View
1.211
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
DRIVING BROADBAND INNOVATION IN UAE; DU LTE EVOLUTION
Dr. Ayman ElnasharSr. Director - Wireless Broadband &
Site Sharing EITC (du) - UAE
Agenda Driving Wireless Broadband Innovation
in UAE: du Broadband Portfolio Why LTE (Data Evolution)
Speed Enhancement Latency Reduction Rich QoS capability All IP Simple flat architecture
LTE Evolution Spectrum Options Deployment Strategy Trial Results
du Broadband PortfolioC
over
age/
Mob
ility
Data Speeds (Kbps)
Loca
l Are
aFi
xed
Wire
less
Wid
e A
rea
Mob
ileM
etro
Are
aN
omad
ic
Fixed xDSL & Fiber ‘Ultra Broadband’
3.X G2G
Fixed Wireless
2.5G 3G
802.11b/a/g/n
Broadband everywhere
du WiFi Hotspots
Fixed Wireless Broadband services using OFDM (PTP &
PTMP) high capacity Links with up to 300Mbps for SME and
Enterprise customers
du Fixed network Services
du UAE Nationwide Mobile Network
Nationwide Mobile BroadbandHSPA+/DC-HSPA+ (42Mbps)*
3
* Du is the 1st in UAE to deploy the DC-HSPA+ nationwide and UAE is the 6th nation globally to deploy this technology thanks to du.
802.16dWiMax in 3.5GHz for
small SME
LTE Evolution
TDD Technologies
FDD Technologies
4
Why LTE?
5
3GPP Evolutions; HSPA + & LTE
Page 6
Bandwidth1.4Mhz
Thro
ughp
ut
5Mhz
1
MIMORx/Tx
10Mhz 20Mhz
LTE326Mbps
24
LTEDL:5Mbps
LTE (OFDMA) scales linearily in
bandwidth (single carrier) and in single user-MIMO
factors (max. 4x4)
HSPA+ (WCDMA) scales linearily
in bandwidth (multi carrier) and proportionally in
single user -MIMO (max. 2x2)
HSPA+DL:21MbpsUL:11Mbps
86Mbps43Mbps
LTE 173Mbps86Mbps
LTE43Mbps21Mbps
HSPA+42Mbps11Mbps
LTE86Mbps43Mbps
HSPA+(DC)84Mbps*22Mbps*
LTE43Mbps21Mbps
HSPA+ vs. LTE Peak Data Rates DL/UL
* Chipset Roadmap delayed for 2012 and we may need additional carrier to get the peak
throughput as MIMO will not add any gain for voice (R99).
HSPA+ vs. LTEHSPA+ LTE
Peak Rate 84Mbps@10MHz172Mbps@20Mhz (2x2)
326.4Mbps@20MHz(4x4)
Spectrum Efficiency (Peak)
8.4bps/Hz (Peak for DC+ MIMO + 64QAM)
8.6bps/Hz (Peak for 2x2 MIMO)
Spectrum Efficiency (Average cell
throughput) (DL/UL)1.424/0.6 (MIMO+64QAM)
1.717/0.99 (2x2 MIMO)20% improvement in DL
65% improvement in the UL
Transmission bandwidth
Full system bandwidth Variable up to full system bandwidth
Suitability for MIMO (i.e., MIMO Gain)
Requires significant computingpower due to signal beingdefined in the time domain and on top of spreading (frequency selective channel)
Ideal for MIMO due to signalrepresentation in the frequency domain and possibility of narrowband allocation to follow real-time variations in the channel(Frequency nonselective channel)
7
Page 8
HSPA+ vs. LTE Latency ImprovementLatency
800
100
55
40
13
1800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
HSPA
HSPA+
LTE
Del ay (ms)
Control plane Idle -> active
User plane latency (RTT)
For web site access response, LTE requires ¼ of time of HSPA+ and 1/8 of HSPA
Delay to access a 60kByte web page
2350
1200
300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
HSPA HSPA+ LTE
Del
ay (m
s)
HSPA
HSPA+
LTE
WOW
LTE versus DC-HSPA+: LTE will Bring Significant improvements
LTE is the next step in the user experience and essential to take mobile broadband to the mass market
LTE Brings More New Data Services than HSPA+
Page 10
Data application GPRS/EDGE UMTS LTESMS ★ ★ ★
Ring back Tone ★ ★ ★Basic online Gaming ★ ★ ★
MMS ★ ★ ★WAP browsing ★ ★ ★
Email ★ ★ ★“Classic” WEB browsing ★ ★ ★Video Ring Back Tone ★ ★
High-end Gaming ★ ★High quality online video ★ ★
Video telephony ★ ★“Super-fast” WEB browsing ★ ★
Broadcast Mobile TV (MBMS) ★ ★Corporate VPN, intranet ★ ★
true on-demand television ★Video-based mobile advertising ★
Wireless DSL ★Mobile WEB2.0 (social community, P2P) ★
High quality online gaming (consistent experience with fix network) ★
LTE Brings Better MBB Experience than HSPA+Technology(Cell Throughput)
EDGE56kbps
UMTS512kbps
HSPA2Mbps
HSPA8mbps
DC-HSPA+42Mbps
LTE100Mbps
Web surfing (response time)
36 Seconds 4 Seconds 1 Second 0.3 Second 0.1 Seconds 0.025 Second
Download 5M Music
12 Minutes 1Minutes18 seconds
20 Seconds 5 Seconds 2 Seconds 0.5 Second
Download 25M Video
1 Hour 6Minutes31Seconds
1 Minute40Seconds
25 Seconds 8 Seconds 2 Seconds
Download 750M HD movie
29 Hours 3 Hours15 Minutes
50 Minutes
12 Minutes30 Seconds
4 Minutes10 Seconds
1 Minutes20 Seconds
12
LTE Network: A Simple Architecture leads to lower cost per bit
Simplified/Flat All IP Architecture: CS core network removed – PS only UMTS RNC “removed”, RNC functionalities moved to the eNodeB eNodeB connected directly to the Evolved Packet Core (EPC)
QoE Expectations and Performance Requirements by Service Type
13
3GPP QoS Parameters: QCI QCI
Resource Type
PriorityPacket Delay Budget
Packet Loss Rate
Example Services
1
GBR
2 100ms 10-2 Conversational Voice
2 4 150ms 10-3 Conversational Video (live streaming)
3 3 50ms 10-3 Real Time Gaming
4 5 300ms 10-6 Non-conversational Video (buffered streaming)
5
Non-GBR
1 100ms 10-6 IMS Signalling
6 6 300ms 10-6Video (Buffered Streaming); TCP-based (e.g. www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing, progressive video, etc.)
7 7 100ms 10-3 Voice, Video (Live Streaming), Interactive Gaming
8 8300ms 10-6
Video (Buffered Streaming); TCP-based (e.g. www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing, progressive video, etc.)9 9
The QCI is further used within the LTE access network to define the control packet-forwarding treatment from an end-to-end perspective.
It also ensures a minimum standard level of QoS to ease the interworking between the LTE networks mainly in roaming cases and in multi-vendor environments
PDB defines an upper bound delay that a packet is allowed to experience between UE & PCEF
LTE Evolution
15
16
Key Technologies of LTE
17
OFDM, the state-of-the-art Radio Access Technology:Moving from Time Domain to Frequency Domain
18
Why OFDM/SC-FDMA Robustness against multipath which makes it
suitable for broadband systems compared to TDMA/CDMA techniques.
SC-FDMA brings additional benefit of low peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) making it suitable for uplink transmission and then extend UE battery life.
Receiver design is very simple thanks to frequency non-selective (i.e., flat fading) channel.
OFDM is inherently susceptible to channel dispersion since OFDM symbol time is much larger than the typical channel dispersion.
19
2x2 MIMOeNodeB UE 1
1x2 SIMOeNodeB UE 1
In typical urban area: 15%~28% gain over SIMO @ Macro ~50% gain over SIMO @ Micro
MIMO: the Key to Improve Cell Throughput
Page 20
All IP Flat Architecture
Gateway
Scalable Bandwidth
Increasing Bandwidth Decreasing Latency
Simplified Architecture IP Core: flat, scalable Backhaul based on IP / MPLS
transport Fits with IMS, VoIP, SIPImproved spectral efficiency Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiple Access (OFDMA) for Downlink (DL) and Single Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) for Uplink (UL)
Robust modulation in dense environments Increased spectral efficiency Simplified Receiver design
cheaper terminal Scalable - go beyond 5 MHz
limitation MIMO (Multiple-Input, Multiple-
Output) for UL& DL Increased link capacity Multi-Users MIMO (UL) Overcome multi-path interference
Refarm 2G
Refarm 3G New Spectrum10 MHz 15 MHz 20 MHz3 MHz 5 MHz1.4 MHz
LTE key features
Spectrum Options
21
Page 22
LTE Spectrum and Re-farming Options
New Bands well suited for LTE to avoid refarming when introducing new technology 2.6GHz spectrum mainly for LTE “Digital Dividend” (e.g. 800MHz/700MHz bands): Trend is to use it for LTE
2.1GHz spectrum: bandwidth mostly for UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+ and few countries for LTE 900MHz, 1800MHz, AWS re-farming is needed before UMTS/HSPA or LTE usage
900MHz refarming already started for UMTS usage => may not be possible to use it for LTE in most of countries
1800MHz will be re-farmed directly to LTE AWS is planned for LTE use in North America
Possible rollout scenarios: LTE 2.6GHz/AWS/1.8GHz/DD vs. HSPA+ 2.1GHz/900MHz
20102008 2015 2025
2.6 GHz
2.1 GHz
1800 MHz
900 MHz
DD
GSM
GSM
Freq. Bands
LTE
LTE?
2020
WiMAX3.5 GHz LTE?
WiMAX? LTE
LTE
LTEUMTS / HSPAUMTS / HSPA?
UMTS / HSPA?
23
Why LTE 1800 Coverage area is about 2X larger than LTE2.6GHz
with better indoor penetration. 35% improvement in cell edge throughput
compared to LTE2.6GHz. Reduction of Extra sites results in quick delivery of
the LTE to market. Reuse of existing GSM1800 coverage polygons and
possibility to share antenna system of GSM1800. Reuse of existing IBS system without upgrade to
support 2.6GHz and without coverage degradation.
LTE1800: promising and available for mass market
Deployment Strategy
24
25
Horizontal Distance: 0.5m
2/3G band x LTE band x
Vertical Distance: 0.2m
2/3G band x
LTE band x
Horizontal 0.5m or vertical 0.2m antennas separation is the minimum requirement
Antennas Separation and Guard Band Requirement for Co-Existing System
Guard band Requirement for Co-existing Systems ( MHz )
Co-existing SystemsLTE Bandwidth
5MHz 10MHz 15MHz 20MHzLTE1800 + GSM1800 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
LTE Band X + LTE Band Y 0 0 0 0
LTE FDD + LTE TDD 10 10 10 10
26
27
Download Volume Speed (1GB and 10GB )
28
Thank You
Recommended