Comparison LTE WiMax BALL V7projects.comelec.enst.fr/EW2007/Documents/... · UMTS/HSPA Systems allowing for Handover/Roaming as well as Refarming Scenarios. • Judgment on the “best”

1 © Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.>>> Commercially not Binding <<<

LTE and WiMaxTechnology and Performance Comparison

Dr.-Ing. Carsten BallNokia Siemens NetworksRadio Access, GERAN &OFDM Systems: RRM and Simulati ons

EW2007 PanelTuesday, 3rd April, 2007


Contents:

• Towards Broadband Wireless Access: Categorization of different Radio Access Standards

• Radio Access Solutions: the 3GPP and the IEEE Technol ogy Family

• Detailed LTE vs. WiMax Comparison(Radio Perspective, Focus on lower Layers)

• Performance Numbers: Peak Data Rates, Spectrum Effic iency and Technology Capability Limits

• LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winning Tec hnology ?

• Operator Use Cases and potential Ways of Acting

• Summary and Conclusions


Mobility / Range

Towards Broadband Wireless Access 3GPP and IEEE offer a comprehensive migration path to Beyond 3G

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

User data rate

10 Mbps0.1 1 100 1000

Systems

beyond 3G

>2010

IEEE802.16d

HSPA

IEEE802.16e

WLAN(IEEE 802.11x)

GSMGPRS

DECT

BlueTooth

UMTS(W-CDMA)

EDGE

XDSL, CATV, Fiber

GERANEvolution

(= EDGE-II)LTE

HSPAEvolution

� WiMAX (IEEE802.16d/e) covers fixed wireless and nomadic access, the e-Standard extends towards (limited) mobility.

� HSPA Evolution and LTE target at high data rates combined with high subscriber mobility.

� Both WiMax and LTE offer excellent User Data Rates in t he order of 10 – 160 Mbps (Bandwidth !).

� LTE design seems to be superior especially concerning Mob ility and Data Throughput.


Radio Access Solutions at a GlanceThe 3GPP Technology Family

GERAN (GSM/GPRS/EDGE)

UTRAN (W-CDMA/HSPA) LTE

• HSPA to apply the full power of W-CDMA @ reduced network cost

• User experience comparable to DSL in terms throughput & latency

• High capacity, full mobility, high data security and QoS

• Quick and cost-effective upgrade of existing networks

• Seamless 2G/3G handover

• 3G evolution towards full broadband multimedia services

• Significantly reduced network cost

• Flat Architecture, fully IP based

• Flexible bandwidth and spectrum usage

• Full mobility, security, QoS assets

• Seamless 2G/3G/LTE handover

• Large installed base with excellent large-area coverage

• Quick and cost-effective upgrade of existing networks

• Near-broadband data services with EDGE Phase II (up to 1 Mbps)

• Seamless 2G/3G handover –worldwide coverage, global roaming

Full mobility with medium data rates

High speed data rates with full mobility

Broadband multimediaat lowest cost

Clear 3GPP Evolution Path towards LTE, comprehensiv e 2G/3G/4G interworking, easy upgrade & re-farming potential, seamless services (handover, roaming), full high-speed mobility.


Radio Access Solutions at a GlanceThe IEEE Technology Family

WLAN(IEEE 802.11)

WiMAX stationary (IEEE 802.16d)

WiMAX mobile (IEEE 802.16e)

• Fixed or mobile network operators

• Optimized wireless-DSL services(Voice + data)

• Support of charging/billing typical for DSL (e.g. user classes, volume/flat-rate packages)

• High capacity for stationary use

• Selective QoS

• Fixed or mobile network operators

• Optimized wireless-DSL services(Voice + data)

• Support of charging/billing typical for DSL (e.g. user classes, volume/flat-rate packages)

• High capacity; Limited mobility

• Selective QoS

• Solution for specific markets including municipal networks and backhauling in combination with other radio access technologies, e.g. WiMAX backhaul for WLAN or WLAN backhaul for GSM

• Hotspot business solution to complement MNO’s offering

• High capacity for stationary use

Large capacity for metro networks

High speed data ratesfor fixed wireless access

High speed data rates with limited mobility

Modular stand-alone Standards allowing for easy combina tions and offering high performance.


LTE is fully embedded in the3GPP world incl. interRAT HO.

Full 3GPP Mobility with Target up to 350 km/h; 2G/3G Handover and

Global Roaming

Mobile IP with targeted Mobility < 120 km/hMobility

Packet Data, VoIPPacket Data, VoIPServices

Both designed to combatMultipath Fading in different

Environments

Short (5 µs) or Long CP (17 µs)

Flexible 1 / 32, ….,1 / 4; CP typical 1 / 8Cyclic Prefix

Large dF required againstDoppler => higher velocity

128- 2048;fixed dF = 15 kHz

128 – 2048; dF variable; 7- 20 kHz typically 10 kHz

FFT-Size and Subcarrier Spacing

Both technologies withsignificantly reduced number of

nodes compared to 2G/3G.

Very Flat, IP basedeNodeB + aGW

Flat, IP based;BS + ASN GW

Network Architecture

LTE available at preferred lowFrequency Bands � Coverage

Advantage

Licensed,IMT-2000 Bands

Licensed & unlicensed,2.3, 2.5, 3.5 & 5.8 GHz

Spectrum

Both very flexible1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20 MHz

1.25, 3.5, 5, 7, 8.75, 10, 14, 15, 20, 28 MHzChannel BW

QPSK, …, 64-QAM; CC + CTC

BPSK, …, 64-QAM;CC + CTC (+BTC+LDPC)Modulation & Coding

TTI determines the Latency / PING

fixed 2*0.5 ms slots= 1 ms sub-frames

2, …, 20 ms;5 ms focusFraming, TTI

TDD requires Synchronization, FDD can be asynchronous.

FDD + TDDFDD focus

TDD + FDDTDD focus

Duplex Mode

SC-FDMA reduces PAPR by~5 dB � UL improvements !!!

DL: OFDMA, UL: SC-FDMA

Scalable OFDMA in UL & DLAccess technology

CommentsLTEWiMax 802.16e

LTE vs. WiMax Comparison (Radio Perspective)


LTE is more efficient, e.g. VoIPoptimizations

VoIP + Data Mixturetypically ~ 15-20 %

VoIP + Data Mixturetypically ~ 25 %

Overall Overhead @ MAC Layer

Diversity + Spatial Multi.Diversity + Spatial Multi.MIMO Modes

LTE with less complexRessource Signaling

Stripe-wise Allocation in F-Domain

Flexible arbitraryRectangles in T-F-Domain

User Multiplexing

12 x 14 ConstellationPoints

24 x 2 ConstellationPoints in PUSC Mode

Subchannel / PhysicalResource Block

LTE working assumption is 2 DL Antennas per UE

eNodeB: 1, 2, 4 ; UE: 2 Closed + open Loop

BS: 1, 2, 4 ; MS: 1, 2 Closed + open Loop

MIMO, # Antennas

LTE provides optimized and more efficient L1/L2-Signaling also utilizing CDM components

Signaling Channels in max. first 3 Symbols;Separate BCH, SCH

Flexible FCH + MAPfollowing the Preamble; Sync. by Ranging CH

L1/L2 Signalling

Distributed Pilotsdepending on #

Antennas

DL Preamble + distributedpermuted Pilots

depending on # Antennas

Pilot Assisted ChannelEstimation (PACE)

LTE prefers frequency selectivePacket Scheduling,

WiMax focuses on interferenceaveraging.

Localized + Distributed;Focus Localized

Adjacent AMC 2x3 orPUSC/FUSC Permutation;

Focus PermutationInterleaving / Mapping

Chase Comb. + IR; N=8 stop & wait;

UL Sync., DL Async.

Chase Comb. + IR;

stop & waitHARQ

CommentsLTEWiMax

LTE vs. WiMax Comparison (Radio Perspective)


Performance NumbersPeak Data Rates Peak data rates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 x 5 MHz 2 x 5 MHz 1 x 10 MHz 1 x 20 MHz 2 x 10 MHz 2 x 20 MHz

HSPARelease 6

HSPARelease 8

WiMAX802.16e

WiMAX802.16e

LTERelease 8

LTERelease 8

Mbps

DownlinkUplink

• Rather similar Peak Data Rates for HSPA evolution a nd WiMAX• LTE provides outstanding Data Rates beyond 150 Mbps in 2 x 20 MHz Bandwidth

due to less overhead• WiMAX uses asymmetric 29:18 TDD in 10/20 MHz, whereas H SPA and LTE use FDD

with 2 x 5 and 2 x 10/20 MHz• Prerequisite: 2x2 MIMO with 64-QAM in Downlink

> 150 Mbps


Performance NumbersSpectrum Efficiency Benchmarking

• Similar spectral efficiency for HSPA evolution and WiMAX due to similar Feature Set• LTE is expected to provide higher efficiency than H SPA or WiMAX• WiMax assumed to be deployed in recommended frequency reu se 1/3,

HSPA is definitely deployed in real reuse 1, whereas LTE utilizes fractional tightreuse due to coordinated interference reduction

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

HSPA R6(TU channel)

HSPA R6(Vehicular A)

HSPA R7MIMO +

64QAM +equalizer

WiMAXreuse 3

(29:18 TDD)

LTE

bps/

Hz/

cell

DownlinkUplink

Full Buffer Simulation Results


Performance NumbersMobile Technology Capability Limits

��

��

��

!��

�"#��$%�&�"#�'(

��)�&��*��( +��,�+��,�

"��--��)��.�� /

�01��0��0!��0�

��1��

��2�$��3��4��

��,�

�0��05

�!��1��

�6��"#��$�

1��,�

�0%��0!

�4��!� �� 1+��7��7 ��7��7

"��*, �+��8��1��8�+1��9��:��

"��--��)�;��.*�� /

��+� !1−11��−�+

6��<��*��&��=�*��(

9��:�� 9��:��

1!��

��>��0��<��

?1�,�

?�01−�0�

��7

�−�

�!��8�1!��

+�−��,�0�−%0!� , �0�−�01� ,�0�−%0!� , �0�−%0!� ,

All radio standards show comparable performance under comparable conditions and similar feature set:

• Laws of physics apply to all of them

• User rates mainly depend on bandwidth, modulation/coding and availability of MIMO (2x2 assumed)

• Spectrum Efficiency is determined by Frequency Reuse and Feature Set (e.g. FSPS, MIMO, …)

• Latency (e.g. PING Performance) depends on chosen Frame Duration or TTI

• Coverage depends on frequency band, RF power limitations and duplex mode


LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winnin g Technology ?Choosing the right technology path depends on each operator’s individual situation

Data

rate

s Latency

Capacity Mobility

Technical characteristics are just one part of the story !!!

Technologicalconstraints

Regionalconstraints

Regulatoryconstraints

Operatorstrategy

E.g.� Available spectrum� Spectrum cost� Standards compliance

E.g.� Service

offering� Competitive

situation� Legacy

networks� Investment

Protection� Future

proofness� Technology

Evolution Path� OPEX� Terminal Costs

E.g.� Population density� Traffic distribution� Demand for

services� Spending on

communication� Availability and

variety of terminals� Site Locations


LTE or WiMax Market Success, what will be the winnin g Technology ?Looking at typical operator use cases, there are most applicable and probable ways of acting

No license available

Incumbent 2G mobile operator with BWA (non-3G) license

Incumbent 2G/3G mobile operator

New operator with BWA (non-3G) license

• Extend to EDGE and EDGE II for mobile data• In addition, use WiMAX mostly in urban-area

hot-zones, with focus on fixed-line substitution (voice & data) since HSPA not possible.

• Extend 3G to HSPA• Extend 2G to EDGE and EDGE II• Upgrade to LTE later

• Use WiMAX for licensed bands,3.5 GHz FDD (fixed/nomadic) or 2.5 GHz TDD (fixed/nomadic/mobile)

• Use WLAN for hotspot/metro networks

New 3G mobile operator

• Build up UMTS/HSPA network

• Upgrade to LTE later

Mob

ile N

etw

ork

Ope

rato

rA

cces

s P

rovi

der,

Fix

edN

etw

orks


Summary and Conclusions:

�� full 3GPP interoperability

BackwardsCompatibility

� � (�)� � �Latency

2007/20082009/2010Availability

� �(�)� � �Capacity

�� , if f < 3.5GHz

� �� (LTE-900)

Coverage

Performance

Full MobilityNomadic Mobility

Circuit Switched, VoicePacket Switched, Data

IMT2000other

��

� �� Mobility

WiMax IMT-2000 member� (2.3, 2.5 & 3.5 GHz)

��Spectrum

� � (VoIP)� � �

� � � (VoIP)� � �Services

(�)WiMax to WiMax

� �Roaming

WiMAX MobileLTE

• LTE comes ~ 2 years later than WiMax and hence provi des some technical advantages over WiMax.

• LTE must be seen especially in the context of the mature an d world-wide dominating GERAN andUMTS/HSPA Systems allowing for Handover/Roaming as wel l as Refarming Scenarios.

• Judgment on the “best” technology, however, depends on specific operator needs and prerequisites.

• LTE and WiMax are basically for different customers in different spectrum: �� no strong Competition.

• Nokia Siemens Networks is pleased to offer a strong and comprehensive Portfolio includingboth WiMax and LTE operating even on the same Platform (NSN FlexiBTS).


Thank You …


Dr.-Ing. Carsten Ball

Dr. Carsten Ball received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in electrodynamics in 1993 and the Dr.-Ing. degree in electrical engineering in 1996 from the Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany. Since 1997 he is with Siemens Mobile Networks and since April 2007 with Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) in Munich, Germany, currently heading the GERAN and OFDM Systems Architecture Radio & Simulation group. He is responsible for the GSM, GPRS and EDGE performance as well as for the upcoming OFDM radio technologies (WiMax, LTE). Dr. Ball’s research interests include simulation, protocol stacks, optimization and efficient algorithm design in cellular radio networks.


Backups:


Flat Architecture Evolution

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��!

��"��

�

� �

�� #

��

9��:�"#�

• Flat architecture = single network element in radio network and in the core network• Significant Node Reduction compared to previous GERAN an d UMTS Standard • Same architecture in i-HSPA, LTE and in WiMAX

��

� �

��!

$��%

��

��


Suburban coverage

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

HSPA900 indoormobile

HSPA2100 indoormobile

WiMAX 2500 indoormobile

WiMAX 3500 indoormobile

WiMAX 2500outdoor fixed

WiMAX 3500outdoor fixed

km

UplinkDownlink

Cell Range for Mobile and Fixed Wireless

Fixed application� No indoor loss � CPE Antenna

height 5 m

Mobile application� Indoor loss 15 dB� MS Antenna

height 1.5 m

• Good quality Fixed wireless WiMAX network can be built for outdoor antennas with GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA sites

• Mobile WiMax suffers from Coverage Challenge (especially indoor) due to high Frequency Bands• LTE provides comparable coverage to GSM/EDGE (@ 900 MHz) or HSPA (@900/2100 MHz)


Key success factors show clear profiles for available technologies

WiMAX

GSMGPRSEDGE

UTRANHSPA

LTE

Full mobility with medium data rates High speed data rates with full mobility

Broadband multimedia at lowest cost High speed data rates with limited mobility

Economy of scale Spectrum availability and cost impact

Variety of terminals

Voice performance

IPR regime

Compatibility with existing standards

Lean architecture Broadband data performance



Voice performance

IPR regime





Voice performance

IPR regime





Voice performance

IPR regime




Technology Choice is Defined by Current Network, Spectrum Assets and Voice Strategy

@"��6��

��

��)��A

��"��

;��A

��6"�

;��A

B��B��

�6��"#��'��2

>�>��&C�9#(

>� @"��

��-�,��<

��A

B��

��

>�

�01�@� ��

+01�@� �

;��A

B��

B��

>�

LTE and WiMax are basically for different customersin different spectrum: �� no strong Competition expected