wireless backhaul spectrum policy recommendations & analysis

Wireless Backhaul SpectrumPolicy Recommendations & Analysis October 2014

Copyright © 2014 GSM Association

The GSMA represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide. Spanning more than 220 countries, the GSMA unites nearly 800 of the world’s mobile operators with 250 companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including handset and device makers, software companies, equipment providers and Internet companies, as well as organisations in industry sectors such as financial services, healthcare, media, transport and utilities. The GSMA also produces industry-leading events such as Mobile World Congress and Mobile Asia Expo.

For more information, please visit the GSMA corporate website at www.gsma.comor Mobile World Live, the online portal for the mobile communications industry, at www.mobileworldlive com

ABI Research provides in-depth analysis and quantitative forecasting of trends in global connectivity and other emerging technologies. From offices in North America, Europe and Asia, ABI Research’s worldwide team of experts advises thousands of decision makers through 70+ research and advisory services. Est. 1990.

For more information visit www.abiresearch.com, or call +1.516.624.2500.

Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis

Content

1. Fixed Telecom Backhaul Versus Wireless Telecom Backhaul Solutions 1

1.1. Growth in Subscriptions 11.2. Mobile Data Traffic Strains the Network 11.3. Technical Capabilities of LTE Backhaul Solutions 21.3.1. Copper-line Backhaul 21.3.2. Fiber-optic Backhaul 31.3.3. Satellite Backhaul Technology 31.3.4. TV White Space 41.3.4.1. Challenges Facing TVWS 41.4. Limitations of Fixed Telecom Backhaul 51.4.1. Ethernet over Copper 51.4.2. Microwave and Millimeter Here to Stay 51.4.3. Technology Trade-offs 61.5. Macro Cell Site Backhaul Deployments 71.6. Addressing Small Cell Deployments 81.7. Small Cell Site Backhaul Deployments 91.8. Stakeholders Analysis 91.9. Potential Regulatory Considerations 10

2. Wireless Backhaul Network Equipment Harmonization Opportunities 11

2.1. Wireless Backhaul Equipment Vendor Ecosystem 112.2. Impact of Fragmented Spectrum Bands for Wireless Backhaul 132.3. Opportunities for Standardizing Wireless Backhaul Hardware 142.3.1. Trial by Fire 142.3.2. Digital and Signal Processing Innovations 152.4. Opportunities for Hybrid Wireless Backhaul Solution Integration 152.4.1. Tight Integration 152.4.1.1. Assessment 162.4.2. Loose Integration 162.5. Stakeholders Analysis 162.6. Potential Regulatory Considerations 17

3. Line Of Sight Versus Non-Line Of Sight Wireless Backhaul Options 18

3.1. LoS versus NLoS Comparison 183.1.1. LoS Advantages 183.1.2. LoS Disadvantages 183.1.3. NLoS Advantages 193.1.4. NLoS Disadvantages 193.2. Topological Considerations 203.2.1. Point to MultiPoint (PMP) 203.2.2. Point to Point (PTP) 203.3. Total Cost of Ownership Backhaul Considerations 213.3.1. Ring Network 213.3.2. Mesh Network 213.4. Regional PMP Spectrum Availability 223.5. Stakeholders Analysis 233.6. Potential Regulatory Considerations 243.6.1. NLoS Support 243.6.2. PMP Support 24

4. Spectrum Band Availability And Capacity 25

4.1. Data Throughput 254.2. Sub-6 GHz 284.2.1. Unlicensed 284.2.2. 4 GHz to 9 GHz Case Examples 284.2.2.1. Stakeholder Analysis 30

4.3. Microwave Spectrum in 10 GHz to 42 GHz Range 304.3.1. 10 GHz to 18 GHz Case Examples 304.3.2. 20 GHz to 42 GHz Case Examples 324.3.3. Stakeholder Analysis 344.3.3.1. 10 GHz Band 344.4. Millimeter Wave V-band (60 GHz) and E-band (70/80 GHz) Bands 354.4.1. Deployment Considerations 354.4.2. V Band (60 GHz) 374.4.2.1. European Commission 60 GHz Rule Change 374.4.2.2. Federal Communications Commission 60 GHz Rule Change 374.4.2.3. Singapore – A Licensed 60 GHz Regulatory Environment 374.4.3. 70 GHz Plus 384.4.4. 60 GHz to 100 GHz Case Examples 384.4.5. Stakeholders Analysis 394.5. Potential Regulatory Considerations 394.6. Future Spectrum Bands for Backhaul Links 40

5. Evaluating Wireless Spectrum Backhaul Licensing Procedures 41

5.1. Types of Licensing Procedures 415.2. Per Link Spectrum Licensing 415.2.1. SWOT Analysis 415.2.2. Spectrum Band Analysis 425.3. Block Spectrum Licensing 425.3.1. SWOT Analysis 425.3.2. Spectrum Band Analysis 425.4. Lightly Licensed Spectrum 435.4.1. SWOT Analysis 435.4.2. Spectrum Band Analysis 435.5. Shared Spectrum Licensing 445.5.1. SWOT Analysis 445.5.2. Spectrum Band Analysis 445.6. Unlicensed Spectrum Licensing 455.6.1. SWOT Analysis 455.6.2. Spectrum Band Analysis 455.7. Quantitative Spectrum License Summary 465.8. Stakeholders Analysis 475.9. Potential Regulatory Considerations 485.9.1. Types of Licensing Model 485.9.2. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul 48

6. Strategic Recommendations and Regulatory Policy Options 47

6.1. The Changing Face of Cell Site Backhaul 476.2. Ecosystem Development and Recommendations 496.3. Regulatory Recommendations 506.3.1. Greater Support and Coordination for the Bands below 6 GHz 506.3.2. Active Promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for Wireless Backhaul 506.3.3. Active Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for Wireless Backhaul 506.3.4. Promotion and Support for PMP Backhaul Spectrum and Applications 516.3.5. Align Microwave Bands in the Mainstream 10 GHz to 42 GHz Microwave Bands 516.3.6. Promote and Coordinate the Lower 10 GHz Band as an Light Licensed Band 516.4. Evolution in Licensing Model 526.4.1. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul 52

7. Appendix: Backhaul Spectrum Allocation Summary Analysis 53

8. Acronyms 62

Note: Blue shading Indicates preferred choice for LTE mobile backhaul.Source: ABI Research

Source: ABI Research’s Global Mobile Subscriber Market Data

Source: ABI Research’s Mobile End-User Applications and Traffic Benchmarks Market Data

Segment Microwave V-Band E-Band Fiber-optic Copper Satellite (6-42 GHz) (60 GHz) (70/80 GHz)

Future-proof Available Bandwidth

Deployment Cost

Suitability for Heterogeneous Networks

Support for X2 Mesh/Ring Topology

InterferenceImmunity

Range (Km)

Time to Deploy

License Required

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

5~30,++

Weeks

Yes

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

1~

Days

Light License/ Unlicensed

High

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

~3

Days

Licensed/Light License

High

High

Aggregation & Core

Yes where available

Very High

<80

Months

No

Medium

Medium

IndoorLRAN/Access

Indoors

Very High

<15

Months

No

Low

High

Rural/ Remote only

Yes

Medium

Unlimited

Months

Yes

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sub

scri

pti

ons

(M

illio

ns)

4G 3G 2G

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(Meg

abyt

es)

(Pet

abyt

es)

Web / Internet

VoIP

Video Streaming / TV

P2P

Audio Streaming

Average Monthly Consumed per Wireless Subscriber

Mobile operators have always needed backhaul solutions to carry initially voice traffic, followed by text messages and then mobile data. The advent of LTE is expected to place even greater challenges on the mobile operators as they strive for more network capacity, latency reduction, and an enhanced user experience. In June 2014, the GSA announced that 300 operators have commercially launched LTE in 107 countries.

1.1. Growth in SubscriptionsAt the end of 2013, the total mobile subscriptions worldwide reached 7 billion, with an annual growth rate of 6.2% year-on-year. A number of regional markets are saturated, but global subscriptions will continue to grow to 8.58 billion by 2019. The 2013 subscription count means that overall cellular penetration stood at 100.2%. At the end of 2013, 3G and 4G subscriptions totaled 2.39 billion, or 34%. By 2019, the proportion of 3G and 4G subscriptions will grow to 59%. LTE is expected to show robust growth in 2014. By the end of year, LTE subscriptions are expected to grow from 252 million to 453 million. While operators have to contend with a large proportion of their subscribers still on 3G networks, it is already becoming clear that a more substantial impact will come from 4G LTE traffic.

CHART 1-1: 2G, 3G, AND 4G MOBILE SUBSCRIPTIONS WORLD MARKET, FORECAST: 2010 TO 2019

1

1. Fixed telecom backhaul versus wireless telecom backhaul solutions


1.2. Mobile Data Traffic Strains the NetworkAll these mobile data subscribers are continuing to make greater and greater demands on the operators’ networks. Over the course of ABI Research’s forecasts, mobile-data traffic is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 46% p.a. to surpass 191,100 petabytes on an annual basis in 2019. LTE subscribers may only represent 24% of total subscriptions in 2019, but they represent 65% of the total traffic generated in 2019.

Over the 5-year period, there is a crucial shift in the type of traffic that will take its toll on the mobile operator. In 2013, worldwide video streaming generated 9,840 petabytes in traffic or 38%. By 2019, video streaming expands to 65.4% of the market. The global average amount of traffic generated per user per month will grow from 275 megabytes as of September 2014 to just under 1.85 gigabytes. In certain markets, like Korea and Japan, mobile carriers are anticipating their users could be generating 1 Gigabyte of traffic per “day.”

CHART 1-2: MOBILE NETWORK DATA TRAFFIC BY TRAFFIC TYPE WORLD MARKET, FORECAST: 2011 TO 2019

2Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis

Machine-to-machine and IoE may push up the number of non-human connections, but a large proportion of the data traffic generated will come from end users’ smartphones and other mobile devices such as tablets, laptops, and ultrabooks. There will be fairly dramatic cyclical shifts in data traffic usage throughout the day as end users commute/travel around during the 24-hour day. Additional cell sites, most likely small cell deployments, will need to be deployed to address these cyclical hotspots as end users commute from home to work and back again.

1.3. Technical Capabilities of LTE Backhaul SolutionsWhen it comes to backhaul solutions, mobile operators are spoiled for choice. There are a number of technical solutions: copper line (T1/E1, DSL); fiber-optic; satellite backhaul; and wireless terrestrial (microwave, millimeter band).

1.3.1. Copper-line Backhaul Copper-based backhaul was designed for T1/E1 protocols. Supporting 1.5 Mbps to 2 Mbps, copper lines do not scale easily to provide adequate bandwidth at a distance above a few hundred meters to support 3G and LTE broadband usage. For longer distances, bonding configurations are required in which monthly costs increase linearly with bandwidth requirements.

DSL has been used as a viable offload solution for 3G backhaul, and with its xDSL variants, DSL can increase bandwidths to over 50 Mbps, and bonding the bandwidths can increase them to hundreds of Mbps. However, the available DSL bandwidth is inversely proportional to distance, and the longer a DSL connection between the cell site and the aggregation point or digital subscriber line access multiplexer is, the lower the bandwidth of the connection is likely to be. Depending on the DSL variant in use, this probably limits the reach of DSL backhaul for LTE to around 500 meters. DSL comes into its own in terms of mobile backhaul for indoor small cells, in-building HetNets, and public venue small cell networks.

A number of DSL technologies are available including ADSL2+, G.SHDSL.bis, and VDSL2. ADSL2+ and G.SHDSL can be used to provide near-term bandwidth relief for high bandwidth applications like LTE. VDSL2 with vectoring has been shown to achieve data rates of 100 Mbps at distances of up to 400 m, and 40 Mbps can be supported with loops as long as 1,000 m. Pair bonding is a well-established technique that can be used to either increase bandwidth or extend the reach of a given bandwidth, making it suitable for LTE backhaul over short distances. These enhancements have made xDSL a viable alternative in certain situations.






Deployment Cost




Range (Km)

Time to Deploy

License Required

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

5~30,++

Weeks

Yes

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

1~

Days


High

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

~3

Days


High

High

Aggregation & Core

Yes where available

Very High

<80

Months

No

Medium

Medium

IndoorLRAN/Access

Indoors

Very High

<15

Months

No

Low

High

Rural/ Remote only

Yes

Medium

Unlimited

Months

Yes

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sub

scri

pti

ons

(M

illio

ns)

4G 3G 2G

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(Meg

abyt

es)

(Pet

abyt

es)

Web / Internet

VoIP


P2P

Audio Streaming


1.3.2. Fiber-optic Backhaul Optical fiber may be used as the physical medium connecting cell sites to mobile switching centers (MSCs) and then to an exchange or central office where it can be transferred to the landline network, long haul metro, and regional networks. Legacy backhaul systems have delivered traffic between cell sites and MSCs using copper-based T1 lines since the early 1980s; however, with the rapid increase in data traffic, fiber to the tower (FTTT) has become widespread, as backhaul bandwidth demand has increased. LTE will accelerate the demand for FTTT and require MNOs to upgrade many aspects of their backhaul networks to fiber-based Carrier Ethernet. While bonded copper and hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) cable networks may be used, this will most likely occur in situations where fiber is not available.

Even though fiber has a large bandwidth, several techniques in use completely avoid any bandwidth constraints, essentially rendering the fiber assets future-proof. Wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) combines multiple optical signals by carrying each signal on a different wavelength or color of light. An improvement to WDM, DWDM uses close channel spacing to deliver even more throughput per fiber. Modern systems can handle up to 160 signals, each with a bandwidth of 10 Gbps for a total theoretical capacity of 1.6 terabytes per second per fiber, reducing much of the need to add additional fiber to current networks.

1.3.3. Satellite Backhaul Technology Satellite backhaul technology is essential for small cell deployments in rural areas, which typically have no wired broadband connectivity. Traditionally, these deployments do not provide 4G/LTE services and are limited to providing 2G coverage for voice and minimal mobile broadband.

Satellite backhaul solution providers continue to innovate and tackle higher data traffic protocols, using techniques like data compression, byte-level caching, predictive cache loading, data stream de-duplication, data compression, and protocol optimization.

The advent of small cell technology has some MNOs exploring the use of carrier-class satellite backhaul as a viable alternative to more traditional backhaul types. Compared to macrocell solutions, these small cell networks are significantly less costly; when combined with a low-cost satellite modem/router, it may allow MNOs to expand coverage into rural areas quickly and economically or operate smaller networks on board ships, in aircraft, or in remote mining areas, for instance. A satellite backhaul link for a small cell typically uses a small parabolic dish antenna, similar to a TV satellite dish connected to the small cell and satellite modem. There are, however, concerns regarding latency between the satellite and the small cell as well as Line of Sight to the satellite overhead in dense urban environments.

One of the most recent examples of LTE backhaul over satellite came in June of 2012. Hughes Network Systems, using its high-throughput satellite modem and Lemko Corporation’s Distributed Mobility Wireless Network (DiMoWiNe), successfully demonstrated LTE transmission over satellite backhaul at download speeds of over 10 Mbps and upload speeds of 786 Kbps, including video calls.


1.3.4. TV White Space In many regions, the switch to digital television transmission standards has freed up new spectrum bands, often referred to as TV White Space (TVWS). The FCC in the United States has ruled that TVWS can be opened up for unlicensed use provided that equipment operating in the bands does not interfere with the licensed services of primary users, including DTV broadcasters and wireless microphone users.

The vacated frequencies are found in the VHF/UHF range offering 6 MHz channels in North America, 7 MHz in Australia and New Zealand, and 8 MHz in Europe and the rest of the world. The main TVWS applications are likely to be implemented in the 470 to 694/8 MHz bands. However, additional spectrum bands may be allocated to TVWS services. For example, in Singapore, the 174 MHz and 230 MHz, and 470 MHz and 806 MHz UHF bands are being made available for TVWS operations. At these VHF/UHF frequencies, TVWS does offer robust propagation characteristics in range, and can pass through or around obstacles more easily, than the ISM bands and most cellular licensed bands.

TVWS availability is location specific depending on the number and power of the primary users in a given location with fewer TVWS channels expected in densely populated areas that have a higher number of DTV users. In locations where TVWS availability is high, it would be an ideal candidate for wireless backhaul between small cells with IEEE 802.11-based technology, a natural choice for TVWS with a standard based on 802.11ac, expected to be finalized in 2014. Many countries are developing geolocation databases to control and manage TVWS operation and protect the primary users. This database lists the channels available in any particular region and often lists the emission requirements imposed by regulation for the area.

Frequency agility to be found at the core of TVWS equipment is the mandatory use of these geolocation databases. The TVWS radio selects an operational channel and queries the database to discover if there might be an interference problem. If none is detected, the transmission occurs; if not, another channel is selected. This geolocation-assisted frequency agility is cognitive radio, which is a development of software definable radio and adds decision-making ability to the TVWS radio, allowing it to minimize interference and discover the best channel for reliable transmission. In the United States, FCC-approved databases are now available from Spectrum Bridge and Telcordia.

1.3.4.1. Challenges Facing TVWSA number of challenges for TVWS need to be overcome if TVWS is to be commercially viable. The principle concern relates to quality of service for the backhauled traffic. Quality of service can be degraded by interference from a co-located participant in the TVWS spectrum band or from not having sufficient spectrum for traffic throughput. Vendor sourced TVWS hardware that is commercially competitive in the backhaul market is also not available and may not be for a few years to come. TVWS will need to comply with regulations and protect the licensed primary users, and this is driving innovations in filter and converter design, which may increase power and cost. Coexistence with other users is another feature that must be accommodated, and this drives the need to sense other secondary users, either by hardware in the TVWS radio or in the geolocation database.


1.4. Limitations of Fixed Telecom BackhaulThe first choice for LTE backhaul is fiber. However, it is unlikely to be available everywhere an eNodeB exists, but because of its future-proof bandwidth capability, a number of LTE access links will transition to fiber at the earliest opportunity, usually the aggregation point. The main drawback to fiber is its cost. Deploying fiber to a cell site involves trenching, boring, or ducting, and invariably requires permits. As a result, the deployment costs are consequently high, and it can often take several months to provision each cell site with fiber-optic backhaul, which can make it only attractive for the larger cell sites as well as for suitable for aggregation and core backhaul and transport. Fiber may cost up to $100,000 per kilometer depending on the location.

1.4.1. Ethernet over CopperEthernet over copper is suitable for indoor applications, such as small cells where backhaul can use the existing in-building CAT5/DSL cable. Satellite’s special techniques for handling LTE bandwidth are a suitable choice for rural or difficult applications, or backhaul in developing countries with no long haul core network available.

1.4.2. Microwave and Millimeter Here to StayMicrowave, on the other hand, is a low-cost option for mobile backhaul, as is the higher frequency E-band, both of which can be deployed in a matter of days and support a range up to several miles. Microwave and E-band technologies are developing rapidly with innovations that include ACM, high order QAM, XPIC, compression accelerators, and MIMO, all aimed at increasing the bandwidth on the link:

■■ Adaptive Coding and Modulation: ACM helps to manage the modulation, coding, and other signal and protocol parameters to the conditions on the microwave radio link

■■ High Order Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: 64-QAM and 256-QAM are often used in digital cable television, but QAMs of 1024 are becoming common in microwave links

■■ Compression Accelerators: Other capacity-boosting techniques are often employed involving compression accelerators (both hardware and software) that are used to reduce the volume of traffic on the microwave link by compressing and de-duplicating the data payload

■■ Cross Polarization Interference Cancellation: XPIC can potentially double the capacity of a microwave link

■■ Multiple Input and Multiple Output: MIMO allows the use of multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver to improve communication performance

Due to adequate bandwidth, the possibilities of operating the microwave link in Non-line of Sight (NLoS), as well as in Line of Sight (LoS), makes it suitable for mesh and ring topologies required in backhauling LTE outdoors. The drawback is that microwave requires that a license be obtained, unless the link is in the E-band, which is lightly licensed and permission is relatively easy to obtain. However, because of E-band’s high frequency, it is subject to atmospheric effects or rain fade, which can attenuate the signal and limit its range. This “limitation,” however, is being turned to its own advantage. E-band is proving popular and practical as a solution for high bandwidth, short distance links, such as what is required for small cells.


1.4.3. Technology Trade-offsThe comparative merits of the various LTE backhaul solutions are complex and no one solution fits all scenarios. The trade-offs in LTE mobile backhaul technology can be found in the Table below.

TABLE 1-1: LTE MOBILE BACKHAUL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFFSWIRELESS VS. FIXED VS. SATELLITE


The assessment is dependent on the location and the ground conditions facing the backhaul engineer. For wireless-based solutions, it is essential there is sufficient available spectrum for future deployments to the backhaul architecture. Deployment cost can be a key criterion when the network operator is faced with deploying several hundred to potentially thousands of (small) cell sites in a year. Mobile carriers are increasingly facing the reality of having to deploy a heterogeneous (HetNet) architecture of macro and small cells that may rely on 3G, 4G, and even Wi-Fi coverage. Microwave and millimeter (V-Band and E-Band) is very suitable for HetNets because it allows for Low Radio Access Network (LRAN) aggregation of traffic from several base-stations, which can then be handed off to the High Radio Access Network (HRAN) and core network. The X2 protocol is a LTE-related protocol that allows LTE base-stations to communicate directly to each other. This allows the operator the potential opportunity to use Mesh topologies to offload traffic. Other criteria that operators are also burdened with are time to deploy and licensing. While a cell site is usually operational for several years, if not decades, the network manager is often under pressure to get a cell site “operational” as quickly as possible. Having to wait several months for a fiber-optic or copper line connection to be provisioned to the cell site can be debilitating on network traffic in the short term. Furthermore, licensing can place an administrative burden on the operators that is multiplied as a function of the number of backhaul sites they have to manage.

The “blue” highlighted cells indicate attributes that particularly benefit LTE backhaul. Clearly, fiber-optic does have its role to play in specific scenarios, and microwave links in the 6 GHz to 42 GHz bands have been a mainstay of wireless backhaul for macro cell sites; the V-Band and E-Bands could play a more prominent role in mobile operators’ backhaul networks.






Deployment Cost




Range (Km)

Time to Deploy

License Required

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

5~30,++

Weeks

Yes

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

1~

Days


High

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

~3

Days


High

High

Aggregation & Core

Yes where available

Very High

<80

Months

No

Medium

Medium

IndoorLRAN/Access

Indoors

Very High

<15

Months

No

Low

High

Rural/ Remote only

Yes

Medium

Unlimited

Months

Yes

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sub

scri

pti

ons

(M

illio

ns)

4G 3G 2G

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(Meg

abyt

es)

(Pet

abyt

es)

Web / Internet

VoIP


P2P

Audio Streaming


1.5. Macro Cell Site Backhaul DeploymentsThe macrocell microwave LTE backhaul market, while it will not grow at the same rate as small cell microwave backhaul, it does show consistent growth.

In 2013, the majority share of backhaul links deployed is the traditional microwave LoS. The higher bandwidth requirements of LTE are also driving a significant share of fiber and, to a lesser degree, bonded copper xDSL connections. On a worldwide basis, fiber-optic grew to 25% of macro cell sites supported from 10.6% in 2013. Microwave Line of Sight in the 6 GHz to 38 GHz bands is still a long-term viable solutions for macro cell sites. Data throughput can handle the LTE-supported end-user traffic profiles, and transmission distances also suit macro cell-site topologies (see chart below).

Line of Sight millimeter (60 GHz to 80 GHz) backhaul should show a marked rise in deployment by 2019, from 11% to 23.5%. Transmission distances are curtained to ~3 Km or so but being able to support data throughput of up to 10 Gbps makes it suitable for macro cell sites in downtown locations with high levels of traffic. OFDM NLoS sub-6 GHz backhaul links could be used for macro cell sites but deployment would be largely redundant and better suited to small cell-site deployment scenarios.

There is some marginal (less than 1%) use of Wi-Fi for macro cell-site backhaul (i.e., in some emerging markets such as India and Latin America) but the unlicensed nature of Wi-Fi combined with growing interference from neighboring public and private Wi-Fi access points, as well as poor transmission distances, severely limits deployments. Satellite will remain a niche solution, seeing some deployments in rural areas where microwave or other cabled technologies are hard to justify. CHART 1-3: LTE MACRO BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019


Source: ABI Research


10.6%

25.0%12.4%

30.3%

14.3%

34.3%

7.8%19.5%

15.0%

10.0%

18.2%

12.1%

16.5%

10.9%

13.2%

8.5%

60.1% 39.9%55.0% 27.6% 51.3% 20.6% 68.6% 52.9%

11.0%23.5%

12.9%

29.1%15.0%

32.9%

6.6%17.2%

2.0% 1.0% 1.4% 0.8% 2.7% 1.3% 1.9% 1.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Worldwide 2013 Worldwide 2013 Europe 2013 Europe 2019 North America2013

North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)

OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)

LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)

Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)

Copper

Fiber


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Sm

all C

ell B

ackh

aul U

sag

e

Sub-6 GHz Unlicensed

Satellite

Fiber

Millimeter Wave

Copper

Sub-6 GHz Licensed

Microwave

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Inst

alle

d C

ell-

site

s (M

illio

ns)

Installed Base of Small Cells Installed Macro Cell-sites

49.3%37.5%

56.7%

35.8% 36.2%16.5%

53.3%42.8%

31.2%

28.0%

21.8%

22.4%

42.4%

37.0%

29.6%

30.8%

12.2%

2.6%

14.8%

3.1%

13.4%

2.8%

10.7%

2.2%

3.2%

24.0%

3.7%

29.8%

4.4%

33.6%

1.9%

17.5%

2.1% 7.2% 2.5%8.7%

2.8%9.9%

1.6%5.6%



10.6%

25.0%12.4%

30.3%

14.3%

34.3%

7.8%19.5%

15.0%

10.0%

18.2%

12.1%

16.5%

10.9%

13.2%

8.5%

60.1% 39.9%55.0% 27.6% 51.3% 20.6% 68.6% 52.9%

11.0%23.5%

12.9%

29.1%15.0%

32.9%

6.6%17.2%

2.0% 1.0% 1.4% 0.8% 2.7% 1.3% 1.9% 1.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Sm

all C

ell B

ackh

aul U

sag

e


Satellite

Fiber

Millimeter Wave

Copper

Sub-6 GHz Licensed

Microwave

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Inst

alle

d C

ell-

site

s (M

illio

ns)


49.3%37.5%

56.7%

35.8% 36.2%16.5%

53.3%42.8%

31.2%

28.0%

21.8%

22.4%

42.4%

37.0%

29.6%

30.8%

12.2%

2.6%

14.8%

3.1%

13.4%

2.8%

10.7%

2.2%

3.2%

24.0%

3.7%

29.8%

4.4%

33.6%

1.9%

17.5%

2.1% 7.2% 2.5%8.7%

2.8%9.9%

1.6%5.6%

1.6. Addressing Small Cell DeploymentsAs LTE subscriber adoption and traffic builds, mobile operators will need to seriously consider small cell-site deployments. The location of small cells is likely to be quite different from macro cell-site deployments.

Small cells promise a new “underlay” of outdoor and indoor, low power micro-cells, pico-cells, and even femto-cells that are deployed on public and private infrastructure within the urban environment. Sites being considered include:

■■ Pole tops (e.g., street lighting, traffic lights, telco poles, etc.)

■■ Bus stops

■■ Building walls

■■ Building rooftops

These new sites will need to be compact, simple to install, energy efficient, and incorporate an organically scalable and tightly integrated backhaul solution. As a result, there will be many more sites—some vendor projections estimate that up to 10 small cells will be deployed for every macro site. Small cells hold out the promise of great gains for the end users but pose a massive challenge for the operators—particularly in backhaul.

Small cell deployments so far have mainly been concentrated in Europe (3G) and the United States (LTE). 3G small cells may also be deployed in other regions as a means to avoid the difficulties in obtaining planning approval for larger macro-cell sites. Throughout the forecast period, the installed base of macro cell sites grows from 7.74 million in 2013 to 8.92 million in 2019. In the same period of time, small cells are expected to grow from 0.78 million to 14.24 million (see chart below). CHART 1-4: INSTALLED CELL-SITES BY CELL TYPE WORLD MARKET, FORECAST: 2012 TO 2019


To address the backhaul needs of small cells, a combination of PTP and PMP solutions will be needed.



10.6%

25.0%12.4%

30.3%

14.3%

34.3%

7.8%19.5%

15.0%

10.0%

18.2%

12.1%

16.5%

10.9%

13.2%

8.5%

60.1% 39.9%55.0% 27.6% 51.3% 20.6% 68.6% 52.9%

11.0%23.5%

12.9%

29.1%15.0%

32.9%

6.6%17.2%

2.0% 1.0% 1.4% 0.8% 2.7% 1.3% 1.9% 1.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


North America2019

RoW 2013 RoW 2019

Sm

all C

ell B

ackh

aul U

sag

e


Satellite

Fiber

Millimeter Wave

Copper

Sub-6 GHz Licensed

Microwave

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Inst

alle

d C

ell-

site

s (M

illio

ns)


49.3%37.5%

56.7%

35.8% 36.2%16.5%

53.3%42.8%

31.2%

28.0%

21.8%

22.4%

42.4%

37.0%

29.6%

30.8%

12.2%

2.6%

14.8%

3.1%

13.4%

2.8%

10.7%

2.2%

3.2%

24.0%

3.7%

29.8%

4.4%

33.6%

1.9%

17.5%

2.1% 7.2% 2.5%8.7%

2.8%9.9%

1.6%5.6%

1.7. Small Cell Site Backhaul DeploymentsTo address the backhaul needs of small cells, fiber-optic proves too costly and logistically challenging to execute on a comprehensive scale. In some cities where there is extensive fiber-optic provisioning, fiber-optic backhaul for small cells will gain traction. For example, in Tokyo, Japan, and Seoul, South Korea, small cells are serviced by fiber-optic backhaul links in some locations.

On a worldwide basis, microwave and millimeter wave are expected to capture 61.5% of backhaul links by 2019. What is significant is millimeter wave usage as it is expected to grow from a meager 3.2% in 2013 to 24% in 2019. Licensed sub-6 GHz for NLoS is also expected to prove a viable small cell solution in 2019, representing 28%. However, the solution is constrained by a suitable amount of available spectrum. Sub-6 GHz licensed technologies grow at the expense of copper and to some extent microwave. ABI Research believes that the NLoS and the low-cost characteristics of sub-6 GHz make this choice viable, particularly in high-density urban or metropolitan environments. The higher bandwidth and data rates available in the 60 GHz means that this technology will become a popular option as links are daisy-chained and aggregated for transport back to the network core (see chart below). CHART 1-5: LTE SMALL BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019


1.8. Stakeholders AnalysisThe framework for this analysis is quite extensive. The mobile operators are the key stakeholders. Many operators have from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of cell sites to manage. And that is “before” the growth in small cell-site deployments.

The deployment scenarios for those cell sites are complex and diverse. They can range from 50 m lattice towers to angled rooftop deployments on public buildings/private multi-dwelling unit buildings, to streetlight outdoor femtocell base-stations. Non-line of Sight transmission blockages such as skyscrapers, large trees, and hillsides pose additional challenges for the operator.

The operator will, therefore, need a wide range of fixed and wireless backhaul solutions from a larger number of manufacturers to cater to the various scenarios. While the ecosystem may be heavily segmented, the competition does help to benefit the operator community by stimulating competition that has led to a number of innovative solutions and helped to keep hardware and services competitive.

In the mainstream macrocell microwave market, the largest vendor is Ericsson with approximately 30% of the market. NEC is in second place with a strong backhaul product portfolio. Huawei, Alcatel-Lucent, and DragonWave also have strong traction in the marketplace.

The small cell site deployment represents a potential line of disruption to the incumbents. Vendors such as Tarana Wireless, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication Systems, Siklu Communications, and VublQ are providing novel solutions. There are at least 30 vendors in the wireless backhaul ecosystem, and counting… The level of competition is intense and not every vendor will remain commercially viable in the long term. A number of the smaller vendors will start to merge with larger vendors once the majority of operators have selected their primary and secondary suppliers. A small percentage of operators will opt for multi-vendor (three or more) arrangements, but given that the vast majority of backhaul vendors have proprietary solutions, operators will not be able use these backhaul solutions in a modular manner.

1.9. Potential Regulatory ConsiderationsMobile operators have a challenging time backhauling the mobile voice and data traffic from varied urban, sub-urban, rural, office, residential home, high-rise buildings, public buildings, tunnels, etc. They, therefore, need options. As can be seen in chart 1-3, copper line centric backhaul drops from 20% of macro cell site usage to 11% by 2018. Fiber-optic’s prevalence does grow from 11% to 24%, but there is still a heavy dependence on Line of Sight microwave, Non-line of Sight OFDM, Line of Sight millimeter wave, and even Wi-Fi (primarily 5.8 GHz). This usage outlook reflects maturing technical solutions that will need the spectrum support from national regulators.

This pressure to support backhaul solutions and spectrum for the macro cell site market is also reinforced by the need to support the backhaul connectivity for small cell deployments that are expected to reach 14 million by 2019 on a worldwide basis. The spectrum and licensing considerations will be investigated in the following chapters.


The wireless backhaul network equipment market is characterized by a number of multinational vendors such as Ericsson, Huawei, and NEC as well as a number of specialized boutique vendors that solely target the backhaul market. The macro microwave\millimeter cell site backhaul market was worth US$4.5 billion in 2013. The microwave\millimeter small cell backhaul market is nascent at present, but by 2018, ABI Research calculates its value to be US$4.8 billion. It is, therefore, worth delineating the ecosystem, identifying the key players, and assessing what opportunities there are for harmonization and standardization.

2.1. Wireless Backhaul Equipment Vendor EcosystemApart from the large end-to-end system suppliers, most vendors can be partitioned by wireless backhaul technology with some offering multiple technologies. For example, Aviat offers products for both microwave and E-band applications, DragonWave has a portfolio containing sub-6 GHz, microwave, and millimeter wave products, and Ceragon’s portfolio offers sub-6 GHz and E-band radios.

For each of the technologies, there is a group of specialist or niche vendors represented; for example, in millimeter wave technologies by BridgeWave. In the E-Band, LightPointe, Loea, Siklu, Sub10 Systems, and VubIQ. Airspan, BLiNQ, Cambium, Fastback Networks, Proxim, Radwin, Taqua, and Tarana are among the examples of companies that specialize in sub-6 GHz systems. The specialists in microwave small cell backhaul include by Bluwan, Cambridge Broadband Systems Limited (CBNL), Cambridge Communication Systems (CCS), and Intracom.

The larger vendors offering complete end-to-end infrastructure portfolios feature multi-technology small cell backhaul portfolios, and this list includes Alcatel-Lucent, Aviat, Ceragon, Cisco, DragonWave, Huawei, and NEC. These companies offer small cell backhaul technologies that cover all segments, either as a wholly owned product or in partnership with the specialist vendors. Other specialists are Altobridge, Hughes Networks Systems, and iDirect for satellite backhaul, and Carlson Wireless represents the emerging TV White Space (TVWS) backhaul segment.

In the nascent small cell wireless backhaul equipment market, the “most effective” backhaul technology for small cells is a hotly debated topic. There are multiple technologies available for small cell backhaul, and it is likely that a mix of technologies will be required depending on the deployment scenario. These include NLoS schemes in either licensed or unlicensed bands, which are suitable for use in urban environments where LoS techniques are less effective than they are in suburban and rural settings.Another technology, the recently released 60 GHz or V-band for unlicensed use, also shows great potential, since the attenuation effects of oxygen absorption work in favor of linking closely spaced small cells with short hops. Another emerging technology is E-band (70/80 GHz) that, with its very wide channels, makes 1 Gbps data rates a real possibility in the backhaul, without the complexities of high-order modulation schemes.

11

2. Wireless backhaul network equipment harmonization opportunities


TABLE 2-1: WIRELESS MOBILE BACKHAUL VENDOR ECOSYSTEM PORTFOLIO COMPARISON


Source: ABI Research based on sources including CBNL

Frequency (GHz)


Vendor Sub-6 GHz Sub-6 GHz Microwave V-band E-band TV White Satellite Unlicensed Licensed (6-42 GHz) (60 GHz) (70/80 GHz) Space

Airspan

Alcatel-Lucent

Altobridge

Aviat Networks

BLiNQ Networks

BluWan

BridgeWave Communications

Cambridge Broadband Networks

Cambridge Communication Systems

Cambium Networks

Carlson Wireless

Ceragon

DragonWave

E-Band

Ericsson

Fastback Networks

Huawei

Hughes Network Systems

iDirect

Intracom

LightPointe Wireless

Loea Communications

NEC

Proxim

Ruckus Wireless

Radwin

Siklu Communications

Sub10 Systems

Taqua

Tarana Wireless

VublQ

Co

st (

US

$) t0

t1

t2

4010

Cost of equipment ($/link)

Cost of spectrum($/MHz.Km2)

Source: ABI Research based on sources including CBNL

Frequency (GHz)


Vendor Sub-6 GHz Sub-6 GHz Microwave V-band E-band TV White Satellite Unlicensed Licensed (6-42 GHz) (60 GHz) (70/80 GHz) Space

Airspan

Alcatel-Lucent

Altobridge

Aviat Networks

BLiNQ Networks

BluWan

BridgeWave Communications

Cambridge Broadband Networks

Cambridge Communication Systems

Cambium Networks

Carlson Wireless

Ceragon

DragonWave

E-Band

Ericsson

Fastback Networks

Huawei

Hughes Network Systems

iDirect

Intracom

LightPointe Wireless

Loea Communications

NEC

Proxim

Ruckus Wireless

Radwin

Siklu Communications

Sub10 Systems

Taqua

Tarana Wireless

VublQ

Co

st (

US

$) t0

t1

t2

4010

Cost of equipment ($/link)

Cost of spectrum($/MHz.Km2)

2.2. Impact of Fragmented Spectrum Bands for Wireless BackhaulDepending on how one defines a contiguous spectrum band to be used for wireless backhaul, there were at least 52 bands in use for wireless backhaul between the range of 1 GHz and 95 GHz. The true number is likely to be much higher.

From research interviews conducted with equipment vendors, the incremental costs of supporting different frequency ranges (e.g., 26 GHz versus 28 GHz) is fairly marginal. It is the broader support for a spectrum category (such as the 60 GHz or the 70/80 GHz bands) that has proven to be the greater challenge. There are in fact two cost equations taking place as one moves up the frequency bands:

■■ The size and cost of the antenna drops as one moves up the frequency bands. Indeed it has been acknowledged that antenna size for E-band backhaul is well suited for the small cell form-factor.

■■ The cost of producing the electronic components, especially for the baseband/transceiver, has been historically high for spectrum bands over 42 GHz (see figure below). The rationale for this has largely been driven by economies of scale. As can be seen from Chart 4-1 (Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation by Frequency Range), the vast majority of wireless backhaul deployments have been in the 5 GHz to 40 GHz bands.

FIGURE 2-1: COST OF SPECTRUM VERSUS COST OF EQUIPMENT OVER TIME


There are some novel semi-conductor engineering initiatives (Silicon Germanium Chips, see below) that have the very real potential of flattening the cost of equipment curve.

2.3. Opportunities for Standardizing Wireless Backhaul HardwareThere has been some discussion as to whether there are opportunities for standardizing, or harmonizing, the hardware for wireless backhaul. There are currently over 30 wireless backhaul vendors addressing PTP, PMP, LoS as well as NLoS solutions. These solutions operate from the sub-6 GHz all the way up to the 80 GHz E-band as well as a number of other wireless niches such as TV White Space and satellite backhaul.

The number of vendors in this sector does provide a key market indicator—the wireless backhaul market is far from mature. Indeed, ABI Research argues that they are still very much at a nascent stage of development. Over the next 5 to 7 years, ABI Research anticipates the vendor ecosystem will contract by at least 25% to 40%. Many of the vendors are startup companies or at least boutique specialists. Only a handful of companies—Ericsson, Huawei, NEC, and Alcatel-Lucent—have an infrastructure solutions portfolio that extends beyond backhaul.

Many of these smaller vendors will, therefore, seek a merger with a larger parent company in order to secure additional financial resources, to secure economies of scale from larger production facilities or achieve improved leverage for input cost negotiation with suppliers. The marketplace will inevitably consolidate.

ABI Research would advocate that is a healthy process for the wireless backhaul industry. The range of solutions we have witnessed is a function of the competitive pressure on the wireless backhaul marketplace. The current and perceived future profits from wireless backhaul solutions has served to attract start-up companies and entrepreneurs—many of which have financial backing from venture capital firms. Can the wireless backhaul sustain 30+ vendors in 10 years or 7? No, that is not likely.

There are, however, a number of processes that will help to bring down the cost of wireless backhaul equipment for the operator.

2.3.1. Trial by FireA number of mobile operators are starting to conduct rigorous, in-the-field trials of the various wireless backhaul solutions on offer. These trials need to be as rigorous as possible and simulate real-world conditions as much as possible. While these trials may test the technical abilities of the backhaul solution, the financial viability of many of the start-up and boutique backhaul vendors may also be of concern. This is because framework agreements between the operator and backhaul vendor could potentially span a 5- to 10-year period.

Many of the tier 1 operators will have the resources to be able to do multi-vendor assessments, but some of the tier 2 and tier 3 operators may not have the market leverage nor the resources to carry out extensive multi-vendor trials. In these instances, the GSMA may be able to help create a “collective” of like-minded operators, from non-competing regional markets, to carry out the necessary trials.

Through these multi-national and collective evaluations of wireless backhaul vendors, the most robust and competitively viable backhaul vendors secure the resourcing to grow their businesses.


2.3.2. Digital and Signal Processing Innovations With the large number of small cells which will be deployed compared to macrocells, backhaul must evolve to be compatible with the small cell value proposition and become an integral part of the small cell.

The way some vendors are doing this is to innovate at the silicon level and bring advanced digital and signal processing techniques to bear on the problem so link performance is maximized and interference is mitigated in complex PMP and NLoS topologies.

Vubiq has incorporated silicon-based Integrated Circuits (ICs) into a novel waveguide packaging solution that facilitates low-cost, high-volume production of these radios. Furthermore, the company has incorporated the radio into a standard WR-15-type waveguide so as to enable customers to directly outfit their own antennas. These new silicon IC production tools are transforming the cost of manufacturing backhaul solutions. BridgeWave Communications, which supplies 4G millimeter wave backhaul solutions, also relies on Silicon Germanium RF technology that enables high-power operation, while the high level of integration delivers lower cost of coverage.

2.4. Opportunities for Hybrid Wireless Backhaul Solution IntegrationThere are a number of challenges facing the backhaul solutions integration marketplace. As stated above, competition continues to remain fierce, which has helped to prime innovation in the marketplace. ABI Research recommends that the pace of innovation in the backhaul equipment marketplace run its course for the next 5 to 7 years. Competition will have also slimmed down the ecosystem. At that juncture, the operator community and/or the GSMA could then take steps to bring in backhaul interoperability between the backhaul solutions. This could also be extended to the hardware components/chassis and APIs. This integration can be either loosely or tightly aligned. Fundamentally, the largest challenge comes from the fact that the wireless backhaul solutions from the vendors are all proprietary. This applies to the control plane as well as the data plane.

2.4.1. Tight IntegrationThe GSMA could strive to corral a number of tier 1 and 2 mobile operators along with a number of the equipment manufacturers to set a number of hardware, software, and inter-operability standards for wireless backhaul solutions in PTP, PMP, and even spectrum selection. The Open Base-Station Architecture Initiative (OBSAI) has had considerable success in bringing down the cost of base-station-related equipment. OBSAI was a trade association created by LG Electronics, Hyundai, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE in 2002 with the objective of creating an open market for cellular network base-stations.

The OBSAI specifications defined a number of parameters:

■■ The internal modular structure of the wireless base-station

■■ Provided a set of standard BTS modules with specified form, fit, and function so that a BTS vendor can acquire and integrate modules from multiple vendors in an OEM fashion

■■ Specify the internal digital interfaces between BTS modules to assure interoperability and compatibility

■■ Supported different access technologies such as GSM/EDGE, CDMA2000, WCDMA, and LTE


2.4.1.1. AssessmentIt may prove difficult to corral the majority of hardware vendors, and to a lesser extent, the mobile operators at the present time. As stated, ABI Research anticipates competition to take its toll over the next 5 years or so.

It may pay dividends to get the dialog underway with the various parties and for the GSMA to establish a Backhaul equivalent of the OBSAI specifications for the wireless backhaul market. It is likely to take 2 to 3 years at least to come to a common set of backhaul standardization “blueprints” and work groups to manage the process. In that time, it will also become more evident for the need to gain economies of scale in the backhaul solutions market—particularly small cells.

2.4.2. Loose IntegrationA looser form of integration may be available via some of the Self Organizing Network (SON) technologies that are being developed by equipment vendors to make the management of backhaul network elements more manageable.

SON technology will be an essential feature in wireless backhaul. SON promises that wireless backhaul becomes self-configuring, self-optimizing, and self-healing, much like the small cell RAN itself in 3GPP Rel. 8 and later. The self-configuration feature is intended to render the wireless backhaul link “plug and play;” self-optimization establishes the presence of neighboring backhaul radios and mitigates interference while the self-healing feature adjusts the link’s transmission parameters to compensate for a failed link or a new link addition. It is unlikely small cells can be made to be plug and play in terms of their backhaul interfacing on an individual cell-site by cell-site basis. It is more likely that “clusters of small cells” from a particular vendor are installed. The respective clusters of small cells and their backhaul links would need to be “aware” of the other vendor solutions on the network, and self-organizing processes would be needed to mitigate interference and allow the various components from different vendors to work seamlessly together.

2.5. Stakeholders AnalysisAmong the vendors offering some form of SON for wireless backhaul (for their own solutions) are BLiNQ, which features B-SON (backhaul SON) and MARA (managed adaptive resource allocation) to continuously characterize and coordinate multiple backhaul links on its equipment in the sub-6 GHz band. Airspan is another vendor offering a form of SON embedded in its small cells, which it calls iBridge, which makes use of electronically steerable MIMO antennas, removing the need for manual alignment during installation, coupled with a “zero touch” provisioning feature that enables rapid single-person deployment. Siklu also offers SON-based zero-touch “plug and play” installation on its 60 GHz Etherhaul-600 radios for small cell backhaul, and according to the company, the product can be installed by an unskilled technician and rendered operational in a matter of a few minutes.Even the loose integration approach would not be straightforward. Considerable dialog would be needed between the vendors and the operator community to ensure the SON management tools are in place.



2.6. Potential Regulatory ConsiderationsThis chapter has largely focused on competition theory, chipset innovation, hardware standardization, and collective negotiation, but there are some regulatory coordination activities needed to support overall backhaul solution harmonization. ABI Research does advocate that coordination efforts are put in place to support some crucial wireless backhaul initiatives:

■■ Greater support for the sub-6 GHz bands, principally from 4 GHz to 6 GHz

■■ More active promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for wireless backhaul in the international regulatory community

■■ More active promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for wireless backhaul in the international regulatory community

■■ Promotion and support for spectrum needed for PMP backhaul applications, with the associated need for per block licensing in the 10 GHz, 26/28 GHz, and future 60 GHz bands

■■ The main microwave bands, 10 to 40 GHz, are generally deemed to have sufficient spectrum but more effort is needed to align similar microwave bands in more markets, particularly at the regional level. This would have the benefit of bringing down the cost of equipment. It is not a critical measure, more of a “constructive measure” that would benefit the whole backhaul industry.

■■ Potential bands that have secured a degree of regional support include the 6 GHz, 7 GHz, 8 GHz, 11 GHz, and 13 GHz bands, 18 GHz; 23 GHz and 24 GHz; 28 GHz; 38 GHz and 40 GHz. Refining the list would need additional study.


3. Line of sight versus non-line of sight wireless backhaul options

Historically, most wireless backhaul links have been Line of Sight (LoS) due to the high frequencies being used as well as the narrow beam widths utilized. In the past 10 years, Non-line of Sight (NLoS) has become a viable solution that should prove particularly advantageous with clusters of small cells that mobile operators are expected to deploy over the next 5 to 10 years.

3.1. LoS versus NLoS ComparisonWhen comparing small cell wireless backhaul to wired small cell backhaul, there is an added consideration and that is whether both ends of a link are “visible” to each other or not. Line of sight (LoS) solutions tend to operate in the higher microwave and millimeter wave ranges. LoS systems also have higher gain antennas and narrow beam widths when compared to NLoS.

Non-line of Sight (NLoS) links generally operate in the sub-6 GHz frequencies. “Near” Line of Sight can operate up to around 10 GHz. These backhaul links make use of these signals’ ability to penetrate or diffract around obstacles. Unlike LoS, these systems do not require alignment at set up. NLoS systems can potentially offer better coverage in dense urban environments provided the links support the bandwidth, synchronization, and latency requirements of the RAN.

3.1.1. LoS Advantages An LoS wireless small cell backhaul solution, such as microwave, 60 GHz, and E-band, require, as the name implies, direct, unobstructed visibility between the transceivers at each end of the link. A highly directional beam transmits data between two transceivers and transports the data in a straight line with little or no fading or multipath radio interference. This is a highly efficient use of spectrum, as multiple microwave transceivers can function within a few feet of each other and reuse the frequency band for transmitting separate data streams.

Mainly used for high-bandwidth applications for outdoor small cell deployments rather than indoor femtocells or picocells, LoS links can allow a single small cell with integrated backhaul, such as a lamppost femtocell, to communicate with the next point of aggregation. Since microwave is best used as a highly directive beam, spectrum is not much of an issue; two microwave transceivers can be used at very close range compared to NLoS technologies. This setup is useful in areas with a high concentration of cells.

3.1.2. LoS Disadvantages LoS applications are more effective in some situations than others. For example, a park where many trees could block LoS is an impractical location for small cells backhauled through LoS technology. Pole tilt and sway are also a concern for small cell backhaul, and this becomes increasingly important for frequencies above 18 GHz where the antenna beam width is narrower. This is a concern for operators wishing to deploy small cell backhaul on structures like utility, lighting, and traffic poles, which were not originally designed to resist sway to the extent required by microwave backhaul.

Another problem lies in the cost of the backhaul, which can be considerable, especially for scenarios in which 2,000 to 5,000 small cells could be deployed in a typical network, such as in metropolitan hot-zones. Each transceiver requires a PMP link, and if daisy chains are involved, the cost of the backhaul rises quickly when compared to NLoS. This becomes significant as skilled technicians are usually required for antenna alignment for LoS technologies, and when large numbers of small cells are deployed, the costs become prohibitive. On the other hand, NLoS technologies are much more “plug and play” and can be set up in a short time with lower labor costs.


3.1.3. NLoS Advantages Vendors with expertise in OFDM technologies are offering OFDM-based products with proprietary optimizations for NLoS backhaul. NLoS backhaul can service the coverage area for small cell deployments by relaying information back to the central base-station that provides coverage. NLoS backhaul needs only to be placed within range of the backhaul radio unit. NLoS systems using OFDM present a level of tolerance to multipath fading and other wireless channel impairments not possible with LoS systems.

With proper design, NLoS solutions can provide coverage for various types of small cell setups; however, the 100 Mbps capacity limit, higher latency, and latency variability of these solutions limit their ability to aggregate multiple sites. As a result, an upper limit exists to how many small cells can be blanketed through this type of solution in order to ensure that each covered cell receives a certain QoS and has a minimum capacity per link.

The main advantage of NLoS technology is that a single NLoS base-station can provide coverage for multiple small cells within the coverage area. NLoS systems also circumvent the need for an unobstructed path between the transceivers, making this technology extremely helpful for future planning and upgrades. NLoS is easier to plan and more convenient to deploy than LoS solutions.

3.1.4. NLoS Disadvantages NLoS technology has an upper limit to the amount of data that each coverage area can backhaul. OFDM-based NLoS technologies are suited to 3G networks. To illustrate, assume that an OFDM-based NLoS technology provides about 1 Gbps of backhaul data transfer. This provides coverage for approximately a dozen HSPA+ femtocells that are simultaneously transmitting at peak rates.

Supposing that the LTE peak download rates are around 300 Mbps, roughly three small cells can connect at the peak to the NLoS backhaul without causing bottleneck issues. Since LTE small cells will initially require about 100 Mbps to 150 Mbps on average, about 6 to 9 small cells can fit under this umbrella from the standpoint of bandwidth. This number is better than the initial 3, but their peak rates may not be as high as designed capacity if the cells are packed under one NLoS backhaul coverage area. The reduction in the number of small cells using 4G and accommodating for peak data transfer rates is noticeable and has to be considered when planning a 3G small cell network with a planned future 4G/LTE upgrade.

NLoS backhaul solutions also limit spectrum; in certain areas, frequency planning would have to be coordinated to avoid producing too much interference. Additionally, if the solutions use unlicensed frequencies, they would need to be coordinated to avoid interference with other cell sites utilizing the same spectrum bands. Given the current rate of growth for data usage, every bit of useable spectrum that could connect a mobile user to the Internet should and will be used for this purpose. Mobile consumer and mobile user connectivity take up many of the best NLoS frequencies. Using these frequencies for backhaul could pose a problem.


3.2. Topological ConsiderationsWhen it comes to deploying their wireless backhaul links, operators have traditionally deployed Point-to-Point solutions, which have been typically LoS but Point to Multipoint is increasingly becoming a serious contender.

3.2.1. Point to MultiPoint (PMP) In a PMP arrangement, a central hub transceiver links to multiple small cells. The hub typically uses multiple sector antennas so that links can be maintained with a number of small cell terminals surrounding the hub site such that the hub transceiver bandwidth is shared with the small cell terminals. In a PMP deployment, a single access point on one side of the link is set up to cover a sector that spans 90 degrees in one direction, thus blanketing an area that can contain multiple base-stations or eNode Bs. In this topology, for every N microwave links, only N+1 radios are required, representing a CAPEX saving over point-to-point networks and also an OPEX saving, since adding an additional eNode B only requires one radio to establish the link with a consequent reduction in set-up time.

PMP technology is deployed mostly in high-density urban areas. PMP microwave links require smaller antenna sizes compared to PTP systems and reduce spectrum rental fees as the same frequency can be used for multiple links, which makes PMP links fast to deploy and cost efficient. Operators are increasingly considering deployment of PMP networks for backhaul in the heavy cellular traffic sites in their urban locations for its advantages to deploy in small cells.

3.2.2. Point to Point (PTP)In contrast, PTP topologies are typically LoS with highly directional antennas at each end of the link, and each small cell can access the full link bandwidth. PTP topologies require transceiver hardware at each side of the link. When compared to a PMP connection of “N” small cells in the backhaul access layer, a PTP array would result in double the number of transceivers for a functional small cell site (i.e., two N transceivers per link). PTP connections would be expensive for this setup, requiring two transceivers for each link, possibly increasing the cost of a backhaul link, but offering higher bandwidth to the small cell. Since each link requires its own antenna at each end, the point of presence (PoP) site can soon become overcrowded with many antennas. Figure 1 below compares the PTP and PMP topologies and illustrates the differences in the number of radios required in each case. FIGURE 3-1: PMP AND PTP BACKHAUL TOPOLOGIES COMPARED FOUR-CELL SMALL CELL NETWORK



PMP Topology PTP Topology

Requires 1 Hub and 4 remote radios or N+1 radios

Hub transceiver Remote radio PTP radio

Requires 8 (or 2N) radios

Hub and remotes may be NLOS (Each link is LOS)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1-10 GHz 11-20 GHz 21-30 GHz 31-40 GHz 41-50 GHz 51-60 GHz 61-70 GHz 71-80 GHz 81-90 GHz 91-100 GHz

Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa



Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n


Characteristics Sub-6 GHz Sub-6 GHz Microwave V-band E-band Satellite Unlicensed Licensed (6-42 GHz) (60 GHz) (70/80 GHz)

Carrier Frequency

Capacity

Latency

Range (Km)

Topology

Installation

2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz

150 to 450 Mbps

~10 ms

250m max

NLoS

PMP

below 6 GHz

170 Mbps (20 MHz TDD)

5 ms/hop

<50

NLoS

PMP

6 to 56 GHz

1 Gbps+

<1 ms/hop

5~30,++

LoS

PMP, PTP

56 to 64 GHz

7 Gbps+

<200 us max., 40 to 50 µs typ./ hop

<1

LoS

PTP

70 to 80 GHz

10 Gbps+

65 to 350 µs/hop

~3

LoS

PTP

4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20 to 30 GHz

2 to 10 Mbps down/ 1 to 2 Mbps up

300 ms

Ubiquitous

Universal

PMP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa


3.3. Total Cost of Ownership Backhaul ConsiderationsUsing these two arrangements as building blocks, combinations can be used to create more complex arrangements. In chain or tree arrangements, PTP links are interconnected in a “daisy chain” with traffic combined with each successive small cell as the link nears the aggregation PoP. The daisy-chain topology is used in PTP layouts to extend a branch and increase the distance from a base-station to a PoP. Since small cell architectures provide coverage in closely spaced locations, a daisy chain could connect multiple small cells to an egress point.

Because a daisy chain requires multiple backhaul elements to connect a small cell, this would be economically viable only in certain use case scenarios. To keep costs down, small cells need to reduce backhaul costs as much as possible. If setting up an outdoor picocell requires a three-hop microwave daisy chain to provide backhaul, the backhaul equipment will probably be just as expensive, or even more so, as the small cell itself. Daisy chains would be more useful to microcell base-stations. The cost of anything smaller than a microcell base-station would not justify the use of this setup.

The capacity of this type of backhaul must be properly dimensioned to take into account the number of downstream cells, which must be supported, perhaps even, as in the case of ring network arrangements, by providing redundant links to ensure resistance to link outages.

3.3.1. Ring NetworkA ring topology, as the name suggests, are built from a chain of PTP links that circles back on itself. One of the disadvantages of a ring is that it takes many radio hops to reach a distant small cell, which adversely affects latency. Increasing the ring capacity for increased demand can be expensive since each node must receive similar upgrades. One way to increase ring capacity is to interconnect each node so the ring becomes a mesh network.

3.3.2. Mesh NetworkIn a mesh network, the close proximity of neighboring cells allows them to interconnect and create a tightly knit and resilient network since there are many redundant links that provide multiple paths between the nodes.

Wi-Fi networks can be set up for mobile backhaul and operate in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands. The 2.4 GHz band is highly congested when compared to the 5 GHz band, which has a shorter range. In a Wi-Fi mesh, access points are connected wirelessly and exchange data traffic with each other and a gateway point, replacing costly cable runs for backhaul and reducing total CAPEX.

Currently, Wi-Fi has a mesh protocol layer that can be set up for mesh networking. Since the mesh uses the Wi-Fi protocol standards, it could be deployed only in Wi-Fi-designated frequencies (currently 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz). In addition, many outdoor Wi-Fi access points already support this, or could, through a slight modification or addition to the unit.

Due to the congestion in the 2.4 GHz spectrum from Wi-Fi devices and wireless routers, Wi-Fi is not often a choice for backhaul technology. A limitation is that a Wi-Fi mesh backhaul could prove insufficient for 4G technologies due to high bandwidth requirements; however, with the advent of the IEEE 802.11ac standard, ABI Research expects this limitation will disappear.


In-band mesh networks use the licensed frequencies of the 2G, 3G, or 4G/LTE RAN. Many MNOs do not consider in-band backhaul very favorably because it cannibalizes expensive licensed spectrum, resulting in loss of capacity in dense urban and metropolitan areas, a situation the small cell underlay is supposed to avoid.

In situations where a small cell network is used for coverage and not capacity, for example, on roads or freeways with very low population density (the only population density would be traffic) and very little in the way of infrastructure, in-band backhaul can be useful. In such situations, a handset in use in a vehicle travels out of range from one small cell and falls into coverage of the next small cell very rapidly. By reducing the cost of extra backhaul equipment and having an egress point to the core network after several hops, a small cell network would be less expensive than a macro network. Moreover, due to the relatively low amount of voice and data traffic in these areas, data throughput and capacity are sufficient to allocate licensed in-band backhaul spectrum for passing drivers.

3.4. Regional PMP Spectrum AvailabilityTypically, PMP often needs to operate in environments where NLoS is the norm. PMP has been deployed in the sub-6 GHz band in North America and Europe. PMP backhaul has also been deployed in the 11 GHz (Asia-Pacific) and 25 GHz to 27 GHz bands (Western Europe and Middle East). Eastern Europe has PMP spectrum allocated in multiple spectrum bands, from sub-10 GHz to 81 GHz to 90 GHz (see chart below). CHART 3-1: REGIONAL PMP BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION BY FREQUENCY RANGE WORLD MARKET

There is considerable opportunity for PMP deployment. Cambridge Broadband Networks Limited has 39 live networks around the world, in emerging markets as well as developed markets—59% of the networks are in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.








0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa



Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n



Carrier Frequency

Capacity

Latency

Range (Km)

Topology

Installation

2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz

150 to 450 Mbps

~10 ms

250m max

NLoS

PMP

below 6 GHz


5 ms/hop

<50

NLoS

PMP

6 to 56 GHz

1 Gbps+

<1 ms/hop

5~30,++

LoS

PMP, PTP

56 to 64 GHz

7 Gbps+


<1

LoS

PTP

70 to 80 GHz

10 Gbps+

65 to 350 µs/hop

~3

LoS

PTP

4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20 to 30 GHz


300 ms

Ubiquitous

Universal

PMP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa


TABLE 3-1: POINT TO MULTI-POINT MARKETS BY REGION 2014

Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Africa (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

South Africa 467815182326283842

Block Spectrum Allocation,

operators need to share the

spectrum

1 Yr PTPPTMP is used in small cells,

city area

7 GHz is reserved for long-haul high capacity interstate Links. All present microwave links below 7 GHz will be decommissioned in the very near future.

All requests for microwave transmission link frequencies may be granted. NCC will, however, reserve the right to allocate whatever frequency it deems fit to any hop as dictated by frequency co-ordination requirements in that region.

Application fee and license Fee


Source: ABI ResearchNote: Regular font indicates commercial, while Regular font indicates commercial.

Western Europe Eastern Europe Asia-Pacific North America Latin America Middle East Africa

United Kingdom Russia Malaysia United States Argentina Saudi Arabia KenyaGermany Poland Indonesia Venezuela Iraq DR CongoIreland Czech Republic Vietnam ** Peru Lebanon NigeriaBelgium Slovakia Thailand ** Uruguay GhanaItaly Ukraine Mexico South Africa Hungary Guadeloupe Cameroon Martinique Rwanda Brazil ** Zambia TanzaniaCountries support 1 or more bands in 10.5, 26 or 28 GHz Guinea Senegal Mauritania Morocco

3.5. Stakeholders AnalysisThe PMP ecosystem is not as mature as the traditional PTP marketplace. Clearly, backhaul solutions had to be very robust, with the minimum of downtime—either due to hardware failure or due to transmission interference. Nevertheless, a number of PMP vendors have gained traction in the wider mobile operator backhaul marketplace. Key PMP players include Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication Systems, Airspan, BliNQ, Bluwan, Cambium Networks, Carlson Wireless, Intracom, Proxim, Radwin, and Ruckus Wireless.

The majority of the mobile backhaul links deployed are PTP links. All countries surveyed in this report use PTP backhaul links with only a few countries that have reported the use of PMP backhaul links. Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa have reported both PTP and PMP wireless links are used for mobile backhaul links.

PMP technology operates at multiple frequencies. In Germany, frequency bands in the range 24.5 GHz to 26.5 GHz is partly allocated for PMP backhaul links. The Malaysian telecommunication regulator, MCMC, awarded license for PMP backhaul links in the 10.5 GHz band. The spectrum bands 26 GHz and 28 GHz are used for PMP in Saudi Arabia.


3.6. Potential Regulatory Considerations3.6.1. NLoS SupportFor true NLoS wireless backhaul services, the spectrum bands have to be below 6 GHz. There are “near” LoS solutions that can be added to the operator’s toolkit, but ABI Research recommends there should be sufficient support for true NLoS transmissions. This is because there are expected to be a number of small cell scenarios where it will be invaluable to the operator to be able to backhaul traffic from inaccessible small cell sites.

Spectrum bands below 3.5 GHz should be demarcated for end-user access applications and services. Some operators may choose to use “in-band” spectrum for wireless backhaul, and this is perfectly reasonable as it does not cause any interference for other spectrum stakeholders in nearby bands.

Efforts should, therefore, be focused on making available spectrum in the 4 GHz to 6 GHz bands for true NLoS wireless backhaul with channel sizes that could support data throughput over 2 to 5 Gbps. Across the 23 markets, ABI Research surveyed the 4 GHz and 6 GHz bands are in use for backhaul in a large proportion of cases. Closer inspection is recommended to see if greater coordination could be established for wider channels and consistent support across regional markets.

3.6.2. PMP SupportAt present, there is primarily support for PMP backhaul in the 10.5 GHz, 26 GHz, and 28 GHz bands. It is estimated that in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, there is approximately 2 GHz available that does support high-capacity throughput and the propagation characteristics make the spectrum band effective for mid-distance backhaul (5 Km to 10 Km).

There is interest in the PMP community to use the 60 GHz V-bands. In many markets, there has yet to be substantial traction in the 60 GHz band for PMP, but it should be an option in the operator’s toolkit for future backhaul deployment—especially small cells.


4. Spectrum Band Availability And Capacity

Along with the variety in technical backhaul solutions, operators also have a number of spectrum bands that they can establish PTP, and increasingly PMP, wireless links. Wireless backhaul spectrum exists in a number of spectrum allocations. Wireless backhaul takes place in the sub-6 GHz (licensed and unlicensed), microwave (6 to 42 GHz), V-Band (60 GHz), and E-band (70/80 GHz band). Satellite is an option for rural sites and TV White Space is being discussed as a possible option, but it does have its limitations.

4.1. Data ThroughputThe data throughput is an essential consideration for mobile telcos—even for small cells that are often deployed in dense population centers. Small cells may have a small physical coverage area of often 0.5 Km2 to 4 Km2, they could be handling large amounts of traffic from multiple customers. The data throughputs are also a function of the modulation and compression schemes implemented on the backhaul link as well as how wide the channels are. Generally, the higher the frequency band, the greater the throughput. The 60 GHz V-band can handle 7+ Gbps while the E-band can handle 10+ Gbps (see table below).

TABLE 4-1: WIRELESS BACKHAUL SPECTRUM BAND AND THROUGHPUT COMPARISON

ABI Research has conducted a survey of 33 countries around the world to investigate which spectrum bands have been allocated for wireless backhaul as well as the licensing procedures they utilize. A summary of the spectrum band utilizations can be found in the chart below. Fifty-nine percent of the wireless backhaul spectrum links were in the 1 GHz to 10 GHz and 11 GHz to 20 GHz bands. Generally speaking, state regulators are now trying to reallocate backhaul spectrum to higher bands (21 GHz and above). This is partly because the 1 GHz to 10 GHz band is already heavily congested in a number of markets, and also regulators intend to keep spectrum in the sub-4 GHz band for end-user access services.

In the case of the European Commission, they have established a Radio Spectrum Policy Group work program to “… to identify and analyze strategic spectrum issues relative to wireless backhaul for mobile networks.” A final report is expected by June 2015. Standard and regulatory bodies in other regions and countries will also need to give careful consideration to spectrum and licensing issues in relation to wireless backhaul.








0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

nWestern Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa



Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n



Carrier Frequency

Capacity

Latency

Range (Km)

Topology

Installation

2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz

150 to 450 Mbps

~10 ms

250m max

NLoS

PMP

below 6 GHz


5 ms/hop

<50

NLoS

PMP

6 to 56 GHz

1 Gbps+

<1 ms/hop

5~30,++

LoS

PMP, PTP

56 to 64 GHz

7 Gbps+


<1

LoS

PTP

70 to 80 GHz

10 Gbps+

65 to 350 µs/hop

~3

LoS

PTP

4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20 to 30 GHz


300 ms

Ubiquitous

Universal

PMP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa


CHART 6: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION BY FREQUENCY RANGE WORLD MARKET

By and large, there is sufficient spectrum in the 21 GHz to 30 GHz and 31 GHz to 42 GHz bands for mobile operators. However, momentum is starting to build in the 60 GHz to 70 GHz and 71 GHz to 80 GHz bands as they are either unlicensed or at least lightly licensed. Furthermore, due to the generous channel bandwidths, data throughput is in the 7+ Gbps to 10+ Gbps throughput, which is more than adequate for small cell and even macrocell backhaul. The fact that the 60 GHz band incurs oxygen and rain attenuation that helps to keep transmission ranges short and thereby allow spectrum reuse in other locations.

Data for the chart above came from Table 4-2, Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation, World Market on the next page. The full spectrum band allocations, along with their licensing conditions, as collected by the ABI Research Survey can be found in Table 6-2, Appendix: Backhaul Spectrum Allocation Summary.

In the following sub-sections, ABI Research will analyze which wireless backhaul spectrum bands are utilized and how are they utilized.








0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa



Sp

ectr

um

Blo

ck a

s a

% o

f R

egio

n's

Sp

ectr

um

All

oca

tio

n



Carrier Frequency

Capacity

Latency

Range (Km)

Topology

Installation

2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz

150 to 450 Mbps

~10 ms

250m max

NLoS

PMP

below 6 GHz


5 ms/hop

<50

NLoS

PMP

6 to 56 GHz

1 Gbps+

<1 ms/hop

5~30,++

LoS

PMP, PTP

56 to 64 GHz

7 Gbps+


<1

LoS

PTP

70 to 80 GHz

10 Gbps+

65 to 350 µs/hop

~3

LoS

PTP

4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20 to 30 GHz


300 ms

Ubiquitous

Universal

PMP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Asia-Pacific

North America

Latin America

Middle East

Africa


TABLE 4-2: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION WORLD MARKET


Western Eastern Asia-Pacific North South Middle Africa Europe Europe America America East

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333637383940414243565764707175768081869295

Freq

uenc

y (G

Hz)

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Croa

tia

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Hung

ary

Pola

nd

Aust

ralia

Indi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Japa

n

Mal

aysi

a

New

Zea

land

Sing

apor

e

Cana

da

Unite

d St

ates

Arge

ntin

a

Braz

il

Mex

ico

Urug

uay

Vene

zuel

a

Saud

i Ara

bia

UAE

Nige

ria

Sout

h Af

rica


4.2. Sub-6 GHz4.2.1. UnlicensedIn the sub-6 GHz unlicensed category, there are small cell mobile backhaul solutions that operate in the 2.4 GHz or 5.x GHz unlicensed bands. The 2.4 GHz band is highly congested when compared to the 5.x GHz band, which has a shorter range and a large spectrum block. The close proximity of Wi-Fi access points, as an example, permits them to be interconnected in a Wi-Fi mesh to exchange data traffic with each other and a gateway point, replacing costly cable runs for backhaul and reducing total operator CAPEX.

Wi-Fi, however, is not the only solution available for unlicensed operation in the sub-6 GHz bands, with several vendors implementing proprietary modulation schemes for interference mitigation and performance advantages.

While unlicensed spectrum is essentially “free” to the user, the spectrum comes with a drawback in that it is by definition regulated by rules (technical limitation) and subject to adjacent and co-channel interference. In some very limited situations, ISM bands have been used wireless backhaul, which raises the possibility that backhaul may interfere with Wi-Fi access and vice versa. However, due to the limitation associated to the licensing regime, such approach will remain extremely limited and is not the priority for future wireless backhauling deployment.

4.2.2. 4 GHz to 9 GHz Case ExamplesSpectrums in the 4 GHz to 9 GHz band range are commonly used as backhaul links in many countries across different regions except Japan, which has not allocated spectrum in the 4 GHz to 9 GHz range for wireless backhaul (see table below).

Spectrum in the 4 GHz to 9 GHz bands has been traditionally a good fit for wireless backhaul. Spectrum below 6 GHz can be effectively used for NLoS. However, the 4 GHz to 9 GHz bands also house unlicensed spectrum in the 5.8 GHz bands. The unlicensed 5.8 GHz band is being used by mobile carriers for backhaul, especially in emerging markets such as Brazil, but the unlicensed ISM nature of the band has meant there are increasing numbers of Wi-Fi access points and client devices that are contributing to the “noise floor” of the band. As the growth of personal and commercial 802.11n access points and hotspots has grown, along with smartphones, tablets, and ultrabooks, the reliability of the unlicensed 5.8 GHz band will reduce the reliability of the band for mobile operator backhaul links.

Regulators have been reporting that the 4 GHz to 9 GHz bands are becoming increasingly congested. A number of countries, such as Denmark, have reported that the 7 GHz band is one of the most crowded bands in the country. The bands will remain popular with telcos because of the Non-line of Sight or at least “near” Line of Sight capabilities of the sub-6 GHz bands. More needs to be done to manage and coordinate spectrum use in the sub-9 GHz bands for NLoS PMP and also PTP backhaul links. It is not just developed markets such as Germany and Singapore that have widely encouraged the use of PMP in the sub-7 GHz bands but also South Africa, which is using the 4 GHz, 6 GHz, 7 GHz and 8 GHz bands for small cell PMP backhaul.


TABLE 4-5: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, 3-9 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY REGION


Western Europe Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Denmark 7

France 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.1125 8.025-8.5

Germany 3.8-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.425 7.425-7.725

Italy 3.800-4.200 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.750

United Kingdom 7.425-7.725

Eastern Europe Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Croatia 3.8 6 7 8

Czech Republic 4 6 7

Poland 6 7 8

Hungary 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125

North America Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Canada 3.7-4.2 5.295-6.425 6.425-6.930 7.125-7.25 7.3-7.25 7.725-8.275

United States 3.7-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-6.7 6.7-6.875

Latin America Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Argentina 7.11-7.9 7.425-7.725 8.2-8.5

Brazil 5.9-6.4 6.4-7.1 7.4-7.8 7.7-8.3 8.2-8.5

Mexico 7.425-7.725

Uruguay 6 7 8

Venezuela 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.85-6.425 7.425-7.725

Middle East Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Saudi Arabia 7

UAE 6

Africa Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Nigeria 6 7 8

South Africa 4 6 7 8

Asia-Pacific Backhaul BandCountry (GHz)

Australia 3.58-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.11 7.725-8.275

India 6

7

Indonesia 4.4-5 6.425-7.11 7.125-7.425 7.425-7.725 7.725-8.275 8.275-8.5

Japan --

Malaysia --

New Zealand 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.925-6.42 6.42-7.1

Singapore 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.725 7.725-8.5

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

4003002502001501008060504030252015

0.81.02501.52.03.04.05.06.08.010.0251520

100.0010.0020.004

0.010.020.04

10.20.4

124

102040

100 30

Att

enua

tio

n (d

B/k

m)

Wavelength (mm)

Frequency (GHz)


4.2.2.1. Stakeholder AnalysisIn the sub-6 GHz band, there are six vendors providing licensed and unlicensed solutions: Cambium Networks, Ceragon, DragonWave, Fastback Networks, Proxim, and Radwin. Two provide solely licensed backhaul solutions: Airspan and BLiNQ Networks. Uniquely, Ericsson only provides an unlicensed sub-6 GHz solution.

For the sub-6 GHz bands, vendor support demonstrates a high level of competition, although many of them are specialized vendors that tend to specialize in carrier-grade Wi-Fi-related solutions. The size of the antennas/wave-guides can take up a sizable footprint at the cell site. The sub-6 GHz band does have other non-mobile cellular backhaul stakeholders. In Europe, some countries use the 4 GHz band for coordinating with receiving satellite earth stations, which may constrain use in certain locations. Both the lower and upper 6 GHz bands may have to be shared with satellite uplinks.

4.3. Microwave Spectrum in 10 GHz to 42 GHz RangeMicrowave is a mature technology and has been used for many years to backhaul traditional cell site macrocells, and it was designed for carrier-grade LoS operation over long distances. This LoS technology is suitable for connecting rooftop microcells, rather than a dense cluster of outdoor picocells and femtocells. It is, however, a very well understood and commonly used backhaul technology, which renders it attractive as an option for small cell backhaul.

Equipment operating in these bands is now being designed to be compatible with small cell backhaul by reducing the power requirements, since small cell links are much shorter and require a compact form factor with an integrated antenna, which can lower cost. ABI Research believes microwave plays an important role in small cell backhaul now and in the future. Since link capacity is a function of channel size and spectral efficiency, it is the subject of considerable innovation and optimization by the vendor community.

4.3.1. 10 GHz to 18 GHz Case ExamplesSpectrum bands within 10 GHz to 18 GHz are generally used for medium-haul systems. This spectrum range is commonly used in a large number of countries as backhaul links. The exceptions are countries such as New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia (see table below).





Denmark 12 15 18

France 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 17.7

Germany 12.75-13.25 14.5-15.35 17.7

Italy 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.5-15.35 17.7-19.7


Croatia 11 13 14 18

Czech Republic 10 11 13 15 18

Poland 11 13 15 18

Hungary 10.7-11.7


Canada 10.55-10.68 10.7-11.2 11.2-11.7 12.7-13.25 14.5-15.35 14.975-15.35 17.8-18.3

United States 10.55-10.6 10.6-10.68 10.7-11.7 38.6-40


Argentina 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7

Brazil 10.7-11.7 14.5-15.4 17.7

Mexico 14.4-15.35

Uruguay 13 15

Venezuela 10-10.68 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7


Saudi Arabia 11 13 15 18UAE --


Nigeria 11 13 15 18South Africa --


Australia 10.7-11.7 14.5-15.35 21.2-23.6

India 13 15 18

Indonesia 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7

Japan 17.85-17.97 18.6-19.72

Malaysia 10.15-10.3 10.5-10.65 13.75-14.4 15.7-16.6

New Zealand --

Singapore 10.5-10.68 10.7-11.7 12.2-12.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7

Source: Ofcom

70605040300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dis

tanc

e (K

m)

Frequency (GHz)

Frequency ReuseRange

Working Range


Spectrum in the 10 GHz to 18 GHz range is used for a combination of PTP and PMP backhaul links. The 10 GHz to 12 GHz and the 15 GHz to 18 GHz bands are used for PMP in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

There is a degree of congestion being experienced in a number of the 10 GHz to 18 GHz bands. The 12 GHz, 15 GHz, and 18 GHz bands are heavily congested in Denmark. Similarly Germany and Italy reported heavy duty use in the 12.75-13.25, 14.5-15.35, and 17.7-19.7 GHz bands. As can be seen in Chart 4-2, Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation by Frequency Range, the 10 GHz to 18 GHz bands had the largest allocation of spectrum bands available for wireless backhaul (29.4%) although the 1 GHz to 10 GHz spectrum is also very heavily used with 28.6%. Mature microwave solutions and reasonably good propagation characteristics that support PTP and PMP applications have made it a popular spectrum category for wireless backhaul. There is, however, a need to relieve some of that congestion using very high microwave and even millimeter spectrum bands.

4.3.2. 20 GHz to 42 GHz Case ExamplesIn a number of regions, spectrum bands above 20 GHz are used as backhaul links since higher frequency bands allow higher bandwidth. As congestion has built up in the 1 GHz to 10 GHz and 11 GHz to 20 GHz bands, a number of countries in developed markets have taken steps to make available the 20 GHz to 42 GHz bands. A number of countries in Western Europe have allocated substantial amounts of spectrum in the 20 GHz to 42 GHz for backhaul links compared to other regions. Countries in Asia-Pacific allocate more commonly in the spectrum range between 20 GHz and 30 GHz (see table below).





Denmark 23, 26 32, 36, 38

France 19.7 22-23.6 25.053-25-431 26.061-26.439 31.871-32.543 32.683-33.355 37.268-38.22 38.528-39.48

Germany 19.7 22-23.6 24.5-26.5 27.5-29.5 31.8-33.4 37-39.5 40.5-43.5

Italy PTP: 23, 26, 28, 38 and 42 PMP: 24.5-26.5; 27.5-29.5

United Kingdom 20 22-22.6 22.6-23 24.5-26.5 27.5-29.5 31.8-33.4 37-39.5 40.5-43.5


Croatia 23 38

Czech Republic 23 26 28.2205-28.4445 29.2285-29.4525 31 32 38

Poland 23 26 32 38

Hungary 24.5-26.5 37-39.5


Canada 3.7-4.2 5.295-6.425 6.425-6.930 7.125-7.25 7.3-7.25 7.725-8.275

United States 3.7-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-6.7 6.7-6.875


Argentina 7.11-7.9 7.425-7.725 8.2-8.5

Brazil 5.9-6.4 6.4-7.1 7.4-7.8 7.7-8.3 8.2-8.5

Mexico 7.425-7.725

Uruguay 6 7 8

Venezuela 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.85-6.425 7.425-7.725


Saudi Arabia 7

UAE 6


Nigeria 6 7 8South Africa 4 6 7 8


Australia 3.58-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.11 7.725-8.275

India 6 7

Indonesia 4.4-5 6.425-7.11 7.125-7.425 7.425-7.725 7.725-8.275 8.275-8.5

Japan --

Malaysia --

New Zealand 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.925-6.42 6.42-7.1

Singapore 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.725 7.725-8.5


PMP applications have gained significant footholds in the higher 20 GHz bands, especially the 26 GHz to 29 GHz bands. In the United States, the 31 GHz to 32 GHz bands were also dedicated to local multipoint distribution service (LMDS), a digital TV broadcast service (aka wireless cable). LMDS had a modicum of success in the United States and to a lesser degree in Europe, but was ultimately overtaken by cable, IPTV over copper and/or fiber-optic) and satellite. The LMDS spectrum bands were then re-allocated for wireless backhaul for mobile cellular networks. PMP architectures can be found in Germany, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.

Most regulators reported that there are ample amounts of spectrum available. The spectrum bands are LoS but have the available spectrum to support PMP deployment scenarios. Multiple links can be set up with a single node. Propagation characteristics are lower than the 10 GHz to 18 GHz band but still attractive for traditional microwave backhaul applications. Ironically it is the E-band and V-bands (60+ GHz) that are drawing the interest of vendors and operators because of signal absorption at 60 GHz due to oxygen absorption. This dampening of the signal helps to curtail transmission distance and lends itself to small cell site deployment scenarios.

4.3.3. Stakeholder AnalysisThe 10 GHz to 42 GHz microwave range represents the core spectrum bands used for wireless backhaul, both in PTP and PMP configurations. LoS is invariably required because the signal does a poor job of penetrating physical structures. However, some vendors are experimenting with near line-of-sight (nLoS) solutions where transmissions may be bounced off buildings. Thirteen vendors are able to address backhaul solutions in the 10 GHz to 42 GHz band. These include Alcatel-Lucent, Aviat Networks, Bluwan, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication Systems, DragonWave, Ericsson, Huawei, Intracom, NEC, Siklu Communication, Sub10 Systems, and Vubiq Networks.

At present, the 10 GHz to 42 GHz band may be the most popular with operators for their current wireless backhaul needs. It also incurs very substantial competition, with Ericsson, NEC, Huawei, and DragonWave controlling a significant proportion of the shipment volume.

4.3.3.1. 10 GHz BandIn the past, the 10 GHz bands have been used for fixed wireless access voice and data links, but in a number of countries, the licenses have been taken back and the spectrum repurposed. The band, and those nearby, has also been allocated to military and government purposes (including radar), but as those stakeholders have upgraded their communications hardware, they have been able release spectrum back to the commercial sector.

At present the upper part of the 10 GHz band, (the 10.7 to 11.7 GHz band) has been allocated for backhaul in a number of countries reviewed as part of the ABI Research survey: USA; Canada; Brazil; Croatia; Hungary; Poland; Argentina; Czech Republic; Australia; Singapore; Indonesia; Venezuela; Saudi Arabia; Poland; and France.

There is interest in allocating the lower 10 GHz band for backhaul on a light licensed basis. Equipment vendors such as Mimosa are attempting to lobby the FCC in the United States to free up the 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz band. From the countries that ABI Research surveyed, only Malaysia and Venezuela, have issued backhaul spectrum in the lower 10 GHz band (10.15-10.3 and 10-10.68 GHz respectively). Supporting arguments in favor of the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz cite the relatively uncongested state of the band. In some counties the band has amateur radios and some government applications such as radar. Vendors such as Mimosa advocate that link planning spectrum databases can be used to avoid government sites. The use of the 10 GHz band could help to free up congested wireless backhaul spectrum bands below 10 GHz and it is more resistant to rain fade signal attenuation than higher bands.


4.4. Millimeter Wave V-band (60 GHz) and E-band (70/80 GHz) BandsThe millimeter wave (MMW) bands include the unlicensed 60 GHz band and the licensed/lightly licensed 70/80 GHz E-band. These frequencies are compelling for small cell backhaul because little congestion occurs in these bands, and they are very compatible with short small cell ranges, thanks to their high frequencies.

4.4.1. Deployment Considerations MMW backhaul uses a very narrow beam width, which reduces interference between links in close proximity. The high frequencies also translate into smaller, more compact antennas and help meet the zero footprint requirements of small cell backhaul. Also, the typical full duplex bandwidth capacity seen for 60 GHz bands is between 0.5 Gbps and 1 Gbps, while in the 70 GHz to 80 GHz E-band, it can reach up to 2 Gbps. The 70/80 GHz bands also have the advantage of longer transmission distances (~3 Km versus <1 Km) because its signal is not absorbed by oxygen atoms to same degree as the 60 GHz band (see Figure below). Of course, a disadvantage for MMW is that it requires LoS, and this limits flexibility when planning small cell placement.

FIGURE 4-2: OXYGEN AND RAIN ABSORPTION VERSUS TRANSMISSION

Small cell backhaul bandwidth today may require 100 Mbps, and if the small cells are interconnected in a daisy-chain, the backhaul band width may need to reach 200 Mbps or more. With LTE and LTE-Advanced small cells and the requirement for simultaneous 3G/LTE/Wi-Fi support, this backhaul bandwidth could easily reach peak rates of 1 Gbps, now well within the capability of a 60 GHz to 70/80 GHz link with a 7 Gbps channel. As MNOs densify their RANs, capacity requirements increase and transmission ranges decrease, making millimeter link an attractive proposition for small cell backhaul, since the propagation characteristics of the link can be used to improve its reliability where range is not a prime factor (see Figure below).

The highly directional beam in a millimeter link transmits data between two transceivers and transports it in a straight line with little or no fading or multipath radio interference. This is a highly efficient use of spectrum because multiple microwave transceivers can function within a few feet of each other and reuse the frequency band for transmitting separate data streams.



Denmark 7

France 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.1125 8.025-8.5

Germany 3.8-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.425 7.425-7.725

Italy 3.800-4.200 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.750

United Kingdom 7.425-7.725


Croatia 3.8 6 7 8

Czech Republic 4 6 7

Poland 6 7 8

Hungary 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125


Canada 3.7-4.2 5.295-6.425 6.425-6.930 7.125-7.25 7.3-7.25 7.725-8.275

United States 3.7-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-6.7 6.7-6.875


Argentina 7.11-7.9 7.425-7.725 8.2-8.5

Brazil 5.9-6.4 6.4-7.1 7.4-7.8 7.7-8.3 8.2-8.5

Mexico 7.425-7.725

Uruguay 6 7 8

Venezuela 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.85-6.425 7.425-7.725


Saudi Arabia 7

UAE 6


Nigeria 6 7 8

South Africa 4 6 7 8


Australia 3.58-4.2 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.11 7.725-8.275

India 6

7

Indonesia 4.4-5 6.425-7.11 7.125-7.425 7.425-7.725 7.725-8.275 8.275-8.5

Japan --

Malaysia --

New Zealand 3.6-4.2 4.4-5 5.925-6.42 6.42-7.1

Singapore 5.925-6.425 6.425-7.125 7.125-7.725 7.725-8.5

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

4003002502001501008060504030252015

0.81.02501.52.03.04.05.06.08.010.0251520

100.0010.0020.004

0.010.020.04

10.20.4

124

102040

100 30

Att

enua

tio

n (d

B/k

m)

Wavelength (mm)

Frequency (GHz)


FIGURE 4-1: POTENTIAL WORKING AND FREQUENCY REUSE RANGES OF THE MILLIMETER GHz BAND

These very high frequency backhaul links have a number of additional deployment advantages that can count in their favor:

■■ Multiple V band Radio Co-location Possible - The very narrow beams associated with 60 GHz radios enables a number of 60 GHz radios to be installed on the same rooftop or even on the same mast. Co-located radios operating in the same transmit and receive frequency ranges can be isolated from one another based on small lateral or angular separations and the use of cross-polarized antennas.

■■ Easy to Install – V band vendors state that while the beam-width is much narrower than lower frequency microwave and licensed-band radios and sub-6 GHz license-free radios, it is still wide enough to be accurately aligned by a non-expert installer. They also reassure that installations are not affected by building sway from wind nor tilt from sun-based heat expansion.

■■ Physical Security – E and V band vendors report that there is a high degree of inherent physical security with theses narrow beam LoS transmissions. In order to intercept the signal, a third party would have to locate a receiver that is lined up on the exact same trajectory, and in the immediate locale of the targeted transmitter. Furthermore, the intercepting receiver would have to be tuned to the carrier signal of the transmitting radio and be in the main beam in order to ensure reception. As a result, the presence of this third party radio would block/degrade the transmit path of the transmitting radio and therefore reveal its presence to the network manager.



Denmark 12 15 18

France 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 17.7

Germany 12.75-13.25 14.5-15.35 17.7

Italy 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.5-15.35 17.7-19.7


Croatia 11 13 14 18

Czech Republic 10 11 13 15 18

Poland 11 13 15 18

Hungary 10.7-11.7


Canada 10.55-10.68 10.7-11.2 11.2-11.7 12.7-13.25 14.5-15.35 14.975-15.35 17.8-18.3

United States 10.55-10.6 10.6-10.68 10.7-11.7 38.6-40


Argentina 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7

Brazil 10.7-11.7 14.5-15.4 17.7

Mexico 14.4-15.35

Uruguay 13 15

Venezuela 10-10.68 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7


Saudi Arabia 11 13 15 18UAE --


Nigeria 11 13 15 18South Africa --


Australia 10.7-11.7 14.5-15.35 21.2-23.6

India 13 15 18

Indonesia 10.7-11.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7

Japan 17.85-17.97 18.6-19.72

Malaysia 10.15-10.3 10.5-10.65 13.75-14.4 15.7-16.6

New Zealand --

Singapore 10.5-10.68 10.7-11.7 12.2-12.7 12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7

Source: Ofcom

70605040300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dis

tanc

e (K

m)

Frequency (GHz)

Frequency ReuseRange

Working Range


4.4.2. V Band (60 GHz)The V-band ostensibly ranges from the 40 GHz to 75 GHz band. Parts of that band of spectrum are used for millimeter wave radar and various scientific applications. The 60 GHz band has been attracting considerable interest recently. There is only 70 MHz available in the 2.4 GHz band and 500 MHz in the 5 GHz band for Wi-Fi, compared to the 7 GHz available in 60 GHz V band.

They are well suited to high-capacity, short-hop (<2 Km) communications with narrow beams. The Wi-Fi 802.11ad low power, very short range devices will operate in the 60 GHz band, potentially offering data throughputs of up to 10 Gbps.

4.4.2.1. European Commission 60 GHz Rule ChangeIn late 2013, the European Commission issued a decision, “2013/752/EU,” that made a number of amendments to a prior policy document (“2006/771/EC”). The main objective of the revised policy document is to constrain transmission power levels to ensure they do not interfere with other wireless equipment. In the case of the short-range devices operating in the 57 GHz to 66 GHz band, they are restricted to 40 dBm EIRP and 13 dBm/MHz EIRP densities. Fixed outdoor installations are excluded from complying with these restrictions. Furthermore, it will ensure that these short-range devices do not become a serious source of inference for backhaul links in the 57 GHz to 64 GHz band.

4.4.2.2. Federal Communications Commission 60 GHz Rule ChangeIn late 2013, the FCC recently voted unanimously to change the rules governing the 60 GHz unlicensed band and said that the new raised power levels would improve the use of unlicensed spectrum for high-capacity short-range outdoor backhaul, which is particularly useful for small cells.

There are several reasons why this rule change is important for small cell backhaul. In the 60 GHz band, wireless transmissions are attenuated by oxygen absorption and moisture or “rain fade,” which limits their range; also, the signal will not penetrate foliage or buildings, and thus, requires a clear LoS. At this high frequency, the antenna is a small dish that matches the small form factor of the small cell and can be installed unobtrusively outdoors.

The FCC therefore raised the power limit for outdoor links operating in the 57-64 GHz band on an unlicensed basis. The EIRP limit is raised from 40 dBm (equivalent to 10 Watts) to a maximum of 82 dBm (158,489 Watts) depending on how high the antenna gain is. The new power limit is comparable to others the FCC has in the fixed microwave services. The FCC this will support higher-capacity outdoor links, such as small cells, extending to about one mile (1.6 Km). The FCC also eliminated the need for outdoor 60 GHz devices to transmit an identifier. Indoor 60 GHz devices, (for example, based on WiGig’s 802.11ad standard) are still constrained to the much lower power limitations which prevents interference with outdoor fixed link devices.

4.4.2.3. Singapore – A Licensed 60 GHz Regulatory EnvironmentIn some countries, such as Singapore, the regulatory authorities, have opted to permit the deployment of high power 60 Hz outdoor links but within a licensed environment. In the case of Singapore, the rationale for this decision was based on the concern that Singapore represents a highly dense urban environment and the IDA felt it was prudent to control the location and deployment of 60 GHz V band high power (i.e. over 40dBm EIRP) links to ensure there is no possible interference between 60 GHz V band transceivers. No such licensing restrictions have been placed on low power 60 GHz V band devices, which are intended for indoor environments.


The IDA is aware of the unlicensed allocation of the 57 to 66 GHz bands by the European Commission and also the FCC. It is ABI Research’s view that the IDA has taken a cautionary policy outlook and is monitoring 60 GHz outdoor deployments in other developed markets and may alter its policies once more feedback from commercial information has been accrued. It is also interesting to note that the IDA is monitoring potential applications of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in the 63 to 64 GHz bands.

4.4.3. 70 GHz PlusEven higher spectrum bands are in the process of being allocated. Frequencies in the E-band (70 GHz, 80 GHz and even 90 GHz bands) are being allocated on a licensed or “lightly” licensed basis. This licensed, or indeed lightly licensed approach to backhaul spectrum allocation does give the operator a high degree of service delivery assurance that the 60 GHz unlicensed spectrum does not have. In the case of the 60 GHz band, it is the technical specifications (modulation, beam width, and network design) that must assure the backhaul link’s quality of service.

The United States was one of the first countries to rule that spectrum at 71 GHz to 76 GHz, 81 GHz to 86 GHz, and 92 GHz to 95 GHz was available for high-density fixed wireless services. From ABI Research’s survey, eight countries, including France, Germany, Malaysia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates have allocated the 80 GHz band for wireless backhaul.

It is noticeable that very few emerging markets have issued spectrum in these high millimeter bands for backhaul. This can be partly attributed to a more urgent need for small cell deployments in developed markets but also there is a concern among emerging market operators and regulators that the current generation of E-band and V-band wireless backhaul solutions is not suited to their emerging market needs.

4.4.4. 60 GHz to 100 GHz Case ExamplesFor the spectrum band above 50 GHz, North America and Western Europe have allocated substantially more >50 GHz bands for backhaul links compared to other regions. Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Asia-Pacific have started to allocate spectrum bands above 50 GHz range for backhaul links. Latin America and Africa have not yet assigned any spectrum above 50 GHz for backhaul links (see Table below).


TABLE 4-8: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, >50 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY REGION



Denmark 23, 26 32, 36, 38

France 19.7 22-23.6 25.053-25-431 26.061-26.439 31.871-32.543 32.683-33.355 37.268-38.22 38.528-39.48

Germany 19.7 22-23.6 24.5-26.5 27.5-29.5 31.8-33.4 37-39.5 40.5-43.5

Italy PTP: 23, 26, 28, 38 and 42 PMP: 24.5-26.5; 27.5-29.5

United Kingdom 20 22-22.6 22.6-23 24.5-26.5 27.5-29.5 31.8-33.4 37-39.5 40.5-43.5


Croatia 23 38

Czech Republic 23 26 28.2205-28.4445 29.2285-29.4525 31 32 38

Poland 23 26 32 38

Hungary 24.5-26.5 37-39.5


Canada 19.3-19.7 21.8-22.4 23-23.6 24.25-24.45 25.05-25.25 25.25-26.5 27.5-28.35 38.6-40

United States --


Argentina 21.2-23.6

Brazil 19.7 21.8-23.6 37-39.5

Mexico 21.2-23.6

Uruguay 24 28Venezuela 23.065-23.5 37-39.5


Saudi Arabia 23 26 28 32 38

UAE --


Nigeria 23

South Africa 23 26 28 38 42


Australia 21.2-23.6 37-39.5

India 21

Indonesia 19.7 21.2-23.6

Japan 22.21-22.5 22.5-22.55 22.55-22.6 23-23.2

Malaysia 24.25-27 27-29.5 31-31.3

New Zealand --

Singapore 19.7 21.2-23.6



Denmark --

France 71-76 81-86

Germany 55.78-57 71-86

Italy --

United Kingdom 64-66 71-76 81-86


Croatia --

Czech Republic 70 80

Poland 70 75

Hungary 71-76 81-86


Canada 71-76 81-86 92-95

United States 71-76 81-86 92-95


Brazil --

Uruguay --


Saudi Arabia --

UAE 80


Nigeria --

South Africa --


Australia --

India --

Indonesia --

Japan --

Malaysia 71-76 81-86

New Zealand --

Singapore --

4.4.5. Stakeholders AnalysisThe 60 GHz (V-band) and the 70/80 GHz (E-bands) are currently relatively sparsely used but that is expected to change over the next 5 to 10 years as small cell deployment starts to grow in number. Despite the propagation-limiting characteristics of the 60 GHz band that make it suitable for spectrum re-use in dense urban areas, vendor support for the unlicensed\lightly licensed 60 GHz band is currently limited. There are seven V-band vendors (BridgeWave Communications, DragonWave, Ericsson, NEC, Siklu Communications, Sub10 Systems, and Vubiq Networks) versus 12 E-band backhaul vendors (Aviat Networks, BridgeWave Communications, Ceragon, DragonWave, E-Band Communications, Ericsson, Huawei, LightPointe Wireless, Loea Communications, NEC, Siklu Communication, and Sub10 Systems).

ABI Research believes that the characteristics of the 70/80 GHz spectrum bands, such as short distance transmissions, the assurance of licensed spectrum (even if it is lightly licensed), as well as the wider channel sizes that permit potential 10+ Gbps throughput, are drawing interest from the hardware vendor community.

4.5. Potential Regulatory ConsiderationsFrom ABI Research, the utilization of the 60 GHz V-bands has only had limited adoption in the countries surveyed. Of the 23 countries, only Germany had backhaul links using the 60 GHz bands.

It is a promising band for backhaul services. The 60 GHz band has been set aside in a number of countries. In the United States, Canada, and Korea, 7 GHz has been put aside in the 57.05 GHz to 64 GHz range. In Europe, 7 GHz has been allocated in the 57 GHz to 66 GHz band, and Australia has set aside 3.5 GHz in the 59.40 GHz to 62.90 GHz bands.

Complementary to this, a larger proportion of the 70/80 GHz bands compared to the 60 GHz bands can be dedicated to backhaul services. Not only will LTE and LTE-Advanced contribute to the growth in traffic but high speed wireless backhaul will be needed for 5G, which should reach commercial implementation by 2020. Fiber optic cannot be deployed in all cell site scenarios. The 70/80 GHz E-band has excellent characteristics for small cell wireless backhaul (see Table 1-1), in particular short link distances allowing for spectrum re-use and very wide channel sizes to permit data throughputs of 10+ Gbps.


4.6. Future Spectrum Bands for Backhaul LinksRegulators are responding to the needs of mobile operators by releasing spectrum for backhaul in a number of bands. Generally speaking, the emphasis has been on the higher frequency bands for allocation for mobile backhaul links. During the course of the research, ABI Research came across the following country developments:

■■ Australia: The Australian telecommunication regulator ACMA anticipates that all of the bands above 7 GHz will experience a growth in demand, in particular within the bands 50 GHz, 58 GHz, 71 GHz to 76 GHz, and 81 GHz to 86 GHz. Although it is thought that there is sufficient spectrum to meet growing backhaul requirements, ACMA anticipates that in highly dense areas, demand may exceed supply in 10 years within certain frequency bands, particularly in the 7.5 GHz, 13 GHz, 15 GHz, and 22 GHz bands. ACMA routinely conducts licensing studies and seeks input from stakeholders for potential requirements for backhaul spectrum assignments.

■■ India: According to the Indian telecommunication regulator TRAI, the 15 GHz band is currently totally congested and not available for backhaul links. The Indian regulator is now considering allocation of backhaul links in the 26 GHz, 28 GHz, 42 GHz, 60 GHz, 70 GHz, and 80 GHz bands.

■■ Indonesia: The Indonesian regulator MCI is in the final process of issuing backhaul spectrum in the 2.75 GHz to 2.95 GHz, 3.18 GHz to 3.34 GHz, 3.7 GHz to 3.95 GHz, 7.1 GHz to 7.6 GHz, and 8.1 GHz to 8.6 GHz bands. Indonesia has a large landmass and a number of islands. Therefore, the operator needs spectrum bands that allow transmissions over distances of 10 to 30 Km.

■■ Malaysia: Due to the lack of cheap and high-quality fixed line infrastructure in Malaysia, the dominant backhaul solution for the operators continues to be microwave. LTE backhaul uses E-band and fiber depending on the location and capacity requirement. So far, Malaysia has more than 20,000 microwave backhaul links. Although Telekom Malaysia (TM) is deploying FTTT, fiber-optic backhaul for all LTE base-stations is often cost prohibitive. In some cell sites, TM will continue to use microwave links.

■■ Italy: The Italian regulator AGCOM is currently in the process of assigning 3.6 GHz and 3.8 GHz bands, which operators expressed interest in for LTE and small cells. Another band that might be open for backhaul in the future is 40 GHz.

■■ Germany: The German regulator is in consideration to assign new backhaul spectrum in the frequency range 92 GHz to 95 GHz.

■■ United Arab Emirates: At present, more than 70% of base-stations in the United Arab Emirates use fiber-optic backhaul. Because most cell sites are connected to fiber optic, the United Arab Emirates regulator expects that operators are less likely to apply for microwave backhaul licenses.

Strengths

■ E�ective for PTP backhaul connections

■ Spectrum can be e�ciently used

■ A tried and tested licensing model

■ Spectrum is comparatively cheap

Weaknesses

■ May have to acquire microwave link hardware with di�erent spectrum band configurations

■ Can have a heavy licensing administrative overhead

Opportunities

■ It is a fairly mature licensing model; some regulators and operators would like to move away from the licensing model where possible

Threats

■ Licenses are often very short duration but usually renewed; operator cannot be 100% certain he has the spectrum for the long-term

Strengths

■ Can be used for PTP links, but are particularly useful for PMP application scenarios

■ Gives the operator more certainty of operation

Weaknesses

■ License cost can be significantly higher than per link licensing

Opportunities

■ Could grow in use by regulators

■ They would need to see that there was substantial demand for it; this would come from small cell deployments

Threats

■ Speed of license issuing can be a hassle to roll out

■ Licensing fees need to be viable for mobile backhaul; operators already pay significant amounts in access spectrum license fees

Strengths

■ Reduced the regulatory/administrative burden on the operator

■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive

■ Still quite fast to rollout

■ Some moderate guarantees against interference

Weaknesses

■ Operator needs to take proactive measures to ensure its backhaul links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users

■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to resolve the interference issue themselves

Opportunities

■ Likely to grow in use by regulators

■ Operators are keen on it, especially if there is a low probability of interference

Threats

■ Unresolved interference conflicts are a possibility, but usually the regulator can step in as a last resort

Strengths

■ Has many of the same traits as lightly licensed



■ Still quite fast to roll out

Weaknesses

■ Less of a guarantee of no interference



Opportunities

■ Regulators are investigating the potential of shared licensing

Threats


■ Operators have some concerns about assured delivery of service






5. Evaluating wireless spectrum backhaul licensing procedures

Wireless backhaul national licensing procedures are almost as diverse as the spectrum bands they manage. Wireless backhaul national licensing procedures have evolved in response to local conditions. What are the different wireless spectrum backhaul licensing approaches? What are their relative merits?

5.1. Types of Licensing ProceduresThere are effectively five licensing models:

■■ Per link

■■ Block spectrum

■■ Shared license

■■ Lightly licensed spectrum

■■ Unlicensed spectrum

As shown in the chart below, per link has been the most favored model to date, with 59% of countries opting for this model.

5.2. Per Link Spectrum LicensingThe per link spectrum licensing method has been the traditional way of mobile backhaul spectrum licensing. Spectrum is issued to operators upon request. Across different regions, a majority of countries issue the spectrum bands for backhaul links on a per link basis only. Some countries such as France and the United Kingdom use per link as well as block spectrum licensing methods for backhaul links frequency allocation. Per link represented 65.5% of license models in operation.

5.2.1. SWOT AnalysisPer link is effective for PTP backhaul connections. Deployments are highly localized due to directed antennas with narrow beam widths. Therefore spectrum can be reused. Regulators find that it is a model that works, even if it is not perfect. They often keep the spectrum on a very short leash with license durations typically of 1 year. This means that the spectrum is comparatively cheap. However, the operator may have to acquire microwave link hardware with different spectrum band configurations, which can impact the cost of equipment. Furthermore, the operator does not have long-term assurance that it has access to the PTP spectrum. TABLE 5-1: SWOT ANALYSIS PER LINK

Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities


Threats


Strengths



Weaknesses


Opportunities



Threats



Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities



Threats


Strengths





Weaknesses




Opportunities


Threats








5.2.2. Spectrum Band AnalysisPer link spectrum licensing was by far the most common form of wireless spectrum backhaul licensing in the markets that ABI Research surveyed. Nineteen out of twenty-two countries used this licensing model. Per link was also largely associated with PTP backhaul deployments. Per link licensing typically takes place from 18 GHz to 42 GHz, with exceptions in certain markets or PMP backhaul applications.

5.3. Block Spectrum LicensingPer block licensing has been gaining traction in the higher spectrum bands (28 GHz and higher). Regulators such as Ofcom have taken steps to minimize the administrative and financial overhead of wireless backhaul licensing. Block spectrum represented 20.7% of license models in operation.

5.3.1. SWOT AnalysisBlock spectrum licenses can be used by operators for PTP links, but they are also increasingly being used for PMP links. Block spectrum allocation does give the operator more certainty of operation. Regulators would want to see that there was substantial need by the operator for block spectrum licensing. Principally, the operator would need to demonstrate that it is planning to connect a number of macrocell sites and/or small cell sites with PMP services. Given the anticipated growth in small cells, ABI Research believes that block spectrum needs to become a more prevalent form of licensing in a number of markets. TABLE 5-2: SWOT ANALYSIS BLOCK SPECTRUM

5.3.2. Spectrum Band AnalysisPer block spectrum licensing has been primarily associated with the ex-LMDS bands of 23 GHz to 28 GHz in Europe and the 31 GHz bands in the United States. Only a handful of countries use the per block spectrum method for the majority of their backhaul needs. Italy uses the block assignment method exclusively. Allocated spectrum blocks are from bands 26 GHz and 28 GHz and are not shared. France allows block and per link allocation together in bands 23 GHz, 26 GHz, 32 GHz, 38 GHz, and 70/80 GHz. South Africa has been allocated spectrum on a per block basis in a number of bands including the 26 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, and 42 GHz bands. Operators are required to share the spectrum.

Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities


Threats


Strengths



Weaknesses


Opportunities



Threats



Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities



Threats


Strengths





Weaknesses




Opportunities


Threats








5.4. Lightly Licensed SpectrumIn a number of markets, regulators are striving to reduce the burden of regulation on operators. Where there are technical solutions to mitigate interference, there are then opportunities for implementing a “lightly licensed” approach. In a lightly licensed approach, the licensee pays a comparatively smaller fee for a non-exclusive license. The licensee then pays an additional nominal fee for each wireless backhaul link that it deploys. The operator must take measurements and perform an interference analysis to assess the probability of affecting any existing users in the vicinity. All backhaul transmitters must be identifiable in the event that they cause interference to any existing operators in the vicinity. If interference is caused between the licensees that cannot be mediated by immediate technical solution, licensees are required to resolve the dispute between them. 5.4.1. SWOT AnalysisTABLE 5-3: SWOT ANALYSIS LIGHTLY LICENSED SPECTRUM

5.4.2. Spectrum Band AnalysisA major push into light licensing has been seen in the 71 GHz to 76 GHz, 81 GHz to 86 GHz, and 92 GHz to 95 GHz bands. Regulatory implementation is still limited, with only 8 of the 22 markets surveyed by ABI Research doing so. The majority of these markets were in developed markets. ABI Research expects that more markets, both in developed and emerging markets, will adopt light licensing regimes as a means to give telcos greater flexibility with their backhaul rollout plans.

There is interest in allocating the lower 10 GHz band for backhaul on a light licensed basis. Equipment vendors such as Mimosa are attempting to lobby the FCC in the United States to free up the 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz band. From the countries that ABI Research surveyed, only Malaysia and Venezuela, have issued backhaul spectrum in the lower 10 GHz band (10.15-10.3 and 10-10.68 GHz respectively). Supporting arguments in favor of the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz cite the relatively uncongested state of the band.

Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities


Threats


Strengths



Weaknesses


Opportunities



Threats



Strengths





Weaknesses



Opportunities



Threats


Strengths





Weaknesses




Opportunities


Threats








5.5. Shared Spectrum LicensingIn many respects, the shared licensing regime is a variant of the light licensing regime. The administrative requirements are reduced, but there is also an explicit requirement to share a block of spectrum with one or more participants. In the shared spectrum licensing method, microwave backhaul frequencies are not exclusive for any operator and are to be shared with other operators on a first-come, first-served basis in a particular location. Shared spectrum licensing represented 3.4% of license models in operation. Regulators are actively reviewing shared spectrum licensing, but it may prove challenging to implement shared spectrum for backhaul due to the high quality of service requirements for backhaul.

5.5.1. SWOT AnalysisA few regulators have dabbled in issuing shared spectrum licenses where there is a primary and a secondary user, or there is a first-come, first-served policy in a given location. The first to deploy has primacy, and the second cohabiting licensee is prohibited from causing interference in that location. The incentive is to encourage effective utilization of the wireless backhaul spectrum by the operator community.

TABLE5-4: SWOT ANALYSIS SHARED SPECTRUM LICENSING

5.5.2. Spectrum Band AnalysisQuite separate from unlicensed spectrum bands where a number of participants may “share” a block of spectrum, regulated shared spectrum bands, where two or more operators explicitly share spectrum, can be found in India, Singapore, and Nigeria. Regulators are assessing assured shared spectrum licensing models. Such assured shared spectrum arrangements permit cohabitation in a given spectrum band, but rules define where, when, and how the respective participants can use the spectrum band.

Strengths

■ No licensing requirements; therefore, reduced administrative burden

■ No licensing fees to be paid

■ Fast rollout

■ Can provide temporary spectrum solutions for locations that need "immediate" spectrum coverage, e.g., an event

Weaknesses

■ Heavy reliance on topology, proximity, and technical expertise to mitigate the impact of interference

Opportunities

■ Spectrum is available in 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, and 60 GHz

Threats

■ Very real threat of loss of connection as the "noise floor" rises to mask the operator's transmissions

■ 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz do not provide long-term viable spectrum solutions



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Shared

Block Spectrum

Per Link

Spectrum Share License Duration

Unlicensed

>10 Yr

10 Yr

5 Yr

1 Yr

21%

61%

9%

9%

19%

22%

41%

19%


5.6. Unlicensed Spectrum LicensingUnlicensed spectrum can be used for backhaul links in certain circumstances. Based on the unlicensed spectrum licensing method, operators don’t need to pay a license fee. The unlicensed model has been adopted in a number of markets, but feedback has been largely negative. Complaints regarding interference from a growing number of public and private Wi-Fi access points are often at the heart of the concern.

At present, unlicensed backhaul is using the Wi-Fi spectrum bands (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands) or the much higher 60 GHz band. Unlicensed spectrum represented 10.3% of license models in operation.

5.6.1. SWOT AnalysisHistorically, operators have been leery of unlicensed spectrum, especially as it relates to the Wi-Fi bands. In a world where operators need assured data throughput, low latency, and versatile capacity, utilizing 2.4 GHz and even 5 GHz unlicensed spectrum is often the plan of last resort. However, the allocation of spectrum in the high 50s GHz/60s GHz bands is serving to redeem the unlicensed model. A “zero” administrative model is to be welcomed by the regulators. Technical solutions to mitigate interference as well as an open dialog between operators to address sources of interference are essential. A first-come, first-served policy in terms of siting backhaul links is at the heart of what makes the model work. TABLE 5-5: SWOT ANALYSIS UNLICENSED SPECTRUM

5.6.2. Spectrum Band AnalysisUnlicensed wireless backhaul has proved to be an anathema to most operators. Higher data throughputs and lower latencies are becoming pressing requirements for mobile operator as their 3G and 4G subscriptions and traffic grow. This attitude should start to change as unlicensed V-band (60 GHz) solutions gain commercial traction in the market and cost of equipment drops. Significant amounts of spectrum are available (7 GHz of license-exempt spectrum is available in the 57 GHz to 64 GHz band), and the short propagation distances should also help to mitigate against interference. The FCC and the European Commission have taken a proactive approach to the 60 GHz V-Band and have recommended a license exempt approach to the active use of the 57 to 64 GHz band. In the late 2013/early 2014 timeframe, both regulatory authorities have tightened up the power transmit allowances for short range, largely indoor applications (<40 dB EIRP) and outdoor, high power V band transceivers

Strengths

■ No licensing requirements; therefore, reduced administrative burden

■ No licensing fees to be paid

■ Fast rollout

■ Can provide temporary spectrum solutions for locations that need "immediate" spectrum coverage, e.g., an event

Weaknesses

■ Heavy reliance on topology, proximity, and technical expertise to mitigate the impact of interference

Opportunities

■ Spectrum is available in 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, and 60 GHz

Threats

■ Very real threat of loss of connection as the "noise floor" rises to mask the operator's transmissions

■ 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz do not provide long-term viable spectrum solutions



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Shared

Block Spectrum

Per Link

Spectrum Share License Duration

Unlicensed

>10 Yr

10 Yr

5 Yr

1 Yr

21%

61%

9%

9%

19%

22%

41%

19%


intended for backhaul applications. It should be noted that some national regulators, such as the IDA, have taken a cautionary, licensed approach to the 60 GHz V band. In the case of Singapore’s IDA, it has applied experimental licensing conditions that minimize licensing fees. The IDA is more concerned about potential interference from uncontrolled deployment of high power V Band transmitters. It is ABI Research’s opinion that the IDA is monitoring the situation in other markets.

A number of operators have used the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands for wireless backhaul. These bands have been commonly used in India and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, carriers were using the bands for temporary backhaul coverage at major events, including carnivals, New Year’s Eve, and sporting events. The growth in 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz access points and client devices has had a detrimental effect on backhaul using such spectrum bands.

5.7. Quantitative Spectrum License SummaryBased on research carried out by ABI Research, the per link licensing model is predominant, with 59% of all license models deployed. This was followed up by block spectrum with almost 22% and then shared and unlicensed with an equal 9.4% (see Chart below).

CHART 7: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM LICENSE SUMMARY WORLD MARKET

In terms of license duration, ABI Research estimates that 41% of licenses are of 1-year duration, whereas 5- to 10-year license durations represented 41%. It is quite remarkable that the 1-year duration model is so prevalent. By and large, it seems that regulators have a general but unbinding principle of honoring the renewal of the 1-year license for a further term. The rationale given by regulators is that they wanted to prevent mobile operators from sitting on unused per link backhaul licenses. Generally speaking, wireless backhaul spectrum license fees in the 10 GHz and above bands have been priced well below the spectrum pricing fees of end-user access spectrum. A more detailed segmentation, by country, can be found in Table 5-6 below.




Deployment Cost




Range (Km)

Time to Deploy

License Required

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

5~30,++

Weeks

Yes

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

1~

Days


High

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

~3

Days


High

High

Aggregation & Core

Yes where available

Very High

<80

Months

No

Medium

Medium

IndoorLRAN/Access

Indoors

Very High

<15

Months

No

Low

High

Rural/ Remote only

Yes

Medium

Unlimited

Months

Yes


Country Unlicensed Per Link Block Shared 1 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr >10 Yr Spectrum

3 20 7 3 11 6 5 5

9% 61% 21% 9% 41% 22% 19% 19%

Western EuropeDenmarkFranceGermanyItalyUnited Kingdom

Eastern EuropeCroatiaCzech RepublicPoland

Asia-PacificAustraliaIndiaIndonesiaJapanMalaysiaNew ZealandSingapore

North AmericaCanadaUnited States

Latin AmericaUruguay

Middle EastSaudi ArabiaUAE

AfricaNigeriaSouth Africa

Worldwide AnalysisTotal

Spectrum Share


TABLE 5-6: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM LICENSE SUMMARY WORLD MARKET

5.8. Stakeholders AnalysisIn the context of licensing procedures and mandates, the regulators inevitably come to the fore. They outline the parameters of how a license could be secured, the terms and conditions of the license, and invariably are in charge of the overall strategic recommendation of how the wireless spectrum resources of a country should be allocated in the long-term interests of the citizens of the country. Regulators such as the FCC (United States), Ofcom (United Kingdom), the European Commission, and the iDA (Singapore) have taken additional steps to stimulate a wider process of consultation with stakeholders in the ecosystem, and indeed the community at large.


One critical aspect is to put a focus on the long-term sustainability of the industry and not just on securing the maximum tax receipts from the auction or leasing of spectrum. A number of operators and equipment vendors have expressed concern that end-user access-type spectrum valuations could be potentially applied to backhaul spectrum bands.

5.9. Potential Regulatory Considerations5.9.1. Types of Licensing ModelFrom the research interviews conducted with the operator and equipment vendor community, there is concern for the unlicensed model for backhaul. The greatest concern was for the 2.4 GHz and even the 5.x GHz bands, due to the potential interference and congestion from Wi-Fi users. As the amount of traffic continues to rise and the need to compensate by using higher order modulation schemes (e.g., from 256 QAM to 1024 QAM) grows, there is concern that ambient background transmissions from other unlicensed backhaul links could degrade the QoS for all active participants. The 60 GHz ISM V-band is a more viable solution, but operators have yet to fully embrace the 60 GHz band for their backhauling needs.

From discussions with various stakeholders in the ecosystem, per link licensing for PTP deployment in the main microwave bands is “fit for purpose” for macrocell site deployments. Interference is minimal and the first-come, first-served award of license links is reasonably efficient. In some countries, the administrative workload of preparing the PTP application could be streamlined. A light licensing model should be promoted, perhaps highlighting best practice, and could be advocated to regulators in emerging and developed markets. As the deployment of base-stations shifts from macrocells to small cells, there will be a greater need for block spectrum licensing for PMP and NLoS backhaul applications.

Given the increased investments that mobile operators will have to make in wireless backhaul, it is essential that mobile operators get “greater assurance of spectrum tenure” for their backhaul assets, even for PTP applications. From ABI Research’s own survey of the 23 countries, 40% relied on 1-year, roll-over type license agreements. ABI Research recommends that a term of 5 years be made the default timeline for PTP licenses. For PMP, per block, a 5- to 10-year license period would help to reassure the operator it can recoup its investment.

5.9.2. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul If operators were to be able to acquire more of their spectrum for wireless backhaul via per block licensing and those licenses were of longer license duration, it would also be advantageous to be able to trade spectrum with other stakeholders. This would dis-incentivize operators from sitting on unused backhaul spectrum and allow operators with a greater need for backhaul spectrum to be able to secure it. Mechanisms could be put in place to “limit” the amount of spectrum any one particular operator can secure. This is to prevent anti-competitive hoarding of spectrum.


6. Strategic recommendations and regulatory policy options

Mobile operators have a challenging time backhauling the mobile voice and data traffic from varied environments such as urban, suburban, rural, office, residential home, skyscraper, public buildings, tunnels, etc. Therefore, as the table below outlines, mobile operators need a variety of technical and spectrum frequency solutions.

TABLE 6-1: LTE MOBILE BACKHAUL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFFS WIRELESS VS. FIXED VS. SATELLITE

The “blue” highlighted cells indicate attributes that particularly benefit LTE mobile backhaul. Fiber optic does have its role to play in specific scenarios, and microwave links in the 6 GHz to 42 GHz bands have been a mainstay of wireless backhaul for macrocell sites. However, the V-band and E-bands could play a more prominent role in mobile operators’ backhaul networks. As a result, a complex evolution is going on in backhaul usage. Copper line-based backhaul is projected to drop from 15% of macrocell site usage to 10% by 2019. Fiber optic’s prevalence does grow from 10.6% to 25%, but there is still a heavy dependence on LoS microwave, NLoS OFDM, LoS millimeter wave, and even some Wi-Fi (primarily 5.8 GHz). This usage outlook reflects maturing technical solutions that will need the spectrum support from national regulators. This pressure to support backhaul solutions and spectrum for the macrocell site market is also reinforced by the need to support the backhaul connectivity for small cell deployments that are expected to reach 14 million by 2019 on a worldwide basis.

6.1. The Changing Face of Cell Site BackhaulThe macrocell microwave LTE backhaul market, while it will not grow at the same rate as small cell microwave backhaul, does show consistent growth. In 2013, the majority share of backhaul links deployed is the traditional microwave LoS. The higher bandwidth requirements of LTE are also driving a significant share of fiber and, to a lesser degree, bonded copper xDSL connections. Microwave LoS in the 6 GHz to 38 GHz bands is still a long-term viable solution for macrocell sites Data throughput can handle the LTE-supported end-user traffic profiles and transmission distances also suit macrocell site topologies.




Deployment Cost




Range (Km)

Time to Deploy

License Required

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

5~30,++

Weeks

Yes

Medium

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

1~

Days


High

Low

OutdoorLRAN/Access

Yes

High

~3

Days


High

High

Aggregation & Core

Yes where available

Very High

<80

Months

No

Medium

Medium

IndoorLRAN/Access

Indoors

Very High

<15

Months

No

Low

High

Rural/ Remote only

Yes

Medium

Unlimited

Months

Yes


Country Unlicensed Per Link Block Shared 1 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr >10 Yr Spectrum

3 20 7 3 11 6 5 5

9% 61% 21% 9% 41% 22% 19% 19%

Western EuropeDenmarkFranceGermanyItalyUnited Kingdom

Eastern EuropeCroatiaCzech RepublicPoland

Asia-PacificAustraliaIndiaIndonesiaJapanMalaysiaNew ZealandSingapore

North AmericaCanadaUnited States

Latin AmericaUruguay

Middle EastSaudi ArabiaUAE

AfricaNigeriaSouth Africa

Worldwide AnalysisTotal

Spectrum Share


LoS millimeter (60 GHz to 80 GHz) backhaul should show a marked rise in deployment by 2019, from 11% to 23.5%. Transmission distances are curtained to 1 Km to 3 Km or so but being able to support data throughput of up to 7 Gbps makes it suitable for macrocell sites in downtown locations with high levels of traffic. OFDM NLoS sub-6 GHz backhaul links could be used for macrocell sites, but deployment would be largely redundant and better suited to small cell site deployment scenarios.

CHART 6-1: LTE MACRO BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019

To address the backhaul needs of small cells, fiber optic proves too costly and logistically challenging to execute on a comprehensive scale. Microwave and millimeter wave are expected to capture 61.5% of backhaul links by 2019. What is significant is that millimeter wave usage is expected to grow from a meager 3.2% in 2013 to 24% in 2019. Licensed sub-6 GHz for NLoS is also expected to prove a viable small cell solution in 2019, representing 28%, but it will be challenged by sufficient available sub-6 GHz spectrum. Sub-6 GHz licensed technologies grow at the expense of copper and to some extent microwave. ABI Research believes that the NLoS and the low-cost characteristics of sub-6 GHz make this choice viable, particularly in high-density urban or metropolitan environments. The higher bandwidth and data rates available in the 60 GHz band means that this technology will become a popular option as links are daisy-chained and aggregated for transport back to the network core.

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2019

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber

10.6%25.0%

15.0%

10.0%

60.1%39.9%

11.0%23.5%

2.0% 1.0%

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2019

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber

49.3%37.5%

31.2%

28.0%

12.2%

2.6%

3.2%

24.0%

2.1% 7.2%


CHART 6-2: LTE SMALL BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019

6.2. Ecosystem Development and RecommendationsThere are at least 30 vendors in the wireless backhaul ecosystem. Some may argue that the ecosystem is too fragmented, but ABI Research argues that this level of competition is healthy for the current status of the backhaul market. The backhaul market has been a hotbed of innovation. This is beneficial because operators will need a wide range of fixed and wireless backhaul solutions from a larger number of manufacturers to cater to the various deployment scenarios that they need to address.

In the mainstream macrocell microwave backhaul market, the largest vendor is Ericsson with approximately 30% of the market. NEC is in second place with a strong backhaul product portfolio. Huawei, Alcatel-Lucent, and DragonWave also have strong traction in the marketplace.

Small cell site deployment represents a potential line of disruption to the incumbents. Vendors such as Tarana Wireless, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication Systems, Siklu Communication, and Vubiq Networks are providing novel solutions.

The level of competition is intense and not every vendor will remain commercially viable in the long term. A number of the smaller vendors will start to merge with larger vendors once the majority of operators have selected their primary and secondary suppliers. A small percentage of operators will opt for multi-vendor (three or more) arrangements but given that the vast majority of backhaul vendors have proprietary solutions, operators will not be able to use these backhaul solutions in a modular manner.

One particular characteristic of innovation that is shifting the potential costs of wireless backhaul manufacture is digital and signal processing. Vendors are innovating at the silicon level and bringing advanced digital and signal processing techniques to bear on the problem so link performance is maximized and interference is mitigated in complex PMP and NLoS topologies.

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2019

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber

10.6%25.0%

15.0%

10.0%

60.1%39.9%

11.0%23.5%

2.0% 1.0%

Mac

ro C

ell-

site

Bac

khau

l Usa

ge


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2019

Satellite

Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)


LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)


Copper

Fiber

49.3%37.5%

31.2%

28.0%

12.2%

2.6%

3.2%

24.0%

2.1% 7.2%


6.3. Regulatory RecommendationsA number of regulatory initiatives therefore need to be put in place.

6.3.1. Greater Support and Coordination for the Bands below 6 GHz

■■ Key Takeaway: Greater support for the sub-6 GHz bands, principally from 4 GHz to 6 GHz.

■■ For true NLoS wireless backhaul services, the spectrum bands have to be below 6 GHz. There are nLoS solutions that can be added to the operator’s toolkit, but ABI Research does recommend that there should be sufficient support for true NLoS transmissions because there are expected to be a number of small cell scenarios where it will help the operator to backhaul traffic from inaccessible small cell sites.

■■ Efforts should therefore be focused on making available spectrum in the bands below 6 GHz for true NLoS wireless backhaul with channel sizes that could support data throughput over 2 Gbps to 5 Gbps. Across the 23 markets that ABI Research surveyed, the bands below 6 GHz are in use for backhaul in a large proportion of cases. Closer inspection is recommended to see if greater coordination could be established for wider channels and consistent support across regional markets.

6.3.2. Active Promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for Wireless Backhaul

■■ Key Takeaway: More active promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for wireless backhaul in the international regulatory community.

■■ Fiber optics cannot be deployed in all cell site scenarios. The 70/80 GHz E-band has excellent characteristics for small cell wireless backhaul, in particular short link distances allowing for spectrum re-use and very wide channel sizes to permit data throughputs of 10+ Gbps. The spectrum is to be lightly licensed or licensed, which gives the mobile operator a high level of assurance over QoS. Furthermore it has better signal propagation characteristics compared to the 60 GHz.

6.3.3. Active Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for Wireless Backhaul

■■ Key Takeaway: Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for wireless backhaul in the international regulatory community.

■■ Based on ABI Research’s investigation, the utilization of the 60 GHz V-bands has only had limited adoption so far in the countries surveyed. Of the 23 countries surveyed, only Germany had backhaul links using the 60 GHz bands.

■■ It is a promising band for backhaul services and can complement the 70/80 GHz bands. The 60 GHz band has been set aside in a number of countries. In the United States, Canada, and Korea, 7 GHz has been put aside in the 57.05 GHz to 64 GHz range. In Europe, 7 GHz has been allocated in the 57 GHz to 66 GHz band, and Australia has set aside 3.5 GHz in the 59.40 GHz to 62.90 GHz bands.


6.3.4. Promotion and Support for PMP Backhaul Spectrum and Applications

■■ Key Takeaway: Active promotion and support for spectrum needed for PMP backhaul applications, with the associated need for per block licensing in the 10 GHz, 26/28 GHz, and future 60 GHz bands. Mesh, daisy-chain routing technologies are at the heart of PMP. PMP is an attractive technology because it helps to route backhaul through the concrete and glass landscape that can block or deflect microwave and millimeter wave transmissions.

■■ At present, there is PMP spectrum support mainly in the 10.5 GHz, 26 GHz, and 28 GHz bands. It is estimated that in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, there is approximately 2 GHz available that supports high capacity throughput, and the propagation characteristics make the spectrum band effective for mid-distance backhaul (5 to 10 +/- Km).

■■ There is interest in the PMP community to use the 60 GHz V-bands. In many markets, there has yet to be substantial traction in the 60 GHz band for PMP, but it should an option in the operator’s toolkit for future backhaul deployment, especially small cells.

6.3.5. Align Microwave Bands in the Mainstream 10 GHz to 42 GHz Microwave Bands

■■ Key Takeaway: The main microwave bands are not going away and will remain the workhorse of the backhaul industry. Over time, there is likely to be greater support for PMP to make microwave more versatile. The 10 GHz to 42 GHz bands are generally deemed to have sufficient spectrum, but more effort is needed to align similar microwave bands in more markets, particularly at the regional level. This would have the benefit of bringing down the cost of equipment. It is not a critical measure, more of a “constructive measure” that would benefit the whole backhaul industry.

■■ Potential bands that have secured a degree of regional support include the 6 GHz, 7 GHz, 8 GHz, 11 GHz, 13 GHz, 18 GHz, 23 GHz, 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, and 40 GHz. Refining the list would require additional study.

6.3.6. Promote and Coordinate the Lower 10 GHz Band as an Light Licensed Band

■■ Key Takeaway: There is interest in the lower 10 GHz (10.0 to 10.5 GHz) band being made a light licensed band. In a number of markets, the upper 10 GHz (10.7 to 11.7 GHz) has been licensed in a large number of countries surveyed but the lower 10 GHz band has only been licensed in a small number of countries and yet the spectrum band is comparatively uncongested as it is partially used for amateur radio and radar. A database of government sites can be used to prevent interference.

■■ The 10 GHz band could help to address the spectrum needs of emerging market operators. A number of emerging market operators have expressed concern that while the E and V Bands (60 through to 70/80 GHz) provide a very high-capacity backhaul solution, they are also a high-cost solution. Emerging market operators have argued that they need low-cost 100 Mbps solution that have transmission ranges in the 10 to 20 Km. Many of the sub-9 GHz bands, including the 5.8 GHz unlicensed band, are already experiencing congestion. Vendors such as Mimosa are currently lobbying the US’s FCC to make the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz bands available for backhaul.


6.4. Evolution in Licensing Model

■■ Key Takeaway: From the research interviews conducted with the operator and equipment vendor community, there is concern about the unlicensed model for backhaul. The greatest concern was for the 2.4 GHz and even the 5.x GHz bands, due to the very real possibility of interference and congestion from public and private Wi-Fi users. A number of operators cited situations where they had deployed ISM band backhaul links, only to experience high levels of interference. Indeed many operators referred to sub-6 GHz unlicensed backhaul as the “backhaul solution of last resort.”

■■ The 60 GHz unlicensed V-band is a more viable solution, but operators have yet to fully embrace the 60 GHz band for their backhauling needs because they have concerns about interference and QoS assurance in the mid- to long term. Strong growth is expected in 802.11ad Wi-Fi devices over the next 5 to 10 years, which has already been allocated the 60 GHz band.

■■ From discussions with various stakeholders in the ecosystem, per link licensing for PTP deployment in the main microwave bands is “fit for purpose” for macrocell site deployments. Interference is minimal and the first-come, first-served award of license links is reasonably efficient. In some countries, the administrative workload of preparing the PTP application could be streamlined. A light licensing model should be promoted, perhaps highlighting best practice, and this could be advocated to regulators in emerging and developed markets.

■■ As the deployment of base-stations shifts from macrocells to small cells, there will be a greater need for block spectrum licensing for PMP and NLoS backhaul applications.

■■ Given the increased investments that mobile operators will have to make in wireless backhaul, it is essential that mobile operators get “greater assurance of spectrum tenure” for their backhaul assets, even for PTP applications. From ABI Research’s own survey of 23 countries, 40% relied on 1-year, roll-over type license agreements. ABI Research recommends that a term of 5 years be made the default timeline for PTP licenses. For PMP per block licenses, a 5- to 10-year license period would help to reassure operators that they can recoup their investment.

6.4.1. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul

■■ Key Takeaway: If there is to be a larger amount of per block licensing and longer license duration, it would also be advantageous to be able to dispose, and acquire, spectrum from other stakeholders. This would dis-incentivize operators from sitting on unused backhaul spectrum and allow operators with a greater need for backhaul spectrum to be able to secure it. Mechanisms could be put in place to limit the amount of spectrum any one particular operator can secure to prevent anti-competitive hoarding of spectrum.


Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Western Europe (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Denmark 712151823263238

Per Link 15 Yr PTP No plans to change the licensing procedures at the moment

Most crowded bands are 7 GHz, 12 GHz, 15 GHz, 18 GHz, and 23 GHz bands.

Fees depend on frequency band and bandwidth. The lower frequency and the higher bandwidth the higher price. Regional licenses are issued in 18 GHz band and higher frequency band (18 GHz, 23 GHz … ).



Germany 3.8-4.25.925-6.4256.425-7.1257.125-7.4257.425-7.72512.75-13.2514.5-15.3517.7-19.722-23.6

24.5-26.527.5-29.531.8-33.437-39.5

40.5-43.555.78-57

71-86

Per Link 10 Yr PTPPTMP

92-95 Apply License fee and annual frequency usage fee. Prices are calculated based on frequency band and bandwidth. (e.g. <28 MHz: EUR100 to 300, 14 MHz channel at 7.2 band: EUR680, 28 MHz, and 56 MHz channels cost about EUR1,500 for frequency bands (0.4-7.5 GHz), and are cheaper at higher frequencies: fees between EUR300-1,088, 80 GHz costs EUR1,100-1,500)

10 Yr



France 5.925-6.4256.425-7.1125

8.025-8.510.7-11.7

12.75-13.2517.7-19.722-23.6

25.053-25-43126.061-26.43931.871-32.54332.683-33.35537.268-38.2238.528-39.48

71-7681-86

Per LinkBlock Spectrum

Licensing

(Both per link and block spectrum

licensing is issued in France)


7. Appendix: Backhaul Spectrum Allocation Summary Analysis

TABLE 7-1: APPENDIX: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION SUMMARY COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY REGION



Italy 3.800-4.2005.925-6.4256.425-7.1257.125-7.750

10.7-11.712.75-13.2514.5-15.3517.7-19.722-23.6

24.5-26.527.5-29.531.8-33.437-39.5

40.5-43.555.78-59

64-6671-7681-86

BlockPer Link

Light Licensing: Light licensed bands include

5.8 GHz, 65, 75, and 85 GHz

bands.

Potential for shared access of spectrum at 3.6-4.2 GHz for wireless broadband use and NLoS small cell backhaul. Potential use of spectrum at 55-100 GHz for fixed wireless services for mobile backhaul. The dominant use of these spectrum bands today is for the provision of backhaul within mobile networks, accounting for more than 80% of the current fixed link license base.

In light-licensing the users of a band are awarded non-exclusive license which are typically available to all and are either free or only have a nominal fee attached to them.



United Kingdom

7.425-7.72512.75-13.25

17.7-19.720

22-22.622.6-23

24.5-26.527.5-29.531.8-33.437-39.5

40.5-43.564-6671-7681-86

BlockPer Link

Light Licensing: Light licensed bands include

5.8 GHz, 65, 75, and 85 GHz

bands.

Potential for shared access of spectrum at 3.6-4.2 GHz for wireless broadband use and NLoS small cell backhaul. Potential use of spectrum at 55-100 GHz for fixed wireless services for mobile backhaul. The dominant use of these spectrum bands today is for the provision of backhaul within mobile networks, accounting for more than 80% of the current fixed link license base.

In light-Licensing , the users of a band are awarded non-exclusive license which are typically available to all and are either free or only have a nominal fee attached to them.


Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Eastern Europe (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Croatia 3.8 (3.600-3.800)6 (6.425-7.125)7 (7.125-7.425)8 (7.725-8.275)

8.275-8.50011 (10.700-11.700)13 (12.750-13.250)14 (14.500-14.620)18 (17.700-19.700)

23 (22-22.6)/ (23-23.6)

38 (37.000-39.500)

Per Link The license duration is set

on request: normally 5 yrs, but operators can request shorter or

longer period.

Highest demand: 6L, 7.5G, 8L, 13, 18, 23, and 38. There had been block allocation in the past in band 23 and 38 for few operators, but it is not o�cial. 70/80 has more capacity, larger channel sizes ... starting with 66M, and lower fees

Prices are not fixed .. calculated based on several elements like the amount of spectrum, congestion fees (di�erent for each band), and hop length/cut o� length ratio.




Czech Republic 46710111315182326

28.2205-28.444529.2285-29.4525

3132387080

Per Link

Light LicensingLight Licensing

5-yr PTP No Duplex sub-bands 28.2205–28.4445 GHz and 29.2285–29.4525 GHz are designated for utilization in the fixed service and for fixed links of mobile networks infrastructure. Number of rights for use of radio frequencies is limited. Only 3 current operators can use these sub-bands. Each operator has a radio frequencies assignment for 56 MHz. Rest of the spectrum is used as guard-bands.Other bands allocated for fixed wireless point-to-point links can be used by all users.

10 GHz (license exception band, see general authorization). 70/80 GHz (license exception band, see general authorization.



Hungary 5.925-6.4256.425-7.125

10.7-11.722-23

24.5-26.537-39.5

71-7681-86

Per LinkPer LinkPer Link

Block LicensingPer Link


5-yr PTP/PTMP 59-6332

The bands 6, 11, 23, 26, 38 GHz are heavily used.The 59-63 GHz band is to be made available by next summer when the new national regulation will be out. • Regarding the band 32 GHz, no demand

has been raised by the service providers until now, but it can change in the near future

• The 59-63 GHz band is to be made available by next summer when the new national regulation will be out.

• Regarding the band 32 GHz no demand has been raised by the service providers until now, but it can change in the near future



Poland 6781113151823263238

71-7675

Per Link


Up to 10 Yr PTP Currently no plan

Apply issuing fee EUR465 and annual frequency utilization fee based on frequency range.



Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Asia-Pacific (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Australia 3.58-4.25.925-6.425

6.425-7.117.725-8.275

10.7-11.714.5-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.637-39.5

Per Link 1 Yr PTP Currently in Australia, the majority of bands are lightly to moderately utilized; however, the limited spectrum below 3 GHz has resulted in a shift to further use spectrum within the 6 to 8 GHz range. It is anticipated that all of the bands above 7 GHz will experience a growth in demand, in particular within the bands 50 GHz, 58 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz. Although it is thought that there is su�cient spectrum to meet increased backhaul requirements, the ACMA anticipates that in highly dense areas, demand may exceed supply in 10 years within certain frequency bands (i.e. 7.5 GHz, 13 GHz, 15 GHz, and 22 GHz).

Apply license issue fee and license tax.



India 6

713151821

Wi-Fi: 2.4, 5.83.4, 3.5

Issued per region to 22

license areas. Shared

Spectrum

Unlicensed

20 Yr PTP 262842607080

Nearly 80% of backhauls use microwave link. 20-year license is issued to the regions demanded for spectrum. Operators need to apply spectrum from regional management. Operators are able to use spectrum as long as the length of regional license.

Often used for wireless backhaulBeing considered for backhaul

Spectrum fee is charged based on the AGR (annual gross revenue). AGR= revenue operators earn minus mobile termination charges, mobile roaming charges, etc. Operators have to pay certain % of AGR to the license fees.



Indonesia 4.4-56.425-7.11

7.125-7.4257.425-7.7257.725-8.275

8.275-8.510.7-11.7

12.75-13.2514.4-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.6

Per Link 5 Yr PTP 27.5-29.531.8-33.437-39.5

71-7681-86

ABI Research considers the implementation of block spectrum licensing and shared spectrum licensing, but its not applicable at the moment because it needs some change of high-level regulation.

The license fee is around US$100-1,000 per year for SHF band (<23 GHz) regarding some parameters power, bandwidth, zone.



Japan 17.85-17.9718.6-19.7222.21-22.522.5-22.5522.55-22.6

23-23.2

Per Link 5 Yr Annual spectrum fee applies based on frequency, transmitter power output, classification of radio station.




Australia 3.58-4.25.925-6.425

6.425-7.117.725-8.275

10.7-11.714.5-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.637-39.5

Per Link 1 Yr PTP Currently in Australia, the majority of bands are lightly to moderately utilized; however, the limited spectrum below 3 GHz has resulted in a shift to further use spectrum within the 6 to 8 GHz range. It is anticipated that all of the bands above 7 GHz will experience a growth in demand, in particular within the bands 50 GHz, 58 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz. Although it is thought that there is su�cient spectrum to meet increased backhaul requirements, the ACMA anticipates that in highly dense areas, demand may exceed supply in 10 years within certain frequency bands (i.e. 7.5 GHz, 13 GHz, 15 GHz, and 22 GHz).

Apply license issue fee and license tax.



India 6

713151821

Wi-Fi: 2.4, 5.83.4, 3.5

Issued per region to 22

license areas. Shared

Spectrum

Unlicensed

20 Yr PTP 262842607080

Nearly 80% of backhauls use microwave link. 20-year license is issued to the regions demanded for spectrum. Operators need to apply spectrum from regional management. Operators are able to use spectrum as long as the length of regional license.

Often used for wireless backhaulBeing considered for backhaul

Spectrum fee is charged based on the AGR (annual gross revenue). AGR= revenue operators earn minus mobile termination charges, mobile roaming charges, etc. Operators have to pay certain % of AGR to the license fees.



Indonesia 4.4-56.425-7.11

7.125-7.4257.425-7.7257.725-8.275

8.275-8.510.7-11.7

12.75-13.2514.4-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.6

Per Link 5 Yr PTP 27.5-29.531.8-33.437-39.5

71-7681-86

ABI Research considers the implementation of block spectrum licensing and shared spectrum licensing, but its not applicable at the moment because it needs some change of high-level regulation.

The license fee is around US$100-1,000 per year for SHF band (<23 GHz) regarding some parameters power, bandwidth, zone.



Japan 17.85-17.9718.6-19.7222.21-22.522.5-22.5522.55-22.6

23-23.2

Per Link 5 Yr Annual spectrum fee applies based on frequency, transmitter power output, classification of radio station.





Malaysia 10.15-10.310.5-10.6513.75-14.415.7-16.624.25-2727-29.531-31.371-7681-86

Per Link

Lightly LicensedLightly Licensed

1 Yr PTPPTMP

Due to the lack of cheap and quality fixed line infrastructure in Malaysia, the dominant backhaul solution for the operators continues to be Microwave.• LTE backhauls use E-band and fiber depending on the location and capacity requirement. • So far Malaysia has over 20,000 microwave backhaul links.• Telekom Malaysia is deploying FTTH. But fiber-optic backhaul for all LTE station is not possible. In some cell sites, TM will still use microwave links

Application RM60, station fee (RM120 for 30 MHz up to 3 GHz, RM240 for more than 3 GHz), annual fee with respect to bands per station.



Singapore 18-225.925-6.4256.425-7.1257.125-7.7257.725-8.510.5-10.6810.7-11.712.2-12.7

12.75-13.2514.4-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.6

Per Link, Shared use

1 Yr PTPPTMP

Apply application fee and processing fee and annual frequency management fee.


Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees North America (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Canada 2.025-2.112.2-2.285

3.7-4.25.295-6.4256.425-6.930

7.125-7.257.3-7.25

7.725-8.27510.55-10.68

10.7-11.211.2-11.7

12.7-13.2514.5-15.35

14.975-15.3517.8-18.319.3-19.721.8-22.423-23.6

24.25-24.4525.05-25.2525.25-26.527.5-28.35

38.6-4071-7681-8692-95

Given the immediate need for spectrum, licenses are being granted on a first-come, first-serve, non-standard basis for deployment at a specific site in parts of the 25.25-26.5 GHz and 27.5-28.35 GHz bands, pending the establishment of technical requirements and a formal licensing process

Lightly licensedLightly licensedLightly licensed

1 Yr PTP The study prepared by RedMobile concluded that demand for backhaul spectrum in frequencies below 38 GHz will grow from 878 MHz in 2010 to between 2603 MHz and 3394 MHz by 2015, depending on the modelling scenario. Extrapolating this forecast using a linear regression suggests that a total of 3438-4435 MHz of backhaul spectrum will be required by 2017. Over the same period, the volume of tra�c carried over wireless backhaul links is assumed to increase with the rapid growth in fixed and mobile broadband tra�c

Because of propagation characteristics and population centers, deployments are not distributed uniformly across the country or within the frequency bands. As indicated in Industry Canada’s Radio Spectrum Inventory, Footnote 26, although on average, approximately 65% of all backhaul links in Canada are located outside of metropolitan areas, Footnote 27 the number of assignments in these urban areas tends to be greater in bands above 15 GHz. Multiple backhaul solutions in Canada including fiber optics, leased lines, microwave and satellites. Canadian operators requested 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-95 GHz for fixed point-to-point services. Rogers commented that deployment of advanced wireless access technologies, such as HSPA and LTE, which support mobile broadband services, Rogers is in need of access to more spectrum for fixed point-to-point backhaul services. In June 2012, Industry Canada announced that the Department will issue spectrum licenses in the bands 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz. Licensing for all areas will be on an FCFS basis and all licensees will have shared access to the spectrum.

Apply monthly fee, annual fee, and telephone channel equivalencies (license fees payable for a radio license authorizing operation on certain frequencies for radio apparatus installed in a fixed station or space station).


New Zealand 3.6-4.24.4-5

5.925-6.426.42-7.1

1 Yr PTP Currently no plan

Annual License Fee: NZD204.45 per transmitter.




Malaysia 10.15-10.310.5-10.6513.75-14.415.7-16.624.25-2727-29.531-31.371-7681-86

Per Link

Lightly LicensedLightly Licensed

1 Yr PTPPTMP

Due to the lack of cheap and quality fixed line infrastructure in Malaysia, the dominant backhaul solution for the operators continues to be Microwave.• LTE backhauls use E-band and fiber depending on the location and capacity requirement. • So far Malaysia has over 20,000 microwave backhaul links.• Telekom Malaysia is deploying FTTH. But fiber-optic backhaul for all LTE station is not possible. In some cell sites, TM will still use microwave links

Application RM60, station fee (RM120 for 30 MHz up to 3 GHz, RM240 for more than 3 GHz), annual fee with respect to bands per station.



Singapore 18-225.925-6.4256.425-7.1257.125-7.7257.725-8.510.5-10.6810.7-11.712.2-12.7

12.75-13.2514.4-15.3517.7-19.721.2-23.6

Per Link, Shared use

1 Yr PTPPTMP

Apply application fee and processing fee and annual frequency management fee.



Canada 2.025-2.112.2-2.285

3.7-4.25.295-6.4256.425-6.930

7.125-7.257.3-7.25

7.725-8.27510.55-10.68

10.7-11.211.2-11.7

12.7-13.2514.5-15.35

14.975-15.3517.8-18.319.3-19.721.8-22.423-23.6

24.25-24.4525.05-25.2525.25-26.527.5-28.35

38.6-4071-7681-8692-95

Given the immediate need for spectrum, licenses are being granted on a first-come, first-serve, non-standard basis for deployment at a specific site in parts of the 25.25-26.5 GHz and 27.5-28.35 GHz bands, pending the establishment of technical requirements and a formal licensing process

Lightly licensedLightly licensedLightly licensed

1 Yr PTP The study prepared by RedMobile concluded that demand for backhaul spectrum in frequencies below 38 GHz will grow from 878 MHz in 2010 to between 2603 MHz and 3394 MHz by 2015, depending on the modelling scenario. Extrapolating this forecast using a linear regression suggests that a total of 3438-4435 MHz of backhaul spectrum will be required by 2017. Over the same period, the volume of tra�c carried over wireless backhaul links is assumed to increase with the rapid growth in fixed and mobile broadband tra�c

Because of propagation characteristics and population centers, deployments are not distributed uniformly across the country or within the frequency bands. As indicated in Industry Canada’s Radio Spectrum Inventory, Footnote 26, although on average, approximately 65% of all backhaul links in Canada are located outside of metropolitan areas, Footnote 27 the number of assignments in these urban areas tends to be greater in bands above 15 GHz. Multiple backhaul solutions in Canada including fiber optics, leased lines, microwave and satellites. Canadian operators requested 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-95 GHz for fixed point-to-point services. Rogers commented that deployment of advanced wireless access technologies, such as HSPA and LTE, which support mobile broadband services, Rogers is in need of access to more spectrum for fixed point-to-point backhaul services. In June 2012, Industry Canada announced that the Department will issue spectrum licenses in the bands 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz. Licensing for all areas will be on an FCFS basis and all licensees will have shared access to the spectrum.

Apply monthly fee, annual fee, and telephone channel equivalencies (license fees payable for a radio license authorizing operation on certain frequencies for radio apparatus installed in a fixed station or space station).


New Zealand 3.6-4.24.4-5

5.925-6.426.42-7.1

1 Yr PTP Currently no plan

Annual License Fee: NZD204.45 per transmitter.



United States 3.7-4.25.925-6.425

6.425-6.76.7-6.87510.55-10.610.6-10.68

10.7-11.738.6-40

71-7681-8692-95

Per Link

Light licensing bands: 71-76, 81-86, 92-96

GHz

Lightly licensedLightly licensed

License for stations under fixed wireless service will be issued for a period not to exceed 10 years.

PTP In Aug 2013, FCC on voted to change rules in the 57-64 GHz band, that it said will improve the use of unlicensed spectrum for high-capacity, short range outdoor backhaul, especially for small cells.

In March 2014, Mimosa said its proposal to free spectrum in the lower part of the 10 GHz band, pursuant to Subpart Z rules, would address the need for e�cient microwave backhaul to serve both fixed and mobile wireless broadband services. Lightly licensed users of the newly freed 10 GHz spectrum would refer to a spectrum database for link planning


Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Latin America (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Argentina 7.11-7.97.425-7.725

8.2-8.514.4-15.35 17.7-19.7 21.2-23.6

PTP


Brazil 5.9-6.46.4-7.17.4-7.87.7-8.38.2-8.5

10.7-11.714.5-15.417.7-19.721.8-23.637-39.5

Per Link



Mexico 7.425-7.725 14.4-15.35 21.2-23.6

PTPPTMP




Uruguay 5.850-6.4257.975-8.02512.75-13.2514.4-15.35

2417.7-19.7

PTPPTMP

Monthly prices for each channel, depending on bandwidth are: Up to 3,00 MHz of BW$1.644,00; Up to 5,00 MHz of BW$2.117,00; Up to 15,00 MHz of BW$3.662,00; Up to 20,00 MHz of BW$4.231,00, More than 20,00 MHz of BW$4.724,00 (US$1=BW$23.3).



United States 3.7-4.25.925-6.425

6.425-6.76.7-6.87510.55-10.610.6-10.68

10.7-11.738.6-40

71-7681-8692-95

Per Link

Light licensing bands: 71-76, 81-86, 92-96

GHz

Lightly licensedLightly licensed

License for stations under fixed wireless service will be issued for a period not to exceed 10 years.

PTP In Aug 2013, FCC on voted to change rules in the 57-64 GHz band, that it said will improve the use of unlicensed spectrum for high-capacity, short range outdoor backhaul, especially for small cells.

In March 2014, Mimosa said its proposal to free spectrum in the lower part of the 10 GHz band, pursuant to Subpart Z rules, would address the need for e�cient microwave backhaul to serve both fixed and mobile wireless broadband services. Lightly licensed users of the newly freed 10 GHz spectrum would refer to a spectrum database for link planning



Argentina 7.11-7.97.425-7.725

8.2-8.514.4-15.35 17.7-19.7 21.2-23.6

PTP


Brazil 5.9-6.46.4-7.17.4-7.87.7-8.38.2-8.5

10.7-11.714.5-15.417.7-19.721.8-23.637-39.5

Per Link



Mexico 7.425-7.725 14.4-15.35 21.2-23.6

PTPPTMP




Uruguay 5.850-6.4257.975-8.02512.75-13.2514.4-15.35

2417.7-19.7

PTPPTMP

Monthly prices for each channel, depending on bandwidth are: Up to 3,00 MHz of BW$1.644,00; Up to 5,00 MHz of BW$2.117,00; Up to 15,00 MHz of BW$3.662,00; Up to 20,00 MHz of BW$4.231,00, More than 20,00 MHz of BW$4.724,00 (US$1=BW$23.3).




Venezuela 2.3-2.5 3.6-4.2 4.4-5

5.85-6.425 7.425-7.725

8.2-8.5 10-10.68 10.7-11.7

12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7

23.065-23.5 37-39.5

Per Link PTPPTMP


Country Spectrum License License PTP/ PTMP Spectrum for Comments License Fees Middle East (GHz) Type Duration Future Consideration

Saudi Arabia 7111315182326283238


New frequency assignments above 3 GHz for point-to-point fixed radio links are permitted only on an individual link by link basis and are not allowed on a city, regional, or Kingdom-wide basis. New frequency assignments for fixed point-to-point radio links below (3) GHz frequency range are not permitted.

Spectrum fee is calculated based on bandwidth, antenna height, mobile or non-directional antenna factor, power factor, spectrum demand density factor, high-usage cities factor, geographical coverage factor.


Nigeria 6781113151823

Per Link, Shared Not Sure. Short-term: 3 months, Medium term license-1 Yr (renewable yearly for a maximum of three Yr), Long term license-5 Yr, 10 Yr or 15 Yr and reviewable.

PTP 7 GHz is reserved for long-haul high capacity interstate Links. All present microwave links below 7 GHz will be decommissioned in the very near future.


Application Fee N10,000, Spectrum Fee is calculated based on unite price (varies according to region/tier of state in which applicant seeks to operate, bandwidth, frequency range, and duration of license.


UAE 6-80 Per Link 1 Yr PTP As most cell sites are connected to fiber-optic, operators are less likely to apply for microwave backhaul. More than 70% of base-stations use fiber-optic backhaul.

Application Fee Dirham 500, Spectrum Fee is calculated based on Frequency range factor and bandwidth factor






Venezuela 2.3-2.5 3.6-4.2 4.4-5

5.85-6.425 7.425-7.725

8.2-8.5 10-10.68 10.7-11.7

12.75-13.25 14.4-15.35 17.7-19.7

23.065-23.5 37-39.5

Per Link PTPPTMP



Saudi Arabia 7111315182326283238


New frequency assignments above 3 GHz for point-to-point fixed radio links are permitted only on an individual link by link basis and are not allowed on a city, regional, or Kingdom-wide basis. New frequency assignments for fixed point-to-point radio links below (3) GHz frequency range are not permitted.

Spectrum fee is calculated based on bandwidth, antenna height, mobile or non-directional antenna factor, power factor, spectrum demand density factor, high-usage cities factor, geographical coverage factor.


Nigeria 6781113151823

Per Link, Shared Not Sure. Short-term: 3 months, Medium term license-1 Yr (renewable yearly for a maximum of three Yr), Long term license-5 Yr, 10 Yr or 15 Yr and reviewable.

PTP 7 GHz is reserved for long-haul high capacity interstate Links. All present microwave links below 7 GHz will be decommissioned in the very near future.


Application Fee N10,000, Spectrum Fee is calculated based on unite price (varies according to region/tier of state in which applicant seeks to operate, bandwidth, frequency range, and duration of license.


UAE 6-80 Per Link 1 Yr PTP As most cell sites are connected to fiber-optic, operators are less likely to apply for microwave backhaul. More than 70% of base-stations use fiber-optic backhaul.

Application Fee Dirham 500, Spectrum Fee is calculated based on Frequency range factor and bandwidth factor





South Africa 467815182326283842

Block Spectrum Allocation,

operators need to share the

spectrum

1 Yr PTPPTMP is used in small cells,

city area

7 GHz is reserved for long-haul high capacity interstate Links. All present microwave links below 7 GHz will be decommissioned in the very near future.


Application fee and license Fee


Source: ABI ResearchNote: Regular font indicates commercial, while Regular font indicates commercial.

Western Europe Eastern Europe Asia-Pacific North America Latin America Middle East Africa

United Kingdom Russia Malaysia United States Argentina Saudi Arabia KenyaGermany Poland Indonesia Venezuela Iraq DR CongoIreland Czech Republic Vietnam ** Peru Lebanon NigeriaBelgium Slovakia Thailand ** Uruguay GhanaItaly Ukraine Mexico South Africa Hungary Guadeloupe Cameroon Martinique Rwanda Brazil ** Zambia TanzaniaCountries support 1 or more bands in 10.5, 26 or 28 GHz Guinea Senegal Mauritania Morocco



8. Acronyms

802.11ac IEEE standard; supports Wi-Fi services in the 2.4 GHz band and 5.8 GHz data throughput

ASA Authorized Shared Access

BTS Base Transceiver Station

E-band 70/80 GHz bands

EC European Commission

EIRP Effective Isotropically Radiated Power; the amount of power that a theoretical isotropic antenna (distributes power in all directions) would emit to produce the peak power density observed in the direction of maximum antenna gain

FCC Federal Communications Commission, USA

FTTT Fiber to the Tower

HRAN High RAN

IDA National regulator of Singapore. Infocomm Development Authority

ISM Industrial, Scientific, and Medical

LMDS Local Multipoint Distribution Service; a broadband wireless access technology originally designed for digital television transmission

LoS Line of Sight

LRAN Low Radio Access Network; typically aggregates traffic from 10 to 100 RBS sites and feeds it into the HRAN. The HRAN takes the aggregated traffic and feeds it into the core network.

LTE-TDD Time Division Duplex LTE

LTE-FDD Frequency Division Duplex LTE

Microwave Microwave; solutions are typically from 6 GHz to 45 GHz

MMW Millimeter Wave; solutions are typically in the 60 and 70/80 GHz bands

MCI Ministry of Communication and Informatics, Indonesia

NLoS Non Line of Sight

nLoS “near” Line of Sight

OBSAI Open Base-Station Architecture Initiative

PoP Point of Presence

PMP Point to Multi-point

PTP Point to Point

QoS Quality of Service

RSPG Radio Spectrum Policy Group

SON Self-organizing Networks

SRD Short Range Devices. Often low power (<40 dB)

TVWS TV White Space

TRAI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

V-band 60 GHz bands

WiGig Wireless Gigabit Alliance, promotes use of SRD in 60 GHz band

X2 Mesh The X2 interface enables eNodeBs to communicate directly between each other. This allows for interference management (especially in HetNets) and seamless handover.

Floor 2, The Walbrook Building25 Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF UKTel: +44 (0)207 356 0600

[email protected]

©GSMA November 2014

wireless backhaul spectrum policy recommendations & analysis

Documents