Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Table of contents
2.1. IEEE standards for mobile broadband ...........................................................2
2.2. 3G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e) ................................................................7
2.3. 4G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16m-2011) ....................................................13
2.4. Femto cells in advanced WiMAX systems ...................................................24
2.5. Mobile WiMAX network design and deployment ..........................................29
2.6. WiMAX Interworking with LTE/LTE-Advanced networks..............................35
2.7. Mobile IP, IEEE 802.21 for seamless mobility..............................................39
2.7.1. Mobile IP............................................................................................39
2.7.2. IEEE 802.21.......................................................................................45
2.8. 4G regulation: Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced...............................52
2.9. Business potential of Mobile WiMAX ...........................................................57
References .........................................................................................................62
IEEE 802.11 and 802.15 have worked particularly closely since they both
address unlicensed bands. IEEE 802.16 has historically dealt with licensed
bands and been more independent. However, a new license-exempt project in
IEEE 802.16 now requires it to coordinate more closely with the other two
working groups. The IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless
Access has completed 17 standards projects since 2001 toward the development
and evolution of the IEEE 802.16 WirelessMAN Standard for Wireless
Metropolitan Area Networks. The Working Group currently has 437 individual
members. It typically meets six times a year, around the globe (for more details,
see http://wirelessman.org).
Furthermore in this section we shortly summarized the technology
addressed by the different IEEE 802 wireless mobile broadband standard
programs, with particular attention to the IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.16, IEEE
802.20 and IEEE 802.21 frameworks.
The IEEE 802.11 working group has produced a standard describing MAC
(Medium Access Control) sublayer and multiple PHYs (PHYsical layers). IEEE
802.11 also describes MAC management functionality. IEEE 802.11a, IEEE
802.11b and IEEE 802.11g are additional PHY amendments to the base
standard (IEEE 802.11-1999). The existing standard and its amendments
describe several Wireless LAN PHYs:
Infrared at 1 and, optionally, 2 Mb/s;
Frequency hopping spread spectrum radio at 1 and, optionally, 2
Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band;
Direct sequence spread spectrum radios with data rates up to 11
Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band (11b amendment, colloquially referred to
as Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity));
Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing radios with data rates up
to 54 Mb/s in the 5-6 GHz band (11a amendment);
Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing radios with data rates up
to 54 Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band (11g amendment).
Current work includes extending the MAC and MAC-management
functionality to provide expanded international operation and roaming, improved
support for quality of service, enhanced security, dynamic channel selection,
transmit power control, and standardized communication between IEEE 802.11
access points (11e amendment). Moreover, the IEEE 802.11 has a variety of
standards (not only above given), each with a letter suffix. These cover
everything from the wireless standards themselves, to standards for security
aspects, quality of service and the like:
802.11a - Wireless network bearer operating in the 5 GHz ISM band with
data rate up to 54 Mbps
802.11b - Wireless network bearer operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band
with data rates up to 11 Mbps
802.11e - Quality of service and prioritisation
802.11f - Handover
802.11g - Wireless network bearer operating in 2.4 GHz ISM band with
data rates up to 54 Mbps
(802.16d) for fixed WiMAX, 802.16-2005(802.16e) for 3G mobile WiMAX and the
newest IEEE 802.16m-2011 for 4G Mobile WiMAX 2.0. The WiMAX wireless
broadband access standard provides the missing link for the "last mile"
connection in metropolitan area networks where DSL, Cable and other
broadband access methods are not available or too expensive. WiMAX also
offers an alternative to satellite Internet services for rural areas and allows
mobility of the customer equipment. Moreover, the IEEE 802.16m provides the
performance improvements necessary to support future advanced services and
applications for next generation broadband mobile communications. In October
2010, ITU-R agreed to incorporate this technology (Mobile WiMAX 2.0 (IEEE
802.16m-2011), also known as WirelessMAN-Advanced) into its IMT-Advanced
Recommendation specifying systems that support low to high mobility
applications, a wide range of data rates in multiple user environments, highquality multimedia applications, and significant improvements in performance and
quality of service. More details about the 3G and 4G Mobile WiMAX is provided
in the following sections.
On 11 December 2002, the IEEE Standards Board approved the
establishment of IEEE 802.20, the Mobile Broadband Wireless Access (MBWA)
Working Group. The mission of IEEE 802.20 is to develop the specification for an
efficient packet based air interface that is optimised for the transport of IP based
services. The goal is to enable worldwide deployment of affordable, ubiquitous,
always on and interoperable multi-vendor mobile broadband wireless access
networks that meet the needs of business and residential end user markets.
Specification of physical and medium access control layers of an air interface for
interoperable mobile broadband wireless access systems, operating in licensed
bands below 3.5 GHz, optimised for IP-data transport, with peak data rates per
user in excess of 1 Mbit/s. It supports various vehicular mobility classes up to
250 km/h in a MAN environment and targets spectral efficiencies, sustained user
data rates and numbers of active users that are all significantly higher than
achieved by existing mobile systems. The proposed standard will conform to the
appropriate IEEE 802 functional requirements. Compatibility will be addressed
during development of the standard and any variance that may be required will
be clearly identified and justified. The standard will include the definition of a
compliant management information base (MIB) in support of the PHY and MAC
layer capabilities. The proposed standard is applicable to licensed spectrum and
all issues of coexistence will be subject to the respective constraints imposed by
the spectrum license. Deployment related coexistence issues would be
addressed during the development of the proposed standard.
The main technical characteristics of IEEE 802.20 are: Frequency bands
below 3.5 GHz, peak data rates per user of 1 Mbps, vehicular mobility up to 250
km/h, large cells (up to 15 km), spectral efficiencies about 1 bit/s/Hz/cell, support
of Real and Non-Real data traffic, use spread spectrum technologies (like
Frequency Hopping), OFDM carrier and adaptive antennas.
The main advantages of IEEE 802.20 are: Delivery of broadband to fast
moving users, up to 250 km/h; good QoS: connection oriented MAC supports
data, voice and video; the aim is to have transparent IP services over different
mobile wireless technologies; various modulation and transmission codes.
Unfortunately, on June 8, 2006, the IEEE-SA Standards Board directed
that all activities of the 802.20 Working Group be temporarily suspended until
October 1, 2006. The decision came from complaints of a lack of transparency.
Later, IEEE 802.20 standard was put to hibernation on March 2011 due to lack of
activity.
On the other side, the IEEE 802.21 working group (see
www.ieee802.org/21) started work in March 2004. More than 30 companies have
joined the working group. The group produced a first draft of the standard
including the protocol definition in May 2005. The standard was published
January 2009. The main purpose of IEEE 802.21 (also called Media-Independent
Handovers (MIH)) is to enable handovers between heterogeneous technologies
(including IEEE 802 and cellular technologies) without service interruption, hence
improving user experience of mobile terminals. A lot of functionalities required to
provide session continuity depend on complex interactions that are specific to
each particular technology.
The IEEE 802.21 provides a framework that allows higher levels to
interact with lower layers to provide session continuity without dealing with the
specifics of each technology. That is, the upcoming protocol can be seen as the
glue between the IP centric world developed in IETF and the reference
scenarios for future mobile networks currently being designed in 3GPP and
3GPP2 or other technology specific solutions.
The main design elements of IEEE 802.21 can be classified into three
categories: a framework for enabling transparent service continuity while handing
over between heterogeneous access technologies; a set of handover-enabling
functions; and a set of Service Access Points (SAPs). However, the section 2.7 is
providing greater details about IEEE 802.21.
The IEEE 802.16 mobile WiMAX standard allows data transmission using
multiple broadband frequency ranges. The original 802.16a standard specified
transmissions in the range 10 - 66 GHz, but 802.16d allowed lower frequencies
in the range 2 to 11 GHz. The lower frequencies used in the later specifications
means that the signals suffer less from attenuation and therefore they provide
improved range and better coverage within buildings. This brings many benefits
to those using these data links within buildings and means that external antennas
are not required. Different bands are available for WiMAX applications in different
parts of the world. The frequencies commonly used are 3.5 and 5.8 GHz for
802.16d and 2.3, 2.5 and 3.5 GHz for 802.16e but the use depends upon the
countries (see Table 2.2).
Furthermore, as one of the major goal of any network technology,
including mobile WiMAX is delivering any existing service with good level of QoS
support. In order to categorise the different types of QoS, there are five WiMAX
QoS classes that have been defined. These WiMAX QoS classes are defined in
the table 2.3 below. As we said before, the 3G Mobile WiMAX introduces
OFDMA and supports several key features necessary for delivering mobile
broadband services at vehicular speeds greater than 120 km/hr with QoS
comparable to broadband wireline access alternatives.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Furthermore, the MAC functional group includes functional blocks that are
related to physical layer and link controls such as:
PHY control: This block performs PHY signaling such as ranging,
channel quality measurement/feedback (CQI), and hybrid automatic
repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) or negative
acknowledgment (NACK) signaling.
Control signaling: This block generates resource-allocation messages
such as DL/UL medium-access protocol (MAP), as well as specific
control signaling messages, and other signaling messages not in the
form of general MAC messages (e.g., a DL frame control header).
Sleep mode management: This block handles sleep mode operation and
generates management messages related to sleep operation and can
communicate with the scheduler block to operate properly according to
the sleep period.
Quality-of-service (QoS): This block performs rate control based on QoS
input parameters from the connection management function for each
connection.
Scheduling and resource multiplexing: This block schedules and
multiplexes packets based on the properties of the connections.
Automatic repeat request (ARQ): This block performs the MAC ARQ
function. For ARQ-enabled connections, the ARQ block splits MSDUs
logically and sequences logical ARQ blocks.
Fragmentation/packing: This block performs the fragmentation or
packing of MSDUs based on input from the scheduler block.
MAC PDU formation: This block constructs MAC protocol data units
(PDUs) so that a BS/MS can transmit user traffic or management
messages via PHY channels.
The IEEE 802.16m protocol structure is similar to that of IEEE 802.16 with
additional functional blocks for new features including the following:
Relay functions: Relay functionality and packet routing in relay networks
Self-organization and self-optimization functions: a plug-and-play form of
operation for an indoor BS (i.e., a femtocell).
Multi-carrier functions: Control and operation of a number of adjacent or
non-adjacent radio-frequency (RF) carriers where the RF carriers can be
assigned to unicast and/or multicast and broadcast services. A single
MAC instantiation is used to control several physical layers. If the MS
supports multi-carrier operation, it can receive control and signaling,
broadcast, and synchronization channels through a primary carrier, and
traffic assignments can be made on the secondary carriers. A
generalization of the protocol structure for multi-carrier support using a
single MAC instantiation is shown in Figure 2.4. The load-balancing
functions and the RF-carrier mapping and control are performed by the
radio-resource control and management functional class. From the
perspective of an MS, the carriers utilized in a multi-carrier system can
be divided into two categories:
16
Figure 2.4. IEEE 802.16m multicarrier protocol stack and frame structure.
Based on the primary and/or secondary usage, the carriers of a multicarrier system can be configured differently as follows:
Fully configured carrier: A carrier for which all control channels
including synchronization, broadcast, multicast, and unicast
control signaling are configured. The information and parameters
related to multi-carrier operation and the other carriers also can
be included in the control channels.
Partially configured carrier: A carrier with only essential controlchannel configuration to support traffic exchanges during
multicarrier operation. If the user-terminal RF front end and/or its
baseband is not capable of processing more than one RF carrier
simultaneously, the user terminal may be allowed, in certain
intervals, to monitor secondary RF carriers and to resume
monitoring of the primary carrier prior to transmission of the
synchronization, broadcast, and nonuser-specific control
channels.
Multi-radio coexistence functions: Protocols for multi-radio coexistence,
where the MS generates management messages to report the
information about its co-located radio activities obtained from the inter-
17
18
The frame structure attributes and baseband processing are common for
both duplex schemes. The super-frame is a new concept introduced in IEEE
802.16m, where a super-frame is a collection of consecutive, equally-sized radio
frames, where the beginning is marked with a super-frame header. The superframe header carries short-term and long-term system configuration information
(Figure 2.5). To decrease the air-link access latency, the radio frames are further
divided into a number of sub-frames where each sub-frame comprises an integer
number of OFDMA symbols. The transmission time interval is defined as the
transmission latency over the air-link and is equal to a multiple of sub-frame
length (default one sub-frame).
Figure 2.5. The IEEE 802.16m frame structure for 5/10/20 MHz channel bandwidth.
19
There are three types of sub-frames depending on the size of the cyclic prefix:
Type-1 subframe, which consists of six OFDMA symbols
Type-2 subframe, which consists of seven OFDMA symbols
Type-3 subframe, which consists of five OFDMA symbols
In all of the sub-frame types, some of the symbols can be idle symbols. In the
basic frame structure, the super-frame length is 20 ms (comprising four radio
frames), radio frame size is 5 ms (comprising eight sub-frames), and sub-frame
length is 0.617 ms. The use of the subframe concept with the latter parameter set
would reduce the one-way air-link access latency from 18.5 ms (corresponding to
the reference system) to less than 5 ms. The concept of time zones that is
applied to both TDD and FDD systems was introduced in IEEE 802.16m. The
new and legacy time zones are time-division multiplexed across the time domain
for the DL. For UL transmissions, both time- and frequency-division multiplex
approaches are supported for the multiplexing of legacy and new terminals. The
non-backward compatible improvements and features are restricted to the new
zones. All backward compatible features and functions are used in the legacy
zones. In the absence of a legacy system, the legacy zones disappear, and the
entire frame is allocated to the new zones.
When it comes a word about modulation and coding in the IEEE 802.16m
we can say that it supports quadrature-phase shift keying (QPSK), 16-QAM, and
64-QAM modulation schemes in the DL and UL. The performance of adaptive
modulation generally suffers from the power inefficiencies of multilevelmodulation formats. This is due to the variations in bit reliabilities caused by the
bit-mapping onto the signal constellation. To overcome this issue, a constellation
rearrangement scheme is utilized where a signal constellation of quadrature
amplitude modulation (QAM) signals between retransmissions is rearranged; that
is, the mapping of the bits onto the complex-valued symbols between successive
HARQ retransmissions is changed, resulting in averaging the bit reliabilities over
several retransmissions and lower packet-error rates. The mapping of bits to the
constellation point depends on the constellation rearrangement type used for
HARQ retransmissions and also can depend on the MIMO scheme. The
complex-valued modulated symbols are mapped to the input of the MIMO
encoder. Incremental-redundancy HARQ is used in determining the starting
position of the bit selection for HARQ retransmissions.
Both convolutional code and convolutional turbo code with variable code
rate and repetition coding are supported. The modulation and coding schemes
used in a data transmission are selected from a set of 16 modulation coding
schemes (MCSs).
Furthermore, IEEE 802.16m supports several advanced multi-antenna
techniques including ingle and multi-user MIMO (spatial multiplexing and beamforming) as well as a number of transmit diversity schemes. In single-user MIMO
(SU-MIMO) scheme only one user can be cheduled over one resource unit, while
in multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), multiple users can e scheduled in one resource
unit.
Single-user MIMO (SU-MIMO) schemes are used to improve the link
performance, by providing robust transmissions with spatial diversity, or large
20
spatial multiplexing gain and peak data rate to a single MS, or beam-forming
gain. Both open-loop SU-MIMO and closed-loop SU-MIMO is supported in 16m.
For open-loop SU-MIMO, both spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity
schemes are supported. For closed-loop SU-MIMO, codebook based pre-coding
is supported for both TDD and FDD systems. CQI, PMI, and rank feedback can
be transmitted by the mobile station to assist the base stations scheduling,
resource allocation, and rate adaptation decisions. CQI, PMI, and rank feedback
may or may not be frequency dependent. For closed-loop SU-MIMO, sounding
based pre-coding is supported for TDD systems.
On the other side, multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) schemes are used to
enable resource allocation to communicate data to two or more MSs. MU-MIMO
enhances the system throughput. Multi-user transmission with one stream per
user is supported in MU-MIMO mode. MU-MIMO includes the MIMO
configuration of 2Tx antennas to support up to 2 users, and 4Tx or 8Tx antennas
to support up to 4 users. Both unitary and non-unitary MU-MIMO linear precoding techniques are supported.
For open-loop MU-MIMO, CQI and preferred stream index feedback may
be transmitted to assist the base stations scheduling, transmission mode
switching, and rate adaptation. The CQI is frequency dependent. For closed-loop
multi -user MIMO, codebook based pre-coding is supported for both TDD and
FDD systems. CQI and PMI feedback can be transmitted by the mobile station to
assist the base stations scheduling, resource allocation, and rate adaptation
decisions. CQI and PMI feedback may or may not be frequency dependent. For
closed-loop multi -user MIMO, sounding based pre-coding is supported for TDD
systems. In Figure 2.6 is given a basic comparison of SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO.
a)
b)
Figure 2.6. Examples of SU-MIMO (a)) and MU-MIMO (b)).
22
Other key enhancements and features planned for the IEEE 802.16m
amendment and 4G mobile WiMAX System includes:
Enhanced Multicast Broadcast Services (E-MBS) to provide greater
broadcast and multicast spectral efficiency and support for
switching between broadcast and unicast services whether on the
same or on different frequencies.
Enhanced GPS-based and Non-GPS-based Location Based
Services (LBS) using triangulation schemes with < 30 seconds
latency for location determination.
Self-Organizing Network (SON) features to enable selfconfiguration and self-optimization. Self-configuration enables true
plug and play of network nodes and cells as well as fast
reconfiguration and compensation in cases of failure. Selfoptimization ensures optimal network performance with respect to
service availability, QoS, network efficiency, and throughput under
changing traffic and environmental conditions.
Enhanced security with more advanced encryption schemes
assuring confidentiality of user identity and user-generated data
packets (e.g. location privacy and user identity protection).
Mobility: An IEEE 802.16m mobile station will maintain a
connection up to 350 km/hr and in some cases 500 km/hr
depending on the operating frequency band.
In the following sections some of those advanced features of IEEE
802.16m network design and deployment, like: E-MBS, Relaying, Femto-cells
and Self organizing networks and other will be overviewed in more details.
23
24
control, and service flow authorization. This WiMAX network architecture is flat
compared to typical cellular architectures (second/third generation [2G/3G]) since
RNC functions are integrated into macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs. Thus,
macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs in WiMAX networks should be more
autonomous. Additionally, such a system is more robust since each BS, either
macro/micro or femto, can connect to multiple ASN GWs such that there is no
single point of failure. The role of a Femto-AP in WiMAX network is the same as
a macro/micro BS. A Session Initiation Protocol/IP multimedia subsystem
(SIP/IMS) gateway is required to interwork with existing 2G/3G networks and the
public switched telephone network (PSTN).
However, the developing a new technology is always a challenging task.
In order for femtocells to be successful and provide significant capacity and
coverage gains, several technical issues need to be addressed. Furthermore we
discuss the technical challenges for femtocell deployments and possible
solutions:
a) NETWORK ARCHITECTURE: It is important to decide what kind of network
structure should be adopted by femtocells. Traditional 2G/3G networks
utilize centralized devices, RNCs, to control their associated base stations.
Typically, there is an RNC in charge of radio resource management of about
100 BSs. Once Femto-APs are overlaid on the existing network, the number
of devices an RNC needs to control will increase on the order of hundreds
to thousands or tens of thousands. Current network control entities may not
be scalable to handle so many devices. For advanced WiMAX networks,
scalability is less of an issue because of the flat all-IP network architecture.
In such a distributed control structure, more radio resource management
needs to be implemented at Femto-APs. Therefore, WiMAX Femto-APs
need to be more autonomous and powerful. In addition, the large neighbor
(cells) list that needs to be kept at a BS for timely handover can become
difficult to manage. The network architecture also needs to consider
infrastructure support for seamless mobility during handover. Management
protocols used in DSL systems, like TR-069 customer premises equipment
(CPE) WAN Management Protocol can be adopted for efficient
management of a large-scale femtocell network.
b) INTERFERENCE MANAGEMENT: In a hierarchical overlay network, where
WiMAX Femto-APs operate on the same frequency band as macro BSs, cochannel interference becomes an important factor that limits overall network
performance. When Femto-APs are installed indoors, however, walls help to
alleviate the interference between macro BSs and Femto-APs. As the
number of Femto-APs increase, the accumulated interference becomes a
serious issue. At a minimum, power control is required in Femto-APs to
avoid performance degradation to mobile terminals served by macro/micro
BSs. To guarantee close to 100 percent coverage, further interference
mitigation strategies such as fractional frequency reuse (FFR) could be
applied. In order to apply these more advanced interference mitigation
strategies, good synchronization is essential, as well as efficient means of
exchanging messages between macro BSs and Femto-APs.
26
27
28
systems today and grow system bandwidth in the future at lower cost-without
impact to earlier deployments.
Population density and population growth rates are easily obtained for any
metropolitan area by referring to census data. When considering mobile services
the addressable market can be assumed to be any individual within a certain age
group. The specific age group targeted may differ from operator to operator
based on planned services and population density data.
A 3-sector base station is standard for cellular and PCS systems, and it
also suits WiMAX systems (Figure 2.10). To make best use of the available
wireless spectrum, Mobile WiMAX systems can utilize both sector and frequency
reuse. Sector reuse is using one sector to cover multiple areas, at least one of
which is closer to another base station. Frequency reuse is using a frequency to
serve multiple sectors that do not mutually interfere. With a frequency reuse of 1,
each of a BSs three sectors use the same channel (thus effectively combining
the three sectors into a single sector). A frequency reuse of 3 eliminates cochannel interference at the sector boundaries. This reuse also significantly
decreases co-channel interference between neighboring cells due to the
increased spatial separation for channels operating at the same frequency provided that the cell sector boundaries are properly aligned. Getting the right
alignment involves down-tilting antennas and performing drive tests to see if
each sector covers the proposed azimuths. The inherent properties of Mobile
WiMAXs OFDMA scheme controls adjacent channel interference (ACI) at the
sector boundaries.
Calculations for link margins and SNR must include a number of factors,
mostly related to the deployment environment and quality of service goals. The
chosen Mobile WiMAX implementation technology strongly influences these
tradeoffs. Because of the importance of good reception inside buildings and
vehicles, penetration loss must be taken into account by utilizing the
normalization factor (n-factor) for a given medium. The n-factor depends on the
modulation and is used to achieve the same average power for all mappings.
The modulation is based on Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with 2M
points constellation, where M is the number of bits transmitted per modulated
31
symbol. For Mobile WiMAX downlinks, 4QAM (QPSK, M = 2) and 16QAM (M=4)
are mandatory, while 64QAM (M=6) is optional. For uplinks, 4QAM is mandatory
and 16QAM is optional. As a propagation model for making calculations, Mobile
WiMAX deployments can take advantage of the Modified Hata COST 231 model.
This widely used version of the COST 231 model is suitable for mobile
applications in the 1900 MHz band and acceptable for the 2500 MHz and 3500
MHz bands.
Another factor is antenna gain, which can be used to increase coverage
with the trade-off that increasing gain decreases the carrier-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (CINR). A CINR of 25 dB or better is normal. Other link parameters
including fade margins and interference margins are assumed to be the same for
each of the frequency bands 2.5 GHz, 3.5 GHz and eventually 5.8 GHz
bands.
On the other hand, the intelligent relays are an effective technology to
achieve important deployment tools to provide cost-effective methods of
delivering high data rate and avoid coverage holes in deployments areas. In
addition, upgrading the networks in order to support higher data rates is
equivalent to an increase of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) at the
receivers front-end. Also, through deployment the network providers have to
avoid coverage area holes. A traditional solution to increase the receivers SINR
is to deploy additional BSs or repeaters to serve the coverage area holes with
required data rates. In most of the cases, the cost of the BS is relatively high and
arranging backhauls quickly might be a challenge in serving coverage holes. By
now industry has used RF repeaters; however repeater has the problem of
amplifying the interference and has no intelligence of signal control and
processing. In order to achieve a more cost effective solution, relay stations (RS)
capable of decoding and forwarding the signals from source to destination
through radio interface would help operators to achieve higher SINR in cost
effective manner. Relay stations do not need a wire-line backhaul; the
deployment cost of RSs is expected to be much lower than the cost of BSs. The
system performance could be further improved by the intelligent resource
scheduling and cooperative transmission in systems employing intelligent relays.
Moreover, deploying RS can improve IEEE 802.16m network in different
dimensions. The following figure 2.11 illustrates the different benefits that can be
achieved by deploying RS within an IEEE802.16m network.
32
Another key advantage in Mobile WiMAX 2.0 are the Enhanced multicast
and broadcast services (E-MBS). They are point-to-multipoint communication
systems where data packets are transmitted simultaneously from a single source
to multiple destinations. The E-MBS content is transmitted over an area identified
as a zone. An E-MBS zone is a collection of one or more IEEE 802.16m BSs
transmitting the same content. The contents are identified by the same identifiers
(IDs). Each ABS capable of E-MBS service can belong to one or more E-MBS
zones. Each E-MBS Zone is identified by a unique E-MBS_Zone ID. An IEEE
802.16m MS can continue to receive the E-MBS within the E-MBS zone in
Connected State or Idle State. Moreover, the 802.16m BS may provide E-MBS
services belonging to different E-MBS zones (i.e. the ABS locates in the
overlapping E-MBS zone area). E-MBS data bursts may be transmitted in terms
of several sub-packets, and these sub-packets may be transmitted in different
sub-frame and to allow 802.16m MSs combining but without any
acknowledgement from 802.16m MSs.
Finally, the location is seen as one the major new business model drivers
in advanced Mobile WiMAX Networks. A major difference between mobile
broadband networks and fixed networks is that the former can be subject to
location changes. This provides a huge opportunity for location based services
(LBS) which have very broad potential to integrate with high performance mobile
services. General LBS include the updating of maps, provision of information on
the location of shops, service points, etc., depending on the location of the user.
As LBS become more intuitive to use, require regular updates when on the move
and have access to the sophistication of applications like Google Maps and
Google Earth, they are expected to drive network traffic to considerable volumes.
Operators are strongly interested in LBS as a route to providing true
personalized services, and, with true broadband connectivity, they will be able to
take advantage of devices with embedded GPS to offer their own and third party
services, e.g. using Google Maps or similar. Services such as these raise the
possibility of new business models to be developed for charging users or
specialist service providers for use of network capacity. As it is well known the
IEEE 802.16m supports basic MAC and PHY features to support both use cases,
with or without use of GPS or equivalent satellite based location solution. The
service can be provided to:
The end user providing the AMS with value added services.
External emergency or lawful interception services.
The network operator using the location information for network
operation and optimization.
In order to enhance location based service, 802.16m MS should send
report location-related information which includes the location information or the
measurement for determining location in response to the request of 802.16m BS.
In addition, LBS are supported for 802.16m MS in connected state as well as idle
state. For the connected state, AMS can report location information when it is
needed. For the idle state, 802.16m MS should perform network re-entry to
report location information when it is needed. The 802.16m MS positioning is
performed by using measurement methods, such as TDOA, TOA, AOA, and etc.,
33
34
DL: OFDMA
UL : SC-FDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20
MHz
DL: 302 Mbps
UL: 75 Mbps
DL: 1.91bps/Hz
UL: 0.72 bps/Hz
Link Layer < 5 ms
Handoff < 50ms
LTE-Advanced
(3GPP Rel-10)
DL: OFDMA
UL: SC-FDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
Aggregates components of R8
DL: 1 Gbps
UL: 300 Mbps
DL: 30 bps/Hz
UL: 15 bps/Hz
Link Layer < 5 ms
Handoff < 50ms
WiMAX 802.16e
(R1.0)
DL : OFDMA
UL : OFDMA
TDD
60 to 120 km/h
3.5, 5, 7, 8.75, 10
MHZ
DL: 46 Mbps
UL: 4 Mbps
DL: 1.91bps/Hz
UL: 0.84 bps/Hz
Link Layer = 20 ms
Handoff =35 to
50ms
20 users per sector/MHz (TDD)
WiMAX 802.16m
(R2.0)
DL: OFDMA
UL: OFDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
5,10,20, 40 MHZ
DL: 350 Mbps
UL: 200 Mbps
DL: 2.6 bps/Hz
UL: 1.3 bps/Hz
Link Layer< 10ms
Handoff < 30ms
>30 users per sector/MHz (TDD)
35
The main difference between WiMAX and LTE is that WiMAX benefits
from its earlier development and deployment, while LTE has the advantage of
being developed by telecommunications companies who get to choose which
technology to deploy. WiMAX jump started the mobile broadband market.
According to the WiMAX Forum, WiMAX has about 592 deployments world wide
with more than 10 million subscribers. Also, WiMAX has spectrum allocated for it
in 149 countries, and many telecommunications companies are involved in
WiMAX activities. However, now that LTEs development has picked up, some
telecommunications companies have backed away from WiMAX. Recently, Cisco
announced that it will discontinue offering WiMAX base stations and will focus on
radio agnostic IP core solutions. Alcatel-Lucent made a similar announcement.
However, companies such as Clear wire that have invested in WiMAX dont have
to discontinue their offerings. WiMAX could coexist in the broadband arena with
LTE, and moreover we expect the ITU to include that coexistence of those two
technologies in its recommendations for IMT-Advanced. However, this doesnt
necessarily mean that WiMAX or LTE will prevail at that time, as weve learned
from previous ITU recommendations. The IMT-2000 (3G) recommended several
independent technologies that meet the same goals. For example, in 2007, ITU
added OFDM as part of 3G at the request of IEEE. Thus, ITU can include
multiple standards in its recommendation, which means the real battle between
WiMAX and LTE will be how successfully theyre deployed and used. LTE
supports handover and roaming with the 3GGP mo-bile networks but with
WiMAX these services are not easy to achieve. From telecom operator point of
view, the roaming service generates numerous benefits for operators. It extends
the coverage of the operator using the network of other carriers, it generates
more benefits of visitors from other carriers and it provides to users an important
service i.e. user can travel far away from his operator.
However, both WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced use IP backbone for the
access part. So, there is not any problem in access part, it is easily upgradable
but we have to careful about the core elements. The deployment of an integrated
architecture that allows users to seamlessly switch between these two types of
networks would present several advantages to both users and service providers.
By offering integrated LTE/WiMAX services, users would benefit from the
enhanced performance and high data rate of such combined service. For the
providers, this could capitalize on their investment, attract a wider user base and
ultimately facilitate the ubiquitous introduction of high speed wireless data. The
required LTE access network may be owned either by the WiMAX operator or by
any other party, which then requires proper rules and Service Level Agreements
(SLAs) set up for smooth interworking on the basis of business and roaming
agreements between the LTE and mobile WiMAX operators. In [20], authors
proposed integrating architecture of the WiMAX and LTE.
In Figure 2.13, the Mobile WiMAX supports access to a variety of IP
multimedia services via WiMAX radio access technologies which is called Access
Service Network (ASN). The ASN is owned by a Network Access Provider (NAP)
and comprises one or more BS and one or more ASN gateways (ASN-GW) that
form the radio access network. Access control and traffic routing for Mobile
36
The LTE network may be owned either by the NAP or by any other part in
which case the interworking is enabled and governed by appropriate business
and roaming agreement.3GPP and Mobile WiMAX accesses are integrated
through the Evolved Packet Core (EPC). 3GPP access connections are
supported by the Serving Gateway (SGW), and Mobile WiMAX accesses are
connected to the Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW). Specifically, the legacy
serving GPRS support node (SGSN) is connected to the SGW. New logical
entities are also added to the system architecture. The ANDSF is an entity that
facilitates the discovery of the target access. The target access supported by the
ANDSF can be either a 3GPP or Mobile WiMAX cell. This entity is introduced by
3GPP in order to minimize the impacts on the use of radio signals. The use of
radio signals for neighbor cell discovery requires the User Equipment (UE) to
utilize multiple antennas, which result in power consumption. Moreover, if the cell
information is not broadcast, the UE is unable to acquire the appropriate target
cell information. Optionally, the ANDSF can provide additional information about
neighbor cells, such as QoS capabilities, which cannot be distributed by radio
signals due to high data demand. Integration architecture proposed in Figure
2.13 is basically interworking between WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced. In
network transition from WiMAX to LTE can be run in parallel both networks
utilizing all the existing elements of the WiMAX including certain elements of the
LTE/LTE-Advanced so that it solves the problem of service interruption in
switchover the system and subscribers get experience from both technology for
certain period.
On the other side, the network management is also the important factor to
be considered while moving from one network to the other network. There might
37
38
2.7.1. Mobile IP
The Mobile IP is officially known as "Internet Protocol Mobility Support." It
is an area under rapid development and one of the factors driving the
requirements to redevelop the Internet Protocol as IPv6. Generally, Mobile IP can
be thought of as the cooperation of three major subsystems. First, there is a
discovery mechanism defined so that mobile terminals can determine their new
attachment points (new IP addresses) as they move from place to place within
the Internet. Second, once the mobile terminal knows the IP address at its new
attachment point, it registers with an agent representing it at its home network.
Lastly, mobile IP defines simple mechanisms to deliver datagrams to the mobile
node when it is away from its home network.
In the beginning of this sub-section, it is a good idea to frame the
discussion by setting some terminology, adapted from the mobile IP
specification. Mobile IP introduces the following new functional entities:
Mobile node - A host or router that changes its point of attachment from
one network or subnetwork to another, without changing its IP address.
A mobile node can continue to communicate with other Internet nodes at
any location using its (constant) IP address.
Home agent - A router on a mobile nodes home network which delivers
datagrams to departed mobile nodes, and maintains current location
information for each.
Foreign agent - A router on a mobile nodes visited network which
cooperates with the home agent to complete the delivery of datagrams
to the mobile node while it is away from home.
A mobile node has a home address, which is a long-term IP address on its
home network. When away from its home network, a care-of address is
associated with the mobile node and reflects the mobile nodes current point of
attachment. The mobile node uses its home address as the source address of all
IP datagrams it sends, except where otherwise required for certain registration
request datagrams.
The following terms are frequently used in connection with Mobile IP:
Agent advertisement - Foreign agents advertise their presence by
using a special message, which is constructed by attaching a special
extension to a router advertisement, as described in the next section.
Care-of-address - The termination point of a tunnel toward a mobile
node, for datagrams forwarded to the mobile node while it is away from
home. There are two different types of care-of-address (CoA): a foreign
agent care-of address is an address of a foreign agent with which the
mobile node is registered; a collocated care-of address is an externally
39
obtained local address which the mobile node has associated with one
of its own network interfaces.
Correspondent node - A peer with which a mobile node is
communicating. A correspondent node may be either mobile or
stationary.
Mobility agent - Either a home agent or a foreign agent.
Mobility binding - The association of a home address with a care-of
address, along with the remaining lifetime of that association.
Mobility security association - A collection of security contexts
between a pair of nodes which may be applied to mobile IP protocol
messages exchanged between them. Each context indicates an
authentication algorithm and mode (as described in the fourth section), a
secret (a shared key, or appropriate publiciprivate key pair), and a style
of replay protection in use.
40
When a mobile node moves away from its home network, it obtains a CoA
on the foreign network, for instance, by soliciting or listening for agent
advertisements, or contacting DHCP or Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). While
away from home, the mobile node registers each new CoA with its home agent,
possibly by way of a foreign agent. Figure 2.15 illustrated the Mobile IP
registration process. IP packets sent to the mobile nodes home address are
intercepted by its home agent, tunneled by its home agent to the CoA, received
at the tunnel endpoint (at either a foreign agent or the mobile node itself), and
finally delivered to the mobile node. In the reverse direction, datagrams sent by
the mobile node are generally delivered to their destination using standard IP
routing mechanisms, not necessarily passing through the home agent.
When the home agent tunnels a datagram to the CoA, the inner IP header
destination (i.e., the mobile nodes home address) is effectively shielded from
intervening routers between its home network and its current location. At the
CoA, the original datagram exits from the tunnel and is delivered to the mobile
node. It is the job of every home agent to attract and intercept datagrams that are
41
destined to the home address of any of its registered mobile nodes. In Figure
2.16, the tunneling process in Mobile IPv4 is plotted.
The home agent basically does this by using a minor variation on proxy
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), and to do so in the natural model it has to
have a network interface on the link indicated by the mobile nodes home
address. However, the latter requirement is not part of the mobile IP
specification. When foreign agents are in use, similarly, the natural model of
operation suggests that the mobile node be able to establish a link its foreign
agent. Other configurations are possible, however, using protocol operations not
defined by (and invisible to) mobile IP. Notice that, if the home agent is the only
router advertising reachability to the home network, but there is no physical link
instantiating the home network, then all datagrams transmitted to mobile nodes
addressed on that home network will naturally reach the home agent without any
special link operations.
On the other hand, Mobile IPv6 is the next generation mobile protocol and
in the near future, all nodes/routers are going to become more faster and the new
technologies are going to reduce the Internet delay and will provide advanced
mobility management. IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) expects that the
IPv6 protocol will replace the IPv4 protocol in the near future. Although space
does not permit a full exposition of the details of the proposed MIPv6, some
overall discussion is certainly in order.
The Mobile IPv6 uses the experiences gained from the design and
development of Mobile IPv4 together with the new IPv6 protocol features. Mobile
IPv6 shares many features with Mobile IPv4, but the protocol is now fully
integrated into IPv6 and provides many improvements over Mobile IPv4. The
major differences between Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 are:
Support for "Route Optimisation": This feature is now built in as a
fundamental part of the Mobile IPv6 protocol. In Mobile Ipv4 the route
42
43
In Mobile IPv6 the packets which arrive at the home network and are
destined for a Mobile Node that is away from home, are intercepted by
the Mobile Nodes Home Agent using IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
[RFC1970] rather than ARP [RFC826] as is used in Mobile IPv4.
The source routing (routing header) feature in Mobile IPv6 removes the
need to manage "tunnel soft state", which was required in Mobile IPv4
due to limitations in ICMP error procedure for IPv4. In Mobile IPv4 an
ICMP error message that is created due to a failure of delivering an IP
packet to the Care-of Address, will be returned to the home network, but
will may not contain the IP address of the original source of the tunnelled
IP packet. This is solved in the Home Agent by storing the tunneling
information, i.e., which IP packets have been tunnelled to which Care-of
Address, called tunneling soft state.
In IPv6 a new routing procedure is defined called any-cast. This feature
is used in Mobile IPv6 for the dynamic Home Agent address discovery
mechanism. This mechanism returns one single reply to the Mobile
Node, rather than the corresponding Mobile IPv4 mechanism that used
IPv4 directed broadcast and returned a separate reply from each Home
Agent on the Mobile Node's home sub-network. The Mobile IPv6
mechanism is more efficient and more reliable. This is due to the fact
that only one packet need to be replied to the Mobile Node.
In Mobile IPv6 an Advertisement Interval option on Router
Advertisements (equivalent to Agent Advertisements in Mobile IPv4) is
defined, that allows a Mobile Node to decide for itself how many Router
Advertisements (Agent Advertisements) it is tolerating to miss before
declaring its current router unreachable.
All Mobile IPv6 control traffic can be piggybacked on any existing IPv6
packets. This can be accomplished by using the IPv6 destination
options. In contrary, for Mobile IPv4 and its Route Optimisation
extensions, separate UDP packets were required for each control
message.
In Mobile IPv6 supports Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HIPv6) plus Fast
Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FHIPv6). HMIPv6 is a localized mobility
management proposal that aims to reduce the signaling load due to user
mobility. The mobility management inside the local domain is handled by
a Mobility Anchor Point (MAP). Mobility between separate MAP domains
is handled by MIPv6. Moreover, the HMIPv6 presents the following
advantages: it includes a mechanism to reduce the signaling load in
case of handoffs within the same domain and may improve handoff
performance reducing handoff latency and packet losses since intradomain handoffs are performed locally. However, since the periodic BUs
are not reduced but the ones due to handoffs, the gain depends on the
mobility of the mobile nodes. On the other hand, FHIPv6 protocol
enables mobile nodes to quickly detect that it has moved to a new
subnet by providing the new access point and the associated subnet
prefix information when the mobile node is still connected to its current
44
45
802.21-2008 is restricted to access technology-independent handovers. Intratechnology handovers, handover policies, security mechanisms, media-specific
link layer enhancements to support IEEE 802.21-2008, and Layer 3 (L3) and
upper-layer enhancements are outside the scope of IEEE 802.21-2008.
IEEE 802.21 facilitates a variety of handover methods, including both hard
handovers and soft handovers. A hard handover, also known as "break-beforemake" handover, typically implies an abrupt switch between two access points,
base stations, or, generally speaking, PoAs. Soft handovers require the
establishment of a connection with the target PoA while still routing traffic through
the serving PoA. In soft ("make-before-break") handovers, mobile nodes remain
briefly connected with two PoAs. Note, however, that depending on service
requirements and application traffic patterns, hard handovers may often go
unnoticed. For example, web browsing and audio/video streaming with
prebuffering can be accommodated when handing over between different PoAs
in the range of one network by employing mechanisms that allow transferring the
node connection context from one PoA to another quickly.
The main design elements of the IEEE 802.21 reference model can be
classified into three categories: a framework for enabling transparent service
continuity while handing over between heterogeneous access technologies; a set
of handover-enabling functions; and a set of Service Access Points (SAPs). The
role of the IEEE 802.21 standard within the framework of IEEE and its new
functions is illustrated in Figure 2.18.
as VoIP, are typically the most demanding in terms of handover delays, and highquality VoIP calls can be served only by soft handovers. On the other hand,
video streaming can accommodate hard handovers, as long as the vertical
break-before-make handover delay does not exceed the application buffer
interval delay. In the case of hard handovers, handover preparation signaling can
initiate the connection context transfer from the serving PoA to the target PoA
beforehand. For instance, lack of the required level of QoS support or low
available capacity in a candidate access network may lead the network selecting
entity to prevent a planned handover. On the other hand, for example, increasing
delay, jitter, or packet-loss rates in the currently serving network may degrade
the perceived QoS throughout the network, or only for a particular application,
triggering the mobility manager to start assessing the potential of candidate
target access networks and subsequently initiate an IEEE 802.21-assisted
handover.
Also, IEEE 802.21 allows the reception of dynamic information about the
performance of the serving network and other networks in range. In other words,
IEEE 802.21 provides methods for continuous monitoring of available access
conditions. However, IEEE 802.21 does not specify any methods for collecting
this dynamic information at the link layer.
Furthermore, the EEE 802.21 defines a set of handover-enabling
functions, which are specified with respect to existing network elements in the
protocol stack, and introduces a new logical entity called Media-Independent
Handover Function (MIHF). The MIHF logically resides between the link layer
and the network layer. It provides, among others, abstracted services to entities
residing at the network layer and above, called MIH Users (MIHUs). MIHUs are
anticipated to make handover and link-selection decisions based on their internal
policies, context and the information received from the MIHF. To this end, the
primary role of the MIHF is to assist in handovers and handover decision making
by providing all necessary information to the network selector or mobility
management entities. The latter are responsible for handover decisions
regardless of the entity position in the network. The MIHF is not meant to make
any decisions with respect to network selection.
SAPs with associated primitives between the MIHF and MIHUs
(MIH_SAP) give MIHUs access to the following services that the MIHF provides:
The Media-Independent Event Service (MIES) provides event reporting
about, for example, dynamic changes in link conditions, link status, and
link quality. Events can be both local and remote. Remote events are
obtained from a peer MIHF entity.
The Media-Independent Command Service (MICS) enables MIHUs to
manage and control the parameters related to link behavior and
handovers. MICS provides a set of commands for accomplishing that, as
we will see later in this article. Commands can be both local and remote.
The information obtained with MICS is dynamic.
The Media-Independent Information Service (MIIS) allows MIHUs to
receive static information about the characteristics and services of the
serving network and other available networks in range. This information
47
49
The Version field in the MIH frame header specifies the version of the MIH
protocol used. The two Ack fields are for acknowledgement purposes and are
discussed later in the article. The Unauthenticated Information Request (UIR)
flag indicates that the response message may be sent with a limited length
because of the nature of unauthenticated message exchange. Recall that when
an MIHF issues requests without registering first with its peer, it may receive less
information than if it had registered earlier. If this flag is set, then the information
included in the response message may not reflect the complete information
available to registered MIHFs. The More Fragments (M) and Fragment Number
(FN) fields are used in message fragmentation.
The MIH Message ID field comprises three subfields. The Service
Identifier (SID) field indicates the MIHF service class (MIES, MICS, MIIS, or
Service Management) that this message belongs to. The Operation code
(Opcode) specifies whether the message is a request, response, or indication.
The Action Identifier (AID) is related with and scoped by the SID. For instance, if
the SID indicates MIES, AID points to the actual event type. The Variable Load
Length field contains the total length of the variable, TLV-encoded payload
carried by this message frame.
The MIH protocol messages use the Transaction ID and MIHF ID fields as
identifiers, but only the former is included in the header. The Transaction ID field
is an identifier that helps to match each request, response, or indication message
with its acknowledgement.
The payload part contains service-specific messages encoded in TLV
format. The first two TLVs in the payload part (not shown in Figure 2.20) should
be the Source Identifier and Destination Identifier, which are both the same data
type as the MIHF ID. Every MIHF must have a unique MIHF ID, which may be
assigned to it at configuration time. The MIHF ID shall be invariant and could be,
for example, a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) or Network Access
Identifier (NAI). The MIHF ID is used during the MIH registration phase and is
appended to the payload part of every message requiring endpoint identification.
In broadcast messages, the Destination Identifier TLV is defined as zero length.
The Figure 2.21 shows the message structure consisting of the MIH
Protocol header, source and destination identifiers, and service-specific TLVs. In
TLV encoding, the Type field (1 octet) denotes the parameter type, the Length
field (variable octets) indicates the length of the Value field, and the Value field
(variable octets) carries the actual value of the parameter.
50
return an acknowledgement with ACK-Rsp bit set. The MIH Message ID and
Transaction ID must be the same in the request message and its
acknowledgement. An acknowledgement message may carry no payload. Note,
however, that despite employing these two ID fields, the MIH protocol does not
specify any further mechanisms for reliable authentication or shielding message
exchanges from third parties.
Finally, we anticipate that its adoption in the near future will allow for better
network resource usage and permit multi-access devices to select the network
access best suited for their communication needs. After motivating the needs for
a standard to cope with heterogeneous network handovers, we introduced the
IEEE 802.21 Reference Model and the MIH Services. We briefly presented the
MIH Protocol, although a more thorough description calls for a separate overview
article.
We expect that in the future, when IEEE 802.21 MIH is widely deployed,
there will be significant efforts to further amend and extend it in order to provide
for even better services. In fact, because security mechanisms are outside the
scope of the base IEEE 802.21 standard, the work on defining a security-related
extension to IEEE 802.21 (IEEE P802.21a) has already begun. Moreover,
another amendment (IEEE P802.21b) that deals with handovers with downlinkonly technologies, such as Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB), has also been
introduced (see: www.ieee802.org/21 for more information about the
amendments). Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether vendors will stand by
this promising standard and incorporate it in future products and solutions.
51
52
The new spectrum is spread across five additional bands in portions of the 400 to
700 MHz and 2.3, 2.5, and 3.5 GHz bands 4G systems and their backward
compatibility to 3G will force multiple band and multiple front end products to
meet the diverse requirements of regional carriers. The recommendations from
WRC- 07 are included in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9. The frequencies added for 4G services from WRC-07
The bands below 1 GHz are a cost-effective way to provide IMT services
in sparsely populated regions in developed and undeveloped countries. The
bands above 1 GHz are preferable for providing continuous blocks of spectrum
for future broadband wireless systems such as IMT-Advanced (4G). Among the
bands being proposed, the newly identified 3.4 to 3.6 GHz band could prove to
be the most attractive for implementing 4G bands in the future. It should be
apparent that whatever solutions we bring to the market, the ability to be able to
customize and adapt the front end for a particular combination of frequencies will
be a worthwhile investment due to the complexities involved. In Figure 2.23 one
view of possible band combinations required in mobile devices and embedded
modems are given. Different analysis may come to different weightings for
regional splits, but the daunting number of band combinations should not be lost.
53
54
55
56
57
58
Assuming that such coverage requires 5000 base stations, the cost per base
station for 5MHz works out to $900per base station or $1800for 10MHz.
In Japan, the spectrum is allotted based on a pricing of $500,000 per MHz
for the whole of Japan. This works out to $2.5million per year for the entire
country (10 million population) for 5MHz or $0.25 per individual covered per year.
Recognizing that there are large variations in cost to reckon with, we have,
however, taken a figure of $2000 per base station per month as the spectrum
cost per 10MHz, with a coverage of 50sq km for the business case recognizing
that any higher costs will need to be offset by higher priced offerings.
Furthermore, with data being the primary offering in some business plans,
the cost of internet bandwidth is also an important factor. Internet bandwidth is
priced in the range of $3501000 per Mbps per month for backbone connectivity.
The prices in the lower range of $350 are in the United States, while higher
prices such as $1000 prevail in some Asian and African countries. These prices
are based on DS3 (45Mbps)-derived pricings.
The cost of the CPE is an important consideration for a viable business. It
is also important to identify and validate the type of CPEs which will be used in a
given network even though all the devices conforming to the WiMAX Forum
approved profiles and with certified equipment are expected to be able to
operate. The CPE devices which have initially become available are for the datacentric applications and may consist of either an outdoor unit mounted with the
antennas or an indoor unit with inbuilt antennas such as a WiMAX mobile
handset. A typical crash of the CPE prices, which follows a large volume growth,
is yet to be witnessed in the Mobile WiMAX arena. Hence, CPEs with prices in
the $200400 range are the norm.
Moreover, let we see something about the key suppliers of Mobile WiMAX
network equipment. In the main, the infrastructure vendors that remain most
committed to Mobile WiMAX are those that have managed to attract the majority
of Mobile WiMAX contracts. The top Mobile WiMAX players include: Motorola,
Samsung, Huawei, Alvarion, ZTE and Alcatel-Lucent. In contrast, Nortel simply
exited the business, while Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) finally decided to
resell Alvarions Mobile WiMAX solutions instead of relying on in-house systems
as initially planned. However, there may not be enough room for all of todays
WiMAX infrastructure vendors in the future. Over a dozen companies are
currently competing for contracts, yet even the much larger UMTS/HSPA
infrastructure market is currently dominated by just four players Ericsson, NSN,
Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei). All the main vendors with ambitions in Mobile
WiMAX promote their end-to-end capabilities - from network infrastructure to
end-user devices, and from systems integration services to applications.
However, the key difference between the vendors is the extent to which they rely
on in-house development and capabilities. When a technology is new (such as
was the case with Mobile WiMAX three to four years ago), in-house end-to-end
capabilities are a strong competitive advantage. These capabilities help to
ensure that customers have good levels of system stability, resulting in a better
end-user experience.
59
This is one of the factors behind early Mobile WiMAX contracts such as
that for Sprint going to end-to-end providers such as Motorola and Samsung
(see our interview on page 4 for more details). These contracts, in turn, helped to
establish these vendors as early market leaders. However, given the fact that
Mobile WiMAX is maturing (and more certified interoperable products from a
variety of vendors are now available) this advantage is eroding over time.
Among service providers, one of the original key market drivers for
WiMAX was the strong belief that WiMAX chips would follow the same
evolutionary path as WiFi. Therefore, they would eventually be built into the
majority of laptops. For service providers, the intended ubiquity of WiMAX would
mean lower costs, thus less need for subsidization and a wider potential
customer base. Unfortunately, the reality has been quite different. At the peak of
the hype surrounding WiMAX, embedded laptops were expected by 2007 with
volumes ramping up to achieve high market penetration quickly. However, the
first laptops with embedded WiMAX are only now coming to the market, and in
limited numbers. Nonetheless, several device vendors have recently reported
positive signs of growing WiMAX demand. Chipset supplier Sequans has
announced that it shipped its millionth WiMAX chipset in June 2009, while
Beceem shipped more than 1 million WiMAX terminal chips in Q3 2009 alone.
On the device side, Motorola announced at the 4G World event in September
2009 that it had shipped its millionth WiMAX end-user device. Several industry
sources have also confirmed a rapid decrease in mobile WiMAX device prices.
Price points as low as $50 for a USB modem have been mentioned in relation to
upcoming WiMAX projects in India.
A number of key market opportunities in emerging markets remain open to
mobile WiMAX, most notably in India. The reasons are the following:
Untapped demand exists today that cannot be met by fixed alternatives.
This means that wireless operators using WiMAX can avoid a host of
challenges faced by their fixed-line rivals trying to penetrate these areas,
such as the high cost of laying cables. For example, Yota in Russia looks
like the success story the WiMAX community has been long awaiting. In a
market where broadband penetration is low and 3G is just beginning roll out,
the operator, after only three months of operation, has attracted more than
100,000 subscribers in just four cities.
A number of mobile operators in emerging markets (even those with 3G
spectrum) may consider mobile WiMAX as a better alternative to DSL in
rural areas than HSPA, due to potential spectrum capacity constraints.
Mobilink in Pakistan and Globe Telecom in the Philippines are good
examples of this phenomenon.
Therefore, the outlook for mobile WiMAX depends heavily on its success
in penetrating emerging markets. As Figure 2.25 illustrates, by 2014 the majority
of Mobile WiMAX connections are expected to come from such markets.
On the other hand, Mobile WiMAX has applications in many other areas,
each of which can be a standalone business by itself. This includes applications
such as rural connectivity and VoIP, providing rural broadband over large areas,
providing dedicated networks for special applications such as security, data
60
gathering networks, bank networks, and many others. Owing to the large and
reliable coverage it replaces many applications which were earlier provided using
satellites. However, the biggest opportunity in the near term is to use these either
for enriching legacy applications for high-quality triple-play services or to provide
multicast video and on-demand services (VoD) for mobile devices. In the
medium to long term, a new ecosystem with open architecture mobile devices
paralleling the cellular mobile networks, but without the legacy architectures and
proprietary elements, is on the horizon. New players not currently owning
telecom networks are expected to take this initiative.
61
References
[1] Roger B. Marks, "IEEE STANDARD 802.16 FOR GLOBAL BROADBAND
WIRELESS ACCESS", Session: The Future of Wireless, ITU Telecom World
2003, Geneva, Switzerland, 12-18 October 2003.
[2] IEEE Computer Society and the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques
Society: IEEE Std 802.16m-2011 Standard for local and metropolitan area
networks, 2011.
[2] Chris Thomas, Raj Jain, 802.16m and WiMAX Release 2.0, 2010.
[3] Yaghoobi, Hassan, "Mobile WiMAX Update and IEEE 802.16m," IEEE, 2009.
[4] IEEE 802.11n-2009Amendment 5: Enhancements for Higher Throughput.
IEEE-SA. 29 October 2009.
[5] Broadcom corporation,
Technology, April 2006.
802.11n:
Next-Generation
Wireless
LAN
[17] PicoChip, The Case for Home Base Stations, Apr. 2007.
[18] ABI Research, Femtocell Research Service, 2nd qtr., 2007.
[19] Shu-ping Yeh and Shilpa Talwar, "WiMAX Femtocells: A Perspective on
Network Architecture, Capacity, and Coverage", IEEE Communications
Magazine, pp.:58-65, October 2008.
[20] Tara A. Yahiya and Hakima Chaouchi, On the Integration of LTE and Mobile
WiMAXNetworks," 19th Intrnational Confe-rence on Computer communication
and Networks, April 2010.
[21] Shyam S. Wagle, Minesh Ade, and M. Ghazanfar Ullah, "Network Transition
from WiMAX to LTE", Journal of Computing, VOL 3, ISSUE 1, January 2011,
ISSN 2151-9617, pp.:66-70.
[22] Perkins, C., E., Mobile IP, IEEE Communications Magazine, May 1997.
[23] RFC 3344: IP Mobility Support for IPv4.
[24] RFC 3775: Mobility Support in IPv6.
[25] RFC 4140: Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6).
[26] RFC 4068: Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6.
[27] RFC2002: IP Mobility Support.
[28]http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_122/122_ieee.html
[29] A. de la Oliva, and alt. "A case study: IEEE 802.21 enabled mobile terminals
for optimized WLAN/3G handovers", Mobile Computing and Communication
Review, Vol. 11, No.2, April 2007.
[30] Antonio de la Oliva, Telemaco Melia, Albert Banchs, Ignacio Soto and Albert
Vidal, "IEEE 802.21 (Media Independent Handover services) Overview", IEEE
Wireless Communication, Volume 15, Issue 4, August 2008.
[31] Doug Gray, "Mobile WiMAX: A Performance and Comparative Summary",
WiMAX Forum, September 2006.
[32]https://itunews.itu.int/En/2061-World-Radiocommunication-Conference2012.note.aspx
[33]http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/index.asp?category=conferences&rlink=wrc12&lang=en&general-information=1
[34]http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/endata/magazine/ztetechnologies/2011/no1/articles/
201101/t20110117_201776.html
[35] http://www.realwireless.biz/2012/02/21/wrc-12-final-update-the-outcome/
[36] http://www.forbescustom.com/TelecomPgs/WimaxP1.html
[37] Amitabh Kumar, "Mobile Broadcasting with WiMAX", Focal Press, ISBN-13:
978-0-240-81040-9, pp.: 508-527, April 7, 2008.
63