1. Broadband Evolution and
Spectrum Challenges
Dr Ayman Elnashar
Sr. Director - Wireless
Broadband & Site Sharing
EITC (du) - UAE

2. Agenda
 Driving Wireless Broadband
Innovation in UAE: du Broadband
Portfolio
 Fixed Wireless Broadband Evolutions
 Mobile Broadband Evolutions
 DC-HSPA+
 LTE Evolution
 LTE Deployment Strategy
 LTE Terminals

3. du Broadband Portfolio
du Fixed network
Nationwide Mobile Broadband LTE Evolution
Services
HSPA+/DC-HSPA+ (42Mbps)*
Fixed xDSL & Fiber
‘Ultra Broadband’
Wide Area
Broadband
Mobile
2G 2.5G 3G 3.X G
everywhere
du WiMAX network for
Coverage/Mobility
FDD & TDD the Dubai Metro**
802.16e
Local Area Metro Area
du UAE Nationwide TDD
Fixed Wireless Nomadic
Mobile Network WiMAX du outdoor Mesh-
WiFi
802.16d
WiMax in 3.5GHz for Outdoor
small SME Mesh
WiFi
Fixed Wireless Broadband 802.11b/a/g/n
services using OFDM (PTP &
PTMP) high capacity Links with up
to 300Mbps for SME and
du WiFi
Enterprise customers
Hotspots
Data Speeds (Kbps) Fixed Wireless
* Du is the 1st in UAE to deploy the DC-HSPA+ nationwide and UAE is the 6th
nation globally to deploy this technology thanks to du.
**Winner of 2009 most innovative mobility project by Cisco Networkers
3

4. Fixed Wireless
Broadband
Services
4

5. Fixed Wireless Broadband Evolution using state of the
art OFDM technology: New Features
 Up to 300Mbps in 40MHz TDD channel using MIMO 2x2
with cross-polarization which means Spectral efficiency of
6+ bit/Hz/s.
 Support of 4.9 – 6.0 GHz in one radio.
 Dynamic TDD: Adjusts the uplink/ downlink ratio based on
traffic demand.
 Low Latency (<2ms in PTP, <7ms in PMP)
 Extended range up to 120 Km
 Support of AES 128 and AES 256 encryption for reliable and
secure communications.
 Self-synchronizing or time synchronization without GPS.
 Autobitrate (Automatic Rate Control) Functionality or
Hitless ACM with error-free operation.
5

6. Point-to-Point with Double
Stream MIMO (near to the BTS)
Different data is sent separately over two polarizations
resulting in higher radio efficiency
Vertical Vertical
Polarization Polarization
Backhaul Backhaul
Horizontal Horizontal
Polarization Polarization
6

7. DC-HSPA+
Evolution
7

8. HSPA+ Evolution
84M
Single Carrier – 5MHz Dual Carrier – 10MHz
56M
42M 42M
28M 28M
21M
14.4M
HSDPA 64QAM MIMO 64QAM+MIMO DC DC+64QAM DC+MIMO DC+MIMO+64QAM
HSPA+ Improves Peak Rates while providing Higher QoS and Customer Loyalty
8

9. DC-HSPA+: Improve Data Rates
Use 2 adjacent carriers to
transmit simultaneously data to
the same user
Dual cells covers the same
geographical area
Anchor Carrier
5MHz 5MHz
Frequency 1
Supplementary Carrier
Frequency 2 frequencey1 frequencey2 f
Two frequencies are
Downlink peak rate adjacent
double 28.8M/42Mbps
Full use of the two cells resource by Joint Scheduling and Load Balance
9

10. HSPA+ Evolutions: MIMO vs. DC
Criteria/Evolution DC MIMO
Peak Rate 42Mbps in 10Mhz band 42Mbps in 5Mz band
Coverage Performance Better --
Throughput Performance -- Slightly Better
Latency Performance Better --
Service Type (Full Buffer) -- Better
Service Type (Burst) Better --
CAPEX Investment Low High
DC introduces high improvement at the user level;
while MIMO introduces little improve at the cell level;
10

11. HSPA+ Coverage Comparison
Coverage Comparison
6 5.3
5
Cell Radius(km)
3.9
4 MIMO+64QAM
3 2.2
DC+64QAM
2 1.7
1 0.330.43 0.5 0.63
0
Dense Urban Urban Suburb Rural
Scenario
Cell Radius
Dense Urban Urban Suburb Rural
MIMO+64QAM 0.33 0.5 1.7 3.9
DC+64QAM 0.43 0.63 2.2 5.3
Remark: Cell edge throughput 1024kbps
11

12. LTE
Evolution
12

13. OFDM, the state-of-the-art Radio Access Technology:
Moving from Voice to Broadband with VoIP
13

14. Why OFDM/SC-FDMA
 The main advantage of OFDM, as is for SC-FDMA, is its
robustness against multipath signal propagation, which makes
it suitable for broadband systems compared to TDMA/CDMA
techniques.
 SC-FDMA brings additional benefit of low peak-to-average
power ratio (PAPR) compared to OFDM making it suitable for
uplink transmission by user-terminals to extend battery life.
 OFDM can also be viewed as a multi-carrier system but each
subcarrier is usually narrow enough that multipath channel
response is flat over the individual subcarrier frequency range,
i.e. frequency non-selective (i.e., flat fading) and hence
receiver design is very simple.
 In other words, OFDM symbol time is much larger than the
typical channel dispersion. Hence OFDM is inherently
susceptible to channel dispersion due to multipath propagation.
14

15. Interference Management in LTE
Site1
Sector 1 • Inter-site (UL)
Sector 2
ICIC in frequency domain: In the edge of the
Sector 3
site, the bandwidth is divided into 3 pieces,
and each site use a piece; In the center of
Site2
the site, the left bandwidth can be used;
Site3
• Intra-site (UL)
ICIC in time domain: adjacent cells use
Uplink different subframe; as show in the Figure,
yellow zone use odd subframe, while light
blue zone use even subframe.
• Inter/Intra-site (DL)
Cell edge: frequency division, separated by
transmit power
Cell central: all bandwidth are transmitted.
Control coverage to reduce interference
Downlink
15

16. MIMO: the Key to Improve Cell Throughput
1x2 SIMO
eNodeB UE 1
2x2 MIMO
eNodeB UE 1
In typical urban area:
15%~28% gain over SIMO @ Macro
~50% gain over SIMO @ Micro
16

17. LTE RAN Performance: Simulations Results
Peak Cell/User Throughput Average Cell throughput
Peak Throughput LTE FDD 20 MHz Average cell Throughput LTE FDD
Mbps
MBps/s 20 MHz Downlink
326 70
Downlink Average cell throughput
Spectral efficiency in Bps/s/Hz
300 60 57 3
Spectrum Efficiency
50
200 173 39
40 2
Uplink 33
86 30
100 58 20 1
10
0
1X2 UL 1X2 UL MIMO MIMO 0 0
16 QAM 64 QAM 2x2 DL 4x4 DL MIMO 2x2 MIMO 4x2 MIMO 4x4
Ultra-Low Latency
End-to-end RTT 13 ms
Handover interruption 12-19 ms
Connection Setup 52 - 82 ms
Delay to access a 60kByte
w eb page (from Idle)
300 ms
17

18. Antennas Separation and Guard Band
Requirement for Co-Existing System
Horizontal Distance: 0.5m 2/3G band x
Vertical Distance: 0.2m
LTE band x
2/3G band x LTE band x
Horizontal 0.5m or vertical 0.2m antennas separation is the minimum requirement
Guard band Requirement for Co-existing Systems ( MHz )
System Standards LTE Bandwidth
Co-existing Systems
LTE Other system 5MHz 10MHz 15MHz 20MHz
LTE1800 + GSM1800 protocol protocol 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
LTE2100 + UMTS2100 protocol protocol 0.33 0.08 0.17 0.42
LTE Band X + LTE Band Y protocol protocol 0 0 0 0
LTE FDD + LTE TDD protocol protocol 10 10 10 10
18

19. 19

20. HSPA+ vs. LTE
HSPA+ LTE
172Mbps@20Mhz (2x2)
Peak Rate 84Mbps@10MHz
326.4Mbps@20MHz(4x4)
Spectrum Efficiency 8.4bps/Hz (Peak for DC+ MIMO
8.6bps/Hz (Peak for 2x2 MIMO)
(Peak) + 64QAM)
Spectrum Efficiency 1.717/0.99 (2x2 MIMO)
(Average cell 1.424/0.6 (MIMO+64QAM) 20% improvement in DL
throughput) (DL/UL) 65% improvement in the UL
Transmission
Full system bandwidth Variable up to full system bandwidth
bandwidth
Ideal for MIMO due to signal
Requires significant computing
representation in the frequency
power due to signal being
Suitability for MIMO domain and possibility of narrowband
defined in the time domain and
(i.e., MIMO Gain) allocation to follow real-time variations
on top of spreading (frequency
in the channel
selective channel)
(Frequency nonselective channel) 20

21. Coverage Comparison
Coverage Comparison
6 5.33
4.62 4.68
5
Cell Radius in DL(Km)
4 HSPA 2.1GHz
3.18
LTE 2.1GHz
3 2.58
2.34 LTE 2.6GHz
2
0.78 0.64
1 0.57
0.380.49 0.4
0
Dense urban Urban Suburban Rural
Scenario
Cell Radius in DL (Km)
Scenario
Dense urban Urban Suburban Rural
HSPA 2.1GHz 0.38 0.57 2.34 4.62
LTE 2.1GHz 0.49 0.78 3.18 5.33
LTE 2.6GHz 0.4 0.64 2.58 4.68
DL Cell Radius Comparison. DL Cell edge throughput 512kbps, Indoor Coverage, 90% Cell Loading
21

22. HSPA Cell Radius as a Function of Loading
HSPA Cell Radius as a function of Loading
0.9
0.8
0.7
Cell Radius(km)
0.6
0.5 UL
0.4 DL
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cell Loading(%)
Cell Cell Radius (Km)
Loading(%) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
UL 0.8 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.52 0.43 0.02 98%
DL 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.43 45%
HSPA+ 2.1GHz,Urban scenario, indoor coverage, 128kbps/512kbps in UL/DL

23. LTE Cell Radius as a function of Loading
LTE Cell Radius as a function of Loading
0.9
0.8
0.7
Cell Radius(km)
0.6
0.5 UL
0.4 DL
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cell Loading(%)
Cell Cell Radius (Km)
Loading(%) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
UL 0.52 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.42 19%
DL 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.61 23%
LTE 2.6GHz,Urban scenario, Indoor coverage, 128kbps/512Kbps in UL/DL.
23

24. Average Cell Throughput Comparison
UL Average Cell
Scheme Remark
Throughput
HSUPA 10ms 2.1Mbps CAT5,urban,UL cell load 75%
HSUPA 2ms 2.3Mpbs CAT6,urban,UL cell load 75%
HSUPA 16QAM 3.0Mbps CAT7,urban,UL cell load 90%
LTE 10MHz 9.7Mpbs Urban,2.6GHz
LTE 20MHz 19.8Mbps Urban,2.6GHz
DL Average Cell
Scheme Remark
Throughput
HSPA(16QAM) 6.0Mpbs Urban, bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(64QAM) 6.41Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(MIMO) 6.98Mpbs Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(MIMO+64QAM) 7.12Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(DC+16QAM) 6.43Mpbs Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
HSPA+(DC+64QAM) 6.89Mbps Urban,bandwidth 5MHz
LTE 10MHz 16.92Mpbs Urban,2.6GHz
LTE 20MHz 34.34Mbps Urban,2.6GHz
24

25. Supported Simultaneous users for HSPA+ and LTE
 Assumptions:
- Urban Scenario (500 sites)
- HSPA+
1. Scenario 1: 1st carrier R99+HSAP(5 codes), 2nd carrier HSPA+(15 codes)
2. Scenario 2: 1st carrier HSPA+ (15 codes), 2nd carrier HSPA+(15 codes)
- LTE bandwidth: 10 & 20 MHz
- Traffic Model assumption: data user 50kbps, voice user 0.025Elr
- HSPA+ can support CS and PS service, LTE only support PS service.
BB subscribers Number of supported
LTE Capacity gain
Capacity/Cell supported per simultaneous users
compared to HSPA+ %
site per network
HSPA 2.1GHz 22Elr(CS AMR12.2)
325 162K 100%
(scenario 1) 9.3Mbps(PS HSPA+)
13 Mbps:2 native HSPA+
HSPA 2.1GHz
carriers, no voice with 455 227K 140%
(scenario 2)
DC-HSPA+
LTE 10MHz @
16.92 Mbps 592 296K 182%
at 2.6 GHz
LTE 20 @
34.3Mbps 1202 601K 370%
2.6GHz
25

26. LTE
Terminals
26

27. LTE Commercial Terminals

28. Thank You
28