5G: wydatek czy oszczędność?

1. 5G: cost or saving?

2. Introduction to IS-Wireless
2
● COMPANY FACTS
● Ownership: Privately held
● Proud SME Member of:
● Location: Piaseczno (near Warsaw), Poland
● Industry
● Wireless communications
● Product groups:
● NFV-compatible & standard-compliant RAN
protocols ready for 5G
● Experimentation solutions supporting research
and education on 4G and 5G
● Active EU R&D projects participant
www.is-wireless.com

3. Thesis
3
Cellular infrastructure for the coming mobile revolution
can lower the cost of network deployments.
This is especially important in the light of coming 5G deployments.

4. Trends

5. Telecom operator’s perspective
Need to lower the cost of GB
5

6. 5G technical KPIs
6
5G requires completely redefined RAN infrastructure.
Transition to 5G will be far more disruptive than introduction of GSM.
Higher system capacity:
1000 x capacity / km2
Energy savings and
cost reductions
Reduced latency:
< 1 ms
Higher data rate:
100 x typical data rate
(even for high mobility)
Massive device connectivity:
100 x connected devices
(even in crowded areas)
5G
TARGETS

7. 4G base station software current situation and problems
7
Base station software
Why not to address the new challenges
and solve current problems at the same time?
eNB scheduler
3GPP stack
• locked to particular hardware
(chipset)
• underperforming and overpriced
• does not use radio resource
efficiently
• poorly scalable (lack of virtualized
components)Physical resources
„bare metal” SoC, DSP,
FPGA, GPP
LTE eNB

8. Network architecture transition
8
EPC cabinet
base station cabinet base station tower
Networks of the past Networks of the future
MEC server (COTS) including:
vRAN, vEPC, possibly applications
Share among many base stations
Small cell base stations: RRH, DAS, femto, pico
databases

9. Indoor coverage requires special attention
9
Signal from macro cells doesn’t
penetrate roofs/walls/windows well
Small Cell Forum forecasts that in
2025 67% of new deployments and
upgrades will be indoor non-
residential, 33% outdoor
Small Cell Forum “Small cells market status report”,
December 2018, doc 050.10.03
Without an in-building solution
With an in-building solution

10. Network architectures

11. Base station elements - few words on terminology
● Radio Frequency part
● Antenna
● Remote Radio Head (RRH)
● Baseband part
● L1 (PHY)
● L2 (MAC, RLC, PDCP)
● L3 (RRC)
● Active elements
● RRH
● Baseband
● Passive elements
● Repeaters, etc
RF L1
L2 L3
RF L1 L2 L3
RRH
Baseband
RF L1
Internet
Macro cell
Small cell
SD-RAN
[C-RAN/
vRAN/]
RF L1 L2 L3
RF
Macro cell
with DAS

12. Macro cells | DAS | Small cells | SD-RAN
12
Macro cell DAS Small cells SD-RAN
Enhanced indoor
coverage, expensive
installation
Enhanced
capacity
Further enhanced
better capacity,
lower cost
Poor indoor
coverage
Active elements
Passive elements
Ethernet installation
Backhaul (i.e. Fiber Optic)

13. Virtualized
gNB
Software-Defined RAN
13
Virtualized
gNB
VNF
Composition
Framework
(EM+NM)
RRM
Virtualized
gNB
Base stations, RRHs
MEC
Cloud
Physical resources
„bare metal”
Virtual resources
SW
Decoupled
HW
Fully software-defined and NFV-compatible RAN functionality ready to be deployed on physical
(base station) or virtual (MEC servers) resources.
In line with concepts of Cloud RAN/vRAN

14. SD-RAN - highlights
14
● Light RF and L1 at the small cell site
● Very low power radiated
● Light, low-cost modules close to the user
● Flexible placement of access points
● L2/L3, Core – virtualized and centralized e.g. located
in a basement
● Use COTS, GPP hardware
● Scalable baseband - easy addition of new cell
● Functionality defined in software
● Centralized Radio Resource Management increases
spectral efficiency
SD-RAN

15. Benefits of SD-RAN
15
High performance/resource utilization
•On radio interface: improved spectral efficiency, improved interference handling
•On baseband: multiplexing gain, resources sharing for several cells
Low cost
•Savings on infrastructure: RF, usage of COST hardware for the infrastructure
•Lower site setup and maintenance cost
•Energy savings
High flexibility
•Radio technology neutrality
•New generations of technology or features introduced as software updates
High scalability
•Straightforward addition of new cells
•Scalable expansion of baseband resources
SD-RAN

16. Quantifying costs

17. RAN deployment: CAPEX and OPEX structure
17
C/O Group Cost category Macro DAS Small Cells SD-RAN
CAPEX Infrastructure ● Site Acquisition $$$$ $$ $$ $
● Building Permit $$$$ $$ $$ $
● Infrastructure and Civil Works $$$$... $$ $ $
Antenna Systems
(and cabling)
● Antennas $$$$ $$ - -
● Cables / Fronthaul* $$$ $$$$ - $
Power Supply ● Power Supply and Battery $$$$ $$ $$ $
Base Station ● RRH $$$$ $$ $$ $
● Baseband $$$$ $$ $$ -
● Baseband/Server - - - $$$$
Backhaul ● Backhaul - Fiber Optic $$$$ $$ $$$ $$
OPEX --- ● Rental $$$$ $$$ $$ $
● Energy $$$$ $$ $$$ $
● Maintenance $$$$ $$ $ $
* Cables (ANT-RRH) / Fronthaul (RRH-Baseband)
per site per cell per cell per cell

18. Main assumptions
18
● Deployment scenario: Indoor
● Area: 4 km2, Dense Urban
● Population: 10.000, Market share 50%, 500 MB/user@BH
● Options:
● Option 1: to deliver network coverage
● Option 2: to deliver network coverage and capacity
● One frequency band is used: 2.6 GHz
● Bandwidth: 20 MHz, FDD
● MIMO: 2x2
● Sectorization: 3-sectors for Macro sites, Omni for remaining solutions
● Building penetration loss: 20 dB for Macro sites, 3dB for remaining solutions

19. Deployment options: indoor
19
Macro cell DAS Small cells SD-RAN
Active elements
Passive elements
Ethernet installation
Backhaul (i.e. Fiber Optic)

20. Option 1: results for the same coverage
20
● Quantity/Capacity/TCO
Summary:
● Coverage: the same (4 km2)
● Capacity: 1,5-1,9x more capacity in SD-RAN
● TCO costs: 1,3-1,7x more expensive vs. SD-RAN
● Costs efficiency: 1,9-2,7x lower costs per Mbps
1,7x
1,4x
1,3x
1,5x1,9x

21. Option 1: Details
21
● CAPEX / OPEX split
Comparison to SD-RAN:
● Macro more expensive mainly due to infrastructure and rental (such density probably not
possible)
● DAS more expensive mainly due to antenna systems and Base Stations costs and rental
● Small Cells more expensive mainly due to heavier Base Station equipment and rental

22. Option 2: results for the same coverage & capacity
22
● Quantity/Capacity/TCO
Summary:
● Coverage: the same (4 km2)
● Capacity: the same (5,4 Gbps)
● TCO costs: 1,9-2,7x more expensive vs. SD-RAN
● Costs efficiency: 1,9-2,7x lower costs per Mbps
2,7x
1,9x
2,5x

23. Option 2: Details
23
● CAPEX / OPEX split
Comparison to SD-RAN:
● Macro more expensive mainly due to infrastructure and rental (such density not feasible)
● DAS more expensive mainly due to antenna systems and Base Stations costs and rental
● Small Cells more expensive mainly due to heavier Base Station equipment and rental

24. Conclusions
24
SD-RAN offers c.a. 2x higher capacity for the
same coverage comparing to macro cell
SD-RAN offers c.a. 3x lower cost per
Mbps comparing to macro cell
SD-RAN enables scalable network capacity
expansion, where macro base stations may
not keep up with capacity need increase
SD-RAN

25. Contact details

26. Oceń Wykład w
Aplikacji
eventory
5G: cost or saving?
IS-Wireless: SD-RAN Product Manager / Chief Operating Officer
Aleksandra Chećko / Robert Cieloch

27. Q&A

28. Backup

29. Deployment options: indoor coverage and capacity improvement
29

30. Deployment options: Indoor + Outdoor coverage and capacity
30

31. Additional Conclusions
31
● Further SD-RAN benefits:
● Higher granularity of coverage/capacity (higher flexibility/scalability)
● Even higher cost savings for higher frequencies, e.g. for mmWaves (high network density)
● Could be implemented in multi-tenancy mode (to serve different MNOs in the area)
● Use cases
● Can extend coverage/capacity delivered by MNOs macro solutions
● Can be used to build private/enterprise networks