Driving Broadband Innovation in UAE; du LTE Evolution

Dr. Ayman Elnashar Sr. Director - Wireless Broadband & Site Sharing EITC (du) - UAE

AgendaWireless Broadband Innovation q Driving

in UAE: du Broadband Portfolio q Why LTE (Data Evolution) Speed Enhancement Latency Reduction Rich QoS capability All IP Simple flat architecture

q q q q

LTE Evolution Spectrum Options Deployment Strategy Trial Results

du Broadband Portfolio
Nationwide Mobile Broadband LTE Evolution HSPA+/DC-HSPA+ (42Mbps)*
FDD Technologies

du Fixed network Services

Fixed xDSL & Fiber Ultra Broadband

Wide Area Mobile

2G

2.5 G

3G

3.X G

Broadband everywhere

du UAE Nationwide ffer Mobile Network Wireless e TDD Technologies di Fixed 802.11b/a/g/ du th n 802.16d Broadbandng WiMax in 3.5GHz for WiFi us i small SMEusing services Hotspot ces (PTP & i rvOFDM s ll se PTMP) high a fers capacity Links u of d with up to Data Speeds (Kbps) Fixed Wireless 300Mbps for SME * Du is the 1st in UAE to deploy the DC-HSPA+ nationwide and UAE is the 6th nation globally to deploy this technology thanks to du. and Enterprise customers
Coverage/Mobility
Local Area Metro Area Fixed Wireless Nomadic

olo chn t te en

Why LTE?

3GPP Evolutions; HSPA + & LTE

HSPA+ vs. LTE Peak Data Rates DL/UL

LTE 326Mbps

Throughput

HSPA+ (WCDMA) scales linearily in bandwidth (multi carrier) and proportionally in single user -MIMO (max. 2x2)

LTE (OFDMA) scales linearily in bandwidth (single carrier) and in single user-MIMO factors (max. 4x4)
LTE 86Mbps 43Mbps HSPA+(DC) 84Mbps* 22Mbps* LTE 43Mbps 21Mbps

LTE 43Mbps 21Mbps HSPA+ 42Mbps 11Mbps LTE DL:5Mbps HSPA+ DL:21Mbps UL:11Mbps

LTE 173Mbps 86Mbps

86Mbps 43Mbps 4 2 1

MIMO Rx/Tx

1.4Mhz

5Mhz

10Mhz

20Mhz

Bandwidth

* Chipset Roadmap delayed for 2012 and we may need additional carrier to get the peak throughput as MIMO will not add any gain for voice (R99).

HSPA+ vs. LTE

HSPA+
Peak Rate Spectrum Efficiency (Peak) Spectrum Efficiency (Average cell throughput) (DL/UL) Transmission bandwidth Full system bandwidth Requires significant computing power due to signal being defined in the time Variable up to full system bandwidth Ideal for MIMO due to signal representation in the frequency domain and possibility of narrowband allocation to follow real-time 77 1.424/0.6 (MIMO+64QAM) 1.717/0.99 (2x2 MIMO) 20% improvement in DL 65% improvement in the UL 84Mbps@10MHz 8.4bps/Hz (Peak for DC+ MIMO + 64QAM)

LTE
172Mbps@20Mhz (2x2) 326.4Mbps@20MHz(4x4) 8.6bps/Hz (Peak for 2x2 MIMO)

Suitability for MIMO

HSPA+ vs. LTE Latency Improvement

WOW For web site access response, LTE requires of time of HSPA+ and 1/8 of HSPA

LTE versus DC-HSPA+: LTE will Bring Significant improvements

LTE is the next step in the user experience and essential to take mobile broadband to the mass market

LTE Brings More New Data Services than HSPA+

Data application SMS Ring back Tone Basic online Gaming MMS WAP browsing Email Classic WEB browsing Video Ring Back Tone High-end Gaming High quality online video Video telephony Super-fast WEB browsing Broadcast Mobile TV (MBMS) Corporate VPN, intranet true on-demand television Video-based mobile advertising Wireless DSL Mobile WEB2.0 (social community, P2P) High quality online gaming (consistent experience with fix network) GPRS/EDGE UMTS LTE

Page 10

LTE Brings Better MBB Experience than HSPA+

Technology (Cell Throughput) Web surfing (response time) Download 5M Music Download 25M Video Download 750M HD movie
29 Hours 1 Hour 12 Minutes 1Minutes 18 seconds 6Minutes 31Seconds 3 Hours 15 Minutes 1 Minute 40Seconds 50 Minutes 12 Minutes 30 Seconds 4 Minutes 10 Seconds 1 Minutes 20 Seconds 25 Seconds 8 Seconds 2 Seconds 20 Seconds 5 Seconds 2 Seconds 0.5 Second 36 Seconds 4 Seconds 1 Second 0.3 Second 0.1 Seconds 0.025 Second EDGE 56kbps UMTS 512kbps HSPA 2Mbps HSPA 8mbps DC-HSPA+ LTE 42Mbps 100Mbps

LTE Network: A Simple Architecture leads to lower cost per bit

Simplified/Flat All IP Architecture: q CS core network removed PS only UMTS RNC removed, RNC functionalities moved to the eNodeB q eNodeB connected directly to the Evolved 1212 Core (EPC) Packet

QoE Expectations and Performance Requirements by Service Type

13 13

3GPP QoS Parameters: QCI

QCI Resource Priority Type Packet Delay Budget Packet Example Services Loss Rate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
q

2 GBR 4 3 5 1 6 Non-GBR 7 8 9

100ms 150ms 50ms 300ms 100ms 300ms 100ms 300ms

10-2 10-3 10-3 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-3 10-6

Conversational Voice Conversational Video (live streaming) Real Time Gaming Non-conversational Video (buffered streaming) IMS Signalling Video (Buffered Streaming); TCP-based (e.g. www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing, progressive video, etc.) Voice, Video (Live Streaming), Interactive Gaming Video (Buffered Streaming); TCP-based (e.g. www, e-mail, chat, ftp, p2p file sharing, progressive video, etc.)

The QCI is further used within the LTE access network to define the control packet-forwarding treatment from an end-to-end perspective. It also ensures a minimum standard level of QoS to ease the interworking between the LTE networks mainly in roaming cases and in multi-vendor environments PDB defines an upper bound delay that a packet is allowed to experience between UE & PCEF

LTE Evolution

Key Technologies of LTE

OFDM, the state-of-the-art Radio Access Technology: Moving from Time Domain to Frequency Domain

Why OFDM/SC-FDMA
q

Robustness against multipath which makes it suitable for broadband systems compared to TDMA/CDMA techniques. SC-FDMA brings additional benefit of low peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) making it suitable for uplink transmission and then extend UE battery life. Receiver design is very simple thanks to frequency non-selective (i.e., flat fading) channel. OFDM is inherently susceptible to channel dispersion since OFDM symbol time is much larger than the typical channel dispersion.

MIMO: the Key to Improve Cell Throughput

eNo deB
1x2 SIMO

UE 1

eNo deB

2x2 MIMO

UE 1

In typical urban area:

q q

15%~28% gain over SIMO @ Macro ~50% gain over SIMO @ Micro

LTE key features

Gatew ay

Simplified Architecture
q q

Improved spectral efficiency

q

IP Core: flat, scalable Backhaul based on IP / MPLS transport Fits with IMS, VoIP, SIP

All IP Flat Architecture

1.4 MHz MHz 5 MHz 3

10 MHz

15 MHz

20 MHz
q

Refarm 2G

Refarm 3G

New Spectrum

Scalable Bandwidth

Increasing Bandwidth

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) for Downlink (DL) and Single Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) for Uplink (UL) Robust modulation in dense environments Increased spectral efficiency Simplified Receiver design cheaper terminal Scalable - go beyond 5 MHz limitation MIMO (Multiple-Input, MultipleOutput) for UL& DL Increased link capacity Multi-Users MIMO (UL) Overcome multi-path interference

Decreasing Latency

Spectrum Options

LTE Spectrum and Re-farming Options

Freq. Bands 3.5 GHz 2.6 GHz 2.1 GHz 1800 MHz 900 MHz DD 2008 2010 GSM GSM WiMAX WiMAX? LTE LTE? LTE UMTS / HSPA? UMTS / HSPA LTE UMTS / HSPA? LTE 2015 2020 2025 LTE?

New Bands well suited for LTE to avoid refarming when introducing new technology

2.6GHz spectrum mainly for LTE Digital Dividend (e.g. 800MHz/700MHz bands): Trend is to use it for LTE

2.1GHz spectrum: bandwidth mostly for UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+ and few countries for LTE q 900MHz, 1800MHz, AWS re-farming is needed before UMTS/HSPA or LTE usage
q

900MHz refarming already started for UMTS usage => may not be possible to use it for LTE in most of countries 1800MHz will be re-farmed directly to LTE AWS is planned for LTE use in North America

Possible rollout scenarios: LTE 2.6GHz/AWS/1.8GHz/DD vs. HSPA+ 2.1GHz/900MHz

Why LTE 1800

q Coverage area is about 2X larger than LTE2.6GHz with better indoor penetration. q 35% improvement in cell edge throughput compared to LTE2.6GHz. q Reduction of Extra sites results in quick delivery of the LTE to market. q Reuse of existing GSM1800 coverage polygons and possibility to share antenna system of GSM1800. q Reuse of existing IBS system without upgrade to support 2.6GHz and without coverage degradation.

LTE1800: promising and available for mass market 2323

Deploymen t Strategy

Antennas Separation and Guard Band Requirement for Co-Existing System

Horizontal Distance: 0.5m Vertical Distance: 0.2m 2/3G band x
LTE band x

LTE 2/3G band x Horizontal 0.5m or vertical 0.2m antennas separation is the minimum band requirement x

Guard band Requirement for Co-existing Systems ( MHz )

Co-existing Systems
LTE1800 + GSM1800 LTE Band X + LTE Band Y LTE FDD + LTE TDD

LTE Bandwidth 5MHz

0.2 0 10

10MHz
0.2 0 10

15MHz
0.2 0 10

20MHz
0.2 0 10

Du LTE Trial Results

Download Volume Speed (1GB and 10GB )

Thank You