US 700MHz and Mexico APT Border Planning

Transcription

1 US 700MHz and Mexico APT Border Planning Patrick Kaiser Director Product Marketing NA HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

2 enefits of 700Mhz APT Spectrum Plan Benefits of 700 APT Plan mes the capacity in 15MHz compared to typical Hz bandwidth providing critical capacity as MBB ckly grows artphones have increased business costs. Larger nomies of scale promotes lower device costs. icated capacity on demand rather than dedicated ctrum contributes to greater capacity on average Traffic is Booming MBB: 19x Mobile Business Web / P2P Video Global economies of scale lower handset costs, simplified roaming Amount of spectrum harmonised for large scale commercial use Amount of spectrum dedicated to public safety and connectivity model Number of 2 x 10/2 x 15 MHz networks that can be supported Cost of covering the entire population Minimum time it will take to deploy a network covering the entire population of Mexico City US plan APT plan 400 million users 4 billion users 37 per cent 83 per cent 16% dedicated spectrum 2/0 4/3 0%, spectrum n dedicated (capa guaranteed) $800 million $150 million 2.5 years 1.5 years Characteristics of the two segmentation models for the 700 MHz band Reference Source: Cofetel HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. Page 2

3 S-Mexico Border Spectrum Coordination Challenges 15MHz carrier would overlap with S Scenario1a,b 9MHz guard band provides cleaner 10MHz block Scenario1a,b Greater challenge because of the overlap of / inter-systems scenario2 Guard gap: 16M 10M:verizon scenario2 Guard band 9M Scenario Public S Challeng 10M:ATT/VZW nario1a: BS-BS Inter-channel interference BS1 TX overlaps BS2 RX, most challenging. Requires separation distance at key cites (ex. San Diego-Tijuana), rper BS filter, careful RNP. Will require detailed regulatory coordination in transition zone. Lower 10MHz will have lower interference due to 16/9MHz guard ban nario1b: UE-UE Inter-channel interference UE1 TX overlaps UE2 RX. Coordination is probabilistic (close proximity of UE1-UE2) and difficult to control. nario2: BS-UE inter-channel interference, channel of BS1 TX overlaps UE RX. Usually covered by existing treaties. Similar scenario as inter-technology rference. Requires traditional RNP. Interference to BS1 RX from UE2 TX usually considered negligible due to low TX power of UE. Similar to scenario1a. nario3: Interference from DTV51 significantly reduced due to 5MHz guard band. nario4: Spectrum in US currently owned by ATT, broadcast only, commercial plans unknown. Will likely require regulatory coordination. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. Page 3

4 S-Mexico Border Spectrum Interference Mitigation Options Antenna Down Tilt Antenna Down Tilt Added BS Filtering* *Not beneficial for co-cha interference. macro Small(er ) cell Vs. Small(er ) cell macro oordinated antenna orientation can substantially duce interference as a lower cost option equired 90dB isolation for lower 10MHz block can e obtained with <1km ISD (54km if direct line-of-site) Mitigation Options Small/smaller cells (reduced BS TX levels) within buffer zone operate at lower power levels as will UE. Required on both si RNP options Down tilt of antennas facing away from border reduce cell size a interference Orientation of antenna main load and back lobes reduce interfer Consider restriction to lower 10MHz block near key cities (SD-T reducing buffer zone to ~54km Added TX/RX BS filtering can improve BS-BS Inter-channel interference RNP restrictions unnecessary past ~60-70km inter-site buffer Will make US 700MHz plan difficult in smaller LA countries HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. Page 4

5 Thank you ht 2011 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved. ormation contained in this document is for reference purpose only, and is subject to or withdrawal according to specific customer requirements and conditions.