H E T N E T S : A N E W PA R A D I G M F O R I N C R E A S I N G C E L L U L A R C A PA C I T Y A N D C O V E R A G E

CAPACITY AND COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT IN HETEROGENEOUS NETWORKS

SHU-PING YEH, SHILPA TALWAR, GENG WU, NAGEEN HIMAYAT, AND KERSTIN JOHNSSON, INTEL CORPORATION

er: AN sly LAN network Integrated AP Mobile hotspo

ABSTRACT
Disruptive innovations in mobile broadband system design are required to help network providers meet the exponential growth in mobile traffic demand with relatively flat revenues per bit. Heterogeneous network architecture is one of the most promising low-cost approaches to provide significant areal capacity gain and indoor coverage improvement. In this introductory article, we provide a brief overview of heterogeneous network architectures comprising hierarchical multitier multiple radio access technologies (RAT) deployments based on newer infrastructure elements. We begin with presenting possible deployment scenarios of heterogeneous networks to better illustrate the concepts of multitier and multi-RAT. We then focus on multitier deployments with single RAT and investigate the challenges associated with enabling single frequency reuse across tiers. Based on the spectrum usage, heterogeneous networks can be categorized into single carrier usage, where all devices within the network share the same spectrum, and distinct carrier usage, where different types of devices are allocated separate spectra. For single carrier usage, we show that interference management schemes are critical for reducing the resulting cross-tier interference, and present several techniques that provide significant capacity and coverage improvements. The article also describes industry trends, standardization efforts, and future research directions in this rich area of investigation.

Converged gateway Multimedia network

Short range comm.

The authors study the deployment of heterogeneous networks from the perspective of cooperative communications to improve the performance of physical layer multicast.

INTRODUCTION
The growing adoption of rich multimedia services has resulted in explosive demand for wireless data capacity. Recent studies indicate that wireless traffic has grown at a rate that is approximately an order of magnitude higher than spectral efficiency enhancements available to meet the required increase in capacity. This gap will only increase further as the number of devices per person increases, and newer devices enable the consumption of even richer multimedia content [1]. Despite the increase in traffic consumption, operators are facing flattening revenue per bit due to largely flat-rate data-centric plans. Hence, it is

imperative for the operators to add new capacity at a significantly lower cost per bit while also finding methods of enhancing revenue. Advanced antenna techniques and real-time channel-adaptive scheduling have pushed the spectral efficiency of fourth-generation (4G) air interfaces closer to system capacity limits. Now, the focus of the wireless industry is shifting from solely increasing spectral efficiency to significantly improving network efficiency. Here, new heterogeneous networks (Het-Nets) are a promising paradigm that can cost-effectively improve system coverage and capacity. Recent work in the area of heterogeneous networks has primarily focused on network overlay techniques for offloading data traffic to smaller cells. While the gains from this approach are promising, they represent only a starting point. We envision that heterogeneous networks will play a central role in the future evolution of mobile wireless broadband, and serve as a platform and enabler for disruptive technology innovations. The main idea of heterogeneous networks is to overlay low power and low cost devices on coverage holes or capacity- demanding hotspots to supplement conventional single-tier cellular networks. While large cells, covered by macro base stations (MBSs), for example, provide blanket coverage and seamless mobility, small cells served by devices like femto access points (FAPs), pico base stations (PBSs), and relay stations (RSs) help provide coverage extension and boost local capacity. In a novel enhancement, clients can also cooperate with network infrastructure to form an additional tier to boost signals to neighboring clients during outages. By shrinking the transmission range and dense spatial reuse of the spectrum, low-power network elements like FAPs, PBSs, and RSs can achieve significant improvement in coverage and areal capacity gain. We expect these networks will be self-organizing with interfaces to a self-organizing network (SON) function that enables tight coupling between different types of base stations, including macro and smaller cells. An overview of a heterogeneous network is illustrated in Fig. 1. In order to boost capacity further, the network will leverage spectrum across different radio access technologies (RATs). Consumer devices

32

1536-1284/11/$25.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

Client relay Relay

Coverage hole Femto/WiFi-AP (offload macro-BS)

Femto-AP (indoor coverage and offload macro-BS)

Macro-BS Pico-BS (areal capacity) Mobile hotspot Distributed antenna system Wireless access Wireless backhaul Wired backhaul

Consumer devices like FAPs will integrate multiple radio technologies within a single device and further increase the achievable transmission rate by exploiting alternate spectrum (e.g., free unlicensed bands).

Figure 1. Overview of a heterogeneous network. like FAPs will integrate multiple radio technologies within a single device and further increase the achievable transmission rate by exploiting alternate spectrum (e.g., free unlicensed bands). Besides the capacity advantage, the cost structure of heterogeneous networks is much lower. Since low-power devices serve much smaller areas with minimal functionality, these devices can be made cheaper. Judicious use of free unlicensed spectrum can also help lower the cost of capacity. In addition, the site acquisition cost is reduced, and backhaul cost can be saved for devices like FAPs and RSs. Deployment of low-power devices is also more efficient because the operators or consumers can place these devices at locations that most require coverage or capacity improvement. In this article, we provide an overview of HetNet technology and then focus on a key problem of enabling single-frequency deployment of multitier networks. We show that the promised capacity and coverage gains with such deployments can only be realized with proper interference management to mitigate cross-tier interference. The article is organized as follows. We first outline the infrastructure elements and deployment scenarios for a heterogeneous network. Then, we identify that although single-carrier multitier networks offer extra capacity, interference across tiers is a serious problem and discuss some interference mitigation (IM) solutions. After that, we summarize the status of standards efforts on heterogeneous networks as well as highlight potential future research directions. Finally, we conclude the article. look like, we start from an overview of all potential elements within a heterogeneous network. These network components can be categorized into two groups: one represents the multitier single-RAT Het-Net, and the other represents devices integrating multiRAT to further enhance the whole network.

SINGLE-RAT MULTITIER NETWORK COMPONENTS

In future mobile networks, devices with different footprints and capability may be overlaid within the same geographical area to serve users with different requirements. Typically, devices within the same network will operate with the same radio technology and share the same sets of spectra. The multitier structure enhances capacity and coverage via enabling dense reuse of the spectrum and improving link quality. Starting from the most capable devices with the largest footprint, then gradually moving toward simpler, smaller footprint devices (Fig. 2 [8]), we examine possible deployment scenarios forming a multitier network and explain the role of each tier. Macrocells/microcells: In current cellular networks, BSs are deployed for wide area coverage. The footprint of a BS varies depending on traffic demand. Macrocells with more than 500 m site-tosite distance cover rural or suburban areas, while urban areas require microcells with smaller cell radii. In Het-Nets, existing macrocells and microcells remain, providing essential coverage. Additionally, large macrocells hold advantages in supporting high-mobility users for reduced handover frequency. Picocells: Serving smaller areas than microcells, pico base stations (PBSs) can be deployed as hotspots in capacity starved locations like shopping malls, airports, and stadiums. PBSs are basically simplified MBSs with reduced power and hence reduced cost. They are typically part of a general operator deployed public infra-

DEPLOYMENT SCENARIOS
As mentioned, a Het-Net may consist of several types of devices with different characteristics. To create a complete picture of what a Het-Net will

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

33

Macro

Relay Micro

Pico

Femto

Figure 2. Multitier architecture.

structure, and are open and accessible to all cellular users. The deployment of PBSs is usually carefully planned by the operators. Given that MBSs and PBSs are all controlled by operators, research on horizontal optimization across tiers will be beneficial here. Relays: Relay stations serve similar sizes of footprints as PBSs. They provide coverage extension and throughput enhancement by forwarding an enhanced version of the received signal from BSs to mobile stations. Relays use wireless backhaul, so no landline resource is required; however, this reduces the amount of spectrum available for access. Operators may choose to implement infrastructural relays over PBSs at coverage holes where wired backhaul is unavailable or difficult to implement. Femtocells: A FAP covers even smaller area (1050 m), such as a house or an apartment. Unlike MBSs or PBSs connected to the network through operator-owned backhaul, FAPs save infrastructural cost by utilizing existing residential backhaul links such as digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable. In addition, FAPs are usually privately owned and more efficiently deployed based on users needs. Typically, FAPs are under closed subscriber group (CSG) operation, where only restricted users are granted permission to access a FAP. CSG FAPs may cause excess interference to the network when sharing the same spectrum with other tiers. The interference issue is to be addressed later. Another research challenge is ensuring network scalability to support large numbers of FAPs. The concept of device-centric system design helps enable autonomously configurable FAPs and reduces required network loads. Client relay: Client cooperation (i.e., client relay) creates yet another tier in the wireless multi-tier network. This tier is between clients and therefore comprises very short-range links. Client cooperation (CC) utilizes the good link between a cooperating client and a BS to buttress the link of an end client whose link to that BS is poor, thereby increasing its probability of successful transmission. In effect, CC improves the virtual link quality of users in poor locations (i.e., cell edge users), resulting in a significant reduction in the amount of channel resources and

battery power they consume, and the amount of interference they cause to other cells. Studies show that CC can improve average network throughput anywhere from 80200 percent [2]. Besides the potential network elements in a multitier network discussed above, a novel wireless technology called Distributed Antenna System (DAS) can also be applied in single-RAT multitier networks. By spatially separating the antennas of a conventional BS and connecting them to a common processing unit via a fast transport media such as optical fiber, small cells can be virtually created in a macro network. This allows a set of centralized antennas radiating at high power to be replaced by a group of low-power antenna elements that cover the same cell area. The advantage of a DAS is that less power is needed to overcome penetration and shadowing losses, since a line-of-sight channel is often present, leading to improved link reliability and coverage. Different variants of DASs have been deployed recently by several service providers in many areas worldwide. An example deployment is along the high-speed train tracks in Taiwan, which allows broadband wireless access inside fast trains while reducing the number of BSs and the need for frequent handoffs between successive BSs [3]. Another concept becoming popular among operators is China Mobiles cloud of radio access network (C-RAN) [4]. Through optical fiber connections, a C-RAN BS concentrates the baseband signals from several hundreds of sectors/cells to a server platform for centralized signal processing. This architecture creates a super BS with distributed antennas that can support multiple protocols and dynamically allocate its signal processing resources to follow the varying traffic load within its geographical coverage.

MULTI-RAT NETWORK COMPONENTS

Given that an increasing number of clients in the network are equipped with multiple radio interfaces (e.g., WiFi in addition to 4G), an operator can also exploit the different radio networks to add low-cost capacity, and improve coverage and quality of service (QoS) in the network. In addition to the multitier aspect of Het-Nets, multiRAT network components contribute extra performance enhancement. Figure 3 [8] illustrates some multi-RAT usage scenarios, and we present some of them here. WiFi offload: For example, as shown in Fig. 3, an operator can judiciously offload best effort traffic to WiFi hotspots to add capacity at much lower cost, without compromising the QoS requirements. This scenario requires the operators to have a certain level of access control on the WiFi-AP. Virtual carrier: This usage model calls for synergistic use of licensed (4G connection, e.g., 802.16, Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution [3GPP LTE]) and unlicensed spectrum (WiFi) to improve network capacity and user . Different levels of synergy are possible depending on whether a multiprotocol client connects to distinct 4G and WiFi access points or an integrated 4G/WiFi device is used for the connection. New network devices, such as the integrated WiFi/4G FAP shown, can implement more synergistic utilization of the spectrum available across both licensed and unlicensed bands.

34

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

Offload to LAN WiFi AP Virtual carrier: use 4G and LAN simultaneously LAN network Integrated AP M2M network Mobile hotspot Bad 4G link Good WiFi link Converged gateway Multimedia network Good 4G link Set top

Setup peer-to-peer cooperation Body area network Heartbeat EKG

Short range comm.

We envision that hotspot capability will become more integrated in mobile devices of the future (e.g., Smart phone, laptop), and this in turn will open the door to vast number of machine-tomachine (M2M) services that could be offered to the cellular subscriber.

Figure 3. Multi-RAT usage scenarios. In this virtual carrier usage scenario, an additional or virtual carrier is available for use, and may be utilized in several different ways to improve network and user performance. Several techniques are applicable for utilizing the additional carrier to improve multiple metrics, such as handoff to multitier WiFi, interference avoidance, carrier aggregation, diversity/redundancy transmission, QoS/load balancing, and reduced overhead with unified control. Further details in the context of multiradio interworking between 802.16 and 802.11 are available in [5]. Mobile hotspots (personal area networks): A mobile hotspot is a multiprotocol portable device, with both cellular and local area network (LAN)/personal area network (PAN) connectivity, that routes traffic from devices within short range to the cellular network. Examples include MiFi from Verizon Wireless, iSpot from Clearwire, Overdrive from Sprint, and others. These devices create a WiFi hotspot, connecting consumer devices such as a netbooks, cameras, or printers to the Internet via cellular backhaul. Hence, consumer devices that have only WiFi connectivity can now access the Internet wherever cellular service is available. We envision that hotspot capability will become more integrated in mobile devices of the future (e.g., smart phones, laptops), and this in turn will open the door to a vast number of machine-to-machine (M2M) services that could be offered to cellular subscribers. RAT, we basically take advantage of additional free spectrum, and the challenge lies in cooperation between protocols. On the other hand, a multitier network utilizing single-RAT is capacity constrained by the scarce spectrum available. Intelligent bandwidth allocation among tiers and interference management are essential for the success of multitier networks. In this section, we address the frequency usage in single-RAT multitier networks and focus on the interference mitigation problem, which is critical in multitier networks. Devices on different tiers can operate on the same or different frequency bands, depending on the amount of frequency resources an operator owns and how s/he allocates the resources. While sharing the same spectrum achieves the highest frequency reuse, orthogonal frequency access avoids the cross-tier interference problem. For operators that own more than one frequency bands, the simplest spectrum planning is to assign different operating frequencies to users served by first-tier devices like MBSs and users served by second-tier devices like PBSs and FAPs. No cross-tier interference will arise in such a simple scheme. In addition, for operators with more available spectra, each second-tier device like a PBS or FAP can choose from multiple accessible frequency bands for the one at which it will transmit. As a result, interference from same-tier devices is further mitigated. However, most network operators are capacity constrained due to limited spectrum, and therefore cannot afford to deploy separate carriers across tiers. Additionally, to pursue the highest reuse of spectrum, operators with more spectra can consider carrier aggregation to improve channel utilization efficiency. Hence, intelligent co-channel multitier deployments, where shared carrier(s) is/are judiciously used

SINGLE-RAT INTERFERENCE MITIGATION

In the previous section, we overview Het-Net deployment scenarios and establish a general picture of a heterogeneous network. We identify the multitier structure and multi-RAT cooperation as two key features of Het-Nets to achieve significant capacity and coverage enhancement. For multi-

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

35

Scenarios/interference mitigation scheme Macro-only (no FAP) Fixed power level Power control Femto-user QoS Macro-user QoS

SINR degradation of 50% outdoor user (dB)

Outagea (%) Outdoor 25.79 Indoor 42.15 0.29 0.06 3.83 0.06 0.12

50% user rate (Mb/s) Outdoor 0.062 0 0.076 0.063 0.046 0.064 Indoor 0.031 24.99 3.57 14.28 21.42 18.18

Center cell throughput (Mb/s) 258.19 45119.81 (~175x) 7058.54 (~27x) 32168.10 (~125x) 26399.97 (~102x) 32928.61 (~128x)

4.77 0.39 0.96

53.63 28.57 31.52 25.79 25.79

Frequency planning

Separate channels for MBS & FAP (50% each) Femto-free zone. (FFZ ratio = 27.25%)

a b

For data, outage is defined as SINR < -0.8 dB (SE = 0.5) Results are derived from the same simulation methodology described in [7].

Table 1. Performance of femtocell overlay networks (max FAP Tx power: 10 dBm, 50 FAPs/sector ~231 FAPs/ km2).

across tiers, are crucial to the success of multitier architectures. When all MBSs and FAPs/PBSs/RSs are operating simultaneously in the same spectrum, interference becomes a major issue that limits the performance of the network. The problem is even more prominent in CSG femtocells, due to the additional coverage holes created by FAPs for users without access permission. As FAP deployment density increases, a growing proportion of macro-users are driven into outage due to the increased interference, leading to unsatisfactory macro performance. Therefore, interference mitigation techniques are critical to fully enable co-channel deployments on a scale where a reasonable density of FAPs may be supported. Simulation results that demonstrate the potential coverage and capacity improvement with femtocell overlay networks are shown in Table 1. Although FAPs provides great indoor coverage and over 100 times areal capacity gain, we can see that a significant portion of outdoor users are driven into outage due to co-channel interference. To address the cross-tier interference problem, we discuss the key system requirements for enabling interference mitigation (IM), techniques, potential IM solutions, and related issues when applying IM in heterogeneous networks. Our interference discussion focuses on CSG FAPs given they are experiencing the most stringent interference. IM ideas discussed below are also applicable to other types of heterogeneous networks, like picocell overlay networks, as well. The performance of various IM schemes is also compared. Synchronization: Synchronization between network devices is critical for most interference management schemes to work without incurring excessive complexity and performance loss. In the context of orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) systems, this requirement implies that an interfering signal must be received within the cyclic prefix of the OFDMA symbol boundary; otherwise, an asynchronous interferer can cause significant inter-carrier as well as intersymbol interference, which are difficult to mitigate with standard interference management schemes.

In [6], we show that femto networks may be synchronized with the overlay macro network through existing over-the-air synchronization capabilities used in the overlay system. However, in [6] we also show that simply aligning the timing reference of each tier to a global reference is insufficient to guarantee synchronous interference across tiers. Here it is also important to maintain the relative time alignment between devices such that transmissions from devices across tiers are received synchronously at the receiver. This requirement is analogous to how uplink transmissions from devices in a single-tier network are adjusted based on their distance from the BS, so that they may be aligned at the receiving base-station. Similarly, time alignment between devices across tiers must also be maintained to guarantee synchronous interference in multi-tier networks. Further details are available in [6]. Power control: The transmit power level of a FAP affects its coverage range and the amount of interference it generates in the network. Although higher transmit power can provide wider coverage and better signal quality, it can at the same time cause tremendous interference to surrounding users. Therefore, power control can be a candidate solution for mitigating interference in Het-Nets. Properly selecting the FAP transmit power level can help manage the interference from FAPs to macro-users, while maintaining femtocell performance. In [7], three power setting schemes are developed and evaluated: fixed power level operation, femto-QoS power control, and macro-QoS power control. From simulation results shown in Table 1, we see that although power control helps reduce interference from FAPs toward macro-users, degraded FAP signal quality causes substantial reduction in femto-user rates. Nevertheless, power control can still be applied for control channels where data rate is not a major concern. Cell association: When power control is applied, mobile stations may need to perform reassociation after power back-off is performed at their serving base stations. Here users may adopt

36

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

the same rule as what is used in the initial association process like selecting from the maximum received signal level. Different rules, such as performing re-association only when the user is in outage, may also be used to ensure sufficient traffic is offloaded to low-power devices while improving coverage. More advanced interference mitigation may involve joint operation of power control and cell association. For example, given the users geographical distribution, a clustering optimization process may be performed so that the users are grouped based on the potential to minimize interference with proper power settings at the base stations. Low duty cycle: Even when low transmit power is used, increasing device density can still cause significant aggregated interference in HetNets. For example, in an urban environment with multistory buildings, there can be 1000 FAPs installed per sector within a 500 m cell. Since the current standard requires all FAPs, both active and inactive, to transmit control messages at the same time as the macro-BSs, intolerable levels of interference on control signaling is inevitable at high FAP densities, which prevents wide adoption of FAPs in urban areas. One possible approach is to have FAPs control signals transmitted with low-duty cycle and to have neighboring FAPs take turns to transmit their control signals. This approach virtually reduces the equivalent FAP density. The FemtoQoS power control scheme can also be used together with low-duty cycle operation to achieve sufficient coverage under reuse-1 setting. Frequency planning: Frequency planning is another possible approach for interference mitigation in heterogeneous network. For example, in femtocell overlay networks, CSG FAPs can cause severe interference to macro-user and may drive a great potion of macro-users in outage. A simple approach of designating a time-frequency zone that is free of FAP interference can easily recover macro-user coverage. Other advance frequency planning approach like fractional frequency reuse (FFR) can be applied together with this femtofree zone (FFZ) approach. Simply assigning orthogonal bandwidth to macro-user and femtouser is another simple frequency planning method. The performance is essentially the same as assigning distinct frequencies to different tiers. From the simulation results shown in Table 1, we can see that via frequency planning, we can achieve huge areal capacity gain without degradation in macro-user coverage. Therefore, frequency planning can be the promising solution to solve the interference problems in data channels.

including network architecture, security, and radio frequency (RF) requirements are examined, and new features are added in order to enable femtocells, called H(e)NB in 3GPP terminology, deployment. Currently, there are working items in Release 10 working on non-carrier-aggregation based interference control in heterogeneous networks and H(e)NB mobility enhancement. There are also activities regarding LTE relays and Wireless LAN offload. IEEE 802.16 has also recently formed a new study group on hierarchical networks [8]. The final study report will contain usage cases, network architecture, key features and requirements, as well as the simulation modeling methodology. Heterogeneous network technologies are still at an early stage of development. New applications and services will continue to add new design requirements. Advanced signal processing technologies are expected to enable new features and architectural options for more cost-effective implementations. Some potential HetNet research directions are described as follows.

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL OPTIMIZATION

We expect future heterogeneous networks to evolve and to optimize in both the vertical (i.e., across multiple protocol layers) and the horizontal (i.e., across multiple sectors/cells) directions. Vertical optimization consists of cross-layer protocol optimization and/or the further flattening of network architecture. This approach is essential for reducing network latency and improving end-to-end QoS. Horizontal optimization involves cooperative signal processing among multiple sectors/cells of the same network or among the different layers of a heterogeneous network. In the case of super base stations, they can serve as an interference management and coordination point for different network layers. Since the X2 interface [9] between base stations can become an internal connection within the super base station, it may be more cost-effective to implement Coordinated multipoint transmission (CoMP) and carrier aggregation features in future Het-Nets.

The potential benefit of heterogeneous networks has drawn lots of attention from both academia and industry. Wireless standard bodies are actively investigating enabling techniques and are working to expedite the deployment of heterogeneous networks.

SERVICE ON NETWORK EDGE

Future Het-Net research also needs to fully leverage new technologies such as virtualization and multicore processor platforms. Virtualization enables multicore processors to support different operating environments at the same time, and allows dynamic computing resource allocation according to the ever changing service requirements. While latency reduction continues to be a priority for future wireless broadband systems, we expect services to continue moving toward the network edge. The significance of this trend is twofold. First, it offers service providers revenue opportunities in a heterogeneous network environment (e.g., local content, localized radio resource management for user experience, and value-added data processing at network edge). Second, it may significantly reduce network congestion in the core network, which is increasingly a risk due to the proliferation of media-intensive applications.

STANDARDIZATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The potential benefit of heterogeneous network has drawn lots of attention from both academia and industry. Wireless standard bodies are actively investigating enabling techniques and are working to expedite the deployment of heterogeneous networks. 3GPP has made substantial progress on heterogeneous networks in the past few years. Areas

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011

37

We expect that heterogeneous networks will be the key to enabling the cost effective deployment of high performance networks in order to bring wireless broadband to every corner of the globe.

DEVICE-CENTRIC SYSTEM DESIGN

One continuing challenge for heterogeneous networks is the coordination and management of multiple layers of networks. Traditional cellular networks employed a network-centric model, where extensive intersystem interface standards were developed to ensure mostly seamless operation of terminal devices across different networks. The main limitation of this approach is that it does not scale well in a heterogeneous network of multiple technologies. We expect future Het-Nets to employ a devicecentric model. Intelligent multimode devices with sophisticated connection management will be a key technology direction, and we expect more radio link management decisions are made at the terminal devices to simultaneously minimize network complexity and improve user experience.

demand, while providing optimum total cost of ownership for network operators. However, these networks have many technical challenges at the air interface and network layers the wireless community is working to address in standards forums. We expect that heterogeneous networks will be the key to enabling the cost effective deployment of high performance networks in order to bring wireless broadband to every corner of the globe.

REFERENCES
[1] Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2009-2014, Feb. 2010. [2] K. Johnsson et al., Cooperative HARQ, IEEE C802.16m09/1380r1, July 2007. [3] J. Kang , B.-C. Ihm, and W. Lee, IEEE C802.16-10/0018, Distributed Antenna System for Future 802.16, LG Electronics, Mar. 2010. [4] China Mobile, C-RAN Road towards Green Radio Access Network, C-RAN Intl. Wksp., http://labs.chinamobile.com/focus/C-RAN, Beijing, Apr. 2010. [5] N. Himayat et al., Heterogeneous Networking for Future Wireless Broadband Networks, IEEE C8021610_0003r1, Jan. 2010. [6] N. Himayat et al., Synchronizing Uplink Transmissions from Femto AMSs, IEEE C80216m-09_1348r1, July, 2009. [7] S. Yeh et al., Power Control Based Interference Mitigation in Multi-tier Network, IEEE 1st Wksp. Femtocell Networks, Globecomm Dec, 2010. [8] R. Kim and N. Himayat, Study Report on Hierarchical Networks, IEEE C802.16ppc-10/0008, July, 2010. [9] 3GPP TS36.420, X2 general aspects and principles [10] G. Wu et al., M2M: From Mobile to Embedded Internet, IEEE Commun. Mag., Apr. 2011.

HETEROGENEOUS NETWORKS FOR M2M COMMUNICATIONS

M2M stands for the information exchange among connected intelligent devices like sensors. Unlike conventional human-centric network, machines automatically communicate without the need for human intervention. Examples of M2M applications include: smart metering for optimizing household gas and electric usage, vehicular communication for safety and traffic control, or sensors for earthquake monitoring. As WiFi access points and femto/pico stations become widely deployed, the system converge of a heterogeneous network will continue to improve, particularly inside buildings. This creates opportunities for new services such as M2M to penetrate these traditionally difficult-to-reach locations. Furthermore, existing M2M networks may also be integrated into future Het-Nets. In fact, the aggregation points in a M2M network can become a node in such a network [10].

BIOGRAPHIES
SHU-PING YEH (shu-ping.yeh@intel.com) is a research scientist in the Wireless Communications Laboratory at Intel. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. from Stanford University in 2005 and 2010, respectively, and her B.S. from National Taiwan University in 2003, all in electrical engineering. Her current research focus includes interference mitigation in multitier networks utilizing multi-antenna techniques, machine-to-machine communications, and interworking of multiple radio access technologies within a network. SHILPA TALWAR (shilpa.talwar@intel.com) is a principal engineer in the Wireless Communications Laboratory at Intel, where she is conducting research on mobile broadband technologies. She has over 15 years of experience in wireless. Prior to Intel, she held several senior technical positions in wireless industry. She graduated from Stanford University in 1996 with a Ph.D. in applied mathematics and an M.S. in electrical engineering. She is the author of numerous technical publications and patents. GENG WU (geng.wu@intel.com) is the chief architect and director of Wireless Standards of the Wireless Technology Division at Intel Corporation. He has 20 years of experience in the wireless industry. Prior to Intel, he was the director of Wireless Architecture and Standards at Nortel Networks, with extensive experience in 3G/4G technology developments. He obtained his B.Sc. in electrical engineering from Tianjin University, China, and his Ph.D. in telecommunications from Universit Laval, Canada. N AGEEN H IMAYAT (nageen.himayat@intel.com) is a senior research scientist with Intel Labs, where she performs research on broadband wireless systems, including heterogeneous networks, cross-layer radio resource management, MIMO-OFDM techniques, and optimizations for M2M communications. She has over 15 years of research and development experience in the telecom industry. She obtained her B.S.E.E from Rice University and her Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1989 and 1994, respectively. KERSTIN JOHNSSON (kerstin.johnsson@intel.com) is a senior research scientist in the Wireless Communications Laboratory at Intel, where she conducts research on network, MAC, and PHY optimizations that improve wireless network cost, coverage, and capacity. She graduated from Stanford with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and has almost 10 years experience in wireless industry. She is the author of numerous publications and patents in the field of wireless communication.

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
As heterogeneous networks become part of the mainstream wireless communication infrastructure, special attention must be paid to address existing and future regulatory requirements. Lawful intercept support will become a more complex issue in a heterogeneous networking environment. Also, new services (e.g., m-health) carried by the network may increase service providers liability. Future research and development on Het-Net technologies must address these new requirements.

CONCLUSION
Wireless broadband data traffic driven by consumer demand for rich mobile Internet services is now the primary driver for both consumer purchases and network operator deployments. Mobile subscribers desire the same rich content available on their fixed broadband Internet connections including streaming video to be available on their mobile devices. Mobile M2M connections are also expected to increase wireless data consumption. As wireless broadband continues to be rolled out worldwide, the use of wireless data shows all signs of accelerating demand. Heterogeneous networks hold great promise for meeting consumer

38

IEEE Wireless Communications June 2011