White Paper

Untangling the DAS Versus

Small Cell Question
Patrick Lau
Director, Business Development NA

February 2015
Contents

What exactly is a small cell? 3

Small cell technologies 4
Femtocell 5
Picocell 5
Microcell 5
Metrocell 6
DAS—the original small cell 6
Comparing key differences 6
Multicarrier support 7
Scalability 7
Quality of service 8
Cost 8
Conclusion 9
Resources 9

2
The need to increase wireless coverage and capacity within an increasingly crowded
ecosystem has led to a variety of alternative solutions and new challenges for the owners and
operators of today’s mobile networks. Each new solution forces the industry to reconsider the
landscape and assess how it all fits together.

One of the more recent developments has been the use of “small cells” in order to provide
coverage and capacity indoors and out. Whether deployed as standalone networks or
integrated with the macro layer to create heterogeneous networks, small cell solutions are being
touted for their ability to help operators achieve higher radio density and increased capacity.
These heterogeneous networks also allow operators to achieve much better fill-in coverage and,
by using small cell nodes to off-load traffic from over-burdened macro sites, they are realizing
higher data throughput as well.

At the same time, the use of distributed antenna systems (DAS) has exploded as facility owners
and operators rush to satisfy the growing demand for seamless high-speed indoor coverage.
Today, DAS networks are being deployed in a wide variety of locations, including universities,
sports arenas, stadiums, hotels, casinos, corporate campuses, malls, airports and subways.
Worldwide spending on DAS is expected to total $4.4 billion in 2014. By 2019, it is
projected to grow to more than $8 billion, a 14 percent compound annual growth
rate (CAGR).1

The surge in small cell and DAS deployments has led to comparisons between the two
solutions as network operators and owners attempt to determine the best strategy for specific
applications. Therein lies the problem. Vendors on both sides have offered numerous white
papers advocating for their specific technology. The industry media has addressed the issue in
a number of opinion, as well as fact-based articles.

At CommScope, the question of DAS versus small cell is one of the more common issues raised
by customers who are looking to improve capacity and coverage, both indoors and outdoors.
Untangling the question requires a deeper look at both technologies.

What exactly is a small cell?

At the heart of the DAS-versus-small-cell debate is the often confusing and constantly evolving
definition of a small cell network. According to ABI Research, small cells can be characterized
as low-powered radio access nodes that operate in licensed and unlicensed spectrum that
have a range of 10 meters to 1 or 2 kilometers.2 The term “small” refers to the physical footprint
of the solution, compared to a traditional macro cell.

On its website, the Small Cell Forum adds a bit more specificity to the definition, stating that:
“‘Small cells’ is an umbrella term for operator-controlled, low-powered radio access nodes,
including those that operate in licensed spectrum and unlicensed carrier-grade Wi-Fi.”3

While this definition adds a bit more clarity, it adds confusion as well. Does the term “operator-
controlled” suggest that small cell is exclusively a single-operator solution? Must it be owned by
the mobile operator or can it be owned and operated by a neutral host provider?

Still other industry resources and literature characterize small cells as low-powered solutions that
have a small physical footprint and are “typically deployed piecemeal to provide coverage or
enhance capacity in much smaller areas with a single wireless communications technology for
a single wireless carrier.”4

3
 There is also confusion when identifying the types of technology solutions that fall under the
small cell rubric. Figure 1 illustrates the four types of small cell solutions listed by the Small Cell
Forum. The categories—femtocells, picocells, metrocells and microcells—are loosely defined
by their general power output and the coverage radius provided by each.

HOME ENTERPRISE URBAN RURAL

Femtocells
Picocells

Metrocells & Microcells

Figure 1: The small cell ecosystem as defined by Small Cell Forum

Others do not necessarily agree with these categories. According to Dr. William Stallings, a
well-known industry blogger, “An essential component of the 4G strategy for satisfying demand
is the use of picocells and femtocells. Together, these are classified as small cells.”5 Stallings’
omission of microcells and metrocells is both curious and confusing.

Small cell technologies

Suffice it to say that there appears to be no concrete agreed-upon definition for exactly what
a small cell network is or the technologies it includes. Therefore, the question, “DAS or small
cell?” is really a nonstarter. In order to accurately compare the available technologies, one
must make direct comparisons between DAS and all possible small cell technologies. The
following is a brief overview of each of the small cell technologies.

Microcell Picocell Femtocell

Power 30 dBm 30 dBm 20 dBm
Coverage range Up to 500 m <100 m <30 m
Backhaul X2 interface X2 interface Home broadband
Access mode Open to all users Open to all users Closed subscriber group
Deployment Outdoors Indoors or outdoors Indoors
Installation By the operator By the operator By the user

Table 1: A comparison of Microcell, Picocell, and Femtocell technologies.

Source: A Survey on Power Control Techniques in Femtocell Networks; Journal of Communications;
12/12/13

4
Femtocell
A femtocell is characterized as a very low-range, low-power base station, able to be deployed
in a home, home office or very small business. The coverage range is usually less than 30
meters and the output power is around 20 dBm.6

Within the home or small office, the femtocell operates like a miniature macrocell, providing
consistent and reliable coverage for a limited number of users. In most cases, the femtocell is
owned or leased by the user who operates and manages it. So, from the mobile operator’s
perspective, it is an unmanaged asset.

Femtocells operate in the same licensed frequency bands as macrocells and support various
mobile air interfaces, including UMTS and LTE. For backhaul, the femtocell requires a
connection—typically fixed line—to the mobile network operator.

When deployed to serve a limited number of pre-approved users, the femtocell provides a
good coverage solution. When deployed with any density across a moderately-sized facility,
however, interference can quickly become an issue, requiring careful power control in order
to manage it. Quality of service can also become an issue as femtocells utilize the network’s
broadband connection, limiting the bandwidth available for other broadband applications.
There is also the potential for conflicts with service-level agreements if the provider of the
broadband service differs from the mobile network provider.

Picocell
Picocells operate on the same principles as femtocells. A dedicated BTS feeds the remote radio
heads and antennas, creating a network of very small individual cells. Whereas a femtocell
is typically owned and managed by the user, its slightly larger cousin, the picocell, is usually
owned, operated and managed by the mobile operator. These solutions are primarily deployed
indoors. Typically, a femtocell can serve only somewhere between 4 and 16 simultaneous
users, whereas a picocell may be able to handle up to 100 users.5

As with femtocells, if the building is small enough to be served by a single picocell, these units
are an ideal solution for coverage and capacity. In larger environments, however, deploying
multiple cells can create interference problems. Like Wi-Fi access points, femtocells must
alternate channels to avoid co-channel interference, and doing this requires carriers to use a lot
of frequency in a small area given the relatively small coverage footprint of the solution.7

The technology also does not lend itself to supporting multiple carriers. Picocells as well as
femtocells are generally single-frequency devices, so providing coverage for multiple mobile
operators requires the network operator to deploy a separate set of small cells for each
frequency to be covered. This scenario quickly becomes cost prohibitive and space prohibitive.

Microcell
Microcells are among the largest of the small cell solutions, operating at an approximate power
output of about 30 dBm and providing a coverage radius of up to 500 meters.6 These solutions
are most often used as part of a heterogeneous network to enhance outdoor coverage in areas
where surrounding obstacles prohibit the use of macro cells. Occasionally they are deployed
indoors to add network capacity in areas with very dense phone usage, such as train stations
or shopping malls. The technology is also used to increase capacity of cellular networks to
offload usage during peak hours.7

Microcells appear to be a technology in search of a clear position. Currently they are

sandwiched between the smaller femtocells and picocells (which are clearly targeted to smaller
indoor deployments) and the larger metrocells (which have found a niche in extending outdoor
coverage and capacity). As a result, the microcell market is experiencing low growth. Revenues
are expected to reach only $262 million by 2018. this reflects a significant downgrade from
2013 expectations, which forecasted sales would reach $3 billion by 2017.8

5

“Installing a distributed antenna system
(DAS) is an ideal match for high-traffic
venues to address wireless capacity
constraints.”
– BICSI News Magazine; March/April 2013
Metrocell
Metrocells are low-power single-sector-channel, independent small cells that can support several
hundred users. Combining a small independent BTS and antenna, they are often deployed on
lampposts or sides of buildings to support mobile data demand in dense metropolitan areas.
Relative to a macro system, metrocells are easy, faster and less expensive to deploy, making
them an excellent choice for urban infill, wireless backhaul, and offloading a portion of the
macro network traffic. Operating at about 5 watts of power, metrocells have a coverage radius
of about 600 to 1200 feet (approximately 183 to 366 meters). With the exception of very
large and open venues such as airports and stadiums, metrocells are typically limited to use
outdoors.
DAS—the original small cell
Among the various definitions of small cells, DAS is rarely mentioned, despite the fact that the
technology has often been referred to as the original small cell. In August 2014, an article in
OSP Magazine observed: “Long before small cells (femtocells, picocells, metrocells, and the
like) were invented, DAS was providing pinpoint mobile coverage and capacity to buildings
and outdoor areas. In many ways, DAS was the original small cell.”9
A typical DAS solution consists of a centrally located radio or headend equipment, remote
communications nodes, and a high-capacity transport network—typically fiber—to connect
the nodes to the central equipment. The remote nodes are distributed in various IDF forms
throughout the facility or area. The antennas are distributed throughout the facility and connect
to the remote units via coaxial cable.
Based on the general parameters common to most definitions of small cell—low power output
and small physical footprint—DAS fits nicely into the small cell rubric.
Like other types of small cells, a DAS network operates at signal power levels that are much
lower than macrocells. A low-power remote typically has a composite output power of
30 dBm at the antenna port10, translating to a transmit power of 1 watt. Similarly, power output
to microcell, picocell and femtocell nodes typically range from 20 dBm to 30 dBm.6 Like other
small cell solutions, DAS nodes have a physically compact footprint, making them suitable
to use indoors and outside. But, unlike other small cells, DAS also exists as a high-powered
solution. Operating at power levels up to 40 watts (46 dBm), these systems provide larger
coverage areas, making them more affordable for some applications.
Comparing key differences
Despite the general similarities in power output, coverage area and size, DAS and the various
small cell solutions differ greatly in terms of how they operate. DAS is a point-to-multipoint
solution in which the DAS headend shares and receives signals with all remote nodes
simultaneously. By simulcasting radio channels throughout the building, it creates a single large
cell, as opposed to the network of individual cells typical of the various small cell solutions.
Centralized power management enables the DAS operator to change the coverage and
capacity characteristics of each node in order to respond to changes in the RF environment.
6
 Note: CDMA, GSM, and P25 technologies are also used in DAS solutions, but are not shown
in the table below.

Solution Description Technology # Users Cell Radius

DAS Typically fed by a macro or micro base station. High power, multi- UMTS Up to 1800 users per Up to 3 miles
frequency, multi-carrier. HSPA + base station
LTE

Wi-Fi 802.11b
A Wirless access pont connects a group of wireless devices to an adjacent Up to 200 users per a
802.11g 65 feet
wired LAN. 3-radio access point
802.11n

Microcell Short-range base station used for enhancing indoor and/or outdoor UMTS Up to about
32 to 200 users
coverage. HSPA + 1 mile

Metrocell 10,000 –
High-capacity, low power device device that fills in coverage holes within UMTS
16 to 32 users 20,000 square
buildings. HSPA +
feet

Picocell Typically used for indoor appications such as office buildings, airports, and
UMTS 32 users Up to 750 feet
malls.

Femtocell A small, low-power cellular base station typically used for a home or small
UMTS 4-6 users 40 feet
business.

Table 2: Comparison of DAS, Wi-Fi and small cell technologies

Source: Small Cells – Another Tool in the Network Toolbox; AT&T Antenna Solutions Group, 2011

As a result, DAS and small cells offer significant differences in terms of functionality, interference
issues, capacity, complexity and cost. It must be stressed that these network architectures and
technologies are not interchangeable, and each is suitable only for the particular purposes and
environments it is designed to address. So it is important that network owners and operators
have a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Multicarrier support
One of the biggest differences between DAS and femtocells, picocells and microcells is the
ability to support multiple carriers. DAS systems can be shared by multiple operators, each
connecting their own base stations to the shared RF distribution system. As a result, DAS
allows carriers and venue owners to take advantage of neutral host opportunities in which
the CapEx of the network can be shared by all participants, making it more affordable. As a
class of solutions, small cells typically do not provide multicarrier support. Although multiband/
multi-technology small cells are in development—and may eventually support more than one
operator—today’s systems are highly limited in this regard.

Scalability
DAS was designed to scale in order to meet the growing needs of the network. By adjusting
the power to the antennas, a single BTS can serve up to about 1,800 users and provide a
coverage radius of several miles. Picocells and femtocells were designed to deliver coverage
and capacity over a relatively small area, similar to a Wi-Fi access point (WAP).9 Adding more
coverage requires installing more nodes.

DAS solutions are also multi-frequency, able to handle 2G, 3G and 4G commercial
frequencies that operate in a range from 700 to 2500 megahertz (MHz), as well as public
safety UHF and VHF frequency bands (e.g., 150 and 450 MHz band channels).11 Femtocells
remain exclusively a single-frequency, single-carrier solution. Multi-frequency picocells are not
yet widely available but manufacturers expect to ramp up production sometime in 2015.

7
Quality of service
As stated earlier, a DAS network functions by creating a single unified cell with blanket
coverage within its prescribed area. This eliminates multicell interference along with the
need to hand off from one cell to the next as the user moves about. While potential exists for
interference from nearby macro networks, this is easily managed by adjusting the power at the
DAS headend or the power amplifiers, if they are in use.

Quality of service within the DAS network, therefore, is excellent. The large capacity of a DAS
enables it to be used in tightly packed venues such as sports stadiums, where 50,000 users or
more may be downloading data, posting photos, etc. The system also provides the ability to
dynamically adjust to changes in capacity demands per area and per carrier.

Femtocells, picocells and microcells operate on a different principle. These small cell solutions
create a network of discrete cells, each with a fixed and fairly limited capacity and coverage.
For defined and small “rifle shot” applications, small cells provide excellent quality of service.
Their short range and ability to detect and adjust to other femtocells in the area help to negate
multicell interference.

This does not mean small cell solutions are immune to service issues. When used for larger
applications involving dozens of nodes, the potential for interference increases significantly.
The sheer number of cells in use and the carrier’s inability to control their position and use—as
well as issues with the handoff between these ad hoc cells and the overall network—create
significant challenges in spectrum and interference management.12 Small cells can also
experience interference problems when using low-band spectrum, and diminished range when
using high-band spectrum.13

Cost
In comparing DAS versus small cell solutions, cost is perhaps the most curious characteristic
of all. It also makes a convincing case for the basic premise of this paper: making the
best decision for a specific application requires a solid understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of each solution.

One argument against DAS has been high costs to deploy with RF engineers. In fact, when
deployed for smaller, low-density applications, DAS may not be the best choice. The reason
is simple: DAS is not designed to excel in these types of scenarios. Femtocells, picocells and
microcells, however, are much better suited for these applications. In order to support a few
dozen users and a single carrier, small cells maybe the better choice for these applications.

As capacity and coverage requirements increase, the cost analysis begins to tip in favor of
DAS. For large deployments, it is much less expensive to deploy a DAS for in-building coverage
than to deploy dozens or hundreds of picocells or femtocells. Operating expenses are lower
as well in a multi-carrier environment.

The challenge for the network operator or owner is determining precisely where that tipping
point is. In addition to cost, one must also consider the importance of functional needs,
interference control, scalability and the other characteristics discussed here.

8
 Conclusion
If the wireless industry has learned anything over the past two decades, it’s that—when
it comes to coverage and capacity solutions—there is no magic bullet, no one-size-fits-all
solution. For most mid- to large-size indoor scenarios, DAS has definite advantages over nearly
all small cell solutions. In small indoor applications with low capacity needs, small cells provide
a greater advantage over DAS.

In selecting the most appropriate solution for a given application, it is important that network
operators, mobile carriers and facility owners put aside any preconceptions. The best
solution—which, in some cases, may actually call for both DAS and small cell—will be
dictated by the details of the project and objectives of the stakeholders.

As Tracy Ford of The DAS Forum noted in a 2013 article for BICSI, “Taking a long-term
approach to wireless coverage by working with all the stakeholders in the ecosystem will
ensure that the installation meets current and future needs without having to re-address
coverage and capacity issues in the future.”11

Resources:
1
  In-Building Wireless Market Reaches $8.5B in 2019; ABI Research, press release; February 2014
2
  Small Cells: Outdoor Pico and Micro Markets; ABI Research, press release; August 12, 2011
3
  http://www.smallcellforum.org/aboutsmallcells-small-cells-what-is-a-small-cell
4
  Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Small Cell Technologies Distinguished; Het Net Forum, white paper;
  February 2013
5
  Microcells, Picocells, Femtocells: Essential Building Blocks for 4G and 5G Networks; Dr. William Stallings;
  http://networking.answers.com/definitions/microcells-picocells-femtocells-essential-building-blocks-for-4g-and-5g-
  networks
6
  A Survey on Power Control Techniques in Femtocell Networks; Journal of Communications; 12/12/13
7
  Picocells and DAS Belong Together; RCRWireless; January 2011
8
  Global Microcell BTS Market Revenue to Hit $262 Million by 2018; Mobility TechZone, report; April 28, 2014
9
  DAS: The Ultimate Small Cell: OSP Magazine; August 18, 2014
10
 A Guide to Distributed Antenna Systems Optimization; EDN Network; December 2, 2013
11
 Installing DAS & Small Cells—What You Need to Know; BICSI News Magazine; March/April 2013
12
 Challenges with Microcell Deployment & Configuration; Wireless Design and Development; September 2013
13
 TD-LTE will drive the rise of superfast, mobile broadband networks; Analysis Mason, white paper; October 2014

www.commscope.com
Visit our website or contact your local CommScope representative for more information.

© 2015 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved.

All trademarks identified by ® or ™ are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope, Inc.
This document is for planning purposes only and is not intended to modify or supplement any specifications or warranties relating to CommScope products or services.
WP-108562-EN (2/15)
9