Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 41 references

Spectrum Sharing Across Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial Services in the FR3 Upper Midband

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Spatial distribution of 6G base stations can control interference levels to satellites in the 7-24 GHz FR3 band.

desk verdict Ray-tracing in a Boston 3D model shows sidelobes and NLoS paths can add noticeably to aggregate RFI toward satellites in FR3, with gNB placement as a controllable factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.13511 v1 pith:CT2GCCO5 submitted 2026-06-11 eess.SY cs.NIcs.SYeess.SP

Paolo Testolina , Ergest Beshaj , Michele Polese , Tommaso Melodia This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.NIcs.SYeess.SP
keywords spectrumsharingFR36GRFIsatellitecoexistenceraytracingterrestrialnetworksnon-terrestrialservices
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper models the radio frequency interference generated by terrestrial 6G base stations toward satellites in the upper midband using a detailed 3D urban environment. It applies ray tracing to capture how buildings, clutter, diffraction, and reflections affect signal paths from dozens of base stations. The simulation reveals that antenna sidelobes and non-line-of-sight routes add meaningfully to total interference at satellite receivers. The authors conclude that antenna directionality alone does not determine the outcome; the physical arrangement of the base stations across the city is also decisive. This finding points to deployment choices as a practical lever for allowing spectrum sharing between new terrestrial networks and existing satellite services.

What carries the argument

Large-scale 3D ray-tracing simulation that aggregates interference from multiple gNBs toward satellites at varying elevation angles, incorporating obstruction, clutter, diffraction, and reflections.

What would settle it

Field measurements of actual RFI at satellite receivers from gNBs deployed in Boston or a comparable city, taken at multiple elevation angles and compared directly to the ray-tracing predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Our model, based on realistic obstruction, clutter, diffraction, and reflections, shows that sidelobes and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) paths can significantly contribute to RFI. Besides directionality, the spatial distribution of gNBs also plays a key role in defining the RFI levels, suggesting that a careful design and operation of terrestrial deployments can create coexistence opportunities.

Load-bearing premise

The 3D model of Boston together with the chosen ray-tracing parameters and antenna patterns accurately represent real propagation and aggregate interference toward satellites at varying elevation angles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sidelobes and NLoS paths can significantly contribute to RFI toward satellites.
  • The spatial distribution of gNBs plays a key role in determining aggregate RFI levels.
  • Careful design and operation of terrestrial deployments can create coexistence opportunities with satellite incumbents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Spectrum regulators could incorporate gNB placement guidelines when allocating FR3 spectrum for 6G.
  • Similar ray-tracing models might be applied to assess interference with other FR3 incumbents such as radio astronomy or remote sensing.
  • Operators could integrate satellite position data into network planning tools to adjust gNB density or orientation for reduced interference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a ray-tracing simulation study of aggregate radio frequency interference (RFI) from tens of terrestrial 6G gNBs toward satellites at varying elevation angles in the FR3 upper midband (7-24 GHz). Using a large-scale 3D model of Boston together with an open-source ray tracer that incorporates obstruction, clutter, diffraction, and reflections, the authors conclude that sidelobes and non-line-of-sight (NLoS) paths contribute meaningfully to RFI levels and that the spatial distribution of gNBs is a key factor, thereby identifying opportunities for coexistence through careful terrestrial deployment design.

Significance. If the modeled propagation and antenna patterns hold, the work supplies concrete, geometry-aware evidence that directionality and NLoS mechanisms matter for FR3 spectrum sharing and that gNB placement can be leveraged to reduce satellite interference. The use of an open-source ray-tracing engine and a city-scale 3D model constitutes a reproducible methodological contribution that could inform both 6G system design and regulatory coexistence studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model description paragraph] Model description (abstract and § on simulation setup): The central claim that sidelobes and NLoS paths “can significantly contribute to RFI” rests on a single forward simulation whose fidelity is not validated against measurements, nor subjected to sensitivity analysis on clutter loss, diffraction coefficients, or reflection parameters. Without such checks, the reported contribution magnitudes cannot be treated as robust.
  2. [Results on RFI levels] Results section (RFI aggregation): No quantitative description is given of how individual ray paths are summed into aggregate RFI (e.g., coherent vs. incoherent addition, power-control assumptions, or elevation-dependent satellite antenna patterns), nor are confidence intervals or parameter ranges reported. This omission directly affects the claim that spatial distribution “plays a key role.”
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from explicit citations to prior urban ray-tracing studies in the 7-24 GHz range to situate the novelty of the Boston model.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should state the exact antenna pattern model (e.g., 3GPP TR 38.901) and the number of gNBs used in each scenario.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our ray-tracing simulation study of RFI from terrestrial gNBs to satellites in the FR3 band. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model description paragraph] Model description (abstract and § on simulation setup): The central claim that sidelobes and NLoS paths “can significantly contribute to RFI” rests on a single forward simulation whose fidelity is not validated against measurements, nor subjected to sensitivity analysis on clutter loss, diffraction coefficients, or reflection parameters. Without such checks, the reported contribution magnitudes cannot be treated as robust.

    Authors: We agree that sensitivity analysis would strengthen the robustness of the results. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection performing sensitivity analysis on clutter loss, diffraction coefficients, and reflection parameters and will report the resulting variation in aggregate RFI. Regarding measurement validation, this remains a purely simulation-based study that employs an open-source ray tracer with standard propagation models; city-scale FR3 measurements for the Boston geometry are not available to the authors. We will explicitly note this limitation and the reliance on established models in the revised text. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on RFI levels] Results section (RFI aggregation): No quantitative description is given of how individual ray paths are summed into aggregate RFI (e.g., coherent vs. incoherent addition, power-control assumptions, or elevation-dependent satellite antenna patterns), nor are confidence intervals or parameter ranges reported. This omission directly affects the claim that spatial distribution “plays a key role.”

    Authors: We will expand the simulation-setup section to provide a quantitative description of the RFI aggregation procedure, explicitly stating the use of incoherent power summation, the power-control assumptions employed, and the elevation-dependent satellite antenna pattern model. We will also report results across parameter ranges to support the claim that spatial distribution plays a key role. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct empirical validation against field measurements for the specific large-scale Boston 3D model at FR3 frequencies is not feasible, as such data do not exist and cannot be collected within the scope of this work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a forward simulation study that applies an open-source ray-tracing engine to an external 3D model of Boston geometry together with stated parameters for obstruction, clutter, diffraction, and reflections. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce the reported RFI levels to quantities defined by the same model; the outcomes are generated from independent inputs. This matches the default case of a self-contained simulation against external benchmarks, warranting score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Based solely on abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The model implicitly relies on standard propagation assumptions (obstruction, clutter, diffraction, reflections) and antenna patterns whose specific values are not detailed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectrum Sharing Across Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial Services in the FR3 Upper Midband." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CT2GCCO5

@misc{pith2026260613511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectrum Sharing Across Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial Services in the FR3 Upper Midband},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CT2GCCO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.13511}
}
read the original abstract

The frequency bands between 7 and 24 GHz, also known as upper midband or Frequency Range (FR) 3, are being considered as an enabler of 6th Generation (6G) mobile networks. This portion of the spectrum exhibits different propagation characteristics compared to frequencies above 24 GHz, while also offering the potential to provide larger bandwidth allocations for mobile systems than those available in the sub-6 GHz range. 6G technology and spectrum policy, however, will need to guarantee coexistence with the incumbents that already use these frequency bands, which include a variety of services, from radiolocation to satellite-based communications, remote sensing, and radioastronomy. In this paper, we consider the challenge of coexistence between 6G terrestrial systems and satellite incumbents in different portions of the FR3 bands. Using a large-scale 3D model of a terrestrial deployment in the city of Boston and an open-source ray tracing solution, we evaluate the level of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) that tens of terrestrial Next Generation Node Bs (gNBs) generate toward satellites at different elevation angles. Our model, based on realistic obstruction, clutter, diffraction, and reflections, shows that sidelobes and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) paths can significantly contribute to RFI. Besides directionality, the spatial distribution of gNBs also plays a key role in defining the RFI levels, suggesting that a careful design and operation of terrestrial deployments can create coexistence opportunities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the spectrum allocations (bottom) and atmospheric absorption loss (top) across the upper-midband. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The reflection loss has a negligible dependency on frequency across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transmitter gain for different deviation angles (x-axis) and array size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function (ECDF) for the considered gNBs, obtained with 100 Monte Carlo simulations. The light lines represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Aggregated path gain at the satellite incumbent. Directional beams can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spectrum manage- ment in the 6G era: The role of regulation and spectrum sharing,

    M. Matinmikko-Blue, S. Yrj ¨ol¨a, and P. Ahokangas, “Spectrum manage- ment in the 6G era: The role of regulation and spectrum sharing,” in 2020 2nd 6G Wireless Summit (6G SUMMIT). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  2. [2]

    A Comparative Measurement Study of Commercial 5G mmWave Deployments,

    A. Narayanan, M. I. Rochman, A. Hassan, B. S. Firmansyah, V . Sathya, M. Ghosh, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “A Comparative Measurement Study of Commercial 5G mmWave Deployments,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Communications, May 2022, pp. 800–809

    2022

  3. [3]

    Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,

    M. Giordani, M. Polese, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, and M. Zorzi, “Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,”IEEE Commu- nications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 55–61, March 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    6G Vision, Value, Use Cases and Technologies From European 6G Flagship Project Hexa-X,

    M. A. Uusitalo, P. Rugeland, M. R. Boldi, E. C. Strinati, P. Demestichas, M. Ericson, G. P. Fettweis, M. C. Filippou, A. Gati, M.-H. Hamon, M. Hoffmann, M. Latva-Aho, A. P ¨arssinen, B. Richerzhagen, H. Schot- ten, T. Svensson, G. Wikstr ¨om, H. Wymeersch, V . Ziegler, and Y . Zou, “6G Vision, Value, Use Cases and Technologies From European 6G Flagship Pr...

    2021

  5. [5]

    Cellular wireless networks in the upper mid-band,

    S. Kang, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, A. Madanayake, S. B. Venkatakrish- nan, G. Hellbourg, M. Ghosh, H. Rahmani, and A. Dhananjay, “Cellular wireless networks in the upper mid-band,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Terrestrial-satellite spectrum sharing in the upper mid-band with interference nulling,

    S. Kang, G. Geraci, M. Mezzavilla, and S. Rangan, “Terrestrial-satellite spectrum sharing in the upper mid-band with interference nulling,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications. IEEE, 2024, pp. 5057–5062

    2024

  7. [7]

    6G Wireless Communications in 7-24 GHz Band: Opportunities, Techniques, and Challenges,

    Z. Cui, P. Zhang, and S. Pollin, “6G Wireless Communications in 7-24 GHz Band: Opportunities, Techniques, and Challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06425, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Radio spectrum vision in 50 years from now: Consideration on long term spectrum refarming mainly below 3 ghz,

    Y . Furuya, J.-i. Takada, K. Fukawa, N. Nakajima, T. Fujii, and Y . Takeda, “Radio spectrum vision in 50 years from now: Consideration on long term spectrum refarming mainly below 3 ghz,” inIEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), 2015, pp. 7–12

    2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    An Overview of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing: Ongoing Initiatives, Challenges, and a Roadmap for Future Research,

    S. Bhattarai, J.-M. J. Park, B. Gao, K. Bian, and W. Lehr, “An Overview of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing: Ongoing Initiatives, Challenges, and a Roadmap for Future Research,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 110–128, June 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    ASCENT: A Context-Aware Spectrum Coexistence Design and Implementation Toolset for Policymakers in Satellite Bands,

    T.-s. R. Niloy, S. Kumar, A. Hore, Z. Hassan, C. Dietrich, E. W. Burger, J. H. Reed, and V . K. Shah, “ASCENT: A Context-Aware Spectrum Coexistence Design and Implementation Toolset for Policymakers in Satellite Bands,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05273, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Interference Analysis of Coexisting 5G Networks and NGSO FSS Receivers in the 12-GHz Band,

    T.-S. R. Niloy, Z. Hassan, N. Stephenson, and V . K. Shah, “Interference Analysis of Coexisting 5G Networks and NGSO FSS Receivers in the 12-GHz Band,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1528–1532, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Research on 5G Base Station to Satellite Earth Station Interference and Mitigation Methods,

    L. Liu, X. Meng, and W. Xie, “Research on 5G Base Station to Satellite Earth Station Interference and Mitigation Methods,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  5. [13]

    Boston Twin: the Boston Digital Twin for Ray-Tracing in 6G Networks,

    P. Testolina, M. Polese, P. Johari, and T. Melodia, “Boston Twin: the Boston Digital Twin for Ray-Tracing in 6G Networks,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, ser. MMSys ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. 441–447. [O...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Harmful interference and its role in spectrum policy,

    M. J. Marcus, “Harmful interference and its role in spectrum policy,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 265–269, Feb. 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Facilitating Spectrum Sharing with Passive Satellite Incumbents,

    J. Chamberlain, D. Starobinski, and J. T. Johnson, “Facilitating Spectrum Sharing with Passive Satellite Incumbents,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Modeling and Analysis on Radio Interference of OFDM Waveforms for Coexistence Study,

    J. Park, E. Lee, S.-H. Park, S.-S. Raymond, S. Pyo, and H.-S. Jo, “Modeling and Analysis on Radio Interference of OFDM Waveforms for Coexistence Study,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 35 132–35 147, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Coexistence and spectrum sharing above 100 GHz,

    M. Polese, X. Cantos-Roman, A. Singh, M. J. Marcus, T. J. Maccarone, T. Melodia, and J. M. Jornet, “Coexistence and spectrum sharing above 100 GHz,”Proc. of the IEEE (to appear), Jul. 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Interference Analysis of HAPS Coexistence on Terrestrial Mobile Networks,

    S. Yuan, F. Hsieh, S. Rasool, E. Visotsky, M. Cudak, and A. Ghosh, “Interference Analysis of HAPS Coexistence on Terrestrial Mobile Networks,” in2022 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2022, pp. 2494–2499

    2022

  11. [19]

    Terahertz Wireless Communications: Co- Sharing for Terrestrial and Satellite Systems Above 100 GHz,

    Y . Xing and T. S. Rappaport, “Terahertz Wireless Communications: Co- Sharing for Terrestrial and Satellite Systems Above 100 GHz,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3156–3160, Oct. 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Modeling Interference for the Coexistence of 6G Networks and Passive Sensing Systems,

    P. Testolina, M. Polese, J. M. Jornet, T. Melodia, and M. Zorzi, “Modeling Interference for the Coexistence of 6G Networks and Passive Sensing Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 9220–9234, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Interference Analysis for Coexistence of Terrestrial Networks With Satellite Services,

    B. Lim and M. Vu, “Interference Analysis for Coexistence of Terrestrial Networks With Satellite Services,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3146–3161, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    IMT to Satellite Stochastic Interference Modeling and Coexistence Analysis of Upper 6 GHz-Band Service,

    R. Aghazadeh Ayoubi, D. Tagliaferri, F. Morandi, L. Rinaldi, L. Restegh- ini, C. Mazzucco, and U. Spagnolini, “IMT to Satellite Stochastic Interference Modeling and Coexistence Analysis of Upper 6 GHz-Band Service,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 4, pp. 1...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Modeling of Fixed Service Interference in Aeronautical SATCOM Channels,

    S. P. Winter and A. Knopp, “Modeling of Fixed Service Interference in Aeronautical SATCOM Channels,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 942–961, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Statistics of Terrestrial Fixed Service Interference in the Aero- nautical SATCOM Channel,

    ——, “Statistics of Terrestrial Fixed Service Interference in the Aero- nautical SATCOM Channel,” inIEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    A study on the coexistence of fixed satellite service and cellular networks in a mmWave scenario,

    F. Guidolin, M. Nekovee, L. Badia, and M. Zorzi, “A study on the coexistence of fixed satellite service and cellular networks in a mmWave scenario,” inIEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2015, pp. 2444–2449

    2015

  18. [26]

    Coexistence Analysis between IMT-Advanced System and Fixed Satellite Service System,

    C. Su, X. Han, X. Yan, Q. Zhang, and Z. Feng, “Coexistence Analysis between IMT-Advanced System and Fixed Satellite Service System,” in IEEE Military Communications Conference, 2014, pp. 1692–1697

    2014

  19. [27]

    Impacts of mobile radar and telecommunications systems on Earth remote sensing in the 22-27 GHz range,

    A. J. Gasiewski, C. S. Ruf, M. Younis, and W. Wesbeck, “Impacts of mobile radar and telecommunications systems on Earth remote sensing in the 22-27 GHz range,” inIEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, vol. 3. IEEE, 2002, pp. 1679–1681

    2002

  20. [28]

    The Feasibility of Coexistence between IMT- 2020 and Inter-Satellite Service in 26 GHz band,

    Liyuan Zhong et al., “The Feasibility of Coexistence between IMT- 2020 and Inter-Satellite Service in 26 GHz band,” inInt. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC), 2020, pp. 1006– 1011

    2020

  21. [29]

    Spectral Coexistence of IMT-2020 with Fixed-Satellite Service in the 27-27.5 GHz Band,

    Y . Cho, H. Kim, E. E. Ahiagbe, and H.-S. Jo, “Spectral Coexistence of IMT-2020 with Fixed-Satellite Service in the 27-27.5 GHz Band,” inIn- ternational Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), 2018

    2020

  22. [30]

    Modeling Method for Interference Analysis between IMT-2020 and Satellite in the mmWave Band,

    Y . Cho, H. Kim, D. K. Tettey, K.-J. Lee, and H.-S. Jo, “Modeling Method for Interference Analysis between IMT-2020 and Satellite in the mmWave Band,” inIEEE Globecom Workshops, 2019

    2020

  23. [31]

    Coexistence of 5G With Satellite Services in the Millimeter-Wave Band,

    Y . Cho, H.-K. Kim, M. Nekovee, and H.-S. Jo, “Coexistence of 5G With Satellite Services in the Millimeter-Wave Band,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 163 618–163 636, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Sharing Spectrum and Services in the 7–24 GHz Upper Midband,

    P. Testolina, M. Polese, and T. Melodia, “Sharing Spectrum and Services in the 7–24 GHz Upper Midband,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 170–177, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sionna RT: Differentiable ray tracing for radio propagation modeling,

    J. Hoydis, F. A. Aoudia, S. Cammerer, M. Nimier-David, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna RT: Differentiable ray tracing for radio propagation modeling,” in2023 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 2023, pp. 317–321

    2023

  26. [34]

    Accuracy versus complexity for mmwave ray-tracing: A full stack perspective,

    M. Lecci, P. Testolina, M. Polese, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “Accuracy versus complexity for mmwave ray-tracing: A full stack perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 7826–7841, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Opal: An open source ray-tracing propagation simulator for electromagnetic characterization,

    E. Egea-Lopez, J. M. Molina-Garcia-Pardo, M. Lienard, and P. De- gauque, “Opal: An open source ray-tracing propagation simulator for electromagnetic characterization,”Plos one, vol. 16, no. 11, p. e0260060, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Wireless channel characterization from 2 to 28 ghz in an outdoor parking lot,

    J.-M. Molina-Garc ´ıa-Pardo, L. Rubio, M.-T. Martinez-Ingl ´es, E. Egea- Lopez, A. Mateo-Aroca, V . M. R. Pe ˜narrocha, and J. Reig, “Wireless channel characterization from 2 to 28 ghz in an outdoor parking lot,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,

    ITU, “Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,” Rec. ITU-R P.676-13, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    pycraf: Spectrum-management compatibil- ity,

    B. Winkel and A. Jessner, “pycraf: Spectrum-management compatibil- ity,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1810.008, Oct. 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Reference standard atmospheres,

    ITU, “Reference standard atmospheres,” Rec. ITU-R P.835-6, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Effects of building materials and structures on radiowave prop- agation above about 100 MHz,

    ——, “Effects of building materials and structures on radiowave prop- agation above about 100 MHz,” Rec. ITU-R P.2040-2, 2021

  33. [41]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

    3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” Technical Report (TR) 38.901, Jun. 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.