delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public ...€¦ · delivering ultra-broadband...
TRANSCRIPT
S T R A T E G I C W H I T E P A P E R
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport Solutions and business models for improving passenger experience and generating new revenue
Today’s rail passengers increasingly demand seamless connectivity while traveling. They
not only expect to be transported comfortably and securely, but also wish to be informed,
entertained and remain productive. This paper covers both the business and technical
considerations for delivering Wi-Fi® and 3G/4G cellular services to passengers in a railway
system – at stations, and on tracks above and below ground. It describes the business
models and financial case, as well as the technical architecture for providing services not
only to the stations and platforms, but also on moving trains above and below ground.
It offers go-forward considerations for railways operators looking to gain competitive
advantage in their public transport service offerings.
Table of contents
Introduction / 1
Ultra-broadband demand and challenges / 1Today’s issues / 2
The solution / 3
LTE as a platform for rail communications / 4
High-level architecture for rail ultra-broadband / 5
Ultra-broadband business models for metro rail / 6
The stakeholders / 6
1. “Duplicated” model / 6
2. “Shared” model / 7
3. “Wholesaling” model / 8
4. “Exclusive” model / 9
The business case / 10
Moving forward with ultra-broadband / 12
Acronyms / 13
Contacts / 13
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport1
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
IntroductionRail passengers are demanding customers. Today they expect not only to be transported comfortably and securely, but also to be informed, entertained and connected to their families, friends and business colleagues while they are in transit. They see their journeys as an extension of their office time, and they do not expect their social lives to be put on hold while they are taking the metro or train. With the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) measuring more than 21 billion passenger trips in the world in 2014 along metro rail lines, these heightened expectations pose big opportunities and challenges for the rail public transport industry.
Many rail infrastructure managers recognize that broadband public communications services can improve the passenger experience, generate new profitable businesses and create loyal customers. But what is the business case? What are the best solutions and business models that will maximize the quality of the service delivered, while still guaranteeing the sustainability of the investments?
Several solutions can deliver an advanced level of on-board connectivity to passengers. They have varying complexity, cost efficiency and performance levels. The optimal solution for any rail network depends on a host of internal and external factors, including its strategic goals, the priorities of stakeholders, its existing communications infrastructure, its physical assets and availability of spectrum.
Ultra-broadband demand and challenges Rail passengers around the world increasingly expect fast, reliable broadband services – similar to those found at home or at the office – while in the train or station. This demand is growing, driven by an increase in public transport ridership, competition among different means of transport, and travelers’ nearly universal use of smartphones and connected devices.
Research has shown that mobile apps are improving the journey experience. Passengers can plan their trips better— reducing wait times for trains, and can entertain themselves during any delays that do occur. This has had a significant impact on mitigating perceived and actual waiting times, a real Achilles’ heel for transport operators.
But with increasing numbers of people using connected devices in public transport, the pressure on existing urban communications networks is immense, and the exceptional density of “user per cell” in a mass transit system (similar to that in a stadium or a shopping mall) brings with it an enormous strain on every radio network’s capacity planning, especially when combined with the element of mobility handover. Travelers say they currently experience slow download speeds or, even worse, no signal at all, in underground rail facilities. Even when they have a 3G or 4G signal, the performance of the network is poor, only adding to the frustration of the journey.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport2
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Today’s issuesMost of the existing cellular networks used in public transport are those of mobile network operators (MNOs). These networks are not designed to provide connectivity optimized for public transport. Neither are they suitable for large numbers of passengers wishing to access mobile data services at the same time, especially in a train moving rapidly underground. Even for lines at grade or at elevated levels, homogeneous coverage for continuous connectivity in moving trains is rarely possible, simply because the radio cells are not deployed along the tracks. This often leads to random loss of signal, or in the best case, to throughput that is highly erratic, especially at the cell edge. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Use of existing MNOs’ networks in public transport
Throughput versus track location
No coverage
MNO 3Cell overloaded
MNO 1Better cell
MNO 2
MNO 3
MNO 1
MNO 1
Heavy vehicular penetration loss and shading usually mean that the MNO’s signal is weak. A loss of more than 20 dB is quite common in highly insulated cars. This problem is well known throughout existing public cellular networks. In these instances, passenger experience suffers with poor handover and slow bit rates.
To address this issue, some public transport operators have deployed Wi-Fi® connectivity services inside the trains. This relay mode is delivered by an on-board unit (OBU) connected to and aggregating several public mobile networks in order to increase the throughput. (See Figure 2.)
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport3
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Figure 2. Direct transmission mode versus relay mode via OBU
Throughput versus track location
With OBU
No coverage
OBU
MNO 3Cell overloaded
MNO 1Better cell
MNO 2
MNO 3
MNO 1
MNO 1
This solution still has many limitations in terms of coverage, capacity and performance. Although the OBU may detect varying signals from nearby MNO networks, those are not usually optimized for trackside coverage and the sudden surge of capacity demand when a train passes by. Due to architectural limitations, the OBU also may have difficulty in selecting the best MNO network(s) for an optimal connection while the train speeds past. In addition, a Wi-Fi service on board usually requires passengers to opt in, adding complexity and frustration for end users. This is why many initiatives for providing on-board connectivity with or without OBUs have led to low return on investment and, in some cases, to bad customer experience.
The solutionRail operators seeking to improve their passengers’ experiences require a ground-to-train radio network optimized and dedicated for the public transport infrastructure. It must offer the best coverage along the tracks in tunnels, at grade and along elevated segments. It also must be able to provide the scalability required in crowded urban environments, especially at rush hours, with deterministic behavior at the cell edges for fast and efficient handovers while the train is moving full speed.
Operators can integrate an on-board infrastructure with these attributes to overcome the penetration loss in the carriage. In addition to Wi-Fi, this can employ 3G or 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) in small cells that connect seamlessly with mobile phones with no opt-in required. (See Figure 3.) The same dedicated public transport radio network can also provide coverage at stations, on platforms, in concourses and in railway offices.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport4
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Figure 3. Dedicated ground-to-train radio network with OBU and small cells
Throughput versus track location
OBU
Small cellsMNO 1, 2, 3
LTE as a platform for rail communicationsLTE, also called 4G or 4G LTE, is the fourth generation of mobile communication technology, and is the optimal platform for building a dedicated ground-to-train radio network. Its primary characteristics are high speed, high security and high bandwidth capacity. It offers several key advantages for the railway industry:
• LTE implements state-of-the-art digital communication and modulation techniques (OFDMA, MIMO, turbo coding, adaptive modulation and coding), resulting in high spectral efficiency. This allows transmission speeds of up to 150 Mb/s over the air (downlink). This level of throughput is a key parameter for assuring that passengers have good experience when surfing on the Internet.
• LTE is based on IP. This means that operators can fully rationalize all communication networks into a single mobile LTE and fixed IP/Multiprotocol Label Switching (IP/MPLS) network. This leads to substantial savings on network design, management and maintenance.
• LTE has low latency (down to 10 ms), meaning that it can support critical, time-sensitive applications and provide high levels of quality of service management. Bit rate, latency, maximum packet loss, priority and all other key transmission parameters can be set up for each application and each user. These settings also can easily be changed as required, for example in support of incident management.
• LTE is a flexible technology that can be deployed in many different frequency bands, and can accommodate different channel bandwidths.
• LTE networks are fully secured and resilient. The LTE standard includes multiple features related to encryption and authentication, rendering this technology secure by default. In addition, when properly designed, an LTE network has several mechanisms for auto-reconfiguration in case of network failure — vital for an always-on railway communication network.
These attributes make LTE superior for building a radio network able to support passenger connectivity needs, along with mission-critical operational applications such as train signaling, closed-circuit television (CCTV) on-board and emergency communications — all on a single converged IP network.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport5
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
High-level architecture for rail ultra-broadbandThe high-level architecture for rail-optimized ultra-broadband is summarized in Figure 4. This solution is composed of different elements and layers that need to be well integrated to give the best possible performance level at the most effective cost.
Figure 4. High-level architecture for rail-optimized ultra-broadband
Macro cell
Management HSS PGW
Small cell WLAN AP DRSDAS
Indoor/underground stationOutdoor section
LTE +WLANRAN
Core
WLANcore Applications
Terminal
Small cellsMNO 1, 2, 3
SGW PCRF MME IP/MPLS aggregation and access
WLAN controller AAA CDN Application servers
Internet
OBU
The train or carriage hosts the OBU and 3G or 4G small cells described previously. Depending on the business model, one small cell per MNO in the train’s service area is recommended, as passengers may use different providers.
The next level of architecture is the radio access network (RAN), which resides in stations, on platforms, at circulation levels, in offices and along the tracks in tunnels, at grade or on elevated segments. It is composed of a combination of macro cells, small cells, a distributed radio system (DRS) and an active and/or passive distributed antenna system (DAS), which provide the optimum coverage everywhere.
In tunnels, where space and access are limited, the radio signal from a macro cell is usually spread using either a DRS with passive leaky cables or an active DAS. Outside, at up-grade or elevated levels, operators normally use classical macro cell solutions with masts and antennas. On platforms, they employ similar solutions.
For the stations, circulation levels and offices, operators can replace or complement macro cells with DRS and DAS solutions with wireless local area network (WLAN) access points and cellular small cells. In these very crowded environments, small cells are an excellent way to increase the capacity and coverage of the radio network.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport6
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
This RAN is backhauled by an access and aggregation wired network. This usually employs IP/MPLS technology to connect the radio base stations and WLAN access points to the core of the radio network. (The WLAN access points are also connected to the WLAN controllers so that the rail operator can offer Wi-Fi service to passengers.) The core network is made of several building blocks, including a home subscriber server (HSS) to manage the passenger subscribers, a mobility management entity (MME) for tracking and paging, and a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) for accessing subscriber databases and other specialized operations. A serving gateway (SGW) supports handover between radio cells and manages interconnections with the other data networks through a packet data network gateway (PGW).
This access and aggregation network connects the entire system to the data center, which hosts all of the applications servers. These include the authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) servers to optimize the delivery of web and multimedia contents in a content delivery network (CDN), and other application servers.
Ultra-broadband business models for metro railRail operators wishing to deploy an ultra-broadband network can choose from several business models. Finding the best fit depends on the priorities of stakeholders, the availability of spectrum, the services provided by regional MNOs and the longer term strategic goals of each company. This section uses a simplified framework to analyze four of the most common business models, with their respective advantages and challenges.
The stakeholdersTwo or three categories of stakeholders typically will play major roles in ultra-broadband network planning for metropolitan rail lines:
• The local or regional Public Transportation Authority (PTA) may own the railway’s buildings, stations, tracks, technical rooms, HVAC systems, DAS, data centers and control centers. It also may partially or totally own the operational radio network and its management, and perhaps even licensed spectrum for operating its own RAN.
• MNOs usually own licensed spectrum, their core networks and data centers. However, they do not have the technical rooms nor the DAS to deploy a public transport radio network along the railway and in tunnels.
• Regional public safety or governmental agencies also can be stakeholders if the public transport radio network has to carry their operational and emergency voice and data traffic.
1. “Duplicated” modelIn this model, the PTA grants to MNOs (and public safety agencies) the right to deploy their own RAN infrastructure in the premises of the transport operator according to their own design practices. This model is called “duplicated” simply because if there are four MNOs in the service area, in principal the public transport RAN has to be duplicated four times.
This model has advantages for the PTA: it does not require a licensed frequency for the radio network and does not have to manage and maintain the radio networks. The investment for the PTA is limited in this model, and so is the potential revenue (considering site and space rental for MNOs).
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport7
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
However this model requires duplicated radio equipment and infrastructures, significant space in technical rooms and duplicated maintenance – a challenge for multiple PTAs competing for limited time slots during low traffic periods. For underground metro lines, installation of several antennas, equipment and cables from several MNOs along the tracks can be extremely challenging given the limited space in tunnels. RF interferences between the various MNOs networks also may be an issue, especially in confined areas.
The business case for MNOs might not be attractive, and therefore deployment might not take place or might be limited to outdoor rail tracks. Additionally, duplicated MNO radio networks cannot be used by the PTA to support its operational applications and mission-critical services such as train signaling, CCTV and passenger information system (PIS).
Examples of the Duplicated model are Transport for London (TfL) in stations and Paris Metro (RATP) in stations.
Table 1 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of model.
Table 1. Advantages and challenges of the Duplicated model
ADVANTAGES CHALLENGES
• No need to license spectrum
• No need to manage radio networks
• Neutral position toward MNO
• Minimal burden in providing third-party communications
• Site support (e.g., site access and HVAC)
• Limited investment, except for project management and setup
• Minimal technical standards/refs for assuring equipment co-location
• Some limited fee can be charged to the MNO for site rental and setup cost
• Requires duplicated radio equipment and infrastructures, with limited space and challenging maintenance availability
• Possible RF interference between multiple MNOs
• Cannot be used by PTA to support mission-critical services and operations
• Weaker business case for MNO may limit deployment
• Space/power constraints could lead to substantial civil works
• Third parties without good railway knowledge could cause issues in the partnership
2. “Shared” modelIn this model, the PTA deploys (or already owns) one or several active and wideband (typically 380 MHz – 2700 MHz) DAS systems inside the tunnels, along the tracks, in stations and on platforms. The PTA grants one or more MNOs access to this infrastructure in order to spread radio signals throughout the system. The MNO’s radio base stations are hosted in technical rooms at PTA sites. This model can also be called the “Hosting” model.
This model offers lower investments in cabling, leaky cables and antennas, since the DAS is mutualized across all the MNOs. This eases the maintenance of infrastructure deployed in the tunnels and along the tracks. However, even if a part of the RAN is mutualized, the biggest part (the base stations) is still duplicated, making this model not fully optimized in terms of capital expenditures (CAPEX), energy consumption and maintenance. As with the Duplicated model, the PTA cannot leverage these radio networks to support its own operational and mission-critical applications.
Examples of the Shared model are Paris Metro (RATP), Toronto Metro, Eurotunnel, Gotthard tunnel and NYC Subway with Transit Wireless.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport8
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Table 2 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of model.
Table 2. Advantages and challenges of the Shared model
ADVANTAGES CHALLENGES
• No need to license spectrum
• Reduces investment since DAS can be used by multiple MNOs
• Simpler maintenance because of shared DAS infrastructure
• More cost-efficient for wide deployment through rationalization of DAS systems
• More risk control over introducing MNOs/PTA
• Prospect of railway communications asset monetization
• Less intrusive expansion possible when introducing new service providers
• Requires duplicated base stations, with limited space and challenging maintenance availability
• Base stations still must be duplicated
• Cannot be used by PTA to support operations and mission-critical services
• Higher CAPEX investment for PTA
• More management at planning stage: Requires gathering, rationalization and compromises
• RF field experience
• Integration expertise for managing MNOs/PTA connectivity
3. “Wholesaling” model In this model, the PTA owns licensed spectrum and builds its own LTE RAN, composed of a combination of macro cells, small cells, DRS systems and a passive DAS. This RAN is rented (“wholesaled”) to MNOs, each of which signs a roaming agreement with the PTA. Each MNO connects its respective core network to this single RAN infrastructure.
There are many advantages to this solution. There is no need to deploy a complex and costly active DAS infrastructure to cover the tunnels, stations and platforms. The DRS architecture can greatly simplify and reduce the cost of deployment, since it allows decoupling the radio base station with the remote radio head (RRH). The RRH can be placed several hundred meters away from the radio base station, where it is directly connected to a passive leaky cable. A DRS architecture with passive DAS reduces space requirements. A typical active DAS system introduces a bulky point of interconnection panel (filters and attenuators), and complex multiple-stage analog-to-digital conversion processing that requires a significant amount of space in each hosting facility. With DRS, the active radio elements are distributed in small station telecom rooms, or in protected recess areas in tunnels. Only the baseband units, which provide the modem processing function, and the core networks are centralized in the technical rooms or data centers.
A DRS solution improves the RF performance of the whole system, as it does not suffer from the typical DAS signal degradation problems. The PTA can agree to share the RAN and in-building solution, which will achieve the best cost efficiency when public safety adopts LTE. The PTA can also use this dedicated radio network for operational and mission-critical applications required to operate a train (on-board CCTV, PIS, private mobile radio, signaling, emergency communications, etc.). This will dramatically reduce the cost of operations.
In this model, the PTA essentially acts as an MNO. The drawback is that it requires a licensed spectrum and skills for the PTA to manage such a dedicated network. In the event that the PTA cannot obtain the spectrum license, there is always the possibility to “rent” it from one of the MNOs, limiting the potential revenues.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport9
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
An example of the Wholesaling model is the Hong Kong Metro (MTR) for its transmission network.
Table 3 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of model.
Table 3. Advantages and challenges of the Wholesaling model
ADVANTAGES CHALLENGES
• DRS greatly simplifies and reduces the cost of the network deployment
• PTA can also deploy its own core network to fully leverage this dedicated radio network for transporting the operational and mission-critical applications
• When used for both passengers and operations, CAPEX/OPEX is extremely low
• DRS solution also improves the RF performance of the whole system
• Maximize synergy between wide range of railway wireless communications requirements (near-term and long-term) with shared systems
• Requires more CAPEX than Duplicated or Shared models
• Requires skilled personnel to manage network
• Rented spectrum option will raise costs
• Requires national roaming implementation
• Requires PTA to acquire core wireless expertise (in-house or contracted out)
4. “Exclusive” modelIn this model, the PTA signs an exclusive agreement with one MNO. This MNO gets the exclusivity to deploy its own radio network in stations, on platforms, in tunnels and elsewhere. The MNO signs roaming agreements with other MNOs. Advantages include a neutral host with multi-operator support, optimized coverage and capacity, and the use of well-understood technology.
This model has the advantage of simplicity, the capability to carry operational communications along with public services, and multiple revenue opportunities. However, it can create competitive distortions between participating MNOs.
An example of the Exclusive model is Transport for London (TfL); Wi-Fi only, with Virgin Media.
Table 4 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of model.
Table 4. Advantages and challenges of the Exclusive model
ADVANTAGES CHALLENGES
• Most simple approach • Requires minimal investment in equipment, technical
expertise and maintenance• Can minimize deployment time
• Limited revenue • Can create competitive distortion between participating MNOs • Partner MNO must sign roaming agreements with other MNOs
Table 5 summarizes the scope of responsibilities for each business model, and who owns which key components.
Table 5. Ownership of key components in rail ultra-broadband models
MODELS SITES SPECTRUM DAS/DRS RAN CORE
Duplicated PTA MNOs MNOs MNOs MNOs
Shared PTA MNOs PTA MNOs MNOs
Wholesaling PTA PTA PTA PTA MNOs, PTA
Exclusive PTA MNO MNO MNO MNO
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport10
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Table 6 summarizes the advantages and challenges of the various models.
Table 6. Summary of comparative advantages and challenges for ultra-broadband business models.
MODELS COVERAGE PERFORMANCE
CAPEX/OPEX* USAGE REVENUE FOR PTA
SKILLS REQUIRED FROM PTA
Duplicated ++ High Passengers + Very low
Shared + High Passengers ++ Low
Wholesaling +++ Low, very low Passengers + operations
+++ High
Exclusive +++ Low Passengers + Low
*Cumulative CAPEX/OPEX for PTA and MNOs. When the radio network is also used for the operation of the trains, the CAPEX/OPEX becomes extremely low.
The business case The following business scenario assumes the Wholesaling model. It uses a configuration comprising 20 underground stations, with 1 kilometer of dual tunnel between each one. The predicted communications usage grows to 20,000 connected passengers per working day over a period of 5 years. It assumes that each user of the system remains connected for 20 minutes, and uses an average of 1 Mb/s of data during that time. The proportion of capital costs for this configuration are shown in Figure 5, with the biggest element being the cellular equipment with its associated DAS and RHH cabling in the stations and tunnels.
Figure 5. Capital costs for sample configuration
0%
On-board infrastructureCore equipments RAN equipments
79%
21%
Operation of this system comprises two elements: the personnel to manage and maintain it, and the cost of equipment maintenance and repair. Figure 6 shows the proportions of these costs over a 5-year period.
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport11
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
Figure 6. Proportions of costs over a 5-year period
Staff costs Maintenance costs
75%
25%
The overall expenditure over 10 years, including interest payments on the financing required to cover the initial capital expenditure, is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Overall expenditure over 10 years
OPEXInterest payments Capital investment
14%
33%
53%
This leads to an overall cash flow as illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Cash flow for sample configuration
0 1 2 3 4 5
Year
6 7 8 9
Capital Investment OPEX Cost of goods sold Gross revenue Free cash flow Cumulative free cash flow
Delivering ultra-broadband connectivity in rail public transport12
Alcatel-Lucent Strategic White Paper
In this example, positive cash flow is achieved rapidly within 12 months. Positive cumulative cash flow is achieved after 52 months (just over 4 years), with a net present value (NPV) over 10 years of 20.2 million United States dollars and an internal rate of return of 26.2 percent.
As with all business cases, it is important to understand the sensitivities – which variables have the most potential to affect the project. Figure 9 illustrates this sensitivity, highlighting the seven most significant costs or revenues for this particular business case. It shows the impact on the NPV when adjusting each of the key variables by ±15 percent. In this example, the largest impact comes from the charges made to the MNOs for leasing capacity.
Figure 9. Sample project sensitivities
-15 -10 -5
Impact on NPV (’000,000)
0 5 10 15
15% higher 15% lower
MNO cellular revenue
Staff costs
Cellular equipment
Average duration of session
Metro customers per day
Annual growth rate
Loan interest rate
As illustrated by this example, a profitable business case is readily feasible for the type of activities described in this paper. The major revenue source is from leasing capacity to the MNOs in the tunnels and on the underground stations, though the importance of providing public ultra-broadband connectivity must not be underestimated. Although it brings less direct revenue, it is key to attracting and retaining passengers.
Moving forward with ultra-broadbandToday’s metro rail passengers expect to be informed, entertained and connected to their families, friends and business colleagues while they are in transit, posing challenges for public transit rail operators. The technical solutions available today provide a way forward for rail operators. Leveraging LTE and IP/MPLS as the technology platform, they can support a unified network with both system-wide passenger ultra-broadband connectivity and mission-critical operational communications.
Several innovations are foreseen on the horizon that will enhance the passenger experience and that will open the door to new capabilities. These include seamless hand-over between Wi-Fi and LTE networks for data and even voice, Wireless Unified Networks to blend the capacity of both Wi-Fi and LTE for higher throughputs, and the evolution of LTE to 5G. The solutions outlined in this white paper offer viable financial scenarios and a technology base that is ready for the next wave of advanced technology and the additional innovations still to come.
www.alcatel-lucent.com Alcatel, Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent and the Alcatel-Lucent logo are trademarks of Alcatel-Lucent. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. The information presented is subject to change without notice. Alcatel-Lucent assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies contained herein. Copyright © 2015 Alcatel-Lucent. All rights reserved. PR1510015365EN (October)
Acronyms3G The third generation of mobile
telecommunications technology, based on
a set of standards used for mobile devices
and infrastructure
3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project
4G The fourth generation of mobile
telecommunications technology, based on
a set of standards used for mobile devices
and infrastructure
5G The fifth generation of mobile
telecommunications technology
AAA authentication, authorization and accounting
CAPEX capital expenditures
CCTV closed circuit television
CDN content delivery network. A set of distributed
servers across a network to ease the broadcast
of content
DL downlink
DAS distributed antenna system
DRS distributed radio system
HSS home subscriber server
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IPTV IP television
LTE Long Term Evolution, a standard for high-speed
mobile data and voice services
MME mobility management entity
MNO mobile network operator
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MIMO multiple-input multiple-output. A method for
multiplying radio capacity using multiple
transmit and receive antennas
MVNO mobile virtual network operator
NPV net present value
OFDMA Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access
OBU on-board unit
OPEX operating expenditures
PCRF Policy and Charging Rules Function
PGW packet data network gateway
PIS passenger information systems
PTA Public Transportation Authority
RAN radio access network
RRH remote radio head. A radio system that
connects to a remote radio transceiver
SGW serving gateway. The gateway that terminates
the interface toward e-nodeB
UITP International Association of Public Transport
(from the French)
WLAN wireless local area network. Also called Wi-Fi
ContactsU.S. and Canada: +1 866-231-0264 (M-F 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern). Europe: +44 560 301 5799 (M-F 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. GMT) Related web site: https://www.alcatel-lucent.com/railwaysRelated solution: https://www.alcatel-lucent.com/railways/ground-to-train-communicationRelated products: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/products#wireless-access