Flexible Spectrum Usage and Higher

Channel Bandwidths, What is Possible

for Operators Realistically?

Daniel S. Hamadeh , B.Eng, EMBA

Senior Spectrum Expert, Telecommunications Technologies Unit

TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY (TRA), LEBANON

www.tra.gov.lb

Outline

TRACK 1: Spectrum Channel Aggregation

Examining the requirements coming out of the operator community for Release 10

Is bandwidth aggregation the only way to achieve larger channels for LTE in lower spectrum bands?

How could nation regulators contribute to the development of LTE/IMT CA?

TRACK 2: Lebanon’s TRA challenges to achieve harmonization of key bands

Moving forward with long term licensing while achieving international harmonization of the band and FDD/TDD arrangement

How realistic is it to leap frog from 2G to LTE without going through 3G HSPA?

What is the proposed channel planning and packaging for 2.3/2.6 & 3.5 GHz

3

Need for on the go, always on applications, QoS in mobile broadband trends

With the continuous exponential growth in mobile broadband applications & data traffic usage, operators need to :

Continuously Add new sectors/ cells and move further closer to user (MACRO to MICRO to Femtocell) Use higher efficiency radio interface (such as evolving their 3G R4 to R7 or deploying E-UTRA)

Supporting higher peak b/Hz through using wider channel bandwidth systems

As such, the transmission bandwidth of mobile radio communication systems have increased continuously from

200kHz in GSM to 5 MHz channel size of the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) up to 20 MHz of

the Long Term Evolution (LTE) system, and up to 100 MHz of Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-A) or equivalent IMT-Advanced proposed radio interfaces

4

What is Channel Aggregation and how could LTE can be used to improve efficiencies?

To achieve larger transmission bandwidth with up to 100MHz, Carrier Aggregation has been proposed as a key technology to be used. LTE carrier Aggregation in R8 and in R10 support heterogeneous carriers yet inter-system carrier

aggregation is not being considered. R10 supports only the later approach i.e. variable channel aggregation on uplink and on

downlink. No inter-system CA supported yet.

With the absence of support to inter system channel aggregation, two scenarios are possible with R8 to R10:1. Carrier aggregation within the same E-UTRA FDD system

a) Expanding with adjacent channel blocks (resultant is a contiguous channel block) Not always possible between adjacent operators but technically optimum and most efficient

a) Expanding with non adjacent channel blocks (Non contiguous channel block)Requires more coordination and limited by terminal constraints

2. Carrier aggregation within of an LTE-A FDD channel with adjacent LTE-A TDD channelEspecially suited for asymmetrical traffic supported in Rel. 10

Expanding Band Through Inter-System Cooperation is another alternative but requires:Coordination of scheduling Multi-site beam forming Information exchange for Inter cell interference cancellation

5

OFDM based LTE is suitable for aggregation, but user terminal challenges are there

OFDM is very suitable for carrier aggregation through the ability to switching off unwanted subcarriers

Challenges for 100 MHz terminal limit the choices and actual CA scenarios : Potential of commercial-level RF filter: Effective bandwidth range >50MHz is expensive Potential of commercial-level ADC: Sampling rate and quantization resolution Decoding complexity: Channel decoding and soft buffer size

An LTE-Advanced terminal with reception capability beyond 20 MHz can simultaneously receive transmissions on multiple component carriers where as an LTE terminal can only receive single component carrier only that meets E-UTRA Rel. 8 specifications

Resource Allocation, MIMO, Link Adaptation, HARQ, etc will be performed per carrier Cell edge interference management is yet to be improved and to better utilize guard bands

6

Channel Aggregation and LTE Tx/Rx architecture options

Source: 3GPP TSG-RAN-WG4

Complexity of CA transceiver architecture limits the realistic CA scenarios.

To support 2x2 UL and DL MIMO on two bands requires 4 full RF chains

World wide harmonization of bands lead to better economy of scale and earlier availability of wideband CA devices.

Inter Band

Aggregation

Contigous

(CC)

Non-

Contiguou

s (CC)

Non-

contiguous

(CC)

A

Single (RF

+FFT+baseband) with

BW>20MHz

Yes

B

Multiple (RF

+FFT+Baseband) with

BW<20MHz

Yes Yes Yes

Intra Band

AggregationDescription

(Rx Architecture)Opt

UE RX Characteristics

7

Intra band Channel Aggregation in Band 7 and Band 28

Carrier Aggregation (CA) scenarios for E-UTRA in 2.6 GHz:1. Intra-band adjacent scenarios: a) FDD-FDD; b) FDD TDD2. Intra-band non-adjacent: a) FDD-FDD; b) FDD-TDD

1-a

2-a

1-b

Assuming an end of bidding spectrum package result to be:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O2 block - Contiguous Spectrum:

Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O3 block - Non ContigueousSpectrum:

Aggregated spectrum after O1 acquired O3 FDD block & O5 TDD block- Non Contigueous Spectrum:

2500 25702570 2620 2620 2690

Operator 1 TDD Operator 1

5

Unpaired

Unpaired 10x5MHzPaired UE Uplink 14x5MHz BS to UE - Downlink 14x5MHz

Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4 Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4

Paired UE Uplink Paired BS Downlink

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Operator 5

Operator 1 Operator 1

Operator 1 Operator 1 Operator 1 Operator 1

Operator 1

8

What is Bandwidth Aggregation scenarios in Band 40

Carrier Aggregation (CA) scenarios for E-UTRA in 2.6 GHz and E-UTRA in 2.3 GHz:1. Inter-band adjacent scenarios: a) FDD-TDD; b) TDD-TDD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

2 contiguous on TDD 2.3 GHz CA 30+10 into 20+20

TD-E-UTRA on 2.3 GHz aggregated with FDD-E-UTRA on 2.6 GHz

TD-E-UTRA on 2.3 GHz aggregated with TD-E-UTRA on 2.6 GHz

Paired BS Downlink

Operator 7

Operator 1 Operator 1

Operator 7

Operator 9

Unpaired / TDDOperator 6 Operator 7 Op. 8 Operator 10

Paired UE Uplink UnpairedOperator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Opt. 4 Operator 5 Operator 1

Operator 1

9

Release 10 3GPP Carrier Aggregation scenarios

After studying different scenarios for CA, 3GPP TSGR4 identified the following possible scenarios for Release 10 CA working items:For Region 1 • 40 MHz UL/DL: 20 MHz CC (Band 7) + 20 MHz CC (Band 3)

For Region 2• 20MHz UL/DL: 10MHz CC (Band 2) + 10 MHz CC (Band 4) • 10MHz UL/DL: 5MHz CC (Band 17) + 5MHz CC (Band 4) • 20MHz UL/DL: 10 MHz CC (Band 13) + 10 MHz CC (Band 4)

For Region 3• 40MHz UL/DL: 40 MHz CC (Band 40)• 20 MHz UL/DL: 10 MHz CC (Band 1) + 10 MHz CC (Band 19)

Intra band non-contiguous scenarios are proposed to be considered in future releases beyond R10.

By July, 2010 it is expected that 3GPP agrees on UE categories for CA in Rel-10 after further studies.

3GPPBAND #

Uplink (UL)Operating BandBS ReceiveUE Transmit

Downlink (DL)Operating BandBS TransmitUE Receive

Duplex Mode

I (1)1920 MHz to 1980 MHz

2110 MHz to 2170 MHz

FDD

II (2)1850 MHz to 1910 MHz

1930 MHz to 1990 MHz

FDD

III (3)1710 MHz to 1785 MHz

1805 MHz to 1880 MHz

FDD

IV (4)1710 MHz to 1755 MHz

2110 MHz to 2155 MHz

FDD

VII (7)2500 MHz to 2570 MHz

2620 MHz to 2690 MHz

FDD

XIII (13)777 MHz to 787 MHz

746 MHz to 756 MHz

FDD

XIX (19)830 MHz to 845 MHz

875 MHz to 890MHz

FDD

XL (40) 2300 MHz to 2400 MHz TDD

10

Effective spectrum management role, to avoid fragmentation or too much spectrum aggregation from taking place, is

needed. In setting license conditions and spectrum channel arrangement and award process (bidding) regulators are

encouraged to:

adopt harmonized and spectrum efficient arrangements of the band (Ex: FDD for 800 MHz)

support industry efforts towards channel aggregation by making clear time table for spectrum availability and

encourage sharing of network resources amongst operators including inter systems corporative carrier

aggregation

exercise the right to re-arrange channels before final spectrum award if outcome of bid results in fragments

develop spectrum trading legislations allowing for swap and adjustments of spectrum assigned through market

pressures

exercises spectrum re-farming and re-planning when needed (costly alternative but useful)

require coverage obligations attached to each band license “use it or lose it” mechanisms to avoid spectrum

hoarding and encourage development of services

National regulatory role in fostering efficient spectrum use and proliferation of IMT

11

Outlook of Germany’s 2.6 GHz Band channel arrangements and possible auction results

German* Mobile spectrum auction preliminary results indicate a need to further develop spectrum aggregation

techniques for more better utilization of valuable spectrum

Spectrum management regulations that allow spectrum trading could further facilitate aggregation of adjacent

channels in intermediate to long term

Attached deployment obligation (use it or lose it conditions) to spectrum licenses ensure earlier time to market

and reduces risks of spectrum hoarding

Round 186, 2.6 GHz bid value was 152% on net FDD compared to TDD MHz

800 MHz FDD spectrum averaged 2520% more or 25 times higher than that of 2.6GHz FDD

5MHz fragments based channels can not be utilized to achieve 20MHz+ without Channel Aggregation.

To2

GER

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

GER

To2

GER

E-P

lus

Grp

Tele

com

D

To2

Ger

Tele

com

D

To2

Ger

E-P

lus

Grp

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

Ger

E-P

lus

Grp

Vo

daf

on

e

E-P

lus

Grp

Tele

com

D

E-P

lus

Grp

Tele

com

D

Vo

daf

on

e

Vo

daf

on

e

Tele

com

D

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

Ger

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

GER

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

GER

To2

GER

E-P

lus

Grp

Tele

com

D

To2

Ger

Tele

com

D

To2

Ger

E-P

lus

Grp

Vo

daf

on

e

To2

Ger

E-P

lus

Grp

Vo

daf

on

e

* Not Final but based on Round 186 results for 2.6 GHz TDD & FDD blocks with FDD blocks

Paired / UE Uplink Unpaired Paired / BS Downlink

12

Regulatory bodies role to realize wider and harmonized bands for IMT-Advanced

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 790-

798 798-806 806-814 814-822 822-830 830-838 838-846 846-854

854-

862

Downlink Duplex

gap Uplink

30 MHz (6 blocks of 5 MHz) 12 MHz 30 MHz (6 blocks of 5 MHz)

800MHz channel arrangement

based on paired channels

ensures effective use.

A market based approach to

determining channel

arrangements could be vey risky

due to FDD/TDD & TDD/TDD

guard band requirements.

13

Lebanon Case: A new Telecom Low a new regulator

Spectrum policy

New spectrum

Licensing regulation

New spectrum pricing

Re-farming for broadband wireless

DSO

Harmonizing key IMT bands of 2.1, 2.3, 2.6 & 3.5 GHz & 800 MHz DD

Policy questions for the TRA :

Technology Neutrality vs. Harmonization

Best Value of Spectrum (proceeds) vs. Mobile Broadband Services Earlier to Market

Treatment of Current Users on bands under consideration and migration cost-benefit and challenges

Service Neutrality and local market and regulatory constraints

Coverage obligations: by band or by operator?

Worldwide harmonization for mobile services, IMT application vs. flexible approach to determining band plan

14

Challenges for a new regulator

Evolution of Spectrum Management Regulations in Lebanon

15

Before Law 431

After Law 431 & TRA

Frequencies were

assigned on a first-come, first-served

basis

Market Based

Spectrum fees were

basically set based on

Decree 377 & Decree

126

Market Mechanism

& AIP

Many legal Basis has to be taken into consideration

Now Telecom’s Law 431

Many Administrations were in-

charge in licensing

Single Organization

“TRA”

Licensing Guidelines

Fair, transparent,

insures competence

and are market based

Prior Law 431: No legal framework for spectrum management

Band

Current

Target

Category of use

450- 470 MHz

PMR

IMT/

CDMA450

COM &/or GOV

790-862 MHz

Analog TV

DD=> Mobile after 2015 DSO

COM & Public Safety

900MHz, 1.8 GHz

GSM (2G)

GSM900 +

UMTS900 or LTE900

COM

1.9-2.1 GHz

IMT/3G

•Not assigned yet

IMT/3G

Mobile BB

COM

2.3, 2.6, 3.5 GHz1

Mostly Assigned

to FWA & P2P

Re-farming

Re-plan

COM

IMT

COM / Mobile Portable

Fixed BWA

Lebanon Case :IMT bands current vs. future use potential

Acronyms:

FBWA: Fixed Broadband Wireless Access (P2MP)

BB: Broad Band

COM: Commercial use (Service provider)

GOV: Government use

DSO: Digital Switch-Off of analog TV

IMT: International Mobile Telecommunications

GSM: Global System Mobile

UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service

PMR: Professional Mobile Radio

FX P2P: Fixed Point to point

DD: Digital Divide spectrum16

\

How feasible is it for a country like Lebanon to leap-frog from 2G to 4G?

17

Pe

rfo

rman

ce b

its/

hz

Time

Past Present Future

GPRS – 25 to 40 Kbps48 Kbps peak

EDGE – 100 to 130 Kbps237 Kbps peak

UMTS – 150 to 180 Kbps

384 Kbps peak

HSDPA – 400 to 700 Kbps3.6 Mbps peak

HSUPA/HSPA – 500 to1200 Kbps up1.5 Mbps peak up (potential 5.76M)700 to 1700 Kbps down 3.6 Mbps

LTE Advanced (Rel. 10)LTE (R8) – 100 Mbps and beyond peak down are expected in

Compatible backward migration

on the existing global 3GPP standard

Technology mass commercialization today

Note: Speeds are typical user throughput

HSPA+ 10MHz (R8/9)>42Mbps Peak potential in 10Mhz

HSPA+ (R7)>21 Mbps peak potential

Lebanon Today

Compatibility issuesfor Voice application

between LTE and HSPA

“SRVCC” ?

To leapfrog from GSM to LTE, lower frequencies in the 800MHz are needed but not available before 2015

For an LTE national deployment in the2.6 GHz band only, the number of sites needed is too high and not cost effective compared to a solution based on the 800MHz and 2.6GHz combined (German & UK models)

Migration of core to all IP/IMS

\

Existing Lebanese service providers offer Fixed/portable broadband on 2.6GHz &

1.9GHz TDD use proprietary technologies

18

Perf

orm

an

ce*

Time

Past Present Future

Expedience OFDM Now 128kbps - 512kbps

Limited to 1.6Mbps UL, 700kbps DL

IBurst 1.9GHz100 to 512 Kbps

1Mbps peak, Reuse N=1

IPW TD-CDMA (R99)2MbpsDL 384 Kbps UL peak

Potential

LTE (R8) – 100 Mbps

and beyond peak down

No Backward compatibility between none 3GPP RI

*Speeds are typical user throughput and depend on channel width and network configuration

Existing BWA in Lebanon TodayLong term requires wider

spectrum blocks up to 2x20 or

40 MHz per carrier in key

bands such as 2.6, 2.3, 1.8,

2GHz & 800MHzWiMAX(R2) – Mbps

20Mbps beyond peak down1.5- 2 Bps/Hz

IMT Advanced >100Mbps

LTE R10 or 802.16m

1x20, 2x10 or 4x5MHz deployments in

2.3, 2.6 or 3.5 GHz could be sufficient to

deliver broadband wireless speeds with

the available BWA technology today

2.6GHzTDD

TD/1.9GHzBand 33

802.16-2005 WiMAX

planned for commercial roll out

2.3 GHz (2x10MHz TDD)

2.3GHz

2.5-2.69 GHz band assigned in 2003 awaits a new channel plan

19

The 2.5 GHz band is amongst the most important bands for the provision of MBWA (Mobile Broadband Wireless Access)

TRA proposes a flexible approach to 2.6 GHz spectrum Plan not fully harmonized with ECC/DEC/(05)05 but ensures additional unpaired blocks available to be shared between existing TDD or combined for FDD operators.

The current assignment in the 2.6 GHz is all TDD not aligned with ITU recommendations ITU-R M.1036-3 C1 & C2 arrangements and ECC/DEC/(05)05 and can not accommodate new operators. It is not efficiently used nor gives equal growth opportunity for the market players and technologies

X x

The plan is based on center (50) TDD and X MHz paired available as unpaired or paired block while maintaining 120MHz FDD duplex for future IMT /IMT-A FDD expansion

Lebanon 2300-2400 MHz band:

Being considered based on 20MHz blocks technology neutral but not service neutral

2300 2305 2310 2315 2320 2325 2330 2335 2340 2345 2350 2355 2360 2365 2370 2375 2380 2385 2390 2395 2400

2300 - 2400 Band

identified as IMT band as per WRC07 *

Fixed Links since 1994, geographically limited and subject to re-farming

20MHz Not assigned 20MHz Not assigned 20MHz

The 2300-2400 MHz is currently used by some P2P links, Broadcast (FM) links, and by Illegal Wireless ISPs using

outdoor Wi-Fi devises on 2.3GHz out of their ISM band

Channel plan based on 5x20MHz TDD blocks of which 3 blocks assigned to 3 data only service providers:

No mobility allowed yet

No Voice allowed yet

20* Channel arrangements being developed under ITU WP5D. Direction to follow technology and duplex

neutral or TDD arrangements . Systems such as TD-LTE & TD-WiMAX are being developed.

802.16-2005 WiMAXplanned for commercial

roll out (2x10MHz)

802.166-2005 WiMAXPlanned roll out

4x5MHzNo trial yet

Lebanon Access Bands: Current Use and Future Allocation

IMT/Broadband & Mobile Spectrum 3.4 GHz – 3.6 GHz and 3.6GHz - 3.8 GHz

Current Assignments to 4 operators since late 90’s

several technologies used both FDD & TDD systems including WiMAX 802.16-2004 and 802.16a/b

Shared between commercial and some government private use

The 3.5 GHz will be considered in the future as part of the IMT- Advanced family, currently used for BFWA

21

3.403.60

B1 B2 B1’ B2’

100MHz

SU to BS Transmit Freq. BS to SU Transmit

Paired (FDD) arrangement only based on 100MHz T/R spacing between Tx & Rx

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8

Unpaired UnpairedPaired

100MHz

UnpairedPaired PairedPaired Paired3.403.60

Based on ITU-R F.1488 and CE0405 Flexible Paired (FDD) and unpaired TDD supporting channel blocks of

1.75 to 10 MHz Flexible Paired (FDD) & unpaired (TDD) based arrangement on 25MHz Block

Example based on 2 blocks of paired and 4 blocks of unpaired (Total of 6 operators) only based on 100MHz

T/R spacing between Tx & Rx

22

Thank You

www.tra.gov.lb

daniel.hamadeh@tra.gov.lb