5G Acceleration in 3GPP

www.signalsresearch.com

Dispatches from the frontier of wireless research

March 7, 2017

A QUICK UPDATE FROM RAN#75 PLENARY

2 | Signals Flash March 7, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis week we are attending the RAN#75 Plenary in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Given the importance of this meeting w.r.t. the advancement of 5G/NR (New Radio) and outside interest in at least one multi-company proposal, we decided to issue a very quick Signals Flash!, based on where things stand at this time. Following the completion of the entire Plenary, we will publish a far more detailed synopsis in our Signals Ahead series of reports.

As always, unlike our subscription-based Signals Ahead reports, you may forward this Signals Flash! report to whomever you want.

➤➤ 5G Ahead. Although the idea of completing the NSA (Non-Standalone) implementation of 5G/NR (eMBB only) has been around since June 2016, it recently garnered a lot of media attention, thanks to a well-timed press release by many of its sponsors. This time around, the proposal made its way through 3GPP.

➤➤ 5G – It’s Official. Prior to this plenary, 3GPP reached consensus regarding the terminology/marketing term for the next-generation technology currently being defined within the stan-dards body. It is now known as 5G – surprise.

➤➤ What is in and What is Out. The big decisions for this plenary involve what is in and what is out of Release 15 (work items), not to mention Release 16 study items. The dust hasn’t quite settled on near-term 5G/NG-RAN functionality, but the writing is on the wall for a least a few key features that we earlier suggested probably wouldn’t make the cut. Spectrum prioritization is another hot topic.


Unlike our more in-depth Signals Ahead research reports, there are not any restrictions associ-ated with the redistribution of this document. Recipients of Signals Flash! may share this docu-ment both internally within their organization and externally with reckless abandon. In fact, we encourage it! In addition to providing near-real-time commentary and analysis of industry noteworthy events, Signals Flash! provides readers with a summary of past and planned research reports that we offer through our subscription-based Signals Ahead research product. We have also taken the opportunity to promote a couple of our most recent and futuristic reports for readers of this Signals Flash! who don’t subscribe to Signals Ahead.

5G AHEAD (NSA OPTION 3)Just prior to MWC, a consortium of companies issued a press release which advocated their support for an accelerated 5G/NR timeline. In summary, the proposal (RP-170666) sought to accelerate one of multiple network deployment options for the new air interface, specifically the Non-Standalone (NSA) Option 3, which leverages the existing LTE core network (EPC) in combina-tion with the new air interface and LTE (i.e., dual-connectivity). The accelerated timeline moves the completion of Option 3 to December 2017 (ASN.1 done in March 2018) with the completion of the Release 15 specification remaining unchanged, or June 2018 (ASN.1 done in September 2018).

In total, there were at one time as many as twelve different options, although 3GPP very quickly determined that four of the options were irrelevant, although conversely some of the eight remaining options have various permutations, meaning that there are really more than eight options remaining. We refer Signals Ahead readers to our June 2016 report (SA 06/29/16, “5G Standardization Update: When the Marketing Tail Wags the Technology Dog”) for a complete explanation of these various deployment options. We refer non-Signals Ahead subscribers to the subscription page on the back page of this Signals Flash!

Many operators and vendors are interested in accelerating Option 3 because if vendors know the Layer 1 and Layer 2 implementation then they can turn the FGPA-based solutions that we saw at Mobile World Congress into silicon and start designing commercially-deployable solutions. Although operators will eventually deploy a brand new 5G core network, in the interim they will continue to use their existing LTE EPC. Therefore, by focusing on Option 3, which also has a couple of variants, they will meet their deployment schedules, which can’t wait for June 2018.

The interest in accelerating Option 3 isn’t new and we’ve been writing about it since last June when Vodafone proposed it at an earlier RAN Plenary that we attended in South Korea. For various reasons, both stated and unstated, some operators and vendors were opposed to the idea. Long story short, 3GPP kept kicking the can down the road with the hope that one day the member companies would approve the proposal. As we wrote at various times last year, there really wasn’t any need for 3GPP to make a decision until March 2017 so delaying the decision until now really didn’t have a big impact.

There was a fair amount of interest in the press and analyst community regarding the companies who did and didn’t publicly endorse the accelerated schedule in the press release. Ultimately, the “real list” of endorsing companies – per the 3GPP submission – also includes Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, Nokia, Samsung, and Verizon. Two of those names – Samsung and Verizon – are espe-cially noteworthy since they were staunch opponents of the accelerated schedule. ZTE’s name was included in the press release, but it was also against the accelerate schedule until now. We explored the rationale behind each company’s reluctance in earlier Signals Ahead reports.

The interest in accelerating Option 3 isn’t new and we’ve been writing about it since last June when Vodafone proposed it at an earlier RAN Plenary.


MediaTek, China Unicom, China Telecom, Telefonica, and others submitted a counter proposal (RP-170675), which also proposed an accelerated schedule for Option 3. Many of the differences between the two proposals seemed to be semantics, but ultimately the general concern from all member companies is that the accelerated schedule for Option 3 (eMBB functionality only) shouldn’t result in a solution that is incompatible with the final Release 15 specification, which also includes the Standalone mode (5G core network) and a litany of other features that 3GPP will be deciding later this week. For example, with what could be interpreted as a humorous touch, the MediaTek proposal used the term “slush” to refer to the interim work on Option 3, which is somewhat frozen, but subject to evolve into the full Release 15 specification, including SA mode. Meanwhile, the counter proposal from Vodafone et. al. used the term “intermediate freeze.” Hopefully, both sides recognize that when freezes turn into slush/partial freezes and then back into freezes that you end up with pot holes.

After a bit of back and forth haggling on the text used in the joint proposal, everyone came together and endorsed a way forward. One haggling point involved the matter of backward compatibility – both sides wanted to allow for backward incompatible change requests (CRs) post March 2018 without implying that there would likely be an incompatible version of Release 15 (NSA only) in December 2018. The second point of discussion involved the naming convention for the version of Release 15 which includes the NSA only functionality with Option 3. Here, 3GPP agreed to use “intermediate implementable version with frozen ASN.1” when referring to the March 2018 status of the accelerated work.

Outside of 3GPP, the semantics of the final text in the 3GPP-endorsed proposal isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that 3GPP agreed to the new schedule, which leaves the overarching Release 15 schedule unchanged and which benefits operators and vendors who want 5G/NR sooner rather than later. We personally don’t see an immediate need for a new air interface. Mobile operators in Japan and South Korea who have very advanced networks also have an abundance of capacity given the densification of their networks. Operators in other parts of the world are generally behind the curve when it comes to supporting advanced LTE functionality in their networks. Giving them 5G functionality in 2018 might be nice for their marketing campaigns, but if they were serious about their networks then most of these operators could do more with what they already have or could have with LTE.

Accelerating certain aspects of Release 15 doesn’t decrease the risks that the industry gets a new technology that is sub-optimal. Conversely, it doesn’t necessarily increase the risk either since the Layer 1 and Layer 2 functionality required for NSA and SA options would need to be done in December to meet the Release 15 completion date of June 2018. Put another way, the “acceler-ated schedule” merely puts in writing the implied Release 15 schedule that was needed all along to meet the full completion of the Release 15 specification in time.

It’s Official – It’s 5G!

As we have written in the past, although 3GPP has been working on 5G for quite some time, it hasn’t been working on 5G at all. By this statement, we mean that the term 5G was never an officially endorsed term. Only the ITU can anoint the term 5G on a technology and it won’t be able to do so in an official capacity until after 3GPP makes its Release 16 submission and the ITU approves it as 5G. Nonetheless, 3GPP needed to assign some sort of name to all the work it is doing so thus began the back and forth debate for the best name.

Hopefully, both sides recognize that when freezes turn into slush/partial freezes and then back into freezes that you end up with pot holes.

The “accelerated schedule” merely puts in writing the implied Release 15 schedule that was needed all along.


Engineers aren’t marketers and marketers aren’t engineers so that is why we have the term LTE. Mobile WiMAX is actually a pretty good name and it appropriately defines the underlying basis of the technology. Then again, Mobile WiMAX failed to achieve long-term marketing success, in part due to technical (i.e., engineering) principles. As a side note, 3GPP never intended for LTE to be labeled 4G but the marketing teams from various operators stole the show and awarded it the moniker, along with HSPA+, HSDPA Cat 10, and pretty much any technology that was better than 3G. 3GPP intended for LTE-Advanced (Release 10) to become 4G, but some circles now consider Release 10 to be 4.5G.

Of course, all of this labeling of technologies is really meaningless. A US operator is already advertising its 5G solution, which it will launch later this year and which will support a whop-ping 450 Mbps, or less than half the peak data speed possible in today’s Telstra network. We also recall that Broadcom temporarily used the term 5G to refer to 802.11ac several years ago. Further, it is hard to explain why a Release 15 network, which only supports eMBB functionality with an LTE core network deserves to be called 5G since by all accounts it fails to meet the expectations of NGMN. Our personal preference is to continue to avoid using the term 3G, 4G, etc. and to instead define the underlying capabilities of the network. An LTE-Advanced network with 4-carrier CA, 4x4 MIMO and 256-QAM, not to mention uplink CA and uplink 64-QAM is fundamentally different and a heck of a lot better than an LTE-Advanced network with 2-carrier CA even though they both are entitled to be called 4G (or is that 4.5G or 4.9G J)?

Getting to the point of this section, 3GPP will now use 5G on all Release 15 and beyond specifica-tions. The “beyond” point is noteworthy since it indicates 5G will extend well beyond Release 16, just as 3G started with Release ’99 and continues today with Release 14 and Release 15. Another point, although a bit of a technicality, is that 3GPP also endorsed the term “NG-RAN” to refer to a radio access network that connects to a 5G core network. This radio access network could be either eLTE (LTE Release 15 and beyond) or based on the new 5G/NR air interface.

What is In and What is Out – Let the Food Fight Begin

Separate from the accelerated schedule for Option 3, there remains a lot of uncertainty regarding the full functionality of Release 15, including LTE-Advanced Pro and HSPA+. Then there is the selection of Release 16 study items – a key precursor to getting full 5G functionality that is consistent with the NGMN requirements and the ITU guidelines for IMT-2020. There simply isn’t enough time in the day (and night) to include everything that everyone wants. We anticipate 3GPP will make a lot of important decisions later in the week while kicking the can down the road regarding other proposals.

In addition to the basic technical features, there is also the matter of prioritizing which frequency bands and frequency band combinations involving NR (New Radio) and LTE are included. We already sense that 3GPP will move in the direction that we suggested it might do back in November for one of the key 5G use cases. We also note that there are already indications that LTE will be closely examined for supporting/partially supporting some of the use cases that are traditionally considered to be 5G/NR use cases. Lastly, it also appears as if some of the vendor demonstrations and slideware that we saw at MWC pertaining to NR and LTE coexistence will remain off the table for Release 15, at least for the time being. Until next time, be on the lookout for the next Signals Ahead….

Engineers aren’t marketers and marketers aren’t engineers so that is why we have the term LTE.

All of this labeling of technologies is really meaningless.

LTE will be closely examined for supporting/partially supporting some of the 5G/NR use cases.

VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR……And then in release 9, 3GPP created eMBSD

Price: $1,295

Included with an annual subscription to Signals Ahead

CONTACT INFORMATIONTo purchase, call +1 (510) 273-2439 or email [email protected]. Subscription information for Signals Ahead, which includes these reports, can be found on the last page of this report. You can also visit our website at www.signalsresearch.com or write us at

Signals Research Group5300 Painter Creek GreenIndependence, MN 55359

VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR…

…AND THEN IN RELEASE 9, 3GPP CREATED eMBMS

NOW AVAILABLE!


COMING SOON!

646.2 DEGREES OF TESTINGQUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS OF 3-CARRIER CA WITH SUPPORT FOR UP TO 1 GBPS AND THE WORLD’S FIRST 4-CARRIER CA NETWORK

646.2 DEGREES OF TESTINGQuantifying the benefits of 3-carrier CA with support for up to 1 gbps and the world’s first 4-carrier CA network





KEEPING UP WITH THE JETSONS

A benchmark study of how LTE networks enable the command and control of drones




COMING SOON!

KEEPING UP WITH THE JETSONS

A BENCHMARK STUDY OF HOW LTE NETWORKS ENABLE THE COMMAND AND

CONTROL OF DRONES

EXPLORE THE WORLD OF

5G WIRELESS

January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research

J F M A M J J A O N D J F M A M J J A S O NS

December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10

EXPLORING THE WORLD OF WIRELESS

GET SMART[ER]UNDERSTANDING THE INS AND OUTS OF THE 5G USE CASES



December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10


MORE 5G



September 30, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 8


LOOKING FURTHER AHEAD TO 5.5G1

UPDATES ON THE 3GPP 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS

1 Feel free to note the sarcasm

New subscribers to SIGNALS AHEAD will receive up to four 5G-related back issues FOR FREE with a paid subscription.

...with more to come!

FOLLOW THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORT AS IT HAPPENS

January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10 PREVIEWJanuary 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research


December 22, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 11 PREVIEW


ALL QUIET ON THE 5G FRONT AN UPDATE ON THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS

AND OTHER 3G-RELATED ACTIVITIES

BECOME A 5G EXPERT TODAY

CHECK THE AVAILABLE 5G COURSES AT

WWW.5G-COURSES.COMIn collaboration with

Use promotional code SRG5G. Contact us for more information


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES

➤➤ 2/16/17 “Video Killed the Radio Star…and then in Release 9, 3GPP created eMBMS” In this Signals Ahead report we provide results from the industry's first and only inde-pendent benchmark study of unicast and eMBMS, including both video performance and the impact on the network. For this study we used the Telstra commercial LTE network in Australia where Ericsson is the infrastructure supplier.

Highlights of the Report include the following:

Our Thanks. This study could not have been done without the support of Spirent Communications and Accuver Americas. These companies provided us with the test equipment that we used to evaluate the video delivery performance of eMBMS and unicast (Spirent Communications – Chromatic test platform), as well as the impact on the network (Accuver – XCAL and XCAP).

Our Approach. We tested simultaneously with two different smartphones within a MBSFN Service Area located just outside of Sydney (Band 28). The Galaxy S5 smartphone supported eMBMS and the Galaxy S7 streamed a video using unicast, including direct streaming via VLC for Android and YouTube.

The KPIs. For video performance we analyzed the observed frame rate, including video freezes, video impairments, and A/V synchro-nization. For the network analysis, we focused primarily on SINR/SNR, resource block (RB) utilization, and sub-frame allocations.

The Jury is In. Although the eMBMS market has been slow to develop, it has nothing to do with the technical merits of eMBMS. We identified and quantified substantial differences between the eMBMS SNR and the unicast SINR, thereby validating the merits of SFN (single frequency network). Most importantly, we document how the business case for eMBMS is justified with very, very few broadcast subscribers in each cell within the MBSFN Service Area.

Barcelona and then Croatia. We are soon headed off to Barcelona and a week at MWC. We then head to Croatia for RAN#75, where 5G should move from a study item to a work item.

➤➤ 1/9/17 “Finding MIMO: Quantifying the Impact of 4x4 MIMO in a Commercial LTE Network” In this Signals Ahead report we provide the results from the industry's first and only independent performance analysis of 4x4 MIMO. For this study we used the T-Mobile commercial LTE network in the Minneapolis market where Nokia is the infrastructure supplier.


Our Approach. We burned through more than 9 SIM cards (28 GB each) while transferring data on Samsung Galaxy S7 smartphones. We purchased one S7 from a T-Mobile store. This phone supported 4x4 MIMO, 256-QAM, and a 4-way receive antenna architecture, as well as uplink 64-QAM. We also purchased an unlocked S7 from a Best Buy store. This phone did not support any of these features. We configured the phones so that they only operated in Band 4 to maximize the potential use of 4x4 MIMO. We used the Datum application from Spirent Communications in order to generate the downlink and uplink traffic.

The Tease. Over the course of all testing, including various morphologies and clusters of 4x4 and 2x2 MIMO sites, we observed that the median downlink data rate for the T-Mobile S7 was 55% higher than the Best Buy S7.

The Detailed Analysis. In the main body of the report we analyze the performance differences between the two smartphones in excruciating detail. We quantify the incremental benefits of RI = 3/4 only, 256-QAM only, and mixed use of 256-QAM and RI = 3/4, as well as the benefits of a 4-way receive antenna architecture.

What about Power? We quantify how the LTE-Advanced features that we tested impacted battery life, including normalized results which take into consideration differences in measured data speeds.

What about the Uplink? Following our major study of uplink performance, based on testing in Seoul, South Korea, we revisit the impact of uplink 64-QAM on the uplink performance with a particular focus on the probability that the mobile device uses the higher modulation scheme. The findings are surprising..

➤➤ 11/29/16 “The Politics of 5G Standardization: An Eleventh Hour Kumbaya, or Rock-Paper-Scissors” We recently attended the RAN working group meetings which were jointly held, along with the SA2 working group, in Reno, NV. As part of our series of reports on the 5G standardization process, we provide an update on the recent activities pertaining to the new air interface as well as discuss the overall 3GPP standardiza-tion process.


The Standardization Process. Despite 3GPP attendance at record levels, very few people in the industry have actually attended a meeting. Therefore, we provide some perspectives on how the whole process works and how companies try to work together for a common goal. Most of the time it works quite well while other times it doesn’t.

eMBB Channel Coding. 3GPP came to an agreement of sorts on a way forward for eMBB channel coding (mMTC and URLLC channel coding is TBD). We provide our perspectives on the decisions that were made, why they were made, and what it might mean.

Channel Modeling Revisited. We earlier discussed our concerns about the channel model (> 6 GHz) being used during the stan-dardization process. Although we have no new insight to suggest the model is or isn’t flawed, we do have greater insight into its importance and how inaccurate simulations could result in poor decisions.

What about Power? The knock on these two features is that they are perceived to have a big impact on the current consumption/battery life. Therefore we provide results from several tests which look into the power efficiency of uplink CA and uplink 64-QAM.

5G Lite? We question what, if any, incremental benefits 5G/NR offers versus LTE-Advanced Pro in spectrum below 6 GHz. We also question whether or not 3GPP should include URLLC in Release 15.


ON THE HORIZON: POTENTIAL SIGNALS AHEAD/SIGNALS FLASH! TOPICS

We have identified a list of pending research topics that we are currently considering or presently working on completing. The topics at the top of the list are definitive with many of them already in the works. The topics toward the bottom of the page are a bit more speculative. Obviously, this list is subject to change based on various factors and market trends. As always, we welcome suggestions from our readers.

5G Standardization

➤➤ 5G from a 3GPP Perspective (ongoing series of reports – published quarterly or as warranted)

Thematic Reports

➤➤ Mobile Edge Computing and the impact of data caching at the cell edge

➤➤ LTE and the Connected Car

➤➤ Cloud RAN

➤➤ LTE-Advanced Pro features, opportunities and challenges

Benchmark Studies

➤➤ HetNet/small cells performance benchmark study

➤➤ OTA Benchmark Study of smartphones, part II (TM2, etc.)

➤➤ 1 Gbps LTE

➤➤ VoLTE Part Seven – Impact of QCI=2 with video telephony and its impact on the user experience

➤➤ Carrier Aggregation with LAA/LTE-U/LWA

➤➤ Network impacts (to include signaling) of using various smartphone OS platforms and/or applications (video, VoLTE, social networking, etc.)

➤➤ Uplink CoMP network benchmark study

➤➤ Chips and Salsa – LTE TDD chipset benchmark study

➤➤ MU-MIMO

please note disclaimer: The views expressed in this newsletter reflect those of Signals Research Group and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless industry. This report is provided for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a basis for any investment decision. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but Signals Research Group makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Opinions, estimates, projections or forecasts in this report constitute the current judgment of the author(s) as of the date of this report. Signals Research Group has no obligation to update, modify or amend this report or to otherwise notify a reader thereof in the event that any matter stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate. If you feel our opinions, analysis or interpretations of events are inaccurate, please fell free to contact Signals Research Group. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the topics that influence the wireless industry. Reference in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares of such company. Signals Research Group and/or its affiliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may frequently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent with the analysis provided in this report. Signals Research Group seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals Research Group might have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Additional information and disclosures can be found at our website at www.signalsresearch.com. This report may not be reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group (copyright ©2017, all rights reserved by Signals Research Group).

Signals Ahead Subscription The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer three distinct packages that have been tailored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to five users from the same company. The Global License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an unlimited number of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Plati-num package includes the Global License, plus up to five hours of analyst time. Other packages are available.

Corporate Rates (12 issues)❒➤Group License ($3,995) ❒➤Global License (Price Available upon Request) ❒➤Platinum (Price Available upon Request)❒➤Gold Pass (Price Available upon Request) Payment Terms❒➤American Express ❒➤Visa ❒➤MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date// ❒➤Check Check Number ❒➤Purchase Order PO Number Name: Title: Affiliation: Phone: ( ) Mailing Address:

Mailing AddressSignals Research Group – ATTN: Sales5300 Painter Creek GreenIndependence, MN 55359

Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at [email protected] and we will contact you for your billing information. We will not process your payment until after the trial subscription period is completed.

Terms and Conditions: Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.