# Spectrum Values in Suburban/Urban Environments above 1.5 GHz
## 3 Numerical Results
### Urban Environment
However, the curve is convex or increasing in Figures 8-11, which have the LoS condition in common. Therefore, we can say that NLoS and LoS are the key factors that influence the spectrum value at different frequencies. Secondly, more specifically, we may compare Figures 8 and 9 with Figures 10 and 11. The curves in Figures 8 and 9, which are both from indoor conditions, are generally convex. However, the curve changes to an incline in Figures 10 and 11, which are from outdoor conditions. Therefore, the graphs show that the location of the user indoor or outdoor is more important than whether the user is located at the cell center or edge. In conclusion, when carriers consider the spectrum values at different frequencies, NLoS and LoS should be the primary consideration and indoor and outdoor conditions should be secondary. Figure 5: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 2 user: NLOS + Indoor + Cell center (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Figure 6: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 3 user: NLOS + Outdoor + Cell Edge (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Figure 7: _Cont._  
Figure 8: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 5 user: LOS + Indoor + Cell edge (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Figure 7: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 4 user: NLOS + Outdoor + Cell center (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Figure 9: _Cont._  
Figure 11: _Cont._  
Figure 10: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 7 user: LOS + Outdoor + Cell edge (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Figure 3:0 Maximum achievable capacity for Type 6 user: LOS + Indoor + Cell center (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario. Table 5 shows the capacity at 3.5 GHz and 28 GHz, and the frequency with the maximum achievable capacity for each user type in UMa and UMi scenarios. It is interesting to search for the optimal frequency, which gives the peak achievable user capacity. In the UMa scenario, 28 GHz for user type 6 provides the highest value of 85 Mbps. In the UMi-street canyon scenario, 3.2 GHz for user type 2 provides the highest value of 55 Mbps, and 2 GHz for user type 3 provides the highest value of 26 Mbps. If we consider 3.5 GHz and 28 GHz as candidate frequency bands in Korea, 28 GHz may be the best choice for LOS and indoor conditions in the UMa scenario and 3.5 GHz can be employed in the UMi-street canyon scenario. In the UMa scenario in Table 5, the achievable capacities for user types in the NLOS condition are all close to zero. When comparing the UMa scenario with the UMi-street canyon scenario, the maximum achievable capacities for all user types are much higher in the UMi-street canyon scenario, especially for higher frequencies. This is because the BS antenna height in the UMi-street canyon scenario is 15 m lower than that in the UMa scenario. In the 3D propagation model with the same horizontal distance between the BS and user equipment (UE), a higher antenna can lead to a longer propagation distance. That is, the BS antenna is much closer to users in the UMi-street canyon scenario. Therefore, the UMi-street canyon deployment scenario is efficient and more suitable for high frequency band deployment.