Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007

on

  • 107 views

Comparoson between wimaxand LTE

Comparoson between wimaxand LTE

Statistics

Views

Total Views
107
Views on SlideShare
107
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007 Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007 Presentation Transcript

  • 1 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< LTE and WiMax Technology and Performance Comparison Dr.-Ing. Carsten Ball Nokia Siemens Networks Radio Access, GERAN &OFDM Systems: RRM and Simulations EW2007 Panel Tuesday, 3rd April, 2007
  • 2 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Contents: • Towards Broadband Wireless Access: Categorization of different Radio Access Standards • Radio Access Solutions: the 3GPP and the IEEE Technology Family • Detailed LTE vs. WiMax Comparison (Radio Perspective, Focus on lower Layers) • Performance Numbers: Peak Data Rates, Spectrum Efficiency and Technology Capability Limits • LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winning Technology ? • Operator Use Cases and potential Ways of Acting • Summary and Conclusions
  • 3 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Mobility / Range Towards Broadband Wireless Access 3GPP and IEEE offer a comprehensive migration path to Beyond 3G User data rate 10 Mbps0.1 1 100 1000 Systems beyond 3G >2010 IEEE 802.16d HSPA IEEE 802.16e WLAN (IEEE 802.11x) GSM GPRS DECT BlueTooth UMTS (W-CDMA) EDGE XDSL, CATV, Fiber GERAN Evolution (= EDGE-II) LTE HSPA Evolution WiMAX (IEEE802.16d/e) covers fixed wireless and nomadic access, the e-Standard extends towards (limited) mobility. HSPA Evolution and LTE target at high data rates combined with high subscriber mobility. Both WiMax and LTE offer excellent User Data Rates in the order of 10 – 160 Mbps (Bandwidth !). LTE design seems to be superior especially concerning Mobility and Data Throughput.
  • 4 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Radio Access Solutions at a Glance The 3GPP Technology Family GERAN (GSM/GPRS/EDGE) UTRAN (W-CDMA/HSPA) LTE • HSPA to apply the full power of W- CDMA @ reduced network cost • User experience comparable to DSL in terms throughput & latency • High capacity, full mobility, high data security and QoS • Quick and cost-effective upgrade of existing networks • Seamless 2G/3G handover • 3G evolution towards full broadband multimedia services • Significantly reduced network cost • Flat Architecture, fully IP based • Flexible bandwidth and spectrum usage • Full mobility, security, QoS assets • Seamless 2G/3G/LTE handover • Large installed base with excellent large-area coverage • Quick and cost-effective upgrade of existing networks • Near-broadband data services with EDGE Phase II (up to 1 Mbps) • Seamless 2G/3G handover – worldwide coverage, global roaming Full mobility with medium data rates High speed data rates with full mobility Broadband multimedia at lowest cost Clear 3GPP Evolution Path towards LTE, comprehensive 2G/3G/4G interworking, easy upgrade & re-farming potential, seamless services (handover, roaming), full high-speed mobility.
  • 5 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Radio Access Solutions at a Glance The IEEE Technology Family WLAN (IEEE 802.11) WiMAX stationary (IEEE 802.16d) WiMAX mobile (IEEE 802.16e) • Fixed or mobile network operators • Optimized wireless-DSL services (Voice + data) • Support of charging/billing typical for DSL (e.g. user classes, volume/flat-rate packages) • High capacity for stationary use • Selective QoS • Fixed or mobile network operators • Optimized wireless-DSL services (Voice + data) • Support of charging/billing typical for DSL (e.g. user classes, volume/flat-rate packages) • High capacity; Limited mobility • Selective QoS • Solution for specific markets including municipal networks and backhauling in combination with other radio access technologies, e.g. WiMAX backhaul for WLAN or WLAN backhaul for GSM • Hotspot business solution to complement MNO’s offering • High capacity for stationary use Large capacity for metro networks High speed data rates for fixed wireless access High speed data rates with limited mobility Modular stand-alone Standards allowing for easy combinations and offering high performance.
  • 6 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< LTE is fully embedded in the 3GPP world incl. interRAT HO. Full 3GPP Mobility with Target up to 350 km/h; 2G/3G Handover and Global Roaming Mobile IP with targeted Mobility < 120 km/hMobility Packet Data, VoIPPacket Data, VoIPServices Both designed to combat Multipath Fading in different Environments Short (5 µs) or Long CP (17 µs) Flexible 1 / 32, ….,1 / 4; CP typical 1 / 8Cyclic Prefix Large dF required against Doppler => higher velocity 128- 2048; fixed dF = 15 kHz 128 – 2048; dF variable; 7- 20 kHz typically 10 kHz FFT-Size and Subcarrier Spacing Both technologies with significantly reduced number of nodes compared to 2G/3G. Very Flat, IP based eNodeB + aGW Flat, IP based; BS + ASN GW Network Architecture LTE available at preferred low Frequency Bands Coverage Advantage Licensed, IMT-2000 Bands Licensed & unlicensed, 2.3, 2.5, 3.5 & 5.8 GHz Spectrum Both very flexible1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20 MHz 1.25, 3.5, 5, 7, 8.75, 10, 14, 15, 20, 28 MHzChannel BW QPSK, …, 64-QAM; CC + CTC BPSK, …, 64-QAM; CC + CTC (+BTC+LDPC)Modulation & Coding TTI determines the Latency / PING fixed 2*0.5 ms slots = 1 ms sub-frames 2, …, 20 ms; 5 ms focusFraming, TTI TDD requires Synchronization, FDD can be asynchronous. FDD + TDD FDD focus TDD + FDD TDD focus Duplex Mode SC-FDMA reduces PAPR by ~5 dB UL improvements !!! DL: OFDMA, UL: SC-FDMA Scalable OFDMA in UL & DLAccess technology CommentsLTEWiMax 802.16e LTE vs. WiMax Comparison (Radio Perspective)
  • 7 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< LTE is more efficient, e.g. VoIP optimizations VoIP + Data Mixture typically ~ 15-20 % VoIP + Data Mixture typically ~ 25 % Overall Overhead @ MAC Layer Diversity + Spatial Multi.Diversity + Spatial Multi.MIMO Modes LTE with less complex Ressource Signaling Stripe-wise Allocation in F-Domain Flexible arbitrary Rectangles in T-F-Domain User Multiplexing 12 x 14 Constellation Points 24 x 2 Constellation Points in PUSC Mode Subchannel / Physical Resource Block LTE working assumption is 2 DL Antennas per UE eNodeB: 1, 2, 4 ; UE: 2 Closed + open Loop BS: 1, 2, 4 ; MS: 1, 2 Closed + open Loop MIMO, # Antennas LTE provides optimized and more efficient L1/L2-Signaling also utilizing CDM components Signaling Channels in max. first 3 Symbols; Separate BCH, SCH Flexible FCH + MAP following the Preamble; Sync. by Ranging CH L1/L2 Signalling Distributed Pilots depending on # Antennas DL Preamble + distributed permuted Pilots depending on # Antennas Pilot Assisted Channel Estimation (PACE) LTE prefers frequency selective Packet Scheduling, WiMax focuses on interference averaging. Localized + Distributed; Focus Localized Adjacent AMC 2x3 or PUSC/FUSC Permutation; Focus Permutation Interleaving / Mapping Chase Comb. + IR; N=8 stop & wait; UL Sync., DL Async. Chase Comb. + IR; stop & wait HARQ CommentsLTEWiMax LTE vs. WiMax Comparison (Radio Perspective)
  • 8 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Performance Numbers Peak Data Rates Peak data rates 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 x 5 MHz 2 x 5 MHz 1 x 10 MHz 1 x 20 MHz 2 x 10 MHz 2 x 20 MHz HSPA Release 6 HSPA Release 8 WiMAX 802.16e WiMAX 802.16e LTE Release 8 LTE Release 8 Mbps Downlink Uplink • Rather similar Peak Data Rates for HSPA evolution and WiMAX • LTE provides outstanding Data Rates beyond 150 Mbps in 2 x 20 MHz Bandwidth due to less overhead • WiMAX uses asymmetric 29:18 TDD in 10/20 MHz, whereas HSPA and LTE use FDD with 2 x 5 and 2 x 10/20 MHz • Prerequisite: 2x2 MIMO with 64-QAM in Downlink > 150 Mbps
  • 9 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Performance Numbers Spectrum Efficiency Benchmarking • Similar spectral efficiency for HSPA evolution and WiMAX due to similar Feature Set • LTE is expected to provide higher efficiency than HSPA or WiMAX • WiMax assumed to be deployed in recommended frequency reuse 1/3, HSPA is definitely deployed in real reuse 1, whereas LTE utilizes fractional tight reuse due to coordinated interference reduction 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 HSPA R6 (TU channel) HSPA R6 (Vehicular A) HSPA R7 MIMO + 64QAM + equalizer WiMAX reuse 3 (29:18 TDD) LTE bps/Hz/cell Downlink Uplink Full Buffer Simulation Results
  • 10 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Performance Numbers Mobile Technology Capability Limits ! "# $% & "# '( ) & * ( + ,+ , " -- ) . / 01 00! 0 1 2 $ 3 4 , 0 05 ! 1 6 "# $ 1 , 0% 0! 4 ! 1+ 77 77 " *, + 8 1 8 +19 : " -- ) ; .* / + !1−11− + 6 < * & = * ( 9 : 9 : 1! > 0 < ?1 , ? 01− 0 7 − ! 8 1! + − ,0 −%0! , 0 − 01 ,0 −%0! , 0 −%0! , All radio standards show comparable performance under comparable conditions and similar feature set: • Laws of physics apply to all of them • User rates mainly depend on bandwidth, modulation/coding and availability of MIMO (2x2 assumed) • Spectrum Efficiency is determined by Frequency Reuse and Feature Set (e.g. FSPS, MIMO, …) • Latency (e.g. PING Performance) depends on chosen Frame Duration or TTI • Coverage depends on frequency band, RF power limitations and duplex mode
  • 11 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winning Technology ? Choosing the right technology path depends on each operator’s individual situation Data rates Latency Capacity Mobility Technical characteristics are just one part of the story !!! Technological constraints Regional constraints Regulatory constraints Operator strategy E.g. Available spectrum Spectrum cost Standards compliance E.g. Service offering Competitive situation Legacy networks Investment Protection Future proofness Technology Evolution Path OPEX Terminal Costs E.g. Population density Traffic distribution Demand for services Spending on communication Availability and variety of terminals Site Locations
  • 12 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winning Technology ? Looking at typical operator use cases, there are most applicable and probable ways of acting No license available Incumbent 2G mobile operator with BWA (non-3G) license Incumbent 2G/3G mobile operator New operator with BWA (non-3G) license • Extend to EDGE and EDGE II for mobile data • In addition, use WiMAX mostly in urban-area hot-zones, with focus on fixed-line substitution (voice & data) since HSPA not possible. • Extend 3G to HSPA • Extend 2G to EDGE and EDGE II • Upgrade to LTE later • Use WiMAX for licensed bands, 3.5 GHz FDD (fixed/nomadic) or 2.5 GHz TDD (fixed/nomadic/mobile) • Use WLAN for hotspot/metro networks New 3G mobile operator • Build up UMTS/HSPA network • Upgrade to LTE later MobileNetworkOperator AccessProvider, FixedNetworks
  • 13 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Summary and Conclusions: ᅝ ᅛ ᅛ full 3GPP interoperability Backwards Compatibility ᅛ ᅛ (ᅛ)ᅛ ᅛ ᅛLatency 2007/20082009/2010Availability ᅛ ᅛ(ᅛ)ᅛ ᅛ ᅛCapacity ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ, if f < 3.5GHz ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ (LTE-900) Coverage Performance Full Mobility Nomadic Mobility Circuit Switched, Voice Packet Switched, Data IMT2000 other ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ Mobility WiMax IMT-2000 member ᅛ (2.3, 2.5 & 3.5 GHz) ᅛ ᅝ Spectrum ᅛ ᅛ (VoIP) ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ (VoIP) ᅛ ᅛ ᅛ Services (ᅛ) WiMax to WiMax ᅛ ᅛRoaming WiMAX MobileLTE • LTE comes ~ 2 years later than WiMax and hence provides some technical advantages over WiMax. • LTE must be seen especially in the context of the mature and world-wide dominating GERAN and UMTS/HSPA Systems allowing for Handover/Roaming as well as Refarming Scenarios. • Judgment on the “best” technology, however, depends on specific operator needs and prerequisites. • LTE and WiMax are basically for different customers in different spectrum: no strong Competition. • Nokia Siemens Networks is pleased to offer a strong and comprehensive Portfolio including both WiMax and LTE operating even on the same Platform (NSN FlexiBTS).
  • 14 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Thank You …
  • 15 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Dr.-Ing. Carsten Ball Dr. Carsten Ball received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in electrodynamics in 1993 and the Dr.-Ing. degree in electrical engineering in 1996 from the Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany. Since 1997 he is with Siemens Mobile Networks and since April 2007 with Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) in Munich, Germany, currently heading the GERAN and OFDM Systems Architecture Radio & Simulation group. He is responsible for the GSM, GPRS and EDGE performance as well as for the upcoming OFDM radio technologies (WiMax, LTE). Dr. Ball’s research interests include simulation, protocol stacks, optimization and efficient algorithm design in cellular radio networks.
  • 16 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Backups:
  • 17 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Flat Architecture Evolution ! " # 9 : "# • Flat architecture = single network element in radio network and in the core network • Significant Node Reduction compared to previous GERAN and UMTS Standard • Same architecture in i-HSPA, LTE and in WiMAX ! $ %
  • 18 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Suburban coverage 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 HSPA900 indoor mobile HSPA2100 indoor mobile WiMAX 2500 indoor mobile WiMAX 3500 indoor mobile WiMAX 2500 outdoor fixed WiMAX 3500 outdoor fixed km Uplink Downlink Cell Range for Mobile and Fixed Wireless Fixed application No indoor loss CPE Antenna height 5 m Mobile application Indoor loss 15 dB MS Antenna height 1.5 m • Good quality Fixed wireless WiMAX network can be built for outdoor antennas with GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA sites • Mobile WiMax suffers from Coverage Challenge (especially indoor) due to high Frequency Bands • LTE provides comparable coverage to GSM/EDGE (@ 900 MHz) or HSPA (@900/2100 MHz)
  • 19 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Key success factors show clear profiles for available technologies WiMAX GSM GPRS EDGE UTRAN HSPA LTE Full mobility with medium data rates High speed data rates with full mobility Broadband multimedia at lowest cost High speed data rates with limited mobility Economy of scale Spectrum availability and cost impact Variety of terminals Voice performance IPR regime Compatibility with existing standards Lean architecture Broadband data performance Economy of scale Spectrum availability and cost impact Variety of terminals Voice performance IPR regime Compatibility with existing standards Lean architecture Broadband data performance Economy of scale Spectrum availability and cost impact Variety of terminals Voice performance IPR regime Compatibility with existing standards Lean architecture Broadband data performance Economy of scale Spectrum availability and cost impact Variety of terminals Voice performance IPR regime Compatibility with existing standards Lean architecture Broadband data performance
  • 20 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved. >>> Commercially not Binding <<< Technology Choice is Defined by Current Network, Spectrum Assets and Voice Strategy @" 6 ) A " ; A 6" ; A BB 6 "# ' 2 > > &C 9#( > @" - , < A B > 01 @ +01 @ ; A B B > LTE and WiMax are basically for different customers in different spectrum: no strong Competition expected