US 700MHz and Mexico APT Border Planning Patrick Kaiser Director Product Marketing NA
Benefits of 700Mhz APT Spectrum Plan • Key Benefits of 700 APT Plan • 2 times the capacity in 15MHz compared to typical 10MHz bandwidth providing critical capacity as MBB quickly grows • Smartphones have increased business costs. Larger economies of scale promotes lower device costs. • Dedicated capacity on demand rather than dedicated spectrum contributes to greater capacity on average Traffic is Booming MBB: 19x Characteristics of the two segmentation models for the 700 MHz band Reference Source: Cofetel
US-Mexico Border Spectrum Coordination Challenges Greater challenge because of the overlap of DL/UL inter-systems 9MHz guard band provides cleaner 10MHz block 15MHz carrier would overlap with SDL Scenario1a,b Scenario1a,b UL DL scenario2 Scenario1a,b US Public Safety Challenge Guard gap: 16M UL DL 10M:verizon Guard band 9M scenario2 DL UL DL UL 10M:ATT/VZW scenario4 scenario3 UL DL Scenario1a: BS-BS Inter-channel interference – BS1 TX overlaps BS2 RX, most challenging. Requires separation distance at key cites (ex. San Diego-Tijuana), sharper BS filter, careful RNP. Will require detailed regulatory coordination in transition zone. Lower 10MHz will have lower interference due to 16/9MHz guard bands. Scenario1b: UE-UE Inter-channel interference – UE1 TX overlaps UE2 RX. Coordination is probabilistic (close proximity of UE1-UE2) and difficult to control. Scenario2: BS-UE inter-channel interference, channel of BS1TX overlaps UE RX. Usually covered by existing treaties. Similar scenario as inter-technology interference. Requires traditional RNP. Interference to BS1 RX from UE2 TX usually considered negligible due to low TX power of UE. Similar to scenario1a. Scenario3: Interference from DTV51 significantly reduced due to 5MHz guard band. Scenario4: Spectrum in US currently owned by ATT, broadcast only, commercial plans unknown. Will likely require regulatory coordination.
US-Mexico Border Spectrum Interference Mitigation Options Antenna Down Tilt Antenna Down Tilt Added BS Filtering* *Not beneficial for co-channel interference. • Mitigation Options • Small/smaller cells (reduced BS TX levels) within buffer zone operate at lower power levels as will UE. Required on both sides. • RNP options • Down tilt of antennas facing away from border reduce cell size and interference • Orientation of antenna main load and back lobes reduce interference • Consider restriction to lower 10MHz block near key cities (SD-Tijuana) reducing buffer zone to ~54km • Added TX/RX BS filtering can improve BS-BS Inter-channel interference • RNP restrictions unnecessary past ~60-70km inter-site buffer zone. Will make US 700MHz plan difficult in smaller LA countries macro macro Vs. Small(er) cell Small(er) cell • Coordinated antenna orientation can substantially reduce interference as a lower cost option • Required 90dB isolation for lower 10MHz block can be obtained with <1km ISD (54km if direct line-of-site)