C-RAN - AGL (Above Ground Level) · Speed. Safety. Innovation. Black & Veatch has shaped the...

VO

LUM

E 1 • ISSUE 3 • SEP

TEMB

ER 2014

5G UPDATE WHO IS DOING WHAT

UNDERSTANDING LTE ADVANCED AND CARRIER AGGREGATION A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW

C-RANTHE PORTAL TONEXT-GENERATION SMALL CELL PERFORMANCE

Speed. Safety. Innovation.

Black & Veatch has shaped the telecommunications landscape for the last 50 years. Wireless carriers rely on Black & Veatch to support their macro network sites or specific coverage solutions, including DAS and Small Cells. No other company can offer the depth and breadth of engineering, program management, site acquisition, construction and technical expertise of Black & Veatch. That’s why Engineering News-Record has ranked us the #1 engineering company for telecommunications for the fifth consecutive year.

We’re building a world of difference. Together.

Visit us at CTIA Booth #2337

Consulting • Engineering • Construction • Operation I w w w.bv.com

Learn more at bv.com/telecom

DAS

Small Cells

14 AGL Magazine ad (DAS & Small Cells)_071814.indd 1 7/18/14 5:29 PM

2 aglmediagroup.com

AGL Media GroupRichard P. Biby, P.E., CEO

Rick Heilbrunn, COO/CFO

EditorErnest Worthman

[email protected]

Art DirectorBrian Parks

Riverworks Marketing Group423.710.3866

Copy EditorKim Potts

Contributing EditorJ.Sharpe Smith

[email protected]

Publisher/CEORichard P. Biby, P.E.

[email protected]

Associate PublisherDon Bishop

[email protected]

Advertising ManagerMary Carlile

484.453.8126 [email protected]

Sales ManagerMercy Contreras

[email protected]

Circulation [email protected]

Corporate OfficeAGL Media Group, LLC.

201 Loudon St. S.E., Suite 301Leesburg, VA 20175

703.594.8500

Press Releases and Advertising [email protected]

Subscribe Onlineaglmediagroup.com/signup

Subscribe by MailAGL Magazine Circulation Department

201 Loudoun St. S.E., Suite 301Leesburg, VA 20175

Copyright ©2014. AGL Media Group LLC. All Rights Reserved.

3All Things Great but Smallsubscribe at aglmediagroup.com/subscribe/

CONTENTS

WHAT’S INSIDE

ON THE COVERCloud radio access network architecture (C-RAN) is an emerging cellular network platform likely to become the standard for next-generation mobile networks.

Cover Design By Brian Parks

FEATURES

VOLUME 1 • ISSUE 3 • SEPTEMBER 2014

12 | LTE-Advanced — The March Towards Carrier Aggregation

Carrier aggregation is one of the shining solutions to the bandwidth crunch. This article takes a technical and in-depth look at how CA has advanced and what technologies are being implemented to make it happen.

24 | C-RAN: The Portal to Next Generation Small Cell Performance The concept of the cloud promises to deliver superior performance via centrally managed resources. This article will examine how this concept will work in the wireless arena, the markets, technologies and its interface with the LTE and 5G.

34 | 5G Today — What is Going on, and Who is Doing it

Knowing what is on the horizon is imperative to understanding the current state of 5G. This article examines the metrics that are currently in play with 5G, who the players are and how it is being tweaked to bring it to reality.

24

32

26

07 | Noteworthy

08 | From the Editor

11 | Publisher’s Commentary

32 | Industry Insight

44 | Business and Finance

46 | Legal Notes

48 | Regulatory Update

COLUMNS

4 AGL SMALL CELL MAGAZINE • SEPTEMBER 2014 aglmediagroup.com

Interested in advertising with AGL Media Group’s

magazine, website or e-newsletters or sponsoring

AGL Regional Conferences?

Visit aglmediagroup.com/advertise for information.

ADVERTISING INDEX

42 | AGL Conferences

10 | AFL

09 | Anritsu

23 | Black Box

01 | Black & Veach

29 | Charles Industries

19 | Commscope

41 | Deltanode

31 | Fullerton Engineering • Design

06 | Huber + Suhner

C2 | National Association of Tower Erectors

02 | NHTSA

C3 | PCIA

33 | Peabody

23 | Radio Frequency Systems

15 | Sabre Industries

45 | Solar Communications International

40 | TE Connectivity

30 | Tectonic

C4 | Tessco

05 | Times Microwave Systems

37 | Waterford

*C2, C3 & C4 denote cover pages

Expanding wireless broadband everywhere

Proud to represent the carriers, infrastructure providers, equipment manufacturers and professional services firms that are building the networks of tomorrow and expanding wireless broadband everywhere. Find out more at www.pcia.com.

AGL Small Cell Magazine (Above Ground Level) is published 4 times a year by AGL Media Group LLC., 201 Loudoun St. S.E., Suite 301, Leesburg, VA 20175. It is mailed free to qualified individuals in the United States of America.

POSTMASTER: Send address change to: AGL Media Group Circulation Department, 201 Loudoun St. S.E., Suite 301,Leesburg, VA 20175.


TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS

700687_Huber.indd 1 6/28/14 2:19 AM


COLUMNS

TECHNOLOGY5G — Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC) architectures is a trend developing in 5G that focuses on mobility manage-ment, resource offloading, and sensing services in various MCC application domains. MCC in 5G is receiving increasing attention, and departing from the traditional mobile computing and cloud computing by addressing issues that current cloud computing or mobile computing technologies alone cannot effectively or efficiently address. However, as with all emerging technologies, technical challenges still remain and much flux is expected before MCC, as well as 5G, will be part of the landscape.

London is trending towards Hyper-fast 5G mobile con-nections, targeted for the year 2020. It is part of a long-term investment plan into the city’s infrastructure needs between now and 2050. It could earn the title of being the world’s first major 5G network. Read more: http://goo.gl/vIwmmi.

Samsung Electronics has developed adaptive array transceiver technology that operates in the millimeter- wave Ka (26.5–40 GHz.). This new technology sits at the core of 5G mobile communications system and will provide data transmission up to several hundred times faster than current 4G networks.

C-RAN — Cloud-based Radio Access Networks (C-RAN) is a trend that will revolutionize the deployment and man-agement of next generation cellular networks (cover story).

With increasing investments and surging interest from the entire cloud and telecom ecosystem, C-RANs are expected to grow at a rapid pace in the coming years. Major players in this market include Intel, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia Siemens Network (NSN), Alcatel-Lucent and China Mobile, amongst many other major vendors.

WI-FI BEAT60 GHz — The global unlicensed band that exists at around 60 GHz., is being eyed as the place to put uncompressed, high-bandwidth, high-definition multimedia transmissions,

NOTEWORTHY

INTERACTLet’s talk Small Cell. Follow @AGLMAG on

Twitter to join the Conversation.

CONNECT WITH USTwitter.com/aglmag

Linkedin.com/company/agl-media-group

CONNECT WITH US:Plus.google.com/+Aglmediagroup

Aglmediagroup.com

which have data rates that demand large spectrum alloca-tion. This frequency is, as of now, fairly uncongested, and generally meets the requirement for contiguous spectrum. The downside, which also is an upside is that, at this frequency, propagation characteristics are relatively poor for low-power devices. But that bodes well for dense, co- located sites since co-channel interference will be reduced.

DEPLOYMENTSSmall cell infrastructures bring attractive cost structures and even more attractive coverage, which is exactly what communities need.

This deployment is in downtown Frederick, MD, which is a very dynamic and historic place for businesses, residents, and visitors alike.The addition of this small cell site brings mobile coverage to areas that would normally not have cover-age due to location, or descript sites would be obvious and unattractive.

This deployment, by Stealth Concealment Solutions, shows just how unobtrusive and non-invasive a small cell site can be. And of course, it is environmentally friendly and preserves the ambiance of the location.

CALENDARHetNet ExpoOctober 15 - 16, 2014, Chicago, ILhetnetexpo.com

Small Cells Americas, Co-located w/Carrier Wi-Fi Americas December 1-3, 2014, Dallas. TX, USAsmallcellsamericas.com

Small Cell Forum’s 28th Plenary December 4 -5, 2014, Dallas. TX, USATBC


FROM THE EDITOR

One of the things I love about emerging technologies is that, until they have some credibility and are proven, there aren’t a lot of hard lines in them. We can throw just about any reasonable and related acronym at the wall and many of them will stick.

For example, the term small cell. Since we don’t have a small cell infrastructure yet, everybody is free to come up with their own definition of what a small cell is. And they do. The carriers have a much different concept of what a small cell is that the consumer.

Elementally, a small cell is anything that isn’t a macro cell. Drilling down, that means a small cell is as small as your smartphone acting like an access point, or the Wi-Fi router in your home. Or the network up and down the city center mall…at the stadium, the office complex, the parking garage, Tarbucks, the…well, you get the picture.

Today, small cells go by the name of femtocell, picocell, microcell, and metrocell. Before I retire, I would lay money on the fact that there will be others as well.

Then, these small cells are classified. There is carrier- grade, enterprise-grade, residential-grade, rural types, indoor, outdoor, 3G, 4G, LTE, LTE-A, Wi-Fi, fixed, mobile…Did I miss anything?

Of course I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here. But the fact remains that there is no well-defined structure for small cells.

But…what a small cell isn’t, is a DAS network. Wikipedia defines DAS as “a distributed antenna system

that consists of a network of spatially separated antenna nodes connected to a common source via a transport medium.” The key phrase here is “distributed antenna system.” DAS is not all that new. If you know the term “leaky coax” you have the original DAS system. There is also a technique called “antenna diversity” where more than one antenna is used to receive signals. This was designed for multipath issues but technically, the receive antennas are “distributed” (like those dual bumper mounted antennas you see on the big rigs — 10-4, good buddy!)

We all know that the general concept of the DAS is to extend RF coverage. That is the idea behind small cells as well. The difference, however is in the intelligence.

In DAS, there are no “intelligent” antennas. There are ways to make them more effective and efficient, beam-forming, antenna arrays, phasing, multi-frequency, but they are still just capable of sending or receiving a signal. And there certainly can be intelligence behind them but the antennal, distributed, or otherwise cannot process it, it cannot analyze it, and it cannot modify it – even in a distributed configuration.

But small cells can. They can do all of the above, and more.

That is not to say that small cells cannot incorporate a DAS system. They can, and many of them will, especially the larger flavors, as they start deploying.

But one thing is clear — a DAS is not a small cell. —[email protected]

COLUMNS

E r n e s t Wo r t h m a n , E d i t o r

This Month’s Column Topic: When is a DAS not a Small Cell?


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Anritsu’s LMR Master™ S412E – now available with TETRA Analyzer. LMR Master is the ideal instrument for fi eld technicians and engineers tasked with testing the system performance of narrowband LMR/PMR voice and LTE broadband systems for public safety and critical infrastructure. LMR Master combines over-the-air analysis and coverage mapping of narrowband analog, digital, and broadband data systems with a benchtop-class VNA cable and antenna analyzer, spectrum analyzer, and an interference analyzer – all in a single rugged handheld instrument – the ultimate fi eld solution for deploying and maintaining critical communication systems.

Critical Communication Test Solutions for LMR/PMR and Broadband LTE Systems.

Download our free application note Evaluation of RF Network Testing Application Note at: www.anritsu.com/en-US/rfnetwork-testing-agl

Deploying TETRA?Anritsu has you covered.The Most Trusted Instruments in the Field

Field Wireless Solutions

LMR Master™ - S412E

USA/Canada 1-800-ANRITSU Europe 44 1582-433433 Japan 81 (46) 296-1208 Asia-Paci� c (852) 2301-4980 Singapore-South Asia (65) 6282-2400 South America 55 (11) 3283-2511 ©2014 Anritsu Company

Anritsu Since 1895 Since 1895

Designed and Manufactured

in U.S.A.


TABLE OF CONTENTS SMART CONNECTIONS

Improve business with reliable wireless connections

DAS | Small Cell | Wi-FiWhether you need uninterrupted coverage in your office or strong connectivity for a campus, AFL’s Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), Small Cell and Wi-Fi solutions deliver reliable connectivity. AFL designs, installs and maintains high-quality network systems. With decades of experience, AFL has the ability to keep your network running at optimal capacity.

www.AFLglobal.com864.433.0333


PUBLISHER’S COMMENTARY

R i c h a r d P. B i b y, P. E . , P u b l i s h e r

This Month’s Column Topic: What do you call that?

So, as my Editor, Ernest points out that a small cell is anything that is not a macro cell. Really? He is probably, technically, correct. However, I tend to think of DAS, micro/small cells, and pico cells differently. Sure, we engineers seem to enjoy this discussion more then we should, but it is worth a moment to dig into it.

DAS to me is more analogous to a macro site, only in that you have a centralized base station. (Sorry if this is too simple, however: the base station’s function is to create a radio frequency carrier and modulate the specific

technology [GSM, CDMA, LTE, etc.] for transmission — the base station is the only network element that deals with radio waves.)

DAS systems have the same call handling and through-put abilities as macro sites. However, that capacity is spread over a number of nodes to improve the coverage area. So DAS is unique to our non-macro world in that it is more analogous to the macro network, than dissimilar. So it seems, to me, DAS is non-traditional, and thus often is lumped into peoples thinking of being “small cell” — but it is not.

Outside of DAS and macro sites, “Small Cell” is everything else. The only other term that everyone seems to agree on is that a picocell and femtocell are small — very small. OK, seriously, the distinction here seems to

be that femtocells are installed by the users, much like your cable modem, and that picocells are installed by the carrier. Just like your cable modem is. Sometimes. I think picocells are coming to be thought of more as remote radio heads associated with DAS deployments. Picocells are completely autonomous base stations, with some kind of IP backhaul (fiber, Ethernet, microwave). They are baby base stations with limited capacity. And they are cheap.

Then we have this middle group; micro sites or “small” sites. This animal tends to be limited either in capacity,

or power output, and usually limited to one technology (although they can have more than just one). This middle sized base station is sweet spot for many of us. In general, the macro sites have been established, and we are now filling-in gaps or holes, or more likely, using them in the race to offload capacity. Microsites are still physically large enough to need careful placement, and

require all of the other professional services we’ve enjoyed in the marco site deployments, for years.

Much of this banter in our publisher notes and editorial commentary stem from a recent email exchange internally at AGL Media Group. There was a really nice DAS article that was submitted to AGL, and the Executive Editor, Don Bishop, thought it would be more appropriate in AGL’s Small Cell Magazine. “Ernest Worthman (Small Cell’s Executive Editor)”, convinced Don, and myself that DAS is not small cell. For now, we’ll keep DAS in AGL, but I’m not sure we’ve seen the last of this debate.

We’d like our readers to check in on this. Best comment gets a ride on the next space shuttle mission (just kidding). Let us know where you stand on it. Email or call us. —[email protected] or 540.338.4363

COLUMNSSMART CONNECTIONS

Improve business with reliable wireless connections

DAS | Small Cell | Wi-FiWhether you need uninterrupted coverage in your office or strong connectivity for a campus, AFL’s Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), Small Cell and Wi-Fi solutions deliver reliable connectivity. AFL designs, installs and maintains high-quality network systems. With decades of experience, AFL has the ability to keep your network running at optimal capacity.

www.AFLglobal.com864.433.0333

“DAS is non-traditional… often is lumped into peoples thinking of being “small cell” – but it is not.”


FEATURES

Since packet data connectivity was introduced in the second generation (2G) of cellular, the technology continues to advance. Some of the more important advancements that have been introduced include: adap-tive modulation and coding (AMC), turbo coding, hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), multiple input- multiple output (MIMO) antenna systems, orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA), and ever-widening channel bandwidths. These advancements play a large part in deploying today’s and tomorrow’s networks that will be able to keep up with the world’s insatiable appetite for data and streaming applications.

The use of OFDMA in the 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) technical specifications effectively institutionalized the concept of spectral scalability – something that is essential in the next generation of intelligent networks.. Release 8 LTE permits channel bandwidths of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz, with no fundamental change in radio architecture. Wider channel bandwidths are par-ticularly appealing because, in addition to permitting improved spectral efficiency (capacity), they are crucial in terms of increasing peak traffic channel data rates.

ENTER IMT-ADVANCEDThe requirements incumbent upon third-generation (3G) cellular systems were laid out in the IMT-2000 specifica-tion published by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). As 3G neared ubiquity, the ITU produced another set of requirements for the next generation of cellular. These requirements are known as IMT-Advanced. In the same way that IMT-2000 is synonymous with 3G, IMT-Advanced can be thought of as the definition of 4G.

IMT-Advanced defines, among other things, several performance levels to which compliant systems must rise. Selected IMT-Advanced performance targets are as given in Figure 1.

IMT-Advanced also stipulates support for at least three different channel bandwidths, and a maximum channel bandwidth of at least 40 MHz.

In fact, Release 8 LTE already delivers on some of these requirements. LTE supports peak traffic channel data rates of up to 300 Mbps in the downlink and up to 75 Mbps in the uplink, in a 20 MHz channel bandwidth. This is equivalent to 15 bits/second/Hz and 3.75 bits/second/Hz, respectively. However, both the uplink

LTE-ADVANCED – THE MARCH TOWARDS CARRIER AGGREGATIONB y A n r i t s u

DRIVEN BY EVER-INCREASING DEMANDS FOR HIGHER DATA RATES, LOWER LATENCY, AND HIGHER CAPACITY, CELLULAR RADIO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE PAST DECADE OR SO. WITH 5G ON THE HORIZON, TODAY’S TECHNOLOGIES ARE EVOLVING TO SUPPORT TOMORROW’S NETWORKS.

DESCRIPTION

PEAK DOWNLINK TRAFFIC CHANNEL RATE 1 GIGABIT/SECOND

500 MEGABITS/SECOND

15 BITS/SECOND/HZ

6.75 BITS/SECOND/HZ

PEAK UPLINK TRAFFIC CHANNEL RATE

DOWNLINK PEAK SPECTRAL EFFICIENCY

UPLINK PEAK SPECTRAL EFFICIENCY

TARGETFIGURE 1. IMT-ADVANCED PERFORMANCE TARGETS


FEATURES

efficiency and the peak traffic channel data rates in both directions, fall well short of the IMT-Advanced requirements.

Given that the state-of-the-art in radio interface technology is already highly-leveraged to achieve these planes of performance, 3GPP determined that the most viable path to reach the IMT-Advanced requirements was to increase the channel bandwidth beyond 20 MHz. But increasing channel bandwidths to beyond 20 MHz is challenging in the context of cellular radio spectrum realities, large and small cell alike.

SPECTRUM REALITIESFrom its origins with the original “cellular” band at 850 MHz in North America, the radio spectrum available for use in cellular has been expanded greatly in the past 20 years. The Personal Communication Services (PCS) band at 1900 MHz was made available in the mid-1990s, fol-lowed by the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band at 2100/1700 MHz in the mid-2000s, and the “digital dividend” band at 700 MHz not long after. Though some North American carriers possess spectrum assets in the low-800 MHz or the 2.5 GHz bands, cellular radio spectrum essentially can be summarized as shown in Figure 2.

Historically, spectrum licensing in North America has been regional, rather than national. The multiple rounds of spectrum allocation, along with multiple mergers and acquisitions, have produced a highly- variable radio spectrum ownership map, especially in the United States. A carrier providing a nationwide cellular service might

own no spectrum at 700 MHz or 850 MHz, but might have significant holdings at 1900 MHz and AWS in one market, and simultaneously might own portions of all four bands in another market. Although ongoing merg-ers and acquisitions tend to bring some uniformity, there continues to be a great variability in terms of spectrum ownership for any particular carrier in any particular region.

Currently in North America, there is virtually no possibility of deploying a 2x20 MHz FDD LTE channel, and only limited opportunities to deploy 15 MHz LTE channels, especially given the commercial needs of legacy systems. Thus, there exists a need both to enable the full potential of LTE, and to achieve the requirements of IMT -Advanced. It is with this reality in mind that 3GPP has introduced carrier aggregation technology.

DUAL-CELL IN HSPASynthesis of a wider- bandwidth channel by linking multiple, narrower-bandwidth channels is not a new concept, having existed in cellular industry since the

CELLULAR (850 MHZ)

DIGITAL DIVIDEND (700 MHZ)

AWS (1700/2100 MHZ)

PCS (1900 MHZ)

2 BLOCKS OF 2X12.5 MHZ (A, B)

2 BLOCKS OF 2X6 MHZ (A, B)

1 BLOCK OF 2X5 MHZ (D)

1 BLOCK OF 2X11 MHZ (C)

1 BLOCK OF 1X6 MHZ (E)

3 BLOCKS OF 2X10 MHZ (A, B, F)

3 BLOCKS OF 2X15 MHZ (A, B, C)

3 BLOCKS OF 2X5 MHZ (C, D, E)

3 BLOCKS OF 2X5 MHZ (D, E, F)

FIGURE 2. CELLULAR RADIO SPECTRUM


FEATURES

1990s. But this concept only made its first appearance in the 3GPP technical specifications with the introduction of “Dual-Cell” HSDPA (DC-HSDPA) in Release 8. With DC-HSDPA, two adjacent HSDPA channels are grouped together logically, permitting downlink transport blocks to be sent to the user equipment (UE) over both channels simultaneously. The peak downlink data rate for DC- HSDPA is 43.2 Mbps, slightly better than 42 Mbps that is achievable with a single 5 MHz channel and 2x2 MIMO. DC-HSDPA has been deployed in North America by a number of UMTS operators

3GPP Release 8 permits Dual-Cell only in the downlink (see Figure 3), i.e., only HSDPA is supported. Further, Release 8 Dual-Cell cannot be used in conjunction with MIMO. Recognizing the opportunity for significant increases in performance, 3GPP introduced important enhancements to Dual-Cell into Release 9, providing support both for E-DCH – and thus DC-HSPA – and for MIMO. Dual-Cell in conjunction with MIMO permits data rates as high as 86.4 Mbps (2x43.2 Mbps) in the downlink.

Release 9 also delivered another key advancement, name-ly, support for Dual-Cell with non-contiguous channels. Whereas in Release 8 the component channels are required to be immediately adjacent, Release 9 permits them to be non-contiguous – or even in another frequency band – which is a critical capability given the realities of the radio spectrum ownership in North America. Although the Dual -Band Dual-Cell HSPA concept is extensible to any frequency band, Release 9 focused on 2100/900 MHz, 2100/850 MHz, and North American 1900/1700 MHz (PCS/AWS) with support for 2100/1500 MHz and North American 1900/850 MHz frequency allocations arriving in Release 10.

SYSTEM ASPECTSIIn Release 10 of the 3GPP specifications, the groundwork laid in Release 8 and Release 9 by DC-HSPA was generalized and applied to LTE. This functionality — known as carrier aggregation (CA) — is a core capability of LTE -Advanced. CA permits LTE to achieve the goals mandated by IMT-Advanced while maintaining backward compatibility with Release 8 and 9 LTE.

Release 10 CA permits the LTE radio interface to be configured with any number (up to five) carriers, of any bandwidth, including differing bandwidths, in any frequency band. Further, the downlink and uplink can be configured completely independently, with only the limitation that the number of uplink carriers cannot exceed the number of downlink carriers. The carriers aggregated in the context of CA are referred to as component carriers (CCs). CC arrangements are described as intra-band contiguous, intra-band non-contiguous, and inter-band, referring to immediately adjacent CCs, non-adjacent CCs within the same operating band, and CCs in differing operating bands, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 4.

The introduction of CA renders the previous concep-tions of “frequency band” and “bandwidth” ambiguous. 3GPP, therefore, has introduced terminology and notation, which serve to more clearly articulate the radio interface configuration. In the context of CA, the nom-inal, cumulative channel bandwidth is called the aggr egated channel bandwidth. UEs are classified according to their carrier aggregation bandwidth class, which is an

FIGURE 3. DOWNLOAD ONLY DUAL CELL EXAMPLE

CC2

CC2

CC2

CC2

CC2

CC2

CC1

CC1

CC1

CC1

CC1

CC1

UL

UL

UL DL

UL

DL

DLDL

INTRA-BAND CONTIGUOUS

INTRA-BAND NON-CONTIGUOUS

INTRA-BAND

FIGURE 4. COMPONENT CARRIERS INTER- AND INTRABAND


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contact MUTI today for all your small cell needs. 217-819-3040 I www.mutionline.com

© 20

14 S

abre

Indu

stries

, Inc.

- 07_

14 M

UTI

Providing engineered solutions for the dense urban market, our products:

• Conceal RF equipment for Small Cell and DAS• Consolidate equipment in single housing• Address most jurisdictional regulation and aesthetic needs

Hidden in Plain Sight


expression of the number of CCs and the aggregated channel bandwidth. Figure 5 summarizes the currently- defined carrier aggregation bandwidth classes.

CA bandwidth classes D through F are, at the time of this writing, still under study.

Carrier aggregation configuration refers to the CA operating bands and bandwidth classes that a UE can support. 3GPP has defined a compact notation used to express these capabilities, as follows:

CA_[OB1][CABC1]-[OB2][CABC2]-…-[OBn][CABCm]

where OBn refers to operational band n, and CABCm refers to channel aggregation bandwidth configuration m. CA is indeed so flexible that 3GPP has limited the scope of work with regard to supportable carrier aggregation configurations in LTE Release 10. Release 10 focuses on CA_1C – 2x20+20 MHz in the 2100 MHz IMT-2000 band – and CA_1A-5CA – 2x10 MHz in each of the 2100 MHz and 850 MHz bands. The former satisfies the IMT-Advanced 40 MHz channel scalability requirement.

E-UTRAN ASPECTSIn support of CA, Release 10 introduces a distinction be-tween a primary cell (PCell) and a secondary cell (SCell). The PCell is the main cell with which the UE communicates as defined as the cell with which RRC signaling messages are exchanged, or equivalently by the existence of the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), of which there is exactly

one. One PCell is always active in RRC_CONNECTED mode while one or more SCells may be active. All PCells and SCells are known collectively as serving cells. The component

carriers on which the PCell and SCell are based are the primary component carrier (PCC) and secondary component carrier, (SCC), respectively (see Figure 6).

Each PCell is equipped with one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). An SCell could be equipped with a

PCCH or not, depending on UE capabilities. An SCell never has a PUCCH.

TRANSPORT (MAC) LAYER ASPECTSIn terms of data transport, CA simply adds additional conduits — the shared channels (SCHs) — over which data may be transported to/from a given CA-enabled UE.

FIGURE 6. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CARRIER ASSIGNMENTS IN THE UP AND DOWNLINK CHANNELS.

CARRIER AGGREGATION BANDWIDTH CLASS

A UP TO 20 MHZ 1

2

2

B UP TO 20 MHZ

20 MHZ+ TO 40 MHZC

AGGREGATED CHANNEL BANDWIDTH

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COMPONENT CARRIERS PER BAND

FIGURE 5. CARRIER AGGREGATE BANDWITH CLASSES

PCELL

PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC

SCELL SCELL PCELL SCELL SCELL

UL DL

PUCCH & PUSCH PDSCH & PDCCH

PUSCH ONLY PDSCH & OPTIONAL PDCCH

FEATURES


Architecturally:

becomes:

Clearly, in order to take advantage of the aggregated bandwidth and produce the desired throughput increas-es, the base station’s MAC layer scheduler must have a

purview which includes all active CCs. This differs from pre-Release 10 LTE schedulers, which need to consider only one cell-carrier at a time.

In order for a CA-enabled base station’s MAC scheduler to sequence downlink allocations and uplink grants optimally, it must consider the downlink and uplink channel conditions across the entire aggregated bandwidth. This increases the complexity of the base station scheduler and could result in some unusual scheduling outcomes. For example, the scheduler could decide to send all of a given UE’s downlink transport blocks on CC1, but to receive all of that UE’s uplink transport blocks on CC2.

In the absence of MIMO, a CA-enabled scheduler allocates, at most, one transport block per SCH per TTI. The HARQ processes delivering the various transport blocks within a TTI (across SCHs) are independent.

PHYSICAL LAYER ASPECTSDownlink Channel QualityDownlink channel quality, per LTE Release 8 and 9, is assessed at the UE and reported via the channel state information (CSI) Information Element (IE). In the absence of MIMO, CSI reduces to the familiar channel quality indicator (CQI). Release 10 does not change this paradigm, but the existence of multiple CCs means that CQI must be evaluated and reported for each CC individ-ually when CA is active.

CQI – as well as downlink HARQ ACK/NACK indicators and other information – is reported to the base station via the uplink control information (UCI) IE. Since there is exactly one PUCCH (on the PCell) regardless of the number of CCs, UCI for each CC must be reported via the same PUCCH. Thus, there is a need to distinguish the CC to which a given UCI pertains. This is accomplished through the carrier indicator field (CIF), which is a header on the UCI.

Since it is possible to require the UE to report CQI periodically, and since UEs do not necessarily support the simultaneous transmission of PUCCH and PUSCH, CQI also could be reported on the PUSCH, if the PUSCH happens to be active at the time of a periodic reporting instance. In the context of CA, this means that CQI could be transmitted on a SCell if a SCell uplink burst is ongoing while a PCell burst is not.

RADIO BEARERS

PDCP

RLC

MAC

DL-SCH DL-SCH

MULTIPLEXING UE MULTIPLEXING UE

HARQ HARQ

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

LOGICAL CHANNELS

UNICAST SCHEDULING / PRIORITY HANDLING

TRANSPORT CHANNELS

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

RADIO BEARERS

PDCP

RLC

MAC MULTIPLEXING UE MULTIPLEXING UE

HARQ

DL-SCH

ON CC1

DL-SCH

ON CC2

HARQ

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

LOGICAL CHANNELS

UNICAST SCHEDULING / PRIORITY HANDLING

TRANSPORT CHANNELS

HARQ

DL-SCH

ON CC1

DL-SCH

ON CC2

HARQ

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

ROHC

SECURITY

SEGM

ARQ etc

FIGURE 7. BEFORE CARRIER AGGREGATION

FIGURE 8. AFTER CARRIER AGGREGATION

FEATURES


the SCell’s PDCCH. In the latter case, scheduling information for the SCell must be delivered via another cell’s PDCCH. In Release 10, this is referred to as cross- carrier scheduling (see Figure 8).

As with other functionalities described above, the carrier responsible for the delivering scheduling information in the context of cross-carrier scheduling is indicated by the CIF. Cross-carrier scheduling support is optional for the UE.

RADIO RESOURCE CONTROL (RRC) ASPECTSUE Capability TransferGiven the flexibility of CA, the E-UTRAN must be informed of the details of the UE’s support for CA. This is accomplished via the RRC UE Capability Transfer procedure. The CA-related information sent by the UE pursuant to this procedure is summarized below:

• UE category – CA support1 is implied by UE categories 6, 7, and 8

• Cross-carrier scheduling support — Indicates that the UE can receive scheduling orders regarding SCells from the PCell

• Simultaneous PUCCH and PUSCH transmission support — For CA-capable UEs, implies that the UE can support simultaneous PUCCH and PUSCH trans-mission on different CCs (not merely the same CC)

PDCCHPDSCH

CONTROL DATA

PDSCH PDSCH

USER DATA

Uplink Channel QualityUplink channel quality, again per LTE Release 8 and 9, is assessed at the base station via sounding reference symbols (SRS) transmitted by the UE. CA implies that channel sounding could be required on multiple CCs. Release 10 introduces enhancements to permit the base station to request periodic SRS transmission on SCells in addition to PCells, though this function is optional at the UE.

Uplink Transmit Power ControlUplink transmit power control (TPC) commands are transported to the UE via the downlink control informa-tion (DCI) IE. The one PUCCH and one or more PUSCHs can be power controlled independently. TPC commands for the PUCCH are always received on the PCell’s PDCCH. However, the TPC commands for the SCells could be received either through the SCell’s PDCCH, or through the PCell’s PDCCH. Again, carrier distinction is accom-plished through the presence of the CIF in the DCI IE.

Downlink Radio Link MonitoringWhen operating in CA mode, the UE evaluates radio link health — and declares radio link failure — only through the PCell. This is intuitive as the SCell represents only additional traffic channel bandwidth rather than a conduit for critical control information. Thus, it could be strate-gically advantageous — due to superior propagation characteristics — to deem the lower-frequency cells as PCells and the higher-frequency cells as SCells, particularly in the context of the inter-band CA.

Timing and SynchronizationThe PCell and the SCell(s) are deemed to be transmitted by the same base station. The electrical path length between the base station and the UE, therefore, is deemed to be the same for all carriers. This is the case regardless of the frequency band. Thus, there is a single timing advance value applied to all uplink transmissions, regardless of whether they occur on the PCell or anSCell.

Cross-carrier SchedulingAs stated previously, SCells might or might not be equipped with a PDCCH. In the former case, the UE assumes that the scheduling information is carried by

FIGURE 8. CROSS CARRIER SCHEDULING

FEATURES

FEATURES

Surging capacity demands are making network modernization a top priority for the future. The key to increasing capacity is increasing cell density, which means more and more sites–but where do we put them?

Find the answers at the CTIA’s Tower and Small Cell Summit, where Philip Sorrells, vice president of strategic marketing, Wireless, for CommScope, a global leader in infrastructure solutions, will address densifi cation strategies at a panel discussion, “The LTE Rollout: The Good, the Bad and the Insatiable Need for Towers.”

Date: September 10, 2 p.m.Location: Sands Expo Center, Las Vegas, NV

Where’s Your Next Cell Site?

Enabling technology from CommScope for network densifi cation:

• HELIAX® FiberFeed™ + Power Connectivity

• HELIAX® SureFlex™ RF cable assemblies

• Argus® UltraBand™ multiport antennas

• Andrew® SiteRise™ pre-assembled tower tops

• Andrew® Structural Supports for Roof Top applications

• Andrew® Tri Sector Concealment Antenna Technology

• Argus® Multibeam Antenna Technology

Densifi cation Strategies for the Future

© 2014 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. AD-108358-EN

Philip Sorrells


• Multi-cluster PUSCH within a CC support — Indicates baseband (non-band-specific) support for multi- cluster PUSCH transmission within CCs

• Non-contiguous uplink resource allocation within a CC support — Indicates RF (band-specific) support for non-contiguous uplink resource allocations within CCs

• Supported band combinations — Indicates the specific frequency band and channel bandwidth configurations that the UE can utilize in support of CA

• Event A6 reporting support — Indicates that the UE is able to report Event A6, which occurs when a neighbor PCell becomes stronger than a serving SCell by an offset

• SCell addition during handover to E-UTRA support — Indicates that the UE can support E-UTRAN in-bound inter-radio access technology (IRAT) handover directly into CA mode

• Periodic SRS transmission on all CCs support — Indicates that the UE can transmit periodic SRSs on all SCells

SCell Addition and RemovalSCells cannot be activated immediately at the time of RRC establishment. Thus, there is no provision in the RRC Connection Setup procedure for SCells. SCells are added and removed from the set of serving cells through the RRC Connection Reconfiguration proce-dure. Note that, since intra-LTE handover is treated as an RRC connection reconfiguration, SCell “hando-ver” is supported (see below). The CA-related infor-mation sent by the base station pursuant to this, the RRC Connection Reconfiguration procedure as summarized below.

• Cross-carrier scheduling configuration — Indicates, among other things, whether scheduling for the referenced SCell is handled by that SCell or by another cell

• SCell PUSCH configuration — Indicates, among other things, whether resource block group hopping is utilized on the SCell

• SCell uplink power control configuration — Carries a number of primitives related to SCell uplink TPC, including the path loss reference linking parameter

• SCell CQI reporting configuration — Carries a num-ber of primitives related to CQI measurements reporting for SCells

HandoverHandover processing for LTE in Release 10 is largely the same as Releases 8 and 9, except that clarifications are made to refer to PCell in the measurement-related RRC signaling messages. Release 10 does introduce one new measurement event: Event A6. As indicated above, Event A6 occurs when a neighboring cell’s strength becomes better than an SCell’s strength by an offset. In the case of intra-band SCell’s, this event is less useful, as the strength of the PCell and the SCells usually is very similar. However, with inter-band serving cells, the strength of a neighboring PCell could be significantly different from a serving SCell. Depending on network conditions — such as traffic load distribution — it could be advantageous to execute a handover to the cell identified by Event A6.

UE IMPLEMENTATION & VERIFICATION CHALLENGESRF Conformance TestingBase stations, historically, have been designed to support multiple cells and multiple carriers and are thus well-positioned to support CA. But CA represents a paradigm shift for UEs. With the possible exception of the simplest CA scenario — contiguous CCs — there are substantial increases in transceiver complexity required to support CA. Non-contiguous downlink CCs necessitate multiple, independent receive chains at the UE. Non-contiguous uplink CCs can be generated through multiple digital chains, and a shared transmit front end (with various upconversion options) as long as the CCs are intra-band. However, in order to support inter-band uplink CCs, multiple, independent transmit chains are required.

FEATURES


In North America, the E-UTRA Operating Bands of particular interest are bands 2 (PCS), 4 (AWS), 5 (Cel-lular), and 12, 13, 14, & 17 (Digital Dividend). 3GPP has not, at the time of this writing, prioritized CA band combinations for North America. However, us-ing the European and Asia/Pacific CA band combina-tions as a guide, it is conceivable that some priority will be placed on a band configuration such as CA_2A-12A1 (2x10 MHz or 2x20 MHz aggregated) or CA_2B (20 MHz aggregated).

Due to the increase in transceiver complexity resulting from CA — and to the availability of newer North American operating bands — there exists additional challenges in meeting the UE transceiver performance standards established in Release 8 and 9. On the transmit side, conformance to peak and dynamic output power, output signal quality, adjacent channel leakage, spurious emissions, and intermodulation standards must be verified in the context of CA and North American operating bands. On the receive side, sensitivity, selectivity, blocking, spurious response, intermodulation, and spurious emissions must be verified.

Protocol Conformance TestingSince CA was designed specifically to be backward- compatible with Release 8 and 9 carriers, most of the procedures employed in Release 10 functions in a manner similar to the previous releases. Some of the basic protocol extensions to support CA include:

• Radio Resource Control (RRC) supporting the addition and removal of SCells through RRC reconfiguration

• PDCCH control signaling on multiple CCs simultaneously

• PUCCH control signaling on a single CC with information pertaining to each CC PDSCH allocations on multiple CCs simultaneously

• PUSCH grants on multiple CCs simultaneously

These “table stakes” protocol extensions must be part of any CA verification effort.

In addition to the basic protocol extensions for CA, there are numerous protocol extensions — directly related to CA or with implications in the context of CA — which are optional for the UE. Some of them are:

• RRC support for SCell measurement reporting (Event A6) IRAT handover to E-UTRAN with active SCells

• Cross-carrier scheduling (one PDCCH serving multiple PDSCHs)

• Simultaneous PUCCH and PUSCH transmission

• Multi-cluster PUSCH within a CC

• Non-contiguous uplink resource allocation within a CC

• Periodic SRS transmission on all CCs

Clearly, the power and flexibility of the Carrier Aggregation function demands advanced, flexible verification.

FEATURES


Performance TestingRelease 10 LTE introduces three new UE categories — 6, 7, and 8. Except for Category 8 — which is specifically designed to deliver the most rigorous requirements of IMT-Advanced — the new UE categories do not introduce significantly higher data rates than were already available in Releases 8 and 9. Categories 6 and 7, however, do in-troduce new ways in which those data rates can be achieved.

Prior to Release 10, the two degrees of freedom available to deliver traffic channel data rates were (a) channel bandwidth and (b) MIMO layers. Release 10 adds to this list component carriers as a degree of freedom. Figure 9 summarizes the ways in which a Category 6/72 UE can support its peak traffic channel capability of approximately 300 Mbps in the downlink (See figure 9).

The configurations which can achieve a particular traffic channel data rate multiply at lower data rates. While some of these configurations are hypothetical in nature, what is clear is that the flexibility offered by CA demands f lexibility in the context of UE performance validation.

CONCLUSIONAchieving the requirements set out in IMT-Advanced is even more challenging given the fragmentation of the available cellular radio spectrum, particularly in North

America. Release 10 of the 3GPP LTE specifications — LTE-Advanced — delivers IMT-Advanced within practical spectrum constraints. It does this through the carrier aggregation feature. Carrier aggregation permits an LTE base station to group several distinct channels into one logical channel, thereby enabling very high peak traffic channel data rates.

Carrier aggregation has significant software and, in particular, hardware implications, particularly on the UE. UE hardware complexity rises dramatically according to the particular carrier aggregation configuration: intra-band contiguous, intra-band non-contiguous, and inter-band. Carrier aggregation- capable hardware, in combination with numerous parameters and optional functionality, demands comprehensive and flexible UE test and verification solutions to ensure successful deployment and high performance in the field.

1. Note that UE category does not imply support for a particular carrier aggregation configuration, which is signaled separately.

2. Category 6 and category 7 UEs have identical downlink capabilities, differing only in their data rates.

COMPONENT CARRIER BANDWIDTH (MHZ)

20 1 1 -300 MBPS

-300 MBPS

-300 MBPS

-300 MBPS

-300 MBPS

2

2

3

4

10 2

2

3

4

20

15/15/10

5

COMPONENT CARRIERS

MIMO LAYERS PER CC

DL PEAK TRAFFIC CHANNEL DATA RATE

FIGURE 9. SUMMARY OF CATEGORY 6/7 DATA SUPPORT RATES.

FEATURES

subscribe at aglmediagroup.com/subscribe/

INTERNET

INTERNETMASSIVE

MIMO

CoMP

D2D / URC

TRADITIONALACCESS NODES

C-RAN

HIGH SPEED FRONT HAUL

HIGH SPEED FRONT HAULUDN

C-RAN

C-RAN

LOCAL C-RAN

VIRTUAL TRANSMIT NODES

MOBILE CORECENTRALIZED FUNCTION + OAM

C-RAN + MOBILE COREDISTRIBUTED FUNCTIONS

(incl. optional localbreakout or CDN)

MMC

THE PORTAL TO NEXT-GENERATION SMALL CELL PERFORMANCEThe concept of cloud, or centralized processing to pool baseband resources promises to deliver superior performance via centrally managed resources.

C-RANBy Ernest Worthman

COVER STORY


INTERNET

INTERNETMASSIVE

MIMO

CoMP

D2D / URC

TRADITIONALACCESS NODES

C-RAN

HIGH SPEED FRONT HAUL

HIGH SPEED FRONT HAULUDN

C-RAN

C-RAN

LOCAL C-RAN

VIRTUAL TRANSMIT NODES

MOBILE CORECENTRALIZED FUNCTION + OAM

C-RAN + MOBILE COREDISTRIBUTED FUNCTIONS

(incl. optional localbreakout or CDN)

MMC

THE PORTAL TO NEXT-GENERATION SMALL CELL PERFORMANCEThe concept of cloud, or centralized processing to pool baseband resources promises to deliver superior performance via centrally managed resources.

COVER STORY


FIGURE 1. THE FUTURE C-RAN


COVER STORY

Cloud (also known as centralized or base station hoteling) radio access network architecture (C-RAN) is an emerging cellular network platform likely to become the standard for next-generation mobile networks. What makes it so attractive is that it is touted as being backward and for-ward compatible, from 2G, all the way to 5G, and beyond.

There are different flavors of C-RAN nomenclatures according to implementation. The centralized C-RAN covers a large area. It encompasses the coordination of a massive number of multiple transmit and receive points. One level down is the local C-RAN. It covers a smaller area, perhaps a pedestrian mall in the city center. Then comes the C-RAN with Mobile Core Distributed Functions. Such functions typically include a Content Delivery Network (CDN) and local breakout. At the bottom is the private C-RAN. These are owned by service providers and may be deployed in a stadium, high-rise office complex, a mall, or a government city center, for example.

The hyper-densification of RAN will, eventually, demand some form of centralized and collaborative processing to reduce and manage inter-cell interference between neighboring cells and across access layers in heterogeneous networks. Looking further ahead toward 5G and to the concept of integrated management of cloud and radio resources, the C-RAN model could become more attractive still. Figure 1 (See pg. 24-25) reflects what the C-RAN of the future might look like, encompassing the elements just discussed.

THE MARKETThe demand for C-RAN, from macro to femto cells, is expected to mushroom over the next five years. According to data collected by Markets and Markets, and published in their recent report: “Cloud RAN Market – Worldwide Market Forecasts and Analysis (2013 - 2018),”1 the global market for C-RAN is expected to have a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of nearly 46% by 2018. This trans-lates into $11.31 billion in revenue in 2018. And, like many forecasts, this tends to be conservative.

While this report focuses largely on macro platforms, the implication for small cell networks is compelling. Small cell networks will be the perfect incubation platform for this technology because of their multi-platform

technology integration, and heavy multimedia focus. The concept of pooled baseband serving n number of radio access nodes can easily be adapted to small cell underlays (using micro RRUs), so-called Super Cells, and outdoor/indoor hot zone systems.

The evolution toward next-generation mobile networks will be characterized by an increasing number of wireless devices with ever increasing device and service complexity. Many of these devices will be autonomous in nature and interconnected by the Internet or Cloud of Things/ Everything, (IoT/E, CoT) and on 24/7. As well, there will be tremendous pressure on networks since a large number of these devices will be accessing mobile services ubiquitously and concurrently.

Network architectures of today won’t be able to handle the volume because they are mostly set up in distributed, to offer optimized coverage, as opposed to centralized systems. In the networks of tomorrow, two key enablers will allow the realization of the vision of 5G and very dense deployments and centralized processing. This article will discuss the latter.

DISSECTING C-RANWhat makes RANs such an intriguing technology is that it leverages advances in a number of different fields to address the two perpetual problems facing network operators: cost reduction and increased capacity.

One of those advancements is the increased use of fiber. Fiber-connected antennas offer a longer reach than copper connected antennas, and implement wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM)2 technology (see Figure 2).

Other advantages of this architecture are that less space and power are needed, and it offers better security of key functionality. As well, it supports relocating parts of the radio network control function, which are traditionally co-located with the antenna, deeper in the network (often to the Central Office location). These actions help to lower capital expenditures (CAPEX), and have a substantial effect on operational expenditures (OPEX), as discussed below.

OPEX in network operation and maintenance plays a significant part in the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). Such expenditures include of site rental/purchase, network transmission costs, ongoing site operation, upkeep/ maintenance of power platform, etc. Assuming a typical


COVER STORY

seven-year depreciation period of base station (BS) equip-ment, typically, OPEX accounts for over 60% of the TCO.

Unarguably, the most effective way to reduce this TCO is to decrease the number of sites. C-RAN is an elegant approach to accomplish this, as well as to enhance the network. C-RAN creates a virtual pool of baseband units and remote radio heads (RRH; see Figure 3). Simply stated, at the base of every typical cell-phone tower is a BS. It is really just a container full of heavy-duty digital signal processing (DSP) hardware that converts the digitized waveforms coming down optical fiber from the radio head into packets of data. (The process works in reverse, too, of course.) C-RAN eliminates this box of hardware and extends the optical fiber from the radio head down the tower and out to a data center, somewhere.

This approach (centralized signal processing) greatly reduces the number of equipment room sites that would be required to cover the same areas that traditional RANs do.This approach (centralized signal processing) greatly reduces the number of equipment room sites that would be required to cover the same areas that traditional RANs do.

The, now, cooperative radios, using distributed antennas

equipped with RRH, offer better spectral efficiency and a real-time cloud infrastructure based on an open platform. This BS virtualization supports processing aggregation and dynamic allocation, thereby achieving reducing power consumption and increasing the infrastructure utilization rate. These novel methodologies provide an innovative approach for mobile network operators (MNOs) to meet bandwidth demand, expand coverage, add on services, and control support expenses

DRILLING DOWN — BASEBAND PROCESSINGRunning the baseband processing on commercial servers, and pooling transmission equipment enables the network to redistribute capacity (physical resources) as needed. This addresses one of the most challenging scenarios that MNOs face – allocating resources to loading, dynamically. This is real relief for MNOs since most of today’s networks are woefully unbalanced in both peak time loading and getting hardware to where the usage is (physical loca-tions), within these networks. Virtualized networks can add capacity when it is needed and add or move hardware to where the congestion is on a real-time basis.

Secondly, running the network software on commercial

TRANSPONDERS

SFP

SFP

SFP

CONVERT SIGNAL

TO OPTICAL

CHANNEL

ATTENUATE HOT

CHANNELS TO

EQUALIZE POWER

COMBINE SIGNALS

ONTO ONE

FIBER

AMPLIFY POWER

TO OVERCOME

FIBER LOSS

SEPARATE

OPTICAL

CHANNELS

CONVERT OPTICAL

CHANNEL TO

SIGNAL

SFP

SFP

SFP

ATTENUATORS MUX POST AMPLIFIER PRE AMPLIFIER DEMUX TRANSPONDERS

FIGURE 2. BLOCK DIAGRAM OF WDM FUNCTIONALITY.


servers in a data center is strategically significant, because it keeps network control at the MNO. Why? Because the C-RAN physical network is usually off-the-shelf (OTS) commercial hardware, meaning the MNO is free to pick whomever they want as the software vendor. This is a radically new paradigm and will shake the ecosystem as we know it today, to its core.

C-RAN is also germinating a number of developments in baseband architecture and pooling techniques, fiber optical networking, timing, and synchronization wireless

front- haul and backhaul, and virtualization of baseband processing. If this comes to pass in widely deployable scenarios, C-RAN will be one of the most sweeping developments that will change the landscape of cellular and network architecture, large and small.

VIRTUALIZATION – THE MAGIC WORDNetwork virtualization is a process of abstraction, which separates logical network behavior from the underlying physical network resources.

Network virtualization allows network aggregation and provisioning — combining different physical networks into a single virtual network with flexible resource redistribution capability. It can also be used to break a physical network into multiple virtual networks that are isolated from each other (sometimes called external network virtualization). Network virtualization can also be applied within virtual servers to create synthetic networks between virtual machines (VMs), called internal network virtualization.

“What makes it so attractive is that it is touted as being backward and forward compatible, from 2G, all the way to 5G, and beyond.”

COVER STORY

CENTRALIZED PROCESSING UNIT

CPRI over OTN WDM-PON

WDM-PON

RRU

RRU

RS

RS

WDM-PON

SMALL-CELL CLUSTER #3



DOWNTOWN

SPORTS STADIUM

BUSINESS DISTRICT

FIGURE 3. TYPICAL C-RAN.


C-RAN AND LTE-ADVANCEDAs has been discussed earlier, the traditional RAN architecture has limitations. Each BS is a stand-alone unit. Base station processing power cannot be shared, and the only way to expand is to add new BSs.

Today, operators are under pressure to find innovative and cost-effective ways to roll out LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) deployments, which promise to improve data rates, enhance cell edge performance and improve radio interference mitigation and spectrum re-use. An interesting dichotomy is that to successfully roll out an LTE-A network requires both optimal use of centralized processing power and strategic coordination among base stations. And the ideal solution just happens to be the cloud — how convenient.

2014 is expected to become the proof-of-concept year for the C-RAN. However, C-RAN deployments do not come without challenges. There are different metrics in virtualized networks than physical networks.

For example, when extricating the baseband from the rest of the BS processing, the link between the two must not be limited by the latency. And, merely introducing a C-RAN into an already existing infrastructure is not as simple as making a few connections. There are relocations issues, interconnect issue, a learning curve, and a myriad of other issues too numerous to list.

However, MNOs are kind of at that proverbial “between a rock and a hard place” scenario. On the macro side, it is getting more and more expensive to deploy new sites and find locations for them. Even if a suitable location is found, it may take a while before any return on investment (ROI) is realized. In that vein, MNOs are looking to the small cell.

As it turns out, small cells will be crucial to global LTE-A deployments. Carrier-grade small cells are a natural to implement the exact feature that makes C-RAN so desirable. Methodologies such as carrier aggregation, coordinated multipoint and LTE-A relay are very well suited for small cell networks.

Additionally, small cells benefit from key interference management features, including enhanced inter-cell interference (ISI) coordination and range extension, which are both part of the LTE-A body of standards. Small cells can offer full base station functionality and capacity enhancement at a reasonable deployment cost.

There is a plethora of features that C-RAN offers that

COVER STORY


small cells have, intrinsically. C-RAN uses multiple antennas, located nearer to the proximity of the end user. Innately, this brings the intelligence to the network and makes managing coordinated cluster of small cells easier while supporting LTE-A functionality and heightened resource management and processing capabilities. Furthermore, small cell BSs are easy to integrate, have all the functionality of a standard BS, as well as C-RAN’s flexibility and efficiency. Is it any wonder that small cells and C-RAN might be the optimal LTE-A deployment?

C-RAN AND 5GSince 5G is still a vision, and few are willing to risk their reputation on making concrete statement on what it will or won’t do, it is difficult to do much more than view it through a crystal ball. However, one can look at its models and theo-ries, and create scenarios that might be possible once the fog of conceptualization lifts and 5G is more than just a vision.

There is little doubt that 5G and C-RAN will be integrated. The big question is how and what new or existing technologies will be developed or adapted. One thing is for sure, 5G will have to have super-efficient network attributes, be super-fast and have full integration of all wireless platforms, and with the IoT/E, CoT as well. These will preclude that 5G will be a revolutionary, rather than an evolutionary wireless network.

With that being said, it is quite possible that the centralization of processing and management in 5G mobile networks will need to be flexible and adapted to the actual service requirements. One 5G will, likely, not fit all. That means that one can expect there to be a trade-off between full centralization, as in C-RAN, and decentralization, as in most of today’s networks.

A DIFFERENT TAKE ON RANOne theory of how this might be accomplished is by implementing RAN as a service (RANaaS), rather than as a technology. RANaaS is an application of the XaaS paradigm2, which simply states that any kind of function may be packaged and delivered in the form of a service.

RANaaS has potential because it splits the radio protocol stack between the central RANaaS platform and the local radio access points (RAPs). This is a functional split, and allows a greater degree of flexibility in processing design and the execution of functions. RANaaS does not fully centralize all RAN functionalities, only some of them.

However, there are some complications. Theoretically, such a split could happen on each protocol layer or on the interface between each layer. However, current 3GPP LTE specifications set certain constraints on timing as well as feedback loops between individual protocol layers. Splitting such layers can introduce timing and interconnect

issues that could lock or hang the communication between layers and in-troduce errors. That translates directly into the quality of service (QoS) equation for the end user. There are theoretical ways to address this. One would be to circumvent that would be to execute the radio protocol stack locally and place the less critical operations on the RANaaS.

However, this is fluid. Much of this really depends on the bandwidth of the backhaul. Faster backhaul offers higher capacity, in which case, functions that require more critical parameters, such as the physical, PHY, and medium access control (MAC) layers could be returned to the RANaaS platform.

Secondly, using commodity hardware,

COVER STORY


which is one of the benefits of C-RAN, has the drawback of weaker real- time characteristics than much of the currently deployed hardware. The fallout from this is that additional computational latency and jitter factors will have to be considered in any new protocol designs. The current thinking is to use super-fast algorithms to manipulate a large amount of resources efficiently, implement massive parallelization, and exploit temporal and spatial fluctuations. This is only one possible scenario and technology approach. But it offers a thought-provoking look into the crystal ball.This is only one possible scenario and technology approach. But it offers a though provoking look into the crystal ball.

CONCLUSION Given the traditional RAN’s coverage restrictions and limitations of transmission and reception signal support, the benefits of deploying a C-RAN infrastructure are fairly obvious — C-RAN, as a centralized, general-purpose process-ing solution, enables the efficient use of network resources.

However, C-Ran is mostly a work in progress. It looks good on paper, and the test bed is in Asia (Korea and Japan,

mostly) at present. Most prognosticators see 2015/2016 as the year for C-RAN, at least to start gaining some serious traction. However, the fact that LTE/LTE-A is being deployed and that small cells still haven’t seen a lot of high-value deployments means that the industry is applying patches rather than aligning to lay out the next wireless infrastructure.

C-RAN is a promising paradigm, especially facing the inescapable fact that current networks are nearing gridlock, at least in high-density locations. 5G is at least 10 years away, and the present systems will not be able to handle the anticipated data tsunami of just the next few years. So there is pressure to get efficient utilization of existing networks and apply emerging technologies to optimize what exists. But, in reality, without some really innovative technology, of which C-RAN qualifies, it is going to be an uphill battle.

1. http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/cloud-radio-access-network-ran-market-1001.html. 2. NIST, P. Mell and T. Grance, “The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing,” Sept. 2011, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf

COVER STORY


COLUMNS

Exabyte? Exa what? What a byte? Cisco has been a reliable forecaster of global data traffic and usage characteristics for many years. Numerous industries use, and integrate the forecast in their corporate planning and budgeting. Cisco’s most recent forecast was issued in February of 2014 (Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2013-2018) and included the following predictions:

• Global mobile data monthly traffic will increase nearly 11 times between EoY13 (1.5 Exabytes) and EoY18 (15.9 Exabytes)

• By EoY14 the number of mobile-connected devices will exceed the number of people on the planet

• By EoY18 the number will be 1.4 mobile connected devices per per-son (over 10 billion devices)

• By EoY18 over 50 percent of the traffic from mobile devices will be offloaded to the fixed network by Wi-Fi and Femto cells (small cell technology)

• By EoY18, 54% of all mobile connected devices will be “smart” devices and 96 percent of mobile data traffic will be produced by these smart devices

• By EoY18, over 69 percent of the global mobile traffic will be video

The purpose of the following discussion is to attempt to unpack the forecasted statistics to determine what they mean for the small cell and tower industry. I will

provide the conclusion up front. Strap in and hold on — it’s going to be a wild (and profitable) ride for the next few years!

The impact of the demand will be significant on the companies that provide core and RAN (Radio Access Network) infrastructure to the carriers. An increase of over 11 times in traffic will require, at least, a doubling

of the existing infrastructure in the core. It will also require significant

enhancements in the efficiency of the core traffic processing. With the

advent of SDN (Software Defined Networks) and NFV (Network

Function Virtualization), the traffic handling efficiencies

a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e sufficient to handle the

forecasted loads.The problem is that the SDN

and NFV technologies are in their infancy, and will have many

issues to resolve before they mature into viable and reliable traffic

handling technologies. It is not expect-ed that they will be deployable until

around 2020, when wide scale deployments will begin. The window of the forecasted demand however, is 2018, not 2020, so we can expect some network compromises if the development and deployment of these cannot be accelerated.

Regarding the RAN, the current design mantra is to get the air link in the ground (on fiber) as quickly as possible. In other words, the air link (DL – Down Link and UL – Up Link) must be as short as possible. The distance between the antenna and the mobile device is the weakest link in the network (the most unstable due to atmospheric fluctuations, co-channel and adjacent channel interference, multipath interference, physical obstructions, etc.). However, the UL and DL must be stable in order to be able to take full advantage of the 4G

INDUSTRY INSIGHT: BIG DATA: THE COMING TSUNAMI — SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL, AND WHY SHOULD I BE CONCERNED?

B y J a k e M a c L e o d

PHOTO COURTESY OF ALCATEL-LUCENT


COLUMNS

LTE features and functions. If the system recognizes that the link is unstable it will accommodate by ratcheting down the performance parameters to meet the capabilities of the air link. This translates into degraded quality and decreased throughput… not to mention a decrease in customer satisfaction.

All this said, the opportunity for Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), and small cell technologies to fill the gap by shortening the UL/DL links, and stabilizing the air link, are impressive. Small cells will be mounted on “street furniture” such as bus stops, traffic lights, billboards, lamp posts, sides of buildings, etc. in order to reduce the distance between the antenna and the wireless device.

To support that, in a recent AT&T Suppliers Conference, AT&T stated that by EoY15, 50 percent of capital spend allocation for wireless will be spent on small cell deployment. AT&T’s capital spend run rate is just north

of $21 billion per year. This is divided into 4 to 5 buckets, one of which is wireless RAN.

Bottom line — Macrocells will continue to be a critical part of the wireless infrastructure, however, DAS and small cell infrastructure deployment will increase in importance and will, according to Cisco and AT&T, handle in excess of 50% of the offered traffic by the year 2018.

Jake MacLeod is the President of Gray Beards Consulting, LLC, in Aledo TX. He can be reached at [email protected]

“Strap in and hold on — it’s going to be a wild (and profitable) ride for the next few years!”


FEATURES

If we’re all to use our mobile devices to work and play anywhere and anytime, we want access to streaming services and all our “stuff” instantly. From devices as small as a smartphone or as large as the screen in an auditorium — properly formatted for the size of the screen, of course.

The fact that we are already socially networked, 24 hours per day, seven days a week, gives us the ability to share versions of our stuff — photos, video, data, whatever — with friends, colleagues, and customers — wherever they may be and whenever we want.

In the same way, we don’t necessarily want to buy soft-ware applications we don’t need. Instead, we want to rent the applications we need, to process our data, for just as long as we need them. This is the vision of true “cloud computing,” as opposed to just cloud storage, and its re-ality depends almost entirely on high-speed connectivity.

GOING BEYOND JUST VOICEFor most of the 20th century, network operators used

the work of Danish mathematician and engineer A.K. Erlang (1878-1929) as the basis for network planning. The central idea was predicting the number of simultaneous users a landline telecommunications network would have to support. As long as the networks were used mainly for voice calls, the same broad principles applied to mobile networks, with the added flexibility of using a smaller cell size in geographic “hot spots” where more users could be expected and cell capacity could be exceeded.

Today, as the provisioning and take-up of data services, and the types of connected devices, on both fixed-line and mobile networks continues to sky-rocket, the rules of network provisioning need to be re-written. Data services are, by their nature, discontinuous. Moving to packet- rather than circuit-based service delivery, allows more users to share the same resource even though the overhead associated with directing the data becomes

more complex. As fixed-line network infrastructures have moved from copper to the virtually-limitless capacity of fiber, this packet delivery overhead has not been an issue.

For individual subscribers, three main delivery mecha-nisms for general use have emerged: Data Over Cable Service Infrastructure Specifications (DOCSIS) modems using ex-isting cable TV infrastructure; Asynchronous Digital Sub-scriber Line (ADSL) modems using the fixed-line telephone network; and third and fourth generation cellular networks with higher cell capacities (aka “mobile broadband”).

Successive advances in mobile network technology and system specifications have provided higher cell capacity and consequent improvements in single-user data rate. The increases in data rate have come courtesy of increased computing power, and increased modulation density made possible by better components, particularly in the area of digital receivers.

Along with the latest mobile network specifications, there is a concurrent move to the Evolved Packet Core (EPC). This is a simplified, all-packet network architecture designed specifically to improve data throughput and latency, and to better match the air interface part of the mobile network to the architecture of the network’s backhaul and off fixed-line networks.

In fixed-line networks, higher speeds for data-intensive services come via the extension of fiber optic cable into local distribution. Copper has become the“last yards,” rather than “last mile” medium, as fiber-to-the-curb (sometimes “fiber-to-the-cabinet”) and even fiber-to- the-home networks provide the high-speed broadband connectivity that’s required for high-definition video streaming and like services.

These improvements have produced a “chicken and egg” conundrum for mobile network operators. The more data capacity they make available, the more complex and data- hungry applications are developed for smartphones and

5G TODAY – WHAT IS GOING ON, AND WHO IS DOING IT B y J a n W h i t a c r e , K e y s i g h t Te c h n o l o g i e s

EVEN AS LTE AND LTE ADVANCED (LTE-A) ARE BEING DEPLOYED, WORK IS ALREADY STARTING ON THEIR SUCCESSOR: 5G. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE INDUSTRY THE CURRENT BACKGROUND ON WHO IS INVOLVED AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPEN-ING IN BRINGING 5G, FROM THEORY TO REALITY.


tablets, and the more sophisticated the demands of end- users become. The latest of these demands is “seamless connectivity” — the ability to move an application amongst devices; i.e. tablet to smartphone to home entertainment center — without interruption of the content. To provide this capability requires access to, and control of, the content over multiple networks: Wi-Fi hotspot, cellular, and land-line. (It’s not just a technical challenge — associated billing needs a plethora of roaming agreements as well.)

WHAT’S NEXT?In all this, there is one certainty that must be considered: wireless spectrum is limited. In the long run, this must mean only those connections which MUST be mobile should be wireless. As much service delivery as possible must be routed through fixed (fiber) networks to as close as possible to the point of consumption. We’re already seeing the rise of television and radio services delivered over the Internet, with more choice of material and timing than terrestrial or satellite broadcast can match. And in mobile networks, today’sWi-Fi offload becomes the starting point for the norm of tomorrow, freeing up cellular system capacity to give mobile users the best possible service.

In the mobile world, capacity gains come essentially from three variables: more spectrum, better efficiency, and better frequency re-use through progressively smaller cell size.The fourth generation networks currently being built use more frequency bands than previous generations and can use broader channel bandwidths.

The work on EPC does recognize, and seek to limit, the packet delivery overhead in wireless networks, since signal-ing absorbs (finite) network capacity. However, with mobile data consumption currently forecast to almost double year-on-year for the next five years, the network operators main-tain they will struggle to meet long-term demand without even more spectrum.Freeing up frequency bands currently used for other systems will become a major priority.

The vision for the year 2020 that’s presented in the studies for fifth generation mobile networks, “5G” is one of “everything, everywhere, and always connected.” It assumes devices can operate on frequencies from a few hundred megahertz to (in some cases) 80 GHz. Indoor cell sizes may be as small as a single room. It employs pico- and femto-cells to maximize frequency reuse at RF.

The International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) definition of 4G has an expectation of 1 Gbps single-user data rate. The goal for 5G is not necessarily to increase this, but to have a high-capacity network capable of delivering this rate to a much bigger user community; in other words to provider higher aggregate capacity for more simultaneous users. None of the studies have specific details of the core network that joins everything together, but they assume the seamless connectivity mentioned earlier will be a given. Some studies also focus on the advances in battery technology needed to support new mobile devices, ranging from simple sensors with a battery life of years, to multi-day time between charges for always-connected smartphones and tablets.

To support vastly increased numbers of devices and performance requirements, the latest 5G studies postulate the key network attributes that will be required: an integrated wireline/wireless network, where the wireless part comprises a dense network of small cells with capacity enhanced through high-order spatial multiplex-ing (multiple in/multiple out – MIMO); cell data rates of the order of 10 GB/s; and round-trip latency of 1 ms. Most studies now assume multiple air interfaces, which will include operation at microwave or millimeter frequencies. With these attributes, the combined network will support everything from simple machine to machine (M2M) devices to immersive virtual reality streaming, with monitoring and control of literally billions of sensors and multiple simultaneous streaming services.

The combined network will also support the massive data collection and distribution needs of the “Internet of Things.” With the massive infrastructure costs involved, it’s difficult to see individual operators affording the investment separately; shared, jointly-managed resources have been predicted as being much more likely.

THE PLAYERS IN 5GWireless@MITHari Balakrishnan and Dina Katabi co-directorsAlso known more formally as the MIT Center for Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing, this new organization pulls together more than a dozen MIT professors and their research groups to work on next-generation wireless networks and mobile computing.

FEATURES


The work done at the center is designed to make an impact on technology users: Wireless@MIT boasts a “strong industrial partnership” with Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, Telefonica, Amazon, STMicroelectronics, and MediaTek — and says it aims to influence standards and products.

Research at Wireless@MIT is currently focused on four areas: spectrum and connectivity, mobile applications, security and privacy, and low-power systems.

Latest (Oct 2013): Their work has been recognized with two awards to Professor Katabi: she has been named one of the 2013 MacArthur Fellows, and has also won the ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award for her contributions to the theory and practice of network congestion control and bandwidth allocation.

European UnionUnder “A Digital Agenda for Europe” the EU has already launched eight projects to begin exploring the technolog-ical options available leading to the future generation of “wired”(optical) and “wireless” communications, adding up to over €50m for research on 5G technologies deploy-able by 2020. Overall EU investments from 2007 to 2013 amounted to more than €600m in research on future networks, half of which was allocated to wireless technol-ogies contributing to development of 4G and beyond.

Their expectation is that next-generation communica-tion systems will be the first instance of a truly converged network where “wired” and “wireless” communications will use the same infrastructure. This future ubiquitous, ultra-high bandwidth communication infrastructure will drive the future networked society.

EU funding for this initiative is coordinated under the auspices of the Seventh Framework Programne for research and development (FP7).

METIS — Mobile and Wireless Communications Enablers for the Twenty-twenty (2020) Information Society

METIS is an EU-funded, Ericsson-led, consortium of 29 organizations with a €27m budget and more coming from the European Commission is aimed at replicating Europe’s worldwide success with GSM and subsequent technologies. It will “develop a system concept that delivers the necessary efficiency, versatility, and scalability to investigate key t echnology components supporting the system, and to evaluate and demonstrate key functionalities.” The

majority of participants are universities and mobile network operators, with industry partners including Alca-tel-Lucent, BMW, Huawei, Nokia, and Nokia Solutions and Networks (NSN). Based on today’s and projected user de-mands and on the already known challenges such as very high data rates, dense crowds of users, low latency, low en-ergy, low cost and a massive number of devices, METIS has outlined the following 5G scenarios that reflect the future challenges and will serve as guidance for further work:

• “Amazingly fast”, focusing on high data-rates for future mobile broadband users

• “Great service in a crowd”, focusing on mobile broad-band access even in very crowded areas and conditions

• “Ubiquitous things communicating”, focusing on efficient handling of a very large number of devices with widely varying requirements

• “Best experience follows you”, focusing on delivering high levels of user experience to mobile end users

• “Super real-time and reliable connections”, focusing on new applications and use cases with stringent requirements on latency and reliability

METIS has derived a challenging set of requirements from these scenarios, which can be summarized as:

• Ten to one hundred times higher typical user data rate where in a dense urban environment the typical user data rate will range from one to ten Gbps

• One thousand times more mobile data per area (per user) where the volume per area (per user) will be over 100 Gbps/km2 (resp. 500 Gbyte/user/month)

• Ten to one hundred times more connected devices

• Ten times longer battery life for low-power massive machine communications where machines such as sensors or pagers will have a battery life of a decade

FEATURES


TABLE OF CONTENTS

waterfordconsultants.com • 703.596.1022

• DAS Solutions

• RF Safety Training• FAA Certification & Filing

• AM Screening & Detuning

• Tower & Site Mapping

• Structural Analysis• Intermodulation Studies• RF Exposure Analysis

If You Need to Solve FCC Regulatory Issues... Call Waterford.

you call?Who would

the World...to RallyIf You Need


• Support of ultra-fast application response times (e.g. for tactile internet) where the end-to-end latency will be less than 5 ms with high reliability

• A key challenge will be to fulfill the previous require-ments under a similar cost and energy dissipation per area as in today’s cellular systems

METIS is co-funded by the European Commission as an Integrated Project under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and development (FP7). It will run for 30 months.

Technical University of Dresden, Germany Gerhard P. Fettweis, Vodafone Chair ProfessorMWJ Article Link — A 5G Wireless Communications Vision

TU-Dresden previously pioneered 3G systems research in association with the Vodafone Chair Mobile Commu-nications Systems, which is dedicated to cutting-edge research in wireless communication technology. Their vision for a next-generation system is user-centric, with required system attributes based on perceived future usage models: “The Internet of Things”. Their vision for 5G is to provide a new unified air interface to cover cellular, short-range and sensor technology that can deliver 10 Gbps, 1 ms. latency and simple sensors with 10-year battery life.

Centre for Communication Systems Research (CCSR), University of Surrey, UKProfessor Rahim Tafazolli

The project began in 2013, and is expected to cost around £35 million ($56 million USD), where about £11.6 million will come from the UK government and the oth-er £24 million will be provided by a group of tech com-panies, including Samsung, Huawei, Fujitsu Laboratories Europe, Telefonica Europe, and AIRCOM International. An expansion of the program is also being sought with further proposals going to the UK government.

“We are looking at the processors, protocols, algorithms, and techniques...we won’t try to optimise the hardware implementation -- that is something the industry will do. We have developed the know-how” – quote from Professor Tafazolli.

Their focus is on providing “sufficient rate to give users

the perception of infinite capacity”, through examining:

• Latency

• Energy Efficiency

• Scalability

• Reliability and Robustness

• Distribute control between Network and Devices

• Uniformity between licensed and license-exempt bands (including Broadcast)

• Dense cell technologies

• Exploring and understanding new frequency bands It’s claimed that the new network will be spectrum-

efficient and energy-efficient. It will also be faster, with cell speeds bumped up to a capacity of 10Gbps. CCSR has also a long standing track record in the UK where it was selected by industry as a core member of the UK Virtual Centre of Excellence in Mobile and Personal Communications. CCSR is also deeply involved in many 7th Framework IST projects.

CCSR’s work and research activities, both past and present include the following areas:

• Air Interface

• Cognitive Networks and Future Internet

• Cognitive Radio

• Radio Access System Optimization

• Security

• Knowledge and Data Engineering

Polytechnic Institute of New York University (NYU-Poly)Professor Theodore (Ted) Rappaport

FEATURES


Professor Rappaport directs two projects based at NYU-Poly: NYU Wireless and WICAT.

NYU-WIRELESSResearchers at NYU-Poly have assembled a consortium of government and business support to advance beyond today’s fourth generation (4G) wireless technologies toward 5G cellular networks. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded the team an Accelerating Innovation Research (AIR) grant of $800,000, matched by $1.2 million from corporate backers and the Empire State Development Division of Science, Technology & Innovation (NYSTAR), which supports the project through its longstanding partnership with NYU-Poly’s Center for Advanced Technology in Telecommunications (CATT). They are also seeking multi-year funding commitments from their industry sponsors to support around 100 students involved in the research.

The 5G project will develop smarter and far less expen-sive wireless infrastructure by means of smaller, lighter antennas with directional beamforming to bounce signals off buildings using the uncrowded millimeter-wave spec-trum. It will also help develop smaller, smarter cells with devices that cooperate rather than compete for spectrum.

WIRELESS INTERNET CENTER for ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (WICAT)WICAT is a multi-university R&D center sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under its program of Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC). Polytechnic Institute of NYU is the lead insti-tution in WICAT, with Prof. Rappaport serving as direc-tor. WICAT center sites are also located at Virginia Tech, University of Texas at Austin, Auburn University, and the University of Virginia.

Thrust areas of the WICAT research at Polytechnic Institute of NYU are to increase network capacity and battery life of terminals, enhance network security, and structure applications to run efficiently over wireless networks. The research at Virginia Tech focuses on software-defined radios and military applications; Auburn University focuses on circuit design and automation; the University of Texas deals with ad hoc and sensor networks; and the University of Virginia deals with

video recognition, large data problems, and rapidly re-configurable wireless networks.

ChinaChina’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has established a working group called “IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group” for 5G research in February 2012. China is seeking participation with Taiwan in the program.

Tokyo Institute of Technology and DOCOMO Tokyo Institute of Technology in a joint outdoor experiment conducted recently with NTT DOCOMO, INC. succeeded in a packet transmission uplink rate of approximately 10 Gbps. In the experiment, a 400 MHz bandwidth in the 11 GHz spectrum was transmitted from a mobile station moving at approximately 9 km/h. Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology was used to spatially multiplex different data streams using eight transmitting antennas and 16 receiving antennas on the same frequency.

Qualcomm’s 1000x Data Challenge PresentationThe presentation “1000x Data Challenge” from Qualcomm discusses a three-fold evolution of today’s 4G standards. It proposes study items for 3GPP specification releases 12 and beyond relating to interworking, heterogeneous networks, self-organizing networks, and steadily decreasing cell sizes.

SamsungSamsung Electronics recently announced it had made a breakthrough in wireless network technology, calling it “5G.” In a statement, Samsung said that its researchers “successfully developed the world’s first adaptive array transceiver technology operating in the millimeter-wave Ka bands for cellular communications.” The transmissions used in the test were made at the ultra-high 28GHz fre-quency, which offers far more bandwidth than the fre-quencies used for 4G networks. High frequencies can carry more data, but have the disadvantage that they generally can be blocked by buildings and lose intensity over longer distances.

Samsung said its adaptive array transceiver technology,

FEATURES


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TE and ALU introduce a CPRI interface to TE’s FlexWave digital DAS to bring multi-carrier wireless coverage and capacity to large public venues. The solution simplifi es DAS architecture and reduces materials, space, and energy consumption.Find out more at te.com/CPRI

REIMAGINE DASMULTI-CARRIERSMALL CELLNETWORKSSIMPLIFYCPRI DAS eliminates redundant RF amplifi ers and integration panels

ALL OTHER DAS

FLEXWAVECPRI DAS

SAVE Cost savings estimates from a Bell Labs use case of a high capacity, multi-operator venue

FLEXWAVECPRI DAS

ALL OTHERDAS

$

$


FEATURES

using 64 antenna elements, can be a viable solution for overcoming the weaker propagation characteristics of millimeter-wave bands, which are much higher in fre-quency than conventional wireless spectrum. The com-pany said it “plans to accelerate the research and devel-opment of 5G mobile communications technologies, including adaptive array transceiver at the millimeter- wave bands”.

Intel in collaboration with UniversitiesIntel Corp. has formed a research collaboration with leading universities to explore technologies for next-gen wireless networks. Initially, Intel will invest at least $3 million to support wireless research at more than 10 universities including Stanford, ITT Delhi and Pompeu Fabra. The work focuses on topics including how to improve quality of service via context awareness, wireless device power efficiency, and enabling new radio spectrum.

HuaweiHuawei has signed a five-year deal with Ottawa that would see them invest a total of $80 million and employ over 150 new jobs into a new R&D center working on 5G. It is one of ten “global centers of technical and finan-cial excellence” that Huawei has committed to setting up worldwide.

BroadcomBroadcom has begun selling a range of 802.11ac-com-patible Wireless LAN chips it markets as “5G Wi-Fi”. Devices using them will be capable of data rates in excess of 1 Gbps, over the same distances as current 802.11a/b/g/n products. They will be incorporated in many new wireless routers, PCs, tablets and smart phones.

Other papers“5G Mobile Phone Concept”Author: Janevski, T . Fac. of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University Sv. Kiril i Metodij, Skopje. Published in Consumer Communica-tions and Networking Conference, 2009. CCNC 2009. 6th IEEE.

“Evolution of Networks (2G-5G)” Jay R. Churi, T. Sudhish Surendran, Ajay Tigdi, Shreyas, Sanket Yewale. Dept. of Comp. Sc., Padmabhushan Vas-antdada Patil Pratishthan’s College of Engineering, Mum-bai University, India. Published in International Conference on Advances in Communication and Computing Technol-ogies (ICACACT) 2012 Proceedings published by Interna-tional Journal of Computer Applications® (IJCA) 8.

Jan has over 30 years of engineering experience in cellular technologies. She received her BS degree in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin, Madison and then completed her MBA in Spokane WA. Jan currently works on solutions from across Agilent and is currently focused on LTE, LTE-Advanced, and WLAN. She coordinates communications and writes and presents training courses and articles.

A Bird Technologies® Company

Public Safety Grade Indoor and Outdoor Multi-Service DAS Solution

• Supports all major public safety and wireless carrier frequency bands

• Compact, fanless, NEMA4 (IP65) systems

• Lowest noise figure in the industry

• World class output power

• Ability to monitor, control, and test all components of DAS from single webpage

• Unique Single Net solution

www.deltanode.com Tel: 866.695.4569 (USA)

TE and ALU introduce a CPRI interface to TE’s FlexWave digital DAS to bring multi-carrier wireless coverage and capacity to large public venues. The solution simplifi es DAS architecture and reduces materials, space, and energy consumption.Find out more at te.com/CPRI

REIMAGINE DASMULTI-CARRIERSMALL CELLNETWORKSSIMPLIFYCPRI DAS eliminates redundant RF amplifi ers and integration panels

ALL OTHER DAS

FLEXWAVECPRI DAS

SAVE Cost savings estimates from a Bell Labs use case of a high capacity, multi-operator venue

FLEXWAVECPRI DAS

ALL OTHERDAS

$

$

Where Content Comes To Life™

Meet and greet conference attendees at our networking social. Sponsored by Sunsight Instruments

5:30 pm – 7:30 pm

Network Before the Conference

CONFERENCES

Experience the Benefits of an AGL Conference

REGISTER NOW Attend the October 9, 2014

AGL Conference in Dallas, TX

SPONSORS

aglmediagroup.com/aglevents

View the 2014 Media Guide for sponsorship opportunities at aglmediagroup.com or contact [email protected]

Sponsorship...

REGISTER ONLINE:

NATE Tower Business SymposiumTower Economic Session & Case Studies

Benefit from afternoon educational session and

practical discussion of tower economics from a tower

contractor perspective. We will discuss topics such

as tower site installations, preventing catastrophic

failures, maintenance, best practices, work safety

and other subjects that drive cost. Session led by

NATE Chairwoman, Pat Cipov.

Learn from industry leaders and technology experts.

Interact with existing clients and build new relationships.

Showcase your company products and services.

EDUCATION

NETWORKING

EXHIBITION

™

Solving the Fiber Puzzle

RF Solutions

$Now Only

$119

COSTHilton Anatole2201 Stemmons FreewayDallas, TX

WHEREThursdayOctober 98:00 am – 4:30 pm

WHEN

*Must be present to win iPad Mini

Register to WinWin 2015 Super Bowl Tickets

Register to attend an AGL Conference for a chance to win tickets to Super Bowl XLIV. Once registered, download the Bizzabo app to be included in the drawing. The winner will be announced on December 4 at the last 2014 AGL Conference in Glendale, AZ.

iPad Mini provided by Fidelity National Title Group and Ambor Structures

Wednesday, October 8

Registration includes a chance to win an iPad Mini, given away at each conference.

Win an iPad Mini

Tickets provided by Black & Veatch Bizzabo App sponsored by SAC Wireless

ACUTA MEMBERSCHECK YOUR NEWSLETTER FOR

A REGISTRATION DISCOUNT CODE

2:30 pm – 4:30 pm

Experience the EducationAGL Brings Content to Dallas

Gain insight from leading companies that design,

build and improve today’s demanding networks to

meet carrier capacity and consumer needs. Hear from

experts that will explain the latest trends, discuss

cutting-edge technologies and deployment strategies.

• Strengthening Your Business in the Wireless Industry

• A Wireless World in the Enterprise Space

• Wireless Opportunities in Public Safety

• Small Cells … Big Deal

• Zoning Tactics from Small to Macro Cells: Getting to ‘Yes’


SMALL CELL BACKHAUL UPDATEA new report by ABI Research predicts the small cell backhaul equipment to grow to over $5 billion in 2018 that represents a 10-fold increase from the $487 million forecasted for 2013 representing a whopping 48% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).

In 2018, the <6 GHz technology will capture over 47%, or $2.4 billion worth of the small cell backhaul equipment revenue. Thirty-one percent will be for last mile links. Millimeter-wave technology will become the fastest growing technology over the forecast period, growing at 113%, CAGR, translating into $668 million share. Traditional microwave equipment will gar-ner 34 percent with a $1.8 billion share, with a 25 percent technology share in 2018.

ABI Research believes that the millimeter- wave bands from 60 GHz to 80 GHz will also prove compelling for small cell back-haul in many situations. “We believe that 4G/LTE small cell solutions will again drive most of the microwave and fiber backhaul growth in metropolitan, urban, and suburban areas with backhaul for 4G/LTE small cells reaching a value of $3.1 billion in 2018, growing at 2X the rate for 3G and surpassing 3G in 2016,” notes Nick Marshall, principal analyst at ABI Research. More info can be found at: www.abiresearch.com.

SMALL CELL HIGHLIGHTSThe recent Research and Markets report has revealed

that the global heterogeneous network market to grow at a CAGR of 27.9 percent over the period 2014-2018. One of the key factors contributing to this market growth is the inexorable demand for mobile broadband.

The global heterogeneous network market has also been witnessing the emergence of Wi-Fi-enabled small cells. However, the interference issues could pose a challenge to the growth of this market.

The key vendors dominating this market space are Alcatel-Lucent SA, Airvana LLC, Cisco Systems Inc., Ericsson AB, Ruckus Wireless Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

The Global Wi-Fi-Enabled Small Cell market has also been witnessing the increasing adoption of Hotspot 2.0 standard. TechNavio’s report, Global Wi-Fi-Enabled Small Cell Market, 2014-2018, has been prepared based on an in-depth market analysis with inputs from industry experts. The report covers the Americas, and the APAC and EMEA regions; it also covers the Global Wi-Fi-Enabled Small Cell market landscape and its growth prospects in the coming years. The report also includes a discussion

of the key vendors operating in this market. The full report is available at: http://goo.gl/bTzovG.

According to Infonetics Research, the great small cell ramp did not happen in 2013 as many in the industry had hoped. Testing activity remained solid, but actual deployments were modest. Small cell revenue was just $771 million last year, a sharp contrast to the $24 billion 2G/3G RAN market. However, Infonetics predicts the small cell market to grow 65% by year’s end, when it will reach $1.3 billion. Read more at: http://goo.gl/SNScLw.

BlueStream Professional Services has closed on it deal to purchase select assets of Tempest Telecom Solutions’ DAS and Small Cell Division. Terms of the transaction were not released.

The Tempest Telecom Solutions distributed antenna systems (DAS) and small cell assets identified in the agreement will be integrated into the BlueStream Professional Services portfolio of wire line and wireless services. The integration of the Tempest DAS and Small Cell division will augment the current BlueStream services while further enhancing its expertise, scale, and capabilities. More at: bluestreampro.com.

BUSINESS AND FINANCE B y A G L S m a l l C e l l M a g a z i n e S t a f f

COLUMNS

“ABI Research predicts the small cell backhaul equipment to grow to over $5 billion in 2018...”


COLUMNS


COLUMNS

As a reader of this periodical, you likely already know about Small Cell technology and the impact it has to increase coverage and capacity, and better enable carrier spectrum frequency reuse. Carriers like AT&T and Verizon have been reported to embrace the technology, and the beneficial impacts it can have to customer satisfaction. But these same carriers have not been very nimble to enable deployment with individual end users or enterprise, and the small cell initiative has been slowed. What has not been slowed is the end user and enterprise desire to enable small cell as a cost effective alternative to poor indoor and campus coverage.

This author has an AT&T small cell deployed in my office due to multiple dropped calls and coverage issues (no offense AT&T). I bought the small cell myself, installed it myself, and it is connected to an IP backhaul for which I pay. It therefore occurred to me: I just increased AT&T’s external network capacity and coverage, reduced their dropped and blocked call rates (which their RF teams are measured against at bonus/review time), reduced their network connectivity costs, enabled the carrier to better use macro deployed frequency, and last but not least, enabled AT&T to make more potential revenue from me based on data usage…and it all didn’t cost AT&T a dime! Plus, all I got out of all that expense and effort was good mobile service….which is what the carrier was supposed to give me anyway.

Now, I don’t want to sound like I am angry with AT&T. I’m not. I understand better than most the pros and cons of being a completely mobile communicator, and what the carrier can and can’t do technologically with indoor impacts and changing numbers of external users. Enterprise users

understand this as well, and like me, they increasingly care more about having an effective workspace than the bene-ficial carrier network impacts due to the customer’s out of pocket expenses. But just imagine the impact that thou-sands of individual customer-installed and paid for service

upgrades could have on the carrier bottom line and network. Now imagine that same deployment on a slightly grander scale by enterprise customers, and you see why various mid-sized deployment companies and technology provid-ers are coming out with small scale deployment options to support even multi–carrier coverage. The costs for these individual to enterprise small cell systems can range from only a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, marking the first time limited indoor coverage can be afforded by most anyone. The desire for better coverage and faster speeds is increasingly surpassing any annoyance with the costs. In addition, the backhaul expense born by the customer for these deployments is something for which the customers already have a sunk cost for their LAN/CAN connectivity.

But that leads me to an interesting couple of corollaries. Before these small cell type installations, carrier network was completely controlled by the carrier, or a handful of large carrier-centered entities like DAS providers/tower

LEGAL NOTES J. Gregory Higgins

This Month’s Column Topic: Whose Network is this?… And Whose is it When Security is Breached?

“If I made my system open to improve overall network, would AT&T give me a better deal?”


companies. Now, thousands of small players can effectively control the last mile of wireless deployment and coverage. There are carrier agreements to which the customers must often agree upon activation of the systems deployed for individual carrier coverage, and these terms often give the carrier a level of control over network related impacts of the systems. Even if that wasn’t true, FCC rules would likely allow the carrier to take action as necessary to protect their network, akin to the customer installed BDA issues which occurred some years ago. But as small cell deployment grows, this could reflect a shift of some control to customers and business impact to the carriers.

My AT&T system is limited by me to users that I designate. So if you drive by my office, I won’t be providing you free better service. This can be done technically in other systems as well based upon listed phone numbers or IMEI designa-tions. But what if coverage was open — like an open access Wi-Fi network? If I made my system open to improve over-all network, would AT&T give me a better deal? AT&T reports that my small cell can handle 15 lines of service, and can reach about 40 feet from the unit (although I routinely get more like 75 – 100 before it hands off to the macro network). Now imagine I am located in Malibu on Pacific Coast Highway (I wish), where macro coverage is extremely difficult…and costly. Even if the carrier has a location to build and regulatory possibility, it still takes 6-10 months start to finish from lease to on-air integration…and costs upward of $150K to deploy. Imagine further I am surrounded by 10 other customers geographically with similar open systems? Now what could a deal look like with the carrier? Move into enterprise and campus environments and the benefits grow exponentially for the carrier.

Now I know you more techie people can poke holes in my lawyerly limited knowledge here as to hand-off and other likely technology issues, but I would imagine that these are resolvable. What can and should the carriers be doing to better incentivize customers and enterprise in small cell deployments? Even if that carrier coverage and capacity gain was nominal, say 10-15%, what does that do to network improvements and the bottom line?

The other corollary is that once we enter this new world of small but multiple network owners, who controls and is responsible for the possible negative impacts? Small cells and the lack of carrier direct and full network

control create new risks. IP-based systems can have backhaul failures and not provide proper location based information for E911 and other requirements. The carrier network could be exposed due to public access through these smaller doorways. Small cells and related devices are basically small base radios without the same level of network security. They are driven by software, and like other software devices, are subject to the same flaws.

Unscrupulous parties can physically compromise the software of the small cell and alter the software, or could even remotely download malicious software into the device. It is conceivably possible by these methods to obtain call information, eavesdrop, or obtain info like website addresses and text messages from end users that utilize that small cell. The downstream privacy impact is obvious, but this could also result in carrier service and other fraud. Even the carrier core networks could be damaged through protocol manipulation attacks and denial of ser-vice impacts. Both Vodafone and Verizon have already had to deal with some of these negative impacts. When a carrier loses direct control of the end to end network, it loses complete control over these issues. While it can address through some integration, it cannot proactively protect from all security flaws or intentional misconduct.

And it is the carrier who would likely suffer the wrath of the impacted persons from a small cell breach, and the possible legal action. If the security breach occurs through an individual network like mine, for example, can the carrier isolate, track and locate that breach? Who is re-sponsible if my small cell was hacked similar to how my computer can be hacked through IP connected methods? In the enterprise or campus space, should the enterprise build or require sufficient network security safeguards, or should the carrier have to do so based on the open architecture (if offered)? Who protects whom, and what agreements should be put in place. Could and should network/cyber security insurance cover these issues?

On second thought, maybe I don’t want to open my network until we get the kinks worked out.

J. Gregory Higgins — Lead Counsel — North America, Brightstar. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of Brightstar Corporation or its affiliates. (Credit: ABI Research and DefCon21 Conference Materials — Technical details)

This Month’s Column Topic: Whose Network is this?… And Whose is it When Security is Breached?

COLUMNS


COLUMNS

REGULATORY UPDATE B y A G L S m a l l C e l l M a g a z i n e S t a f f

SMALL CELL, DAS DEPLOYMENTS COULD SPEED UP UNDER NEW FCC RULESThe FCC has stated it will consider loosening restrictions on the construction and rollout of small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems. This is seen as effort by the commission to help carriers optimize their wireless capacity and coverage. The issue is key for wireless carriers turning to small cell and DAS technologies to fill in the gaps in their networks that macrocells are unable to reach.

Specifically, the FCC said it will open a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that in part will seek com-ment “on measures needed to reduce obstacles to obtain-ing access to rights-of-way and locations for wireless

facilities.” The agency pointed toward streamlining the environmental and historic preservation review process-es for newer technologies like small cells and DAS.

PCIA President & CEO Jonathan Adelstein cheered the FCC’s actions. “The FCC hit the nail on the head by acknowledging that common-sense reforms are needed to modernize historic and environmental review processes for the deployment of DAS and small cells,” he said. “They recog-nize we can’t treat every DAS node like a 500 foot cell tower.”

FCC’S ATTITUDE TO VERIZON’S PLAN CHANGESFCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is expressing disappoint-

ment about Verizon’s plan to start slowing down customers on unlimited data plans this October.

Verizon recently announced the update to its “network optimization” policy, making sure to note that “throttling will only happen under very specific circumstances — and only when network cell sites are experiencing heavy demand. Wheeler says he’s “deeply troubled” by the news.

Verizon and others that have implemented throttling say they have every right to do so since it falls under “reasonable network management.” But, Wheeler is critical of this de-fense. “I know of no past Commission statement that would treat, as reasonable network management, a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for unlimited service.”

Wheeler, also told Verizon that throttling LTE data may violate the obligations Verizon undertook when it acquired valuable C Block spectrum. Those rules specif-ically state that US carriers “may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks.”

It is interesting that the FCC has taken such a strong stance against Verizon, since throttling is common across every other major US carrier. But, Wheeler seems hint that those C Block rules make a difference here. It will be interesting to see how the game progresses.

FCC INVESTIGATES LTE INTERFERENCE TO DTVThe FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology re-leased a Public Notice this week seeking comment on its measurements of LTE interference to TV receivers.

The problem mainly occurs in weak signal zones, as the interfering base stations and handheld units are likely to be at the edge of a station’s coverage area. There has been some data published in the form of tables, but some claim the parameter for the tests do not consider all of the variables.

The printed results would indicate LTE-into-TV interference may be a problem if LTE spectrum overlaps spectrum used by full-power TV stations. The OET engineers conducting the study recognized the limitations of their measurements and noted this early in their report, saying that measurements were only intended “to identify any gross differences between the interference potential of LTE and DTV signals on DTV reception.”

Since the data analyzed by the OET is not completely conclusive, and the OET even says so, how much and where such interference will occur is still sketchy. It is possible that LTE interference to DTV receivers can be a problem on paper. In reality, more testing with a wider variety of receivers at different price points is needed.

“They recognize we can’t treat every DAS node like a 500 foot cell tower”


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Big Solutions.SMALL CELLS =

OCTOBER 15–16, 2014 • CHICAGO, IL

To learn more and register, visit www.hetnetexpo.com. Register before Oct. 13 and save $100 per person.

Come together with industry experts to discuss small-cell technologies; how they intersect with the larger macrocellular, public safety and Wi-Fi networks; and what’s ahead for HetNets. These featured events create a one-of-a-kind experience at HetNet Expo:

World-Class EducationFrom the integration of a strong infrastructure for mobile devices and applications to choosing technology for commercial buildings to the impact on real estate and economic development, HetNet Expo covers the hot topics that drive your bottom line.

Interactive Exhibit HallSix dedicated hours inside the exhibit hall allow you to be face-to-face with trusted vendors who supply products and services for DAS and other small-cell solutions. Ask the technical experts questions, and compare competitive products side-by-side.

DAS Installation Tour and Networking ReceptionJoin us for a DAS installation tour at Chicago’s Museum of Science & Industry. The tour and reception are INCLUDED in your Full Access pass for the 2014 HetNet Expo!Sponsored by ExteNet Systems and Corning MobileAccess

Big Solutions.SMALL CELLS =

OCTOBER 15–16, 2014 • CHICAGO, IL

To learn more and register, visit www.hetnetexpo.com. Register before Oct. 13 and save $100 per person.

Come together with industry experts to discuss small-cell technologies; how they intersect with the larger macrocellular, public safety and Wi-Fi networks; and what’s ahead for HetNets. These featured events create a one-of-a-kind experience at HetNet Expo:

World-Class EducationFrom the integration of a strong infrastructure for mobile devices and applications to choosing technology for commercial buildings to the impact on real estate and economic development, HetNet Expo covers the hot topics that drive your bottom line.

Interactive Exhibit HallSix dedicated hours inside the exhibit hall allow you to be face-to-face with trusted vendors who supply products and services for DAS and other small-cell solutions. Ask the technical experts questions, and compare competitive products side-by-side.

DAS Installation Tour and Networking ReceptionJoin us for a DAS installation tour at Chicago’s Museum of Science & Industry. The tour and reception are INCLUDED in your Full Access pass for the 2014 HetNet Expo!Sponsored by ExteNet Systems and Corning MobileAccess


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Small Cells, BIG Challenges, One Total Source.

800.472.7373www.TESSCO.com/go/smallcell

Small CellSupply ChainLogisticsInventory ManagementEngineering and DesignOversight and ControlCustom KittingStaging and ShippingThird-Party Logistics

Anticipating big challenges from small cells? So are we! Backhaul, power, and infrastructure are key to small cell rollouts with each site holding unique deployment considerations. Success hinges on your ability to design, procure and deploy the right materials-to the right place-at the right time.

As small cell deployments escalate, TESSCO is ready with technical services, inventory management , customized kitting, staging, shipping, and third-party logistics.

Are you ready for small cells? TESSCO is.

Backhaul - Infrastructure - Power

C-RAN - AGL (Above Ground Level) · Speed. Safety. Innovation. Black & Veatch has shaped the...

Documents

Transcript of C-RAN - AGL (Above Ground Level) · Speed. Safety. Innovation. Black & Veatch has shaped the...