Butterfly Solution

“TCO saving solution for rural areas”

Contents

 Trends & Challenges in Rural Sites

 Butterfly Solution
 Trial result
 Summary
Rural Area, ROI > 10 Yrs time to redesign the sites

MBB requirement still very low in Rural areas

Mobile internet penetration

Source : China Proportion of population living in rural areas

Revenue momentum continuing…

How much is the Rural sites contribution?
3
ROI is not Fast, Lower TCO is the Target

High CAPEX High OPEX

 Traditional D.G. site cost > 120000$ ,  Satellite transmission > 3000$ /Mbps,
civil work 51% , power 30% fuel fee> 12000$/year
ROI>10 years
 Lack of OSS, more site visit
 Site rental fee Traditional site
Source：Sudan Source：Pakistan

Security Issue Low Revenue

 PV/Battery stolen User Number Per Site 1/10 As Urban

 About 19% sites facilities stolen, property The ARPU is around 2~3$
loss 308,000$ in Indonesia

Source：Indonesia Source: Pakistan

4
 Contents

 Trends & Challenges in Rural Sites

 Butterfly Solution
 Trial result
 Summary

5
 Butterfly Site, Different Scenarios, 30% TCO Saving

1 Spot Coverage 2 Line Coverage

3 Continuous Coverage
Isolated Village Road Sub-urban or multiple
villages

 People lived in a  National main roads need  Low population density.

centralized and isolated
village, usually in
mountain
 No power supply,
transmission with
satellite
to be covered continuously.  Coverage is the key to
 Some villages located by be concern
the roads.
 No Power

30% TCO Saving Compared to Traditional 3-Sector

6
 Butterfly Site, Simplifying Site Structure
Two-Sector Networking
Butterfly Site Traditional Rural Site
Blade RRU
2100M 65°Antenna*3
1x 2T4R 2*40W
RRU3952

Blade BBU 1T2R RRU*3

BBU3910A

1x GO/UO/LO/GU/UL/GL
12L/12Kg

Huawei 90oAnt

2x Band:
2100MHz

7
 22 ~ 24% Power Savings

Butterfly Site

20W 40W 20W 40W

BBU Power 160.64 160.64 160.64 160.64

RF Power 337.5 431.13 225 287.42

Cabinet Total Power 508.14 601.77 395.64 458.06

22% power saving

8
 Butterfly Site Lower CAPEX by 25%, OPEX by 30%

CAPEX -25% Per Site

Less Equipment Less Weight

Saving 2*RRU, 1*Antenna Civil work & Tower -25%

OPEX -30% Per Site

Less Power Consumption Pure Solar Power Supply
981
850
713
514 568
456 Oil/Electric
Saved
20W 30W 40W 20W 30W 40W
Butterfly Site 3 Sector Site

9
 Per site savings $3000 with Butterfly

90oAnt 90oAnt

2 RRU
1T2R
1*60W

BTS

Rent : BDT 1200/ RRU/month for shared site

Power cost : BDT 9.23/ kwHr
Butterfly

10
 Contents

 Trends & Challenges in Rural Sites

 Butterfly Solution
 Trial result
 Summary

11
Current Parameter Settings of Trial
Traditional 3 Sector Butterfly
U1462_1 : 20W/2W U1462_1 : 30W/3W
E-Tilt: 3; Azimuth 0 E-Tilt: 4; Azimuth 300

NBR
cells 1
RAJ_U1462
3 2
U1462_2 : 30W/3W
U1462_3 : 30W/3W U1462_2 : 30W/3W
1 E-Tilt: 6; Azimuth 120
E-Tilt: 2; Azimuth 240 E-Tilt: 4 ; Azimuth 120
3 2 U0349_1 : 30W/3W
U0349_1 : 20W/2W
RAJ_U0349 E-Tilt : 5; Azimuth 10
E-Tilt: 6; Azimuth 10

U0349_1 : 20W/2W U0349_1 : 20W/2W U0349_2: 30W/3W

E-Tilt: 6; Azimuth 230 E-Tilt: 8; Azimuth 130 E-Tilt: 5; Azimuth:190
12
Spot Coverage @ Gainbandha, Rajshahi
Isolated Village in Gainbadha
Similar Coverage as Traditional Site

RSCP CDF Distribution MR

20W 30W 40W

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%

Traditional (3 Sector) Butterfly (2 Sector) Multi-Site 3-Sector 2-Sector

Frequency 2100MHz
Height 40/37.5m(different height)
CellPower(W) 20 30 40
Antenna Type 18dBi(65°) 17dBi(90°)
RSCP Average(dBm) -99.21 -100.31 -99.66
13
 Field Result Coverage is same, ECIo even better
RSCP ECIo

Pre Post Pre Post

20W 20W 30W
30W

After conversion coverage remains same as before, no degradation observed

Pre DT: 8th Jan 2017
Post DT: 21st Jan 2017

14
 Pre DT: 8th Jan 2017

Statistics shows better result in Butterfly

Post DT: 21st Jan 2017

Pre DT: 20W Pre DT: 20W

RSCP(dBm) Post DT: 30W
Ec/Io(dB) Post DT: 30W

Pre DT Post DT Pre Post

60 100
48.59
50 80
40 34.17 60
27.58 43
30 24.43 37.78
40 34.87
17.57
20 13.92 22.53 22.22
11.63 14.18
8.55 9.05 20 9.1 9.4
10 4.52 3.15 3.76
0 0
[-79,0] [-84,-79] [-92,-84] [-95,-92] [-130,-95] [-10,0] [-12,-10] [-14,-12] [-16,-14] [-30,-16]

Butterfly MR RSCP Butterfly MR EC/Io

100.00% 120.00%
90.00%
80.00% 100.00%
70.00%
80.00%

Axis Title
60.00%
50.00% 20W
PRE 60.00% 20W
PRE
40.00% 40W 40W
30.00% 40.00%
20.00% 30W 30W
10.00% 20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-16< -14< -12< -10< -8<
Ec/Io<=-14 Ec/Io<=-12 Ec/Io<=-10 Ec/Io<=-8 Ec/Io<=-6

15
 Major KPI maintain same trend
Pre Data: 6th-8th Jan 2017; Post Data: 20th -22nd Jan 2017
Maintain Degrade Improved

RAJ_U0349 RAJ_U1462 Neighbors Cells

KPI Name
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Status
CS_CSSR(%) 99.49 99.64 99.53 99.25 99.31 99.41
PS_CSSR_EFD(%) 99.65 99.57 99.45 99.17 99.29 99.29
CS_Drop_Rate(%) 0.71 0.37 0.24 0.6 0.49 0.38
PS_Drop_Rate_EFD(%) 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.93 0.61 0.65
Soft_HOSR(%) 99.89 99.92 99.91 99.85 99.89 99.91
CS_IRAT_HOSR(%) 93.69 93.95 94.4 92.44 93.65 95.6
PS_IRAT_HOSR(%) 99.68 86.66 93.37 89.64 87.88 72.27
CS_AMR_Traffic(Erl) 51.91 85.88 68.69 107.76 148.39 168.9
PS_R99_Traffic_Vol(MB) 140.04 111.15 42.98 66.38 297.19 115.22
HSDPA_Traffic(MB) 13348.08 21143.28 14603.19 22578.33 61401.49 54997.79
HSUPA_Traffic(MB) 1602.39 3236.05 2009.39 3110.71 7064.51 6469.58
HSDPA user Throughput(kbit/s) 2065.96 1756.27 1745.85 1516.74 1318.97 1441.43
HSUPA user Throughput(kbit/s) 164.2 167.89 158.83 149.37 139.9 136.86
HSDPA Cell Throughput (kbit/s) 2469.3 2334.1 2227.53 2174.02 2039.14 2089.17
HSUPA Cell Throughput(kbit/s) 24.7 57.21 29.13 53.69 65.99 60.2
VS.MeanRTWP(dBm) -107.43 -107.32 -106.96 -106.97 -106.58 -106.58
VS.HSDPA.UE.Mean.Cell 7.65 13.48 9.02 13.65 31.67 31.19
VS.HSUPA.UE.Mean.Cell 9.38 17.06 11.63 18.18 36.27 36.7
VS.CellDCHUEs 13.19 22.46 16.17 26.23 47.68 48.03
Soft Handover Overhead(%) 32.11 27.41 28.34 32.04 26.53 24.14

Due to large HBW more users now camped in butterfly sites, so HSDPA per user throughput is lower than before. PS IRAT is fluctuating, more observation required
16
 Major KPI maintain same trend
Pre Data: 6th-8th Jan 2017; Post Data: 20th -22nd Jan 2017
Maintain Degrade Improved

RAJ_U0349 RAJ_U1462 Neighbors Cells

Voice KPI KPI Name
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Status
Inaccessibility CS_CSSR(%) 0.51 0.36 0.47 0.75 0.69 0.59
Retainability CS_Drop_Rate(%) 0.71 0.37 0.24 0.6 0.49 0.38

Traffic CS_AMR_Traffic(Erl) 51.91 85.88 68.69 107.76 148.39 168.9

RAJ_U0349 RAJ_U1462 Neighbors Cells

Data KPI KPI Name
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Status
Inaccessibility PS_CSSR_EFD(%) 0.35 0.43 0.55 0.83 0.71 0.71
Retainability PS_Drop_Rate_EFD(%) 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.93 0.61 0.65
HSDPA_Traffic(GB) 13.35 21.14 14.60 22.58 61.40 55.00
Traffic
HSUPA_Traffic(GB) 1.60 3.24 2.01 3.11 7.06 6.47
Downlink Power Utilization (Avg) 25.69 33.07 27.43 35.47 42.19 41.04
Power Utilization
Uplink Power Utilization (Avg) 2.88 1.18 8.58 6.60 13.31 14.86

17
 Contents

 Trends & Challenges in Rural Sites

 Butterfly Solution
 Trial result
 Summary

18
 Rural sites, low potential !! >> Butterfly

 Butterfly is the most TCO friendly for low potential rural sites
 Coverage remains same even better after conversion
 25% CAPEX & 30% OPEX can be saved by deploying butterfly

Recommendations:
 Only low potential Rural sites recommended to go for butterfly sites
 Need to forecast the site utilization for next 2 years to modernize to Butterfly
 For modernization 30W is preferred at initial stage, based on requirement power increment can be done
 Tilt azimuth adjustment based on traffic distribution

19
 Thank You！

20