Straw Polls and Motions on 256 QAM and BW: Optional-Mandatory Features

1. Straw Polls and Motions on 256 QAM and BW: Optional-Mandatory Features Date: 2010-07-12 Authors: Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

2. 256 QAM Support • We propose for the 256QAM modulation to be optional mode in TGac for the following reasons: • Design flexibility • Lower cost implementations • Stringent requirements: • EVM • Required SNR • 6 dB more than 64 QAM with equivalent coding rate • PAPR Vinko Erceg et al.

3. BW Support (1) • We propose that 20/40/80 MHz contiguous BW modes are mandatory in TGac for the following reasons: • Differentiation from 802.11n • Most 802.11n devices support 40MHz already • Higher datarate/throughput • Efficiency of the system • Fast data transfers • Enablement of new applications Vinko Erceg et al.

4. BW Support (2) • We propose that 160MHz BW contiguous and non-contiguous modes are optional in TGac for the following reasons: • Advanced feature • Design flexibility • Lower cost implementations Vinko Erceg et al.

5. Straw Polls Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

6. Straw Poll #1 Would you support 256 QAM as a mandatory feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 6 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

7. Straw Poll #2 Would you support 256 QAM as an optional feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 7 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

8. Straw Poll #3 Would you support 40 MHz BW as a mandatory feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 8 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

9. Straw Poll #4 Would you support 40 MHz BW as an optional feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 9 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

10. Straw Poll #5 Would you support 80 MHz BW as a mandatory feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 10 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

11. Straw Poll #6 Would you support 80 MHz BW as an optional feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 11 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

12. Straw Poll #7 Would you support contiguous 160 MHz BW as a mandatory feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 12 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

13. Straw Poll #8 Would you support contiguous 160 MHz BW as an optional feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 13 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

14. Straw Poll #9 Would you support non-contiguous 160 MHz BW as a mandatory feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 14 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom

15. Straw Poll #10 Would you support non-contiguous 160 MHz BW as an optional feature in TGac and indicate in the Specification Framework document? Yes: No: Abs: Slide 15 Vinko Erceg, Broadcom