Lte Deployment in different bands2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. EDD800Mhz

May 2011

Abu Dhabi Mobile Access Planning

Outline

eUTRA FDD Spectrum

IMT-E 2.6Ghz Band

DCS 1800Mhz Band

EDD 800Mhz Band

Advantages Vs. Disadvantages

eUTRA FDD Spectrum (1 of 2)

The eUTRA Bands defined by the 3GPP for the LTE deployment Vs. theallowed BWs for each defined band.

Bands of interest; Band 7 (IMT-E 2.6Ghz) , Band 3 (DCS 1800Mhz) andBand 20 (EDD 800Mhz Available in the UAE).

eUTRA FDD Spectrum (2 of 2)

Bands of interest - with 20Mhz Channel B.W; Band 7 (2.6Ghz) , Band 3(1800Mhz) and Band 20 (EDD 800Mhz Available in the UAE).

Lte Deployment in IMT-E 2.6GhzSample Link Budget for 2.6Ghz LTE deployment with the belowAssumptions;

Band: 2.6Ghz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%

Lte Deployment in DCS1800MhzSample Link Budget for DCS1800Mhz LTE deployment with thebelow Assumptions;

Band: 1800Mhz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%

Lte Deployment in EDD800MhzSample Link Budget for 800Mhz LTE deployment with the belowAssumptions;

Band: 800Mhz / FDD Channel BW: 20Mhz / 100RBs Clutter Class: Dense Urban RRH Output Power: 2 X 40Watts MIMO 2X2 eNB Ant. Gain: 18dB & feeder Losses:1dB eNB Ant.HBA: 25m Coverage: Outdoor UL Service: PS128 Shadowing margin: 8.6dB Coverage Probability: 95%

2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. 800Mhz

2.6Ghz Vs. 1800Mhz Vs. 800Mhz

Band Re-Farming Impact (1 of 2)

GSM Spectrum Evacuation for the

Lte Band

Lower no. of GSM Carriers & hence high RF load in the GSM NW.

GSM NW Quality impact & Quality

Degradation

Band Re-Farming Impact (2 of 2)

Major KPI variations during 1st phase

94.00%

95.00%

96.00%

97.00%

98.00%

99.00%

100.00%

11/0

1/20

08

11/0

3/20

08

11/0

5/20

08

11/0

7/20

08

11/0

9/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

11/1

7/20

08

11/1

9/20

08

11/2

1/20

08

11/2

3/20

08

11/2

5/20

08

11/2

7/20

08

11/2

9/20

08

12/0

1/20

08

12/0

3/20

08

12/0

5/20

08

12/0

7/20

08

12/0

9/20

08

12/1

1/20

08

12/1

3/20

08

12/1

5/20

08

12/1

7/20

08

12/1

9/20

08

Date

CS

SR

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

2.00%

CD

R. H

O D

rop

Rate

CSSR

CSSR_target

Call Drop Rate

CDR_target

HO_out_2G_2G_drop_rate_target

HO_out_2G_2G_drop_rate

Case Study for 5Mhz Band evacuation & re-farming in Other operators (Please notice that Etisalat Case will be much

more as its 10/20Mhz)

Band Re-Farming Impact / Etisalat AUH

Scenario (1):Evacuating 20 Mhz out of the existing band for the Lte indoor installation will have the following outputs;

Severe high degradation on the existing GSM NW as the DCS1800Mhz is carryingthe majority of the traffic in the GSM NW (preferred band in traffic sharing with P-GSM& E-GSM) Keeping in mind that the degradation shown in previous slides was onlyfor 5Mhz band evacuation.

Scenario (2):Evacuating only 10 Mhz to be used in Lte indoor installation will have the following Output;

The existing indoor Infra-structure for Etisalat supports only SISO and hence theCapacity will be divided by ~ 2 & as the spectrum goes down from 20Mhz to 10 Mhzwill again divide the Lte Capacity by ~ 2 resulting in Over all Cell capacity ~ 33Mbps which is less than the HSPA+ (dual carrier 42Mbps).

10 Mhz Evacuation & SISO Indoor Deployment:

HSPA+ (dual carrier) gives up to 42 Mbps which needs Lte to be competitive withhigher values and not less.

* Rough Values for DL Thrpt (not exact)

Band Re-Farming Impact / Etisalat AUH

HSPA+(Dual Carrier)

Vs.

End