ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION …...ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY...

© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved

ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY

mWT-0014v1.0.0Released date: 21 October 2016

ISG mWT View on V-band and E-band Regulations

Introduction

Spectrum Regulation is a fundamental aspect enabling technology massive deployments

V-band and E-band technologies are available since some years

V-band and E-band spectrum Regulations are not in place everywhere and present a fragmented approach worldwide

This presentation provides ETSI ISG mWT view on most suitable V-band and E-band regulations• to address Operators applications as well as enabling new

applications

• considering available & new Technologies and Innovations

• bearing in mind Regulation framework


SPECTRUM REGULATION

Definitions & current status


There are 4 possible Licensing regimes (*)


Coordination (Interference check)

License

regime

Coordinated

(by Admin)

Self-coordinated

(by Licensee) (**)

Uncoordinated

(Nobody)

Individual

licensing

This is the conventional link-by-

link coordination. This is

currently the most used method

for P-P links networks

Light

licensing

This refers to a link-by-link

coordination, under Licensee

responsibility. This model has

a “first come first served”

approach.

Block

allocation

Block assignment might be

made through licensing or

through public auction. (***)

License

exempt

No frequency planning /

coordination. No registration nor

notification

(*) According to ECC Report 80

(**) Using either a National database or National planning tool in order to ensure coordination

(***) This used to be most common when FWA (P-MP) is concerned . However new approaches are possible such as “Light Block assignment” (see slide # 23)

Each Licensing regime has its pros & cons


License

regime

Pros Cons

Individual

licensing

• Interference-management is guaranteed

• Limits overbooking and abuse of

spectrum (due to spectrum costs)

• Typically more expensive

• Longer time for spectrum acquisition

Light

licensing

• Typically low-cost spectrum fees

• Shorter time for spectrum acquisition

• Interference-management is not guaranteed

in case of misuse

• Efficient spectrum usage is not guaranteed in

case of abuse

Block

allocation

• Coordination of spectrum not needed

• No “wait” time for spectrum acquisition

• Cost can only be attractive with large

deployments

• Risk of inefficient use of the overall spectrum

resource; risk level depending on Band and

Operators application

• Cost can be unaffordable with limited

deployment

License

exempt

• No spectrum fees

• No “wait” time for spectrum acquisition• Interference-management is not guaranteed

V-band Regulation is super fragmented (*)


(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1

V-band spectrum framework

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

57-66 GHz - Frequency band fragmentation- # Cases

#2

# 11

#2

# 19

#9

#3

#10

#3

#17

#3

#1

#1

#1

#1

V-band allocation is fragmented around the World

• Spectrum is not open in several countries

• Band allocation is fragmented

• All possible licensing regimes are used

• Regulation is threatening V-band usage

Global Licensing Schemes Distribution of V-band

Licensed

Individual licensing

Light licensing

Block assignment

Block or individual

Unlicensed

Unknown

All 4 Licensing regimes are widely used

E-band Regulation is quite consistent (*)


E-band spectrum framework E-band spectrum is accessible worldwide

FCC

ECC

Open ClosedUnder review

• Spectrum is open in several countries

• Band allocation is quite similar

• Individual & Light licensing regimes are

typically adopted

• Regulation is quite consistent worldwide,

with spectrum fee issues in certain

Countries

2 Licensing regimes are widely used

Individual licensing

Light licensing

Block assignment

Unlicensed

Block or individual

Unknown

(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1

KEY APPLICATIONS FOR E-BAND & V-BAND


Key applications for V-band and E-band (*)


Macro-Cell Backhaul (BH) Small-Cell Backhaul (BH)

Fixed Broadband–

Wireless to the Home (WttH)Fixed Broadband–

Wireless to the Cabinet (WttC)

Backbone

Telephone Exchange Office

Street Cabinet

Copper pair

Transmission Radio

Backbone

Telephone Exchange Office

Street Cabinet

Transmission Radio

Optical Fibre

Access / Pre-Aggregation

MCB

Aggregation

Macro Cell

Metro/Core

Macro Cell

SCB

SmC

Pre-Aggregation

Access

(*) As described in ETSI ISG mWT Group Specification “mWT: Applications and use cases of millimetre wave transmission” – GS mWT 002 V1.1.1 (2015-08)

Application needs define most suitable band…


CapacityTime To

Market1

Spectrum

fee impact

on TCO2

Form

factor

Rooftop-

to-

Rooftop

LOS PtP

Rooftop-to-Street

LOS/NLOS

PtP/MPtMP

Street-to-Street

LOS/NLOS

PtP/MPtMP

Macro-Cell BH

(0.5-5km)2Gbps Baseline Important Baseline X

Small-Cell BH

(<500m)1Gbps Short

Very

ImportantSmall X X

Fixed

Broadband–

WttH

(<100m)

1Gbps ShortVery

ImportantSmall X X

Fixed

Broadband–

WttC

(<3km)

10Gbps Baseline Important Medium X

E-band

V-band

1This is related to time in between link request (by the market) and link operation (carrying the service)2Spectrum fee is part of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) including HW, SW, services, rentals and spectrum costs for the whole network to be

deployed (e.g. Mobile Backhaul + Radio Base station); that’s why for small cell backhaul impact is “huge”

… due to few key rationales

E-band for “Macro BH” and “WttC” because• Capacity demand: 2 to 10 Gbps• Hop reach: up to 3-5 km• Reliability for basic network layer: requiring a

coordinated spectrum approach

V-band for “Small Cell BH” and “WttH” because• Capacity demand up to 1 Gbps• Hop reach below 0.5 km• Small form factor for street level installation• Time to market and business case requiring

unlicensed spectrum approach

And both bands possibly suitable for rooftop to street level small cell backhaul feeders


ISG MWT VIEW ON E-BAND

Most suitable Spectrum Regulations


Recommended regulations for E-band


Coordination

License

regime

Coordinated

(by Admin)

Self-coordinated

(by Licensee)

Uncoordinated

(Nobody)

Individual

licensing YES

Light

licensing YES

Block

allocation NO

License

exempt NO

This is in line with “Coordinated” spectrum approach• defined by ECC and FCC regulations worldwide

• already implemented by majority of National Regulations

E-Band

Why Individual or Light Licensing?

Baseline is the need to guarantee coordination among Operators for applications delivering “basic connectivity service”This is traditionally achieved with Individual LicensingHowever Light Licensing is a good alternative • Allowing lower spectrum fees & shorter time for spectrum acquisition• That can be enabler for “new” (WttC) as well as “traditional” (Backhaul)

applications whose business cases is very much dependent on spectrum fees

• Provided that spectrum misuse / abuse is prevented by proper:• common Planning tools and/or principles (for interference condition criteria)• interference analysis and spectrum abuse assessment at link registration stage• enforcement of applied policy / regulation (e.g. enforce Obligation of rolling out)

“Individual” and “Light” licensing could also coexist in different portions of the band• Trying to better address different applications and Operators needs• As implemented by Ofcom in the UK


E-Band

Why not Block or License exempt?


Block allocation is not recommended because• Intrinsic less efficient spectrum usage

• High spectrum fees per link in case of limited deployments

• Preventing the usage of large channels (10 Gbps products using 2 GHz) since it’s not possible to split whole band in between only 2 Operators

License exempt is not recommended because• It cannot guarantee coordination among Operators

• Which is baseline for applications in the E-band

E-Band

License fees are too high in some Countries

© ETSI 2016. All rights reserved(*) Information from ETSI ISG mWT White Paper “E-Band and V-Band - Survey on status of worldwide regulation” – June 2015, ISBN No. 979-10-92620-06-1

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

Euro

/Yea

r

Cases

Fees - 250MHz/1Year/Km(*)

57% cases < 300€

300€ < 18% cases < 1000€

1000€ < 25% cases < 11000€

During past 10 years

• MW capacity needs for Mobile Operators increased x 15 for delivering increased peak

speeds

• MW Spectrum in the 6 – 42 GHz is not always enough for delivering today LTE peaks; that’s

why offload to E-Band spectrum is taking place

Looking to next 10 years

• LTE / LTE-A and 5G backhaul needs can only be met with E-Band spectrum

• E-band spectrum fees shall take into account Mobile Operators needs (1-10 Gbps) in terms

of peak speeds

E-Band

• More expensive fee

to cheaper fee ratio

is about 100:1

• This is weird and

cannot be explained

with “local Country

conditions”

• It’s result of

different

approaches on

defining license

fees for new bands

E-band peculiarities for defining License fees


E-Band

Description ImpactHow to consider it

for License fee?

Formula

factor

1. Larger

spectrum

availability

• E-band has 5 GHz per sub-band, while 6-42

GHz bands have 1 GHz or less. Therefore

larger channel size in E-band can be used

(nx250 MHz) instead of 56 MHz in lower

bands

Cost per MHz in the

E-Band shall be

much smaller than in

6-42 GHz

License fee proportional

to the ratio between

Channel bandwidth

(BW) and overall Band

size (Bsize)

2. Higher

frequency re-

use

• Requirements on Antenna gain and RPE,

together with higher free space loss

attenuation, result in a linear reduction of

coordination distance (*) when moving to

higher frequency

More links per

square km. The

same spectrum can

be licensed several

times over the same

area

Coordination area

reduction goes with the

square of carrier

Frequency (fc). License

fee proportional to

inverse of coordination

area. F0 (e.g 38 GHz) is

purely for formula

normalization

3. Higher rain

attenuation

• E-band suffering from heavy rain attenuation,

limiting usage up to certain dmax (2-3 km)

• E-band can be used on longer links thanks to

Bandwidth and Carrier Aggregation (BCA**)

• With BCA approach E-Band is used to avoid

spectrum congestion in lower bands (6-42

GHz)

When E-Band is

used on links longer

than dmax, license

fee incentives

should be

considered

• Administration to set

dmax for E-Band

stand-alone link

• BCA discount factor

in case E-Band link

distance (d)

exceeding dmax

𝐵𝐶𝐴 =𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑑

𝑓0

𝑓𝑐

2

𝐵𝑊

𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

(*) Several studies (such as OFCOM CH, contribution to ETSI ATTM TM4 meeting #37) demonstrates that interference distance at 80 GHz is less than 50%

of the one at 38 GHz, on both axis. Therefore interference area is reducing well below 25% (down to 15%) moving from 38 to 80 GHz, that is proportional to

inverse of the sqauare of the frequency

(**) BCA concept is fully desrcibed within ETSI ISG mWT WI#15 – see backup slides for basic concepts and application with E-Band

License Cost= 𝑘 × 𝐵𝐶𝐴 ×𝑓0

𝑓𝑐

2×

𝐵𝑊

𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

What is a reasonable License fee for E-band?

ISG mWT believes is important defining relative price point with respect traditional bands


K = factor defining absolute figures (Country dependent) [currency]

BCA = discount factor (dmax / d) in case E-band is used for BCA

f0 = Normalization factor (e.g. 38 GHz)

fc = Center Frequency of the Band [GHz]

BW = Channel Bandwidth [MHz]

Bsize = Overall size [MHz] of one sub-band (Go or Return)

020406080

100120140160180200

License fees - relative price points

E-Band

`

3 2 1

• This cart is comparing 56 MHz channel @ 38

GHz (reference price = 100) with different E-Band

spectrum usage

• Showing that 250 MHz channel in the E-Band

should be priced no more than 25% of 56 MHz

in the 38 GHz

• The larger the E-Band channel the higher is the

price, however an upper limit should be set in

order not to jeopardize Total Cost of Ownership

• Upper limit shall also not exceed existing license

fees, especially in case of channel size larger

than 500 MHz or in case of light licensing

Peculiarities described in previous slide

Upper limit

ISG MWT VIEW ON V-BAND

Most suitable Spectrum Regulations


Recommended regulations for V-band


Coordination

License

regime

Coordinated

(by Admin)

Self-coordinated

(by Licensee)

Uncoordinated

(Nobody)

Individual

licensing NO

Light

licensing NO

Block

allocation YES

License

exempt YES

This is in line with “Un-Coordinated” spectrum approach• only when it comes to “License exempt”

While “Block allocation” is recommended to properly address new applications and technologies• as explained in coming slides

V-Band

Why not Individual or Light Licensing?

Individual Licensing is not recommended because• Spectrum cost associated is not affordable for V-Band applications

• Time for spectrum acquisition is not affordable for V-Band applications

• There is no guaranteed coordination among Operators (see below)

Light Licensing is not recommended because• It does not guarantee coordination among Operators

• Since interference coordination is almost impossible due to:• Very short links (coordinates accuracy affecting calculations)

• Deployed at street level (unpredictable energy diffraction and reflections due to buildings and street furniture)

• Eventually using steerable antennas (main lobe direction is not fixed)

• Because it’s not possible to simulate such a complex and time changing scenario


V-Band

Why License exempt or Block allocation?


License exempt is recommended because ETSI GS mWT 004 V1.1.1 (2016-06) demonstrates that• Fully uncoordinated approach is sustainable in the long term • Simulations with 200 links per square km (8 Operators deploying each 10 small

cells per macro site)• Showing that 1 GHz in the V-band (overall 9 GHz) is sufficient to ensure an

acceptable risk of interference (< 2% of cases) even in worst case scenario (LOS, one polarization only, etc.)

• In case of ECC scenario (EIRP < 55 dBm) and products compliant to ETSI standard (antenna gain > 30 dBi )

Block allocation is instead recommended in case of• FCC scenario (no minimum antenna gain requirement when EIRP < 40 dBm) and

wider channel size, that is WiGig like equipment going outdoor – high risk of interference

• NLOS connectivity application – interference scattering polluting a wide area• Wide angle of view beam steering antennas for self organizing meshed networks –

higher interference due to higher side lobes • Operators applications that cannot tolerate interference risk

V-Band

How block allocation should look like?


Block allocation sounds contradictory in a unlicensed bandHowever a portion of the V-band (overall 9 GHz) could be assigned for block allocation• Considering outcomes of ETSI GS mWT 004 V1.1.1 (2016-06) • Considering 500 MHz per Operator for delivering 1 Gbps• 2 GHz could be sufficient for 4 Operators• The 64-66 GHz V-band portion could be candidate for such usage

• considering ECC /REC(05)02 sets a relaxed EIRP limit (< 85 dBm)• as already done by Ofcom in the UK

Provided that an affordable license fee regime is in place• Because V-band applications have a business case (Total Cost of

Ownership) very sensitive to license fees• “Light Block Assignment” could be one possible way forward (*)

• Different blocks assigned to different Operators by the Administration• Without formal public auction – with all related burdens• Operators registering links deployed and being charged according to number of links

(*) The “light block assignment” concept, even if not specifically considered in ECC Report 80 is actually in use in many Countries where each bigger

operator is given a number of channels for building up its network on nationwide or more limited geographical areas. They plan their links with the same

rules agreed with the administration and from time to time they send the links data for updating the national data base (and calculating the relevant fees).

V-Band

SUMMARY AND FINAL REMARKS


Key aspects for identifying best Regulation


Stakeholder Key Expectation

National Administrations Efficient and effective use of the spectrum

Operators Right performances at the lowest TCO

Manufacturers Applicable everywhere with a feasible and valid business

Application Requirements

Technology Capabilities

These are the key aspects considered by ISG mWT for identifying

recommended Regulations for E-band and V-band

LoS

NLoSReflection

NLoSDiffraction

Hop reach Speed (Gbps) Form Factor

LOS/NLOS

Rooftop/Street

PtP

PtMP

MPtMP Beam steering

Beam forming NLOS

SISOMIMO

SON

SDN

1

2

3

Recommended regulations


Coordination

License

regime

Coordinated

(by Admin)

Self-coordinated

(by Licensee)

Uncoordinated

(Nobody)

Individual

licensing E-band

Light

licensing E-band

Block

allocation V-Band

License

exempt V-Band

E-band recommendations are quite in line with current situation worldwide

• National Administrations to make sure license fees are in line with ISG mWT suggested approach

• According to relative price points that can be derived from this formula

V-band recommendations representing a clear guidance for National Administrations

• For allowing massive deployments

• Considering current and upcoming applications

• Trying to achieve a unified approach worldwide - moving away from super fragmented situation as of today

License Cost

Presenter Details

Paolo Agabio, Vodafone Group Plc

[email protected]

Mobile: +39 348 0870140

Thank you!


mailto:[email protected]

Authors and contributors


Rapporteur• Mr. Paolo Agabio, Vodafone Group Plc.

Other Contributors• Mr. Dimitris Siomos, Deutsche Telekom AG

• Mr. Peter Björk, Ericsson AB

• Dr. Jonas Edstam, Ericsson AB

• Mrs. Debora Gentina, Huawei Technologies

• Mr. Renato Lombardi, Huawei Technologies

• Mr. Giuseppe Roveda, Huawei Technologies

• Mr. Roberto Macchi, SIAE Microelettronica SpA

• Mr. Yigal Leiba, Siklu Communication Ltd.

BACKUP


BCA basic concept

“Bands and carrier aggregation” (BCA) is a concept enabling an efficient use of the spectrum through a smart aggregation of multiple frequency channels in the same or different frequency bands.

Traffic is split in a seamless way across multiple channels and bands according to QoS and adapting real time to propagation conditions and channel failures

Frequency band M

1 2 N

Frequency band 1

Carrier aggregation engine

Traffic

Radio channels

BCA across Microwave and E-Band

Example: 2+0 system in 18GHz and E-Bandwith link length up to 7-10 km

Extending the E-band coverage applicability Traditional microwave frequency (e.g. 18 GHz) provides required availability (e.g. >99.99%) for high priority services E-Band provides capacity boost (Multi-Gbps) at lower availability (e.g. 99.9%)

Huge benefit in decongesting valuable microwave Frequency Bands especially in the range 15 to 42 GHz

E-Band channel @ 250 / 500 /… MHz

18 GHz channel @ 28 / 56 / 112 MHz

ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION …...ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY...

Documents

Transcript of ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION …...ISG MWT MILLIMETRE WAVE TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY...