White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

A TCO comparison between two approaches to managing
traffic from macro and micro cells in HetNets
By Monica Paolini, Senza Fili
Sponsored by

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |1|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

1. Introduction.
Managing traffic from micro and macro cells in HetNets

In planning micro-cell deployments in HetNets, mobile operators face two important

decisions: how to transport traffic from the micro cell at the edge to the mobile core,
and how to manage the RAN and, in particular, interference. Although these are two
distinct decisions, they are closely linked, because how the network transports traffic
to some extent determines which solutions the operator can successfully use to
mitigate interference. At the same time, the requirements of the interference
management tools that operators intend to adopt may drive the operators toward
specific transport solutions.

The edge link that connects micro cells to the rest of the network may use different
technologies: wired (e.g., fiber) or wireless (e.g., LOS or NLOS; on licensed or license- CONTENTS
exempt spectrum; PTP or PMP). But it can also use a different type of traffic
transport: namely, backhaul or fronthaul. 1. Introduction. Managing traffic from
micro and macro cells in HetNets. 2
Traditionally, backhaul connects the RAN to the rest of the network, with the 2. Backhaul or fronthaul? Implications for
baseband processing taking place at the cell site. Fronthaul is gaining traction, performance. 3
because it allows remote baseband processing and cloud-RAN (C-RAN) architectures 3. Fiber or wireless fronthaul? How to
that improve performance in HetNets. The emergence of wireless fronthaul meet C-RAN requirements and manage
solutions widens the appeal of fronthaul in micro-cell deployments, because fiber – HetNet interference. 5
the technology typically used for fronthaul – is too expensive or just not available at 4. TCO model cost assumptions. Comparing
many micro-cell sites. backhaul and fronthaul cost drivers. 6
5. Per-bit TCO. A performance-based
In this paper we compare the micro-cell and edge-link transport TCO for micro-cell comparison between fronthaul and
deployments for fronthaul (fiber and wireless) and backhaul (wireless: sub-6 GHz and backhaul. 9
60 GHz bands), taking into account the different cost drivers, micro-cell performance 6. Implications. A step toward better
interference management in HetNets. 13
levels, and impacts of interference. With fronthaul, a C-RAN architecture enables a
more efficient interference management and reduction methods and, as a result,
increase the overall throughput and perceived data rates from the combined macro
and micro layers.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |2|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

2. Backhaul or fronthaul?
Implications for performance

Mobile operators may choose between fronthaul and backhaul to transport traffic
from the edge link from the micro cells1 to the mobile core network.

When using a backhaul architecture, an integrated micro cell (antenna, wireless

transceiver, plus baseband) is connected to an aggregation point – i.e., a macro cell
or other location that is connected (typically by fiber) to the mobile core. Because
the micro cell processes the RAN traffic, the operator can use many solutions for
backhaul, including fiber or other wireline technologies, or wireless links. Wireless
links may include LOS and NLOS bands; PTP, PMP or mesh topologies; and licensed
or license-exempt bands.

Fronthaul enables cloud-RAN (C-RAN) architecture, in which all the baseband units
(BBUs) are located remote from the cell site. Fronthaul transports the unprocessed
RF signal from the antennas to the remote BBUs. While fronthaul requires a higher
bandwidth, lower latency and more accurate synchronization than backhaul, it
enables a more efficient use of RAN resources, plus interference and mobility
management tools, which can be particularly beneficial in HetNets that include a
micro-cell layer.

Today, operators use C-RAN primarily in macro networks, where it increases the
efficiency of network traffic management and resource utilization. C-RAN may bring
even larger advantages in HetNets with micro cells, because micro and macro
baseband colocation improves the efficacy of interference management tools such
as CoMP and eICIC that are specifically designed for multilayer networks. These

1. In this paper, we use the term “micro cell” to refer to outdoor, single-sector cells deployed
in a sublayer within the coverage area of a macro cell.
© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |3|
 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

improvements mainly stem from the need to coordinate transmission within and
between the macro and micro layers, to manage RF resources and parameters, and
to minimize the effect of interference. The effectiveness of coordinated transmission
diminishes as latency grows and as the synchronization loses accuracy: the higher
the latency, the stronger the interference and its negative impact on capacity. The
combination of fronthaul and C-RAN reduces the X2 latency because the baseband
resources are all centralized and thus colocated.

Multiple factors affect the choice between fronthaul and backhaul. A fundamental
one is whether the operator intends to use C-RAN in its network, but the increased
availability of solutions and deployments indicates a trend toward a wider use of
C-RAN. The tradeoffs that operators face are between the flexibility of backhaul and
the improved performance of fronthaul. The cost to use backhaul and fronthaul is
comparable for links supporting the same capacity. The advantage of fronthaul does
not come from cheaper equipment or lower installation costs, but from a more
efficient way of managing network resources in the macro and micro layers that
reduces the per-bit costs by increasing efficiency and capacity.

We designed our TCO model to capture the financial implications of the choice
between fronthaul and backhaul based on estimates of the impact of interference
on RAN capacity at the macro-cell unit (macro cell plus micro cells within the macro-
cell footprint, in multilayer networks) (see graph at right). These estimates are from
EBlink and computed for an LTE macro-cell unit in a HetNet, within which there is a
sublayer of a variable number of micro cells that share the same frequency channel
with the macro layer. In our network, we have a variable number of micro cells with
a radius ranging from 25 m to 100 m within the coverage area of a macro cell with a
radius of 500 m. We assume that the operator uses best-practice, commercially
available coordination techniques to mitigate the impact of interference. In a
scenario with 10 micro cells per macro cell, interference reduces the capacity by 28%
to 45% with backhaul, and by 15% to 34% with fronthaul, giving fronthaul a 46% to
26% advantage, as the micro-cell radius increases from 25 m to 100 m. The impact of
interference on capacity increases not only with the radius of the micro cells, but also
with the number of micro cells, as the two graphs on the right (10 and 20 micro cells)
demonstrate.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |4|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

3. Fiber or wireless fronthaul?

How to meet C-RAN requirements and manage HetNet interference

Operators that choose fronthaul face a further choice, between fiber and wireless
solutions. Fiber meets the high capacity (multi-Gbps), as well as the tight EBlink FrontLink
synchronization and low latency (in the order of μs) requirements for C-RAN and
SON functionality to manage multilayer HetNets though RAN coordination; fiber is
the preferred solution where available and affordable in macro sites. In micro sites,
however, fiber is often unavailable, difficult to bring to the cell (e.g., to a cell
mounted on a lamppost), or expensive.

Wireless fronthaul can provide a cost-effective alternative to fiber for transporting

data from the micro-cell sites. It enables operators to use C-RAN across all micro and
macro cells. In general, fronthaul latencies in the order of tens of microseconds are
required, with timing accuracy of fractions of a μs as an additional requirement. In
addition, the bandwidth requirements for fronthaul start at 2.5 Gbps and may grow
to more than 10 Gbps in the coming years. To meet these requirements, the
fronthaul link has to support Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) performance Source: EBlink
levels, and many wireless solutions designed for backhaul are not able to
support CPRI natively and cannot meet the requirements for fronthaul.

EBlink has developed a wireless fronthaul solution specifically to meet these

performance requirements and well suited for micro-cell deployments where fiber is
not a cost-effective or available option. According to EBlink, the FrontLink solution
provides up to three CPRI ports, each corresponding to data rates of 2.4 Gbps for an
aggregate rate of up to 7.2 Gbps using a pair of 60 MHz channels, with latency below
20 μs in the license-exempt 5.8 GHz band. In the future, EBlink plans to expand the
use of the technology to other bands.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |5|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

4. TCO model cost assumptions.

Comparing backhaul and fronthaul cost drivers

Our TCO model compares the financial implications of choosing between backhaul
and fronthaul in micro-cell deployments by specifically focusing on the cost elements
on which the choice has a direct impact: micro cells and their edge-link transport. It
does not include the macro cells and the transport costs from the BBU or
aggregation point to the core network; those remain constant, regardless of whether
the operator chooses backhaul or fronthaul.

We have included five cases, shown on the right: two for wireless backhaul and three
for fronthaul. We did not include a case for fiber backhaul, because the cost would
have been the same as in the fiber fronthaul case but with lower performance, so
there is no financial advantage over fronthaul. Operators may use fiber for backhaul
if they do not intend to use C-RAN, but in that case the choice is largely dictated by
the availability and cost of fiber, which vary substantially across markets; that choice
goes beyond the scope of this paper, which is to compare the costs of backhaul
versus fronthaul.
Macro-cell unit assumptions for the base case
Among the backhaul solutions, we considered a sub-6 GHz case with an NLOS PMP
architecture, and a 60 GHz case with a LOS PTP architecture. Other wireless backhaul
solutions are available to operators, but these provide a representative sample of  One LTE three-sector macro cell with ten one-sector micro cells
the range of cost and functionality among the solutions that more directly compete within its footprint, with shared frequency
with fronthaul.  All micro cells within the unit use the same fronthaul or backhaul
solution, to enable comparison across solutions
Fronthaul solutions include two fiber-based options: a built-fiber one in which the  500 m radius for the macro cell, and variable (25–100 m) radius for
operator builds and operates a fiber network specifically to serve micro cells, and a micro cells
leased-fiber network in which the operator leases fiber links from a service provider.  50 mbps capacity per macro-cell sector, 42 mbps capacity per micro
A third fronthaul option is wireless, and it is based on the EBlink solution described in cell (for uplink and downlink)
the previous section.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |6|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

Within their overall footprint, mobile operators will undoubtedly choose different
micro-cell configurations and architectures depending on the location. Our model
looks exclusively at a single macro location (and not at the network level), as shown
on the right, with the understanding that the operator will choose the best solution
to meet the specific location requirements. Within each macro unit, all micro cells
use the same solution for fronthaul or backhaul to facilitate comparison among
solutions. However, operators may use different backhaul or fronthaul solutions for
the micro cells within the macro-unit footprint. The table on the previous page lists
the configuration and performance assumptions we made about the macro-cell unit.
The graphs below show the cost assumptions for the micro cell, for the RAN
installation and equipment, and for the fronthaul or backhaul, depending on the
solution.

The C-RAN micro-cell configuration (a remote radio unit [RRU] at the edge,
connected by fronthaul to a remote BBU) used in the fronthaul cases results in lower
capex and opex, especially when done within a macro C-RAN deployment. We
assumed the cost savings of a pooled, centralized baseband and simple remote
radios over a distributed baseband deployment were $1,000 in equipment per micro
site. Additionally, we assumed a $300 opex savings for fronthaul, due to the
aggregation of baseband processing and more limited in-field equipment
maintenance.

Not surprisingly, built fiber has the highest capex, as it is expensive to deploy,
especially in the high-density urban areas where operators plan to install most micro
cells. But it is cheapest to operate, because no fiber leasing or spectrum license is
necessary. Fiber installation accounts for 80% of the capex, compared to 29% for the
installation of fronthaul in the wireless fronthaul solution or the 60 GHz backhaul
solution. Overall, built-fiber capex is 290% of wireless fronthaul, and the opex is 83%.
The high initial expenditure that this solution entails makes it suited mostly to
operators that are already building a fiber network for other purposes, or that own
one in the area where they plan to deploy micro cells.

At the opposite end, leased fiber has a low capex, but a high opex, mostly due to
leasing costs. As a result, leased-fiber capex is only 63% of wireless fronthaul capex,

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |7|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

but the opex is twice (202%) as expensive. Because leased-fiber capex and opex are
highly variable across markets, in some markets leased fiber can be cost effective,
especially where the operator’s parent company or a partner own the fiber network.
Where available, operators are likely to prefer it to other solutions.

We assumed the 60 GHz backhaul and wireless fronthaul solutions to have the same
cost basis, with the exceptions mentioned above for a $1,000 lower micro-cell
equipment cost and a $300 reduction in opex. The sub-6 GHz solution has lower
equipment and installation costs for backhaul (i.e., no need to align terminals,
because they use an NLOS PMP architecture). We assume three PMP links per hub in
the sub-6 GHz case. And we assume overall per-site capex for sub-6 MHz to be 88%
of that for wireless fronthaul. The backhaul component of the capex for sub-6 GHz is
62% of that of wireless fronthaul and 60 GHz backhaul.

The opex per micro-cell site for all wireless solutions is comparable, with sub-6 GHz
opex equal to 90% of wireless fronthaul’s opex, and 60 GHz opex equal to wireless
fronthaul’s opex. We assumed that sub-6 GHz uses licensed spectrum and this
increases its opex. However, the additional terminals and the need to retain
alignment increases the cost of 60 GHz and wireless fronthaul solutions, compared
to the sub-6 GHz solutions.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |8|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

5. Per-bit TCO.
A performance-based comparison between fronthaul and backhaul

To compare the TCO for fronthaul and backhaul solutions, we need to go beyond the
per-cell cost assumptions outlined in the previous section to deploy and operate
micro cells, because they do not take into account the performance and capacity
differences across solutions. The combined adoption of fronthaul, C-RAN and HetNet
interference management tools results in higher aggregate capacity (micro plus
macro units)2. An accurate TCO analysis has to factor this information in, because it
lowers the performance-based costs – namely the per-bit TCO, which we calculate as
the TCO per Gbps. For instance, if two solutions have the same five-year TCO (as is
the case with the 60 GHz backhaul and wireless fronthaul solutions in our model) but
different data rates, the cost to the operator to transport the same amount of data is
lower with the better-performing solution. As a result, the adoption of a high-
performing solution with lower costs offers operators a choice, at the current
spending levels, between serving more subscribers or providing a better service. It
also allows operators to postpone the investment for further capacity expansion.

In our TCO model, we looked at the performance-based costs that an operator faces
with fronthaul versus backhaul, and with fiber versus wireless solutions, using two
dimensions:

2. In addition to increased capacity, a C-RAN HetNet deployment is conducive to a higher

cell-edge throughput, which improves the service quality and in turn gives the operator a
competitive advantage that can improve subscriber retention. Our TCO model does not
consider these benefits, because they do not affect the costs (tracked by the TCO) but rather
the revenues.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |9|


 Capex and opex assumptions discussed in the previous section, which
depend on the choice between wireless and fiber.
 RAN capacity, as shown in the figure on the previous page, which
depends on the effectiveness of fronthaul and backhaul in managing
interference.3
This approach enables us to compare the per-bit TCO across the five solutions in
our model for a single macro-cell unit with 10 micro cells within its coverage
area, each with a radius ranging from 25 m to 100 m.
We considered these different micro-cell radius options because, depending on
traffic distribution within the macro footprint, deployment strategy and
environment, the operator may choose to restrict or expand the coverage area
of individual micro cells. However, in locations with a more uniform traffic
distribution or if the operator decides to have micro cells with a longer range,
the micro-cell radius may be at the longer end of our range. Similarly, if the
traffic is more concentrated in well-defined small areas, the operator may
choose a shorter micro-cell radius, such as 25 m.
Typically, a longer radius in the micro cell results in lower capacities as the area
of high interference between macro and micro layer proportionally expands. In
our model, this translates into lower RAN capacity and, hence, higher per-mbps
costs for both fronthaul and backhaul. However, it does not necessarily improve
the business case or the network throughput, because these depend also on
subscriber distribution within the footprint. For instance, if subscribers are not
tightly concentrated in a hotspot, the efficacy of short-range micro cells in
offloading traffic from the macro network will be reduced. As a result, our
3. RAN capacity is the only performance-based metric that our TCO analysis takes into account,
even though there are other performance differences among the solutions we consider in this
paper. For instance, we could calculate the per-bit TCO based on backhaul/fronthaul capacity – i.e.,
the five-year TCO divided by the capacity of the backhaul/fronthaul link. This would show that on a
per-bit basis, fiber is much less expensive compared to the other solutions, because it has more
© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com
White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?
analysis explores the capacity and financial implication of micro-cell radius, but
acknowledges that the choice of radius will depend on multiple factors that go
beyond the financial analysis of costs.
Because in our model fronthaul increases the RAN capacity by reducing the
impact of interference, the mobile operator will need fewer micro cells to meet
its capacity requirements. Having fewer sites not only lowers the TCO, but also
enables quicker deployment times and means fewer constraints in the choice of
site real estate. Our model assumes that the operator has a capacity target
defined as a multiple – four times – of the macro-cell capacity, and we computed
the number of micro cells required to meet that target.
As a result, we set a target of 624 mbps for the macro-cell unit, and we split it
between macro and micro cells. Because of interference between the macro and
micro layers, the number of micro cells depends on the capacity of the macro
and micro cells, and on the impact of interference at that traffic level
(interference increases as the traffic load increases, because more micro cells
are required to transport all the traffic). According to the estimates in section 2,
the impact of interference varies. In the 50 m radius case, the 624 mbps capacity
requires 22 micro cells when using backhaul and 23% fewer – only 17 – when
using fronthaul. The lower number of micro cells in a C-RAN network also
reduces the effort and time needed to deploy the network, further lowering the
total cost. For instance, the operator has to identify and negotiate leasing deals
for fewer locations, and the network planning becomes less complex. The figure
on the previous page shows the RAN capacity from the macro cells and micro
cells. Backhaul equipment and fronthaul equipment has the same capacity,
because in our model micro and macro cells are the same across the five
capacity. Since RAN capacity limitations may prevent the operator from using this additional
capacity, the lower per-bit costs from fiber do not linearly translate into end-to-end cost savings for
the operator. In the TCO model, we assume only that the backhaul or fronthaul link has sufficient
capacity to transport the RAN traffic, and hence more capacity than needed in the backhaul link
does not affect the per-bit TCO.
|10|
 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

solutions, and the only difference is how transmission (and, hence, interference)
is managed in the backhaul and the fronthaul. What differs between fronthaul
and backhaul is the capacity contribution for micro cells: with a micro-cell radius
of 50 m, the micro-cell capacity is 27% greater with fronthaul and the overall
(micro plus macro) capacity is 19% greater. The data from our per-bit TCO model
are shown in the figure on the next page. As the radius of the micro cell
increases, so does the impact of interference; as a result, the number of micro
cells needed to meet the capacity target grows, from 20 (backhaul) and 15
(fronthaul) with a 25 m micro-cell radius, to 35 (backhaul) and 24 (fronthaul)
with a 100 m micro-cell radius. The per-bit TCO increases correspondingly as
more micro cells are needed to transport the same amount of traffic.
capacity. The TCO increases with the micro-cell radius as the higher interference
levels reduce capacity. The relative advantage of fronthaul versus backhaul
remains the same as the radius changes. As the micro-cell radius grows from
25 m to 100 m, the TCO for 100 square km ranges from $106 million to $186
million for sub-6 GHz wireless backhaul; from $115 million to $201 million for 60
GHz wireless backhaul; and from $83 million to $133 million for wireless
fronthaul. Thus the TCO savings provided by wireless fronthaul over wireless
backhaul in the metro-wide deployment described can exceed $68 million.

The relative advantage of fronthaul and, more specifically, of wireless fronthaul

grows as the micro-cell radius increases, because fronthaul solutions are more
effective at managing the growing levels of interference. The sub-6 GHz wireless
backhaul per-bit TCO is 128% of EBlink’s when the micro-cell radius is 25 m, and
143% when the micro-cell radius is 100 m. For the 60 GHz solutions, the
corresponding figures are 138% and 155%.

However, the per-mbps TCO grows at the same rate for all fronthaul solutions
(fiber and EBlink), because the change in RAN capacity is the same. Our model
estimates that the per-bit TCO of built fiber is 178% of wireless fronthaul, and
that of leased fiber is 158%. These percentages greatly vary across countries due
to the local cost differences in building and leasing fiber, differences in the
distance to the fiber aggregation point, and differences in the relationship
between the mobile operator and the fiber provider – so they are indicative of
trends in fiber costs, but they should be tailored to specific market conditions.
Because the RAN capacity is the same across fronthaul solutions, the difference
between fiber and wireless fronthaul stems from differences in capex and opex.

Finally, we looked at the implications of the per-bit TCO results on a metro-wide

deployment of 100 square km by calculating the TCO per square km, keeping the
macro radius at 500 m and the micro-cell capacity target at four times the macro

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |11|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |12|

 White paper Fronthaul or backhaul for micro cells?

6. Implications.
A step toward better interference management in HetNets

Interference management is one of the major challenges in deploying multilayer HetNets, because it depends on new tools such as eICIC and CoMP that require a
tight synchronization among RAN elements and, hence, low latency. C-RAN architecture is ideally suited to supporting coordinated transmission, but it requires a CPRI
high-capacity link between the RRU and the BBU. As a result, operators need to use high capacity, low-latency links to transport RAN traffic in order to implement the
new tools for managing interference in HetNets. Fronthaul offers a way to do so. In the future, adoption of technologies such as distributed MIMO will further
enhance cellular capacity and efficiency, but impose even stricter latency and synchronization constraints that will further encourage the adoption of C-RAN and
fronthaul architectures.

In this paper, we compare the per-mbps TCO for backhaul and fronthaul solutions to quantify the financial impact of choosing fronthaul versus backhaul, and fiber
versus wireless solutions. We take into account both the cost to deploy and operate the network, and the RAN capacity for five different solutions. Our TCO model
based on estimates of the impact of interference on multilayer HetNets using backhaul or fronthaul shows that the additional RAN capacity that fronthaul can deliver
results in cost savings when using wireless fronthaul.

Our analysis shows that, with fronthaul, mobile operators reduce the impact of interference by 26% to 46% in a macro-cell unit with 10 LTE micro cells. This enables
operators to limit the number of sites required to achieve a given RAN capacity target. For instance, to reach a target capacity for the macro-cell unit that is four times
the single macro-cell capacity, an operator has to deploy 22 micro cells with backhaul, versus 17 micro cells with fronthaul, with a micro-cell radius of 50 m. If using
wireless fronthaul, the per-mbps TCO over five years can be 29% higher when using a sub-6 GHz backhaul, and 39% higher when using 60 GHz backhaul instead of the
wireless fronthaul scenario. The per-mbps cost savings compared to a built or leased fiber solution are even higher – 58% to 77% for leased and built fiber,
respectively. The per square km TCO for a micro-cell radius of 50 m ranges from $0.945 million with wireless fronthaul, to $1,172 million with sub-6 GHz backhaul, and
to $1,226 million with 60 GHz backhaul.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |13|

Glossary
BBU Baseband units PMT Point to multipoint
CoMP Coordinated multipoint PTP Point to point
CPRI Common Public Radio Interface RAN Radio access network
C-RAN Cloud RAN RF Radio frequency
eICIC Enhanced inter-cell interference coordination RRU Remote radio unit
HetNet Heterogeneous network SON Self-organizing network
LOS Line of sight TCO Total cost of ownership
LTE Long term evolution X2 LTE interface between Evolved NodeBs
MIMO Multiple input multiple output
NLOS Non line of sight

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting • www.senzafiliconsulting.com |14|

About EBlink
EBlink delivers the World’s first and most advanced wireless fronthaul solution, using patented technology and years of deployment
experience. EBlink provides unsurpassed capacity, performance, flexibility and scalability at the lowest TCO. Mobile operators can now
address capacity and coverage requirements with a cost effective, robust and economical wireless. Wireless Fronthaul is also the key
enabler for upcoming Cloud RAN and small cells architectures, offering a seamless and risk-free evolution path from legacy macro-cellular
networks. Based in Paris and Silicon Valley and led by a diverse executive team, EBlink is designing the building blocks for the next
generation of mobile architectures.

About Senza Fili

Senza Fili provides advisory support on wireless data technologies and services. At Senza Fili we have in-depth expertise in financial
modelling, market forecasts and research, white paper preparation, business plan support, RFP preparation and management, due
diligence, and training. Our client base is international and spans the entire value chain: clients include wireline, fixed wireless, and
mobile operators, enterprises and other vertical players, vendors, system integrators, investors, regulators, and industry associations. We
provide a bridge between technologies and services, helping our clients assess established and emerging technologies, leverage these
technologies to support new or existing services, and build solid, profitable business models. Independent advice, a strong quantitative
orientation, and an international perspective are the hallmarks of our work. For additional information, visit www.senzafiliconsulting.com
or contact us at info@senzafiliconsulting.com or +1 425 657 4991.

About the author

Monica Paolini, PhD, is the founder and president of Senza Fili. She is an expert in wireless technologies and has helped clients worldwide
to understand technology and customer requirements, evaluate business plan opportunities, market their services and products, and
estimate the market size and revenue opportunity of new and established wireless technologies. She has frequently been invited to give
presentations at conferences and has written several reports and articles on wireless broadband technologies. She has a PhD in cognitive
science from the University of California, San Diego (US), an MBA from the University of Oxford (UK), and a BA/MA in philosophy from
the University of Bologna (Italy). She can be contacted at monica.paolini@senzafiliconsulting.com.

© 2014 Senza Fili Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved. This white paper was prepared on behalf of EBlink. The views and statements expressed in this document are those of Senza Fili Consulting LLC, and they
should not be inferred to reflect the position of EBlink. The document can be distributed only in its integral form and acknowledging the source. No selection of this material may be copied, photocopied, or
duplicated in any form or by any means, or redistributed without express written permission from Senza Fili Consulting. While the document is based upon information that we consider accurate and reliable,
Senza Fili Consulting makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information in this document. Senza Fili Consulting assumes no liability for any damage or loss arising from reliance on this
information. Trademarks mentioned in this document are property of their respective owners. Cover page photo by Pan Xunbin/Shutterstock.