D

/U

Figure 12 – Relationship between OOBE and D/U ratio illustrated with a 5 MHz BW LTE signal

The OOBE energy from the LTE UE used in this project that was injected in DTV Channel 51 is listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 13 through Figure 15. If the OOBE placed into DTV Channel 51 is the dominant interference mechanism, then these values and their relative relationship would be expected to be reflected in the interference measurements. This in fact was observed to be the case in many, but not all cases.

13 47CFR Section 27.53(g)



Table 2 – OOBE Energy Placed in DTV Channel 51 from LTE UE

LTE UE OOBE Energy in DTV Channel 51

(dB below the LTE Fundamental)

Band Class 12 Devices Band Class 17

BandRich MODEL C525

Samsung R930 Samsung Note

5.0 MHz Bandwidth 25 Resource Blocks

-42.1 dB -43.3 dB -56.6 dB


-52.5 dB -51.5 dB Not Tested


-61.6 dB -58.8 dB Not Tested

D/U ratios were measured in the mid-range of DTV signals, -53 to -68 dBm, which approached the levels that would be predicted based on the OOBE energy in DTV channel 51. Hence, these readings suggest that the dominant interference mechanism for mid-range DTV signals is OOBE from the LTE UE. At the high and low extremes of the DTV signal range D/U ratios were observed to compress, suggesting that other interference mechanisms are becoming more important at the extremes of the usable DTV signal range, which the ATSC A/74 Recommended Practice at Section 5.1 defines as receive signal levels of between -5 dBm and -83 dBm.



OOBE from LTE UE Used in Testing

Band Class 12 Devices Band Class 17 Device

BandRich MODEL C525 Samsung R930 Samsung Note


Baseline plot, showing instrument noise floor.

Figure 13 – OOBE from LTE UE using 5.0 MHz Bandwidth




Band Class 12 Devices

BandRich MODEL C525 Samsung R930






Band Class 12 Devices

BandRich MODEL C525 Samsung R930





3.2 DTV (Receptor) device characteristics

The population of DTV receivers is divided into fixed DTV receivers and mobile/handheld (M/H) MDTV receivers. Manufacturer-to-manufacturer variation is assumed but was verified. It was found that all devices currently being sold use sixth generation chip sets but devices using fifth generation chip sets are significantly represented in the installed population. Each generation of DTV chips have brought improvements which are believed to be potentially significant for the interference issue being studied. The sixth generation chips are known to have superior ghost image rejection compared to previous generations.

ATSC has published receiver performance recommendations for to DTV and MDTV devices, Table 3. It is hoped that device manufacturers follow these recommendations. However, the validity of following the ATSC A/74 and ATSC A/174 recommended practices was upheld for those parameters measured during the project testing. These recommended practices contain a number of other recommendations which were not verified in this project.

Table 3 – ATSC receiver performance guidelines

ATSC A/74:2010 ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines

07 APR 2010

ATSC A/174:2011 ATSC Recommended Practice: Mobile Receiver Performance Guidelines

26 SEP 2011

Other variables may prove to be correlated and significant. At the outset of this testing these were not known. As the testing progressed and it became apparent that other factors were important to the outcome, these are identified and discussed in this report.



Section 4 - Test Preparation Activities

4.1 Theshold of Sensitivity

The minimum operating level was identified as the DTV receiver’s Threshold of Sensitivity (TOS), which is the lowest DTV signal level at which it can operate without any interference present. As the DTV signal transitions into the weak signal region, around -68 dBm and below, approaching its TOS level, a growing, and not unexpected, sensitivity to interference was observed. However, through most of this region the general trend line was maintained, even though degraded. Figure 16 is based on conducted testing using a BandRich Model C525 UE as the signal source. Because the LTE signal was applied through a direct connection signal levels were possible that are believed to be not achievable from an LTE UE operating at a maximum of 23 dBm due to antenna and link budget losses. This region is shown by the red cross hatching. The testing was ended if a DTV was able to accept 8 dBm of LTE signal power without interference.14 In the data, for a -28 dBm DTV signal, which is the DTV signal level where this situation was found, a D/U ratio of -36 dB was entered because that was the highest demonstrated D/U ratio. In fact for many of the DTV receiver’s, at -28 dBm the TOV level was not reached and so the true D/U ratio is not known, but it is known to be at least the -36 dB used in computing the data for Figure 4, repeated here, numbered Figure 16.

Figure 16 – LTE Signal Strength at the Threshold of Visability

4.2 DTV Signal Quality

As would be expected, when operating under weak signal conditions, test variability was found to increase significantly. The DTV signal can be thought of as having two variables which are important to this problem. The first is DTV signal amplitude and the second is DTV signal quality. These variables are independent of each other.

14 8 dBm was selected as the highest level used in the conducted testing for two reasons. First, there was a desire to not test with signals that had the potential to damage the DTV receiver. Second, there seemed no reason to test at signal levels that could not be achieved in an actual use environment. Exploratory testing with LTE UEs found it was difficult to get above signal levels of +1 to +2 dBm, even with the LTE UE very close or even touching the DTV antenna. So 8 dBm was above any LTE signal power likely to be induced into a DTV receiver.



Signal quality can degrade due to signal reflections and other influences, which are independent of the signal amplitude. Signal quality is commonly measured as Error Vector Magnitude (EVM). It was observed that, particularly under weak signal conditions, variation in EVM could dramatically influence the sensitivity to interference. Accordingly the interference threat distance can vary significantly due to EVM even with the same DTV signal amplitude.

4.3 LTE Sample selection

Currently a limited supply of Band Class 12 devices exists. Those that do exist were acquired and used in the testing.

Table 4 - LTE UE to be tested

Manufacturer Name / Model FCC ID / Grant Date

Band Class 12

Samsung

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 M/N SCH-I905U

A3LSCHI905U / 02/13/2012

Samsung Galaxy S Aviator M/N SCHR930

A3LSCHR930 / 01/06/2012

Samsung Presto MiFi A3LSCHR380 / 04/22/2011

BandRich Compact LTE USB Modem

UZI-MODEL C525 / 02/23/12

Band Class 17

Samsung GalaxySII (Skyrocket) A3LSGHI727 / 09/01/2011

Samsung Galaxy Note A3LSGHI717 / 01/20/2012

4.4 LTE pre-test characterization

Each DTV receiver tested was evaluated in a pre-test, to verify that it is functioning properly, to determine its sensitivity, and other parameters relevant to this project.



4.4.1 Maximum transmit power

The maximum transmit power was measured for each LTE UE and compared to the FCC equipment authorization test report on file with the FCC. The purpose of the comparison was to verify that the device being used was representative of the design, as reported to the FCC.

4.4.1.1 Galaxy S Aviator (Band Class 12)

The Galaxy S Aviator, model SCHR930, was measured for maximum radiated power and the results compared to those reported to the FCC in the test report available on the FCC equipment grants database. It was confirmed that the specific devices being used were representative of the design, as evidenced by the FCC test report. Hence, it is believed that the LTE devices used were operating normally and reasonably represent their model.

4.4.1.2 BandRich LTE USB Modem (Band Class 12)

The BandRich Compact LTE USB Modem, Model Model C525, was measured for maximum radiated power and the results compared to those reported to the FCC as part of the equipment grant for this device.

4.4.1.3 Galaxy Note (Band Class 17)

The Galaxy Note, Model SGH1717, was measured for maximum radiated power and the results compared to those reported to the FCC as part of the equipment grant for this device.

4.4.2 LTE In-Band

The following signal characteristics were measured for each LTE UE used in the testing: Maximum transmit power. Adjacent channel power at maximum transmit power. Occupied bandwidth.

4.4.3 LTE Out-of-Band

The out-of-band-emission from each UE used in this testing was measured before the device was used in the testing.

4.5 DTV Sample selection

DTV receivers can be categorized in a number of ways. Samsung guides consumers on its site by arranging their TV products by type, screen size, features and price. Sony uses a similar arrangement but adds a product family category and currently has four product families, the XBR-HX Series, HX-Series, EX-Series and BX-Series. A series of models may indicate a similar or identical underlying receiver design and so there is the liklihood that models within a series will behave similarly. Price may also be significant if correlated to higher quality design in the receiver circuitry.



Type

(LEDs use backlighting to deliver enhanced images.

LCD displays work well in dark and bright light. Plasma TVs have high

contrast ratios and deep blacks.)

Screen Size

(Screen size is measured diagonally, from inside

edges, and does not include the outer frame. )

Features

(Features range from fashionable style to

interactive features like Samsung Apps.)

Price

(Price ranges are directly related to the number of features. The higher the cost, the more features.)

LED TV 60” - 65” 3D Under $800

Plasma TV 52” - 58” Samsung Apps $800 - $1500

LCD TV 46” - 51” 600Hz Subfield Motion $1500 - $2500

40“ - 43” Skype $2500 and up

32” - 37” Built-in WiFi

19” - 26”

Figure 17 – Samsung’s consumer oriented TV categories15

The DTV receivers for the first two flights were selected by choosing from recent lists of the manufacturers with the greatest market share and the best selling or most highly rated models.

The January 10, 2012, issue of This Week In Consumer Electronics (TWICE) magazine reported the top-ten consumer grade TV receivers manufacturers as:

1. Samsung 2. LG 3. Sony 4. Panasonic 5. Sharp 6. Toshiba 7. Vizio 8. RCA 9. Westinghouse 10. Mitsubishi

This list of manufacturers was then used with lists from Amazon (as of April 5, 2012) of the top 100 TV models ranked by sales and Best Buy’s list of the top 57 models based on consumer reviews. A unit from each manufacturer, generally the first on the list for that manufacturer (its best selling model) was selected. Also included were DTV receivers from manufacturers not listed in the top ten to ensure that “low end” receivers were included. This added receivers from five manufacturers:

11. Haier 12. Coby 13. Insignia 14. Dynex 15. JVC

15 Source: http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products



The resulting list represents a selection of the best selling or highest consumer rated models from manufacturers represented in either of these lists. Table 5 below identifies tested DTV receivers.



Table 5 - Tested Receivers

# Manufacturer Model Description

First Flight

1 LG 42LK450 42" 1080p 60 Hz LCD HDTV

2 Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 32" 720p LCD HDTV

3 Samsung LN37D550 37" 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV (Black)

4 Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 46" 1080p WiFi 3D LED HDTV, Black

5 Toshiba 24SL410U 24" 1080p 60 Hz LED-LCD HDTV, Black

Second Flight

6 VIZIO E220VA 22" Class Edge Lit Razor LED LCD HDTV

7 Samsung UN19D4003 19" 720p 60Hz LED HDTV (Black)

8 LG 42CS560 42" Class / 1080p / 60Hz / LCD HDTV

9 Samsung UN32EH4000 32" 720p 60 Hz LED HDTV

10 Panasonic VIERA TC-L32E5 32" 1080p Full HD IPS LED-LCD TV

11 LG 47LK520 47" 1080p 120 Hz LCD HDTV

12 Samsung PN43E450 43" 720p 600 Hz Plasma HDTV (Black)

13 Samsung UN32EH5300 32" 1080p 60 Hz LED HDTV (Black)

Third Flight

14 Sony BRAVIA KDL32BX330 32" 720p HDTV, Black

15 Toshiba 24V4210U 24" 1080P/60HZ LED DVD Combo

16 VIZIO E3D320VX 32" Class Theater 3D LCD HDTV

17 Sharp LC46SV49U 46" Class - LCD - 1080p - 60Hz - HDTV



18 Insignia NS-19E320A13 19" Class / LED / 720p / 60Hz / HDTV

19 RCA 26LA33RQ 26" Class / 720p / 60Hz / LCD HDTV

20 Haier L32D1120 32" 720p LCD HDTV, Black

21 JVC LT19E610 19" LED-LCD TV - 16:9 - HDTV

22 Coby TF-TV1212 12" TFT-LCD Monitor with TV Tuner

23 Access HD DTA1080 DTV converter box

24 Sansonic FT-300A DTV converter box

25 Jensen JDTV-1020 10” TFT Color LCD TV

26 Vizio VMB070 7" LED Portable TV

Table 6 - Tested Mobile DTV receivers

# Manufacturer Model Description

1 Farenheit16 DTV-MHU Mobile ATSC-MH Digital TV Receiver

2 Hauppauge 1404 WinTV-Aero-m USB2 TV Tuner

3 LG DP570MH MDTV Device

4 Coby DTV111 USB MDTV Receiver

5 Cydle i30A MDTV Receiver for smartphones

6 Valup Tivizen MDTV receiver to WiFi

7 Vizio VMB070 MDTV Device

8 Jensen JDTV-1020 MDTV Device

9 Snapbox SNAPBOX TV-2 USB MDTV Receiver

10 Garmin 1480C GPS Navigator/MDTV Device

11 Samsung YP-CM3 MDTV Device

16 Epsilon Electronics owns both Power Acoustiks and Farenheit. This unit is sold under both brands.



12 Navigon DVB-T MDTV Device

13 Mio V730 MDTV Device

14 Mio Moov V500/V700 GPS Navigator/MDTV Device

15 RCA DMT3BR Mobile ATSC M/H Car Tuner Receiver

16 BOYO VT-MH TV tuner - external

17 BOYO VT-MHC ATSC and ASTC M/H Tuner Combo

18 Exonic EXDTV ATSC M H and Digital TV Tuner Combo

19 Soundstream TV-ATSC-MH ATSC M H and Digital TV Tuner Combo

20 Hauppauge TV-PCTV-80e-23058 HD USB TV Tuner, ATSC-M/H Video System

21 Nesa DMH-2 ATSC M/H Digital TV Tuner

22 Performance Teknique

ICBM-ATSC ATSC M/H Digital TV Tuner

23 SK Enterprises TVTATSC-M ATSC M/H Digital TV Tuner

24 Leading Advance LX-A8005 ATSC M/H Receiver for Car

25 Kingtronic 7" LCD Handheld Portable DTV

4.6 DTV pre-test characterization

4.6.1 Sensitivity measurement procedure

Determine the TOS-A (Threshold of Sensitivity with an ascending signal) and TOS-D (Threshold of Sensitivity with a descending signal), using the following procedure:



1. Setup the DTV receiver and test equipment per Figure 18.

2. Start the test with a TV signal on channel 51, below the TOS (the TV will not have a viewable signal).

3. Raise the signal until there is a visible picture above the TOS level. Record the TOS-A.

Att

enu

ato

r-2

0 d

B

Figure 18 – Pre-test setup diagram

4. Lower the signal until the picture is lost or degraded below the TOS threshold and record the last passing level which is the TOS-D.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 as necessary to determine the TOS-A and TOS-D to within 0.5 dB.

4.6.2 DTV receiver sensitivity levels

As part of the pre-test, the receive sensitivity of each DTV device was measured. The testing was performed by adjusting the DTV signal level with no LTE signal was present. Table 7 shows the results.

To avoid confusion, in this document TOS (Threshold of Sensitivity) is used for the TOV (Threshold of Visibility) level found with only the DTV signal present. TOV is used for the same performance threshold, found using a combination of DTV and LTE signals. This difference in terminology is done to keep the two test conditions clear.

Throughout the project both TOS and TOV are measured both with an ascending signal (TOS-A/TOV-A) and a descending signal (TOS-D/TOV-D).


Report: Page 38 of 146 Final Report

Table 7 – DTV receiver sensitivity

Manufacturer M/N Description TOS (dBm)LG 42LK450 42-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LCD HDTV -85.7Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 32-Inch 720p LCD HDTV -84.9Samsung LN37D550 37-Inch 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV -85.2Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 46-inch 1080p WiFi 3D LED HDTV -84.8Toshiba 24SL410U 24-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LED-LCD HDTV -83.6Vizio E220VA 22" Class Edge Lit Razor LED LCD HDTV -85.6Samsung UN19D4003 19" 720p 60Hz LED HDTV (Black) -82.9LG 42CS560 42" Class / 1080p / 60Hz / LCD HDTV -85.7Samsung UN32EH4000 32" 720p 60 Hz LED HDTV -85.8Panasonic VIERA TC-L32E5 32" 1080p Full HD IPS LED-LCD TV -85.6LG 47LK520 47" 1080p 120 Hz LCD HDTV -85.9Samsung PN43E450 43" 720p 600 Hz Plasma HDTV (Black) -85.5Samsung UN32EH5300 32" 1080p 60 Hz LED HDTV (Black) -85.8Sony BRAVIA KDL32BX330 32" 720p HDTV, Black -82.9Toshiba 24V4210U 24" 1080P/60HZ LED DVD Combo -84.0VIZIO E3D320VX 32" Class Theater 3D LCD HDTV -85.8Sharp LC46SV49U 46" Class - LCD - 1080p - 60Hz - HDTV -86.2Insignia NS-19E320A13 19" Class / LED / 720p / 60Hz / HDTV -81.3RCA 26LA33RQ 26" Class / 720p / 60Hz / LCD HDTV -85.5Haier L32D1120 32" 720p LCD HDTV, Black -85.4JVC LT19E610 19" LED-LCD TV - 16:9 - HDTV -85.7Coby TF-TV1212 12" TFT-LCD Monitor with TV Tuner -84.4Access HD DTA1080 DTV converter box -63.1Sansonic FT-300A DTV converter box -83.0Jensen JDTV-1020 10" TFT Color LCD TV -82.1Vizio VMB070 7" LED Portable TV -83.7



Table 8 – MDTV receive sensitivity

Manufacturer M/N Description TOS (dBm)Farenheit DTV-MHU Mobile ATSC-MH Digital TV Receiver -91.6Hauppauge 1404 WinTV-Aero-m USB2 TV Tuner -88.5


Page 40 of 146

Section 5 –Conducted testing This section describes the conducted testing and corresponding data analysis for the DTV receivers tested.

5.1 Objective

The objective of this project was to evaluate the DTV receiver performance to a controlled combination of DTV and LTE signals.

5.2 Test setup

Two types of conducted testing were performed. The first used LTE waveforms, created by an LTE signal generator, see Figure 19. The second used actual LTE equipment, with the UE controlled by a base station simulator, see Figure 20. Each approach has its strengths and were used in the final evaluation of A-block interference to DTV channel 51 reception.

The primary advantage of testing with actual LTE equipment is that it recreates the actual use environment and may introduce variables that the waveform creation process may not include. However, this approach is clearly hindered because it can only use equipment that is currently available. Further, using actual equipment cannot explore the variability that the entire population of LTE equipment may exhibit.

Testing with generated waveforms has the advantage that it is repeatable. The test waveforms can be generated by other laboratories and test results confirmed by them. Further, testing with generated waveforms does not require a base station simulator and simplifies the test setup, making it possible for more labs to replicate these test results, if they wish. Waveforms can also be designed to either accentuate worst case LTE signals, which may occur rarely in actual use, or be varied through a range of parameters, as might be found in a population of LTE devices.


Page 41 of 146

LTE Signal Generator

TV Signal Generator

Signal Combiner Coupler

SpectrumAnalyzer

For Sig Monitoring

Isolator

Attenuator

50-75 Ω

DTV ReceiverUnder Test

TV Signal Quality

Observer

Figure 19 – Conducted test setup using an LTE UE signal generator

Att

enu

ato

r-2

0 d

B

Att

enu

ato

r

Figure 20 – Conducted test setup using actual LTE equipment

5.3 Test matrix

A matrix of conducted tests was created by the differing values listed in Table 9. Some variables were more fully explored in focused evaluations of the impact that the variable on the level at which interference occurs. The results of these tests is reported later in this report.

Table 9 – Test matrix for the primary test loop

Variable # Quantity or Value


Page 42 of 146

DTV Signal Source 1.1 R&S® SFE DTV Signal Generator

ATSC Signal Type 2.1 DTV Signal

1080 60i ATSC A/53 compliant signal using a high motion video, e.g. video of fireworks or school of swimming fish.

2.2 MDTV Signal

ATSC A/153 Only MDTV devices are tested with the MDTV signal (ATSC A/153. However, MDTV devices that are capable of receiving both a regular DTV and MDTV signal are to be tested with both signal types.

DTV Signal Strength17 3.1 Marginal signal level (TOS + 3 dB)

3.2 Weak signal level (-68 dBm)

3.3 Moderate signal level (-53 dBm)

3.4 Strong signal level (-28 dBm)

LTE Signal Source 4.1 R&S® SMU-B12 LTE Uplink Signal Generator

Samples of Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 LTE UE, listed in Table 4, will be tested separately against a subset of DTE receivers.

LTE Waveform 5.1 1 RB at location 0, closest to CH 51, within the BW, which is located as specified below.

5.2 Max RB for bandwidth

DTV Receiver 6.x See list of DTV Receivers to be tested in Table 5

LTE Signal Bandwidth & Center Frequency

7.1 1.4 MHz / 703.3 MHz

7.2 3.0 MHz / 702.5 MHz

7.3 5.0 MHz / 701.5 MHz

FEC Coding Rate18 8.1 HHHH19

5.4 Reference checks

At the beginning of each test confirm:

1. The DTV signal level is correct at the signal monitoring point.

2. The LTE signal level is correct at the signal monitoring point.

3. The DTV receiver is above its TOV for the DTV signal level to be used.

17 The weak, moderate and strong DTV signal strengths are defined in ATSC A/74-2010 Table 5.2 18 FEC channel coding applies only to mobile devices. 19 The HHHH coding rate will be used for the primary loop testing but the impact of changing the coding rate will be evaluated separately.


Page 43 of 146

5.5 Test procedure – Main Test Loop

The following procedure was followed for this test:

1. From matrix created in Section 5.3 and Table 9 select and setup the configuration to be tested and record:

a. DTV Signal Source

b. ATSC Signal Type

c. DTV Signal Strength

d. LTE Signal Source

e. LTE Waveform (settings on the LTE signal generator)

f. DTV receiver to be tested

g. LTE signal bandwidth

h. LTE signal center frequency

2. Perform the reference checks

3. Starting at an LTE signal level below the TOV-A threshold, raise the LTE signal level until the TOV-A is determined. Repeat as necessary to resolve the TOV-A threshold to within 0.5 dB. Record the TOV-A level. If the LTE signal level reaches 8 dBm without reaching the TOV level end the test and record that result as TOV not reached.20 This testing is performed with the LTE signal generator but a sampling of results will be confirmed with actual LTE UE devices.

4. Reduce the LTE signal level, starting above the TOV-D level until reception is disrupted. Repeat as necessary to resolve the TOV-D threshold to within 0.5 dB. Record the TOV-D level.

5. Calculate and record the D/U ratio for TOV-A and TOV-D. Note that the values for desired and undesired signal shall be measured in a bandwidth sufficiently wide to capture the full energy of the signal.

5.6 Performance Metrics

The primary metrics recorded are:

1. The DTV signal level and LTE signal level at the TOV-A and TOV-D and the D/U ratio at these thresholds.

2. The TOV-A and TOV-D.

5.7 DTV Signal Quality

Independent of signal amplitude, signal quality was found to have a significant influence on the results. Error Vector Magnitude (EVM) was used as a measure of signal quality.

“The error vector magnitude or EVM (sometimes also called receive constellation error or RCE) is a measure used to quantify the performance of a digital radio transmitter or receiver. A signal

20 8 dBm is selected be greater than the highest power an LTE UE can possibly couple into a DTV antenna. During the radiated testing it was found that it was difficult to get above 2 dBm of LTE power into the DTV, even with the LTE UE extremely close to the DTV ‘rabbit-ears’ or loop antenna.


Page 44 of 146

sent by an ideal transmitter or received by a receiver would have all constellation points precisely at the ideal locations, however various imperfections in the implementation (such as carrier leakage, low image rejection ratio, phase noise etc.) cause the actual constellation points to deviate from the ideal locations. Informally, EVM is a measure of how far the points are from the ideal locations.”21

Figure 21 shows the impact of degraded EVM on a signal constellation diagram. As the EVM increase, the location of symbols in the constellation spread more widely, increasing the percentage of symbols which are read in error. For this study, an increase in EVM preloads the signal processing functions, making them less resilient to the influence of the LTE signal. The result can be significant and particularly for weaker signals impact can be non-linear, with TOV changing significantly more than the change in EVM might suggest.

21 Wikipedea at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_vector_magnitude


Page 45 of 146

Constellation Diagram of an Unimpaired Signal

Signal with 8.5 dB of Impairment

Figure 21 – Impact of Signal Impaired EVM on Signal Constellation Diagram

The Threshold of Visability (TOV) was measured for different EVM values using a -60 dBm DTV signal. The results showed that the TOV level changed by 6 dB for a 2 dB change in EVM, Figure 22.


Page 46 of 146

Figure 22 – Influence of EVM on TOV Levels

5.8 Conducted Test results

Detailed test results for the conducted testing are presented in Appendix D.


Page 47 of 146

Figure 23 – Max and Min LTE Signal Strength at DTV TOV for 1.4 MHz Bandwidth



Page 48 of 146


Figure 26 – Average LTE Signal Strength at DTV TOV for all Bandwidths


Page 49 of 146

Section 6 Over-the-Air testing The testing strategy for this project called for conducted testing to be complimented by radiated over-the-air (OTA) tests. OTA tests were used to for several reasons:

1. OTA testing validated the interference distance estimates calculated based on the conducted testing data through directly measuring the interference distances. The conducted and OTA testing provide separate estimates of the interference distance and to the degree they agree build confidence in those findings.

2. OTA testing had the potential to reveal other factors which may not have been present in conducted testing.

3. OTA testing was necessary for DTV receivers that only use integrated antennas and do not have an external antenna port.

A selection of DTV receivers that were tested conducted were retested OTA. Five DTV receivers were selected for radiated testing. Three of these devices were selected because they had been found to be among the most sensitive to interference. Two were selected as representing typical interference performance.

6.1 Test Setup

Figure 27 and Figure 28 illustrate the OTA test setups. Each DTV device was tested using an LTE UE signal from a commercially available LTE UE in order to insure that the test results simulated the real-world situation. No LTE UE devices were found that radiated the 23 dBm ERP transmit power allowed by the 3GPP standard. To account for this the radiated power from the LTE UE, as reported by the base-station simulator, and the LTE UE signal power at the DTV receiver antenna port were recorded. When reporting threat distances the test results were extrapolated to represent those projected for an LTE UE radiating a full 23 dBm ERP.


Page 50 of 146

LTE Base Station

Simulator

TV Signal Quality

Observer

Channel 51

Anechoic Chamber

TV Signal Generator

Coupler

SpectrumAnalyzer

For Sig Monitoring

Isolator

Att

enu

ato

r-2

0 d

B75

-50 Ω

Channel 57

Channel 52

SpectrumAnalyzer

For Sig Monitoring


Figure 27 – Radiated test setup using LTE UE simulator


Page 51 of 146

LTE UESimulator

SpectrumAnalyzer

For Sig Monitoring


TV Signal Quality

Observer

Channel 51

Anechoic Chamber

TV Signal Generator

Coupler

SpectrumAnalyzer

For Sig Monitoring

Isolator

Channel 52

Figure 28 – Radiated test setup using actual LTE UE

6.2 Pre-test

The following pre-test procedure was used:

1. Setup the test equipment per Figure 27 or Figure 28, as appropriate for the test to be run.

2. Determine the range factor between the LTE signal power at the monitoring point to field strength at the DTV receiver.

3. Verify that the TV field strength the DTV receiver.

4. Orient the DTV for maximum reception of the LTE UE signal.

Table 10 records the results for various DTV receiving antenna orientations and antenna element extensions. This study was performed to determine the position of maximum reception.


Page 52 of 146

Table 10 – TOV threshold as a function of LTE UE distance and relative orientation

LTE deviceorientation

DTV receiving antenna

orientation

DTV receuiving antenna

extensionTOV distance

(cm)

direct 90 degrees retracted 39direct 90 degrees extended 19direct direct retracted 28direct direct extended 29

90 degrees 90 degrees retracted 10690 degrees 90 degrees extended 8590 degrees direct retracted 18190 degrees direct extended 184

Channel 51 OTA DTV signal at -68 dBm at antenna portLTE UE at maximum power with 5 MHz BW centered at 701.5 MHz and 1 RB at position 0

6.3 Test Procedure

The test procedure was the same as that used for the conducted testing, explained in Section Section 5, but with the signal being transmitted from an antenna in an anechoic chamber.

The DTV receiver antenna was oriented in its position of maximum sensitivity to the LTE UE signal. The LTE UE device was oriented in the position and orientation for maximum coupling into the DTV antenna.

A variety of test distances were chosen. Most commonly 1.2, 1.8 and 3.0 m were used. At each distance the LTE UE power at which TOV occurs were found. When TOV was determined the following were recorded:

1. The distance of the LTE UE device or radiating antenna from the DTV antenna.

2. The DTV signal power at the DTV input.

3. The LTE UE signal power at the DTV input.

4. The LTE UE power reported by the LTE base-station simulator.

6.4 OTA Test results

The signal strength received by the DTV antenna and coupled into the DTV input port was evaluated as a function of LTE UE distance, Table 19 through Table 23 record the test results for the five DTV receivers tested OTA.

The results in this section were obtained using the BandRich C525 Compact LTE USB Modem and the Samsung R930 for the LTE signal source.

TOV NR means the Threshold of Visibility was not reached at the highest LTE signal level applied (8 dBm).

Figure 29 presents the interference distances measured with the Samsung R930 mobile handset. The Samsung R930 has a TRP of 18 dBm. The results shown are with it transmitting at its maximum power. The BandRich C525 has a higher TRP, over 20 dBm. Testing with it at full power found similar interference distances even though its TRP was 2 dB higher. This may be due to differing OOBE from the two devices, but the reason was not determined in this testing. It is believed that the results reported are representative of what can be expected from LTE UE operating at maximum power.

Figure 30 reports the interference distances at the 98% coverage level. The only factors considered in the 98% coverage level are the relative position and orientation of the DTV antenna and LTE UE. Analyzing these two variables find that 98% of the positions and orientations will couple less than 52% of the power of the worst case, maximized position and orientation.


Page 53 of 146

Figure 29 – Worst Case TOV Distances found with an LTE UE with 18 dBm maximum TRP

Figure 30 –TOV Distances at 98% coverage level found with an LTE UE with 18 dBm maximum TRP


Page 54 of 146

Table 11 - Worst Case Interfence Distances – TOS + 3 dB


Page 55 of 146

Table 12 - Interfence Distances at 98% Coverage Level – TOS + 3 dB


Page 56 of 146

Table 13 - Worst Case Interfence Distances – -68 dBm


Page 57 of 146

Table 14 - Interfence Distances at 98% Coverage Level – -68 dBm


Page 58 of 146



Page 59 of 146



Page 60 of 146



Page 61 of 146



Page 62 of 146

Table 19 – OTA test results for the LG 42LK450

DTVSignal DTV TOS+3 dB (-82.2 dBm) DTV -68 dBm

LG 42LK450 LG 42LK450Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -42.5 dBm 39.6 dBm -42.1 dBm 39.8 dB -32.0 dBm No TOV -36.9 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -43.6 dBm 38.5 dBm -50.7 dBm 31.2 dB -32.4 dBm No TOV -37.7 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -55.0 dBm 27.1 dBm -54.6 dBm 27.3 dB -37.4 dBm 44.7 dBm -41.9 dBm 40.0 dBm6.0' 1.4 MHz -45.7 dBm 36.4 dBm -43.6 dBm 38.3 dB -36.9 dBm No TOV -43.1 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -45.0 dBm 37.1 dBm -50.0 dBm 31.9 dB -37.3 dBm No TOV -44.5 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -49.1 dBm 33.0 dBm -57.3 dBm 24.6 dB -36.9 dBm No TOV -45.5 dBm 36.4 dBm10.0' 1.4 MHz -39.8 dBm No TOV -51.0 dBm No TOV -39.9 dBm No TOV -50.9 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -41.2 dBm 40.9 dBm -51.9 dBm 30.0 dB -40.4 dBm No TOV -51.6 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -45.0 dBm 37.1 dBm -61.8 dBm 20.1 dB -39.7 dBm No TOV -49.0 dBm No TOV

DTV

Signal DTV -53 dBm DTV -28 dBm

LG 42LK450 LG 42LK450Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -32.1 dBm No TOV -37.6 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -37.2 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -32.4 dBm No TOV -38.4 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -38.2 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -31.8 dBm No TOV -38.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -38.8 dBm No TOV6.0' 1.4 MHz -36.0 dBm No TOV -43.7 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -42.9 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -36.4 dBm No TOV -44.2 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -44.2 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -36.1 dBm No TOV -45.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -45.2 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -40.1 dBm No TOV -48.0 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -47.5 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -40.4 dBm No TOV -51.7 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -50.8 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -40.1 dBm No TOV -50.9 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -52.5 dBm No TOV


Page 63 of 146

Table 20 – OTA test results for the Sony Bravia KDL46NX720


Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm 82.7 dB -23.4 dBm No TOV -37.5 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm 82.7 dB -28.6 dBm 39.4 dBm -35.5 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm 82.7 dB -37.3 dBm 30.7 dBm -43.9 dBm 24.1 dB6.0' 1.4 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm No TOV -27.2 dBm No TOV -42.6 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm 82.7 dB -30.7 dBm 37.3 dBm -43.8 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz 0.0 dBm 82.2 dBm 0.0 dBm 82.7 dB -36.9 dBm 31.1 dBm -45.9 dBm 22.1 dB10.0' 1.4 MHz -44.0 dBm 38.2 dBm -44.4 dBm No TOV 22.0 dBm No TOV -47.3 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -44.6 dBm 37.6 dBm -49.0 dBm 33.7 dB 21.8 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -52.9 dBm 29.3 dBm -60.0 dBm 22.7 dB -37.1 dBm 30.9 dBm 0.0 dBm No TOV

DTV


Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -23.2 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -23.2 dBm No TOV -37.7 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -24.0 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -23.8 dBm No TOV -38.7 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -24.5 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -24.2 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV6.0' 1.4 MHz -27.3 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -27.5 dBm No TOV -42.7 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -27.8 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -28.2 dBm No TOV -43.7 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -28.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -28.9 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -31.5 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -30.4 dBm No TOV -47.2 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -31.6 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -31.4 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -32.3 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV -31.7 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm No TOV


Page 64 of 146

Table 21 – OTA test results for the Panasonic Viera TC-L32C3


Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -31.4 dBm 48.9 dBm -38.3 dBm No TOV -25.2 dBm 42.8 dBm -38.8 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -36.2 dBm 44.1 dBm -45.3 dBm 35.0 dB -30.2 dBm 37.8 dBm -40.1 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -41.0 dBm 39.3 dBm -56.2 dBm 24.1 dB -37.6 dBm 30.4 dBm -42.7 dBm 25.3 dB6.0' 1.4 MHz -34.8 dBm 45.5 dBm -44.0 dBm 36.3 dB -27.7 dBm No TOV -44.1 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -38.8 dBm 41.5 dBm -47.6 dBm 32.7 dB -31.2 dBm 36.8 dBm -46.2 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -43.9 dBm 36.4 dBm -54.2 dBm 26.1 dB -28.0 dBm No TOV -46.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -34.3 dBm 46.0 dBm -44.1 dBm 36.2 dB -31.3 dBm 36.7 dBm -43.8 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -40.4 dBm 39.9 dBm -49.1 dBm 31.2 dB -33.5 dBm 34.5 dBm -45.8 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -46.1 dBm 34.2 dBm -55.0 dBm 25.3 dBm -38.1 dBm 29.9 dBm -47.1 dBm No TOV

DTV


Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -24.8 dBm No TOV -38.7 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -39.0 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -25.6 dBm No TOV -39.9 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -39.6 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -26.0 dBm No TOV -40.8 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -40.8 dBm No TOV6.0' 1.4 MHz -27.7 dBm No TOV -44.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -44.0 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -28.5 dBm No TOV -49.9 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -45.6 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -28.8 dBm No TOV -45.7 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -45.9 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -31.5 dBm No TOV -49.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -44.1 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -32.2 dBm No TOV -45.9 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -46.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -32.3 dBm No TOV -47.1 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -47.1 dBm No TOV


Page 65 of 146

Table 22 – OTA test results for the Samsung UN32EH4000


Samsung UN32EH4000 Samsung UN32EH4000Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -34.7 dBm 47.6 dBm -41.0 dBm 41.3 dB -23.4 dBm No TOV -39.1 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -37.1 dBm 45.2 dBm -51.7 dBm 30.6 dB -29.9 dBm 38.1 dBm -39.4 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -44.7 dBm 37.6 dBm -58.8 dBm 23.5 dB -37.7 dBm 30.3 dBm -44.4 dBm 23.6 dB6.0' 1.4 MHz -34.0 dBm 48.3 dBm -42.1 dBm No TOV -27.4 dBm No TOV -42.0 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -38.4 dBm 43.9 dBm -46.8 dBm 35.5 dB -32.8 dBm 35.2 dBm -43.0 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -44.4 dBm 37.9 dBm -58.3 dBm 24.0 dB -42.5 dBm 25.5 dBm -44.2 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -37.8 dBm 44.5 dBm -47.6 dBm No TOV -31.4 dBm No TOV -47.5 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -42.0 dBm 40.3 dBm -49.7 dBm 32.6 dB -34.5 dBm 33.5 dBm -47.8 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -46.2 dBm 36.1 dBm -62.1 dBm 20.2 dB -37.9 dBm 30.1 dBm -48.3 dBm No TOV

DTV


Samsung UN32EH4000 Samsung UN32EH4000Separation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -23.6 dBm No TOV -39.0 dBm No TOV -23.2 dBm No TOV -41.0 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -24.2 dBm No TOV -39.4 dBm No TOV -24.9 dBm No TOV -39.3 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -24.6 dBm No TOV -39.4 dBm No TOV -24.9 dBm No TOV -39.4 dBm No TOV6.0' 1.4 MHz -27.8 dBm No TOV -41.8 dBm No TOV -27.3 dBm No TOV -42.0 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -28.0 dBm No TOV -43.2 dBm No TOV -28.1 dBm No TOV -42.9 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -29.9 dBm 23.1 dBm -44.0 dBm No TOV -28.5 dBm No TOV -44.2 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -31.3 dBm No TOV -47.4 dBm No TOV -31.4 dBm No TOV -47.3 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -31.8 dBm No TOV -47.8 dBm No TOV -31.9 dBm No TOV -47.7 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -32.0 dBm No TOV -48.5 dBm No TOV -32.1 dBm No TOV -48.5 dBm No TOV


Page 66 of 146

Table 23 – OTA test results for the Toshiba 24SL41OU


Toshiba 24SL410U Toshiba 24SL410USeparation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -34.2 dBm 46.2 dBm -37.7 dBm No TOV -24.0 dBm No TOV -37.7 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -37.7 dBm 42.7 dBm -49.9 dBm 30.5 dB -28.1 dBm 39.9 dBm -38.7 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -41.7 dBm 38.7 dBm -54.9 dBm 25.5 dB -36.2 dBm 31.8 dBm -42.3 dBm 25.7 dB6.0' 1.4 MHz -34.0 dBm 46.4 dBm -42.7 dBm No TOV -26.3 dBm No TOV -42.8 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -37.2 dBm 43.2 dBm -46.8 dBm 33.6 dB -29.7 dBm 38.3 dBm -43.9 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -42.2 dBm 38.2 dBm -57.5 dBm 22.9 dB -35.3 dBm 32.7 dBm -45.3 dBm 22.7 dB10.0' 1.4 MHz -31.6 dBm 48.8 dBm -47.9 dBm No TOV -31.2 dBm No TOV -48.1 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -41.1 dBm 39.3 dBm -51.1 dBm 29.3 dB -31.8 dBm No TOV -49.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -46.0 dBm 34.4 dBm -59.2 dBm 21.2 dB -32.0 dBm No TOV -47.2 dBm No TOV

DTV


Toshiba 24SL410U Toshiba 24SL410USeparation UE BandRich Samsung BandRich SamsungDistance Bandwidth UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U UE at DTV D/U

4.0' 1.4 MHz -23.6 dBm No TOV -37.6 dBm No TOV -24.5 dBm No TOV -37.6 dBm No TOV4.0' 3.0 MHz -24.6 dBm No TOV -38.7 dBm No TOV -24.8 dBm No TOV -38.6 dBm No TOV4.0' 5.0 MHz -24.8 dBm No TOV -39.4 dBm No TOV -26.2 dBm No TOV -39.4 dBm No TOV6.0' 1.4 MHz -26.4 dBm No TOV -42.6 dBm No TOV -26.9 dBm No TOV -42.5 dBm No TOV6.0' 3.0 MHz -26.9 dBm No TOV -44.1 dBm No TOV -27.2 dBm No TOV -43.9 dBm No TOV6.0' 5.0 MHz -27.3 dBm No TOV -44.2 dBm No TOV -32.2 dBm No TOV -44.6 dBm No TOV10.0' 1.4 MHz -31.5 dBm No TOV -48.2 dBm No TOV -32.2 dBm No TOV -48.0 dBm No TOV10.0' 3.0 MHz -31.9 dBm No TOV -48.8 dBm No TOV -32.7 dBm No TOV -48.8 dBm No TOV10.0' 5.0 MHz -32.0 dBm No TOV -47.2 dBm No TOV 0.0 dBm 0.0 dBm -47.4 dBm No TOV



Section 7 Focused Evaluations The following focused evaluations were performed to determine the impact of various factors on the interference.

7.1 Comparison of A vs B Block deployment

This evaluation was intended to compare the interference potential of a 700 MHz band lower A channel deployment to a lower B channel deployment. The 3GPP standards define Band Class 12 as able to operate in blocks A, B or C of the lower portion of the 700 MHz band. Band Class 17 devices only operate in the B or C blocks. In this report references to Band Class 12 mean a Band Class 12 device operating in channel A, which is the channel that differentiates Band Class 12 from Band Class 17. When referring to Band Class 17 in this report a device operating in channel B is meant, which is the channel closest to DTV channel 51 used by Band Class 17. This evaluation can be viewed as a comparison of Band Class 12 vs Band Class 17 devices, in that it is intended to demonstrate the relative DTV interference potential of both classes of devices when they are operating as close to DTV channel 51 as allowed by their band class.

Figure 31 – Lower 700 MHz band plan

7.1.1 Test sample

After the first two flights of DTV receivers were tested a subset of those DTV receivers was selected for the A block vs B block evaluation.

A Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 device were selected as the signal sources. Both devices were tested for their DTV interference potential.



7.1.2 Test procedure

The test procedure was the same as that used for the primary conducted testing, explained in Section 5. The Band Class 12 device was tested in both blocks A & B. The Band Class 17 devices were tested only in block B.

With other variables were held constant. The TOV threshold was measured for a 5 MHz B Block signal, located on the lower edge of its channel, to that of a 1.4 MHz, 3.0 MHz and 5 MHz A Block signal, located at the upper edge of the channel.

7.1.3 Test results

The results, shown in Figure 32, were that interference from a Band Class 12 device operating in a 1.4 MHz bandwidth were very similar to that from a Band Class 17 device. A Band Class 12 device operating in a 3.0 MHz bandwidth was slightly worse under weak signal conditions (TOS+3 dB). A Band Class 12 device operating in a 5.0 MHz bandwidth showed significant increase in interference distance under weak signal conditions.

There was little difference in the interference from Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 when operating in a moderate to strong DTV signal environment. When the DTV signal was greater than -60 dBm the interference distances from all bandwidths and channels tested were under 1 m.

Figure 32 – Comparions of interference distances between band classes 12 and 17

7.2 LTE Signal generator vs LTE UE devices

This evaluation was intended to determine whether there is a difference in interference potential between the LTE signal generator and actual LTE UE devices. The output waveform of each LTE UE was recorded when operating at maximum power and in the middle of its power range. The output waveform of the LTE signal generator was also be captured at the same power levels and compared to the waveforms from the LTE UE.

The R&S® SMU-B12 LTE Uplink Signal Generator was found to produce a cleaner signal than the actual LTE UEs. The SMU-B12 does allow for variation of the OOBE. So effort was invested in trying to match the generated singal to the actual LTE UE signal. In the end it was decided that it would be prudent to focus the testing on actual LTE UEs since those are clearly representative of what is in the field. There could always be concern that testing with a signal generator did not replicate closely enough the actual signals used. For this reason the majority of testing reported here uses actual LTE UE devices as the LTE signal source.

The waveforms produced by the LTE UEs used in this testing are reported in Section 3.1.2.



7.3 Evaluation of D/U ratio Linearity

This evaluation was performed in order to understand the variation in D/U radio as a function of DTV signal level.

The D/U ratio and TOV thresholds were evaluated with a single DTV receiver for a series of DTV signal strengths, ranging from 1 dB over TOS to -53 dBm. The results, shown in Table 24, demonstrate that there is little change in the D/U ratio betweenTOS+6 dB, to -53 dBm. At TOS+3 dB there was a moderate, 2 dB, degradation in the D/U ratio, defining TOV interference.

Having explored the linearity of the D/U ratio for one device, four additional devices were evaluated to determine if the observations made were valid for a larger sample. A particular point of interest was whether testing at 3 dB over TOS represented a reasonable worst case condition. Testing too close to TOS would produce overly pessimistic results but also in results that could not easily be extrapolated because the D/U ratio changes over most of the dynamic range. Testing at TOS+3 dB penalizes the findings by about 2 dB and is believed to be a normal but not artificially extreme worst case.

Table 25 reports the values for the other samples and the original sample with the new signal center frequency. For these tests the center frequency of the LTE signal was moved 1 MHz closer to the Channel 51 boundary, to 701.5 MHz. The results generally confirm the trend that the D/U ratio at 3 dB over threshold is 2-4 dB less than for higher signal strengths.

Table 26 and Table 27 compare the D/U ratios measured using a 3 MHz and 5 MHz bandwidth LTE signal.


Page 70 of 146

Table 24 – Linearity of the D/U ratio (LTE signal centered at 702.5 MHz)

DTV Model Sensitivity +1 dB Sensitivity +2 dB Sensitivity +3 dB Sensitivity +6 dB -68 dBm -53dBm

LG - 42LK450 TOV-A -39.5 -42.5 -42.5 -44.5 -46.0 -45.0TOV-D -39.5 -42.5 -42.5 -44.5 -46.0 -45.0

Level at DTV input (dBm): -46.0 -42.0 -41.0 -36.0 -22.0 -8.0TOV-D sensitivity -86.5 dBm

LTE Signal - BW 3 MHz, 1RB, Center Frequency 702.5 MHzAll power readings are dBm values at the DTV input, all D/U ratios are dB values

Table 25 – Linearity of the D/U ratio (LTE signal centered at 701.5 MHz)

DTV Model Sensitivity +1 dB Sensitivity +3 dB -68 dBm -53dBm

LG - 42LK450 TOV-A -36.4 -43.4 -46.2 -46.2TOV-D -37.5 -43.5 -45.1 -46.2

Panasonic - VIERA TC-L32C3 TOV-A -41.0 -43.0 -43.9 -43.8TOV-D -41.2 -42.8 -44.0 -43.8

Samsung - LN37D550 TOV-A -43.0 -49.2 -48.8 -48.0TOV-D -43.5 -49.2 -48.0 -48.0

Sony - BRAVIA KDL46NX720 TOV-A -46.3 -49.1 -51.1 -51.0TOV-D -46.5 -49.4 -51.0 -51.0

Toshiba - 24SL410U TOV-A -41.4 -41.2 -44.8 -44.0TOV-D -41.2 -41.2 -45.2 -44.0

LTE Signal - BW 5 MHz, 1RB, Center Frequency 701.5 MHzAll D/U ratios are in dB


Page 71 of 146

Table 26 – TOV Levels 1 dB over threshold of the DTV and 3 MHz LTE UE signal

Manufacturer M/N Description TOV-D TOV-ALG 42LK450 42-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LCD HDTV -37.2 -35.8

Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 32-Inch 720p LCD HDTV -43.9 -44.0

Samsung LN37D550 37-Inch 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV -45.6 -45.4Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 46-inch 1080p WiFi 3D LED HDTV -46.7 -46.5Toshiba 24SL410U 24-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LED-LCD HDTV -43.6 -43.5

DTV signal at 1 dB over the DTV threshold of sensitivityLTE UE signal is 3 MHz bandwidth centered at 702.5 MHz

Table 27 – TOV Levels 1 dB over threshold of the DTV and 5 MHz LTE UE signal

Manufacturer M/N Description TOV-D TOV-ALG 42LK450 42-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LCD HDTV -37.5 -36.4

Panasonic VIERA TC-L32C3 32-Inch 720p LCD HDTV -41.2 -41.0Samsung LN37D550 37-Inch 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV -43.5 -43.0Sony BRAVIA KDL46NX720 46-inch 1080p WiFi 3D LED HDTV -46.5 -46.3Toshiba 24SL410U 24-Inch 1080p 60 Hz LED-LCD HDTV -41.2 -41.4

DTV signal at 1 dB over the DTV threshold of sensitivityLTE UE signal is 5 MHz bandwidth centered at 702.5 MHz



7.4 LTE Waveform evaluation

This evaluation was intended to determine impact on TOV levels variations in the LTE waveform can have. LTE transmissions can vary in a number of ways. The primary test loop used what is assumed to be a worst case selection of waveform variables. This evaluation followed the procedure described in Section 7.2 but with variations of the LTE waveform being explored.

The primary variable found to impact the TOV level was the number of resource blocks used. The effect was to concentrate the signal power within the active resource blocks. Testing was performed with the minimum, one resource block, and the maximum resource blocks for each bandwidth. The maximum number of resource blocks is as follows:

1.4 MHz bandwidth – 6 resource blocks maximum 3.0 MHz bandwidth – 15 resource blocks maximum 5.0 MHz bandwidth – 25 resource blocks maximum

The general trend was that use of the maximum resource blocks was the worst case condition, Figure 33.

7.5 Strong Signal evaluation

There are two types of strong signal interference. The first category occurs when a strong signal reduces the sensitivity of the DTV receiver. This is called the brute-force-overload (BFO) problem. The second category is intermodulation (IM), which can occur when strong DTV and LTE signals are both present and create intermodulation products that in turn cause interference to weaker and more distant DTV signals.

Testing was done under strong signal conditions, -28 dBm of DTV signal power. In early testing interference with the LTE base station simulator occurred and required filtering and increased separation between the DTV transmitting antenna and the LTE base station to prevent interference to the LTE link.

Most of the high signal level testing was performed by conducted means because it was easier to achieve higher signal levels and because it was easier to isolate parts of the system, insuring that the test was of the DTV receiver’s performance and not inadvertently of other equipment in the test setup. It was found that there is a degradation of D/U ratios under strong signal conditions, Figure 33. However, at levels that are achievable in actual use, no inordinate strong signal mechanism manifested themselves, other than the degradation of D/U ratios.



Figure 33 – Variation in D/U Ratio as a function of DTV Signal Strength



Section 8 Findings & Observations

8.1 Comparison of Conducted and OTA

To compare the conducted to OTA test results and to estimate threat distances, meaning the distance at which an LTE UE is capable of causing interference, a path loss model is needed. For closer distances line of sight and indoor models are most appropriate. For the frequencies of interest in this study the wavelength, λ, is about 0.4 m. The potential for near field effects to become significant must be considered for distances closer than 0.8 m or 2 λ. A line of sight model is believed most appropriate for distances up to 3 m. For distances between 3 and 30 m it is probable that there are intervening walls, furniture and influence of other objects in the environment. Reflections and multipath also become more significant. Most of the measured threat distances were found to fall in the near field to 30 m range22 and a line of sight model with some assumption of architectural influence beyond 3 m is believed appropriate.

The guidance of IEEE 1900.2 is helpful on this issue:

A.2 Scale The appropriate model depends on the communication distances. Indoor models are used when the use case is an indoor environment, involving walls and other common features of buildings. Outdoor models are used for communications over several kilometers. Most propagation models specify ranges over which they are appropriate. Communication in the near-field is defined as distances less than approximately 22 D where D is the largest dimension of the antenna (not

including the antenna mounting), and λ is the wavelength. The near-field is typically within one wavelength of the transmitter. However, it may be important for some applications such as RFID readers where the wavelength is long and communication distances are short. The rate of change varies widely in the near-field vary based upon the characteristics of the transmitting antenna and other variables. Beyond the near-field signals generally propagate using free-space propagation whereby the received signal is proportional to the inverse of the distance squared.

The free-space region is where the propagation does not have significant interaction with the ground or surrounding objects. Consider the line connecting a transmitter and receiver of length d. The first Fresnel zone is the ellipse with foci at the transmitter and receivers such that the distance from the transmitter to any point on the ellipse and on to the receiver is 2/d . As long as objects do not intersect this ellipse, the attenuation can be considered as line of sight and attenuating as in free space.23 For example, assuming two antennas over a flat surface, the ellipse will touch the ground when:

rxtx

fhh

dd4

(1)

where htx and hrx are the height of the transmitter and receiver above the ground. If the ground is not flat then a careful analysis would need to show if any portion of the ground intersects the first Fresnel ellipse. Beyond df, the path-loss is typically much worse than free space. If the line-of-site path from transmitter antenna to receiver is obstructed then other variables come into play, depending on the obstructions.24

The path loss equation for a line of sight model is:

22 Testing was performed to 10 m. Where interference occurred at 10 m, the threat distance was extrapolated from the 10 m measurements. 23 The assumption of having a line of sight (LOS) channel if the first Fresnel zone is not obstructed is only true for antenna systems having a circular aperture. If one uses omnidirectional antennas, a (reflecting) object right behind the transmitter may cause deep fades. However, this is not typical for LOS environments. 24 IEEE 1900.2, “Recommended Practice for the Analysis of In-Band and Adjacent Band Interference and Coexistence Between Radio Systems”, Annex A.2.



Link Budget Equation (Line of Sight)

PRX = PTX + GTX - LTX - LFX - LM + GRX - LRX

PRX - Receive Power (dBm)

PTX - Transmit Power (dBm)

GTX - TX Antenna Gain (dBi)

LTX - Transmitter Losses (VSWR, connectors…)

LFX - Path Loss (dB) LFX (dB) = 20log(d) + 20log(f) - 27.55 (where d is in m & f is in MHz)

For f = 701 MHz LFX (dB) = 20log(d) + 29.36 (where d is in m)

For f = 701 MHz and d = 1 m LFX (dB) = 29.36

LM - Miscellaneous Losses (polarization mismatch, body loss, fading margin….. )

GRX - RX Atennan Gain (dBi) LRX - Receiver Losses (VSWR, connectors…)



The predicted path loss estimated, without assuming any architectural influences was:

PTX RF TX Power (Watts) 0.2 W

RF TX Power (dBm) 23.0 dBm

LTX TX VSWR Loss 0.0 dB

LRX RX VSWR Loss 0.0 dB

LFX Path Loss @ 1 m 29.4 dB

GTX TX Antenna Gain 0.0 dBd

GRX RX Antenna Gain 0.0 dBd Cross Polarization 0.0 dB Antenna Misalignment 0.0 dB Antenna Factor 13.8 dB DTV Cable & XFMR Loss 5.4 dB Unidentified Loss 0.0 dB

LM Total Miscellaneous Losses 19.2 dB

TOTAL Link Loss 1 m 48.5 dB

3 m 58.1 dB

6 m 64.1 dB

10 m 68.5 dB

Expected RX Power at DTV 1 m -25.5 dBm

from full 23 dBm TX Pwr 3 m -35.1 dBm

6 m -41.1 dBm

10 m -45.5 dBm

8.2 Selection of Units for OTA

From the full set of DTV receivers tested three of the worst performers and two average performers were selected for more detailed testing and verification of the conducted testing by actual over-the-air testing. This set of consumer-grade receivers was selected to bring focus to receivers performing at the mid-range and at the lower end of the tested DTV sets. However, when their results were computed separately from the full population of DTV receivers tested the average and standard deviation changed little, as shown in Table 28. The comparisons for OTA tests, inside an anechoic chamber and using other LTE UE devices as the source of the interfering signal is to this subset of DTV receivers and is believed to be a fair predictor of the full set of 26 DTV receivers.



Table 28 – Difference in Values and Standard Deviation Between the Full DTV Set and Those Selected for OTA Testing

Delta between full set and OTA DTV unitsLTE Signal Strength at DTV Threshold of Visability (dBm)

DTV Signal Strength (dBm)

Signal Bandwidth & Resource Blocks TOS+3 -68 -53 -28

Value for -82 -68 -53 -28

1.4 MHz 1 RB Ave 0.7 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.6 dB

1.4 MHz 6 RB Ave -1.5 dB -0.3 dB 0.2 dB 0.3 dB

3.0 MHz 1 RB Ave 1.0 dB 0.4 dB 1.1 dB 1.0 dB

3.0 MHz 15 RB Ave -0.9 dB 0.3 dB 0.2 dB 0.6 dB

5.0 MHz 1 RB Ave -1.4 dB 0.5 dB 1.2 dB 1.3 dB

5.0 MHz 25 RB Ave 0.0 dB -1.3 dB -0.7 dB 1.0 dB

Delta of Standard DeviationsLTE Signal Strength at DTV Threshold of Visability (dBm)

DTV Signal Strength (dBm)

Signal Bandwidth & Resource Blocks TOS+3 -68 -53 -28

Value for -82 -68 -53 -28

1.4 MHz 1 RB Ave -0.7 dB -1.8 dB -3.3 dB -1.7 dB

1.4 MHz 6 RB Ave -0.1 dB -1.7 dB -1.8 dB -1.5 dB

3.0 MHz 1 RB Ave 0.4 dB -1.8 dB -1.8 dB -2.0 dB




Extensive testing was performed on the units selected for OTA evaluation. The units were tested in a 3 m anechoic chamber. For distances that exceeded 3 m, additional tests were conducted in a 10 m semi-anechoic chamber. In addition to the BandRich Model C525, a Samsung R930, a Band Class 12 device and a Samsung Note, a Band Class 17 device, were used as signal sources. The Band Class 17 device was included to provide a comparative reference to an LTE UE operating in the next adjacent channel (former TV Channel 53). The additional LTE UEs were also tested conducted, to provide additional points of comparison. That is, the desired DTV signal and undesired LTE sign were physicaly connected to the DTV receiver input using the appropriate coaxial cables, combiners, and matching transformers. Access to the LTE UE RF output power was achieved using RF testing port of the device.

OTA testing was performed using 3 LTE UEs as interferers, the BandRich C525 USB dongle, a Samsung R930, both Band Class 12 devices and a Band Class 17 device operating in the next adjacent channel, a Samsung Note. The threat distances measured OTA were somehwhat higher than those predicted from the conducted data. However, the differences were within the measurement uncertainty.

8.3 Interference Distances

Significant effort was invested in understanding the differences between the predicted threat distances from the conducted data and that found by OTA testing. One factor that clearly contributed to the difference is that in the OTA testing, even though it was performed in an anechoic chamber, there were some reflections which degraded the DTV signal, shown in an increase in the Error Vector Magnitude (EVM). If the DTV receivers were given degraded signal quality, even though the signal amplitude was the same, an increase in sensitivity to interference is to be expected.

In the OTA testing the LTE UE were operating at the maximum transmitter power and some increase in spectrum splatter is common when units operated at the limit of their capability. It is believed that this was also a factor.



However, not withstanding those differences, it must be remembered that the threat distances are being reported in linear units, meters, but the dynamics of this interference are fundamentally logarithmic. When viewed logarithmically the differences in threat distances are generally within 6 dB, or within a factor of two from each other. Figure 34 through Figure 37 presents a summary of the threat distances measured for the differing methods and LTE UE devices used in this project.

As can be seen in the values reported in Figure 34 through Figure 37, the risk of interference for DTV signals at or above a received signal level at the receiver’s F-fitting input of -68 dBm is low. The trend from -68 dBm to TOS was explored and the results were found to extrapolate reasonable well with some increased sensitivity to interference as TOS was approached.

When distances > 10 m are reported in the TOS+3 estimates, these are extrapolated from the levels measured at 10 m, in the 10 m semi-anechoic chamber.

What can be observed is that the threat distance decreases as the frequency guard band increases. The threat distances found for 1.4 and 3.0 MHz wide signals in the former TV channel 52 (now the 700 MHz A block) are roughly comparable to that measured with a 5 MHz signal in the former TV channel 53 band.



Figure 34 – Comparison of Average Threat Distances – DTV Signal Level – TOS + 3 dB

Figure 35 – Comparison of Average Threat Distances – DTV Signal Level – -68 dBm







Section 9 Field Performance This section analyzes the field performance to be expected, based on the laboratory test results obtained. Laboratory tests determine the conditions under which interference is likely to occur. With this understanding the actual field experience may be predicted.

The findings reported are based on multiple tests and differing approaches to testing. Measurement of the OOBE from LTE UE predicts interference levels, if OOBE falling into Channel 51 is the dominant interference factor. This was found to be generally true and as a result the OOBE measurements generally predict the tolerance of DTV receiver’s to the presence of an LTE signal. Conducted measurements were performed using both an LTE signal simulator and commercially available LTE UE devices. OTA measurements, again using multiple LTE UE, were performed. The results of these tests resulted in 4-6 independent estimates of the tolerance of DTV receivers to LTE UE operating in the 698-704 MHz band. These estimates were found to be in general agreement and consistent. However, particularly in the weaker signal regions variance was observed between devices and with test-to-test repeatability. This variance is shown as error bars on the data in the various graphs presented.

When extending the laboratory tests to predict field experience a number of new variables come into play. Some of the variables controlled in the laboratory become uncontrolled in the field. A review of the significant variables includes:

1. DTV Signal Variables

a. DTV Signal Amplitude – The DTV signal will vary by location and will also vary in the same location due to changes in the propagation path.

b. DTV Signal Quality – The quality of the DTV signal will vary with changing multipath conditions.

2. LTE Transmission Received by DTV

a. LTE UE TX Power – The LTE network aggressively controls the transmit power of active UE devices, changing their transmit power as often as every millisecond. LTE UE devices will be kept at the lowest power at which communication quality can be maintained, which means that LTE UE devices will operate at or near their maximum power relatively rarely.

b. LTE Resource Blocks Used – The LTE system assigns 180 kHz wide resource blocks as needed to support the needs of the communication session in progress. An LTE UE with more resource blocks will have a broader signal than one with fewer resource blocks. The number of resource blocks and their position within the LTE channel, whether the signal is closer to or more distance from the DTV channel, impacts the interference potential.

c. Separation Distance – The separation distance between the DTV antenna and LTE UE is a primary variable in determining the amount of LTE transmission power received by the DTV.

d. Relative Antenna Position – Both the DTV and LTE UE antennas have directional patterns. The relative position of the two antennas significantly influences how well or poorly the LTE signal is received by the DTV.

e. Relative Antenna Orientation – The DTV and LTE UE antennas are linearly polarized and to the degree they are cross polarized the signal reception will be degraded from what is possible when they are oriented and positioned for maximum reception.

f. Ratio of LTE UE TX Power to OOBE – LTE UE OOBE were found to be a first order cause of interference. Accordingly the level of the OOBE, relative to the LTE UE TX power, is significant. Any factors that increase the OOBE arriving at the DTV will significantly influence the interference picture.

3. RF Propagation Environment

a. Architectural Influence - When there is any significant separation distance and almost universally if the distance is greater than 3 m, there will be walls, furniture or other objects influencing the RF propagation from the LTE UE to the indoor DTV receiving antenna. Architectural influence on the LTE UE signal must be considered for distances over 3 m and can be a factor for shorter distances.



b. Multi-Path - Reflections, creating multiple signals, arriving at the DTV antenna with varied phase relationships, can both enhance or degrade the signal. If people or objects are moving in the environment, the reflective environment will be changing, creating a dynamic signal environment.

4. Temporal Variables

a. Usage - The most significant temporal variable is usage. For interference to occur the LTE UE must be transmitting and someone must be watching TV.

b. TV Picture Content – DTV receivers are highly sophisticated and able to adapt to noisy signals. If the picture is relatively static, with little motion, the signal processing can correct missing data, filling in unchanged parts of the picture. Pictures with complex motion are more demanding and as a result make the DTV more susceptible to interference, because it is far less able to correct for lost portions of the signal.

All of these variables impact the degree of LTE interference on DTV reception. Laboratory testing measures the degree each variable impacts the potential for interference. In actual experience these variables will change for different locations and typically will be dynamically changing in any give location. The result is that while the worst case condition created in the laboratory is possible, it has a low probability of being created in actual experience. The actual use experience will be a probability distribution in which for some percentage of locations and some percentage of the time interference is probable and for other locations and times interference is improbable. The challenge of the analysis is to accurately represent these relative probabilities.

As the IEEE 1900.2 standard points out, whether a given probability of interference is acceptable or unacceptable is a public policy value judgment and not a technical determination. Most would agree that at some low probability of interference the value to society is best served by having both services in operation. Conversely, most would also agree that at a higher probability of interference the DTV signal should be protected or the potential for interference mitigated in some other way.

The remainder of this section will quantify the potential for interference to DTV reception from an LTE UE operating in the adjacent frequency band.

9.1 LTE Power Control

LTE UE is limited in the 3GPP standards to 23 dBm transmitter power output (TPO). This defines the worst case radiated power level and 23 dBm was used in the testing when estimating the worst case interference distance. As mentioned, LTE uses aggressive power control, keeping LTE UE transmitters at the lowest power level consistent with reliable communication. An LTE UE will only operate at 23 dBm or a power close to that when its signaling conditions do not allow reliable communication at lower levels.

A further consideration is that the 23 dBm TPO allowed by the 3GPP specifications is measured at the input to the LTE UE device’s transmitting antenna. Mismatch and other losses related to the antenna will prevent LTE UE from achieving a full 23 dBm of radiated power, especially for a band edge A block device. A contrary factor is that there typically will be 2 to 3 dB of antenna gain. Currently the best device found on the market had a Total Radiated Power (TRP) of 20.5 dBm, with the peak point in the pattern at 23.9 dBm ERP. Most devices currently on the market were found to be 4 to 6 dB below these levels.

The DTV transmit tower and LTE base stations will not have a fixed relationship to each other and therefore the coincidence of low DTV signal strength and poor LTE signal conditions, requiring maximum power transmission, will only occur in a subset of locations. As shown in Figure 38, a possibility of interference only exists in those areas where the DTV signal is weak and the LTE UE is transmitting near its maximum power. As the figure also makes clear, LTE network design and placement of the LTE basestations can have a significant impact on the size and location of these areas.



Normal LTE Signal Region

High LTE Signal Region

Normal DTV Signal Region

DTV Transmitter1 MW

D

DMAX

LTE UE LTE BaseDTV Receiver

LOW DTV Signal Region

Area of Potential Interference

Figure 38 – The probability of LTE to DTV interference is highest where the DTV signal is weak and the LTE UE is transmitting at its maximum power. In other regions the probability is much less and often virtually non-existent.

9.2 Relative Antenna Position & Orientation

Both DTV and LTE UE antennas have directional patterns with significant variation in them. The testing performed in this project sought to maximize the coupling between antennas by placing and aligning the antennas for maximum coupling of LTE energy into the DTV antenna. However, normally the relative position and orientation of the antennas will be arbitrary. The DTV antenna will be placed and presumably oriented to maximize DTV reception. The LTE UE will be used at a location of the user’s choosing and quite possibly be in motion, both moving and changing orientation during a conversation. It must be assumed that the coupling between these antennas will be arbitrary and have an equal probability to be in any possible relative position and orientation.

In this discussion orientation refers to the degree to which the antennas are aligned or misaligned. For any given position the LTE UE can be rotated to be aligned for maximum (worst case) coupling to the indoor DTV receiving antenna for a given position and separation distance, or can be aligned to be cross-polarized and have significantly reduced coupling. For antennas of the type used for indoor reception of a DTV signal and LTE UE devices the minimum impact of orientation is 0 dB of isolation, meaning aligned for best possible reception at that position and there is no loss due to misalignment. Theoretically if the antennas are cross polarized there will be no coupling and the misalignment will be large. However, in actuality all antennas have some physical aspect in the orthogonal direction and while a null may be deep is it never perfect. In the calcuations provided later in this section a mean alignment coupling loss of 3.9 dB will be used.



DTV Receiving Antenna LTE UE Transmitting Antenna

Antenna Pattern in the Horizontal Plane

Antenna Pattern for Elevation

Figure 39 – Variation in relative placement can influence the coupling efficiency between an LTE UE and DTV antenna.

A calculation was performed of the coverage levels for a DTV and UE antenna used in a significant number of the measurements made. While worst case coupling between antennas is clearly possible, additional coupling loss will be present most of the time.



9.3 Calculating coverage levels

The relative position of two antennas (rabbit ear and LTE UE) will add loss to the LTE UE signal received by DTV receivers. The higher the loss the lower the interference the DTV receiver will be experienced. In other words, LTE UEs can operate closer to the DTV receiver before it will interfere with DTV. There are several steps required to calculate the coverage level. Standard statistical 98 PERCENTILE was utilized to calculate the coverage level. At the end, a ratio is calculated from the coverage level calculation. This ratio will be a multiplier to the worst case to acquire the new TOV distance. Since 98 PERCENTILE is used, that means the TOV distance will represent 98% of the times TOV distance will be lower and only 2% of the times the TOV distance will be great. But the TOV distance will not exceed the worst case TOV distance. Here are steps to calculate the additional loss in dB:

1. Create loss matrix from TRP testing (rabbit ear and LTE UE) a. 275x275 loss matrix

2. Calculate the Minimum Value (X) of these 275x275 loss matrix 3. Calculate the 98 PERCENTILE Value (Y) for the loss matrix

a. 98 PERCENTILE value present 98% of the loss will be below and 2% of the loss will be above 4. Calculate Delta Value by (Z) by subtract the 98 PERCENTILE value from the Minimum Value (Z = X-Y) 5. Include the polarization mismatch of 2.06 dB (W = Z - 2.06dB) 6. Calculated the delta distance:

)log(202

1

d

d

where d1 = worst case distance

d2 = new distance

7. Calculate the multiplier ratio of change:

ceDisOld

ceDisOldceDisNew

tan

tantan

The multiplier ratio based on all 12 sets of antenna is listed in Table 29.

Table 29 – Coverage levels shown as in terms of the fraction of the maximum for the 12 combinations tested

Antenna Combination Percentile

97.75% BANDRICH C525 vs GE Enhance 0.45

BANDRICH C525 vs Generic 0.53

BANDRICH C525 vs RCA Flat 0.54

BANDRICH C525 vs RCA1 0.53

BANDRICH C525 vs RCA2 0.58

BANDRICH C525 vs Zenith 0.49

SAMSUNG R930 vs GE Enhance 0.45

SAMSUNG R930 vs Generic 0.54

SAMSUNG R930 vs RCA Flat 0.54

SAMSUNG R930 vs RCA1 0.54

SAMSUNG R930 vs RCA2 0.59

SAMSUNG R930 vs Zenith 0.49



Average 0.52

Max 0.49

Min 0.45



Figure 40 – Plot of DTV receiving antennas with coverage levels shown



9.4 Phone Usage

Usage of cell phones has increased dramatically in recent years, both in the number of people using cell phones and the amount and purposes of use25. In the United States in 2007, 82% of adults owned a cell phone of some type, an increase from the 32% in 199926. As of June of 2011, there have become more active mobile devices in the United States than there are citizens27,28. According to CTIA there are 331 million cell phones in the U.S., which is 104.6% of the population29. Two out of every three Americans own a cell phone, including children and many own multiple phones30. This percentage is consistent worldwide, where approximately 5.1 billion people own a cell phone of the 7.1 billion people in the world.31

Although the number of active cell phones in the US has grown exponentially, the length of phone calls is relatively short, averaging 3 minutes 15 seconds.32 According to the United States Department of Labor, the average American spends 0.73 hours per day on the phone, with females spending 0.78 hours on average and males 0.66. This typically comes to 753 minutes per month for females and 525 minutes per month for males.33,34 Most people receive 5 calls per day and make 5 calls per day as well.35

The majority of time spent on the phone coincided with the individual driving. 36,37 For this study these trends create two distinct use cases, driving and non-driving use of cell phones. The implication for home or office interference to DTV is that phones are used less in those environments and so the average amount of time a phone is likely to be in use near a DTV is less than would be expected by looking at average phone use. The second environment is the vehicle environment, where mobile/handheld televisions are increasingly common, often within 2 or 3 feet of the cell phones. In general these televisions are not as susceptible to interference38 as standard televisions. For this study the station DTV and in-vehicle mobile/handheld DTV are sufficiently distinct as to justify separate consideration.

Overall, cell phones are becoming the most frequently accessed technology in America today. The time recorded above is not factoring in text messages, listening to music, searching the Internet, or using apps – all of which would add to the amount of time that the average American is on their phone. There is research by several foundations that suggests that the average person checks their phone in a range from 34 to 150 times per day.39,40,41

25 Pew Interest and American Life Project. “Cell Phones and American Adults”:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phones-and-American-Adults/Overview.aspx 26 Elert, Glenn. The Physics Factbook. Scarborough Research, 2002. 27 Census.gov, total population for June 2011 in United States 28 The International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry, CTIA. “CTIA Consumer Info”. 2012. http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/index.cfm/AID/10323 29 ibid 30 US Census Bureau. “Steadyrain Presents: Mobile America”. July, 2011. 31 Mobile Marketing Association Asia. “Incredible Mobile Marketing Statistics”. Digital Utility Team, March 26th 2012. http://www.digitalforreallife.com/tag/mobile-phone-usage-statistics/ 32 New York Times. “Drive Time Increasingly Means Talk Time”. Bridge Ratings. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/technology/06drill.html?_r=1&ei=5089&en=d8059507cbdc3ea6&ex=1299301200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1345572125-fkDLEGI6WB+EMv95NQR0Aw 33 Digital Trends. “New Study Average Teen Sends 3339 Texts Every Month”. The Nielson Company, 2010. 34 Mobile Marketing Association Asia. “Incredible Mobile Marketing Statistics”. Digital Utility Team, March 26th 2012. http://www.digitalforreallife.com/tag/mobile-phone-usage-statistics/ 35 Pew Research Project. “Adult Cell phones Report 2010”. Lenhart, Amanda. 36 US Census Bureau. “Steadyrain Presents: Mobile America”. July, 2011. 37 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Economic News Release: Time spent in Primary Activities”. 2011 averages. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm 38 Rhodes, Charles. “Cell Phone, DTV Interference Issues Examined”. TV Technology 39 Ahonen, Tony. “How Often Do You Check Your Phone”. Nokia, MindTrek conference, 2010.



Section 10 Test Equipment & Facilities

# Test Equipment Model Number

1 TV Signal Simulator R&S® SFE DTV Signal Generator

2 LTE UE Control R&S® CMW-500 Wireless Communications Test Set

3 LTE Waveform Generator R&S® SMU-B12 LTE Uplink Signal Generator

4 Signal Monitor R&S® ETL TV analyzer42

5 Impedance Adapter North Hills M/N 0114JA Coaxial Impedance Adapters - 50 to 75 Ω.43

6 Coupler Narda 4226-20

7 RF Amplifier Mini-Circuits ZHL-4240

8 Tuned Dipoles ETS-Lindgren 3121

10.1 DTV Antennas

# Manufacturer Model Number

1 Zenith VN1ANTP1

2 GE Enhance 34760

3 RCA Multidirectional Flat Antenna ANT1600R

40 Cohen, Elizabeth. “Do You Obsessively Check Your Smartphone?”. CNN Report. July 28th, 2010. Accessed August 21st, 2012. pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Adults_Cellphones_Report_2010.pdf 41 Oulasvirta, Antti et al. “Habits Make Smartphone Use More Pervasive”. Springer-Verlag, London, 2011. http://www.hiit.fi/u/oulasvir/scipubs/Oulasvirta_2011_PUC_HabitsMakeSmartphoneUseMorePervasive.pdf 42 The R&S® ETL TV analyzer is primarily used as a spectrum analyzer to monitor the input signal to the DTV receiver’s. The R&S® ETL TV analyzer stands for all-in-one. The R&S® ETL combines the functionality of a TV and FM (radio) signal analyzer, a video and MPEG TS analyzer and a spectrum analyzer in a single instrument. The R&S® ETL also contains generators to create analog video signals, audio signals and MPEG-2 transport streams. This instrument is capable of a number of measurements. More information is available at: http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/product/ETL.html 43 http://www.northhills-sp.com/pdf/products-wb-coaxial-adapters.pdf



4 RCA Indoor Antenna ANT112R

5 RCA Digital Flat Antenna ANT1050R

6 Generic Rabbit Ears Antenna – No label found

10.2 DTV Monitoring

Evaluation of the DTV signal will be performed by observation of the DTV screen by test personnel. The TOV threshold was found to be quite sharp, with the difference between a totally clear picture and a high degree of disruption or even total signal loss occurring within a dB. Hence, using test personnel to determine the threshold was found to be quite practical.


A-1

APPENDIX A - List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Definition BFO Brute-Force-Overload dB Decibel dBm Decibels referenced to 1 milliWatt dBW Decibels referenced to 1 Watt D/U ratio Desired-to-Undesired signal ratio EUT Equipment Under Test FEC Forward Error Correction FOM Figure of Merit GHz GigaHertz ID Identification IM Intermodulation I/O Input/Output IS Interface Specification MHz MegaHertz Min Minute N/A Not Applicable OTA Over-the-Air PC Personal Computer RF Radio Frequency Sec Second TOS Threshold of sensitivity TOS-A Threshold of sensitivity with signal ascending TOS-D Threshold of sensitivity with signal decending TOV Threshold of visibility TOV-A Threshold of visibility with signal ascending TOV-D Threshold of visibility with signal decending UE User Equipment


B-1

APPENDIX B – Bibliography

Table 30 provides a list of documents which were found useful and provide important background for this project.

Table 30 - Applicable Documents

Document Number Title Revision &

Date

ATSC A/54A Recommended Practice: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard, including Corrigendum No. 1

04 DEC 2003

Cor No 1 20 DEC 2006

ATSC A/64B ATSC Recommended Practice: Transmission Measurement and Compliance for Digital Television

26 MAY 2008

ATSC A/74:2010 ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines

07 APR 2010

ATSC A/174:2011 ATSC Recommended Practice: Mobile Receiver Performance Guidelines

26 SEP 2011

FCC/OET Bulletin 71 Guidelines for Testing and Verifying the Accuracy of Wireless E911 Location Systems

12 APR 2000

FCC/OET TR 05-1017 Tests of ATSC 8-VSB Reception Performance of Consumer Digital Television Receivers Available in 2005

02 NOV 2005

FCC/OET 07-TR-1003 Interference Rejection Thresholds of Consumer Digital Television Receivers Available in 2005 and 2006

30 MAR 2007

FCC/OET 07-TR-1005 Direct-Pickup Interference Tests of Three Consumer Digital Cable Television Receivers Available in 2005

07 JUL 2007

FCC/OET 9-TR-1003 DTV Converter Box Test Program -- Results and Lessons Learned 09 OCT 2009

IEEE 1900.2-2008 IEEE Recommended Practice for the Analysis of In-Band and Adjacent Band Interference and Coexistence Between Radio Systems

2008

TIA 916 Recommended Minimum Performance Specification for TIA/EIA/IS-801-1 Spread Spectrum Mobile Stations

APR 2002


C-1

APPENDIX C – LTE signal specifications

Table 31 – LTE Setup (Handset 5 MHz BW)

PARAMETER SETTING Center frequencies 701.5 MHz (5 MHz BW)

702.5 MHz (3 MHz BW) 703.3 MHz (1.4 MHz BW)

Release 3GPP R8 Duplexing FDD Modulation OFDM/OFDMA Allocation 1 Lower-most RB

Freq = 699-704 MHz RB Bandwidth 180 kHz UE Power MAX +23 dBm Total Radiated Pwr See individual units Subcarrier Modulation QPSK Dummy Data PN9


D-2

APPENDIX D – Detailed Conducted Test Data This annex presents the detailed conducted data. The results in this section were obtained using the BandRich Compact LTE USB Modem as the LTE signal source.

When 1 resource block is used, it is placed within the LTE channel as near to the DTV channel as possible.

TOV NR means the Threshold of Visibility was not reached at the highest LTE signal level applied, which was 8 dBm.

It is to be noted that while the Access HD DTA 1080 converter box was tested and those test results are listed in the tables below it was found to be both anomalous and erratic. The sensitivity of this unit was measured to be -63.1 dB, 20 dB worse than the other units in this study and also 20 dB worse that the converter boxes measured by the FCC in FCC OET Report 07-TR-1003, DTV Converter Box Test Program - Results and Lessons Learned, which reported a mean sensitivity of 115 converter boxes measured as being -85.0 dBm and the near worst performance of that group as being -83.6 dBm.44 This sensitivity would set the TOS + 3 dB level at -60.1 dB, above the -68 dBm test level and far above the TOS +3 dB level of the other units. Testing of this unit at the TOS + 3 dB level yielded erratic results with measurements varying widely, run-to-run. So the unit is recorded as having been tested but no result is provided given the inconsistent and changing results found with the unit.

44 FCC OET Report 07-TR-1003, DTV Converter Box Test Program - Results and Lessons Learned, Table 2-1.


D-3

Table 32 – TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 1.4 MHz with 1 Resource Block / DTV Signal at TOS + 3 dB)


D-4

Table 33 – TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 1.4 MHz with 1 Resource Block / DTV Signal at -68 dBm)


D-5



D-6



D-7

Table 36 – TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 1.4 MHz with 6 Resource Block / DTV Signal at +3 dB)


D-8



D-9

Table 38 – TOV Levels ( LTE UE signal bandwidth 1.4 MHz with 6 Resource Block / DTV Signal at -53 dBm)


D-10



D-11

Table 40– TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 3.0 MHz with 1 Resource Block / DTV Signal at +3 dB)


D-12

Table 41– TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 3.0 MHz with 1 Resource Block / DTV Signal at -68 dBm)


D-13



D-14



D-15



D-16



D-17



D-18



D-19



D-20



D-21

Table 50– TOV Levels ( LTE UE signal bandwidth 5.0 MHz with 1 Resource Block / DTV Signal at -53 dBm)


D-22



D-23

Table 52 – TOV Levels (LTE UE signal bandwidth 5.0 MHz with 25 Resource Block / DTV Signal at TOS+3 dB)


D-24



D-25



D-26



E-1

APPENDIX E – OTA Test Data

This appendix reports the distances at which the threshold of visability occurred. Both worst case and 98% values are reported. The 98% values only adjust for variation due to the relative positioning of the LTE UE and DTV antennas. Other factors, such as the transmission power used by the LTE UE and path loss due to absorbtion or shielding in the environment, were assumed to be worst case.


E-2

Table 56 – Worst case and 98% Threshold of Visability (TOV) Distances for TOS+3 dB


E-3

Table 57– Worst case and 98% Threshold of Visability (TOV) Distances for -68 dBm


F-1

APPENDIX F – LTE UE TRP Data

The graphs in Figure 42 and Figure 43 present the antenna pattern and radiating efficiency of the LTE UE used in this project. These graphs present the Azimuth 90o and Elevation 0o positions; however a full pattern was taken in order to calculate the Total Radiated Power (TRP) of the devices. Following these comparative graphs, individual graphs of each LTE UE are presented, showing the pattern variation at different transmission bandwidths.

The three phones tested here were the Bandrich C525, the Samsung R930, and the Samsung Galaxy Note.

Table 58 reports the TRP for the various LTE UE and transmission signals measured. While all LTE UE will produce close to 23 dBm at their internal connection point, in order to meet 3GPP requirements, none were found which did not exhibit losses between that point and the energy radiated from the device. For the two handsets measured these losses were very significant. While undoubtedly manufacturers will try to reduce these losses, it seems reasonable to conclude that the values measured represent what is reasonably achievable with current technology and other factors that influence this outcome.

Table 58 – TRP for LTE UE used

Total Radiated Power (TRP) Manufacturer Bandrich Samsung Samsung

Model C525 R930 Galaxy Note

Band Class 12 12 17

Transmitted Signal 5 MHz 25 Resosurce Blocks 20.1 dBm 13.8 dBm 14.6 dBm 5 MHz 2 Resosurce Blocks 20.5 dBm 13.1 dBm 13.3 dBm 3 MHz 15 Resosurce Blocks 19.8 dBm 13.8 dBm 3 MHz 2 Resosurce Blocks 20.5 dBm 14.0 dBm


F-2

Figure 41 – Antenna pattern testing of BandRich C525 USB Dongle to measure total radiated power (TRP)


F-3

Figure 42 – Comparison of Three LTE UE devices at the Azimuth 90


F-4

Figure 43 – Comparison of Three LTE UE devices at Elevation 0o


F-5

Figure 44 and Figure 45 display the BandRich USB dongle’s TRP for four transmission bandwidths. Note that the values for some bandwidths are close enough so that they are not easily discernable.

Figure 44 – Comparison of Four Bands of BandRich Phone at Azimuth 90o


F-6

Figure 45 – Comparison of Four Bands of BandRich Phone at Elevation 0o


F-7

Figure 46 and Figure 47 compare the four bands of the Samsung R930 at Azimuth 90o and Elevation 0 o.

Figure 46 – Comparison of Four Bands of Samsung R930 at Azimuth 90o


F-8

Figure 47 – Comparison of Four Bands of Samsung R930 at Elevation 0o


F-9

Lastly, Figure 48 and Figure 49 show the data from the Galaxy Note taken at Azimuth 90o and Elevation 0o

.

Figure 48 – Comparison of Two Bands of Galaxy Note at Azimuth 90o


F-10

Figure 49 – Comparison of Two Bands of Galaxy Note at Elevation 0o


G-1

APPENDIX G – DTV Antenna Pattern Data Six consumer DTV indoor antennas were tested to compare their relative performance. The antennas tested are:

A genertic DTV indoor antenna Zenith VN1ANTP1 GE Enhance 34760 RCA Multidirectional Flat Antenna ANT1600R RCA Indoor Antenna ANT112R RCA Digital Flat Antenna ANT1050R

The graph in Figure 50 compares their relative performance for azimuth and elevation.

Table 59 reports the TRP for these antennas, as well as the maximum, minimum and average values for their antenna patterns.

Figure 51 through Figure 56 show the individual patterns for these indoor DTV antennas.

As can be observed there is considerable variation in the pattern, which means that the ability of at LTE UE to couple energy into the antenna will depend significantly on where it is located relative to the DTV antenna.


G-2

Table 59 – TRP for LTE UE used


G-3

Figure 50 – Comparison of Six DTV Indoor Antennas


G-4

Figure 51 – Generic DTV indoor antenna


G-5

Figure 52 – Zenith VN1ANTP1


G-6

Figure 53 – GE Enhance 34760


G-7

Figure 54 – RCA Multidirectional Flat Antenna ANT1600R


G-8

Figure 55 – RCA Indoor Antenna ANT112R


G-9

Figure 56 – RCA Digital Flat Antenna ANT1050R

Intertek Evaluation for: Cricket Wireless Revision 1.0 -1/14/2013

H-1

APPENDIX H – BACKGROUND

H.1 FCC specifications and testing experience

“For DTV TV stations, service is defined to exist where the received signal strength exceeds the limit shown in the following table, using the F(50,90) propagation curves. These field strength values are defined in Section 73.622 and Section 73.625). “45

Table 60 – FCC DTV Service Area Definitions46, 47, 48

Channels DTV Noise-Limited Service Minimum Field Strength over Community of

License

Channels 2 through 6 28 dBu 35 dBu



“For digital television stations, service is evaluated inside contours determined by DTV planning factors in combination with field strength curves derived for 50% of locations and 90% of the time from curves which are also found in Section 73.699 of FCC rules. The family of FCC propagation curves for predicting field strength at 50% of locations 90% of the time is found by the formula F(50, 90) = F(50, 50) - [F(50, 10) - F(50, 50)]. That is, the F(50, 90) value is lower than F(50, 50) by the same amount that F(50, 10) exceeds F(50, 50).”49

The defining field strengths for DTV service, contained in 47CFR73.622(e) and 47CFR73.625(a) of the FCC rules, are shown in Table 60.

“Criteria for the ratio of desired to undesired field strength are specified in Section 73.623 of FCC rules for interference involving DTV stations as desired or undesired. These criteria are summarized in (Table 61).”50

Table 61 - Interference Criteria for Co- and Adjacent Channels51

D/U Ratio, dB Channel Offset

Analog into

Analog

DTV into

Analog

Analog into DTV

DTV into DTV

-1 (lower adjacent) -3 -14 -48 -28

0 (co-channel) +28 +34 +2 +15

+1 (upper adjacent) -13 -17 -49 -26

Applying this information for the case of channel 52 to channel 51, for channel 51 the mid-frequency is 695 and the DTV Noise Limited Service calculates to 41 – 20log(615/695) = 42.1 dBu.

The FCC has conducted extensive DTV testing in its own laboratory, issuing a series of reports with findings. These reports are listed in Appendix B, as relevant bibliography for this project. A variety of insights can be gained from these reports which are relevant to this project.

45 http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/curves.html 46 Service area definitions are found in 47CFR73.622(e) and 47CRF73.625(a) 47 http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/curves.html 48 dBu is dB above one uV/m per 47CFR73.625(e). 49 FCC OET Bulletin 69, February 6, 2004, pgs 2-3. 50 FCC OET Bulletin 69, July 2, 1997, pg 10. 51 FCC OET Bulletin 69, February 6, 2004, Table 5A.


H-2

In its 2009 testing of DTV converter boxes a section titled, “Chapter 9 - Lessons Learned for Future DTV Receiver Testing”52 particular offers useful information. The first area discussed was the impact of the video content on the ability to detect various failures during testing:

VIDEO MODE TESTING

In testing the ability of a DTV receiver to handle the 36 video modes (video formats and frame rates) specified in the ATSC standard, it is essential to use video content that includes motion, and the speed or complexity of the motion can be a factor in detection of anomalies.

• Only one of the seven failures in video mode processing observed during converter box testing would have been caught by static images.

• One converter box model was rejected due to image artifacts left behind during motion.

• Five converter boxes were rejected for jerky motion in the video. At least one of these occurred only on images with complex motion (a myriad of fish moving in different directions) or rapid motion.53

The relevance of these observations to the current project needs to be explored. The DTV test signal will be selected to maximize the ability to detect signal interference.

AGC MEMORY / HYSTERESIS

The automatic gain control (AGC) state of a DTV receiver can have a profound effect on interference thresholds because many interference mechanisms involve nonlinearities in the tuner. A high gain prior to a tuner stage that exhibits a nonlinearity causes higher signal levels at the point of the nonlinearity — and, consequently, higher levels of the spectral products created by that nonlinearity relative to the level of the desired signal.

Prior to the converter box testing, we had assumed that the AGC state of a DTV receiver was a function only of its current input. It was found, however, that some converter boxes exhibited a hysteresis or memory effect in the AGC function, such that, if a given undesired signal level is approached from above, the results are different from those obtained by approaching the same level from below. Exposures to high undesired signal levels were “remembered” by the AGC loop and played a part in setting the AGC state. A channel change was found to reset this “memory”.

To ensure consistency in the test results, additional steps were added to the process of finding the TOV during interference tests. In particular, when an interference level was adjusted close to the TOV level, the tuner channel was changed from the desired channel to the undesired channel, then back again. The search for TOV then continued. If the undesired level changed by one dB or more in this search, the channel change step was repeated, the search for TOV continued. This process was repeated as necessary to ensure that the channel change occurred with the undesired signal level less than 1 dB from its final value.

The issue of ACG hysteresis is significant and will be reflected in the specific steps of the test procedure. To clarify the nomenclature the terms TOV-A and TOV-D will be used in the document. TOV-A being the threshold of visibility with an ascending signal, meaning the transition from no visible picture to visibility. TOV-D would then be the threshold of visibility found with a descending signal, meaning the threshold found when transitioning from a visible picture to no visible picture. In both cases the threshold of visibility will be the last viewable picture.

TOV VERSUS SIGNAL ACQUISITION LEVELS

RF performance measurements for DTV receivers are generally presented in terms of desired signal level, undesired (interference) signal level, echo level, or noise level at the threshold of visibility (TOV) of TV picture degradation. However, some DTV receivers require better signal conditions to initially acquire a DTV signal than they require to maintain a visually flawless picture once the signal has been acquired. If one gradually decreases the desired signal level until TOV is reached, the resulting signal level may not be adequate for the receiver to acquire the

52 FCC OET Bulletin 9-TR103, DTV Converter Box Test Program--Results and Lessons Learned, October 9, 2009 53 Ibid, pg 9-1


H-3

signal when the receiver is initially turned on or the channel is initially selected. The same is true of gradually increasing an impairment (interference, noise, or multipath) until TOV is found.

A TOV measurement made using the methodology above would provide a false indication of performance of the DTV receiver because it would correspond to a signal condition that is inadequate for initial reception. In order to avoid creation of misleading results, after TOV was identified by gradually decreasing the desired signal level or gradually increasing an impairment or interference level, a channel change was executed on the converter box, followed by returning to the original channel. Most converter boxes reacquired the signal quickly; however, if a converter box was unable to reacquire the signal within 20 seconds after returning to the test channel, the desired signal level was increased or the impairment was decreased until the converter box was capable of signal acquisition after a channel change. In such cases, the reacquisition signal level was reported as the TOV.

This issue is also significant and will be addressed in the specific steps of the test procedure.

UNINTENDED PHASE NOISE OF SIGNAL SOURCES IN RF PERFORMANCE TESTS

The FCC Laboratory found—in preparatory work for the converter box test program, as well as in earlier test programs—that degraded quality of DTV signals used for testing can impact test results on DTV receivers. Work that we performed in preparation for the converter box program identified unintended phase noise in both internal and external RF upconverters associated with DTV signal generation equipment as the likely cause of this degradation. Degraded test results were observed in sensitivity and taboo test results as a function of the DTV signal generator selected to produce the desired signal, as well as in field-ensemble tests, as a function of the upconverter used with the RF player.

Observed Impact of Signal Source Quality on DTV Receiver Test Results

The FCC has observed degraded DTV receiver test results caused by test equipment on four occasions.

(1) In tests reported in 2007 on consumer DTV receivers that were on the market in 2005 and 2006, sensitivity of the receivers was found to be poorer by an average of 0.9 dB when the desired signal was supplied by an early-generation Sencore ATSC997 ATSC signal generator than when it was supplied by a Rohde and Schwarz SFU. Modulation error ratio (MER) measurements on the ATSC997 source were sufficiently high as to explain no more than 0.14 dB of the discrepancy.54

(2) In the same test program, measured taboo-channel rejection performance of eight DTV receivers was 1.0 dB poorer on average when the desired signal was supplied by the ATSC997 as compared to the SFU that was mentioned above in item (1).55 (For tests in items (1) and (2), the ATSC997’s internal RF upconverter was used. The measurements were performed less than 12 months after a 2006 calibration of the ATSC997. The instrument was purchased in October 2001 and may differ in performance from more recent models.)

(3) In tests reported in 2005, the average number of field ensembles (out of 47) that were demodulated with no visible errors by a tested DTV receiver increased from 10 to 31 when Sencore replaced the RF upconverter card in the Sencore RFP-910 RF Player that was used in the tests.56 The average number of field ensembles (out of 50) that were successfully demodulated with two or fewer visible errors by six DTV receivers increased from 14 to 40 with the change in upconverter cards.57

54 <Interference Rejection 2007>, p.5-5 and 5-6. 55 <Interference Rejection 2007>, p.7-3 through 7-5. 56 Martin, Stephen, “Tests of ATSC 8-VSB Reception Performance of Consumer Digital Television Receivers Available in 2005”,

Federal Communications Commission Report FCC/OET TR 05-1017, November 2, 2005, p. A-5. 57 This previously unpublished result is from the same set of tests performed in 2005. The actual increase was from 11 to 37 for the

number of successes out of the 47 ensembles with video content. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the three ensembles that lack video content were judged to be easily demodulated, so three was added to each result to be

consistent with results reported elsewhere in this document.


H-4

(4) An early-generation Wavetech WS-2100 RF player was purchased for field-ensemble tests in the converter box program. An initial performance evaluation of the player was conducted by using a DTV receiver that was known to exhibit visible errors on specific field ensembles when played on an RF player with degraded signal quality. Visible errors were observed when upconversion to RF was performed by the Wavetech’s internal RF upconverter (an upconverter that was replaced with another brand in subsequent production of the WS-2100) or by an external Blonder Tongue DHDC-UH upconverter installed in an MIRC-4D rack mount. On the other hand, no such errors were observed when the RF player was used with an external Drake DUC860 upconverter in DRMM4 rack mount.58

The RF player results clearly indicated that RF upconverter performance can influence field-ensemble test results. Subsequent tests, described below, suggested that the observed degradation in DTV receiver sensitivity and taboo measurements made with the ATSC997 signal source was also related to upconverter performance and that phase noise was the likely cause of the degradation.

The discussion of TOV in the technical report of the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, ACATS, provides useful information:

5.2. TRANSMISSION ROBUSTNESS

This section identifies the various tests of transmission performance. For each test, the purpose and importance of the test and the test methodology is summarized. A brief statement of the results is given also for each test, with emphasis on comparison of performance of this Grand Alliance system with the previous proponent systems.

5.2.1. Random RF Noise Performance

Random noise was added at RF to the desired digital signal. As expected for the Grand Alliance system’s modulation and error correction, random RF noise has no effect on the recovered video and audio data until the level of noise is raised to a point very close to a “threshold” value. The value of carrier-to-noise ratio (C/N) where the effects of noise begin to be visible is called the Threshold of Visibility (TOV).

For the Grand Alliance system, the C/N at TOV was 15.19 dB.

As expected and designed into the system, the threshold is very sharp. Visible image impairments change from just barely visible to destructive of the picture within ~ 1 dB of worsening of the C/N.

A similar measure can be made on the recovered audio data (Threshold of Audibility). For the Grand Alliance system, the C/N at TOA was 14.92 dB.

As expected, the video and audio fail approximately together, with audio measuring as slightly more robust against RF noise. Audio does not fail before video.59

In this test plan TOV was assessed based on the video rather than the audio signal. As the ACATS report observed, the video and audio signals fail approximately together with the video being slightly more fragile. It is also noted that the threshold is relatively sharp, which benefits its accurate assessment.

An issue which must be addressed is the amount of time the video should be viewed in order to be confident that the TOV has been accurately determined. For E911 compliance the FCC requires that sufficient observations be made to have a 90% confidence level of compliance:

A sufficient number of observations should be included to establish compliance with the FCC accuracy requirements with a statistical confidence of at least 90 percent. See Appendix A for a statistical approach for demonstrating compliance for empirical testing.60

58 As with many types of DTV signal sources, the Wavetech RF player has an IF output that can be fed to either an internal RF upconverter or an external upconverter to convert the IF signal (centered at 44 MHz) to an RF signal on a specified

broadcast television channel. 59 Technical Report of the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, ACATS, October 31, 2010. 60 FCC OET Bulletin 71, pg 6.


H-5

FCC OET Bulletin 71 Appendix A and TIA 916 Appendix C provide helpful discussion and guidance on calculating the number of observations necessary for a given confidence level. ATSC A/54a defines TOV as the level at which there are 2.5 data segment errors per second. Experience with evaluating the TOV threshold has led to the conclusion that the number of observations per second is close to the frame rate. Noticing an error block is generally quite easy even if it is just for a brief flash. The change using a 0.5 dB step size increment at the TOV threshold proved to be clearly observable. A 10 to 30 seconds observation time proved more than adequate for determination of TOV.

H.2 DTV Receivers

Performance of DTV receivers is expected to have similarities based on the chip set used. Receivers using the same chip set are expected to perform similarly. Therefore sampling DTV receivers that use the latest generation chip is one important criterion for obtaining a representative sample of the population.

Six generations of 8-VSB chip sets have been introduced to the market. The following is a summary of 8-VSB chip sets performance for consumer-grade DTV receivers:

1. First generation chip sets, 1998. Could only compensate for reflections ("ghosts") between -3/+20 uSec, and at least 3 dB weaker than the direct signal.

2. Second generation chip sets, 1999. The ghost compensation range was unchanged, but the chip set went from 3 to 2 integrated circuits, with reduced footprint and power requirements.

3. Third generation chip sets, 2000. The ghost compensation range was increased to -3/+44 uSec, and slightly stronger ghosts, of no more than 2.5 dB weaker than the direct signal, could be accommodated. This generation still used two ICs.

4. Fourth generation chip sets, 2002. The ghost compensation range was increased to -10/+44 uSec, and even stronger ghosts, of no more than 1.5 dB weaker than the direct signal, could be accommodated. This generation still used two ICs.

5. Fifth generation chip sets, 2005. Ghost compensation range of ±50 uSec, and ability to accommodate 0 dB (same amplitude as direct signal) ghosts. This generation used only one IC, for both 8-VSB and QAM.

6. Sixth generation chip sets, 2007. Ghost compensation range of ±73 uSec, and ability to accommodate 0 dB reflections; ATSC A/74 "compliant." This generation used only one IC, both 8-VSB and QAM decoding supported.

It is believed that first through third generation chip sets were generally only used by a relatively small group of "early adopters." Fifth and sixth generation chip sets allowed for significantly more reliable DTV reception and dominate both current DTV receiver’s on the market and in the installed base. Therefore, the sample of devices selected with focus on DTV receiver’s that use these generation chip sets.

H.3 ATSC Standards

The ATSC standards identify 18 different video encoding and compression formats, which combined with the M/H signal results in 36 different encoding and compression formats.


H-6

Figure 57 – ATSC signal formats61

Figure 58 - ATSC broadcast system with TS Main and M/H services (Figure 4-1 from ATSC A/153-7)

61 Source: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html