Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007

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

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

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.

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.

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
for fixed wireless access
with limited mobility
Modular stand-alone Standards allowing for easy combinations and
offering high performance.

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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).

Thank You …

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.

Backups:

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
!
$ %

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)

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
and cost impact
Voice performance
IPR regime
Compatibility with
existing standards
and cost impact
Voice performance
IPR regime
Compatibility with
existing standards
and cost impact
Voice performance
IPR regime
Compatibility with
existing standards

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

Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007

Similar to Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007 (20)

More from Muhammad Ali Basra

More from Muhammad Ali Basra (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparison lte wi_max_ball_ew2007