isg mwt millimetre wave transmission …...isg mwt millimetre wave transmission industry...
TRANSCRIPT
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY
mWT-0014v1.0.0Released date: 21 October 2016
ISG mWT View on V-band and E-band Regulations
Introduction
Spectrum Regulation is a fundamental aspect enabling technology massive deployments
V-band and E-band technologies are available since some years
V-band and E-band spectrum Regulations are not in place everywhere and present a fragmented approach worldwide
This presentation provides ETSI ISG mWT view on most suitable V-band and E-band regulations• to address Operators applications as well as enabling new
applications
• considering available & new Technologies and Innovations
• bearing in mind Regulation framework
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
SPECTRUM REGULATION
Definitions & current status
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
There are 4 possible Licensing regimes (*)
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Coordination (Interference check)
License
regime
Coordinated
(by Admin)
Self-coordinated
(by Licensee) (**)
Uncoordinated
(Nobody)
Individual
licensing
This is the conventional link-by-
link coordination. This is
currently the most used method
for P-P links networks
Light
licensing
This refers to a link-by-link
coordination, under Licensee
responsibility. This model has
a “first come first served”
approach.
Block
allocation
Block assignment might be
made through licensing or
through public auction. (***)
License
exempt
No frequency planning /
coordination. No registration nor
notification
(*) According to ECC Report 80
(**) Using either a National database or National planning tool in order to ensure coordination
(***) This used to be most common when FWA (P-MP) is concerned . However new approaches are possible such as “Light Block assignment” (see slide # 23)
Each Licensing regime has its pros & cons
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
License
regime
Pros Cons
Individual
licensing
• Interference-management is guaranteed
• Limits overbooking and abuse of
spectrum (due to spectrum costs)
• Typically more expensive
• Longer time for spectrum acquisition
Light
licensing
• Typically low-cost spectrum fees
• Shorter time for spectrum acquisition
• Interference-management is not guaranteed
in case of misuse
• Efficient spectrum usage is not guaranteed in
case of abuse
Block
allocation
• Coordination of spectrum not needed
• No “wait” time for spectrum acquisition
• Cost can only be attractive with large
deployments
• Risk of inefficient use of the overall spectrum
resource; risk level depending on Band and
Operators application
• Cost can be unaffordable with limited
deployment
License
exempt
• No spectrum fees
• No “wait” time for spectrum acquisition• Interference-management is not guaranteed
V-band Regulation is super fragmented (*)
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1
V-band spectrum framework
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
57-66 GHz - Frequency band fragmentation- # Cases
#2
# 11
#2
# 19
#9
#3
#10
#3
#17
#3
#1
#1
#1
#1
V-band allocation is fragmented around the World
• Spectrum is not open in several countries
• Band allocation is fragmented
• All possible licensing regimes are used
• Regulation is threatening V-band usage
Global Licensing Schemes Distribution of V-band
Licensed
Individual licensing
Light licensing
Block assignment
Block or individual
Unlicensed
Unknown
All 4 Licensing regimes are widely used
E-band Regulation is quite consistent (*)
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
E-band spectrum framework E-band spectrum is accessible worldwide
FCC
ECC
Open ClosedUnder review
• Spectrum is open in several countries
• Band allocation is quite similar
• Individual & Light licensing regimes are
typically adopted
• Regulation is quite consistent worldwide,
with spectrum fee issues in certain
Countries
2 Licensing regimes are widely used
Individual licensing
Light licensing
Block assignment
Unlicensed
Block or individual
Unknown
(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1
KEY APPLICATIONS FOR E-BAND & V-BAND
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Key applications for V-band and E-band (*)
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Macro-Cell Backhaul (BH) Small-Cell Backhaul (BH)
Fixed Broadband–
Wireless to the Home (WttH)Fixed Broadband–
Wireless to the Cabinet (WttC)
Backbone
Telephone Exchange Office
Street Cabinet
Copper pair
Transmission Radio
Backbone
Telephone Exchange Office
Street Cabinet
Transmission Radio
Optical Fibre
Access / Pre-Aggregation
MCB
Aggregation
Macro Cell
Metro/Core
Macro Cell
SCB
SmC
Pre-Aggregation
Access
(*) As described in ETSI ISG mWT Group Specification “mWT: Applications and use cases of millimetre wave transmission” – GS mWT 002 V1.1.1 (2015-08)
Application needs define most suitable band…
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
CapacityTime To
Market1
Spectrum
fee impact
on TCO2
Form
factor
Rooftop-
to-
Rooftop
LOS PtP
Rooftop-to-Street
LOS/NLOS
PtP/MPtMP
Street-to-Street
LOS/NLOS
PtP/MPtMP
Macro-Cell BH
(0.5-5km)2Gbps Baseline Important Baseline X
Small-Cell BH
(<500m)1Gbps Short
Very
ImportantSmall X X
Fixed
Broadband–
WttH
(<100m)
1Gbps ShortVery
ImportantSmall X X
Fixed
Broadband–
WttC
(<3km)
10Gbps Baseline Important Medium X
E-band
V-band
1This is related to time in between link request (by the market) and link operation (carrying the service)2Spectrum fee is part of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) including HW, SW, services, rentals and spectrum costs for the whole network to be
deployed (e.g. Mobile Backhaul + Radio Base station); that’s why for small cell backhaul impact is “huge”
… due to few key rationales
E-band for “Macro BH” and “WttC” because• Capacity demand: 2 to 10 Gbps• Hop reach: up to 3-5 km• Reliability for basic network layer: requiring a
coordinated spectrum approach
V-band for “Small Cell BH” and “WttH” because• Capacity demand up to 1 Gbps• Hop reach below 0.5 km• Small form factor for street level installation• Time to market and business case requiring
unlicensed spectrum approach
And both bands possibly suitable for rooftop to street level small cell backhaul feeders
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
ISG MWT VIEW ON E-BAND
Most suitable Spectrum Regulations
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Recommended regulations for E-band
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Coordination
License
regime
Coordinated
(by Admin)
Self-coordinated
(by Licensee)
Uncoordinated
(Nobody)
Individual
licensing YES
Light
licensing YES
Block
allocation NO
License
exempt NO
This is in line with “Coordinated” spectrum approach• defined by ECC and FCC regulations worldwide
• already implemented by majority of National Regulations
E-Band
Why Individual or Light Licensing?
Baseline is the need to guarantee coordination among Operators for applications delivering “basic connectivity service”This is traditionally achieved with Individual LicensingHowever Light Licensing is a good alternative • Allowing lower spectrum fees & shorter time for spectrum acquisition• That can be enabler for “new” (WttC) as well as “traditional” (Backhaul)
applications whose business cases is very much dependent on spectrum fees
• Provided that spectrum misuse / abuse is prevented by proper:• common Planning tools and/or principles (for interference condition criteria)• interference analysis and spectrum abuse assessment at link registration stage• enforcement of applied policy / regulation (e.g. enforce Obligation of rolling out)
“Individual” and “Light” licensing could also coexist in different portions of the band• Trying to better address different applications and Operators needs• As implemented by Ofcom in the UK
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
E-Band
Why not Block or License exempt?
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Block allocation is not recommended because• Intrinsic less efficient spectrum usage
• High spectrum fees per link in case of limited deployments
• Preventing the usage of large channels (10 Gbps products using 2 GHz) since it’s not possible to split whole band in between only 2 Operators
License exempt is not recommended because• It cannot guarantee coordination among Operators
• Which is baseline for applications in the E-band
E-Band
License fees are too high in some Countries
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Euro
/Yea
r
Cases
Fees - 250MHz/1Year/Km(*)
57% cases < 300€
300€ < 18% cases < 1000€
1000€ < 25% cases < 11000€
During past 10 years
• MW capacity needs for Mobile Operators increased x 15 for delivering increased peak
speeds
• MW Spectrum in the 6 – 42 GHz is not always enough for delivering today LTE peaks; that’s
why offload to E-Band spectrum is taking place
Looking to next 10 years
• LTE / LTE-A and 5G backhaul needs can only be met with E-Band spectrum
• E-band spectrum fees shall take into account Mobile Operators needs (1-10 Gbps) in terms
of peak speeds
E-Band
• More expensive fee
to cheaper fee ratio
is about 100:1
• This is weird and
cannot be explained
with “local Country
conditions”
• It’s result of
different
approaches on
defining license
fees for new bands
E-band peculiarities for defining License fees
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
E-Band
Description ImpactHow to consider it
for License fee?
Formula
factor
1. Larger
spectrum
availability
• E-band has 5 GHz per sub-band, while 6-42
GHz bands have 1 GHz or less. Therefore
larger channel size in E-band can be used
(nx250 MHz) instead of 56 MHz in lower
bands
Cost per MHz in the
E-Band shall be
much smaller than in
6-42 GHz
License fee proportional
to the ratio between
Channel bandwidth
(BW) and overall Band
size (Bsize)
2. Higher
frequency re-
use
• Requirements on Antenna gain and RPE,
together with higher free space loss
attenuation, result in a linear reduction of
coordination distance (*) when moving to
higher frequency
More links per
square km. The
same spectrum can
be licensed several
times over the same
area
Coordination area
reduction goes with the
square of carrier
Frequency (fc). License
fee proportional to
inverse of coordination
area. F0 (e.g 38 GHz) is
purely for formula
normalization
3. Higher rain
attenuation
• E-band suffering from heavy rain attenuation,
limiting usage up to certain dmax (2-3 km)
• E-band can be used on longer links thanks to
Bandwidth and Carrier Aggregation (BCA**)
• With BCA approach E-Band is used to avoid
spectrum congestion in lower bands (6-42
GHz)
When E-Band is
used on links longer
than dmax, license
fee incentives
should be
considered
• Administration to set
dmax for E-Band
stand-alone link
• BCA discount factor
in case E-Band link
distance (d)
exceeding dmax
𝐵𝐶𝐴 =𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑑
𝑓0
𝑓𝑐
2
𝐵𝑊
𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒
(*) Several studies (such as OFCOM CH, contribution to ETSI ATTM TM4 meeting #37) demonstrates that interference distance at 80 GHz is less than 50%
of the one at 38 GHz, on both axis. Therefore interference area is reducing well below 25% (down to 15%) moving from 38 to 80 GHz, that is proportional to
inverse of the sqauare of the frequency
(**) BCA concept is fully desrcibed within ETSI ISG mWT WI#15 – see backup slides for basic concepts and application with E-Band
License Cost= 𝑘 × 𝐵𝐶𝐴 ×𝑓0
𝑓𝑐
2×
𝐵𝑊
𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒
What is a reasonable License fee for E-band?
ISG mWT believes is important defining relative price point with respect traditional bands
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
K = factor defining absolute figures (Country dependent) [currency]
BCA = discount factor (dmax / d) in case E-band is used for BCA
f0 = Normalization factor (e.g. 38 GHz)
fc = Center Frequency of the Band [GHz]
BW = Channel Bandwidth [MHz]
Bsize = Overall size [MHz] of one sub-band (Go or Return)
020406080
100120140160180200
License fees - relative price points
E-Band
`
3 2 1
• This cart is comparing 56 MHz channel @ 38
GHz (reference price = 100) with different E-Band
spectrum usage
• Showing that 250 MHz channel in the E-Band
should be priced no more than 25% of 56 MHz
in the 38 GHz
• The larger the E-Band channel the higher is the
price, however an upper limit should be set in
order not to jeopardize Total Cost of Ownership
• Upper limit shall also not exceed existing license
fees, especially in case of channel size larger
than 500 MHz or in case of light licensing
Peculiarities described in previous slide
Upper limit
ISG MWT VIEW ON V-BAND
Most suitable Spectrum Regulations
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Recommended regulations for V-band
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Coordination
License
regime
Coordinated
(by Admin)
Self-coordinated
(by Licensee)
Uncoordinated
(Nobody)
Individual
licensing NO
Light
licensing NO
Block
allocation YES
License
exempt YES
This is in line with “Un-Coordinated” spectrum approach• only when it comes to “License exempt”
While “Block allocation” is recommended to properly address new applications and technologies• as explained in coming slides
V-Band
Why not Individual or Light Licensing?
Individual Licensing is not recommended because• Spectrum cost associated is not affordable for V-Band applications
• Time for spectrum acquisition is not affordable for V-Band applications
• There is no guaranteed coordination among Operators (see below)
Light Licensing is not recommended because• It does not guarantee coordination among Operators
• Since interference coordination is almost impossible due to:• Very short links (coordinates accuracy affecting calculations)
• Deployed at street level (unpredictable energy diffraction and reflections due to buildings and street furniture)
• Eventually using steerable antennas (main lobe direction is not fixed)
• Because it’s not possible to simulate such a complex and time changing scenario
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
V-Band
Why License exempt or Block allocation?
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
License exempt is recommended because ETSI GS mWT 004 V1.1.1 (2016-06) demonstrates that• Fully uncoordinated approach is sustainable in the long term • Simulations with 200 links per square km (8 Operators deploying each 10 small
cells per macro site)• Showing that 1 GHz in the V-band (overall 9 GHz) is sufficient to ensure an
acceptable risk of interference (< 2% of cases) even in worst case scenario (LOS, one polarization only, etc.)
• In case of ECC scenario (EIRP < 55 dBm) and products compliant to ETSI standard (antenna gain > 30 dBi )
Block allocation is instead recommended in case of• FCC scenario (no minimum antenna gain requirement when EIRP < 40 dBm) and
wider channel size, that is WiGig like equipment going outdoor – high risk of interference
• NLOS connectivity application – interference scattering polluting a wide area• Wide angle of view beam steering antennas for self organizing meshed networks –
higher interference due to higher side lobes • Operators applications that cannot tolerate interference risk
V-Band
How block allocation should look like?
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Block allocation sounds contradictory in a unlicensed bandHowever a portion of the V-band (overall 9 GHz) could be assigned for block allocation• Considering outcomes of ETSI GS mWT 004 V1.1.1 (2016-06) • Considering 500 MHz per Operator for delivering 1 Gbps• 2 GHz could be sufficient for 4 Operators• The 64-66 GHz V-band portion could be candidate for such usage
• considering ECC /REC(05)02 sets a relaxed EIRP limit (< 85 dBm)• as already done by Ofcom in the UK
Provided that an affordable license fee regime is in place• Because V-band applications have a business case (Total Cost of
Ownership) very sensitive to license fees• “Light Block Assignment” could be one possible way forward (*)
• Different blocks assigned to different Operators by the Administration• Without formal public auction – with all related burdens• Operators registering links deployed and being charged according to number of links
(*) The “light block assignment” concept, even if not specifically considered in ECC Report 80 is actually in use in many Countries where each bigger
operator is given a number of channels for building up its network on nationwide or more limited geographical areas. They plan their links with the same
rules agreed with the administration and from time to time they send the links data for updating the national data base (and calculating the relevant fees).
V-Band
SUMMARY AND FINAL REMARKS
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Key aspects for identifying best Regulation
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Stakeholder Key Expectation
National Administrations Efficient and effective use of the spectrum
Operators Right performances at the lowest TCO
Manufacturers Applicable everywhere with a feasible and valid business
Application Requirements
Technology Capabilities
These are the key aspects considered by ISG mWT for identifying
recommended Regulations for E-band and V-band
LoS
NLoSReflection
NLoSDiffraction
Hop reach Speed (Gbps) Form Factor
LOS/NLOS
Rooftop/Street
PtP
PtMP
MPtMP Beam steering
Beam forming NLOS
SISOMIMO
SON
SDN
1
2
3
Recommended regulations
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Coordination
License
regime
Coordinated
(by Admin)
Self-coordinated
(by Licensee)
Uncoordinated
(Nobody)
Individual
licensing E-band
Light
licensing E-band
Block
allocation V-Band
License
exempt V-Band
E-band recommendations are quite in line with current situation worldwide
• National Administrations to make sure license fees are in line with ISG mWT suggested approach
• According to relative price points that can be derived from this formula
V-band recommendations representing a clear guidance for National Administrations
• For allowing massive deployments
• Considering current and upcoming applications
• Trying to achieve a unified approach worldwide - moving away from super fragmented situation as of today
License Cost
Presenter Details
Paolo Agabio, Vodafone Group Plc
Mobile: +39 348 0870140
Thank you!
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Authors and contributors
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
Rapporteur• Mr. Paolo Agabio, Vodafone Group Plc.
Other Contributors• Mr. Dimitris Siomos, Deutsche Telekom AG
• Mr. Peter Björk, Ericsson AB
• Dr. Jonas Edstam, Ericsson AB
• Mrs. Debora Gentina, Huawei Technologies
• Mr. Renato Lombardi, Huawei Technologies
• Mr. Giuseppe Roveda, Huawei Technologies
• Mr. Roberto Macchi, SIAE Microelettronica SpA
• Mr. Yigal Leiba, Siklu Communication Ltd.
BACKUP
© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved
BCA basic concept
“Bands and carrier aggregation” (BCA) is a concept enabling an efficient use of the spectrum through a smart aggregation of multiple frequency channels in the same or different frequency bands.
Traffic is split in a seamless way across multiple channels and bands according to QoS and adapting real time to propagation conditions and channel failures
Frequency band M
1 2 N
Frequency band 1
Carrier aggregation engine
Traffic
Radio channels
BCA across Microwave and E-Band
Example: 2+0 system in 18GHz and E-Bandwith link length up to 7-10 km
Extending the E-band coverage applicability Traditional microwave frequency (e.g. 18 GHz) provides required availability (e.g. >99.99%) for high priority services E-Band provides capacity boost (Multi-Gbps) at lower availability (e.g. 99.9%)
Huge benefit in decongesting valuable microwave Frequency Bands especially in the range 15 to 42 GHz
E-Band channel @ 250 / 500 /… MHz
18 GHz channel @ 28 / 56 / 112 MHz