Download - Wireless Broadband Evolution
Broadband Evolution and Spectrum Challenges
Dr Ayman Elnashar
Sr. Director - Wireless Broadband & Site Sharing
EITC (du) - UAE
Agenda
Driving Wireless Broadband Innovation in UAE: du Broadband Portfolio
Fixed Wireless Broadband Evolutions
Mobile Broadband Evolutions
DC-HSPA+
LTE Evolution
LTE Deployment Strategy
LTE Terminals
du Broadband Portfolio
du outdoor Mesh-WiFi
Co
ve
rag
e/M
ob
ilit
y
Data Speeds (Kbps)
Outdoor
Mesh
WiFi
802.16e
WiMAX
Lo
ca
l A
rea
Fix
ed
Wir
ele
ss
W
ide
Are
a
Mo
bile
Me
tro
Are
a
No
ma
dic
Fixed xDSL & Fiber
‘Ultra Broadband’
3.X G 2G
Fixed Wireless
2.5G 3G
802.11b/a/g/n
Broadband
everywhere
FDD & TDD
TDD
du WiFi Hotspots
Fixed Wireless Broadband services using OFDM (PTP &
PTMP) high capacity Links with up to 300Mbps for SME and
Enterprise customers
du WiMAX network for the Dubai Metro**
du Fixed network Services
du UAE Nationwide Mobile Network
Nationwide Mobile Broadband HSPA+/DC-HSPA+ (42Mbps)*
3
* Du is the 1st in UAE to deploy the DC-HSPA+ nationwide and UAE is the 6th nation globally to deploy this technology thanks to du. **Winner of 2009 most innovative mobility project by Cisco Networkers
802.16d
WiMax in 3.5GHz for
small SME
LTE Evolution
Fixed Wireless Broadband
Services
4
Fixed Wireless Broadband Evolution using state of the art OFDM technology: New Features
Up to 300Mbps in 40MHz TDD channel using MIMO 2x2 with cross-polarization which means Spectral efficiency of 6+ bit/Hz/s.
Support of 4.9 – 6.0 GHz in one radio.
Dynamic TDD: Adjusts the uplink/ downlink ratio based on traffic demand.
Low Latency (<2ms in PTP, <7ms in PMP)
Extended range up to 120 Km
Support of AES 128 and AES 256 encryption for reliable and secure communications.
Self-synchronizing or time synchronization without GPS.
Autobitrate (Automatic Rate Control) Functionality or Hitless ACM with error-free operation.
5
Point-to-Point with Double
Stream MIMO (near to the BTS)
6
Vertical
Polarization
Horizontal
Polarization Horizontal
Polarization
Backhaul
Different data is sent separately over two polarizations
resulting in higher radio efficiency
Vertical
Polarization
Backhaul
DC-HSPA+ Evolution
7
HSPA+ Evolution
HSDPA
Single Carrier – 5MHz Dual Carrier – 10MHz
HSPA+ Improves Peak Rates while providing Higher QoS and Customer Loyalty
14.4M
21M
28M
42M
28M
42M
56M
84M
64QAM MIMO 64QAM+MIMO DC DC+64QAM DC+MIMO DC+MIMO+64QAM
8
DC-HSPA+: Improve Data Rates
Anchor Carrier
Frequency 1
Supplementary Carrier
Frequency 2
Dual cells covers the same
geographical area
Downlink peak rate
double 28.8M/42Mbps
5MHz 5MHz
frequencey1 frequencey2 f
Two frequencies are
adjacent
Use 2 adjacent carriers to
transmit simultaneously data to
the same user
Full use of the two cells resource by Joint Scheduling and Load Balance
9
HSPA+ Evolutions: MIMO vs. DC
Criteria/Evolution DC MIMO
Peak Rate 42Mbps in 10Mhz band 42Mbps in 5Mz band
Coverage Performance Better --
Throughput Performance -- Slightly Better
Latency Performance Better --
Service Type (Full Buffer) -- Better
Service Type (Burst) Better --
CAPEX Investment Low High
DC introduces high improvement at the user level;
while MIMO introduces little improve at the cell level;
10
11
Cell Radius
Dense Urban Urban Suburb Rural
MIMO+64QAM 0.33 0.5 1.7 3.9
DC+64QAM 0.43 0.63 2.2 5.3
Remark: Cell edge throughput 1024kbps
Coverage Comparison
0.33 0.5
1.7
3.9
0.43 0.63
2.2
5.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dense Urban Urban Suburb Rural
Scenario
Cell
Radiu
s(k
m)
MIMO+64QAM
DC+64QAM
HSPA+ Coverage Comparison
11
LTE Evolution
12
OFDM, the state-of-the-art Radio Access Technology: Moving from Voice to Broadband with VoIP
13
Why OFDM/SC-FDMA
The main advantage of OFDM, as is for SC-FDMA, is its robustness against multipath signal propagation, which makes it suitable for broadband systems compared to TDMA/CDMA techniques.
SC-FDMA brings additional benefit of low peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) compared to OFDM making it suitable for uplink transmission by user-terminals to extend battery life.
OFDM can also be viewed as a multi-carrier system but each subcarrier is usually narrow enough that multipath channel response is flat over the individual subcarrier frequency range, i.e. frequency non-selective (i.e., flat fading) and hence receiver design is very simple.
In other words, OFDM symbol time is much larger than the typical channel dispersion. Hence OFDM is inherently susceptible to channel dispersion due to multipath propagation.
14
15
• Inter-site (UL)
ICIC in frequency domain: In the edge of the
site, the bandwidth is divided into 3 pieces,
and each site use a piece; In the center of
the site, the left bandwidth can be used;
• Intra-site (UL)
ICIC in time domain: adjacent cells use
different subframe; as show in the Figure,
yellow zone use odd subframe, while light
blue zone use even subframe.
• Inter/Intra-site (DL)
Cell edge: frequency division, separated by transmit power
Cell central: all bandwidth are transmitted. Control coverage to reduce interference
Site2
Uplink
Site1
Site3
Sector 1
Sector 2
Sector 3
Interference Management in LTE
Downlink
16
2x2 MIMO
eNodeB UE 1
1x2 SIMO
eNodeB UE 1
In typical urban area:
15%~28% gain over SIMO @ Macro
~50% gain over SIMO @ Micro
MIMO: the Key to Improve Cell Throughput
17
LTE RAN Performance: Simulations Results
Uplink
Downlink
Peak Cell/User Throughput Average Cell throughput
Average cell Throughput LTE FDD
20 MHz Downlink
33
39
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MIMO 2x2 MIMO 4x2 MIMO 4x4
MBps/s
0
1
2
3
Sp
ec
tra
l eff
icie
nc
y in
Bp
s/s
/HzAverage cell throughput
Spectrum Efficiency
Ultra-Low Latency
300 ms
52 - 82 ms
13 ms
12-19 ms
Delay to access a 60kByte
web page (from Idle)
Connection Setup
Handover interruption
End-to-end RTT
Peak Throughput LTE FDD 20 MHz
5886
173
326
0
100
200
300
1X2 UL
16 QAM
1X2 UL
64 QAM
MIMO
2x2 DL
MIMO
4x4 DL
Mbps
17
18
Horizontal Distance: 0.5m
2/3G band x LTE band x
Vertical Distance: 0.2m
2/3G band x
LTE band x
Horizontal 0.5m or vertical 0.2m antennas separation is the minimum requirement
Antennas Separation and Guard Band
Requirement for Co-Existing System
Guard band Requirement for Co-existing Systems ( MHz )
Co-existing Systems System Standards LTE Bandwidth
LTE Other system 5MHz 10MHz 15MHz 20MHz
LTE1800 + GSM1800 protocol protocol 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
LTE2100 + UMTS2100 protocol protocol 0.33 0.08 0.17 0.42
LTE Band X + LTE Band Y protocol protocol 0 0 0 0
LTE FDD + LTE TDD protocol protocol 10 10 10 10
19
HSPA+ vs. LTE
HSPA+ LTE
Peak Rate 84Mbps@10MHz 172Mbps@20Mhz (2x2)
326.4Mbps@20MHz(4x4)
Spectrum Efficiency
(Peak)
8.4bps/Hz (Peak for DC+ MIMO
+ 64QAM) 8.6bps/Hz (Peak for 2x2 MIMO)
Spectrum Efficiency
(Average cell
throughput) (DL/UL)
1.424/0.6 (MIMO+64QAM)
1.717/0.99 (2x2 MIMO)
20% improvement in DL
65% improvement in the UL
Transmission
bandwidth Full system bandwidth Variable up to full system bandwidth
Suitability for MIMO
(i.e., MIMO Gain)
Requires significant computing power due to signal being defined in the time domain and on top of spreading (frequency selective channel)
Ideal for MIMO due to signal representation in the frequency domain and possibility of narrowband allocation to follow real-time variations in the channel (Frequency nonselective channel) 20
21
Coverage Comparison
Scenario Cell Radius in DL (Km)
Dense urban Urban Suburban Rural
HSPA 2.1GHz 0.38 0.57 2.34 4.62
LTE 2.1GHz 0.49 0.78 3.18 5.33
LTE 2.6GHz 0.4 0.64 2.58 4.68
DL Cell Radius Comparison. DL Cell edge throughput 512kbps, Indoor Coverage, 90% Cell Loading
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dense urban Urban Suburban Rural
0.380.57
2.34
4.62
0.490.78
3.18
5.33
0.40.64
2.58
4.68C
ell R
ad
ius
in
DL
(Km
)
Scenario
Coverage Comparison
HSPA 2.1GHz
LTE 2.1GHz
LTE 2.6GHz
HSPA Cell Radius as a Function of Loading
HSPA Cell Radius as a function of Loading
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cell Loading(%)
Ce
ll R
ad
ius(
km)
UL
DL
Cell
Loading(%)
Cell Radius (Km)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
UL 0.8 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.52 0.43 0.02 98%
DL 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.43 45%
HSPA+ 2.1GHz,Urban scenario, indoor coverage, 128kbps/512kbps in UL/DL
23
LTE Cell Radius as a function of Loading
LTE Cell Radius as a function of Loading
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cell Loading(%)
Ce
ll R
ad
ius(
km)
UL
DL
Cell
Loading(%)
Cell Radius (Km)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
UL 0.52 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.42 19%
DL 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.61 23%
LTE 2.6GHz,Urban scenario, Indoor coverage, 128kbps/512Kbps in UL/DL.
Average Cell Throughput Comparison
24
Scheme UL Average Cell
Throughput Remark
HSUPA 10ms 2.1Mbps CAT5,urban,UL cell load 75%
HSUPA 2ms 2.3Mpbs CAT6,urban,UL cell load 75%
HSUPA 16QAM 3.0Mbps CAT7,urban,UL cell load 90%
LTE 10MHz 9.7Mpbs Urban,2.6GHz
LTE 20MHz 19.8Mbps Urban,2.6GHz
Scheme DL Average Cell
Throughput Remark
HSPA(16QAM) 6.0Mpbs Urban, bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(64QAM) 6.41Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(MIMO) 6.98Mpbs Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(MIMO+64QAM) 7.12Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(DC+16QAM) 6.43Mpbs Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(DC+64QAM) 6.89Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
LTE 10MHz 16.92Mpbs Urban,2.6GHz
LTE 20MHz 34.34Mbps Urban,2.6GHz
25
Supported Simultaneous users for HSPA+ and LTE
Assumptions:
- Urban Scenario (500 sites)
- HSPA+
1. Scenario 1: 1st carrier R99+HSAP(5 codes), 2nd carrier HSPA+(15 codes)
2. Scenario 2: 1st carrier HSPA+ (15 codes), 2nd carrier HSPA+(15 codes)
- LTE bandwidth: 10 & 20 MHz
- Traffic Model assumption: data user 50kbps, voice user 0.025Elr
- HSPA+ can support CS and PS service, LTE only support PS service.
Capacity/Cell
BB subscribers
supported per
site
Number of supported
simultaneous users
per network
LTE Capacity gain
compared to HSPA+ %
HSPA 2.1GHz
(scenario 1)
22Elr(CS AMR12.2)
9.3Mbps(PS HSPA+) 325 162K 100%
HSPA 2.1GHz
(scenario 2)
13 Mbps:2 native HSPA+
carriers, no voice with
DC-HSPA+
455 227K 140%
LTE 10MHz @
at 2.6 GHz 16.92 Mbps 592 296K 182%
LTE 20 @
2.6GHz 34.3Mbps 1202 601K 370%
26
LTE Terminals
LTE Commercial Terminals
Thank You
28