# Spectrum Values in Suburban/Urban Environments above 1.5 GHz
## 4 Conclusions  
In this paper, the spectrum value is analyzed in suburban and urban environments. In the suburban environment, lower frequencies seem more valuable at the cell edge. Meanwhile, high frequencies have almost the same impact as low frequencies at the cell center. In the urban environment, the spectrum value depends on the area of the cell and the user conditions. In the NLoS condition, a lower frequency shows a higher spectrum value. For LoS with indoor conditions, medium  
Figure 11: Maximum achievable capacity for Type 8 user: LOS + Outdoor + Cell center (**a**) UMa scenario; (**b**) UMi-street canyon scenario.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**UMa**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Umi—Street Canyon**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C at 3.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C at 28**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(f_{\text{C}}\) **for**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C at 3.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C at 28**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(f_{\text{C}}\) **for**} \\
**User Type** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GHz**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GHz**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Max**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Remark\({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GHz**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GHz**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Max C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Remark\({}^{*}\)**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Mbps)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Mbps)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(CGHz)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Mbps)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Mbps)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(GHz)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(GHz)**} & \\ \hline Type 1 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.5 & Lower band & 1.24 & 0.04 & 0.5 & Lower band \\ Type 2 & 0.01 & 0.000 & 0.5 & Lower band & 54.70 & 4.898 & 3.2 & 3 GHz \\ Type 3 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.5 & Lower band & 23.91 & 3.62 & 2.0 & 2 GHz \\ Type 4 & 0.28 & 0.04 & 0.5 & Lower band & 193.60 & 257.25 & 19.0 & 19 GHz \\ Type 5 & 9.59 & 17.14 & 15.1 & 15 GHz & 68.05 & 501.50 & 40.0 & Higher band \\ Type 6 & 27.76 & 83.65 & 28.2 & 28 GHz & 124.30 & 972.00 & 40.0 & Higher band \\ Type 7 & 34.65 & 76.10 & 40.0 & Higher band & 355.75 & 542.50 & 40.0 & Higher band \\ Type 8 & 46.17 & 141.10 & 40.0 & Higher band & 414.75 & 986.50 & 40.0 & Higher band \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) “Remark”: the frequency band which has higher or peak spectrum value for each user type.  
\end{table}
Table 5: 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.  
frequency bands are the best choice, and for LoS with outdoor dominant conditions, high-frequency bands are more beneficial. Additionally, 3.5 GHz may show high values in NLoS and indoor conditions in the UMi deployment scenario. Furthermore, 28 GHz may be the optimal choice for LoS and indoor conditions in the UMa deployment scenario. In conclusion, NLoS or LoS is the primary consideration, and indoor or outdoor is the secondary. In addition, UMi deployment with lower antenna heights is more efficient in urban scenarios. Please note that the conventional SISO antenna is considered in this work. The employment of advanced technologies like (Massive) MIMO antenna can affect the spectrum value. Additionally, single frequency network (SFN) deployment may give an impact on the spectrum values. This paper can suggest a bound of the spectrum value for readers' information. The consideration on MIMO and SFN will be our future work.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] contributed to the main idea of this research work. [PERSON] performed the simulations. The research activity was planned and executed under the supervision of [PERSON]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] contributed to the writing of this article.  
This research received no external funding.  
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.