Network Engineering Paper Network Engineering Paper

Considerations for the Relocation of Legacy Fixed Microwave Links from the Federal and FCC 2 GHz Bands
Richard U. Laine, PE

Harris Stratex Networks San Jose, CA 95134 richard.laine@hstx.com (408) 944-1644 (-1683 Fax)

Presented to the NTIA, Dept of the Interior Building, Washington, DC April 28, 2004

Harris Stratex Doc. No. 123

April 2004

Network Engineering Paper

Considerations for the Relocation of Legacy Fixed Microwave Hops from the Federal and FCC 2GHz Bands
Prologue
For more than fifty years, common carriers, private users, broadcasters and federal agencies have used the 2 GHz bands for fixed microwave communications systems. After April 25, 1996 the Lower 2 GHz (1850-1990 MHz) and Upper 2 GHz (2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz) band segments were re-allocated for use by Emerging Technology (ET) services, including Personal Communications Services (PCS) and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS), and more recently Third Generation (3G) Mobile Services. All subsequent major modifications and extensions to existing Fixed Microwave systems in these bands have been authorized on a secondary basis to ET operations. 2155 MHz. The 1710-1755 MHz federal band would be substantially cleared of users not later than December 2008. This paper addresses the technical aspects of relocating incumbents.

Federal Governments 1710-1755 MHz band

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) currently administer this band for multiple US Federal Government entities. Reverting to FCC control after the FCC decides to initiate the auction, this band will be paired with the 2110-2155 MHz band and used for AWS applications. The NTIA would direct the relocations of federal nonmilitary users from this 1710-1755 MHz band to other federal bands, including 4400-4940 MHz (5 GHz), 7125-8500 MHz (7/8 GHz), and 14500-15350 MHz (15 GHz). Except that nearly all of these legacy 1710-1755 MHz analog (mostly) microwave hops also operate in this upper spectrum, the 1755-1850 MHz segment is unaffected and will be retained under NTIA and DOD control, the latter for relocation of airborne and space operations.

NTIA and FCC 2 GHz Bands After 2008?

Federal Government
To 3G

Private Sector
2025 MHz Shared with DOD To 3G
To MSS

Remains Federal (NTIA/ DOD) 1710 1755 1850

Reallocated in 1996 from OFMS PTP Links to PCS

Commercial TV ENG and Intercity/STL PTP Links 1990 2110 2150/ 2200
2160

FREQUENCY, MHz
Federal PTP Bands
Many Agencies and Departments

Federal Government Assignments In the 1710 -1755 MHz Band

New Allocations Commercial PTP Bands (FCC)

3G MSS 50% Telco, Cellular 50% Private (OFMS)

MDS Band
AM Video Links

Reallocation of 2 GHz Federal and FCC Bands

The FCC, through its FCC ET Docket No. 00-258 Second Report and Order and WT Docket No. 02-353 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, has allocated an additional 90 MHz of 2 GHz spectrum to Advance Wireless Services (AWS), 45 MHz in each of the two bands shown in the above sketch: 1710-1755 and 2110-

Includes 16 Protected DOD sites, Safety of Life Sites, Utility Power Sites, and other Federal Agency Microwave Sites

Page 1 of 8

Harris Stratex Networks Doc. No. 123

Dick Laine

Rev. March 2007

Immovable 1710-1755 MHz Band Incumbents The above map shows the geographical distribution of the 1855 non-military federal microwave hops now deployed in the 1710-1755 MHz band. In addition, DOD incumbents at 16 Protected Facilities in this band will continue operations indefinitely, so the potential for interference to 3G systems extends into high population areas in southern California, most of Nevada, Seattle, much of the Gulf Coast, and major portions of the Eastern seaboard. DODs 1710-1755 MHz ground-based Digital Wideband Transmission Systems (DWTS) are given primary status and thus protected indefinitely from commercial (3G) interference at two DOD locations Yuma, AZ and Cherry Point, NC. Ground-based systems at the other 14 Protected Facilities will operate on a secondary basis to the new 3G networks. Also, current law evidently under review guarantees the continued operation of protected Federal Power Administration ground-based point-to-point microwave systems in this 1710-1755 MHz band. Unless incumbents voluntarily agree to relocate, e.g. for digital upgrades, 3G operations must protect these DOE systems thus further limiting 3G access in some areas.

winning bids totaling $14 billion. The FCC has adopted rules requiring AWS licensees to compensate FWS (Fixed Microwave Service) and Public Safety incumbents the expense of relocating to comparable facilities outside the 2.1 GHz band. Negotiation periods are for 2 years with AWS and 3 years with Public Safety incumbents.

Relocation of 2110-2200 MHz Incumbents

As seen in the above 2 GHz frequency band sketch, 3Gs 1710-1755 MHz spectrum is paired with a similar 45 MHz bandwidth spectrum encompassing the 21102150 MHz commercial (20 MHz private; 20 MHz public) FCC Part 101 band plus 5 MHz of the MDS (AM TV) band. Also, the 2165-2220 MHz part of the commercial band has been assigned for MSS (mobile satellite services) satellite-to-earth links. Although its impact upon incumbent point-to-point radio hops is questionable, it is expected that when MSS is deployed it will cover most of the continent with multiple satellite coverage footprints. Rural as well as urban area microwave hops will be equally affected, albeit minimally because of the very large antenna discriminations involved - PTP hops look 0-50 horizontally; satellite-to-earth hops look more vertically. It is thus inevitable that except for its set-aside 1755-1850 MHz (DOD) and 1990-2110 MHz (TV broadcast PTP and ENG, 2025-2110 shared with DOD) bands, the entire 1710-2200 MHz band is to be assigned to mobile services. The following two maps show the distribution of the many 1000s of public (telco, cellular) and private (state and local government, utilities, pipelines, etc.) PTP hops in the 2110-2200 MHz FCC Part 101 bands.

Compensation to Federal Incumbents

Under the new rules, funds for the relocating or modifying non-military Federal Government microwave systems would be made available from the private sector entity receiving this 1710-1755 MHz Government spectrum. Relocations from the 2 GHz FCC bands typically require the first licensee (probably the 3G or MSS service provider) to compensate the incumbent 100% of his relocation expenses for an equivalent system and, at a later date, recover 50% of the relocation costs from the other licensee, likely another 3G or MSS service provider. This greatly simplifies the relocation process, and it is believed that relocation will proceed in a manner very similar to the PCS relocation that occurred in the 1990s. Piece-by-piece the 2 GHz band is being re-assigned to services other than fixed PTP microwave. The first relocation phase, which reallocated the 1850-1990 MHz band and thus benefited PCS operators in the mid1990s, is virtually complete. Due to generally weaker economic conditions, this second relocation phase was expected to proceed at a slower pace than the initial phase. Regardless of this, the relocation did take place and on 9/19/06 the FCC concluded its AWS auctions of the 2.1 GHz band with

Public (Telco, Cellular)

driven by LAN/IP, high-speed data, digital PABX, teleconferencing, protection and control, homeland security, public safety, fiber interface, etc. requirements. The opportune time for incumbents to plan what they intend to do with their 2 GHz hops is better now than later. Even though the actual implementation should preferably happen after the auction when financial support from the new operators is available, it is not always possible to wait. Reasons such as an urgent capacity upgrade or replacement of equipment at the end of its useful life might force an earlier action. Whatever the reason and whenever the timing, incumbents should take advantage of the situation and enhance the service to their users or subscribers by increasing capacity, upgrading to digital service, or simply enhancing service to todays standards.

Private (State & Local Govt, Transportation, Electrical Utilities)

The reallocation of the 1710-1755/2110-2155 MHz spectra to 3G not only affects NTIA and FCC Part 101 incumbents, but also FCC Part 21 Multiple Distribution Systems providing AM video programming to apartments and other clients. The locations of MDS providers using Ch. 1 (2150-2156 MHz) are shown on the following map.

Characteristics of 2 GHz Systems

One or several of the following typically characterize fixed point-to-point microwave hops presently deployed in the 1710-2200 MHz bands: Analog FM-FDM hot-standby radios with low (typically 48-96 VF channel) capacities, except that radios with 132-600 VF channel bandwidths are currently deployed on some backbone routes. High performance (low outage, moderate fading) even in low-clearance 2 GHz hops deployed in regions impacted by such adverse geoclimatic conditions as ABL (surface) ducting. Diffraction or partially obstructed paths, intentional or otherwise, generally having little effect on 2 GHz hop performance. Coax feeder systems, most often with nonpressurized foam dielectric in newer systems.

MDS (AM-TV)

Incumbent Federal and FCC 2 GHz Systems

Most existing 2 GHz PTP systems are aging or otherwise approaching obsolescence, and are impacted by increasing analog baseband idle and loaded noise and distortion, interference, limited capacity, and diminishing reliability, so will soon require considerable maintenance and rehabilitation. Most likely, all of these legacy 2 GHz PTP hops are planned for upgrade to digital transport to accommodate the rapidly increasing telecommunication demands

Grid antennas with wide beamwidths and low wind loading, although solid antennas are often deployed in high elevation sites affected by heavy icing conditions and in other systems. Weaker towers that accommodate the wider beamwidths and, if grids, lower wind loading characteristics of these 2 GHz antennas. Very often non-diversity, except space diversity assigned on some longer paths deployed over reflective terrain

It is immediately evident that the impact of redeploying incumbent microwave hops from these robust 2 GHz bands to higher frequency bands devoid of many of these favorable characteristics must be carefully thought out.

Page 3

Bands for Relocating Federal 2 GHz Hops

Multiple frequency bands can accommodate the federal 2 GHz systems to be relocated. Depending on the path length, capacity required, performance and rain availability objectives, and geoclimatic conditions, these include the 2.4/5.8 GHz unlicensed ISM and U-NII bands and the 7/8 GHz and 15 GHz federal bands. Millimeterwave bands above 15 GHz are also available for relocating shorter 2 GHz federal hops. With the exception of several c 2 geoclimatic regions shown below that have particularly difficult propagation characteristics, hops migrating to the 7/8 GHz band should exhibit performance equal to or better than at 2 GHz.

5.7 GHz U-NII Unlicensed band Pro: Accommodates conventional (non-spread) lowto high-capacity digital hops.

Con: Shares band with multiple ISM, 802.11a wireless LAN, U-NII, and other unknown devices, with the future allocation of this band to 802.16 OFDM and other devices still under review.

4400-4940 MHz Band Pro: Wide spectrum for NTIA PTP hops, high capacity OC-3 radios available, reuse of existing or new coax systems, robust performance in difficult geoclimatic regions

Geoclimatic Factors
c=2

Con: Lower capacity 4-28xDS1/DS3 radios not now available (awaiting a market), no standard frequency plan, incumbent high-power DOD devices in some areas.

c=1

c = 0.25

c=1

7125-8500 MHz Band Pro: Very wide PTP microwave spectrum availability for over 50 years so propagation in this band is well known in most areas, 4ft dishes are OK, and high antenna gains and discriminations provide good performance.

c=4

c=4

Alaska coast, c = 0.25 Alaska interior, c = 1 Caribbean, Hawaii, c = 4

c = 6 (Flat)

c=

0.25

1
Good

2
Difficult

4
Very Difficult

6
Heavy Ducting

Propagation: Excellent

Con: Frequency congested in some areas, no standard frequency channelization plan, longer lowclearance hops vulnerable to ducting in c 2 geoclimatic regions, 7250-7300/7900-8025 MHz Satcom bands are excluded from PTP use.

Selection of the New Band (Federal)

The migration of a legacy 2 GHz system to a higher frequency band (or bands) must be carefully planned out, of course. The selection of the new band(s) is a decision the incumbent will live with for more than 20 years, so is central to the relocation process. One decision is automatic - conversion to digital TDM or LAN/IP transport. The following descriptions are for each available band: 2.4/5.8 GHz ISM DSSS Unlicensed bands Pro: Very low cost, 2.4 GHz can reuse incumbent 2 GHz antenna systems without modification, has T1 and LAN/IP ports, spread spectrum is robust to fading and interference.

14500-15350 MHz Band Pro: Very wide, under-utilized PTP bandwidth, no multipath outage due to short hops, high antenna discriminations for multiple hops at hub sites.

Con: Some rain outage in high rain-rate regions, shared with mobile and space research hops, no standard frequency channelization plan.

Bands for Relocating FCC 2.1-2.2 GHz Systems

Like federal systems, multiple frequency bands can accommodate the relocation of 2110-2200 MHz hops licensed under FCC Part 101. But unlike federal relocations, many lower frequency bands are available to FCC Part 101 2 GHz licensees. Depending on the path length, capacity and RF channel bandwidth (BW) requirements, performance and rain availability objectives, and geoclimatic conditions, these include the following:

Con: Low 1-4 T1 capacity, no errorless diversity protection, shares band with multiple ISM band, 802.11b/g (2.4 GHz) or 802.11a and U-NII (5.8 GHz), and other unknown wireless LAN devices.

2.4/5.8 GHz ISM (DSSS) unlicensed bands 5.7 GHz U-NII unlicensed band 5925-6425 MHz L6 band (10-30 MHz BW*) 6525-6875 MHz U6 band (5-10 MHz BW)

10.550-10.680 GHz band (1.25-5 MHz BW) 10.7-11.7 GHz band (10-40 MHz BW*) 17.7-19.7 GHz band (10-80 MHz BW) * Narrower band-edge channels are also available

17.7-19.7 GHz band (10-80 MHz BW) Pros: Wide choice of RF bandwidths allowing lowefficiency radios with high system gains, high antenna discriminations at hub sites.

Additional millimeterwave bands above 19.7 GHz are also available for relocating short FCC Part 101 2 GHz hops.

Cons: High rain outage in some regions, perhaps coordination with Teledesics (or other) onceproposed 18.8-19.3 GHz Internet-in-the-Sky satellite system.

New Band Selection (FCC Part 101)

2.4/5.8 GHz ISM DSSS Unlicensed bands Pros and Cons: See federal band selection 5.7 GHz U-NII Unlicensed band Pros and Cons: See federal band selection 5925-6425 MHz L6 band (10-30 MHz BW) Pro: Wide PTP hop spectrum availability for over 50 years so propagation characteristics are well known, best accommodates high-capacity 1+1 and 1:N OC-3 hops in 30 MHz BW, high antenna discriminations, good long-haul performance

Millimeterwave Path Design and Deployment

Rain availability is a major concern in some high rain rate regions when relocating 2 GHz hops to the millimeterwave band above about 10 GHz. Therefore, these bands are typically used for single-hop spur or feeder hops from lower-frequency backbone routes. As general rule, rain outage about doubles for each higher band, e.g. 11 to 15 GHz, 15 to 18 GHz, 18 to 23 GHz. Also, longer millimeterwave hops should be assigned to the vertical polarization as rain outage in H-pol hops approximately doubles as compared to V-pol. Rain outage is mitigated in UPSR ring systems when the path azimuth difference at each hub repeater site is >600 800. But, since rain outage is typically low in most regions, perhaps only one or two 5-15min-duration outages/yr, the use of these bands is attractive for 2 GHz hop relocations.

Con: Frequency congested in some areas, longer low-clearance hops vulnerable to ducting in c 2 geoclimatic regions, 6 or 8ft min. antenna sizes.

6525-6875 MHz U6 band (5-10 MHz BW) Pro: Wide PTP hop spectrum availability for over 50 years so propagation characteristics are well known, best accommodates medium capacity DS3 hops in 10 MHz BW, high antenna discriminations, good long-haul performance

Con: Frequency congested in some areas, longer low-clearance hops vulnerable to ducting in c 2 geoclimatic regions, 6 or 8ft min. antenna sizes.

Path Clearance Criteria

Path clearances assigned to incumbent 2 GHz hops are typically Light Route (0.6F1@k=1 - see the following Path Clearance Criteria table) to just above free space (0.6F1@k=4/3rds) in all geoclimatic regions. Main path clearance (upper antenna heights) on some longer paths deployed in difficult (c 2) geoclimatic regions (see above map) may therefore have to be increased to avoid the seriously degrading effects of ABL (atmospheric boundary layer) ducting - defocusing, obstruction, decoupling - in these higher (5-6 GHz and above) relocation bands.

10.550-10.680 GHz band (2.5-5 MHz BW) Pros: Excellent short-haul performance and low rain outage in most regions, optimally accommodates low capacity 2-16xDS1 U2 band relocations, high antenna discriminations.

Cons: Moderate rain outage in some regions.

10.7-11.7 GHz band (10-40 MHz BW) Pro: Very wide PTP hop spectrum availability for over 50 years so propagation characteristics are well known, best accommodates medium and highcapacity 1+1 and 1:N DS3/OC-3 hops in 10-40 MHz BW, high antenna discriminations, good short-haul performance

Con: Moderate rain outage in some regions

Page 5

Path Clearance Criteria

HEAVYROUTE*
About 6 GHz and above in moderate to heavy fade (c 2) areas

Coax and Waveguide Feeders

All 2 GHz PTP systems use corrugated, extruded, or rigid, pressurized or foam, coaxial cables usually 7/8ths-inch but also from -inch to 1-5/8ths inch diameters. While exhibiting higher loss in the new bands, -inch coax performs well in the higher 6-8 GHz bands, as does some 5/8ths- and 7/8ths-inch coaxes in the 4.4-5.8 GHz bands. However, these are exceptions. New elliptical waveguide as well as new antennas are typically required when relocating from the 2 GHz to higher bands.

LIGHT ROUTE
About 2 GHz and below in all areas, and all paths in good to average fade (c 1) areas

MAIN PATH
(Top Dishes)

0.3 F1 @ k = 2/3rds and F1 @ k = 4/3rds 0.6 F1 @ k = 4/3rds +10ft/3m Close-In for Tree Growth, etc. (typically 30-40ft below main dish) k = 1 Over a 150 ft/50m Surface Ducting Layer, or k = 1/2 grazing

0.6 F1 @ k = 1

DIVERSITY PATH
(Top-To-Bottom Dishes)

Same As Heavy Route

DUCTING
Main path clearance with known surface duct entrapment (paths >20/30 miles/kilometers)

No Special Allowance

* Diversity is typically required when main path clearances are established by this Heavy Route criterion Atmospheric conditions having minimal effect on the performance of 2 GHz hops can entrap or otherwise heavily degrade the performance of longer, lower clearance 5-11 GHz hops in difficult (c 2) geoclimatic regions, as well as in those areas with known microclimates that cause atmospheric ducting. If insufficient tower height is unavailable to accommodate this 0.3F1@k=2/3rds or higher main (upper path) Heavy Route criterion, it may be necessary to reroute or shorten a longer path, or accept somewhat degraded nighttime, seasonal, performance for the hop. Self-healing UPSR ring (loop) arrangements also provide protection from the more devastating effects of ABL entrapments.

Relocation Planning
The incumbent needs to define what he considers to be a comparable system, an often-contentious contractual part of the reimbursement process. Relocation may be include an upgrade from lower capacity analog to higher capacity digital radios sometimes requiring taller, stronger towers, more costly antenna feeder systems, plus adding dishes for new space diversity protection if needed to meet performance objectives in this higher band. The incumbent also needs to identify the requirements for the network/element management system and select an alternative frequency band. He also needs to consider existing site enhancements or even the addition of new sites. The last step will be to determine the scope of work, the time schedule for the relocation and the resources that will be needed. The results of the above steps will allow the incumbent to derive a budgetary cost breakdown, including the costs of the frequency coordination, equipment and services, system and transmission engineering, legal and contractual services, and the construction and civil works.

Towers and Antennas

The most costly relocation item can be the upgrade or replacement of a light guyed or self-supporting tower typically supporting 1 or 2 wide-beamwidth, low windload 2 GHz grid antennas. Even if dish sizes remain unchanged, an upgrade of this structure to support the new solid (greater wind load), narrower beamwidth (tighter twist and sway) antennas in a higher band is often necessary, especially if more path clearance is needed to met performance objectives in a difficult geoclimatic area. The new antennas sizes, types, and heights at both ends of each path must be carefully optimized to minimize tower upgrade costs. For example, smaller 4ft antennas can be positioned at the weak tower ends, perhaps at terminals, leaving only a few hub repeater site towers to be reinforced to accommodate multiple larger antennas. If the existing 2 GHz antennas have solid reflectors, it may be possible to simply replace their feeds in the rare case that compatible higher-band antenna feeds are still available from the OEM provider!

Performance and Operational Standards

What performance standards should the relocated hops meet? What rain (and equipment) availability and path reliability objectives be assigned for the new system? Of high importance is to assess the existing systems performance and design as a basis for a replacement system. Relocation is a great opportunity to enhance the systems performance to todays standards, as well as to increase its capacity to meet ever-increasing communication needs. According to FCC records, since most of the incumbent microwave systems in these affected 2 GHz bands are analog these NTIA users and FCC Part 101 licensees will also need to plan for a conversion to digital.

Path calculations comparing the existing performance (annual outage - sec/yr) of a longer 30-mile 600 ch analog FM-FDM 2 GHz space diversity backbone hop as well as a shorter 12 mile 96 ch analog FM-FDM 2 GHz non-diversity spur hop with the performance (outage time - SES/yr) of various digital hops have been prepared and are available:

Adequate Infrastructure
The infrastructure is everything that is needed to support the telecommunication equipment. It includes not only the towers, but also the buildings (that must be in good condition and provide sufficient floor space), the power source (that must be sufficient), and the grounding system (that might need enhancements). Extra power might be required during the cutover from the existing to the new system, so temporary power equipment might be needed. As many 2 GHz stations are using non-pressurized coaxial cables and pressurized waveguides are commonly used above 3 GHz, a pressurization system might be needed.

IDU indoor mounted radios ODU tower-mounted radios

30-Mile 2 GHz Hop (6/6ft grid dishes, 47 sec/yr outage) 7/8 GHz, 1xDS3, IDU, 6/4ft (27 multipath SES/yr) 7/8 GHz, 1xDS3/28xDS1, ODU, 6/4ft (50 SES/yr) 4.4-5 GHz, 1xDS3, IDU, 8/6ft (167 SES/yr) 4.4-5 GHz, 1xDS3, ODU, 6/6ft (156 (SES/yr) 7/8 GHz, 3xDS3/OC-3, IDU, 8/8ft (292 SES/yr) 4.4-5 GHz, 3xDS3/OC-3, IDU, 8/8ft (94 SES/yr) 12-Mile 2 GHz Hop (4ft grid dishes, 50 sec/yr) 7/8 GHz, 8xDS1, ODU, 4ft (14 SES/yr) 15 GHz, 4xDS1, ODU, 2ft (18/261 multipath/rain) 15 GHz, 16xDS1, ODU, 2ft (51/427 SES/yr) 7/8 GHz, 8xDS1, IDU, 4ft (64 SES/yr)

Adequate Towers
As discussed earlier, the existing towers supporting 2 GHz antennas may be inadequate to accommodate the new higher frequency antennas. Several factors make this consideration critical. For example, the tower must be large and sturdy enough to accommodate both the old and new antennas during switchover. In addition, higher-frequency antennas with their possibly higher wind loads and narrower beamwidths may require a tower with tighter twist and sway specifications. Offsetting these requirements somewhat is that in these higher frequency bands, smaller antennas with higher gain may be used, and (in favorable propagation areas) placed lower on the tower. Two-antenna space diversity may be necessary for hops longer than 15 to 20 miles, but again the second diversity antenna may be lower on the tower because of its reduced clearance requirements. The operator of the system requiring tower reinforcement needs to decide whether to upgrade the existing tower or replace it. Cost and timing considerations, along with existing tower specifications and zoning concerns, will all determine which alternative is most appropriate. Upgrading involves analysis of the existing tower, contractual arrangements to strengthen it, and the retrofit work itself. Retrofitting often requires aerial work on a tower carrying live traffic, a risky task that is usually supervised carefully by the system operator. A new tower can be quickly specified and installed, but can be costly and could involve construction delays requiring permits and environmental studies. Nevertheless, the operator should be prepared for the impact of new tower or site standards that may be more stringent than those originally in place when the tower

These calculations, a few of many possibilities, assume appropriate coax or waveguide feeders, an average Midwest geoclimatic factor and temperature, and Cranes rain region D1. Harris Stratexs StarLink 3.7 path calculation program, available for free download from its web site at http://download.harrisstratex.com/app/category.asp?prd =3, greatly simplifies the what if? comparisons of hop performance in various bands and with different radio capacities, alternative antenna feeder systems, etc. Also, TIAs (Telecommunications Industry Association) Telecommunications System Bulletin TSB-10-F describes transmission engineering criteria and formulas, and various analog and digital interference situations and standards applicable to relocation. Some of the parameters that are covered include the carrier-tointerference (C/I) curves and threshold to interference (T/I) objectives as well as ATPC operation and some spectrum sharing and frequency coordination considerations. Bulletin 10F remains a useful and modern engineering standard completely applicable to digital and analog microwave radio hops that provides a good basis for a successful relocation analysis.

Page 7

was built. They should also ensure that towers are not overloaded; no one wants to assume liability in cases where tower overloading could cause safety hazards. It may be tempting to cut corners and pile on new antennas, especially if only for a few months of frequency band overlap. If the overloading is significant and discovered, it could trigger significant delays as the necessary analysis and upgrades are completed.

Institute a Standard Relocation Process

Where multiple relocations have to be dealt with, a process to handle the complexities of system design and installation is recommended. A good supplier-client relationship based on a well-thought-out process saves time, money, and effort. The process followed by Harris has been refined with the experience of several years of relocation activity so that the analysis, design, delivery, installation, turn down, and cutover all flow smoothly.

Forecasting the Requirements

Once a relocation contract is signed, all parties want quick equipment delivery and installation. Microwave suppliers committed to the business have experience with short delivery requirements, which works best when both the selected supplier and the operators plan their needs cooperatively. Various prediction and planning techniques can be used to provide short book-to-ship times, but the key is making estimates of quantities of equipment by frequency band and capacity. As the estimates are refined, the vendor can adjust the forecasts appropriately, resulting in quicker response from the vendor(s) and an earlier relocation. The operator needs to prepare a complete and appropriately detailed list of requirements. The list should include all equipment (including brand or manufacturers names), design, engineering, analysis, installation, cabling, provisioning, and training. The parties involved in this process are the incumbent operator who specifies the relocated system requirements, the vendor who supplies and perhaps installs the equipment and, possibly, communications or civil engineering consultants.

Conclusions
Incumbent users of fixed hops in the 2 GHz band should see relocation as an opportunity to upgrade and enhance their existing systems. The next anticipated round of relocation will keep relocation designers, incumbent network operators, vendors and network designers very busy, so early planning is key. Incentives for early relocation include a better choice of frequencies, an easier move and the early use of new upgraded equipment. As a full service vendor of relocation services and equipment, and a long-time provider of turnkey microwave communication systems, Harris has discovered a number of ways of meeting the needs of its clients with reliable, timely, high-performance and cost effective solutions. Harris Stratex expertise was tested and proven during the first phase of relocation in the mid 1990s. Once again, Harris Stratex is prepared to repeat those past successes as operators prepare to support a new generation of services and applications on their microwave networks.

Acknowledgment Negotiate a contract with a full service vendor

A full service vendor who can provide all design and installation services along with a wide range of radio products can significantly speed up the relocation process. Such a vendor can prepare a comprehensive shopping list of material and services that may include a schedule of volume discounts. It benefits the operator to negotiate a full supply and services contract with established vendors with proven track record, who will be around to service the equipment after the relocation work is complete. Operators who order from comprehensive contracts with agreed-upon price schedules stand to save a good deal of time and money. Many of the relocation situations are similar and can be designed, quoted, and implemented in identical fashion, thus speeding up the relocation process. Much of the important non-technical text addressing 2 GHz relocation considerations were extracted from the Harris Stratex paper 2 GHz Relocation Sooner or Later, R. Chayer and D. Docherty, Harris Stratex,

June 2003
References An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Advanced Mobile Wireless (3G) Systems in the 17101770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz Bands, NTIA, 22 July 2002 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Service in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, FCC WT Docket No. 02-353, 25 November 2003

Author
Richard U. Laine, P.E Harris Stratex Networks Redwood Shores, CA 94065