John Harmon - Presentation at Emerging Communications Conference & Awards (eComm 2011)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

John Harmon - Presentation at Emerging Communications Conference & Awards (eComm 2011)

on

  • 1,099 views

Please see blog http://blog.eComm.ec

Please see blog http://blog.eComm.ec

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,099
Views on SlideShare
1,099
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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

John Harmon - Presentation at Emerging Communications Conference & Awards (eComm 2011) John Harmon - Presentation at Emerging Communications Conference & Awards (eComm 2011) Presentation Transcript

  • “Anti-Competitive” Measures to Improve the Wireless Industry
    Moray RumneyLead TechnologistJohn HarmonWireless Business Development
    Copyright Agilent technologies 2011
  • Overview
    • Spectrum and format fragmentation
    • The current industry approach
    • An alternative “anti-competitive” solution
  • The problem: Spectrum and format (air interface) fragmentation
    • We get used to things. Familiarity breeds myopia as well.
    • But an alien arriving on planet earth and looking at our accumulated baggage of radio communication formats and frequency bands would think, “Huh?”
  • Multi-format evolution 1990 - 2011
    W-LAN
    Technology evolution
    Market evolution
    GSM
    (Europe)
    IS-136
    (US TDMA)
    PDC
    (Japan)
    IS-95A
    (US CDMA)
    802.11b
    2G
    802.11a/g
    HSCSD
    GPRS
    iMODE
    IS-95B
    (US CDMA)
    2.5G
    802.11h
    TD-SCDMA
    (China)
    W-CDMA(FDD & TDD)
    E-GPRS
    (EDGE)
    cdma2000
    (1x RTT)
    3G
    802.11n
    802.16d
    (Fixed WiMAX)
    HSDPA HSUPA
    EDGE Evolution
    1x EV-DO
    0  A  B
    3.5G
    Increasing efficiency, bandwidth and data rates
    WiBRO(Korea)
    802.16e
    (Mobile WiMAX)
    HSPA+ /E-HSPA
    LTE
    (R8/9 FDD & TDD)
    3.9G/4G
    802.11ac
    802.11ad
    LTE-Advanced
    (R10 & beyond)
    802.16m / WiMAX2
    WirelessMAN-Advanced
    4G / IMT-Advanced
    By 2012 only two mainstream technologies will have been obsoleted in 20 years!
  • LTE FDD Frequency bandsBased on 36.101 va.2.0 Table 5.5-1
    Duplex spacing
    Width
    Width
    Gap
    Uplink
    Band
    Downlink
    Band
    Frequency
    Points of note
    • There is a lot of overlap between band definitions for regional reasons
    • The Duplex spacing varies from 30 MHz to 799 MHz
    • The gap between downlink and uplink varies from 10 MHz to 680 MHz
    • Narrow duplex spacing and gaps make it hard to design filters to prevent the transmitter spectral regrowth leaking into the receiver (self-blocking)
    • Bands 13, 14, 20 and 24 are reversed from normal by having the uplink higher in frequency than the downlink
    • Bands 15 and 16 are defined by ETSI (not 3GPP) for Europe only – these bands combine two nominally TDD bands to create one FDD band
  • LTE TDD Frequency bandsBased on 36.101 va.2.0 Table 5.5-1
    Width
    Transceive
    Band
    Points of note
    • For TDD there is no concept of duplex spacing or gap since the downlink and uplink frequencies are the same
    • As such, the challenge of separating transmit from receive does not require a duplex filter for the frequency domain but a switch for the time domain
    Frequency
  • Future LTE/UTRA Frequency bands
    The work on defining new frequency bands shows no sign of slowing up. These are the bands currently being considered by 3GPP:
    • Band 22 3410/3490 + 3510/3590 – UMTS/LTE 3500 MHz
    • Band 23 2000/2020 + 2180/2200 - S band additional terrestrial component (ATC) of the mobile satellite systems (MSS)
    • Band 25 1850/1915 + 1930/1995 - Extended 1900 band – has issues with GPS co-existence
    • Band 26 814/849 MHz + 859/894 – Extended 850 upper band
    • Band 27 806/824 + 851/869 – Extended 850 lower band
    • Other possibilities identified by the ITU:
    • 3.6-4.2 GHz
    • 450−470 MHz
    • 698−862 MHz
    • 790−862 MHz band (European digital dividend)
    • 4.4-4.99 GHz band
  • US 700 MHz band plan
    Revised 700 MHz Band Plan for Commercial Services
    You need some organization, ‘cause ... Damn!
  • The industry solution – do it all?
    VoIP
    LTE
    Multi-band (13?)
    HSPA+
    TD-SCDMA
    High batteryefficiency
    High spectralefficiency
    LTE-Advanced
    MIMO
    1xEV-DO(B)
    Low cost
    Interferencecancellation
    802.16m
    Operator’s Radio equirements
    Wants:
    Everything
    When:
    Now!
    Greenwireless
    Bluetooth
    Multi-Carrier
    TD-LTE
    EDGE-Evolution
    802.16e
    Dongle or phone
    Wi-FI
    A-GPS
    MBMS
    Multi-RAT
  • All options available for no extra cost size or weight!
    Why we don’t have multi-format motor cars today
    Weight and padding for sound-proofing and ride
    User-switchable left/right hand drive for roaming
    Petrol engine for range
    Diesel engine for economy
    Light-weight for fuel economy
    Solar panels for ecology
    Electric engine for ecology
    Supercharger for power
    4WD for grip
  • The industry solution - Multi-band multi-format devices
    • On paper these are conceptually simple, especially when using the SDR word.
    • Software Defined Radio is a noble goal – especially for narrow band base stations with sufficient design and cost margins
    • For user devices it is not so simple
    • Has anyone seen a software-defined PA or antenna? What we do have is SDB - software defined baseband.
    • Tuneable antennas are being worked on but are no panacea
    • Multiplex filter design is also a struggle – can’t violate physics
    • Multi-band + carrier aggregation + MIMO = Antenna nightmare!
  • An alternative “anti-competitive” solution
    • Wireless comms relies on a shared and limited natural resource – Radio Spectrum
    • Industries that rely on such precious resources - like water and power - need to be carefully planned
    • Consider the history of power in the UK
    • Back in the 1920’s strong “competition” meant great choice:
    • DC or a variety of AC frequencies
    • A variety of voltages
    • A variety of independent unconnected generating companies
    • But to exercise choice of supply you would have to move house since any one generator would only supply the local market with their unique offering. “Devices” could not roam.
  • The alternative “anti-competitive” solutionCreation of the UK national grid
    • Then some rare visionary in government proposed the creation of a national grid
    • This required standardization of frequency and voltage: 240V at 50 Hz was chosen.
    • The industry fought back strongly on anti-competitive grounds but were over ruled
    • In the 1950s the government nationalized the generating companies creating the Central Electricity Generating Board
    • This was again strongly opposed but it created huge scale resulting in lower costs and better coordination of generation capability for continuity of supply
    • Who would roll back the clock now?
  • Examples of fragmented infrastructure
    • Japan standardized its national grid at 100V but:
    The west of the country influenced by Europe runs on 50 Hz
    The east influenced by the US runs on 60 Hz
    Recent consequence: The loss of generating capacity in the east due to the tsunami cannot be mitigated by excess capacity in the west
    • Australian has three different gauges of railway and have had to develop unique bogey switching equipment
    • Edinburgh used to be served from London by two railway companies each with their own set of tracks and matching hotels at either end of the city centre
  • The alternative “anti-competitive” solutionWhat about cellular communications
    • Cellular communications have come a long way in 20 years and are no longer considered a luxury
    • The history of regional regulation and competition have led to today’s often highly fragmented market which has many inherent inefficiencies
    • In many countries, competition laws require that relatively narrow bands are split between several operators, all required to build their own networks – Is this really sensible any more?
    What if...
    • Governments did to cellular what they already did to power?
    • Instead of trying to sell off public assets to the highest bidder how about taking a more holistic approach?
  • But is this not just another flawed socialist idea!Is it not Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx?
    GSM is the most successful wireless technology ever, owned by more than 5 billion people.
    • It was created by an “anti-competitive” memorandum of understanding by 17 European countries
    • Compare this with what happened with 2G in the US – a fragmented competitive mess of five systems which eventually led to just two systems with no interoperability.
    • There was a quote on the White House web site some time ago praising the FCC. It went something like this: “Why can’t all our agencies emulate the FCC and generate money rather than just spend it”.
    The wireless lifecycle is long, requires heavy capital investment and benefits from mobility. All this requires careful planning.
    In recent times regulators have taken an increasingly soft touch – this is now backfiring. Competition is needed - once the direction is set.
  • An alternative “anti-competitive” solutionWhat about cellular communications
    • Network sharing is becoming more common – the industry is figuring out the economics for themselves
    • The most ambitious example is Yota in Russia who have formed a consortium with competitors MegaFon, MTS, Rostelecom and VimpelCom to build a single shared LTE network.
    • From an engineering perspective it should be evident that if each country’s wireless assets were pooled the potential scale and benefits could look similar to the impact of the national grid
    • A single regulated operating company could maximize coverage and performance while reducing format and band fragmentation
    • The rest of us could get on with designing optimal hardware and applications just like we do with the national grid!
    “But they’re communists!”
  • The role of central planning
    • Have we reached an inflection with spectrum when it makes sense to move towards more central planning?
    • The need for planning and regulation is almost always retrospective when less formal methods fail
    Even the ten commandments came after the fact!
    We should not get hung up that the regulatory regime needs to evolve
    • Land ownership is a prime example. In the early days you just claimed it. Now it is legally traded and in denser areas is subject to planning permission to control usage and impact
    • Spectrum is recognized as the sovereign property of a country. It is leased and has exclusivity. Much of its legal regulation is based on real estate law.
  • An example of green field central planning
    Denver
  • An example of chaotic evolution
    1G
    3G
    5G
    2G
    4G
    Heathrow!
    Page 21
  • The role of central planning
    • The need for central planning varies during the lifecycle:
    In the 1970s wireless communications was a luxury
    In the 1980s it was an emerging market
    In the 1990s it entered a phase of massive growth
    Today it is ubiquitous and an essential service
    • Sometimes having a green field situation presents too many variables.
    • In any case, wireless has too much invested to start from scratch. We are crowded and need to think laterally.
  • Our Choices
    • Leave it alone and let the Market find its own way
    • Apply a gentle-but-deliberate hand to move things toward some more organized situation
    • Apply a regulatory hammer and sickle to re-apportion spectrum and dictate common interfaces
  • Thank you for listening!