2009 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting 2009
DOI: 10.1109/isbmsb.2009.5133742
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MER degradation in a broadcast mobile network

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This just slightly better BER performance of the FC-CNNE stems from the somewhat large decision regions of the 16-QAM demapper. In fact, the dispersion of the received 16-QAM symbols around the reference symbols of the 16-QAM alphabet is noticeable smaller for the FC-CNNE, as shown in Figure 9, indicating an intrinsic lower MER (Modulation Error Ratio) [22] yielded by the FC-CNNE with respect to the CMA-PTRBFNN. Such smaller symbol dispersion, or MER, gives a superior operational margin for the FC-CNNE in dynamic scenarios, such as wireless mobile operation, in which the channel impulse response varies over time.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…This just slightly better BER performance of the FC-CNNE stems from the somewhat large decision regions of the 16-QAM demapper. In fact, the dispersion of the received 16-QAM symbols around the reference symbols of the 16-QAM alphabet is noticeable smaller for the FC-CNNE, as shown in Figure 9, indicating an intrinsic lower MER (Modulation Error Ratio) [22] yielded by the FC-CNNE with respect to the CMA-PTRBFNN. Such smaller symbol dispersion, or MER, gives a superior operational margin for the FC-CNNE in dynamic scenarios, such as wireless mobile operation, in which the channel impulse response varies over time.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For global services, all signals arrived within the CP are considered as constructive contribution to the wanted signal, creating an SFN gain, while the signals exceeding the CP are considered destructive interference. However, for some cases, the increase of the CNR due to the SFN gain does not guarantee an improvement in the reception quality [13] [14]. This power gain is beneficial for receivers operating under diffuse multipath or low CNR conditions (e.g.…”
Section: Coverage Performance Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis performed above is under the assumption of AWGN channel, and it has not taken into consideration of multipath propagation and mobile reception. There has been study [8] showing that MER degradation exists because of the combination of different propagation paths in an SFN, and that an increase of the C/N due to the co-existence of different rays may not be beneficial for the reception process [8]. In addition, if signal fading is fast enough so that there is a significant channel change between two consecutive OFDM symbols, the channel estimate of section 3.4 may not be adequate.…”
Section: Effect Of Non-awgn Channelsmentioning
confidence: 99%