Technology vs. Topology Moray Rumney Agilent … sources/20090129 Cambridge... · Technology vs....
Transcript of Technology vs. Topology Moray Rumney Agilent … sources/20090129 Cambridge... · Technology vs....
Technology vs. Topology Moray Rumney
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Technology vs. Topology
Can WiMAX, HSPA+ or LTE Address the Wireless
Capacity Crunch?
Moray RumneyAgilent Technologies
Agilent TechnologiesThe World’s Premier Measurement Company
$5.8 billion FY08 revenue
18,500 employees
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Customers in over 110 countries
69-year heritage of innovation
Page 2
Agilent Businesses – FY’08 Revenue $5.8B
Networking & Digital
Solutions BU
Electronic Instruments
BU
WirelessBU
Chemical Analysis
Solutions Unit
Life Sciences Solutions Unit
Materials Science
Solutions Unit
Electronic Measurement$3.6B
Life Sciences and Chemical Analysis$2.2B
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
$800M $700M$2.1B $1.2.B$900M $100M
Sales, Services, and Support Sales, Services, and Support
Agilent Laboratories – Applied research, existing and new businesses
Page 3
Peak vs. Average
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 4
Which is the best car?
$2,500 $1,500,000
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 5
Answer: Both! It depends on the problem you are trying to solve
Page 5
Cooper’s law on wireless capacity growth
Dr. Martin Cooper of Motorola - “father” of the modern mobile phone - has observed:
The number of simultaneous voice and
data connections has doubled every 2.5
years since wireless began (1900)
Cooper’s Law
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Dr. Martin Cooper in 1982 with the DynaTAC
Page 6
Descriptions can be completely accurate but not tell the full story
QUIZ #1: What do you get when:
You scrape a horse’s tail
Across dried sheep intestine?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
For about half an hour?
Page 7
Answer:
The Elgar Cello Concerto!
Sometimes sheep intestines are referred to as cat gut:
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 8
IMT-2000
Mobility
High
EnhancedIMT-2000
Enhancement
IMT-2000
Mobility
High
EnhancedIMT-2000
New Mobile
Access
”IMT-ADVANCED”
ITU recommendation ITU-R.1645
But what does this look like when probability of coverage is considered?
Also known as the “van” diagram
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Low
1 10 100 1000Peak uuseful data rate (Mbit/s)
Low
1 10 100 1000
Area Wireless Access
Digital Broadcast SystemsNomadic / Local Area Access Systems
New Nomadic / Local
Voice and SMS are near 100%
Data becomes less probable with increased mobility and rate
Page 9
What is enabling this apparent exponential growth in wireless communications?
The capacity of a system to deliver services is defined by three main factors:
• The bandwidth of the available radio spectrum – in MHz
• The efficient use of that spectrum – bits / second / hertz
• The number of cells – this equates to spectrum reuse
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Number of cells
Eff
icie
nc
y
Page 10
Growth to date dominated by increasing cell count
If we apply Cooper’s law over the last 50 years we are looking at a growth in wireless capacity of perhaps 1,000,000
Allocating this growth between the axes of capacity looks roughly like this:
1000
200010000
Growth has
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Gro
wth
fa
cto
r
1
10
100
1000
2025
Efficiency Spectrum No. of cells
Growth has historically been dominated by the
increase in the number of cells
Page 11
Cellular wireless peak data rates appear to be on track to grow by 100,000 between 1985 and 2015
Date SystemPeak data
rateChannel
BandwidthFrequency
reusePeak Spectral
efficiencyNormalized efficiency
1985 AMPS 9.6 kbps 30 kHz 7 / 21 0.015 1
1992 GSM9.6 – 14.4
kbps200 kHz 4 / 12 0.032 - 0.048 2.1 – 3.2
1997 GPRS 171 kbps 200 kHz 4 / 12 .07 4.7
2000 EDGE 474 kbps 200 kHz 4 / 12 0.2 13.3
2003 W-CDMA 2 Mbps 5 MHz 1 0.4 26.6
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
2006 HSDPA 14 Mbps 5 MHz 1 2.8 187
2009HSDPA+64QAM & 2x2 MIMO
42 Mbps 5 MHz 1 8.4 560
2011 LTE 100 Mbps 20 MHz 1 5 333
2012 LTE 2x2 MIMO 172.8 Mbps 20 MHz 1 8.6 576
2013 LTE 4x4 MIMO 326.4 Mbps 20 MHz 1 16.3 1087
2015 IMT-Advanced targets 1 Gbps 100 MHz 1 10 667
With such peak data rates the demand for capacity could be huge
Page 12
With today’s cellular densities, average data rates (i.e. capacity) falls behind peak data rates by 10x
Pk Data rates x 2800
Efficiency x 40Spectrum x 7
� Capacity x 28010000000
100000000
1000000000
Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity
Efficiency, spectrum and capacity are normalized to single-band GSM in 1992
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
The average efficiency, spectrum and capacity plots are normalized
A 10x capacity gap has opened up today!
Improvements in average efficiency and spectrum are
not keeping up with peak rates
Page 13
Spectral Efficiency bits / sec / Hz
1
10
100
W-CDMA
HSDPA
1xEV-DO
LTE
802.16e
IS-95C
Growth in peak / average spectral efficiency by technology
Peak efficiency lies around this line
Average efficiency and hence capacitygrowth of deployed systems lags well behind and will level
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
0.01
0.1
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Average efficiency Peak efficiency
AMPS
GSM
GPRS
EDGE
1xEV-DO(A)EGPRS2 1/3
W-CDMA (R99)EGPRS 4/12 (R99)
HSDPA (R7)HSDPA (R5)
LTE target
EGPRS 1/3 (R99)
off due to inter-cell interference
Peak efficiency drives up air interface cost &
complexity
You pay for the peak but experience the
average
Page 14
Geometry factor distribution in urban cellsC
um
ula
tive
dis
trib
uti
on
100 %
This plot shows the variation in geometry factor across a typical outdoor urban cell
Very high spectral efficiency is only seen when the geometry factor is above 15 dB, which is an environment that 90% of the user population will not
90% of users 10% of users
Most new high data rate/MIMO
performance targets require
geometry factors
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Geometry factor in dB
Cu
mu
lati
ve
dis
trib
uti
on
0 %
-30 30
that 90% of the user population will not experience
In-building penetration loss will degrade performance further
This puts a finite and very low limit on indoor performance when using outdoor transmission systems
0-20 -10 10 20
geometry factors experienced by
<10% of the user population
Page 15
Example of interference-limited throughput*
HSDPA macrocell, single Rx + equalizer
15 code 64QAM, 20 Mbps peak
34 randomly distributed users
Quiz #2: What is the combined throughput and why?
M
M
MM
M
MM
M
M M
MM
M
M
MM
M
MM
M
MM
MM
MM
M
M
M
M
M
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
20 Mbps
680 Mbps
13 Mbps
1.3 Mbps
That is an average throughput of 40 kbps
M
MM
M M
* Source: 3GPP RAN WG4 R4-081344
(0.26 b/s/Hz)
Page 16
Impact of femtocell deployment on throughput
Using the same macrocell add 96 femtocells
24 users migrate to femtocells
10 users remain on the macrocell
Quiz #3: What is the combined throughput and why?
M
M
MM
M
MM
M
M M
MM
M
M
MM
M
MM
M
MM
MM
MM
M
M
M
M
M
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
27 Mbps
270 Mbps
2.7 Mbps
1.3 Mbps
That is an average throughput of 8 MbpsA 200x improvement!
The remaining macrocell users go from 50 kbps to 170 kbps
M
MM
M M
Page 17
CCDF of throughput with and without femtocells
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
CD
F
Co-Channel, Self Calibrated HNB Tx Power
24 HUEs + 10 MUEs/cell, 1 Rx
34 MUEs/cell, No HNBs, 1 Rx
40 kbps @50 percentile
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
CD
F
Co-Channel, Self Calibrated HNB Tx Power
24 HUEs + 10 MUEs/cell, 1 Rx
34 MUEs/cell, No HNBs, 1 Rx
8 Mbps @
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
0 1 2 3 4 5
x 105
0
0.1
0.2
All UEs Average Throughput (bps)
Detail showing 40 kbps median for macrocell
Projected spectrum and efficiency gains could push the blue trace to the right by 6x, this femtocell study moved it by 200x
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
x 106
0
0.1
0.2
All UEs Average Throughput (bps)
Full CCDF showing 8 Mbps median for macrocell plus 24 active femtocells
8 Mbps @50 percentile
Page 18
Evidence of existing networks reaching capacity
Elliot Drucker: Hogs and Bandwidth
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Article-Hogs-and-Bandwidth.aspx
Netshare Officially Banned from the App Storehttp://www.theiphoneblog.com/2008/09/14/netshare-officially-banned-from-the-app-store
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Access to iTunes from 3G network limited unless on WiFi http://techdirt.com/articles/20080729/0135151823.shtml
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2008/09/14/netshare-officially-banned-from-the-app-store
Page 19
What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?
The bulk of historical connections has been voice, more recently augmented by SMS
?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
To a first approximation Cooper’s law represents growth in wireless capacity
But in the future it is all about data which will belimited by supply not demand
Page 20
What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?
• Spectrum
• Efficiency
• Number of Cells
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 21
One digital band in 1990 to twenty five in 2008Band Uplink Downlink Duplex Mode
1 1920 1980 2110 2170 130 FDD
2 1850 1910 1930 1990 20 FDD
3 1710 1785 1805 1880 20 FDD
4 1710 1755 2110 2155 355 FDD
5 824 849 869 894 20 FDD
6 830 840 875 885 35 FDD
7 2500 2570 2620 2690 50 FDD
8 880 915 925 960 10 FDD
9 1749.9 1784.9 1844.9 1879.9 60 FDD
10 1710 1770 2110 2170 340 FDD
11 1427.9 1452.9 1475.9 1500.9 23 FDD
12 698 716 728 746 12 FDD
13 777 787 746 756 21 FDD
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
13 777 787 746 756 21 FDD
14 788 798 758 768 20 FDD
15 1900 1920 2600 2620 700 FDD
16 2010 2025 2585 2600 575 FDD
17 704 716 734 746 30 FDD
33 1900 1920 1900 1920 0 TDD
34 2010 2025 2010 2025 0 TDD
35 1850 1910 1850 1910 0 TDD
36 1930 1990 1930 1990 0 TDD
37 1910 1930 1910 1930 0 TDD
38 2570 2620 2570 2620 0 TDD
39 1880 1920 1880 1920 0 TDD
40 2300 2400 2300 2400 0 TDD
Lots of bands but overlapping and not all in the same geography
Page 22
Spectrum upside for any one geography
Assume the European model of 340 MHz:
• 35+35 MHz of GSM @ 900 MHz
• 75 + 75 MHz of GSM @ 1800 MHz
• 60 + 60 MHz of UMTS FDD @ 2.1 GHz
Add 70 MHz from UHF band
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Add 70 MHz from UHF band
Add max 200 MHz from 2.6 GHz band
Plus some 3.5GHz?
Spectrum upside could be 2x
Page 23
What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?
• Spectrum
• Efficiency
• Number of Cells
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 24
Average efficiency upside
Remaining gains in efficiency will come from:• Wider channels enabling freq dependent scheduling• MIMO & Beamforming• Interference cancellation• Advanced coding techniques
Historical average efficiency has been improving around 3x per decade
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Historical average efficiency has been improving around 3x per decade
A very rough figure for the next decade for affordable average efficiency gains is probably going to be similar to the historical trend at around 3x• Consistent with LTE goals
Efficiency upside could be 3x
Page 25
What is the outlook for capacity growth in the next 10 years?
• Spectrum
• Efficiency
• Number of Cells
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 26
Cell number upside
History shows that the bulk of growth in wireless capacity has come from increasing the number of cells
Today we are around one cell per 1000 users
This has huge potential to change
It is not unreasonable to assume one cell per ten users which could be achieved with deployment of home base stations or femtocells into
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
be achieved with deployment of home base stations or femtocells into 30% of households
From the operator’s perspective, growing capacity by having the end user pay for the CapEx and OpEx is very attractive!
Cell number upside could be 100x
Page 27
Comparing wireless growth potential for the next decade
Gro
wth
po
ten
tia
l
10
100
100
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Gro
wth
po
ten
tia
l
1
32
Efficiency Spectrum No. of cells
Using current efficiency and spectrum projections, the increase of cell numbers remains the dominant means of growing capacity
Page 28
Projecting ahead shows the gap between average and peak rates in loaded cell will grow to 90x
Data rates x 100000
Efficiency x 87Spectrum x 13
�1100x capacity 10000000
100000000
1000000000
Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity
Efficiency, spectrum and capacity are normalized to single-band GSM in 1992
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
A 90x gap will exist by 2015
10000
100000
1000000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
The average efficiency, spectrum and capacity plots are normalized
The outlook is that average efficiency and spectrum will fall further behind
peak rates
Page 29
And on a linear scale
500000000
600000000
700000000
800000000
900000000
1000000000
Peak rates Average Efficiency Spectrum Capacity
Macrocell reality lies
somewhere below this line
The capacity crunch
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
0
100000000
200000000
300000000
400000000
500000000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
below this line
Page 30
In a mature market, Value > price > cost
Price
Service
Data rate / volume
Price € Cost / MByte
Price / MByte
Relative price
SMS 160 Bytes €0.15 / message
€ X €1000 400,000
Voice 10 kbps €0.05 to €0.5 / minute
€ Y € 0.7 - € 7 300 - 3000
Data service (capped at 3
3 GBytes €20 / month € Y/5 € 0.007 3
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
(capped at 3 Gbytes)
Unicast Mobile TV (Capped at 50 hrs)
50 Hours @ 100 kbps
€5 / month € Y/5 € 0.0023 1
The value of data is inversely proportional to the rate but the cost of delivery remains relatively constant
Page 31
Circuit-switched voice services and SMS are the profit backbone of the cellular industry. First and business class passengers!
Technology now allows users to route voice, video and message services over an “all-you-can-eat” or capped data service, paying perhaps € 0.007 per seat in the hold!
There are only so many seats on the cellular plane If profitable traffic shifts to low tariffs the cellular airline will go bust.
Data services – the killer app?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
2x2 A380 Mbps
There are only so many seats on the cellular plane If profitable traffic shifts to low tariffs the cellular airline will go bust.
Users associate VoIP with low or no cost – this does not work for cellular
Cellular can’t afford users listening to internet radio or TV over low-price data services
Page 32
The macrocellular dilemma
For macrocellular to deliver mobile broadband these three attributes are all required:
1. High capacity & data rates
2. Ubiquitous coverage
3. Low or reasonable cost
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
3. Low or reasonable cost
Pick any two!
Page 33
Conclusion: Macrocellular can’t do it alone. Small cells are essential.
Wireless traffic segmentation
Macro/micro Cellular
Ubiquitous mobile data / voice
Mobility and continuous coverage
Ability to control QoS
Limited capacity and data rates
High costs – OK for high value traffic
Hotspot/Femtocell
Opportunistic nomadic data
Hotspot coverage
Nomadic use
Distributed cost (not low cost)
Free or charged
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
High costs – OK for high value traffic
Often outdoors & moving
Requires ears & mouth
Free or charged
Sitting down indoors
Requires eyes
Page 34
Comparison of traditional cellular vs. hotspot for data delivery over next decade
Macro/Micro Hotspot
Capacity 6X 100x ?
Coverage Reducing (for higher rates) Where its needed
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Complexity Growing Low, stable
Cost per bit High and not falling fast enough Very low
Improvements in macro network e.g. EDGE Evolution, HSPA+, LTE will continue but low-value high-volume traffic has to move to hotpots
Page 35
Identifying Affordable Technology to Deliver the Mobile Broadband Vision
Moray Rumney & Shimon Scherzer 18th Oct 2008
Predicting the next winning technologyOften the “best” doesn’t win
• Ethernet vs. Token ring
• 802.11b vs. HiperLAN
• Windows 3.1 vs. Unix
• Iridium vs. GSM
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
“Perfection is the enemy of the good”Gustave Flaubert
French Novelist 1821 - 1880
Page 36
Which small cell technology will dominate?What about plain old Wi-Fi?
Love it or hate it, Wi-Fi is here to stay
Wi-Fi today is by far the biggest provider of home and nomadic wireless data services and so can’t be ignored.
By cellular standards it is a crude technology
• No power control
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
• No frequency awareness
• Limited mobility and handover capability
• Limited range
But Wi-Fi’s simplicity and low cost has led to mass deployment
Page 37
The Wild West of municipal Wi-Fi
AP Antenna 7dBi
Site to site pathloss ~60 dB
WiFi ACLR1 ~30 dB
AP TX power 23 dBm
Uplink pathloss ~90 dB
Client power ~15 dBm
Client antenna -5 dBi
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Network A
NetworkB
Client antenna -5 dBi
RX signal ~ -73 dBm
RX interference ~ -53 dBm
20 dB of interference!Wireless anarchy even on adjacent channels!
Page 38
Peak number of APs in one indoor location – 46!(Bleeding Heart Tavern, Farringdon, London)
How can this ever work!!!
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 39
802.11 protocol is cognitive and
tolerant of interference & bad planning
But it still worked! 742 kbps DL, 192 kbps UL(For a mere £6 per hour…)
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 40
Wi-Fi – Enabling 3GPP 200 laptops at a time
RAN WG1 & WG4 ad hoc Prague August 2004
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 41
When teriyaki steak is unavailable or can’t be afforded…
Would you like some nybble and bytes with that Sir?
iFi?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
iFi?
Page 42
So which hotspot technology will win?
The answer lies between the extremes of highly regulated femtocellular or the anarchy of Wild West WiFi:
?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
WiFi enabled iPhoneCellular control
Today the needle can only move to the left.
But how far will it swing?
Page 43
FemtometerTM
Meet WeFi
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Unleashing The Potential of unlicensed Spectrum
350M Wi-Fi access points already deployed*
•Homes & Offices
•Public places
•That is an AP for every 10 subscribers!
A growing number of these are businesses providing legitimate free Wi-Fi as a way of attracting customers
The growth of open WiFi
40% un-encrypted
60% encrypted
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
legitimate free Wi-Fi as a way of attracting customers
Some hotel chains
Non-chain small business
McDonalds (UK)
Starbucks (USA iPhone)
Some airports: San Jose, Phoenix, Portland…
* Source: Intel
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Prince of Teck Pub, Kensington
17th Nov 2008
But can WiFi deliver?
Networks are unplanned in “garbage” spectrum, but –
• Unlike cellular, 802.11 protocols were cognitive from the start,
• sensing the air interface rather than being centrally scheduled
• Robust against poor channel selection and no planning
• By no means perfect but good enough in most cases
• 802.11n managed MAC will be better
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 200947
• 802.11n managed MAC will be better
All dense networks are expensive regardless of the technology
Despite perceptions, mass WiFi is NOT a cheap alternative!• Leverage community to distribute the cost!
How about terminals? • WiFi is becoming standard in high-end phones
But WiFi is so hard to use…
Start… Enjoy!Select…
It could be as Easy as 3G!
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Automatically connectsyou to Wi-Fi and yourfavorite content in oneclick.
The ubiquitous cellular network is used for control
• WiFi Network management via users’ terminals
• Maintain cellular connection with WiFi users
• Security, authentication if WiFi
Managing WiFi using cellular
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
• Security, authentication if WiFi
• Time critical traffic
Wi-Fi carries the non-critical traffic
• Music and video downloads
• Streaming video, Pictures, Web
49
Requires no direct interface with infrastructure Framework for hotspots scalable aggregation
Loads of WiFi Traffic!
Just enough cellular control
Think of it this way:
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Traffic!
Ground
A small carrier effort could deliver
huge gains!
WiFi discovery and
Resource aggregation through Community participation
User A tries to connect to in previously “unmapped”
territory. The client quickly finds the best available connection and feeds info back to the sever when
possible
When user B tries to connect in the same place, previously
gathered information can be used to save time
and effort
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 200951
WiFi discovery and ranking
Enticing business owners to share WiFi
“Flowers & Bees”
As more users join, more WiFi data is collected and mapped. This helps
everyone find and connect to free WiFi more
easily
The world’s WiFi can bemapped into a global network
Exponential growth of discovery
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Over 9 Million access points worldwide (October ‘08)
Current network discovery
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Over 60,000 new APs acquired daily by WeFi user devices
[53]
What Could Wi-Fi Bring to Operators?
We know WiFi is far from perfect but…
Low QoS DataCollection service
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Maybe today it’s the right vehicle to reduce cost!
Collection service
Which small cell technology will dominate? Can femtocells outperform and replace Wi-Fi?
The potential for cellular femtocells to deliver the future growth of wireless is very real but:
• The industry remains largely focussed on improving macrocellular efficiency which is driving up cost and complexity
• Many of the engineering and business model challenges of
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
• Many of the engineering and business model challenges of femtocells remain to be solved
Page 55
Femtocell key challenges
• It’s all about interference mitigation!
• No RRM spec yet for femtocells!
• A hackers paradise – build your own cellular network…
• Business models - Open vs. closed access
• No obvious solution yet for cross network Femtocell
• Multiple femtocells per household or force family onto one operator?
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
• Multiple femtocells per household or force family onto one operator?
• Net neutrality – who owns the backhaul?
• Could blow femtocell competition off the planet – will vary by country
• Could it hurt my cat?
• Possible public backlash over radiation concerns?
Page 56
Keeping the mobile broadband wagon rolling
Increasingly urgent need to shift low-value high volume traffic away from high-cost macro-cellular networks
Provision of alternative delivery mechanisms
• Localized, nomadic
• Low cost – no cost – distributed cost
• Picocells – Femtocells – WiFi
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
• Picocells – Femtocells – WiFi
Need for robust interworking/control from macro to local
So which technology will deliver - some criteria to ponder:
• Money is becoming very tight
• Good enough is good enough
• Existing solutions have an advantage
Page 57
So which hotspot technology will win?
The answer perhaps now lies between the lesser extremes of not so highly regulated femtocellular and a more tamed Wi-Fi:
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009
Taming Wi-Fi and developing Femtocells offer substantial and affordable benefits for mobile broadband
FemtometerTM
Page 58
Thank you for listening!
Cambridge WirelessTechnology vs. Topology
Moray Rumney 29th Jan 2009Page 59