UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 1 of 12

HOW TO USE THE NASCTN COMMENT MATRIX if you are the coordinating organization: 

Use this form to provide comments to NASCTN. Complete the header and footer, columns 2-7:

Column 1 Number the comments sequentially as they are added by each contributor.

Column 2 Enter the Organization, name, phone number, and email address for each contributor

Columns 3, 4, & 5 Enter the appropriate information for each comment. Leave columns 4 & 5 blank for general comments that apply to the entire document.

Column 6 Enter comment type (C, S, or A). 

(C) Critical: Critical comments apply to situations where the document violates established policy, guidance, or directives. The justification for critical 

comments MUST identify violations of law or contradictions of Executive Branch or Federal Agency policy; unnecessary risks to safety, life, limb, or 

materiel; waste or abuse of appropriations; or imposition of an unreasonable burden on an organization’s resources. 

(S) Substantive: Make a substantive comment if a part of the document seems unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other 

sections, or if you disagree with the proposed responsibilities, requirements, or procedures. 

(A) Administrative: An administrative comment concerns non-substantive aspects of an issuance, such as dates of reference, organizational symbols, 

format, and grammar.

Column 7 Place only one comment per row. Enter your comment, recommended changes, and justification in the area provided. If any material is sensitive, 

proprietary, or requires special handing, contact the NASCTN Program Manager for guidance on marking and handling the comment matrix. 

NASCTN Adjudication 

Consolidate comments from all contributors and adjudicate them. Remove column 2 to maintain anonymity of contributors prior to posting to the NASCTN portal page 

(https://www.nist.gov/ctl/national-advanced-spectrum-and-communications-test-network-nasctn). Set header and footer as appropriate. Complete information in column 8 & 9: 

Column 8 Enter your resolution and/or justification. Include any related communications with the contributing organization. You MUST 

provide convincing support for rejecting critical comments.

Column 9 Enter whether you accepted (A), rejected (R), or partially accepted (P) the comment. Your justification in column 8 must be 

consistent with this entry.
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 2 of 12

1

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

228 8 S Coordinator Comment: The variable Lres in equation 

2.1 should be corrected to match the defined variable 

as ‘Lrec’ 

Coordinator Justification: Provides needed clarity

Corrected text as noted. A

2

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

261 A Coordinator Comment: change later to latter.

Coordinator Justification:

Corrected text as noted. A

3

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

324 S Coordinator Comment: Include UE State.

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

UE States will be determined and included in the 

final test design and test report. When the final 

test is designed and reported on, the UE’s state 

(both loading and DUT UE) will be important. 

During factor selection the NASCTN team will 

make a determination on what the state of the 

UEs should be during testing. For example, 

should some fraction be active, and the rest idle, 

or should they all be active.

Note: For the purposes of this response, it is 

assumed the commenter is referencing the RRC 

and EMM/ESM states. 

P

4

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

435 S Coordinator Comment: There are also other 

mechanisms such as high interference indicator 

(HII) and Overload Indicator (OI) that could impact 

UE behavior. See 3GPP 36.423 for more details. Of 

course, it depends on whether or not eNBs are 

implementing these features

No change made to test plan.

If implemented, these mechanisms may impact 

the UE’s behavior. However, we don’t expect to 

have interference situations in this testing and 

consider this currently outside the scope of the 

test. The goal of this testing is to replicate 

different morphologies and examine what 

happens to the UE’s emissions and PRB 

distribution. 

R
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 3 of 12

5

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscienc

e.com

437 14 S Coordinator Comment: A reference is made to 

“three variable attenuators and two directional 

couplers” in Fig.4. Figure 4 shows two variable 

attenuators and three directional couplers.

Coordinator Justification: Provides needed clarity

Test plan modified to match figure - two 

variables and three directional couplers.

A

6

NIST (CTL), Alex J. 

Yuffa, 303-497-

5695,alex.yuffa@nist.go

v

442-443 16 3 S Coordinator Comment: Naming the folder 

“Copyrights and Disclaimers” is problematic 

because Linux/Unix doesn’t handle spaces well. 

Moreover, Linux/Unix distinguishes between letter 

case and Windows does not. Thus, I recommend 

naming the folder “legal” or “Legal”. At the very 

least the spaces should be removed from the name; 

perhaps use underscore or 

“CopyrightsAndDisclaimers”

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

As written, the comments cannot be correlated to 

the test plan. Further information/detail from the 

commenter is required for additional action.

R

7

NIST (CTL), Alex J. 

Yuffa, 303-497-

5695,alex.yuffa@nist.go

v

444-446 16 3 S Coordinator Comment:

It would be very difficult to keep the same style 

throughout the whole software package because 

different parts of the software are typically written at 

different times. For example, some files may be 

written in 2000 and others in 2010 both using 

“standard” practices of their decade. These practices 

tend to change rapidly; in python, several years is 

considered a lifetime! I recommend dropping this 

requirement or changing it to “Code should be in 

consistent format as much as possible.”

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

As written, the comments cannot be correlated to 

the test plan. Further information/detail from the 

commenter is required for additional action.

R

8

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

499 16 9 S Coordinator Comment: How will the “amplitude of 

the RF signal impinging on the Cell A eNB port” 

Text modified to add clarity and explain how the 

loading level will be monitored. 

A
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 4 of 12

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

from Cell B loading UEs be monitored and 

adjusted?

Coordinator Justification: Clarification of approach, 

unclear from description

Originator Justification for Resolution:

9

Comment generated from 

technical discussions 

with Jeff Correia

jcorreia@mitre.org

502 16 6.1.1 S Coordinator Comment: Consider replacing Cell B 

with gaussian noise signal

Coordinator Justification:

• Reduces complexity for most measurements, 

but Cell B may still be necessary for 

handover scenarios

• Current test plan does not completely 

emulate channel between Cell B UEs and 

Cell A eNB.

The current test plan models the channel 

between the Cell B loading UEs and the Cell A 

eNB by passing the Cell B UL UTG signal 

through a variable attenuator and inserting it on 

the Cell A uplink traffic. This approach has the 

advantage of having live traffic in Cell B, but 

has the disadvantage of effectively modeling all 

of the Cell B UEs as if they were in the same 

geographic location. That is, in reality, the 

power present at the Cell A eNB will vary based 

on the exact location of the UE in Cell B, and be 

different for each Cell B UE. 

Given that cell-to-cell handovers are of interest, 

we are inclined to leave Cell B in the test plan. 

However, the comment is noted, and should 

experiments in the factor selection phase 

indicate that the amplitude from Cell B has a 

meaningful impact on the DUT UE behavior, an 

additional experiment could be conducted. Such 

investigation could then carefully model the 

channel between individual Cell B UEs and the 

Cell A eNB. 

P
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 5 of 12

A footnote to line 501 has been added for 

clarification

10

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

508 S Coordinator Comment: What additional insight are 

we going to obtain from performing handoffs? This 

really adds complexity to the test setup.

Modified test plan to remove the term ‘handoff’.

This test will not be performing handoff 

operations.

A

11

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

524 S Coordinator Comment: QXDM for example. No change made to test plan. 

The test plan intentionally avoids calling out any 

specific make or model of test equipment. The 

test plan refers to the required capabilities in 

general terms.

R

12

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

17 1 S Coordinator Comment: What type of EPC will be 

utilized in the LTE system setup, hardware or 

software based?

Coordinator Justification: EPC may be required to 

support inter-cell HO

Test plan modified to explicitly state 

requirement for backend equipment like an EPC.

The test team acknowledges an EPC is required, 

but the specific make/model doesn’t matter. The 

details of the EPC are facility dependent and 

may change. 

P

13

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

539 17 S Coordinator Comment: What step size and overall 

dynamic range is required for these variable 

attenuators?

Coordinator Justification: Sufficient dynamic range 

enables necessary fluctuations in signal level.

The text has been clarified to reflect that the size 

and dynamic range of the attenuators will be 

determined based on the morphologies selected 

during the factor selection phase. 

A

14

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

544 17 S Coordinator Comment: How will a loaded cell be 

defined? Will there be multiple levels of loading? 

How is a cell loading level verified during the 

measurement?

Coordinator Justification: Important to processing 

data in understanding conditions present during 

measurement

The text in section 6.3 modified to explicitly 

mention variable numbers of UEs within 

existing discussion of UE loading in the “offered 

load” sense. It was already included in Table 1. 

Loading will be monitored during testing by use 

of the UTG. However, since UTGs vary, the 

A
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 6 of 12

exact method of monitoring is not known at this 

time and will be documented in the final report.

15

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

562 S Coordinator Comment: Should we really restrict 

ourselves with UDP? Many of the UE emulators can 

support TCP traffic also.

No change made to test plan. 

The team acknowledges many UTGs can also 

support TCP traffic. As discussed in Section 6.3, 

UDP traffic was selected because it has the least 

amount of handshaking/downlink traffic. 

R

16

Aviation Spectrum 

Resources Inc.

Gregory Baker

269-923-9993

gdb@asri.aero

562 18 3 S Coordinator Comment: UDP (VoLTE) is the only 

data format used in the uplink. This will not create 

an accurate spectral emissions for a few reasons.

1. VoLTE is a GBR using WB-AMR. It may use a 

fix number of PRB’s, with constant interval for 

transmission. A non-GBR could use a larger number 

of PRB’s, and create a large “burst” of data

2. Handshaking is necessary. The Air interface is 

designed different for VoLTE. There will not be a 

HARQ or packet retransmissions in layer 3 UDP 

VoLTE, or additional signaling for 

format/modulation scheme on control channels.

Coordinator Justification: Include non-GBR traffic

The test plan has been modified to include a test 

where a portion of the loading UEs have a 

different QCI value (one where the packet delay 

budgets and target loss rate are lower than the 

default traffic type). 

This will help replicate scenarios where the UE 

traffic types are varied. The distribution of QCI 

values for a given morphology with be 

determined during the test and documented in 

the final report. 

A

17

Aviation Spectrum 

Resources Inc.

Gregory Baker

269-923-9993

gdb@asri.aero

576 18 5 S Coordinator Comment: There is a parameter set for 

the maximum number of UE’s transmitting, but that 

also should include the PUCCH, and PUSCH. 

Adjusting the scheduler, and buffer load (the UE’s 

will transmit buffer information) will affect this. 

Also, future QoS bearers can also effect this. Each 

vendor will implement the scheduler differently.

Comment is outside the scope of the test 

measurement.

One of our goals is to exercise the LTE system 

(i.e., UTG, eNB, DUT UE) such that we see the 

largest range possible of UEs/TTI. We agree that 

the QoS and traffic type (e.g., Facebook, SMS, 

VoLTE, YouTube, etc.) may have an impact on 

the PRB distribution. However, we lack realR
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 7 of 12

It would also be important to include the PRACH 

channel, as this would have the most effect. At a 

special event, you could have many users 

transmitting per TTI.

Recommendation would be to have representation of 

a cell, with users doing 

YouTube/Facebook/Text/VoLTE.

Coordinator Justification: Have actual representation 

of what users are doing, so that the scheduler can 

accurately assign resources.

world data on the distribution of traffic types for 

given morphologies. Even if provided, testing a 

large number of traffic distributions and types is 

outside the scope of the testing. At best, we plan 

to provide information on how sensitive the PRB 

distribution is to traffic type. Our ability to do 

this will depend on the hardware selected for 

testing and will be documented in the final 

report.

If deemed important, this can be proposed as a 

follow-on test measurement project.

18

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

590 S Coordinator Comment: By making sure that there 

are enough UEs, we can make sure that eNB is 

loaded. We should test with real traffic types, not 

always full buffer.

No change made to test plan.

Test plan already incorporates scenarios that 

vary scheduling and number of UEs which 

simulate less than full buffer condition. 

More detail is needed to make any changes to 

the test plan.

R

19

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

600 S Coordinator Comment: What is this timer? Response: The timer variable defines the time in 

which the UE has to send useful data after either 

the initial grant or a previous reception of useful 

data. It may or may not prove to be relevant to 

our deliverables and will be documented in the 

final test report.

A

20

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

602, 603 S Coordinator Comment: Please be more specific. Test plan modified to stress that the list is not 

exhaustive and will be updated after factor 

selection.

The goal of this list is to provide initial list of 

variables that may impact the deliverables of this 

measurement campaign. The variables shown 

A
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 8 of 12

likely exist in most commercial eNBs, but their 

exact name may vary based on the eNB 

manufacturer. The factor selection will 

determine the actual list of variables used in the 

measurement and the final report will document 

the variables and their impact on the 

deliverables.

21

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

606 S Coordinator Comment: Perhaps we could add RRC 

connection timers and Random access parameters.

Test plan modified to add RRC connection timer 

and Random access to the list of likely variables 

to influence measurement campaign 

deliverables. The final test report will document 

what variables impacted the deliverables. 

A

22

Venki Ramaswamy

vramaswamy@mitre.org

719 S Coordinator Comment: Can we also add MAC CEs? 

PHR reports, BSRs etc are MAC CEs.

No change made to the test plan. 

The collection of all MAC CEs may be possible, 

but it may not be essential to complete the 

measurement. Collecting all MAC CEs may 

create an additional burden during data 

processing and fall outside the scope of this 

measurement. 

The final report will document any MAC CEs 

determined important to the measurements. 

R

23

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

735 22 3 S Coordinator Comment: How will this time 

synchronization be accomplished? Stratum 1/2 

timing source such as GPS receiver or NTP server. 

Coordinator Justification: Crucial in maintaining 

alignment of data in time on the order of a single 

TTI

No change made to test plan. 

The way in which this will be accomplished will 

depend on the hardware used for the final set of 

measurements. At this point, we recognize the 

challenge posed by achieving this level of 

synchronization. Most of this challenge lies in 

synchronizing the UTG with the acquisition 

hardware (e.g., UE diagnostic monitoring 

software and RF receiver). Where possible, we 

will use GPS locked receivers or NTP servers, 

P
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 9 of 12

but the synchronization options on some UTGs 

are limited. The final report will document the 

method used in the test measurements.

24

Aviation Spectrum 

Resources Inc.

Gregory Baker

269-923-9993

gdb@asri.aero

951 27 3 S Coordinator Comment: Closed loop power control is 

only being considered for spectral mask.

Open loop power control is more important for 

spectral mask. In LTE, the user is typically assigned 

RRC resources for 8-12 second, and in high capacity 

setting maybe 4-6 seconds, to reduce the number of 

connected UE’s based on the BBU.

There is also an initial PRACH power target for the 

PUCCH PUSCH. The UE will then increase power 

and retransmit 4 or more times before a timer kicks 

in. 

The UE’s will RACH often, think about this from 

the User perspective. You open the Facebook app, 

scroll around, but it you don’t request any data, you 

will lose the RRC resources. (I think the parameter 

is the T301 timer: http://www.rfwirelessworld.com/Terminology/LTE-timers.html)

Since the Air Interface has a specific PRB to RACH, 

you will not get an accurate picture of the total 

number of UE’s transmitting 

Coordinator Justification: Have actual 

representation of what users are doing, so that the 

RACH can show an accurate number of users 

No change made to test plan.

Comment is outside the scope of the test 

measurement.

One of our goals is to exercise the LTE system 

(i.e., UTG, eNB, DUT UE) such that we see the 

largest range possible of UEs/TTI. However, we 

lack real-world data on the open loop power 

control. At best, we plan to provide information 

on how sensitive the PRB distribution is to 

power control. Our ability to do this will depend 

on the hardware selected for testing and will be 

documented in the final report.

R
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 10 of 12

transmitting and power control is accurate 

(Combination of open loop and closed loop).

25

Mike DiFrancisco

VT-ARC

571-384-3810

mikedifrancisco@vtarc.org

993 8.3.1 S Coordinator Comment: How will NASCTN 

generate power/EIRP CDFs as a function of variable 

measurement times (section 8.3.1, line 993)

Coordinator Justification:

The text in Section 7.3.1 has been modified for 

clarity. In addition, text clarifying that the CDFs 

will be marginalized over DUT UE location has 

been added to Sections 7.2 and 7.3.1.

A

26

Mike DiFrancisco

VT-ARC

571-384-3810

mikedifrancisco@vtarc.org

6 and 

6.1

S Coordinator Comment: Might the plan to “fully 

load” the eNB using a UTG might have biasing 

effects on the EIRP distributions for the 

DUT? (Section 6 & 6.1).

Coordinator Justification:

Prior work has asserted that the presence of 

other UEs in the cell may cause a single UE (in 

this case our DUT UE) to transmit additional 

power. This is one of the possibilities we 

investigate in this testing. The final report will 

document the measured results

A

27

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

1020 29 5 A Coordinator Comment: The reference to Appendix 

A should be changed to reference Appendix B. 

Coordinator Justification: Clarifies organization of 

information

Corrected text as noted. A

28

Alion Science & 

Technology, Eric 

Germann, 240-295-5901, 

egermann@alionscience.

com

S Coordinator Comment: What frame of reference is 

used by UE diag. software to measure power? Peak 

vs. RMS, resolution BW?

Coordinator Justification: A common frame of 

reference will need to be used for all power 

measurements, or converted accordingly.

Modified test plan in sections 5.1 and 6.8 to 

more explicitly state the objective to measure 

and compare the self-reported and measured 

power.

The RBW, detector type, etc. a UE uses when it 

measures/reports power level is currently 

unknown, and will be documented in the final 

report.

A
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 11 of 12

29

Mike DiFrancisco

VT-ARC

571-384-3810

mikedifrancisco@vtarc.org

S Coordinator Comment: The plan for traffic loading 

on the DUT (both amount and type) is not clear to 

me, and (more importantly) I’m uncertain how 

variations in DUT Traffic Load/type will be 

evaluated wrt its impact on EIRP CDF (sensitivity?).

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

The exact details of the amount and type of 

loading will be determined during the factor 

selection phase of measurements. In essence, 

one of the outcomes of the measurements will 

serve as evidence to suggest (or refute) what the 

loading [parameter] has on the EIRP CDF. This 

will be examined by changing the traffic loading 

(amount or type), holding all other variables 

constant, and repeatedly measuring the EIRP 

CDF. The final report will document the results.

R

30

NTIA, DOC, 

2024826325

mshamma@ntia.doc.gov

S Coordinator Comment: Comment 1) Possibly it was 

brought up, but in case otherwise, for services and 

users that are at higher altitudes, such as aircraft and 

satellite, the aggregate interference and radio 

coverage using cells heights (in addition to radius) 

would be of potential benefit. Example of cells and 

height incorporation into the radio line of sight is 

shown in a sample paper attached hope ok to share 

along.... (although shown for other than LTE, it is 

equally applicable to other services). Other 

reference that may be of interest which was cited in 

the above include technical paper D. Matolak, “3-D 

outside cell interference factor for an air-ground 

CDMA “cellular” system,” Vehicular Technology, 

IEEE Transactions on , Volume: 49 Issue: 3,, 

Page(s): 706 -71 , May 2000

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

The potential benefit is noted; however, this is 

beyond the scope of this test. A follow-on test 

could be proposed and executed to evaluate 

these impacts.

R
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Aggregate LTE: Characterizing User Equipment Emissions”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 12 of 12

31

NTIA, DOC, 

2024826325

mshamma@ntia.doc.gov

S Coordinator Comment: Comment 2) Additionally 

interference from mobile air users to other air users 

or from air to ground users, may be another area 

depending on technologies currently in use, example 

Aircell (or called gogos network) of 250 cell towers 

which are intentionally pointing upwards for cell 

users, and are expected to be supporting LTE users 

whom although may not be as many, still account 

for a segment of the aggregate given the large 

number flights at any time. See gogoair.com for 

example, and a sep 28 news release in that site as 

well about LTE future launch (or may be current 

presently) 

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

The potential benefit is noted; however, this is 

beyond the scope of this test. A follow-on test 

could be proposed and executed to evaluate 

these impacts.

R

32

NTIA, DOC, 

2024826325

mshamma@ntia.doc.gov

S Coordinator Comment: Comment 3) Similarly to 

other examples above, a recent IEEE spectrum 

article had highlighted the use of mobile and drone 

flying base stations especially useful in disaster 

relief or hard to reach locations. Those although 

may be not as common to date, may or may not 

present a future factor. See article posted Auf 29, 

2017 in IEEE spectrum and titled “When Disaster 

Strikes, Flying Cell Towers Could Aid Search and 

Rescue” for one reference....

Coordinator Justification:

No change made to test plan.

The potential benefit is noted; however, this is 

beyond the scope of this test. A follow-on test 

could be proposed and executed to evaluate 

these impacts.

R