Insert Presenter Photo Here

100 x 120 pixel in JPEG or BMP

format

Renaud DuverneWireless R&D

Marketing ManagerAgilent Technologies

Identifying affordable technology to deliver the mobile broadband vision

The roads leading to 4G…

IS-136TDMA PDCGSMIS-95A

cdma

Wireless Evolution 1990 - 2010

2G

Incr

easi

ng e

ffici

ency

, ban

dwid

th a

nd d

ata

rate

s

2.5G

3G

3.5G

3.9G

4G

HSCSD iModeGPRSIS-95Bcdma

LTE-Advanc

ed Rel-9/10

802.16m ?

E-GPRSEDGE

IS-95Ccdma20

00W-CDMA

FDDW-CDMA

TDDTD-

SCDMALCR-TDD

HSUPAFDD & TDD

1xEV-DO

Release B

1xEV-DORelease

A1xEV-DORelease

0HSDPAFDD & TDD

EDGE Evolutio

nHSPA+

802.16eMobileWiMAXT

M

802.11g

802.11a

802.11b

802.16dFixed

WiMAXTM

802.11n

802.11h

WiBROLTERel-8FDD & TDD

Cooper’s law on wireless capacity growth

Dr. Martin Cooper of Motorola - “father” of the modern mobile phone - has observed:

Dr. Martin Cooper in 1982 with the DynaTAC

The number of simultaneous voice and data connections has doubled every 2.5

years since wireless began (1900)

Cooper’s Law

IMT-2000

Mobility

Low

High

1 10 100 1000Peak useful data rate (Mbit/s)

EnhancedIMT-2000

Enhancement

IMT-2000

Mobility

Low

High

1 10 100 1000

Area Wireless Access

EnhancedIMT-2000

Digital Broadcast SystemsNomadic / Local Area Access Systems

New Nomadic / Local

New Mobile Access

”IMT-ADVANCED”

ITU recommendation ITU-R.1645

But what does this look like when probability of coverage is considered?

Voice and SMS are near 100%

Data becomes less probable with increased mobility and rate

Also known as the “van” diagram

What is enabling this apparent exponential growth in wireless communications?The capacity of a system to deliver services is defined by three main factors:• The available radio spectrum – in MHz• The efficient use of that spectrum – bits / second / hertz• The number of cells – this equates to spectrum reuse

Number of cells

Effic

ienc

ySpec

trum

Growth to date dominated by increasing cell count

If we apply Coopers law over the last 50 years we are looking at a growth in wireless capacity of perhaps 1,000,000Allocating this growth between the axes of capacity looks roughly like this:

Gro

wth

fact

or

1

10

100

1000

20 25

2000

Efficiency Spectrum No. of cells

10000

Growth has historically been dominated by the

increase in the number of cells

Mobile Subscribers by Geographic Region

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 CY10

Subs

crib

ers

(M)

Mobile Subscribers by Geographic RegionRegion 2007 2010 CAGRAPAC 1420 2020 12.5%EMEA 1030 1400 10.6%

NA 240 250 1.4%CALA 260 390 14.4%ALL 2950 4060 11.2%

Source: Infonetics, June 2007

World 2007 2010 CAGRPop. 6.6B 6.8B 1.2%

Penet. 44.7% 59.7% 10%

During 2008 50% of the world’s population will have a mobile phone

APAC - Asia Pacific

EMEA - Europe Middle East Africa

NA – North AmericaCALA – Central / Latin America

Cellular wireless peak data rates appear to be on track to grow by 100,000 between 1985 and 2015

Date System Peak data rate

ChannelBandwidth

Frequencyreuse

Peak Spectral efficiency

Normalized efficiency

1985 AMPS 9.6 kbps 30 kHz 7 / 21 0.015 1

1992 GSM 9.6 – 14.4 kbps 200 kHz 4 / 12 0.032 - 0.048 2.1 – 3.2

1997 GPRS 171 kbps 200 kHz 4 / 12 .07 4.7

2000 EDGE 474 kbps 200 kHz 4 / 12 0.2 13.3

2003 W-CDMA 2 Mbps 5 MHz 1 0.4 26.6

2006 HSDPA 14 Mpbs 5 MHz 1 2.8 187

2009 HSDPA+64QAM & 2x2 MIMO 42 Mbps 5 MHz 1 8.4 560

2011 LTE 100 Mbps 20 MHz 1 5 333

2012 LTE 2x2 MIMO 172.8 Mbps 20 MHz 1 8.6 576

2013 LTE 4x4 MIMO 326.4 Mbps 20 MHz 1 16.3 1087

2015 IMT-Advanced targets 1 Gbps 100 MHz 1 10 667

With such peak data rates the demand for capacity could be huge

With today’s cellular densities, average data rates (i.e. capacity) falls behind peak data rates by 10x

Pk Data rates x 2800

Efficiency x 40Spectrum x 7 Capacity x 280

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity

The average efficiency, spectrum and capacity plots are normalized

A 10x capacity gap has opened up today!

Improvements in average efficiency and spectrum are not keeping up with peak rates

Efficiency, spectrum and capacity are normalized to single-band GSM in 1992

Spectral Efficiency bits / sec / Hz

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Average efficiency Peak efficiency

AMPS

GSM

GPRS

EDGE

W-CDMA

HSDPA

1xEV-DO

LTE

802.16e

IS-95C

1xEV-DO(A)EGPRS2 1/3

W-CDMA (R99)EGPRS 4/12 (R99)

Growth in peak / average spectral efficiency by technology

HSDPA (R7)HSDPA (R5)

LTE target

EGPRS 1/3 (R99)

Peak efficiency lies around this line

Average efficiency and hence capacity growth of deployed systems lags well behind and will level off due to inter-cell interference

Peak efficiency drives up air interface cost & complexityYou pay for the peak but experience the average

Geometry factor distribution in urban cells

Geometry factor in dB

Cum

ulat

ive

dist

ribut

ion

0 %

100 %

-30 30

This plot shows the variation in geometry factor across a typical outdoor urban cellVery high spectral efficiency is only seen when the geometry factor is above 15 dB, which is an environment that 90% of the user population will not experienceIn-building penetration loss will degrade performance furtherThis puts a finite and very low limit on indoor performance when using outdoor transmission systems

90% of users 10% of users

0-20 -10 10 20

Most new high data rate/MIMO performance targets require geometry factors experienced by <10% of the user population

Example of interference-limited throughput*

HSDPA macrocell, single Rx + equalizer15 code 64QAM, 20 Mbps peak34 randomly distributed users

20 Mbps

680 Mbps

13 Mbps

1.3 Mbps

Quiz #2: What is the combined throughput and why?

That is an average throughput of 40 kbps

MM

MMM

M

M M

M

M

M MM

M

MM

M

MMM

MM

M

MM

MM

MM

M

M

MM

M

* Source: 3GPP RAN WG4 R4-081344

(0.26 b/s/Hz)

Impact of femtocell deployment on throughput

Using the same macrocell add 96 femtocells24 users migrate to femtocells10 users remain on the macrocell

27 Mbps

270 Mbps

2.7 Mbps

1.3 Mbps

Quiz #3: What is the combined throughput and why?

That is an average throughput of 8 MbpsA 200x improvement!The remaining macrocell users go from 50 kbps to 170 kbps

MM

MMM

M

M M

M

M

M MM

M

MM

M

MMM

MM

M

MM

MM

MM

M

M

MM

M

Page 14

HSDPA cell throughput and geometry factor vs. coverage

8

4

-32510152025+

Mbps cellthroughput vs. G factor

>20 dB5%

>15 dB10%

>5 dB50%

>2 dB70%

>-3 dB100%

>10 dB30%

Rel-7 Type 3 receiver (Equalizer plus receive diversity)

Figures derived from typical urban G factor distribution and 3GPP TS 25.101 v7.9.0 Tables 9.8D3, 9.8D4 & 9.8F3 for 3 km/h

Any point on the graph represents the entire cell capacity if all users experience that G factor

The average cell throughput is around 3 Mbps or 0.6 b/s/Hz

Evidence of existing networks reaching capacity

Elliot Drucker: Hogs and Bandwidthhttp://www.wirelessweek.com/Article-Hogs-and-Bandwidth.aspx

Access to iTunes to be prevented from 3G network? iTunes limited to WiFi connectionshttp://techdirt.com/articles/20080729/0135151823.shtml

Netshare Officially Banned from the App Storehttp://www.theiphoneblog.com/2008/09/14/netshare-officially-banned-from-the-app-store

What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?

The bulk of historical connections has been voice, more recently augmented by SMSTo a first approximation Cooper’s law represents growth in wireless capacity

?

But in the future it is all about data which will be limited by supply not demand

What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?• Spectrum• Efficiency• Number of Cells

One digital band in 1990 to twenty five in 2008Band Uplink Downlink Duplex Mode1 1920 1980 2110 2170 130 FDD2 1850 1910 1930 1990 20 FDD3 1710 1785 1805 1880 20 FDD4 1710 1755 2110 2155 355 FDD5 824 849 869 894 20 FDD6 830 840 875 885 35 FDD7 2500 2570 2620 2690 50 FDD8 880 915 925 960 10 FDD9 1749.9 1784.9 1844.9 1879.9 60 FDD10 1710 1770 2110 2170 340 FDD11 1427.9 1452.9 1475.9 1500.9 23 FDD12 698 716 728 746 12 FDD13 777 787 746 756 21 FDD14 788 798 758 768 20 FDD15 1900 1920 2600 2620 700 FDD16 2010 2025 2585 2600 575 FDD17 704 716 734 746 30 FDD33 1900 1920 1900 1920 0 TDD34 2010 2025 2010 2025 0 TDD35 1850 1910 1850 1910 0 TDD36 1930 1990 1930 1990 0 TDD37 1910 1930 1910 1930 0 TDD38 2570 2620 2570 2620 0 TDD39 1880 1920 1880 1920 0 TDD40 2300 2400 2300 2400 0 TDD

Lots of bands but overlapping and not all in the same geography

Spectrum upside for any one geography

Assume the European model of 340 MHz:• 35+35 MHz of GSM @ 900 MHz• 75 + 75 MHz of GSM @ 1800 MHz• 60 + 60 MHz of UMTS FDD @ 2.1 GHz

Add 70 MHz from UHF bandAdd max 200 MHz from 2.6 GHz bandPlus some 3.5GHz?

Spectrum upside could be 2x

What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?• Spectrum• Efficiency• Number of Cells

Average efficiency upside

Remaining gains in efficiency will come from:• Wider channels enabling freq dependent scheduling• MIMO & Beamforming• Interference cancellation• Advanced coding techniques

Historical average efficiency has been improving around 3x per decade

A very rough figure for the next decade for affordable average efficiency gains is probably going to be similar to the historical trend at around 3x• Consistent with LTE goals

Efficiency upside could be 3x

What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?• Spectrum• Efficiency• Number of Cells

Cell number upside

History shows that the bulk of growth in wireless capacity has come from increasing the number of cells Today we are around one cell per 1000 usersThis has huge potential to changeIt is not unreasonable to assume one cell per ten users which could be achieved with deployment of home base stations or femtocells into 30% of householdsFrom the operator’s perspective, growing capacity by having the end user pay for the CapEx and OpEx is very attractive!

Cell number upside could be 100x

Comparing wireless growth potential for the next decade

Gro

wth

pot

entia

l

1

10

32

100

Efficiency Spectrum No. of cells

100

Using current efficiency and spectrum projections, the increase of cell numbers remains the dominant means of growing capacity

Projecting ahead shows the gap between average and peak rates in loaded cell will grow to 90x

Data rates x 100000

Efficiency x 87 Spectrum x 131100x capacity A 90x gap will exist by 2015

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity

The average efficiency, spectrum and capacity plots are normalized

The outlook is that average efficiency and spectrum will fall further behind peak rates

Efficiency, spectrum and capacity are normalized to single-band GSM in 1992

And on a linear scale

0

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

600000000

700000000

800000000

900000000

1000000000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity

Macrocell reality lies somewhere below this line

The capacity crunch

Which small cell technology will prevail?What about plain old WiFi?Love it or hate it, WiFi is here to stayWiFi today is by far the biggest provider of home and nomadic wireless data services and so can’t be ignored.By cellular standards it is a crude technology

• No power control• No frequency awareness• Limited mobility and handover capability• Limited range

But WiFi’s simplicity and low cost has led to mass deployment

The Wild West of municipal WiFi

Network A

NetworkB

AP Antenna 7dBiSite to site pathloss ~60 dBWiFi ACLR1 ~30 dBAP TX power 23 dBmUplink pathloss ~90 dBClient power ~15 dBmClient antenna -5 dBiRX signal ~ -73 dBmRX interference ~ -53 dBm

20 dB of interference!Wireless anarchy even on adjacent channels!

Who needs adjacent channels anyway?

How can this ever work!!!

802.11 protocol is cognitive and tolerant of interference & bad planning

Only WiFi channels 1, 6 and 11 avoid overlapEleven APs broadcasting on channel 11!

Page 30

The limitations of hotspot systemsProviding continuous coverage

No coverage High SNR

The only way to get high performance is to ensure high SNR

The requires that cells are far enough apart so they don’t interfere

But the inevitable consequence is large gaps in coverage

Ten things WiFi has in common with public toilets1. Access is likely to be cheap or increasingly free (beware of 4 star hotels!)2. Usually no need to wait unless you’re in a crowd (E.g. 3GPP meetings!)3. It’s not always available just where you want it and sometimes you just

can’t afford to wait4. The quality is very variable and not regulated - You trust your home, the

office, the VIP lounge, your hotel room - but Grand Central Station?5. Once you find one it may be out of order6. They all have different interfaces7. You might fear you could catch a virus8. Once started, you must finish before moving elsewhere9. You are at the mercy of people who want to look at what you are doing10. If another user is too close you may be splattered by unwanted emissions

But despite their obvious limitations, where would we be without public toilets and WiFi?

WiFi – Enabling 3GPP 200 laptops at a time

RAN WG1 & WG4 ad hoc Prague August 2004

Often the “best” technology doesn’t win

• Ethernet vs. Token ring• 802.11b vs. HiperLAN• Windows 3.1 vs. Unix• Iridium vs. GSM

And now…• McDonalds vs. McCaw?

Anyone fancy a nybble before dinner?

Would you like bytes with that?

“Perfection is the enemy of the good” Gustav FlaubertFrench Novelist 1821 - 1880

Can femtocells outperform and replace WiFi?

The potential for cellular femtocells to deliver the future growth of wireless is very real but:• The industry remains largely focussed on improving efficiency

which is driving up cost and complexity• Many the engineering challenges of femtocells remain to be

solved

Page 35

Femtocells are low-power wireless access points that operate in licensed spectrum to connect standard mobile devices to a mobile operator’s network using residential DSL or cable broadband connections.

Source: http://www.femtoforum.org

What is a Femtocell?

Femtocells ~10m

< 8 users

Picocells ~100m,< 32 users

Microcells ~ 1-3Km

Macrocells ~ 35 Km

Femtocell key challenges

• It’s all about interference mitigation!• Co-channel deployment looks very problematic except for rural• Adjacent channel seems possible• Regulatory aspects – need GPS for authentication• A hackers paradise – build your own cellular network…• Open vs. closed access• Business models

• Tied to operator• Net neutrality – who owns the backhaul?

• Could blow femtocell competition off the planet – will vary by country• Could it hurt my cat?

• Possible public backlash over radiation concerns?

In a mature market, Value > price > cost PriceService

Data rate / volume

Price € Cost / MByte

Price / MByte

Relative price

SMS 160 Bytes €0.15 / message

€ X €1000 400,000

Voice 10 kbps €0.05 to €0.5 / minute

€ Y € 0.7 - € 7 300 - 3000

Data service (capped at 3 Gbytes)

3 GBytes €20 / month € Y € 0.007 3

Unicast Mobile TV (Capped at 50 hrs)

50 Hours @ 100 kbps

€5 / month € Y € 0.0023 1

The value of data is inversely proportional to the rate but the cost of delivery remains relatively constant

Wireless traffic segmentation

Macro/micro CellularUbiquitous mobile data / voiceMobility and continuous coverageAbility to control QoSLimited capacity and data ratesHigh costs – OK for high value trafficOften outdoors & movingRequires ears & mouth

Hotspot/FemtocellOpportunistic nomadic dataHotspot coverageNomadic useDistributed cost (not low cost)Free or chargedSitting down indoorsRequires eyes

2x2 A380 Mbps

Circuit-switched voice services and SMS are the profit backbone of the cellular industry. First and business class passengers!

Technology now allows users to route voice, video and message services over an “all-you-can-eat” or capped data service, paying perhaps € 0.007 per seat in the hold!

There are only so many seats on the cellular plane If profitable traffic shifts to low tariffs the cellular airline will go bust.

Users associate VoIP with low or no cost – this does not work for cellularCellular can’t afford users listening to internet radio or TV over low-price data services

Data services – the killer app?

Comparison of traditional cellular vs. hotspot for data delivery over next decade

Macro/Micro Hotspot

Capacity 6X 100x ?

Coverage Reducing (for higher rates) Where its needed

Complexity Growing Low, stable

Cost per bit High and not falling fast enough Very low

Improvements in macro network e.g. EDGE Evolution, HSPA+, LTE will continue but low-value high-volume traffic has to move to hotpots

So which hotspot technology will win?

The answer lies between the extremes of highly regulated femtocellular or the anarchy of Wild West WiFi:

WiFi enabled iPhoneCellular controlToday the needle can only move to the left.But how far will it swing?

FemtometerTM

Wi-FiAnarchy

?

Femtocell

Control

Thank you for listening!