Cloud RAN with a Chance of Virtualization

www.signalsresearch.com

Dispatches from the frontier of wireless research

February 9, 2016

CLOUD RAN WITH A CHANCE OF VIRTUALIZATIONKey Takeaways from the RAN USA Conference 2016

2 | Signals Flash February 9, 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn late January we attended the RAN USA event in downtown San Francisco. The event brought together a great contingent of operators and vendors from Asia, Latin America, and the United States for two days of in-depth discussions on everything RAN. In addition to attending the event, we also had the opportunity to speak and chair the antenna workshop which took place on the second day of the event.

As always, unlike our subscription-based Signals Ahead reports, you may forward this abbrevi-ated Signals Flash! report, which quickly highlights a few key themes from the conference, to whomever you want. Please also note that if your organization subscribes to Signals Ahead, you will not be receiving a report this month due to preparatory work for a couple of upcoming Signals Ahead reports as well as our participation at Mobile World Congress. We intend to make up for the shortfall over the next two months.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

➤➤ C-RAN – Lovers and skeptics. Like certain polarizing political figures, you either love “the C-RAN” or you are strongly skeptical. For those that have dared to give it a try, they have cast their votes in its favor while others are still caucusing amongst themselves and waiting to make a decision.

➤➤ All choked up over the Fronthaul. The fly in the ointment for C-RAN is the fronthaul, or the pipe between the baseband functionality and the remote radio head. Despite the promises from more than a decade ago, CPRI isn’t living up to expectations and its days are probably numbered.

➤➤ Looking ahead to what comes next. With more advanced antenna schemes and far fatter pipes, the next-generation air interface will make things even more problematic. Fortunately, potential solutions are in the works.

➤➤ Random thoughts. We throw in some tidbits from other presentations, plus provide a few updates from our last Signals Ahead report on the 3GPP family of CIoT standards.


Unlike our more in-depth Signals Ahead research reports, there are not any restrictions associ-ated with the redistribution of this document. Recipients of Signals Flash! may share this docu-ment 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.

We attended the Avren Events’ RAN USA, which was held in San Francisco in late January. In our mind, the event definitely exceeded our expectations. Although there wasn’t necessarily a large attendance, there was a great contingent of speakers representing operators from around the world (CMCC, KDDI, NTT DoCoMo, Softbank, T-Mobile, AT&T and Telefonica) and the presenta-tions were technology oriented versus being marketing hype. The smaller crowd also allowed for lots of interaction, both during the sessions and during the breaks.

Given our schedule – we are currently “Down Under” doing something that Signals Ahead subscribers will be able to read about in a few weeks – and with MWC 2016 taking place the last full week of February, we are going to “miss” a Signals Ahead report this month. We hope to more than make up for it in the next two months, including another report from our 5G series of reports. This report will stem from RAN #71, where we expect the RAN Plenary will discuss and approve the 5G Study Item for Release 14.

We should also note that we have an ambition to do a full-blown report on C-RAN and network virtualization at some point in the future. As such, we are retaining a lot of additional insight for future use.

C-RAN – Lovers and skeptics

The definition of C-RAN isn’t as broad and all-encompassing as IoT or 4G, but there are at least two basic definitions to consider. The most basic approach to C-RAN is to centralize or pool the baseband functionality of a cellular base station within the network and then connect the baseband functionality via fiber with the distant radio elements, which are located at the cell site. The more advanced approach to doing C-RAN is to virtualize the centralized baseband func-tionality such that the baseband functionality can be pooled and then distributed throughout the network as it is needed. With this approach it is also more than likely that the baseband functionality runs on a common hardware platform with customized software running on top which provides the specialized functionality.

Even the most basic approach to doing C-RAN is problematic for most operators, especially if they want to do it across a large swath of the network. The primary problem, as operators discussed at the event and which we highlight in the next section, is the fronthaul. However, if the fronthaul problem can be solved, either by increasing the bandwidth/lowering the latency of the connection or by redefining the specifications such that uber-high bandwidth and ultra-low latency are not required then the prospects are compelling.


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES ➤➤ 1/29/2016 “The Murky Underworld of IoT - How

3GPP-based Solutions Pave the Way to a Connected World” While there is a lot of industry interest in IoT air interfaces and their individual merits, there is also more than a fair amount of uncertainty and unknowns regarding these tech-nologies and what they can and cannot do, both in the short term and in the longer term. In this Signals Ahead report we look at the collective group of 3GPP-based CIoT technologies, by lever-aging operator and vendor interviews, our analysis of 3GPP filings, and our recent participation in the last few 3GPP standardiza-tion meetings. Key Highlights include the following: (1) History 101. We take a trip back through memory lane to show how and why we ended with the existing family of 3GPP-based CIoT tech-nologies and device categories, including Cat 0, Cat M1, EC-GSM and Cat M2 (aka “NB-IoT”). (2) The Traffic Profiles. The best way to understand what NB-IoT / EC-GSM can and cannot do is to understand the traffic profiles and use cases used by 3GPP during the standardization process. (3) Performance Analysis. Leveraging the traffic profiles and published performance analysis results, we show what the marketing claims of NB-IoT really mean, the inherent tradeoffs that exist, and why we believe capacity is (or at least should be) dead last in terms of operator requirements. (4) Getting from Here to There. We discuss the likely impacts to the RAN and CN, including the potential / likely role of network virtualization and the use of an “EPC-lite” network. Included in this discussion is an update on the status of the NB-IoT specifi-cation, including some of the outstanding issues that remain. (5) The Deployment Scenarios. We discuss the pros and cons of the 3 deployment scenarios, namely standalone / GSM refarming, guard band, and in-band. (6) Adding another “G”. Based on what NB-IoT can and cannot do, as well as the likely traffic profiles, we discuss the practicality of NB-IoT fulfilling the 5G use cases being discussed that pertain to uMTC and cMTC. (7) And in the other Corner. CIoT technologies are not the only option that exists. In addition to the non-3GPP wide area technologies there are also the local and personal area technologies that play a role, either in a complementary or competitive role. We discuss.

➤➤ 12/21/2015 “ALL QUIET ON THE 5G FRONT –an update on the 5G standardization efforts and other 3GPP-related activities” Just recently we returned from the 3GPP RAN#70 Plenary, which was held it Sitges, Spain. Conventional wisdom suggests that the 5G standard is baked and resting on a hot plate, given all of the operator claims about forthcoming trials, not to mention commercial launches and anticipated vendor demos at MWC 2016. The reality, we believe, is entirely different with much work to remain – starting with RAN Plenary Group Study Items on the next-generation wireless network that have yet to begin. Topics Discussed in this Report Include the Following: 1) We take a look at where the 3GPP RAN and SA working groups are with respect to standardizing the next-generation network (aka 5G).2) We examine the current and yet-to-be approved Study Items to provide an extremely preliminary view of what is in store. Unlike earlier technical requirements (TR) documents, the 5G TR is shaping up to be entirely different. 3) Speaking of TRs, we take a trip down memory lane and revisit the

initial TR documents for UMTS (3G) and LTE (Evolved UTRAN) to see if the proposed requirements were achieved, and, if so, when they were achieved. 4) Given the equal focus being given to LTE and its evolution (LTE-Advanced Pro), we highlight and discuss many of the Work Items being considered within the RAN Plenary. If nothing else these Work Items provide great insight into near-term and future operator strategies.

➤➤ 12/8/15 “Get SMART[er] - the ins and outs of the 5G Use Cases” Unlike what occurred during the previous introductions of a new family of technologies, 3GPP has leveraged the work of the NGMN Alliance and other entities to define the Use Cases for 5G. Although the Use Cases are still in a state of flux, there is at least some initial insight to be gained regarding what is driving the 5G requirements and how the Use Cases will change the very nature of the industry. Highlights of the Study include the following: (1) We break out the 72 Use Cases into several distinct categories, based on their requirements, and discuss the scenarios they address as well as their subsequent requirements. (2) Although eMBB (enhanced Mobile Broadband) gets all the buzz, the overwhelming majority of the Use Cases have very little to do with mobile broadband. Instead, their requirements include capabilities that we believe are more challenging than delivering a high bit rate, or the Use Case is extremely futuristic in terms of what 5G may be asked to do in the future. (3) To us, Network Slicing is by far the most interesting Use Case. In addition to giving more power to third parties to specify and implement how the network will support their needs, Network Slicing introduces an entirely new paradigm, as well as creating the need for new busi-ness models / billing strategies that operators will need to pursue (if net neutrality doesn’t get in the way). (4) 5G could result in a bit of a land grab for the cellular industry. If nothing else, they will need to work more closely with other standards bodies and vertical markets who seek to benefit from the capabilities that 5G is supposed to deliver. Given the timing of the 5G core network relative to the 5G radio access network, it will be well into 2020 before the full vision of 5G is realized.

➤➤ 10/29/15 “When Iconic Meets Anechoic, Part II - Over-the-Air (OTA) MIMO Performance Results of Fifteen Smartphones - From Apple to ZTE” In our 20th Chips and Salsa, we collaborated closely with Spirent Communications, PCTEST, and EMT Labs, to conduct arguably the industry’s most extensive independent OTA MIMO performance testing of leading smartphones - from the Apple iPhone to the ZTE Nubia. All testing took place within an ETS-Lindgren anechoic chamber. In total, we tested 15 different smartphones (3 bands per phone) that we procured from around the world, including LTE chipsets from 4 different baseband suppliers. Highlights of the study include the following: (1) Two of the top performing smartphones, the Nokia Lumia 930 and the Alcatel OneTouch Idol 3 are “value-priced” smartphones, indicating a disparity between price and performance. (2) In general there was a large variance in the results with the top performing smartphone in a particular band outperforming most of its peers by 50% or more with moderate SNR values.

EXPLORE THE WORLD OF

5G WIRELESS

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]



December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10


MORE 5G


MORE 5G


MORE 5G


MORE 5G



September 30, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 8


LOOKING FURTHER AHEAD TO 5.5G1

1 Feel free to note the sarcasm

New subscribers to SIGNALS AHEAD will receive these 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


Asian operators are perhaps the strongest advocates for C-RAN and it stands to reason given the preponderance of dark fiber in the region, and, depending on the particular region, regulatory requirements (i.e., China) and dense population centers (i.e., South Korea and Japan, etc.).

KDDI, for example, commented during a panel session that C-RAN is an important tool when it comes to combining macro and micro/pico cells since the centralized controller can provide a more efficient and effective means of coordinating the interference between the two network layers. Softbank, who is right around the corner from KDDI, also noted that C-RAN is impor-tant for interference cancellation, especially when dealing with a densely-deployed network. Softbank commented that in one area of its network the site density is 44 sites/square kilometer and with C-RAN it is witnessing a 10 dB improvement and 23% higher data speeds. The chal-lenge for Softbank is that its FDD and TDD network (operated and branded under Wireless City Planning) are essentially two separate networks and in many cases the FDD and TDD sites are not co-located. We also know from past experiences that in many cases the operator has two different vendors in the same market – one for the FDD network and one for the TDD network. Given the quasi-proprietary nature of the fronthaul interface (CPRI), it would be next to impos-sible for the operator to mix and match its RAN vendors in a C-RAN deployment scenario.

China Mobile (CMCC) is perhaps the strongest advocate for C-RAN and as far as we are consid-ered it is leading the industry, in particular the operator community, when it comes to researching C-RAN and its potential for LTE and for next-generation network topologies which follow. In the case of CMCC, the operator noted that it wasn’t originally a proponent of the feature for LTE networks due to concerns about the fronthaul (see next section). However, it is now a strong advocate, noting that it is seeing energy savings of 60% and that its deployment time is reduced to one-third the time. Artiza Networks cited slightly different metrics for CMCC, indicating a CapEx reduction of 35% and a 53% reduction in OpEx with a 75% savings in power. We note the power savings stems primarily from only having the remote radio head unit at the cell site.

C-RAN is also being used when it comes to 3G networks. Telefonica discussed its FARM-RAN strategy which is deployed across 80% of its sites in one of its networks in Latin America. For Telefonica, the benefits of C-RAN include much lower power requirements and the ability to quickly migrate their network from 3G to LTE without having to go to the site. Our personal view is that nothing is as simple as a simple software upgrade and that network optimization require-ments could still result in a site visit.

A virtualized C-RAN takes things to an entirely new level since with virtualization the baseband functionality is shared across the entire network covered by the centralized control node. Traffic is never uniformly distributed throughout the network. People commute into the city when going to work and they return home at the end of the day. There are also the occasional sporting events and other occasions which cause people to congregate and various times throughout the week. If an operator dedicates baseband functionality to the stadium then the resource is essentially wasted the overwhelming majority of the time. This inefficiency not only increases the CapEx and OpEx costs for covering the stadium but it also means that the other regions of the network since baseband processing power that could have been reassigned from the stadium to the suburbs cannot be used. Instead, the operator is forced to deploy new hardware at each specific site in its network where it is needed, even if it is only needed for a brief period of time each day.

Asian operators are perhaps the strongest advocates for C-RAN.

China Mobile (CMCC) is perhaps the strongest advocate for C-RAN, but this preference wasn’t always the case.

With virtualization the baseband functionality is shared across the entire network covered by the centralized control node.


T-Mobile is in the other corner when it comes to C-RAN. In its opinion, there isn’t a business case for C-RAN with reasons cited including the fronthaul, a poor CPRI interface, and the tremen-dous amount of processing power which means that it can’t run on a common silicon platform. To varying degrees the other operators agreed with T-Mobile on the challenges of C-RAN but for various reasons they still believe that it is the way forward. We also point out the obvious that T-Mobile isn’t based in Asia so its access to dark fiber is far more limited, in particular given that it doesn’t have a wireline business to leverage for fiber. Secondly, T-Mobile’s geographic coverage is significantly greater than most Asian operators, although the Chinese operators are a notable exception.

All choked up over the fronthaul

Regardless of how someone views the prospects of C-RAN, they must recognize that C-RAN has its challenges with a truly virtualized C-RAN being even more problematic. The CPRI interface has been around since at least 2004, or prior to most mobile operators first launching 3G, although it has evolved since it was first introduced. The intent of CPRI is to provide a common interface between the radio baseband processing functionality, or what CPRI calls the Radio Equipment Control (REC), and the remote radio head (RRH), or Radio Element (RE) using the CPRI vernacular.

Since the CPRI specification was first published and available for download, the implication has been that it can support a multi-vendor RAN solution. The most likely scenario described by its founding members at the time was that a major OEM would provide the REC while it would compete with much smaller suppliers for RE market share. The open interface would then drive competition and innovation, which would benefit operators at the expense of the major OEMs who would otherwise have had a lock on the full system.

Unfortunately, CPRI is a somewhat incomplete specification instead of a complete standard and it doesn’t address all OSI layers. For example, CPRI does not fully specify the protocols used to transport the O&M messages sent back and forth between the REC and the RE. As a result, major vendors implement their own messaging system and unless they provide all of this detailed information to a third party (competitor), it is unlikely that a multi-vendor RAN solution would be feasible. Therefore, it becomes extremely difficult to achieve one of the basic tenets of the CPRI initiative.

CPRI can still be useful with a single vendor implementation since it does make it possible to implement a C-RAN strategy. However, the bandwidth requirements of the LTE air interface make it far more challenging for the fronthaul, in terms of both bandwidth and latency. It becomes even more problematic to meet the fronthaul bandwidth requirements when operators deploy multiple LTE radio carriers at the cell site or if they introduce 256 QAM or 4x4 MIMO. Figure 1 shows information provided by KDDI regarding the fronthaul bandwidth requirements for CPRI with various antenna configurations. It is important to note that while the more advanced antenna schemes – beyond 4x4 MIMO – are still a bit futuristic, especially outside of Asia, they are part of LTE Advanced Pro.

Further, in many developed markets the mobile operator’s LTE network is comprised of more than a single 20 MHz channel. For example, we know from firsthand experience that Telstra already has three 20 MHz LTE carriers at many of its cell sites. KDDI also indicated that it has approximately 80 MHz of LTE at its sites and that in the near future it will be going to 150 MHz of spectrum for LTE. With 80 MHz of LTE and a 16x16 antenna configuration, which is something that it is actively

T-Mobile is in the other corner when it comes to C-RAN.

Since CPRI first became available, the implication has been that it can support a multi-vendor RAN solution.

More advanced LTE features and the use of multiple LTE radio carriers at a cell site make the fronthaul requirements even more challenging.


BEHIND THE VoLTE CURTAIN: THE COMPLETE COLLECTION

Now Available for a Special Price!

GET ALL REPORTS FOR $3,250 or GET TWO REPORTS FOR FREE WITH A PAID SUBSCRIPTION

PURCHASE OR SUBSCRIBE TODAYwww.signalsresearch.com • +1 (510) 273-2439 • [email protected]

Original Price: $1,750 Original Price:

$1,250

Original Price: $1,395Original Price:

$1,750


pursuing, the operator would require nearly 240 Gbps of fronthaul capacity or approximately 450 Gbps with 150 MHz of actively used LTE spectrum. As far as we know the information presented by KDDI excluded 256 QAM which would mean there would be another multiplying effect.

Figure 1. CPRI Fronthaul Requirements for LTE (Gbps)

The eventual migration to the next generation wireless technology means that even more demands will be placed on the fronthaul. Although the ITU and the standards bodies are still determining what the peak data rates should be and the peak data rate will be a function of the frequency band/channel bandwidth, the expectation is that the fronthaul requirements will be even more demanding. CMCC showed what it defined as the potential fronthaul requirements for a couple of scenarios using the Release 15/16 air interface (reference Figure 2). Clearly, some-thing has to give.

Another challenge associated with CPRI is the latency requirements for the fronthaul, which is typically viewed to be sub 1 ms. This tight requirement is essential for many of the interference cancellation/coordination methods, such as CoMP (Coordinated Multipoint). This requirement

A sub 1 ms latency requirement for the fronthaul is also problematic.

4.9

9.8

19.7

39.3

2.5 4.9

9.8

19.7

14.7

29.5

59

7.4

1 Sector (2x20 MHz)

2 Sectors (2x20 MHz)


2x2

1 Sector (2x20 MHz)



4x4

1 Sector (2x20 MHz)



8x8

1 Sector (2x20 MHz)



16x16

Source: KDDI (recreated by SRG)

1 GHz TDD Channel Bandwidth and 256 Antenna Configuration (> 6 GHz)

16,000 Gbps

1,600 Gbps

200 MHz TDD Channel Bandwidth and 128 Antenna Configuration (< 6 GHz)

Source: CMCC (recreated by SRG)

Figure 2. CPRI Fronthaul Requirements for the Release 16/16 Air Interface (Gbps)


all but rules out the use of eNB routers, or concentrators, in the network – a popular strategy used by many operators.

The last challenge is specific to a virtualized C-RAN in which the baseband functionality is pooled. The challenge is that the common hardware platform lacks the processing power to handle all of the tasks without the use of dedicated hardware accelerators. In essence, this requirement somewhat defeats the original purpose of virtualization. In addition to the basic requirements of LTE, some of the new functionalities being introduced with LTE further increases the demand on the BBU processing. The information provided in Figure 3 stems from a Softbank presenta-tion. In hindsight, we are not certain if the increases in baseband processing shown in the figure and provided in the presentation are incremental or not. However, the point remains that the industry is quickly moving to adopt more advanced network features and that these features can have a significant impact on the baseband, potentially even calling into question whether or not RAN virtualization is worth pursuing.

Looking ahead to what comes next

As mentioned in the last section, the likely capabilities of the next-generation air interface will place even greater demands on the fronthaul. Further, the importance of separating the radio units from the baseband processing functionality will become even more important with the use of higher frequency bands and the greater dependence on highly concentrated small cells. Release 15 and Release 16 involve far more than basic mobile broadband but in the context of delivering ultra-high broadband (enhanced MBB), one cannot discount the extreme importance of the small cell architecture.

For the last few years there has been a lot of discussion about various CPRI compression algo-rithms which can minimize the fronthaul requirements while retaining much of the CPRI inter-face. Unfortunately, these compression algorithms don’t go nearly far enough when it comes to closing the divide between the capabilities and the requirements of the fronthaul. For example, operators generally recommend not going beyond 50% compression, yet as we presented in an earlier figure, reducing the bandwidth requirements by 50% is barely a drop in the bucket.

Although outside the scope of this Signals Flash! edition (we plan to focus a lot of our forthcoming report on this topic), there are two industry initiatives which are worth mentioning. First, there

More advanced network features can have a significant impact on the baseband processor requirements.

CPRI compression algorithms do not go far enough to meeting the present, let alone the long-term fronthaul requirements.

Example @ BBUExample @ BBU Example @ BBU Example @ BBU

4T4R30MHz

x 12

CACoMP

x 8

8T8R4MIMO

x 6

256QAM8MIMO

x 2

Source: Softbank (recreated by SRG)

Figure 3. Baseband Processing Requirements


is the IEEE 1904 working group, which is tasked with developing “a standard for encapsulating fronthaul digitalized radio samples into Ethernet frames, as well as mapping CPRI into Ethernet frames.” It isn’t clear to us how far this working group can push the existing protocols, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

CMCC is also heading a more radical approach in which it wants to redefine the Layer 1 through Layer 3 protocols through its MCD (Multi-level Centralized and Decentralized) initiative. It isn’t entirely clear how broad in scope this initiative is, but it could have quite a profound impact on the amount of information being sent between the remote radio and the centralized baseband processor. In CMCC’s vision, with the new network architecture the concept of cells will go away and we will have what it called a user centric network (UCN) with the user data link separated from the “cell” at the S1 interface. Our big concern is that these changes could involve a lot of work and a lot of politics within the standardization process, meaning that it wouldn’t be done in time to be included in Release 15 and potentially not even in Release 16.

Random thoughts

In this section, and in no particular order, we provide some random thoughts based on other things we heard at the RAN event or over the last few weeks.

Both T-Mobile and AT&T and going to three-carrier carrier aggregation (CA) later this year, if they haven’t done so already. Our belief is that these deployments are relatively modest at the moment and largely concentrated in areas of the network that generate the most data traffic. In other words, small clusters of cells versus an entire urban area. AT&T also indicated it is four different radio carriers/frequencies supporting LTE in San Francisco, which we believe includes the WCS spectrum. Given the 3GPP standardization process, it will be a while before AT&T will be able to support CA with these four frequencies, especially given that it includes the WCS spectrum.

T-Mobile described its unlicensed spectrum strategy, to include the 3.5 GHz spectrum, as being very important and we point out that the operator was an early mover when it came to Wi-Fi/VoWi-Fi as well as a vocal advocate of LTE-U/LAA. That being said, T-Mobile also notes that Wi-Fi offloading hasn’t been very successful to date, largely because it is not a seamless experience. As someone who switches off Wi-Fi when leaving the house because our AT&T smartphone always switches to, and then remains attached to, a Wi-Fi AP that requires pre-authentication (i.e., we lose all data connectivity unless we manually click on a few links), we share their concerns. To address this problem, T-Mobile believes there needs to be more intelligence in the network and in the devices. Hotspot 2.0 Release 2 is one incremental solution, but venues still need to update their infrastructure and the devices need to support the functionality.

Following on the heels of our last Signals Ahead report on the various cellular IoT (CIoT) stan-dards being defined by 3GPP, KDDI provided some good context on the importance of Network Slicing when it comes to implementing IoT in its network. First, the operator noted that IoT can generate tremendous spikes in user (data) and control channel (signaling) traffic and that the distribution of the IoT traffic isn’t necessarily evenly spread throughout the course of a day. For example, a rogue IoT application being used to report electricity usage could be programmed to report the daily usage at the exact same time. The net effect would severely tax the network even though the individual contribution from each IoT device was trivial.

Both T-Mobile and AT&T and going to three-carrier carrier aggregation (CA) later this year.

KDDI provided some good context on the importance of Network Slicing when it comes to implementing IoT in its network.


For this reason, KDDI advocated the need for operators to be able to control the applications to prevent this scenario from taking place. Secondly, this type of network traffic suggests the need for a separate network that is dedicated to handle IoT traffic. At this point, the operator felt that the next logical step would be to use Network Slicing to control the allocation of radio access and core network resources. IoT traffic hitting the network would automatically be routed to the dedicated IoT core network, which was dimensioned and provisioned to handle very small data bursts with a disproportionate amount of signaling traffic and without the need for basic cellular features, such as handovers, etc. In our report, we indicated that operators would likely follow this strategy since the unique IoT requirements relative to the “normal” LTE traffic patterns made Network Slicing an ideal solution.

Although the main theme of the conference seemed to be more focused on C-RAN than anything else, there was at least some discussion on small cells and their merits. AT&T indicated that its biggest challenge is figuring out where to place them. Although the operator knows where it has high concentrations of data traffic in the horizontal plane, they don’t necessarily know where the traffic is in the vertical plane – for example, the 6th floor of an office building versus the lobby. All that being said, AT&T does see the merits of small cells in dense urban markets while advanced antenna technologies are more appropriate in urban/suburban areas where there may be lots of data traffic but it isn’t as concentrated.

T-Mobile seemed to echo a somewhat similar concern. In its case, the operator indicated that venue owners need to be partners when it comes to solving the capacity challenge. We would infer this could mean that venue owners would be more willing to accept small cells with better economic terms for the mobile operator (and for the venue owner) if the small cells were neutral host, meaning that like DAS, they could support the coverage and capacity requirements of multiple operators. Small cells are now coming to the market which can be configured to support at least two mobile operators, but at least in the United States this type of an approach may not work for mobile operators. We point out that AT&T seemed less than convinced that RAN sharing makes sense. In an upcoming paragraph we discuss another potential means of addressing the indoor capacity crunch with a neutral host solution that could make the venue owners happy.

Although we don’t recall KDDI indicating any major challenges associated with deploying small cells, it did indicate an important justification for their use. In their market (Japan), they are seeing that the density of data traffic is the big issue and not necessarily the total amount of data traffic. For example, the operator is witnessing up to a 1,000x difference in the data traffic between its hottest hot spots and areas with less data traffic. Therefore, the operator believes that indoor small cells are the way to go, including both Wi-Fi and LTE.

Speaking of Wi-Fi and LTE, we will be hosting the MulteFire technology panel at this year’s Mobile World Congress. According to our calendar, the two hour event starts at 1400 hours on Tuesday with our technology panel starting at 1500 hours. MulteFire is an interesting concept since it removes the requirement for the primary carrier using licensed spectrum. Instead, the LTE transmissions run autonomously on the 5 GHz spectrum, leveraging many of the Wi-Fi coordina-tion and cooperation mechanisms currently being pursued by 3GPP and/or the LTE-U Forum. Separate from the technology aspects of how this will all work, MulteFire creates an interesting opportunity for a neutral host solution in very dense networks, such as stadiums or potentially airports and shopping malls. It isn’t clear to us that mobile operators will embrace it with open arms, but then again it does create the opportunity for new operators to enter and competition is generally a good thing.

AT&T views small cells as being more valuable in dense urban areas, assuming that they are able to precisely identify the origin of the high concentrations of data traffic.

We will be hosting the MulteFire technology panel at this year’s Mobile World Congress on Tuesday.


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.

➤➤ Ongoing Series on the 5G Standardization Process

➤➤ LTE and the Connected Car

➤➤ The Core Network evolution

➤➤ LTE Broadcast versus LTE unicast video benchmark study

➤➤ VoLTE Part Five – multi-vendor, multi-operator benchmark study to include feature sets, call quality, reliability, performance and scheduling

➤➤ VoLTE Part Six – lab-based testing of VoLTE clients and VoWi-Fi

➤➤ Chips and Salsa OTA smartphone performance benchmark study – Transmission Mode 2

➤➤ Multi-vendor HetNet benchmark study

➤➤ Network impacts (to include signaling) of using various smartphone OS platforms and/or applications (video, VoLTE, social networking, etc.)

➤➤ VoLTE Part Seven – IR.94 and RCS

➤➤ Mobile Computing platforms and the impact of data caching at the cell edge

➤➤ Cloud RAN

➤➤ Uplink CoMP network benchmark study

➤➤ 4x4 MIMO network benchmark study

➤➤ LTE FDD and LTE TDD Carrier Aggregation 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 ©2016, 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 read-ers 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 AddressSignals Research Group – ATTN: Sales10 Ormindale CourtOakland, CA 94611

Our fax number is (510) 338-1284.

Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at [email protected] 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.

Cloud RAN with a Chance of Virtualization

Technology

Transcript of Cloud RAN with a Chance of Virtualization