daniel s hamadeh -tra lebanon- flexible spectrum usage
TRANSCRIPT
Flexible Spectrum Usage and Higher
Channel Bandwidths, What is Possible
for Operators Realistically?
Daniel S. Hamadeh , B.Eng, EMBA
Senior Spectrum Expert, Telecommunications Technologies Unit
TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY (TRA), LEBANON
www.tra.gov.lb
Outline
TRACK 1: Spectrum Channel Aggregation
Examining the requirements coming out of the operator community for Release 10
Is bandwidth aggregation the only way to achieve larger channels for LTE in lower spectrum bands?
How could nation regulators contribute to the development of LTE/IMT CA?
TRACK 2: Lebanon’s TRA challenges to achieve harmonization of key bands
Moving forward with long term licensing while achieving international harmonization of the band and FDD/TDD arrangement
How realistic is it to leap frog from 2G to LTE without going through 3G HSPA?
What is the proposed channel planning and packaging for 2.3/2.6 & 3.5 GHz
3
Need for on the go, always on applications, QoS in mobile broadband trends
With the continuous exponential growth in mobile broadband applications & data traffic usage, operators need to :
Continuously Add new sectors/ cells and move further closer to user (MACRO to MICRO to Femtocell) Use higher efficiency radio interface (such as evolving their 3G R4 to R7 or deploying E-UTRA)
Supporting higher peak b/Hz through using wider channel bandwidth systems
As such, the transmission bandwidth of mobile radio communication systems have increased continuously from
200kHz in GSM to 5 MHz channel size of the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) up to 20 MHz of
the Long Term Evolution (LTE) system, and up to 100 MHz of Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-A) or equivalent IMT-Advanced proposed radio interfaces
4
What is Channel Aggregation and how could LTE can be used to improve efficiencies?
To achieve larger transmission bandwidth with up to 100MHz, Carrier Aggregation has been proposed as a key technology to be used. LTE carrier Aggregation in R8 and in R10 support heterogeneous carriers yet inter-system carrier
aggregation is not being considered. R10 supports only the later approach i.e. variable channel aggregation on uplink and on
downlink. No inter-system CA supported yet.
With the absence of support to inter system channel aggregation, two scenarios are possible with R8 to R10:1. Carrier aggregation within the same E-UTRA FDD system
a) Expanding with adjacent channel blocks (resultant is a contiguous channel block) Not always possible between adjacent operators but technically optimum and most efficient
a) Expanding with non adjacent channel blocks (Non contiguous channel block)Requires more coordination and limited by terminal constraints
2. Carrier aggregation within of an LTE-A FDD channel with adjacent LTE-A TDD channelEspecially suited for asymmetrical traffic supported in Rel. 10
Expanding Band Through Inter-System Cooperation is another alternative but requires:Coordination of scheduling Multi-site beam forming Information exchange for Inter cell interference cancellation
5
OFDM based LTE is suitable for aggregation, but user terminal challenges are there
OFDM is very suitable for carrier aggregation through the ability to switching off unwanted subcarriers
Challenges for 100 MHz terminal limit the choices and actual CA scenarios : Potential of commercial-level RF filter: Effective bandwidth range >50MHz is expensive Potential of commercial-level ADC: Sampling rate and quantization resolution Decoding complexity: Channel decoding and soft buffer size
An LTE-Advanced terminal with reception capability beyond 20 MHz can simultaneously receive transmissions on multiple component carriers where as an LTE terminal can only receive single component carrier only that meets E-UTRA Rel. 8 specifications
Resource Allocation, MIMO, Link Adaptation, HARQ, etc will be performed per carrier Cell edge interference management is yet to be improved and to better utilize guard bands
6
Channel Aggregation and LTE Tx/Rx architecture options
Source: 3GPP TSG-RAN-WG4
Complexity of CA transceiver architecture limits the realistic CA scenarios.
To support 2x2 UL and DL MIMO on two bands requires 4 full RF chains
World wide harmonization of bands lead to better economy of scale and earlier availability of wideband CA devices.
Inter Band
Aggregation
Contigous
(CC)
Non-
Contiguou
s (CC)
Non-
contiguous
(CC)
A
Single (RF
+FFT+baseband) with
BW>20MHz
Yes
B
Multiple (RF
+FFT+Baseband) with
BW<20MHz
Yes Yes Yes
Intra Band
AggregationDescription
(Rx Architecture)Opt
UE RX Characteristics
7
Intra band Channel Aggregation in Band 7 and Band 28
Carrier Aggregation (CA) scenarios for E-UTRA in 2.6 GHz:1. Intra-band adjacent scenarios: a) FDD-FDD; b) FDD TDD2. Intra-band non-adjacent: a) FDD-FDD; b) FDD-TDD
1-a
2-a
1-b
Assuming an end of bidding spectrum package result to be:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O2 block - Contiguous Spectrum:
Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O3 block - Non ContigueousSpectrum:
Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O3 FDD block & O5 TDD block- Non Contigueous Spectrum:
2500 25702570 2620 2620 2690
Operator 1 TDD Operator 1
5
Unpaired
Unpaired 10x5MHzPaired UE Uplink 14x5MHz BS to UE - Downlink 14x5MHz
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4 Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4
Paired UE Uplink Paired BS Downlink
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Operator 5
Operator 1 Operator 1
Operator 1 Operator 1 Operator 1 Operator 1
Operator 1
8
What is Bandwidth Aggregation scenarios in Band 40
Carrier Aggregation (CA) scenarios for E-UTRA in 2.6 GHz and E-UTRA in 2.3 GHz:1. Inter-band adjacent scenarios: a) FDD-TDD; b) TDD-TDD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
2 contiguous on TDD 2.3 GHz CA 30+10 into 20+20
TD-E-UTRA on 2.3 GHz aggregated with FDD-E-UTRA on 2.6 GHz
TD-E-UTRA on 2.3 GHz aggregated with TD-E-UTRA on 2.6 GHz
Paired BS Downlink
Operator 7
Operator 1 Operator 1
Operator 7
Operator 9
Unpaired / TDDOperator 6 Operator 7 Op. 8 Operator 10
Paired UE Uplink UnpairedOperator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4 Operator 5 Operator 1
Operator 1
9
Release 10 3GPP Carrier Aggregation scenarios
After studying different scenarios for CA, 3GPP TSGR4 identified the following possible scenarios for Release 10 CA working items:For Region 1 • 40 MHz UL/DL: 20 MHz CC (Band 7) + 20 MHz CC (Band 3)
For Region 2• 20MHz UL/DL: 10MHz CC (Band 2) + 10 MHz CC (Band 4) • 10MHz UL/DL: 5MHz CC (Band 17) + 5MHz CC (Band 4) • 20MHz UL/DL: 10 MHz CC (Band 13) + 10 MHz CC (Band 4)
For Region 3• 40MHz UL/DL: 40 MHz CC (Band 40)• 20 MHz UL/DL: 10 MHz CC (Band 1) + 10 MHz CC (Band 19)
Intra band non-contiguous scenarios are proposed to be considered in future releases beyond R10.
By July, 2010 it is expected that 3GPP agrees on UE categories for CA in Rel-10 after further studies.
3GPPBAND #
Uplink (UL)Operating BandBS ReceiveUE Transmit
Downlink (DL)Operating BandBS TransmitUE Receive
Duplex Mode
I (1)1920 MHz to 1980 MHz
2110 MHz to 2170 MHz
FDD
II (2)1850 MHz to 1910 MHz
1930 MHz to 1990 MHz
FDD
III (3)1710 MHz to 1785 MHz
1805 MHz to 1880 MHz
FDD
IV (4)1710 MHz to 1755 MHz
2110 MHz to 2155 MHz
FDD
VII (7)2500 MHz to 2570 MHz
2620 MHz to 2690 MHz
FDD
XIII (13)777 MHz to 787 MHz
746 MHz to 756 MHz
FDD
XIX (19)830 MHz to 845 MHz
875 MHz to 890MHz
FDD
XL (40) 2300 MHz to 2400 MHz TDD
10
Effective spectrum management role, to avoid fragmentation or too much spectrum aggregation from taking place, is
needed. In setting license conditions and spectrum channel arrangement and award process (bidding) regulators are
encouraged to:
adopt harmonized and spectrum efficient arrangements of the band (Ex: FDD for 800 MHz)
support industry efforts towards channel aggregation by making clear time table for spectrum availability and
encourage sharing of network resources amongst operators including inter systems corporative carrier
aggregation
exercise the right to re-arrange channels before final spectrum award if outcome of bid results in fragments
develop spectrum trading legislations allowing for swap and adjustments of spectrum assigned through market
pressures
exercises spectrum re-farming and re-planning when needed (costly alternative but useful)
require coverage obligations attached to each band license “use it or lose it” mechanisms to avoid spectrum
hoarding and encourage development of services
National regulatory role in fostering efficient spectrum use and proliferation of IMT
11
Outlook of Germany’s 2.6 GHz Band channel arrangements and possible auction results
German* Mobile spectrum auction preliminary results indicate a need to further develop spectrum aggregation
techniques for more better utilization of valuable spectrum
Spectrum management regulations that allow spectrum trading could further facilitate aggregation of adjacent
channels in intermediate to long term
Attached deployment obligation (use it or lose it conditions) to spectrum licenses ensure earlier time to market
and reduces risks of spectrum hoarding
Round 186, 2.6 GHz bid value was 152% on net FDD compared to TDD MHz
800 MHz FDD spectrum averaged 2520% more or 25 times higher than that of 2.6GHz FDD
5MHz fragments based channels can not be utilized to achieve 20MHz+ without Channel Aggregation.
To2
GER
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
GER
To2
GER
E-P
lus
Grp
Tele
com
D
To2
Ger
Tele
com
D
To2
Ger
E-P
lus
Grp
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
Ger
E-P
lus
Grp
Vo
daf
on
e
E-P
lus
Grp
Tele
com
D
E-P
lus
Grp
Tele
com
D
Vo
daf
on
e
Vo
daf
on
e
Tele
com
D
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
Ger
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
GER
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
GER
To2
GER
E-P
lus
Grp
Tele
com
D
To2
Ger
Tele
com
D
To2
Ger
E-P
lus
Grp
Vo
daf
on
e
To2
Ger
E-P
lus
Grp
Vo
daf
on
e
* Not Final but based on Round 186 results for 2.6 GHz TDD & FDD blocks with FDD blocks
Paired / UE Uplink Unpaired Paired / BS Downlink
12
Regulatory bodies role to realize wider and harmonized bands for IMT-Advanced
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 790-
798 798-806 806-814 814-822 822-830 830-838 838-846 846-854
854-
862
Downlink Duplex
gap Uplink
30 MHz (6 blocks of 5 MHz) 12 MHz 30 MHz (6 blocks of 5 MHz)
800MHz channel arrangement
based on paired channels
ensures effective use.
A market based approach to
determining channel
arrangements could be vey risky
due to FDD/TDD & TDD/TDD
guard band requirements.
13
Lebanon Case: A new Telecom Low a new regulator
Spectrum policy
New spectrum
Licensing regulation
New spectrum pricing
Re-farming for broadband wireless
DSO
Harmonizing key IMT bands of 2.1, 2.3, 2.6 & 3.5 GHz & 800 MHz DD
Policy questions for the TRA :
Technology Neutrality vs. Harmonization
Best Value of Spectrum (proceeds) vs. Mobile Broadband Services Earlier to Market
Treatment of Current Users on bands under consideration and migration cost-benefit and challenges
Service Neutrality and local market and regulatory constraints
Coverage obligations: by band or by operator?
Worldwide harmonization for mobile services, IMT application vs. flexible approach to determining band plan
14
Challenges for a new regulator
Evolution of Spectrum Management Regulations in Lebanon
15
Before Law 431
After Law 431 & TRA
Frequencies were
assigned on a first-come, first-served
basis
Market Based
Spectrum fees were
basically set based on
Decree 377 & Decree
126
Market Mechanism
& AIP
Many legal Basis has to be taken into consideration
Now Telecom’s Law 431
Many Administrations were in-
charge in licensing
Single Organization
“TRA”
Licensing Guidelines
Fair, transparent,
insures competence
and are market based
Prior Law 431: No legal framework for spectrum management
Band
Current
Target
Category of use
450- 470 MHz
PMR
IMT/
CDMA450
COM &/or GOV
790-862 MHz
Analog TV
DD=> Mobile after 2015 DSO
COM & Public Safety
900MHz, 1.8 GHz
GSM (2G)
GSM900 +
UMTS900 or LTE900
COM
1.9-2.1 GHz
IMT/3G
•Not assigned yet
IMT/3G
Mobile BB
COM
2.3, 2.6, 3.5 GHz1
Mostly Assigned
to FWA & P2P
Re-farming
Re-plan
COM
IMT
COM / Mobile Portable
Fixed BWA
Lebanon Case :IMT bands current vs. future use potential
Acronyms:
FBWA: Fixed Broadband Wireless Access (P2MP)
BB: Broad Band
COM: Commercial use (Service provider)
GOV: Government use
DSO: Digital Switch-Off of analog TV
IMT: International Mobile Telecommunications
GSM: Global System Mobile
UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service
PMR: Professional Mobile Radio
FX P2P: Fixed Point to point
DD: Digital Divide spectrum16
\
How feasible is it for a country like Lebanon to leap-frog from 2G to 4G?
17
Pe
rfo
rman
ce b
its/
hz
Time
Past Present Future
GPRS – 25 to 40 Kbps48 Kbps peak
EDGE – 100 to 130 Kbps237 Kbps peak
UMTS – 150 to 180 Kbps
384 Kbps peak
HSDPA – 400 to 700 Kbps3.6 Mbps peak
HSUPA/HSPA – 500 to1200 Kbps up1.5 Mbps peak up (potential 5.76M)700 to 1700 Kbps down 3.6 Mbps
LTE Advanced (Rel. 10)LTE (R8) – 100 Mbps and beyond peak down are expected in
Compatible backward migration
on the existing global 3GPP standard
Technology mass commercialization today
Note: Speeds are typical user throughput
HSPA+ 10MHz (R8/9)>42Mbps Peak potential in 10Mhz
HSPA+ (R7)>21 Mbps peak potential
Lebanon Today
Compatibility issuesfor Voice application
between LTE and HSPA
“SRVCC” ?
To leapfrog from GSM to LTE, lower frequencies in the 800MHz are needed but not available before 2015
For an LTE national deployment in the2.6 GHz band only, the number of sites needed is too high and not cost effective compared to a solution based on the 800MHz and 2.6GHz combined (German & UK models)
Migration of core to all IP/IMS
\
Existing Lebanese service providers offer Fixed/portable broadband on 2.6GHz &
1.9GHz TDD use proprietary technologies
18
Perf
orm
an
ce*
Time
Past Present Future
Expedience OFDM Now 128kbps - 512kbps
Limited to 1.6Mbps UL, 700kbps DL
IBurst 1.9GHz100 to 512 Kbps
1Mbps peak, Reuse N=1
IPW TD-CDMA (R99)2MbpsDL 384 Kbps UL peak
Potential
LTE (R8) – 100 Mbps
and beyond peak down
No Backward compatibility between none 3GPP RI
*Speeds are typical user throughput and depend on channel width and network configuration
Existing BWA in Lebanon TodayLong term requires wider
spectrum blocks up to 2x20 or
40 MHz per carrier in key
bands such as 2.6, 2.3, 1.8,
2GHz & 800MHzWiMAX(R2) – Mbps
20Mbps beyond peak down1.5- 2 Bps/Hz
IMT Advanced >100Mbps
LTE R10 or 802.16m
1x20, 2x10 or 4x5MHz deployments in
2.3, 2.6 or 3.5 GHz could be sufficient to
deliver broadband wireless speeds with
the available BWA technology today
2.6GHzTDD
TD/1.9GHzBand 33
802.16-2005 WiMAX
planned for commercial roll out
2.3 GHz (2x10MHz TDD)
2.3GHz
2.5-2.69 GHz band assigned in 2003 awaits a new channel plan
19
The 2.5 GHz band is amongst the most important bands for the provision of MBWA (Mobile Broadband Wireless Access)
TRA proposes a flexible approach to 2.6 GHz spectrum Plan not fully harmonized with ECC/DEC/(05)05 but ensures additional unpaired blocks available to be shared between existing TDD or combined for FDD operators.
The current assignment in the 2.6 GHz is all TDD not aligned with ITU recommendations ITU-R M.1036-3 C1 & C2 arrangements and ECC/DEC/(05)05 and can not accommodate new operators. It is not efficiently used nor gives equal growth opportunity for the market players and technologies
X x
The plan is based on center (50) TDD and X MHz paired available as unpaired or paired block while maintaining 120MHz FDD duplex for future IMT /IMT-A FDD expansion
Lebanon 2300-2400 MHz band:
Being considered based on 20MHz blocks technology neutral but not service neutral
2300 2305 2310 2315 2320 2325 2330 2335 2340 2345 2350 2355 2360 2365 2370 2375 2380 2385 2390 2395 2400
2300 - 2400 Band
identified as IMT band as per WRC07 *
Fixed Links since 1994, geographically limited and subject to re-farming
20MHz Not assigned 20MHz Not assigned 20MHz
The 2300-2400 MHz is currently used by some P2P links, Broadcast (FM) links, and by Illegal Wireless ISPs using
outdoor Wi-Fi devises on 2.3GHz out of their ISM band
Channel plan based on 5x20MHz TDD blocks of which 3 blocks assigned to 3 data only service providers:
No mobility allowed yet
No Voice allowed yet
20* Channel arrangements being developed under ITU WP5D. Direction to follow technology and duplex
neutral or TDD arrangements . Systems such as TD-LTE & TD-WiMAX are being developed.
802.16-2005 WiMAXplanned for commercial
roll out (2x10MHz)
802.166-2005 WiMAXPlanned roll out
4x5MHzNo trial yet
Lebanon Access Bands: Current Use and Future Allocation
IMT/Broadband & Mobile Spectrum 3.4 GHz – 3.6 GHz and 3.6GHz - 3.8 GHz
Current Assignments to 4 operators since late 90’s
several technologies used both FDD & TDD systems including WiMAX 802.16-2004 and 802.16a/b
Shared between commercial and some government private use
The 3.5 GHz will be considered in the future as part of the IMT- Advanced family, currently used for BFWA
21
3.403.60
B1 B2 B1’ B2’
100MHz
SU to BS Transmit Freq. BS to SU Transmit
Paired (FDD) arrangement only based on 100MHz T/R spacing between Tx & Rx
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
Unpaired UnpairedPaired
100MHz
UnpairedPaired PairedPaired Paired3.403.60
Based on ITU-R F.1488 and CE0405 Flexible Paired (FDD) and unpaired TDD supporting channel blocks of
1.75 to 10 MHz Flexible Paired (FDD) & unpaired (TDD) based arrangement on 25MHz Block
Example based on 2 blocks of paired and 4 blocks of unpaired (Total of 6 operators) only based on 100MHz
T/R spacing between Tx & Rx