resource sharing in the mobile domain - rspg-spectrum.eu
TRANSCRIPT
Resource sharing in the Mobile domain
Presentation to the RSPG Plenary, Thursday November 8th 2012, Brussels
Bram van den Ende
TNO Information Society
1
Contents of my talk
Brief introduction to TNO and SAPHYRE
Sharing in the mobile domain: MNO and regulator perspectives
A common “tool” to evaluate sharing arrangements
What can be gained through spectrum sharing?
SAPHYRE results and way ahead
2
Introduction to TNO • TNO: acronym for The Netherlands Organisation for Applied
Scientific Research
• Established by Dutch government in Dutch Law of 1932
• TNO Mission:TNO connects people and knowledge to create innovations that boost the sustainable competitiveness of industry and well-being of society
• TNO caters to industry and government needs for specific R&D and consulting
• TNO is independent of public and private interests
• TNO activities include: Consultancy, Contract research, Testing and certification, Licences, Performing statutory assignments
TNO Business themes
• 4000+ staff, well educated
• € 564 million income in 2010
• € 195 million public funding NL
• € 364 million market income
• 350 staff in Telecoms
• Telecoms technology and business areas
• E.g. NL LTE /EPC 800/1800Mhz study
• Telecom customers: Fixed, Mobile, Cable & Government
Facts TNO offices: NL and international
Brief introduction to TNO
3
MNO’s face challenges
The ‘smart phones’ hype have made mobile services and
applications even more popular=>network capacity
requirements are going ‘sky high’
Strongly competitive market
High deployment costs for next generation mobile networks
Data revenues are not proportional => Eroding business
case, especially in less crowded rural areas
Revenues
Traffic/costs
5
Is cooperation through sharing an option for MNO’s?
Bottom-line: Sharing is a very strategical matter for
operators due to the impact on the market and their
own position in that market.
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
Operator B
Spectrum B
UE_B
RAN B
Operator A
Spectrum A
UE_A
RAN A
6
Practice is building up in Europe…
Country Companies Type of sharing Tech Established/
announced
Sweden Telia + Tele2
RAN+spectrum sharing (30%
population coverage with own
sites)
3G 2001
Sweden Telenor + 3 RAN sharing 3G 2001
UK 3 + Everything Everywhere
(former T-Mobile): MBNL RAN-sharing 3G 2007
Italy TIM + Vodafone Passive network sharing All 2008
Spain Orange + Yoigo Network sharing (Passive?) 3G 2008
Sweden Telenor + Tele2 RAN+spectrum sharing 2G&4G 2009
D/IRL/ESP/UK Vodafone + Telefonica O2 Mostly passive network
sharing 2/3G 2009
Austria T-Mobile + Orange Active RAN-sharing 3G 2011
Denmark Telia + Telenor Active RAN sharing 2/3/4G 2011
Ireland Telefonica O2 + Eircom Passive sharing, some active
elements 2/3G 2011
Poland Orange + T-mobile Active RAN sharing 2/3G 2011
Czech rep Telefonica O2 + T-Mobile Active RAN-sharing 3G 2011
UK Vodafone + Telefonica O2 RAN-sharing 2/3/4G 2012
NL KPN + Vodafone Passive RAN sharing (Pilot) 2/3G 2012
Note that some initiatives were launched that never really materialized (e.g. Telfort/KPN in 2001 and T-
Mobile/Orange in 2004 in NL, VF/Orange in UK); they are not shown.
7
Is the resource sharing option acceptable to regulators?
Entry barriers for
new entrants?
Innovation in
networks
Cost efficiency
Environmental and
health
Spectrum
efficiency Operator’s
independence
Dominant positions
in the market?
Collusive
behaviour
Access barriers for
MVNOs
Retail service
differentiation?
8
MNO and Regulator have different perspectives but could choose for common “tooling”
A sharing arrangement (coalition),
from the perspective of an MNO,
should bring him an improved business case compared to ‘going
alone’ (individual investments) and/or an improvement in his own
market position compared to his competitors, while at the same time
it does not hamper his service profile and independency (too much)
from the perspective of a regulator,
should not lead to reduced competitiveness in the mobile market,
nor create (new) dominant positions, nor increase entry barriers, etc
TNO has developed in SAPHYRE a coalition formation model (based
on game theory) which provide an assessment method which could be
of use both to MNOs and regulators (e.g. compare to BULRIC)
9
(n,KVT)** HHi = 82%
(nKVT)*** HHi =100%
(nK,VT)* HHi = 51%
(nVT,K)* HHi = 51%
(nKT,V) HHI = 61%
(n,K,V,T) HHi = 32%
(n,K,VT)** HHi = 42%
A
B
Example: impact of likely coalitions on entry barrier
Reference: SAPHYRE D5.5: Business models, cost analysis and advises for spectrum policy and regulation for scenario III
(to be published)
10
Contents of my talk
Brief introduction to TNO and SAPHYRE
Sharing in the mobile domain: MNO and regulator perspectives
A common “tool” to evaluate sharing arrangements
What can be gained through spectrum sharing?
SAPHYRE results and way ahead
11
Demand for wireless spectrum (OFCOM, 2009)
!! 8,200TB
!! 2015
OFCOM concluded in 2009 that spectrum reuse (e.g. through
cooperation) is one of the key measures to deal with exponential growth
of spectrum demand
In the mobile domain, we see elementary forms of RAN sharing being
practised, but: what about spectrum sharing?
12
Two forms of spectrum sharing
Inter operator orthogonal spectrum sharing:
Exclusive use of the radio channel at any given moment, through
(shared) resource scheduling between Operator A and B (TDMA).
No interference issues (with proper design&implementation).
Sharing gain is dependent on traffic profiles.
Inter operator non-orthogonal sharing:
Shared used of the radio channel at any given moment, through
smart and coordinated interference management between Operator
A and B. Delicate but with large potential sharing gain.
13
Orthogonal sharing: achievable gains
Influential factors: trunking gains, (a)symmetry in traffic A and B, scheduling paradigm
Eduard A. Jorswieck, Leonardo Badia, Torsten Fahldieck, Martin Haardt, Eleftherios Karipidis, Jian Luo, Rafał Pisz, Christian
Scheunert: “Resource sharing improves the network efficiency for network operators”, 27th Meeting of the Wireless World
Research Forum (WWRF), Düsseldorf, Germany, 19 October 2011.
14
Orthogonal sharing: various possibilities
Collaborative sharing in existing band Collaborative sharing of additional band
(efficient use of additional capacity)
Through spectrum brokering
Reference: SAPHYRE D5.3: Business models, cost analysis and advises for spectrum policy and regulation for scenario I
Spot market option
not depicted here
15
Gain through orthogonal sharing in mobile networks seems modest,
and decreases sharply as more spectrum becomes available
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Single RAT terminals
Multi RAT terminals
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
UMTS-2100 carries all
mobile traffic
• UMTS-2100
• UMTS900 is introduced
in 2012
• UMTS 900/2100
• LTE introduced in 2014,
carrying 25% of mobile
traffic
• LTE 800/1800/2600
• LTE-Advanced carries
25% of traffic
• LTE-A @ 800/900/1800/
2100/2600
• Other technologies/bands
carry 20% of traffic
Site
co
un
t re
du
ction
of R
AN
+sp
ectr
um
sh
arin
g c
om
pa
red
with
RA
N s
harin
g
Work to be published
16
Non-orthogonal spectrum sharing
Inter-operator
Physical
Data link
Network
Transport
Session
Presentation
Application
Operator A
Physical
Data link
Network
Transport
Band selection
Physical
Data link
Network
Transport
Session
Presentation
Application
Operator B
Physical
Data link
Network
Transport
Band selection
Spectrum C
oo
pera
tio
n
X2
17
Research on non-orthogonal sharing in SAPHYRE
Concept:
• Operator 1: TX1->RX1; Operator 2: TX2->RX2
• Multi-antenna TXs, single-antenna RXs
• Transmissions in same frequency/time/area
• Separate signals in the spatial dimension:
Transmit beamforming appropriately scales the Tx signal in each antenna to steer the power
towards specific directions
Eleftherios Karipidis, David Gesbert, Martin Haardt, Ka-Ming Ho, Eduard A. Jorswieck, Erik G. Larsson, Jianhui Li, Johannes
Lindblom, Christian Scheunert, Martin Schubert, Nikola Vučić: “Transmit beamforming for inter-operator spectrum sharing”,
Future Network and Mobile Summit (FNMS), Warsaw, Poland, 15–17 June 2011.
18
Promising measurement results
showing SAPHYRE gain and support
theoretical work
Very realistic reference implementation
First demonstration successful on
Mobile World Congress 2012
Industrial support for practical and
standardized solutions
RSPG to consider regulatory (and
harmonized) accommodation of
(advanced forms of) spectrum sharing,
i.e. through novel licensing models
SAPHYRE results; way ahead
19
Thank you for your kind attention Any questions?
Bram van den Ende
Project Manager
TNO Information Society
20