Signals Flash Nov 2017: 5G in Americas | Signals Research Group

www.signalsresearch.com
Dispatches from the frontier of wireless research
November 20, 2017
5G IN AMERICAS
Rambling Thoughts from the Back of the Room

2 | Signals Flash November 20, 2017
Recently, we attended the 5G America’s analyst workshop in Plano, Texas. We offer some rambling
thoughts based on attending the event, along with our perspectives on a major news announce-
ment that took place since that trip. We’ll be back in a couple weeks with our next in-depth
Signals Ahead report – another benchmark study that we are conducting in our backyard.
As always, unlike our subscription-based Signals Ahead reports, you may forward this Signals
Flash! report to whomever you want.
➤➤ CBRS – Much Ado About Not Very Much. The FCC is heading in the right direction with how
it might regulate the spectrum. However, unless you are a WISP or a private entity looking to
deploy a localized BWA service, we don’t see too many reasons to get excited.
➤➤ Handicapping the 5G Race. Millimeter wave networks will be geographically challenged, 600
MHz won’t scale or differentiate from LTE, Band 41 may be the most promising, but this isn’t
saying much. Can network virtualization make a winner?
➤➤ It makes no Cents! Contrary to widespread belief, 5G won’t be a new revenue opportunity for
operators – at least in the near term. The vertical markets need to get on board while URLLC
will lag eMBB and prove far more difficult to deploy.
➤➤ It makes no Sense! Broadcom may have its own rationale for wanting to acquire Qualcomm, but
the companies are diametrically opposite, or they completely overlap each other. Regulatory
hurdles would be impossible to overcome, especially outside of the US.

SRG’S TRAVELS
It’s a Small Cell World After All!
Part 1: Oh, Oh, Oh, It’s Magic (SINR), You Know
Part 2: AT&T’s 5G Evolution: On the Cusp of...
Part 1: $1,295; Part 2: $1,250
Included with an annual subscription to Signals Ahead
CONTACT INFORMATION
To purchase, call +1 (510) 273-2439 or email information@
signalsresearch.com. Subscription information for Signals Ahead,
which includes these reports, can be found on the last page of this
report. You can also visit our website at www.signalsresearch.com
or write us at
Signals Research Group
5300 Painter Creek Green
Independence, MN 55359
NOW AVAILABLE!
SRG’S TRAVELS
IT’S A SMALL CELL WORLD AFTER ALL!
PART 1: OH, OH, OH, IT’S MAGIC (SINR), YOU KNOW
PART 2: AT&T’S 5G EVOLUTION: ON THE CUSP OF...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Earlier this month we attended the 5G Americas event in Plano, Texas. The invitation-only event
brings together analysts and a who’s who of executives, representing device, chipset, subsystem,
and infrastructure suppliers, as well as most major US operators. Verizon Wireless and Huawei are
the notable exceptions. 5G Americas (formally 4G Americas, formally 3G Americas, and hopefully
never to become 6G Americas) “is an industry trade organization composed of leading telecom-
munications service providers and manufacturers. The organization’s mission is to advocate for
and foster the advancement and full capabilities of LTE wireless technologies and their evolution
to 5G, throughout the ecosystem’s networks, services, applications and connected devices in the
Americas.”
The beauty of the annual event is there is no place to hide and there is nothing else to do, meaning
it is possible to gain some great insight into an operator’s mindset and a vendor’s strategic plans.
And if you play your cards right, you can sit next to a senior executive from a major US operator
during dinner and discuss the psychological nuances of “Spinal Tap.”
We’ve collected some of our random thoughts following the 1.5 day event for this Signals Flash
report. As alluded to in the subtitle of this issue, we can’t contribute much of the commentary in
this report to what we heard during the presentations, roundtables and Q&A sessions. Instead, it
stems from snippets of things that we heard which caused our mind to wander, sometimes in a
completely different direction.
[Not] Making Money on 5G
The most over-asked question is “how will you make money on 5G?” For an analyst, figuring out
how to make money on a new technology that no one understands or has ever used is easy. For
an operator, the question is impossible to answer truthfully without invoking shareholder revolt.
Release 15 is all about Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) when it comes to the new 5G air inter-
face. Massive machine-type-communications (mMTC) is part of Release 15 and it is part of the 5G
standard, but this use case is supported by LTE-based solutions, such as NB-IoT. Ultra-reliable low
latency communications (URLLC) is the third major use case, and we’ll return to this use case in a
bit, but suffice it to say that Release 15 won’t enable the full capabilities needed for ultra-reliable
communications while the low-latency aspect will prove to be logistically daunting to deploy.
Release 15 is focused on eMBB because that is what operators wanted/want. The Korean and
Japanese operators want something they could show off for their respective major sporting
events, and other operators want a means to handle the growth of data traffic, largely driven
eMBB will allow operators to
continue offering the services
and rate plans they offer
today, and it may make some
of these services better, but
it won’t lead to new revenue
streams.
Unlike our more in-depth Signals Ahead research reports, there are not any restrictions asso-
ciated with the redistribution of this document. Recipients of Signals Flash! may share this
document both internally within their organization and externally with reckless abandon.
In fact, we encourage it! In addition to providing near-real-time commentary and analysis
of industry noteworthy events, Signals Flash!provides readers with a summary of past and
planned research reports that we offer through our subscription-based Signals Ahead research
product. We have also taken the opportunity to promote a couple of our most recent and
futuristic reports for readers of this Signals Flash! who don’t subscribe to Signals Ahead.

KEEPING UP WITH THE JETSONS
A benchmark study of how LTE networks enable the
command and control of drones
Price: $1,750
CONTACT INFORMATION
or write us at
NOW AVAILABLE!
KEEPING UP WITH
THE JETSONS
A BENCHMARK STUDY OF HOW LTE
NETWORKS ENABLE THE COMMAND AND
CONTROL OF DRONES

in the US by unlimited data plans. As a footnote for the history books, the European operators
didn’t think the eMBB use case should be the priority, but they lost their argument back in 2016.
Long story short, eMBB will allow operators to continue offering the services and rate plans they
offer today, allow more operators to offer “unlimited plans,” and it may make some of these
services better (e.g., 4K video streaming versus 1080p video streaming), but it won’t lead to new
revenues. There isn’t anything wrong with driving down costs by improving network efficiencies,
but eMBB will not result in new revenue streams that drive top-line growth.
Since mMTC is based on LTE, even if it is part of the expected 5G submission in 2019, that leaves
us with URLLC. Setting aside 3GPP’s decision to limit the functionality required to support ultra-
reliable communications in Release 15, there remains the matter of enabling 5G networks to
support low latency.
Low latency, be it 1 ms or 10 ms, means a fast response time in the air interface and in the core
network. The air interface portion is relatively straight forward; in fact, LTE-Advanced will support
lower latency (sub 10 ms) in the not-to-distant future. 3GPP should have finished this feature by
now, but in the rush to get the NSA architecture option of Release 15 out the door by December,
they have delayed work on this feature. The hard part of overall low latency is the core network
since low single-digit latency means the application/service needs to be close to the edge of the
network. If not, then transport and router delays would mitigate any advantage gained in the air
interface.
Mobile Edge Computing / Edge Computing was a hot topic a few years ago and it is still a hot
topic today. The overall concept is based on a distributed computing platform in which IT hard-
ware resides close to the edge of the network – potentially even at the cell site – and that the IT
hardware hosts third-party applications or operator-specific services which could benefit from
being close to the edge of the network.
The trick is no one seems to know for certain what applications and services should be pushed to
the edge versus located in a centralized location deep within the operator’s network or within the
Internet itself. Operators are continuing to investigate and go through a trial and error process to
figure out what works and what doesn’t work. There are also varying views regarding what defines
the edge of the network and/or if the definition of the edge of the network changes, based on
the application and service.
Our point is that these efforts and the underlying business case for MEC is really orthogonal to
the whole 5G standardization effort. Just because an operator can do something, doesn’t mean
that they should or that they will. And if the business case for MEC exists for an application /
service then we don’t think it makes any difference if the network is LTE or 5G.
One “nice” feature of 5G is that it will force operators to make major changes to their networks,
including at the cell sites. These changes will give them the opportunity to deploy an IT server
that one day enables the low latency applications that are possible with 5G or LTE. While the
server may be in place, or a spot reserved for it in the future, we don’t think operators will be
launching applications and services in a meaningful way at the edge of the network in tandem
with the initial 5G network launches.
Even if they launch MEC applications and services, this action doesn’t necessarily lead to a
tangible reduction in latency that consumers will notice. For example, moving policy control
Low latency in the air
interface is relatively straight
forward.
The underlying business
case for MEC is really
orthogonal to the whole 5G
standardization effort.

NOW AVAILABLE!
646.2 DEGREES
OF TESTING
QUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS OF
3-CARRIER CA WITH SUPPORT
FOR UP TO 1 GBPS AND
THE WORLD’S FIRST
4-CARRIER CA NETWORK
646.2 DEGREES OF TESTING
Quantifying the benefits of 3-carrier CA with support
for up to 1 gbps and the world’s first 4-carrier
CA network
Price: $1,295
CONTACT INFORMATION
or write us at

to the edge could be beneficial to the operator, but will it really benefit the consumer? Our
bet is that for the foreseeable future, MEC / low latency will only have marginal impact on the
user experience. In part, this outcome stems from the limited use cases for MEC that operators
invoke, combined with use cases for MEC where the resultant low latency isn’t obvious to the
consumer (e.g., policy control).
CBRS – Much Ado About Not Very Much
There has been a lot of excitement as of late about CBRS (Citizens Broadband Radio Service) spec-
trum, which exists from 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz in the United States. The FCC recently issued an
NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), which provides some insight into how it might regulate
the spectrum in the near future. To summarize, the 150 MHz of spectrum is currently occupied
by various incumbents – largely military- and radar-related, but the spectrum is underutilized. In
many areas it is never used while in other areas it is used infrequently.
The FCC’s NPRM proposes a few major changes to CBRS, which makes it more attractive to mobile
operators and other entities looking to use the spectrum in the future. First, licenses could be
extended from three years to ten years while also providing greater assurances the licensee will
retain the license in year eleven. Second, the geographical boundaries for the licenses could be
increased so that a single license covers a larger territory. With the earlier approach, a license
could be limited to a “census tract,” which could result in up to 500,000 individual licenses across
the country. For a major operator looking to establish a regional or nationwide footprint, it would
be a daunting and nearly unmanageable process, not to mention full of uncertainty during the
auction phase. Multiple licensed regions would also create major problems at the boundaries
of each licensed region since the licensees would need to manage interference with each other.
While these issues are being addressed, the FCC can’t solve how to carve up 150 MHz of spectrum
between everyone that wants a piece of the pie, while also ensuring that everyone gets a suffi-
cient amount of spectrum. The 150 MHz is already carved up into 70 MHz for PAL (Priority Access
License) and 80 MHz for GAA (General Authorized Access). The pecking order for the spectrum
is incumbents, followed by PAL, and then by GAA. Taking it one step further, in any licensed
area, a licensee is limited to no more than 40 MHz of PAL spectrum, and since it is unpaired
spectrum the 40 MHz must support downlink and uplink traffic unless an operator uses PAL as a
supplemental downlink carrier. 40 MHz sounds like a lot of spectrum, but when it comes to 5G
and eMBB, it is only somewhat interesting, in our opinion. Further, if there are multiple bidders
going after the PAL licenses then even achieving 40 MHz could be challenging.
Things start to get a bit interesting when you bundle in the GAA spectrum. Although the spec-
trum is shared, IF an operator can bundle some or all of it with a PAL license then it is theoretically
possible to aggregate 120 MHz of unpaired spectrum. This scenario is unlikely, or at least it is
unlikely in areas where an operator would want / need 120 MHz radio channels – rural Kansas
(maybe), but Manhattan (definitely not). We don’t think major mobile operators will commit to
deploying CBRS infrastructure unless they have at least a 20 MHz PAL license. Unfortunately,
predicting if GAA spectrum availability for use in the future is nearly impossible since there could
be a large number of entities interested in the spectrum. Deployment scenarios involving school
campuses, hotel chains, rural WISPs, Google, and corporate campuses make sense for GAA-only
deployments.
The FCC’s NPRM proposes
a few important changes
to CBRS, which makes it
more attractive to mobile
operators and other entities
looking to use the spectrum
in the future.
We don’t think major
mobile operators will
commit to deploying CBRS
infrastructure unless they
have at least a 20 MHz PAL
license.

VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR…
…And then in release 9, 3GPP created eMBSD
Price: $1,295
CONTACT INFORMATION
report. You can also visit our website at www.signalsresearch.com or
write us at
VIDEO KILLED
THE RADIO STAR…
…AND THEN IN RELEASE 9, 3GPP CREATED eMBMS
NOW AVAILABLE!

The CBRS also has out-of-band emission requirements that could make it impractical to deploy
radio channels wider than 40 MHz, if even that wide. The current requirements were intended for
channel bandwidths no wider than 20 MHz, but now the FCC is proposing to relax the require-
ments to allow wider radio channels. We assume the forthcoming regulations will support 40
MHz channels with sufficient transmit power levels, but that relaxation of the current require-
ment may not go far enough to support wider channel bandwidths, such as 40 MHz of PAL + XX
MHz of GAA. Using carrier aggregation with the PAL and GAA radio channels located across the
150 MHz might be a suitable workaround for the power restrictions.
Finally, there is the matter of device compatibility. The old “chicken and the egg” scenario is
once again in play. Handset manufacturers won’t introduce CBRS-compatible smartphones until
operators commit to CBRS and deploy infrastructure in a meaningful way. Conversely, mobile
operators will need CBRS-compatible handsets to deploy infrastructure in the new band. The
device ecosystem will develop but it is likely the initial CBRS deployments will target the more
mundane applications, liked fixed wireless access and industrial IoT applications. Longer term,
once the US auctions spectrum in the 3.8 GHz to 4.2 GHz (C-Band) range, followed by a lengthy
process to relocate the incumbents, the CBRS spectrum becomes more interesting. We believe
infrastructure and devices will be able to span the entire range of frequencies – CBRS and C-Band
– and the total amount of available spectrum, combined with the global interest in the C-Band
for 5G services, will make CBRS more interesting and valuable to operators. Operators will just
have to act now, and then wait patiently for everything to fall into place.
Handicapping The 5G Race
Having traveled the globe to check out LTE network performance, we have a pretty good idea
of what is possible with today’s LTE-Advanced networks, as well as the huge gap which exists
between the capabilities defined in the LTE specifications and features operators have deployed
on a vast scale across their networks. By and large, most operators around the world are playing
catch-up when it comes to deploying the LTE-Advanced features which have been standardized
and implemented by their vendors. And when they claim their networks support a new feature,
the operators don’t disclose the new feature is limited to a small subset of their cell sites.
With that view as a backdrop, we find it hard to get too excited about an operator’s 5G plans
when we know what they’ve done with earlier technologies. Since this Signals Flash is a bit
US-centric – after all, it stems from attending a 5G Americas event – we thought we’d handicap
the US operators when it comes to their stated / likely 5G plans.
AT&T and Verizon (to a much lesser extent T-Mobile) are focused on millimeter wave for their
initial 5G rollouts. The spectrum is very attractive from a bandwidth perspective since a single
400 MHz channel with massive MIMO will easily double or triple an operator’s existing spectrum
holdings that it is using today with LTE. The downside is, of course, propagation. Although we
think outdoor coverage in dense urban markets will be better than most people expect, the
coverage will still be very limited, and it will take a loooong time to upgrade existing small cells,
deploy new small cells, and providing suitable backhaul/fronthaul that supports the capabilities
of the air interface. If you live and work in Manhattan, then you will probably stumble across 5G
millimeter wave coverage during the course of your day – assuming you venture outside. If you
live and work in one of the boroughs, then coming across a 5G millimeter wave radio signal is
unlikely.
The long-term availability
of C-Band spectrum will
make CBRS spectrum more
interesting and valuable to
mobile operators.
We find it hard to get too
excited about an operator’s
5G plans when we know what
they’ve done with earlier
technologies.

EXPLORE THE
WORLD OF
5GWIRELESS
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
J F M A M J J A O N D J F M A M J J A S O NS
December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10
EXPLORING THE WORLD OF WIRELESS
GET SMART[ER]
UNDERSTANDING THE INS AND OUTS OF THE 5G USE CASES
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 NoJanuary 31, 2012, Vol. 8 NoRedefining Research
J F M A M J J A O N D J F M A M JS
December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No
EXPLORING THE WORLD OF WIRELE
MORE 5G
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
September 30, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 8
LOOKING FURTHER
AHEAD TO 5.5G1
UPDATES ON THE 3GPP 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS
1
Feel free to note the sarcasm
New subscribers to SIGNALS AHEAD will receive up to four
5G-related back issues FOR FREE with a paid subscription.
...with more
to come!
FOLLOW THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORT AS IT HAPPENS
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10 PREVIEWJanuary 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
December 22, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 11 PREVIEW
ALL QUIET ON THE 5G FRONT
AN UPDATE ON THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS
AND OTHER 3G-RELATED ACTIVITIES

T-Mobile, with its new 600 MHz footprint, has an entirely different problem. Although the
operator talks about how the lower spectrum will make it easy to provide wide area coverage
with 5G, the limited channel bandwidth will make it difficult to differentiate 5G services from LTE
services. Depending on the market, T-Mobile has 20 MHz to 40 MHz of FDD spectrum, which
means even in its most spectrum-rich market, the amount of spectrum is just enough to support
a 2x20 MHz LTE radio channel. 5G is supposed to increase spectral efficiency versus LTE, thanks to
reduced control channel interference, but the advantage will be incremental versus exponential
in the 600 MHz band. Further complicating the problem, T-Mobile will be using the spectrum
for LTE services before transitioning the network to 5G. The new 5G air interface allows 5G
and LTE to share the same spectrum, but the presence of LTE traffic will limit the amount of
bandwidth available for 5G services. It is safe to say the performance of the LTE network using
600 MHz spectrum will be much better in the early days of its launch than when 5G technology
is introduced – thanks entirely to the limited amount of LTE traffic using the new frequency band
in the early days of its availability.
Dish also has an extensive 600 MHz footprint, but its footprint is primarily 5 MHz FDD, and a
limited amount of 10, 15, and 20 MHz FDD. Dish’s 20 MHz license is in the New York vicinity. As
stated publicly, Dish plans to use the new spectrum assets for NB-IoT. It is an interesting strategy
that we don’t know much about, but it doesn’t meet the marketing definition of 5G.
That leaves us with Sprint and its Band 41 spectrum footprint. The operator has roughly 150 MHz
of TDD spectrum in many markets and the spectrum is the best suited to meet the overall objec-
tives of 5G. It is “low” enough to provide good coverage and it is “high” enough to support
relatively wide channel bandwidths. Further, the spectrum is unpaired, so it is more appropriate
for massive-MIMO (LTE or 5G) due to channel reciprocity (e.g., channel conditions in the uplink
are very similar to channel conditions in the downlink direction since it is the same frequency
band). The problem for Sprint is that the operator is currently using Band 41 for its LTE services.
We seriously doubt it is using all 150 MHz in all markets, but we know it is using a lot of its spec-
trum in the dense urban markets, or the areas where it will likely deploy 5G services first. Worth
emphasizing, there is a Band 41 cell site just down the road from us that would be ideal of a 5G
trial service. Now if we could just figure out a way to communicate our request to the operator
and the vendor (Samsung) without making it obvious….
With or without 5G, Sprint can get substantially higher capacity from its Band 41 spectrum by
using a combination of small cells and massive MIMO – the latter providing the access channel
to mobile subscribers as well as providing wireless in-band backhaul to the small cells. Sprint is
already heading in this direction with its Magic Box small cell, although massive-MIMO is not part
of the equation. One can imagine taking it to the next level with massive-MIMO and a greater
concentration of Magic Boxes / small cells bringing the serving cell site closer to the consumer.
Although this strategy can greatly improve the user experience, it can’t deliver individual data
speeds that are commensurate with 5G. Then again, the true benefit of 5G isn’t delivering Gigabit
speeds to a single user but delivering very high bandwidth to lots of users.
Separate from the radio access network, the 5G race could be won by the operator doing the
most to improve its transport and core networks. With that view in mind, AT&T definitely talks
leadership in this important area and if the operator’s claims are true, then a substantial portion
of its network functions will be virtualized by the end of the year. Unfortunately, this claim isn’t
something that we can easily test so we’ll have to take the claim at face value.

Broadcom and Qualcomm – Talk about a Marriage from “H E Double
Toothpick”
While headed to the DFW airport, we first heard about Broadcom’s intent to acquire Qualcomm.
We wanted to blame it on the MSM (Mainstream Media) and Fake News, but when websites on
the left and right started running the rumor, we knew it had to be true.
Just recently, Qualcomm’s board announced a unanimous decision to reject the offer, citing
regulatory uncertainty and that the deal undervalued Qualcomm. We think a better rationale is
regulatory certainty since there is no way government regulators will allow the deal to go through
unless the new entity sold off some of its business units. Then again, Broadcom’s decision to
move its headquarters back to the US just prior to announcing its intent to acquire Qualcomm,
along with its decision to host its annual Christmas Holiday party in the Washington, D.C. building
that formally housed the Old Post Office might help grease the skids and help get the deal
approved. Who are we kidding, it all but guarantees it.
On a more serious note, getting US approval isn’t the long pole in the tent, instead the EU and
China would be the major stumbling blocks. There isn’t a lot of love now from the EU and China
regulators, so combining Qualcomm with Broadcom would only make matters worse. To varying
degrees, Broadcom and Qualcomm are major suppliers of wireless IC chipsets that provide Wi-Fi,
GPS and Bluetooth functionality. We don’t track market share, so it isn’t clear if the merger
creates a monopoly in this market, but it doesn’t have to create a monopoly. It just needs to take
one step forward in that direction to create a viable argument that a monopoly exists for the EU
and China to oppose it. Just ask Microsoft, Google and others.
It would serve no purpose for Broadcom to sell Qualcomm’s WLAN business since Qualcomm
has gone to great lengths to integrate WLAN technologies with its cellular solutions. Conversely,
Broadcom’s WLAN technologies provide a nice alternative to a Qualcomm-based product for
those companies that don’t want to use Qualcomm’s WLAN solution or who don’t use its cellular
solutions.
Outside of WLAN, there isn’t much product overlap, but there are also not any synergies.
Broadcom (Avago) buying Qualcomm’s cellular business to complement its RF filter business is
akin to Goodyear Tire buying General Motors so that it can sell more tires to a captive customer.
In other semiconductor markets, the two companies don’t overlap in any meaningful way, so
one could argue the deal is good for Broadcom since the deal expands its footprint and revenue
opportunity. Having a strong wireline and wireless semiconductor footprint is beneficial for a
company that does it organically, but when it tries to bite off more than it can chew in a market,
like cellular, it will be problematic. In other words, Intel and Samsung can have success with wire-
line and wireless because they’ve been doing it for years and they understand success in wireless
requires different commitments than success in wireline.
Herein lies the other big issue, even if regulatory approval can be won or bought. Qualcomm is
a bit unique for a public company. While it has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, it
also isn’t afraid to try a moon shot occasionally (i.e., one or twice a quarter). Think a somewhat
subdued Elon Musk and you will get the picture. Broadcom is a more traditional company. The
company, like Qualcomm is innovative, but Broadcom’s innovation ties to its product portfolio
and not to the standards where its products are used.
Getting US approval isn’t the
long pole in the tent, instead
the EU and China would be
the major stumbling blocks.
Broadcom buying
Qualcomm’s cellular business
to complement its RF filter
business is akin to Goodyear
Tire buying General Motors
so that it can sell more tires.

Say what you will about Qualcomm’s licensing business, but it wouldn’t be the company it is
today without its R&D team, which is not only driving product innovation but also playing a major
role in standardization leadership. The two activities are closely intertwined, and we assume a
primary reason why Qualcomm never split its chipset and licensing business units. If the merger
happens, the moment Broadcom management scales back R&D or disapproves the next moon
shot, the brain trust will exit the buildings on Morehouse Drive for greener pastures just down
the road where Samsung, Intel and MediaTek have set up shop. Broadcom also isn’t going to
solve Qualcomm’s legal woes, or if it solves them then it does so by throwing the baby out and
bottling the bathwater, in which case it throws away all the inherent value of the company that
it just acquired.
To us, it makes more sense for Apple to buy Qualcomm, based on the principle of “if you can’t
beat ‘em, buy ‘em.” Important caveat – we wrote “more sense” and not “makes sense,” just like it
makes more sense for a Finn to leave the creature comforts of a hot sauna and jump into a lake
when it is 0 degrees outside versus -10 degrees outside.1
Apple would get its own multi-mode
chipset and it would get valuable patents, which would help with cross-licensing, as well as elimi-
nate the royalty fees it is now indirectly paying to Qualcomm and directly paying to others. And
with $250 billion of cash in the bank, Apple could make an all-cash deal, and still have enough left
over for an extravagant Christmas Holiday party at the Old Post Office building in DC.
1 According to a recent DNA test, we are 2% Finnish, so we are entitled to make this statement.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES
➤ “It’s a Small Cell World after all! – AT&T’s 5G
Evolution: On the Cusp of …” In this Signals Ahead
report we provide results from our independent and
in-depth analysis of LTE small cells, specifically LTE-FDD
small cells that have been deployed as part of AT&T’s 5G
Evolution in Indianapolis, Indiana. We also include an overall
assessment of the macro network performance.
Highlights of the Report include the following:
Our Thanks. This study could not have been done without
the support of Accuver Americas, who provided us with
its XCAL-Solo drive test tool and XCAP post-processing
software.
Our Approach. We tested AT&T’s “”5G Evolution”” in down-
town Indianapolis - once in May (before small cells) and again
in September (after small cells). We used geo binning of the
data, filtered the results by EARFCN, separated the results
between macro and small cell PCIs, and used RB normaliza-
tion to provide the most meaningful analysis of the data.
The Small Cell Results. We identified material/substantial
benefits in downlink and uplink performance, including all of
the underlying performance metrics that influence user data
speeds. We quantify these results and provide the relative
impact on user data rates and spectral efficiency. We also
analyzed the impact of interference.
The Macro Network Results. We’ve tested all the network
features, going back to 1H/2015, but for completeness we
include them in this study.
➤ 9/25/17 “RAN #77 5G Standardization Update:
Come for the Beer, Stay for the Plenary” We
recently attended the RAN #77 Plenary, held in Sapporo,
Japan. In addition to following the events proceedings we
took the time to do some VoLTE testing, given that two US
operators have announced VoLTE roaming agreements with
two operators in Japan.
Fun(?) with VoLTE. AT&T has announced a VoLTE roaming
agreement with NTT DoCoMo and KDDI has announced a
similar agreeement with Verizon Wireless. Armed with test
equipment from Spirent Communications and Accuver
Americas, not to mention 5 Galaxy S8 smartphones, plus a
couple of test phones back in the US, we put these agree-
ments to the test. Needless to say, some things worked,
some things didn't work, and some things worked in unex-
pected ways...
Continued Rush to Standardization. Come heck or high
water, 3GPP intends to complete the NSA option of Release
15 by December. This decision means further delays to critical
study items, which will likely impact Release 16 functionality.
Further, some nice-to-have functionality for Release 15 is
deprioritized for the time being, although it could still be
completed by June 2018. We discuss the deprioritized func-
tionality, which will definitely impact the December Release
and discuss other critical 3GPP decisions which impact 5G
and LTE standardization activities.
➤ 8/12/17 “SRG Travels: It’s a Small Cell World
After All” In this report we provide results from our inde-
pendent and in-depth analysis of LTE small cells, specifically
mini-macro cell sites and the Sprint Magic Box,”” which is
essentially a repeater-like solution that leverages a B41 radio
channel for the backhaul and a separate B41 radio channel
for the access network.
Our Thanks. This study could not have been done without
the support of Accuver Americas, who provided us with
its XCAL-Solo drive test tool and XCAP post-processing
software.
Our Approach. We tested the Sprint LTE-TDD network
in New York City and at the SRG Global Headquarters in
Minnesota. We used two Galaxy S7 smartphones with one
smartphone locked to a macro EARFCN (radio channel) and
the other smartphone locked to the mini-macro / Magic Box
EARFCN.
The Results. Although much is made about the use of small
cells to improve coverage - especially the Sprint Magic Box
- we determined that the biggest benefit associated with
both small cell configurations was their impact on overall
network efficiency due to the much higher SINR these solu-
tions delivered. We quantify the benefits, both for network
efficiency as well as the benefit to consumers.
➤ 6/26/17 “RAN #76 5G Standardization Update -
The Calm Before The Storm” We recently attended
the RAN #76 Plenary, held in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Following on the heels of RAN #75, where 5G moved from
a study item to a work item, things were far more subdued
at this plenary. However, we also believe it represented the
calm before the storm.
NSA Spillover. Although things seem to be reasonably on
track to complete the NSA option in December and the full
Release 15 specification in June 2018, there are other implica-
tions that need to be considered. We discuss how prioriti-
zation can have consequences that, if nothing else, impact
future releases (i.e., Release 16 functionality).
Rush to Standardization. Too many cooks in the kitchen
and a short order cook mentality can create havoc and/
or result in the customer not receiving the meal he or she
ordered. We cite a few examples where this is already occur-
ring and where it could occur in the future.

ON THE HORIZON: POTENTIAL SIGNALS AHEAD/SIGNALS FLASH! TOPICS
We have identified a list of pending research topics that we are currently considering or presently working on completing.
The topics at the top of the list are definitive with many of them already in the works. The topics toward the bottom of
the page are a bit more speculative. Obviously, this list is subject to change based on various factors and market trends.
As always, we welcome suggestions from our readers.
5G Standardization
➤➤ 5G from a 3GPP Perspective (ongoing series of reports – published quarterly or as warranted)
Thematic Reports
➤➤ Mobile Edge Computing and the impact of data caching at the cell edge
➤➤ LTE and the Connected Car
➤➤ Cloud RAN
➤➤ LTE-Advanced Pro features, opportunities and challenges
Benchmark Studies
➤➤ OTA Benchmark Study of smartphones, part II (TM2, etc.)
➤➤ VoLTE Part Seven – Impact of QCI=2 with video telephony and its impact on the user experience
➤➤ Carrier Aggregation with LAA/LTE-U/LWA
➤➤ Network impacts (to include signaling) of using various smartphone OS platforms and/or applications (video,
VoLTE, social networking, etc.)
➤➤ Uplink CoMP network benchmark study
➤➤ Chips and Salsa – LTE TDD chipset benchmark study
➤➤ MU-MIMO

please note disclaimer: The views expressed in this newsletter reflect those of Signals Research Group and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless industry.
This report is provided for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a basis for any investment decision. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but Signals Research Group makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Opinions, estimates, projections or forecasts in this report constitute the current
judgment of the author(s) as of the date of this report. Signals Research Group has no obligation to update, modify or amend this report or to otherwise notify a reader thereof in the event that any matter
stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.
If you feel our opinions, analysis or interpretations of events are inaccurate, please fell free to contact Signals Research Group. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the topics
that influence the wireless industry. Reference in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares of such company. Signals Research Group and/or
its affiliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may frequently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent with the analysis
provided in this report. Signals Research Group seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals Research Group
might have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Additional information and disclosures can be found at our website at www.signalsresearch.com. This report may not be
reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group (copyright ©2017, all rights reserved by Signals Research Group).
Signals Ahead Subscription
The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer three distinct packages that have been
tailored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to five users from the same company.
The Global License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an
unlimited number of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Platinum package includes the Global License, plus
up to five hours of analyst time. Other packages are available.
Corporate Rates (12 issues)
❒ Group License ($3,995)
❒ Global License (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Platinum (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Gold Pass (Price Available upon Request)
Payment Terms
❒ American Express ❒ Visa ❒ MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date / /
❒ Check Check Number
❒ Purchase Order PO Number
Name: Title:
Affiliation: Phone: ( )
Mailing Address:
Mailing Address
Signals Research Group – ATTN: Sales
Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for
your billing information. We will not process your payment until after the trial subscription period is completed.
Terms and Conditions: Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized
sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.

Signals Flash Nov 2017: 5G in Americas | Signals Research Group

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Signals Flash Nov 2017: 5G in Americas | Signals Research Group

Similaire à Signals Flash Nov 2017: 5G in Americas | Signals Research Group (20)

Plus de 3G4G

Plus de 3G4G (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Signals Flash Nov 2017: 5G in Americas | Signals Research Group