etisalat lte deployment (lte in 2.6ghz vs 1800mhz vs. 800mhz)
DESCRIPTION
hyTRANSCRIPT
-
Lte Deployment in different bands2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. EDD800Mhz
May 2011
Abu Dhabi Mobile Access Planning
-
Outline
eUTRA FDD Spectrum
IMT-E 2.6Ghz Band
DCS 1800Mhz Band
EDD 800Mhz Band
Advantages Vs. Disadvantages
-
eUTRA FDD Spectrum (1 of 2)
The eUTRA Bands defined by the 3GPP for the LTE deployment Vs. theallowed BWs for each defined band.
Bands of interest; Band 7 (IMT-E 2.6Ghz) , Band 3 (DCS 1800Mhz) andBand 20 (EDD 800Mhz Available in the UAE).
-
eUTRA FDD Spectrum (2 of 2)
Bands of interest - with 20Mhz Channel B.W; Band 7 (2.6Ghz) , Band 3(1800Mhz) and Band 20 (EDD 800Mhz Available in the UAE).
-
Lte Deployment in IMT-E 2.6GhzSample Link Budget for 2.6Ghz LTE deployment with the belowAssumptions;
Band: 2.6Ghz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%
-
Lte Deployment in DCS1800MhzSample Link Budget for DCS1800Mhz LTE deployment with thebelow Assumptions;
Band: 1800Mhz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%
-
Lte Deployment in EDD800MhzSample Link Budget for 800Mhz LTE deployment with the belowAssumptions;
Band: 800Mhz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%
-
2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. 800Mhz
-
2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. 800Mhz
-
Band Re-Farming Impact (1 of 2)
GSM Spectrum Evacuation for the
Lte Band
Lower no. of GSM Carriers & hence high RF load in the GSM NW.
GSM NW Quality impact & Quality
Degradation
-
Band Re-Farming Impact (2 of 2)
Major KPI variations during 1st phase
94.00%
95.00%
96.00%
97.00%
98.00%
99.00%
100.00%
11/0
1/20
08
11/0
3/20
08
11/0
5/20
08
11/0
7/20
08
11/0
9/20
08
11/1
1/20
08
11/1
3/20
08
11/1
5/20
08
11/1
7/20
08
11/1
9/20
08
11/2
1/20
08
11/2
3/20
08
11/2
5/20
08
11/2
7/20
08
11/2
9/20
08
12/0
1/20
08
12/0
3/20
08
12/0
5/20
08
12/0
7/20
08
12/0
9/20
08
12/1
1/20
08
12/1
3/20
08
12/1
5/20
08
12/1
7/20
08
12/1
9/20
08
Date
CS
SR
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2.00%
CD
R. H
O D
rop
Rate
CSSR
CSSR_target
Call Drop Rate
CDR_target
HO_out_2G_2G_drop_rate_target
HO_out_2G_2G_drop_rate
Case Study for 5Mhz Band evacuation & re-farming in Other operators (Please notice that Etisalat Case will be much
more as its 10/20Mhz)
-
Band Re-Farming Impact / Etisalat AUH
Scenario (1):Evacuating 20 Mhz out of the existing band for the Lte indoor installation will have the following outputs;
Severe high degradation on the existing GSM NW as the DCS1800Mhz is carryingthe majority of the traffic in the GSM NW (preferred band in traffic sharing with P-GSM& E-GSM) Keeping in mind that the degradation shown in previous slides was onlyfor 5Mhz band evacuation.
Scenario (2):Evacuating only 10 Mhz to be used in Lte indoor installation will have the following Output;
The existing indoor Infra-structure for Etisalat supports only SISO and hence theCapacity will be divided by ~ 2 & as the spectrum goes down from 20Mhz to 10 Mhzwill again divide the Lte Capacity by ~ 2 resulting in Over all Cell capacity ~ 33Mbps which is less than the HSPA+ (dual carrier 42Mbps).
-
10 Mhz Evacuation & SISO Indoor Deployment:
HSPA+ (dual carrier) gives up to 42 Mbps which needs Lte to be competitive withhigher values and not less.
* Rough Values for DL Thrpt (not exact)
Band Re-Farming Impact / Etisalat AUH
HSPA+(Dual Carrier)
Vs.
-
End