Wireless Backhaul Spectrum
Policy Recommendations & Analysis
October 2014
Copyright © 2014 GSM Association
The GSMA represents the interests of mobile
operators worldwide. Spanning more than 220
countries, the GSMA unites nearly 800 of the world’s
mobile operators with 250 companies in the broader
mobile ecosystem, including handset and device
makers, software companies, equipment providers
and Internet companies, as well as organisations
in industry sectors such as financial services,
healthcare, media, transport and utilities. The GSMA
also produces industry-leading events such as
Mobile World Congress and Mobile Asia Expo.
For more information, please visit the GSMA
corporate website at www.gsma.com
or Mobile World Live, the online portal for the
mobile communications industry, at
www.mobileworldlive com
ABI Research provides in-depth analysis and
quantitative forecasting of trends in global
connectivity and other emerging technologies.
From offices in North America, Europe and Asia,
ABI Research’s worldwide team of experts advises
thousands of decision makers through 70+ research
and advisory services. Est. 1990.
For more information visit www.abiresearch.com, or
call +1.516.624.2500.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Content
1. Fixed Telecom Backhaul Versus Wireless Telecom
Backhaul Solutions
1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3.1. 1.3.2. 1.3.3. 1.3.4. 1.3.4.1. 1.4. 1.4.1. 1.4.2. 1.4.3. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. Growth in Subscriptions
Mobile Data Traffic Strains the Network
Technical Capabilities of LTE Backhaul Solutions
Copper-line Backhaul
Fiber-optic Backhaul
Satellite Backhaul Technology
TV White Space
Challenges Facing TVWS
Limitations of Fixed Telecom Backhaul
Ethernet over Copper
Microwave and Millimeter Here to Stay
Technology Trade-offs
Macro Cell Site Backhaul Deployments
Addressing Small Cell Deployments
Small Cell Site Backhaul Deployments
Stakeholders Analysis
Potential Regulatory Considerations
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
2. Wireless Backhaul Network Equipment
Harmonization Opportunities
11
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.4. 2.4.1. 2.4.1.1. 2.4.2. 2.5. 2.6. Wireless Backhaul Equipment Vendor Ecosystem
Impact of Fragmented Spectrum Bands for Wireless Backhaul
Opportunities for Standardizing Wireless Backhaul Hardware
Trial by Fire
Digital and Signal Processing Innovations
Opportunities for Hybrid Wireless Backhaul Solution Integration
Tight Integration
Assessment
Loose Integration
Stakeholders Analysis
Potential Regulatory Considerations
11
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
3. Line Of Sight Versus Non-Line Of Sight Wireless
Backhaul Options
18
3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.6.1. 3.6.2. LoS versus NLoS Comparison
LoS Advantages
LoS Disadvantages
NLoS Advantages
NLoS Disadvantages
Topological Considerations
Point to MultiPoint (PMP)
Point to Point (PTP)
Total Cost of Ownership Backhaul Considerations
Ring Network
Mesh Network
Regional PMP Spectrum Availability
Stakeholders Analysis
Potential Regulatory Considerations
NLoS Support
PMP Support
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
4. Spectrum Band Availability And Capacity
25
4.1. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.2.1. Data Throughput
Sub-6 GHz
Unlicensed
4 GHz to 9 GHz Case Examples
Stakeholder Analysis
25
28
28
28
30
1
4.3. Microwave Spectrum in 10 GHz to 42 GHz Range
30
4.3.1. 10 GHz to 18 GHz Case Examples
30
4.3.2. 20 GHz to 42 GHz Case Examples
32
4.3.3. Stakeholder Analysis
34
4.3.3.1. 10 GHz Band
34
4.4. Millimeter Wave V-band (60 GHz) and E-band (70/80 GHz) Bands 35
4.4.1. Deployment Considerations
35
4.4.2. V Band (60 GHz)
37
4.4.2.1. European Commission 60 GHz Rule Change
37
4.4.2.2. Federal Communications Commission 60 GHz Rule Change
37
4.4.2.3. Singapore – A Licensed 60 GHz Regulatory Environment
37
4.4.3. 70 GHz Plus
38
4.4.4. 60 GHz to 100 GHz Case Examples
38
4.4.5. Stakeholders Analysis
39
4.5. Potential Regulatory Considerations
39
4.6. Future Spectrum Bands for Backhaul Links
40
5. Evaluating Wireless Spectrum Backhaul Licensing Procedures
41
5.1. 5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.3. 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.4. 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.5. 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 5.6. 5.6.1. 5.6.2. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.9.1. 5.9.2. 41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
47
48
48
48
Types of Licensing Procedures
Per Link Spectrum Licensing
SWOT Analysis
Spectrum Band Analysis
Block Spectrum Licensing
SWOT Analysis
Spectrum Band Analysis
Lightly Licensed Spectrum
SWOT Analysis
Spectrum Band Analysis
Shared Spectrum Licensing
SWOT Analysis
Spectrum Band Analysis
Unlicensed Spectrum Licensing
SWOT Analysis
Spectrum Band Analysis
Quantitative Spectrum License Summary
Stakeholders Analysis
Potential Regulatory Considerations
Types of Licensing Model
Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul
6. Strategic Recommendations and Regulatory Policy Options
47
6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.3.1. 6.3.2. 6.3.3. 6.3.4. 6.3.5. 6.3.6. 6.4. 6.4.1. The Changing Face of Cell Site Backhaul
Ecosystem Development and Recommendations
Regulatory Recommendations
Greater Support and Coordination for the Bands below 6 GHz
Active Promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for
Wireless Backhaul
Active Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for Wireless Backhaul
Promotion and Support for PMP Backhaul Spectrum
and Applications
Align Microwave Bands in the Mainstream 10 GHz to
42 GHz Microwave Bands
Promote and Coordinate the Lower 10 GHz Band as an
Light Licensed Band
Evolution in Licensing Model
Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul
47
49
50
50
7. Appendix: Backhaul Spectrum Allocation Summary Analysis
53
8. Acronyms
62
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
1
1. Fixed telecom backhaul versus wireless
telecom backhaul solutions
Mobile operators have always needed backhaul solutions to carry initially voice traffic,
followed by text messages and then mobile data. The advent of LTE is expected to place
even greater challenges on the mobile operators as they strive for more network capacity,
latency reduction, and an enhanced user experience. In June 2014, the GSA announced that
300 operators have commercially launched LTE in 107 countries.
1.1. Growth in Subscriptions
At the end of 2013, the total mobile subscriptions worldwide reached 7 billion, with an annual
growth rate of 6.2% year-on-year. A number of regional markets are saturated, but global
subscriptions will continue to grow to 8.58 billion by 2019. The 2013 subscription count means
that overall cellular penetration stood at 100.2%. At the end of 2013, 3G and 4G subscriptions
totaled 2.39 billion, or 34%. By 2019, the proportion of 3G and 4G subscriptions will grow to
59%. LTE is expected to show robust growth in 2014. By the end of year, LTE subscriptions are
expected to grow from 252 million to 453 million. While operators have to contend with a large
proportion of their subscribers still on 3G networks, it is already becoming clear that a more
substantial impact will come from 4G LTE traffic.
CHART 1-1: 2G, 3G, AND 4G MOBILE SUBSCRIPTIONS WORLD MARKET,
FORECAST: 2010 TO 2019
10,000
Subscriptions (Millions)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4G
2015
3G
2016
2017
2018
2019
2G
Source: ABI Research’s Global Mobile Subscriber Market Data
120,000
1,200
Audio Streaming
(Megabytes)
(Petabytes)
1.2. Mobile Data Traffic Strains the Network
All these
200,000 mobile data subscribers are continuing to make greater and greater demands on2,000
the operators’ networks.
Web / Internet Over the course of ABI Research’s forecasts, mobile-data traffic is
1,800
180,000
anticipated to grow
VoIP at a CAGR of 46% p.a. to surpass 191,100 petabytes on an annual basis in
1,600
160,000
2019. LTE subscribers
may/ only
represent 24% of total subscriptions in 2019, but they represent
Video Streaming
TV
1,400
140,000
65% of the totalP2P
traffic generated in 2019.
Over100,000
the 5-yearAverage
period,
there
is a per
crucial
in the type of traffic that will take its toll on the
1,000
Monthly
Consumed
Wirelessshift
Subscriber
mobile
operator.
In
2013,
worldwide
video
streaming
generated 9,840 petabytes in traffic or
800
80,000
38%. By 2019, video streaming expands to 65.4% of the market. The global average amount
600
60,000
of traffic generated per user per month will grow from 275 megabytes as of September 2014
40,000
to just under 1.85 gigabytes. In certain markets, like Korea and Japan, mobile carriers are 400
200
20,000
anticipating
their users could be generating 1 Gigabyte of traffic per “day.”
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: ABI Research’s Mobile End-User Applications and Traffic Benchmarks Market Data
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
0
Subscriptions (Milli
7,000
6,000
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
2
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4G
2015
3G
2016
2017
2018
2019
2G
Source: ABI Research’s Global Mobile Subscriber Market Data
CHART 1-2: MOBILE NETWORK DATA TRAFFIC BY TRAFFIC TYPE WORLD MARKET,
FORECAST: 2011 TO 2019
2,000
200,000
Web / Internet
1,600
Video Streaming / TV
140,000
(Petabytes)
1,800
VoIP
1,400
P2P
120,000
Audio Streaming
1,200
100,000
Average Monthly Consumed per Wireless Subscriber
1,000
80,000
800
60,000
600
40,000
400
20,000
200
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
(Megabytes)
180,000
160,000
0
Source: ABI Research’s Mobile End-User Applications and Traffic Benchmarks Market Data
Machine-to-machine and IoE may push up the number of non-human connections, but a large
proportion of the data traffic generated will come from end users’ smartphones and other
mobile devices such as tablets, laptops, and ultrabooks. There will be fairly dramatic cyclical
shifts in data traffic usage throughout the day as end users commute/travel around during the
24-hour day. Additional cell sites, most likely small cell deployments, will need to be deployed
to address these cyclical hotspots as end users commute from home to work and back again.
Segment
Microwave
V-Band
E-Band
Fiber-optic
Copper
Satellite
1.3.
Technical Capabilities
of LTE Backhaul
Solutions
(6-42 GHz)
(60 GHz)
(70/80 GHz)
When it comes to backhaul solutions, mobile operators are spoiled for choice. There are a
number
of technical solutions:
line (T1/E1, DSL);
andLow
Future-proof
Medium copperMedium
High fiber-optic;
Highsatellite backhaul;
Medium
wireless
terrestrial (microwave, millimeter band).
Available Bandwidth
Deployment Cost
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
1.3.1. Copper-line Backhaul
Suitability for
Outdoor
Outdoor
Aggregation 1.5 Mbps
Indoor
Rural/
Copper-based
backhaul was
designedOutdoor
for T1/E1 protocols.
Supporting
to 2 Mbps,
LRAN/Access
LRAN/Access
Heterogeneous Networks
LRAN/Access
& Core
LRAN/Access
Remote only
copper lines do not scale easily to provide adequate bandwidth at a distance above a few
Support for X2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes where
Indoors
Yes
hundred
meters to support 3G and LTE broadband usage. For longer
Mesh/Ring Topology
available distances, bonding
configurations
are requiredHigh
in which monthly
costs High
increase linearly
with bandwidth
Interference
High
Very High
Very High
Medium
requirements.
Immunity
Range (Km)
5~30,++
1~
~3
<80
<15
Unlimited
DSL has been used as a viable offload solution for 3G backhaul, and with its xDSL variants, DSL
Timeincrease
to Deploy bandwidths to
Weeks
Days and bonding
Days the bandwidths
Months
Months
can
over 50 Mbps,
can Months
increase them
to
hundreds of Mbps. However, the available DSL bandwidth is inversely proportional to distance,
License Required
Yes
Light License/
Licensed/Light
No
No
Yes
and the longer a DSL connection between
site and the aggregation point or digital
Unlicensedthe cellLicense
subscriber
line access multiplexer is, the lower the bandwidth of the connection is likely to be.
Note:
Blue shading Indicates preferred choice for LTE mobile backhaul.
Source:
ABI Research on the DSL variant in use, this probably limits the reach of DSL backhaul for LTE to
Depending
around 500 meters. DSL comes into its own in terms of mobile backhaul for indoor small cells,
in-building HetNets, and public venue small cell networks.
A number of DSL technologies are available including ADSL2+, G.SHDSL.bis, and VDSL2.
ADSL2+ and G.SHDSL can be used to provide near-term bandwidth relief for high bandwidth
applications like LTE. VDSL2 with vectoring has been shown to achieve data rates of 100 Mbps
at distances of up to 400 m, and 40 Mbps can be supported with loops as long as 1,000 m.
Pair bonding is a well-established technique that can be used to either increase bandwidth
or extend the reach of a given bandwidth, making it suitable for LTE backhaul over short
distances. These enhancements have made xDSL a viable alternative in certain situations.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
3
1.3.2. Fiber-optic Backhaul
Optical fiber may be used as the physical medium connecting cell sites to mobile switching
centers (MSCs) and then to an exchange or central office where it can be transferred to the
landline network, long haul metro, and regional networks. Legacy backhaul systems have
delivered traffic between cell sites and MSCs using copper-based T1 lines since the early
1980s; however, with the rapid increase in data traffic, fiber to the tower (FTTT) has become
widespread, as backhaul bandwidth demand has increased. LTE will accelerate the demand for
FTTT and require MNOs to upgrade many aspects of their backhaul networks to fiber-based
Carrier Ethernet. While bonded copper and hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) cable networks may be
used, this will most likely occur in situations where fiber is not available.
Even though fiber has a large bandwidth, several techniques in use completely avoid any
bandwidth constraints, essentially rendering the fiber assets future-proof. Wavelength division
multiplexing (WDM) combines multiple optical signals by carrying each signal on a different
wavelength or color of light. An improvement to WDM, DWDM uses close channel spacing to
deliver even more throughput per fiber. Modern systems can handle up to 160 signals, each
with a bandwidth of 10 Gbps for a total theoretical capacity of 1.6 terabytes per second per
fiber, reducing much of the need to add additional fiber to current networks.
1.3.3. Satellite Backhaul Technology
Satellite backhaul technology is essential for small cell deployments in rural areas, which
typically have no wired broadband connectivity. Traditionally, these deployments do not
provide 4G/LTE services and are limited to providing 2G coverage for voice and minimal mobile
broadband.
Satellite backhaul solution providers continue to innovate and tackle higher data traffic
protocols, using techniques like data compression, byte-level caching, predictive cache loading,
data stream de-duplication, data compression, and protocol optimization.
The advent of small cell technology has some MNOs exploring the use of carrier-class satellite
backhaul as a viable alternative to more traditional backhaul types. Compared to macrocell
solutions, these small cell networks are significantly less costly; when combined with a lowcost satellite modem/router, it may allow MNOs to expand coverage into rural areas quickly
and economically or operate smaller networks on board ships, in aircraft, or in remote mining
areas, for instance. A satellite backhaul link for a small cell typically uses a small parabolic dish
antenna, similar to a TV satellite dish connected to the small cell and satellite modem. There
are, however, concerns regarding latency between the satellite and the small cell as well as Line
of Sight to the satellite overhead in dense urban environments.
One of the most recent examples of LTE backhaul over satellite came in June of 2012. Hughes
Network Systems, using its high-throughput satellite modem and Lemko Corporation’s
Distributed Mobility Wireless Network (DiMoWiNe), successfully demonstrated LTE
transmission over satellite backhaul at download speeds of over 10 Mbps and upload speeds of
786 Kbps, including video calls.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
4
1.3.4. TV White Space
In many regions, the switch to digital television transmission standards has freed up new
spectrum bands, often referred to as TV White Space (TVWS). The FCC in the United States
has ruled that TVWS can be opened up for unlicensed use provided that equipment operating
in the bands does not interfere with the licensed services of primary users, including DTV
broadcasters and wireless microphone users.
The vacated frequencies are found in the VHF/UHF range offering 6 MHz channels in North
America, 7 MHz in Australia and New Zealand, and 8 MHz in Europe and the rest of the world.
The main TVWS applications are likely to be implemented in the 470 to 694/8 MHz bands.
However, additional spectrum bands may be allocated to TVWS services. For example, in
Singapore, the 174 MHz and 230 MHz, and 470 MHz and 806 MHz UHF bands are being made
available for TVWS operations. At these VHF/UHF frequencies, TVWS does offer robust
propagation characteristics in range, and can pass through or around obstacles more easily,
than the ISM bands and most cellular licensed bands.
TVWS availability is location specific depending on the number and power of the primary users
in a given location with fewer TVWS channels expected in densely populated areas that have
a higher number of DTV users. In locations where TVWS availability is high, it would be an
ideal candidate for wireless backhaul between small cells with IEEE 802.11-based technology, a
natural choice for TVWS with a standard based on 802.11ac, expected to be finalized in 2014.
Many countries are developing geolocation databases to control and manage TVWS operation
and protect the primary users. This database lists the channels available in any particular region
and often lists the emission requirements imposed by regulation for the area.
Frequency agility to be found at the core of TVWS equipment is the mandatory use of
these geolocation databases. The TVWS radio selects an operational channel and queries
the database to discover if there might be an interference problem. If none is detected, the
transmission occurs; if not, another channel is selected. This geolocation-assisted frequency
agility is cognitive radio, which is a development of software definable radio and adds decisionmaking ability to the TVWS radio, allowing it to minimize interference and discover the best
channel for reliable transmission. In the United States, FCC-approved databases are now
available from Spectrum Bridge and Telcordia.
1.3.4.1. Challenges Facing TVWS
A number of challenges for TVWS need to be overcome if TVWS is to be commercially viable.
The principle concern relates to quality of service for the backhauled traffic. Quality of service
can be degraded by interference from a co-located participant in the TVWS spectrum band or
from not having sufficient spectrum for traffic throughput. Vendor sourced TVWS hardware
that is commercially competitive in the backhaul market is also not available and may not be
for a few years to come. TVWS will need to comply with regulations and protect the licensed
primary users, and this is driving innovations in filter and converter design, which may increase
power and cost. Coexistence with other users is another feature that must be accommodated,
and this drives the need to sense other secondary users, either by hardware in the TVWS radio
or in the geolocation database.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
5
1.4. Limitations of Fixed Telecom Backhaul
The first choice for LTE backhaul is fiber. However, it is unlikely to be available everywhere an
eNodeB exists, but because of its future-proof bandwidth capability, a number of LTE access
links will transition to fiber at the earliest opportunity, usually the aggregation point. The main
drawback to fiber is its cost. Deploying fiber to a cell site involves trenching, boring, or ducting,
and invariably requires permits. As a result, the deployment costs are consequently high, and
it can often take several months to provision each cell site with fiber-optic backhaul, which
can make it only attractive for the larger cell sites as well as for suitable for aggregation and
core backhaul and transport. Fiber may cost up to $100,000 per kilometer depending on the
location.
1.4.1. Ethernet over Copper
Ethernet over copper is suitable for indoor applications, such as small cells where backhaul
can use the existing in-building CAT5/DSL cable. Satellite’s special techniques for handling LTE
bandwidth are a suitable choice for rural or difficult applications, or backhaul in developing
countries with no long haul core network available.
1.4.2. Microwave and Millimeter Here to Stay
Microwave, on the other hand, is a low-cost option for mobile backhaul, as is the higher
frequency E-band, both of which can be deployed in a matter of days and support a range up
to several miles. Microwave and E-band technologies are developing rapidly with innovations
that include ACM, high order QAM, XPIC, compression accelerators, and MIMO, all aimed at
increasing the bandwidth on the link:
■■ Adaptive Coding and Modulation: ACM helps to manage the modulation, coding, and
other signal and protocol parameters to the conditions on the microwave radio link
■■ High Order Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: 64-QAM and 256-QAM are often used in
digital cable television, but QAMs of 1024 are becoming common in microwave links
■■ Compression Accelerators: Other capacity-boosting techniques are often employed
involving compression accelerators (both hardware and software) that are used to
reduce the volume of traffic on the microwave link by compressing and de-duplicating
the data payload
■■ Cross Polarization Interference Cancellation: XPIC can potentially double the capacity of
a microwave link
■■ Multiple Input and Multiple Output: MIMO allows the use of multiple antennas at both the
transmitter and receiver to improve communication performance
Due to adequate bandwidth, the possibilities of operating the microwave link in Non-line of
Sight (NLoS), as well as in Line of Sight (LoS), makes it suitable for mesh and ring topologies
required in backhauling LTE outdoors. The drawback is that microwave requires that a license
be obtained, unless the link is in the E-band, which is lightly licensed and permission is relatively
easy to obtain. However, because of E-band’s high frequency, it is subject to atmospheric
effects or rain fade, which can attenuate the signal and limit its range. This “limitation,” however,
is being turned to its own advantage. E-band is proving popular and practical as a solution for
high bandwidth, short distance links, such as what is required for small cells.
Audio Streaming
1,200
100,000
Average Monthly Consumed per Wireless Subscriber
1,000
800
80,000
Wireless
Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
60,000
600
40,000
400
20,000
200
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
(Megabyte
(Petabytes
120,000
6
0
Source: ABI Research’s Mobile End-User Applications and Traffic Benchmarks Market Data
1.4.3. Technology Trade-offs
The comparative merits of the various LTE backhaul solutions are complex and no one solution
fits all scenarios. The trade-offs in LTE mobile backhaul technology can be found in the Table
below.
TABLE 1-1: LTE MOBILE BACKHAUL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFFS
WIRELESS VS. FIXED VS. SATELLITE
Segment
Microwave
(6-42 GHz)
V-Band
(60 GHz)
E-Band
(70/80 GHz)
Fiber-optic
Copper
Satellite
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Aggregation
& Core
Indoor
LRAN/Access
Rural/
Remote only
Support for X2
Mesh/Ring Topology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes where
available
Indoors
Yes
Interference
Immunity
High
High
High
Very High
Very High
Medium
Range (Km)
5~30,++
1~
~3
<80
<15
Unlimited
Time to Deploy
Weeks
Days
Days
Months
Months
Months
Yes
Light License/
Unlicensed
Licensed/Light
License
No
No
Yes
Future-proof
Available Bandwidth
Deployment Cost
Suitability for
Heterogeneous Networks
License Required
Note:
Blue shading Indicates preferred choice for LTE mobile backhaul.
Source: ABI Research
The assessment is dependent on the location and the ground conditions facing the backhaul
engineer. For wireless-based solutions, it is essential there is sufficient available spectrum for
future deployments to the backhaul architecture. Deployment cost can be a key criterion when
the network operator is faced with deploying several hundred to potentially thousands of
(small) cell sites in a year. Mobile carriers are increasingly facing the reality of having to deploy
a heterogeneous (HetNet) architecture of macro and small cells that may rely on 3G, 4G,
and even Wi-Fi coverage. Microwave and millimeter (V-Band and E-Band) is very suitable for
HetNets because it allows for Low Radio Access Network (LRAN) aggregation of traffic from
several base-stations, which can then be handed off to the High Radio Access Network (HRAN)
and core network. The X2 protocol is a LTE-related protocol that allows LTE base-stations
to communicate directly to each other. This allows the operator the potential opportunity to
use Mesh topologies to offload traffic. Other criteria that operators are also burdened with
are time to deploy and licensing. While a cell site is usually operational for several years, if not
decades, the network manager is often under pressure to get a cell site “operational” as quickly
as possible. Having to wait several months for a fiber-optic or copper line connection to be
provisioned to the cell site can be debilitating on network traffic in the short term. Furthermore,
licensing can place an administrative burden on the operators that is multiplied as a function of
the number of backhaul sites they have to manage.
The “blue” highlighted cells indicate attributes that particularly benefit LTE backhaul. Clearly,
fiber-optic does have its role to play in specific scenarios, and microwave links in the 6 GHz to
42 GHz bands have been a mainstay of wireless backhaul for macro cell sites; the V-Band and
E-Bands could play a more prominent role in mobile operators’ backhaul networks.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
7
1.5. Macro Cell Site Backhaul Deployments
The macrocell microwave LTE backhaul market, while it will not grow at the same rate as small
cell microwave backhaul, it does show consistent growth.
In 2013, the majority share of backhaul links deployed is the traditional microwave LoS. The
higher bandwidth requirements of LTE are also driving a significant share of fiber and, to a
lesser degree, bonded copper xDSL connections. On a worldwide basis, fiber-optic grew to
25% of macro cell sites supported from 10.6% in 2013. Microwave Line of Sight in the 6 GHz
to 38 GHz bands is still a long-term viable solutions for macro cell sites. Data throughput can
handle the LTE-supported end-user traffic profiles, and transmission distances also suit macro
cell-site topologies (see chart below).
Line of Sight millimeter (60 GHz to 80 GHz) backhaul should show a marked rise in deployment
by 2019, from 11% to 23.5%. Transmission distances are curtained to ~3 Km or so but being able
to support data throughput of up to 10 Gbps makes it suitable for macro cell sites in downtown
locations with high levels of traffic. OFDM NLoS sub-6 GHz backhaul links could be used for
macro cell sites but deployment would be largely redundant and better suited to small cell-site
deployment scenarios.
There is some marginal (less than 1%) use of Wi-Fi for macro cell-site backhaul (i.e., in some
emerging markets such as India and Latin America) but the unlicensed nature of Wi-Fi
combined with growing interference from neighboring public and private Wi-Fi access points,
as well as poor transmission distances, severely limits deployments. Satellite will remain a
niche solution, seeing some deployments in rural areas where microwave or other cabled
technologies are hard to justify.
CHART 1-3: LTE MACRO BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019
100%
Macro Cell-site Backhaul Usage
90%
1.0%
2.0%
11.0%
23.5%
60%
50%
60.1%
39.9%
ell-sites (Millions)
55.0%
40%
1.3%
15.0%
1.1%
1.9%
6.6%
17.2%
32.9%
20%
10%
27.6%
51.3%
20.6%
68.6%
52.9%
10.9%
12.1%
10.0%
30%
Source: ABI Research
15
2.7%
70%
16.5%
18.2%
15.0%
30.3%
25.0%
10.6%
Europe 2013
8.5%
34.3%
14.3%
12.4%
Worldwide 2013 Worldwide 2013
20
0.8%
29.1%
80%
0%
25
1.4%
12.9%
Europe 2019
North America
2013
13.2%
19.5%
7.8%
North America
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
RoW 2013
Fiber
RoW 2019
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
8
1.6. Addressing Small Cell Deployments
As LTE subscriber adoption and traffic builds, mobile operators will need to seriously consider
small cell-site deployments. The location of small cells is likely to be quite different from macro
cell-site deployments.
Small cells promise a new “underlay” of outdoor and indoor, low power micro-cells, pico-cells,
and even
that are
deployed
infrastructure
within the urban
100%femto-cells
0.8% and private
1.3%
1.4% on public
1.0%
1.1%
2.7%
2.0%
1.9%
environment. Sites
being
considered
include:
6.6%
12.9%
11.0%
90%
15.0%
23.5%
17.2%
Macro Cell-site Backhaul Usage
29.1%telco poles, etc.) 32.9%
■■ Pole tops (e.g., street lighting, traffic lights,
80%
■■ Bus70%
stops
■■ Building
walls
60%
60.1%
■■ Building
rooftops
50%
55.0%
39.9%
27.6%
51.3%
40%
20.6%
68.6%
52.9%
10.9%
12.1%to install, energy efficient, and incorporate an
These new sites will need to be compact, simple
10.0% integrated backhaul solution. As a result, there will be many
30% scalable and tightly
organically
8.5%
16.5%
18.2%
more sites—some
will be deployed for
20%
15.0%vendor projections estimate that up to 10 small cells
34.3%
30.3%
13.2%
every macro
site. Small cells
25.0%hold out the promise of great gains for the end users but pose a
10%
19.5%
14.3%
12.4%
10.6%for the operators—particularly
massive challenge
in backhaul.
7.8%
0%
Worldwide 2013 Worldwide 2013
Europe 2013
Europe 2019
North America
North America
RoW 2013
RoW 2019
Small cell deployments so far have mainly been concentrated
2013 in Europe
2019 (3G) and the United
States (LTE). 3G small cells may also be deployed in other regions as a means to avoid the
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Fiber
difficulties in obtaining planning approval for larger macro-cell sites. Throughout the forecast
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
period, the installed base of macro cell sites grows from 7.74 million in 2013 to 8.92 million in
2019.
the same period of time, small cells are expected to grow from 0.78 million to 14.24
Source: ABIIn
Research
million (see chart below).
CHART 1-4: INSTALLED CELL-SITES BY CELL TYPE WORLD MARKET,
FORECAST: 2012 TO 2019
Installed Cell-sites (Millions)
25
20
15
10
5
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Installed Base of Small Cells
2017
2018
2019
Installed Macro Cell-sites
Source: ABI Research
To address the backhaul needs of small cells, a combination of PTP and PMP solutions will be
2.5%
1.6%
2.8%
100%
7.2%
2.1%
needed.
5.6%
8.7%
3.7%
9.9%
3.2%
1.9%
4.4%
ll Cell Backhaul Usage
90%
12.2%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
14.8%
24.0%
80%
31.2%
2.6%
29.8%
33.6%
21.8%
3.1%
28.0%
10.7%
13.4%
42.4%
2.8%
22.4%
37.0%
17.5%
2.2%
29.6%
30.8%
M
15.0%
10%
0%
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Worldwide 2013 Worldwide 2013
Europe 2013
13.2%
14.3%
12.4%
10.6%
34.3%
30.3%
25.0%
Europe 2019
North America
2013
19.5%
7.8%
North America
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
RoW 2013
RoW 2019
9
Fiber
Source: ABI Research
Installed Cell-sites (Millions)
1.7. Small Cell Site Backhaul Deployments
25
To address
the backhaul needs of small cells, fiber-optic proves too costly and logistically
challenging to execute on a comprehensive scale. In some cities where there is extensive fiberoptic20provisioning, fiber-optic backhaul for small cells will gain traction. For example, in Tokyo,
Japan, and Seoul, South Korea, small cells are serviced by fiber-optic backhaul links in some
locations.
15
On a worldwide basis, microwave and millimeter wave are expected to capture 61.5% of
backhaul
links by 2019. What is significant is millimeter wave usage as it is expected to grow
10
from a meager 3.2% in 2013 to 24% in 2019. Licensed sub-6 GHz for NLoS is also expected to
prove a viable small cell solution in 2019, representing 28%. However, the solution is constrained
5
by a suitable
amount of available spectrum. Sub-6 GHz licensed technologies grow at the
expense of copper and to some extent microwave. ABI Research believes that the NLoS and
the low-cost
characteristics of sub-6 GHz make this choice viable, particularly in high-density
0
2012metropolitan
2013 environments.
2014
2015 bandwidth
2016 and data2017
2018 in the 602019
urban or
The higher
rates available
Installed Base will
of Small
Cells
Installed
Macro Cell-sites
GHz means that this technology
become
a popular
option
as links are daisy-chained and
aggregated for transport back to the network core (see chart below).
Source: ABI Research
Small Cell Backhaul Usage
CHART 1-5: LTE SMALL BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019
100%
2.1%
90%
12.2%
7.2%
3.2%
70%
31.2%
50%
8.7%
14.8%
24.0%
80%
60%
2.5%
3.7%
2.6%
2.8%
4.4%
13.4%
29.8%
33.6%
21.8%
3.1%
28.0%
42.4%
1.6%
1.9%
10.7%
5.6%
17.5%
2.2%
29.6%
30.8%
2.8%
22.4%
40%
37.0%
30%
20%
9.9%
56.7%
49.3%
37.5%
10%
53.3%
35.8%
36.2%
Europe 2019
North America
2013
42.8%
16.5%
0%
Worldwide 2013 Worldwide 2013
Europe 2013
North America
2019
Sub-6 GHz Unlicensed
Fiber
Copper
Satellite
Millimeter Wave
Sub-6 GHz Licensed
RoW 2013
RoW 2019
Microwave
Source: ABI Research
1.8. Stakeholders Analysis
The framework for this analysis is quite extensive. The mobile operators are the key
stakeholders. Many operators have from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of cell sites
to manage. And that is “before” the growth in small cell-site deployments.
The deployment scenarios for those cell sites are complex and diverse. They can range from
50 m lattice towers to angled rooftop deployments on public buildings/private multi-dwelling
unit buildings, to streetlight outdoor femtocell base-stations. Non-line of Sight transmission
blockages such as skyscrapers, large trees, and hillsides pose additional challenges for the
operator.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
10
The operator will, therefore, need a wide range of fixed and wireless backhaul solutions from
a larger number of manufacturers to cater to the various scenarios. While the ecosystem
may be heavily segmented, the competition does help to benefit the operator community by
stimulating competition that has led to a number of innovative solutions and helped to keep
hardware and services competitive.
In the mainstream macrocell microwave market, the largest vendor is Ericsson with
approximately 30% of the market. NEC is in second place with a strong backhaul product
portfolio. Huawei, Alcatel-Lucent, and DragonWave also have strong traction in the
marketplace.
The small cell site deployment represents a potential line of disruption to the incumbents.
Vendors such as Tarana Wireless, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication
Systems, Siklu Communications, and VublQ are providing novel solutions.
There are at least 30 vendors in the wireless backhaul ecosystem, and counting… The level of
competition is intense and not every vendor will remain commercially viable in the long term.
A number of the smaller vendors will start to merge with larger vendors once the majority
of operators have selected their primary and secondary suppliers. A small percentage of
operators will opt for multi-vendor (three or more) arrangements, but given that the vast
majority of backhaul vendors have proprietary solutions, operators will not be able use these
backhaul solutions in a modular manner.
1.9. Potential Regulatory Considerations
Mobile operators have a challenging time backhauling the mobile voice and data traffic from
varied urban, sub-urban, rural, office, residential home, high-rise buildings, public buildings,
tunnels, etc. They, therefore, need options. As can be seen in chart 1-3, copper line centric
backhaul drops from 20% of macro cell site usage to 11% by 2018. Fiber-optic’s prevalence
does grow from 11% to 24%, but there is still a heavy dependence on Line of Sight microwave,
Non-line of Sight OFDM, Line of Sight millimeter wave, and even Wi-Fi (primarily 5.8 GHz). This
usage outlook reflects maturing technical solutions that will need the spectrum support from
national regulators.
This pressure to support backhaul solutions and spectrum for the macro cell site market is also
reinforced by the need to support the backhaul connectivity for small cell deployments that
are expected to reach 14 million by 2019 on a worldwide basis. The spectrum and licensing
considerations will be investigated in the following chapters.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
11
2. Wireless backhaul network equipment
harmonization opportunities
The wireless backhaul network equipment market is characterized by a number of
multinational vendors such as Ericsson, Huawei, and NEC as well as a number of specialized
boutique vendors that solely target the backhaul market. The macro microwave\millimeter
cell site backhaul market was worth US$4.5 billion in 2013. The microwave\millimeter small
cell backhaul market is nascent at present, but by 2018, ABI Research calculates its value
to be US$4.8 billion. It is, therefore, worth delineating the ecosystem, identifying the key
players, and assessing what opportunities there are for harmonization and standardization.
2.1. Wireless Backhaul Equipment Vendor Ecosystem
Apart from the large end-to-end system suppliers, most vendors can be partitioned by wireless
backhaul technology with some offering multiple technologies. For example, Aviat offers
products for both microwave and E-band applications, DragonWave has a portfolio containing
sub-6 GHz, microwave, and millimeter wave products, and Ceragon’s portfolio offers sub-6 GHz
and E-band radios.
For each of the technologies, there is a group of specialist or niche vendors represented; for
example, in millimeter wave technologies by BridgeWave. In the E-Band, LightPointe, Loea,
Siklu, Sub10 Systems, and VubIQ. Airspan, BLiNQ, Cambium, Fastback Networks, Proxim,
Radwin, Taqua, and Tarana are among the examples of companies that specialize in sub-6
GHz systems. The specialists in microwave small cell backhaul include by Bluwan, Cambridge
Broadband Systems Limited (CBNL), Cambridge Communication Systems (CCS), and Intracom.
The larger vendors offering complete end-to-end infrastructure portfolios feature multitechnology small cell backhaul portfolios, and this list includes Alcatel-Lucent, Aviat, Ceragon,
Cisco, DragonWave, Huawei, and NEC. These companies offer small cell backhaul technologies
that cover all segments, either as a wholly owned product or in partnership with the specialist
vendors. Other specialists are Altobridge, Hughes Networks Systems, and iDirect for satellite
backhaul, and Carlson Wireless represents the emerging TV White Space (TVWS) backhaul
segment.
In the nascent small cell wireless backhaul equipment market, the “most effective” backhaul
technology for small cells is a hotly debated topic. There are multiple technologies available
for small cell backhaul, and it is likely that a mix of technologies will be required depending on
the deployment scenario. These include NLoS schemes in either licensed or unlicensed bands,
which are suitable for use in urban environments where LoS techniques are less effective than
they are in suburban and rural settings.
Another technology, the recently released 60 GHz or V-band for unlicensed use, also shows
great potential, since the attenuation effects of oxygen absorption work in favor of linking
closely spaced small cells with short hops. Another emerging technology is E-band (70/80
GHz) that, with its very wide channels, makes 1 Gbps data rates a real possibility in the
backhaul, without the complexities of high-order modulation schemes.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
12
TABLE 2-1: WIRELESS MOBILE BACKHAUL VENDOR ECOSYSTEM
PORTFOLIO COMPARISON
Vendor
Sub-6 GHz
Unlicensed
Sub-6 GHz
Licensed
Microwave
(6-42 GHz)
V-band
(60 GHz)
E-band
(70/80 GHz)
TV White
Space
Satellite
Airspan
Alcatel-Lucent
Altobridge
Aviat Networks
BLiNQ Networks
BluWan
BridgeWave Communications
Cambridge Broadband Networks
Cambridge Communication
Systems
Cambium Networks
Carlson Wireless
Ceragon
DragonWave
E-Band
Ericsson
Fastback Networks
Huawei
Hughes Network Systems
iDirect
Intracom
LightPointe Wireless
Loea Communications
NEC
Proxim
Ruckus Wireless
Radwin
Siklu Communications
Sub10 Systems
Taqua
Tarana Wireless
VublQ
Source: ABI Research
Cost of spectrum($/MHz.Km2)
Cost of equipment ($/link)
Cost (US$)
t0
t1
t2
10
40
Aviat Networks
BLiNQ Networks
BluWan Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Wireless
BridgeWave Communications
13
Cambridge Broadband Networks
Cambridge Communication
Systems
Cambium Networks
Carlson Wireless
Ceragon
DragonWave
E-Band
2.2.
Impact of Fragmented Spectrum Bands for Wireless Backhaul
Ericsson
Depending
on how one defines a contiguous spectrum band to be used for wireless backhaul,
Fastback Networks
there
Huaweiwere at least 52 bands in use for wireless backhaul between the range of 1 GHz and 95
GHz.
true
number is likely to be much higher.
HughesThe
Network
Systems
iDirect
From
research interviews conducted with equipment vendors, the incremental costs of
Intracom
supporting
different frequency ranges (e.g., 26 GHz versus 28 GHz) is fairly marginal. It is the
LightPointe Wireless
broader
support for a spectrum category (such as the 60 GHz or the 70/80 GHz bands) that
Loea Communications
has
NEC proven to be the greater challenge. There are in fact two cost equations taking place as one
moves
Proxim up the frequency bands:
Ruckus Wireless
■
■ The size and cost of the antenna drops as one moves up the frequency bands. Indeed
Radwin
it has been acknowledged that antenna size for E-band backhaul is well suited for the
Siklu Communications
small cell form-factor.
Sub10 Systems
■
■ The cost of producing the electronic components, especially for the baseband/
Taqua
transceiver, has been historically high for spectrum bands over 42 GHz (see figure
Tarana Wireless
below). The rationale for this has largely been driven by economies of scale. As can
VublQ
be seen from Chart 4-1 (Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation by Frequency Range),
Source: ABI Research
the vast majority of wireless backhaul deployments have been in the 5 GHz to 40 GHz
bands.
FIGURE 2-1: COST OF SPECTRUM VERSUS COST OF EQUIPMENT OVER TIME
Cost of spectrum($/MHz.Km2)
Cost of equipment ($/link)
Cost (US$)
t0
t1
t2
10
40
Frequency (GHz)
Source: ABI Research based on sources including CBNL
There are some novel semi-conductor engineering initiatives (Silicon Germanium Chips, see
below) that have the very real potential of flattening the cost of equipment curve.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
14
2.3. Opportunities for Standardizing Wireless Backhaul Hardware
There has been some discussion as to whether there are opportunities for standardizing, or
harmonizing, the hardware for wireless backhaul. There are currently over 30 wireless backhaul
vendors addressing PTP, PMP, LoS as well as NLoS solutions. These solutions operate from the
sub-6 GHz all the way up to the 80 GHz E-band as well as a number of other wireless niches
such as TV White Space and satellite backhaul.
The number of vendors in this sector does provide a key market indicator—the wireless
backhaul market is far from mature. Indeed, ABI Research argues that they are still very much
at a nascent stage of development. Over the next 5 to 7 years, ABI Research anticipates the
vendor ecosystem will contract by at least 25% to 40%. Many of the vendors are startup
companies or at least boutique specialists. Only a handful of companies—Ericsson, Huawei,
NEC, and Alcatel-Lucent—have an infrastructure solutions portfolio that extends beyond
backhaul.
Many of these smaller vendors will, therefore, seek a merger with a larger parent company
in order to secure additional financial resources, to secure economies of scale from larger
production facilities or achieve improved leverage for input cost negotiation with suppliers. The
marketplace will inevitably consolidate.
ABI Research would advocate that is a healthy process for the wireless backhaul industry.
The range of solutions we have witnessed is a function of the competitive pressure on the
wireless backhaul marketplace. The current and perceived future profits from wireless backhaul
solutions has served to attract start-up companies and entrepreneurs—many of which have
financial backing from venture capital firms. Can the wireless backhaul sustain 30+ vendors in
10 years or 7? No, that is not likely.
There are, however, a number of processes that will help to bring down the cost of wireless
backhaul equipment for the operator.
2.3.1. Trial by Fire
A number of mobile operators are starting to conduct rigorous, in-the-field trials of the various
wireless backhaul solutions on offer. These trials need to be as rigorous as possible and
simulate real-world conditions as much as possible. While these trials may test the technical
abilities of the backhaul solution, the financial viability of many of the start-up and boutique
backhaul vendors may also be of concern. This is because framework agreements between the
operator and backhaul vendor could potentially span a 5- to 10-year period.
Many of the tier 1 operators will have the resources to be able to do multi-vendor assessments,
but some of the tier 2 and tier 3 operators may not have the market leverage nor the resources
to carry out extensive multi-vendor trials. In these instances, the GSMA may be able to help
create a “collective” of like-minded operators, from non-competing regional markets, to carry
out the necessary trials.
Through these multi-national and collective evaluations of wireless backhaul vendors, the
most robust and competitively viable backhaul vendors secure the resourcing to grow their
businesses.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
15
2.3.2. Digital and Signal Processing Innovations
With the large number of small cells which will be deployed compared to macrocells, backhaul
must evolve to be compatible with the small cell value proposition and become an integral part
of the small cell.
The way some vendors are doing this is to innovate at the silicon level and bring advanced
digital and signal processing techniques to bear on the problem so link performance is
maximized and interference is mitigated in complex PMP and NLoS topologies.
Vubiq has incorporated silicon-based Integrated Circuits (ICs) into a novel waveguide
packaging solution that facilitates low-cost, high-volume production of these radios.
Furthermore, the company has incorporated the radio into a standard WR-15-type waveguide
so as to enable customers to directly outfit their own antennas. These new silicon IC
production tools are transforming the cost of manufacturing backhaul solutions. BridgeWave
Communications, which supplies 4G millimeter wave backhaul solutions, also relies on
Silicon Germanium RF technology that enables high-power operation, while the high level of
integration delivers lower cost of coverage.
2.4. Opportunities for Hybrid Wireless Backhaul Solution Integration
There are a number of challenges facing the backhaul solutions integration marketplace. As
stated above, competition continues to remain fierce, which has helped to prime innovation
in the marketplace. ABI Research recommends that the pace of innovation in the backhaul
equipment marketplace run its course for the next 5 to 7 years. Competition will have also
slimmed down the ecosystem. At that juncture, the operator community and/or the GSMA
could then take steps to bring in backhaul interoperability between the backhaul solutions. This
could also be extended to the hardware components/chassis and APIs. This integration can be
either loosely or tightly aligned. Fundamentally, the largest challenge comes from the fact that
the wireless backhaul solutions from the vendors are all proprietary. This applies to the control
plane as well as the data plane.
2.4.1. Tight Integration
The GSMA could strive to corral a number of tier 1 and 2 mobile operators along with a number
of the equipment manufacturers to set a number of hardware, software, and inter-operability
standards for wireless backhaul solutions in PTP, PMP, and even spectrum selection.
The Open Base-Station Architecture Initiative (OBSAI) has had considerable success in bringing
down the cost of base-station-related equipment. OBSAI was a trade association created by LG
Electronics, Hyundai, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE in 2002 with the objective of creating an open
market for cellular network base-stations.
The OBSAI specifications defined a number of parameters:
■■ The internal modular structure of the wireless base-station
■■ Provided a set of standard BTS modules with specified form, fit, and function so that a
BTS vendor can acquire and integrate modules from multiple vendors in an OEM fashion
■■ Specify the internal digital interfaces between BTS modules to assure interoperability
and compatibility
■■ Supported different access technologies such as GSM/EDGE, CDMA2000, WCDMA, and
LTE
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
16
2.4.1.1. Assessment
It may prove difficult to corral the majority of hardware vendors, and to a lesser extent, the
mobile operators at the present time. As stated, ABI Research anticipates competition to take
its toll over the next 5 years or so.
It may pay dividends to get the dialog underway with the various parties and for the GSMA to
establish a Backhaul equivalent of the OBSAI specifications for the wireless backhaul market.
It is likely to take 2 to 3 years at least to come to a common set of backhaul standardization
“blueprints” and work groups to manage the process. In that time, it will also become more
evident for the need to gain economies of scale in the backhaul solutions market—particularly
small cells.
2.4.2. Loose Integration
A looser form of integration may be available via some of the Self Organizing Network (SON)
technologies that are being developed by equipment vendors to make the management of
backhaul network elements more manageable.
SON technology will be an essential feature in wireless backhaul. SON promises that wireless
backhaul becomes self-configuring, self-optimizing, and self-healing, much like the small
cell RAN itself in 3GPP Rel. 8 and later. The self-configuration feature is intended to render
the wireless backhaul link “plug and play;” self-optimization establishes the presence of
neighboring backhaul radios and mitigates interference while the self-healing feature adjusts
the link’s transmission parameters to compensate for a failed link or a new link addition.
It is unlikely small cells can be made to be plug and play in terms of their backhaul interfacing
on an individual cell-site by cell-site basis. It is more likely that “clusters of small cells” from a
particular vendor are installed. The respective clusters of small cells and their backhaul links
would need to be “aware” of the other vendor solutions on the network, and self-organizing
processes would be needed to mitigate interference and allow the various components from
different vendors to work seamlessly together.
2.5. Stakeholders Analysis
Among the vendors offering some form of SON for wireless backhaul (for their own
solutions) are BLiNQ, which features B-SON (backhaul SON) and MARA (managed adaptive
resource allocation) to continuously characterize and coordinate multiple backhaul links
on its equipment in the sub-6 GHz band. Airspan is another vendor offering a form of SON
embedded in its small cells, which it calls iBridge, which makes use of electronically steerable
MIMO antennas, removing the need for manual alignment during installation, coupled with a
“zero touch” provisioning feature that enables rapid single-person deployment.
Siklu also offers SON-based zero-touch “plug and play” installation on its 60 GHz
Etherhaul-600 radios for small cell backhaul, and according to the company, the product can
be installed by an unskilled technician and rendered operational in a matter of a few minutes.
Even the loose integration approach would not be straightforward. Considerable dialog would
be needed between the vendors and the operator community to ensure the SON management
tools are in place.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
2.6. Potential Regulatory Considerations
This chapter has largely focused on competition theory, chipset innovation, hardware
standardization, and collective negotiation, but there are some regulatory coordination
activities needed to support overall backhaul solution harmonization. ABI Research does
advocate that coordination efforts are put in place to support some crucial wireless backhaul
initiatives:
■■ Greater support for the sub-6 GHz bands, principally from 4 GHz to 6 GHz
■■ More active promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for wireless backhaul in the
international regulatory community
■■ More active promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for wireless backhaul in the international
regulatory community
■■ Promotion and support for spectrum needed for PMP backhaul applications, with the
associated need for per block licensing in the 10 GHz, 26/28 GHz, and future 60 GHz
bands
■■ The main microwave bands, 10 to 40 GHz, are generally deemed to have sufficient
spectrum but more effort is needed to align similar microwave bands in more markets,
particularly at the regional level. This would have the benefit of bringing down the cost
of equipment. It is not a critical measure, more of a “constructive measure” that would
benefit the whole backhaul industry.
■■ Potential bands that have secured a degree of regional support include the 6 GHz, 7
GHz, 8 GHz, 11 GHz, and 13 GHz bands, 18 GHz; 23 GHz and 24 GHz; 28 GHz; 38 GHz and
40 GHz. Refining the list would need additional study.
17
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
18
3.Line of sight versus non-line of sight
wireless backhaul options
Historically, most wireless backhaul links have been Line of Sight (LoS) due to the high
frequencies being used as well as the narrow beam widths utilized. In the past 10 years,
Non-line of Sight (NLoS) has become a viable solution that should prove particularly
advantageous with clusters of small cells that mobile operators are expected to deploy over
the next 5 to 10 years.
3.1. LoS versus NLoS Comparison
When comparing small cell wireless backhaul to wired small cell backhaul, there is an added
consideration and that is whether both ends of a link are “visible” to each other or not. Line of
sight (LoS) solutions tend to operate in the higher microwave and millimeter wave ranges. LoS
systems also have higher gain antennas and narrow beam widths when compared to NLoS.
Non-line of Sight (NLoS) links generally operate in the sub-6 GHz frequencies. “Near” Line of
Sight can operate up to around 10 GHz. These backhaul links make use of these signals’ ability
to penetrate or diffract around obstacles. Unlike LoS, these systems do not require alignment
at set up. NLoS systems can potentially offer better coverage in dense urban environments
provided the links support the bandwidth, synchronization, and latency requirements of the
RAN.
3.1.1. LoS Advantages
An LoS wireless small cell backhaul solution, such as microwave, 60 GHz, and E-band, require,
as the name implies, direct, unobstructed visibility between the transceivers at each end of the
link. A highly directional beam transmits data between two transceivers and transports the data
in a straight line with little or no fading or multipath radio interference. This is a highly efficient
use of spectrum, as multiple microwave transceivers can function within a few feet of each
other and reuse the frequency band for transmitting separate data streams.
Mainly used for high-bandwidth applications for outdoor small cell deployments rather than
indoor femtocells or picocells, LoS links can allow a single small cell with integrated backhaul,
such as a lamppost femtocell, to communicate with the next point of aggregation. Since
microwave is best used as a highly directive beam, spectrum is not much of an issue; two
microwave transceivers can be used at very close range compared to NLoS technologies. This
setup is useful in areas with a high concentration of cells.
3.1.2. LoS Disadvantages
LoS applications are more effective in some situations than others. For example, a park where
many trees could block LoS is an impractical location for small cells backhauled through LoS
technology. Pole tilt and sway are also a concern for small cell backhaul, and this becomes
increasingly important for frequencies above 18 GHz where the antenna beam width is
narrower. This is a concern for operators wishing to deploy small cell backhaul on structures like
utility, lighting, and traffic poles, which were not originally designed to resist sway to the extent
required by microwave backhaul.
Another problem lies in the cost of the backhaul, which can be considerable, especially for
scenarios in which 2,000 to 5,000 small cells could be deployed in a typical network, such as in
metropolitan hot-zones. Each transceiver requires a PMP link, and if daisy chains are involved,
the cost of the backhaul rises quickly when compared to NLoS. This becomes significant as
skilled technicians are usually required for antenna alignment for LoS technologies, and when
large numbers of small cells are deployed, the costs become prohibitive. On the other hand,
NLoS technologies are much more “plug and play” and can be set up in a short time with lower
labor costs.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
19
3.1.3. NLoS Advantages
Vendors with expertise in OFDM technologies are offering OFDM-based products with
proprietary optimizations for NLoS backhaul. NLoS backhaul can service the coverage area for
small cell deployments by relaying information back to the central base-station that provides
coverage. NLoS backhaul needs only to be placed within range of the backhaul radio unit. NLoS
systems using OFDM present a level of tolerance to multipath fading and other wireless channel
impairments not possible with LoS systems.
With proper design, NLoS solutions can provide coverage for various types of small cell setups;
however, the 100 Mbps capacity limit, higher latency, and latency variability of these solutions
limit their ability to aggregate multiple sites. As a result, an upper limit exists to how many small
cells can be blanketed through this type of solution in order to ensure that each covered cell
receives a certain QoS and has a minimum capacity per link.
The main advantage of NLoS technology is that a single NLoS base-station can provide
coverage for multiple small cells within the coverage area. NLoS systems also circumvent the
need for an unobstructed path between the transceivers, making this technology extremely
helpful for future planning and upgrades. NLoS is easier to plan and more convenient to deploy
than LoS solutions.
3.1.4. NLoS Disadvantages
NLoS technology has an upper limit to the amount of data that each coverage area can
backhaul. OFDM-based NLoS technologies are suited to 3G networks. To illustrate, assume
that an OFDM-based NLoS technology provides about 1 Gbps of backhaul data transfer.
This provides coverage for approximately a dozen HSPA+ femtocells that are simultaneously
transmitting at peak rates.
Supposing that the LTE peak download rates are around 300 Mbps, roughly three small cells
can connect at the peak to the NLoS backhaul without causing bottleneck issues. Since LTE
small cells will initially require about 100 Mbps to 150 Mbps on average, about 6 to 9 small cells
can fit under this umbrella from the standpoint of bandwidth. This number is better than the
initial 3, but their peak rates may not be as high as designed capacity if the cells are packed
under one NLoS backhaul coverage area. The reduction in the number of small cells using 4G
and accommodating for peak data transfer rates is noticeable and has to be considered when
planning a 3G small cell network with a planned future 4G/LTE upgrade.
NLoS backhaul solutions also limit spectrum; in certain areas, frequency planning would have
to be coordinated to avoid producing too much interference. Additionally, if the solutions use
unlicensed frequencies, they would need to be coordinated to avoid interference with other cell
sites utilizing the same spectrum bands. Given the current rate of growth for data usage, every
bit of useable spectrum that could connect a mobile user to the Internet should and will be
used for this purpose. Mobile consumer and mobile user connectivity take up many of the best
NLoS frequencies. Using these frequencies for backhaul could pose a problem.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
20
3.2. Topological Considerations
When it comes to deploying their wireless backhaul links, operators have traditionally deployed
Point-to-Point solutions, which have been typically LoS but Point to Multipoint is increasingly
becoming a serious contender.
3.2.1. Point to MultiPoint (PMP)
In a PMP arrangement, a central hub transceiver links to multiple small cells. The hub typically
uses multiple sector antennas so that links can be maintained with a number of small cell
terminals surrounding the hub site such that the hub transceiver bandwidth is shared with the
small cell terminals. In a PMP deployment, a single access point on one side of the link is set
up to cover a sector that spans 90 degrees in one direction, thus blanketing an area that can
contain multiple base-stations or eNode Bs. In this topology, for every N microwave links, only
N+1 radios are required, representing a CAPEX saving over point-to-point networks and also an
OPEX saving, since adding an additional eNode B only requires one radio to establish the link
with a consequent reduction in set-up time.
PMP technology is deployed mostly in high-density urban areas. PMP microwave links require
smaller antenna sizes compared to PTP systems and reduce spectrum rental fees as the same
frequency can be used for multiple links, which makes PMP links fast to deploy and cost
efficient. Operators are increasingly considering deployment of PMP networks for backhaul in
the heavy cellular traffic sites in their urban locations for its advantages to deploy in small cells.
3.2.2. Point to Point (PTP)
In contrast, PTP topologies are typically LoS with highly directional antennas at each end of the
link, and each small cell can access the full link bandwidth. PTP topologies require transceiver
hardware at each side of the link. When compared to a PMP connection of “N” small cells
in the backhaul access layer, a PTP array would result in double the number of transceivers
for a functional small cell site (i.e., two N transceivers per link). PTP connections would be
expensive for this setup, requiring two transceivers for each link, possibly increasing the cost
of a backhaul link, but offering higher bandwidth to the small cell. Since each link requires its
own antenna at each end, the point of presence (PoP) site can soon become overcrowded
with many antennas. Figure 1 below compares the PTP and PMP topologies and illustrates the
differences in the number of radios required in each case.
FIGURE 3-1: PMP AND PTP BACKHAUL TOPOLOGIES COMPARED
FOUR-CELL SMALL CELL NETWORK
PMP Topology
PTP Topology
Requires 1 Hub and 4 remote radios or N+1 radios
Requires 8 (or 2N) radios
Hub transceiver
Remote radio
Hub and remotes may be NLOS
Source: ABI Research
n's
120%
PTP radio
(Each link is LOS)
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
21
3.3. Total Cost of Ownership Backhaul Considerations
Using these two arrangements as building blocks, combinations can be used to create more
complex arrangements. In chain or tree arrangements, PTP links are interconnected in a “daisy
chain” with traffic combined with each successive small cell as the link nears the aggregation
PoP. The daisy-chain topology is used in PTP layouts to extend a branch and increase the
distance from a base-station to a PoP. Since small cell architectures provide coverage in closely
spaced locations, a daisy chain could connect multiple small cells to an egress point.
Because a daisy chain requires multiple backhaul elements to connect a small cell, this would
be economically viable only in certain use case scenarios. To keep costs down, small cells need
to reduce backhaul costs as much as possible. If setting up an outdoor picocell requires a threehop microwave daisy chain to provide backhaul, the backhaul equipment will probably be just
as expensive, or even more so, as the small cell itself. Daisy chains would be more useful to
microcell base-stations. The cost of anything smaller than a microcell base-station would not
justify the use of this setup.
The capacity of this type of backhaul must be properly dimensioned to take into account the
number of downstream cells, which must be supported, perhaps even, as in the case of ring
network arrangements, by providing redundant links to ensure resistance to link outages.
3.3.1. Ring Network
A ring topology, as the name suggests, are built from a chain of PTP links that circles back on
itself. One of the disadvantages of a ring is that it takes many radio hops to reach a distant
small cell, which adversely affects latency. Increasing the ring capacity for increased demand
can be expensive since each node must receive similar upgrades. One way to increase ring
capacity is to interconnect each node so the ring becomes a mesh network.
3.3.2. Mesh Network
In a mesh network, the close proximity of neighboring cells allows them to interconnect and
create a tightly knit and resilient network since there are many redundant links that provide
multiple paths between the nodes.
Wi-Fi networks can be set up for mobile backhaul and operate in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands.
The 2.4 GHz band is highly congested when compared to the 5 GHz band, which has a shorter
range. In a Wi-Fi mesh, access points are connected wirelessly and exchange data traffic with
each other and a gateway point, replacing costly cable runs for backhaul and reducing total
CAPEX.
Currently, Wi-Fi has a mesh protocol layer that can be set up for mesh networking. Since
the mesh uses the Wi-Fi protocol standards, it could be deployed only in Wi-Fi-designated
frequencies (currently 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz). In addition, many outdoor Wi-Fi access points
already support this, or could, through a slight modification or addition to the unit.
Due to the congestion in the 2.4 GHz spectrum from Wi-Fi devices and wireless routers, Wi-Fi
is not often a choice for backhaul technology. A limitation is that a Wi-Fi mesh backhaul could
prove insufficient for 4G technologies due to high bandwidth requirements; however, with the
advent of the IEEE 802.11ac standard, ABI Research expects this limitation will disappear.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
22
In-band mesh networks use the licensed frequencies of the 2G, 3G, or 4G/LTE RAN. Many
MNOs do not consider in-band backhaul very favorably because it cannibalizes expensive
licensed spectrum, resulting in loss of capacity in dense urban and metropolitan areas, a
situation the small cell underlay is supposed to avoid.
In situations where a small cell network is used for coverage and not capacity, for example,
on roads or freeways with very low population density (the only population density would
PMP Topology
PTP Topology
be traffic) and very little in the way of infrastructure, in-band backhaul can be useful. In such
situations, a handset in use in a vehicle travels out of range from one small cell and falls into
coverage of the next small cell very rapidly. By reducing the cost of extra backhaul equipment
and having an egress point to the core network after several hops, a small cell network would
be less expensive than a macro network. Moreover, due to the relatively low amount of voice
and data traffic in these areas, data throughput and capacity are sufficient to allocate licensed
in-band backhaul spectrum for passing drivers.
3.4. Regional PMP Spectrum Availability
Typically, PMP often needs to operate in environments where NLoS is the norm. PMP has been
deployed in the sub-6 GHz band in North America and Europe. PMP backhaul has also been
Requires
8 (or 2N) radios
Requires
1 Hub
4 remote
radios or N+1 radios
deployed
in the
11and
GHz
(Asia-Pacific)
and 25 GHz to 27 GHz bands
(Western
Europe and Middle
East). Eastern
Europe has PMP
spectrum
allocated in multiple spectrum
bands, from sub-10
Remote
radio
PTP radio
Hub transceiver
GHz to 81 GHz
90
GHzmay
(see
chart below).
Hubto
and
remotes
be NLOS
(Each link is LOS)
Source: ABI Research
CHART 3-1: REGIONAL PMP BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION BY FREQUENCY RANGE
WORLD MARKET
Spectrum Block as a % of Region's
Spectrum Allocation
120%
100%
80%
Western Europe
Latin America
Eastern Europe
Middle East
Asia-Pacific
Africa
North America
60%
40%
20%
0%
1-10 GHz
11-20 GHz
21-30 GHz
31-40 GHz
41-50 GHz
51-60 GHz
61-70 GHz
71-80 GHz
81-90 GHz
91-100 GHz
Source: ABI Research
Characteristics
Sub-6 GHz
Sub-6 GHz
Microwave
V-band
E-band
Satellite
Capacity
150 to 450
Mbps
170 Mbps
(20 MHz TDD)
1 Gbps+
7 Gbps+
10 Gbps+
2 to 10 Mbps down/
1 to 2 Mbps up
Latency
~10 ms
5 ms/hop
<1 ms/hop
<200 us max., 40
to 50 µs typ./ hop
65 to 350
µs/hop
300 ms
There is considerable
opportunityLicensed
for PMP deployment.
Cambridge
Unlicensed
(6-42 GHz)
(60 GHz) Broadband
(70/80 GHz) Networks
Limited has 39 live networks around the world, in emerging markets as well as developed
4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20
70 to
80 GHz
56 to 64East,
GHz and
6 to 56 GHzthe Middle
belowin
6 GHz
GHz,
Carrier Frequency of the2.4networks
markets—59%
are
Latin America,
Africa.
to 30 GHz
5.8 GHz
Range (Km)
250m max
<50
5~30,++
<1
~3
Ubiquitous
Topology
NLoS
NLoS
LoS
LoS
LoS
Universal
Installation
PMP
PMP
PMP, PTP
PTP
PTP
PMP
Source: ABI Research
45%
23
26
28
38 Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum
42
decommissioned in
the very near future.
23
Source: ABI Research
TABLE 3-1: POINT TO MULTI-POINT MARKETS BY REGION 2014
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Asia-Pacific
North America
Latin America
Middle East
Africa
United Kingdom
Germany
Ireland
Belgium
Italy
Russia
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Ukraine
Hungary
Malaysia
Indonesia
Vietnam **
Thailand **
United States
Argentina
Venezuela
Peru
Uruguay
Mexico
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Brazil **
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Lebanon
Kenya
DR Congo
Nigeria
Ghana
South Africa
Cameroon
Rwanda
Zambia
Tanzania
Guinea
Senegal
Mauritania
Morocco
Countries support 1 or more bands in 10.5, 26 or 28 GHz
Source: ABI Research
Note:
Regular font indicates commercial, while Regular font indicates commercial.
3.5. Stakeholders Analysis
The PMP ecosystem is not as mature as the traditional PTP marketplace. Clearly, backhaul
solutions had to be very robust, with the minimum of downtime—either due to hardware
failure or due to transmission interference. Nevertheless, a number of PMP vendors have
gained traction in the wider mobile operator backhaul marketplace. Key PMP players include
Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication Systems, Airspan, BliNQ, Bluwan,
Cambium Networks, Carlson Wireless, Intracom, Proxim, Radwin, and Ruckus Wireless.
The majority of the mobile backhaul links deployed are PTP links. All countries surveyed in this
report use PTP backhaul links with only a few countries that have reported the use of PMP
backhaul links. Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa have reported both PTP and
PMP wireless links are used for mobile backhaul links.
PMP technology operates at multiple frequencies. In Germany, frequency bands in the
range 24.5 GHz to 26.5 GHz is partly allocated for PMP backhaul links. The Malaysian
telecommunication regulator, MCMC, awarded license for PMP backhaul links in the 10.5 GHz
band. The spectrum bands 26 GHz and 28 GHz are used for PMP in Saudi Arabia.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
24
3.6. Potential Regulatory Considerations
3.6.1. NLoS Support
For true NLoS wireless backhaul services, the spectrum bands have to be below 6 GHz.
There are “near” LoS solutions that can be added to the operator’s toolkit, but ABI Research
recommends there should be sufficient support for true NLoS transmissions. This is because
there are expected to be a number of small cell scenarios where it will be invaluable to the
operator to be able to backhaul traffic from inaccessible small cell sites.
Spectrum bands below 3.5 GHz should be demarcated for end-user access applications and
services. Some operators may choose to use “in-band” spectrum for wireless backhaul, and this
is perfectly reasonable as it does not cause any interference for other spectrum stakeholders in
nearby bands.
Efforts should, therefore, be focused on making available spectrum in the 4 GHz to 6 GHz
bands for true NLoS wireless backhaul with channel sizes that could support data throughput
over 2 to 5 Gbps. Across the 23 markets, ABI Research surveyed the 4 GHz and 6 GHz bands
are in use for backhaul in a large proportion of cases. Closer inspection is recommended to see
if greater coordination could be established for wider channels and consistent support across
regional markets.
3.6.2. PMP Support
At present, there is primarily support for PMP backhaul in the 10.5 GHz, 26 GHz, and 28 GHz
bands. It is estimated that in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, there is approximately 2 GHz
available that does support high-capacity throughput and the propagation characteristics make
the spectrum band effective for mid-distance backhaul (5 Km to 10 Km).
There is interest in the PMP community to use the 60 GHz V-bands. In many markets, there
has yet to be substantial traction in the 60 GHz band for PMP, but it should be an option in the
operator’s toolkit for future backhaul deployment—especially small cells.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
25
4.Spectrum Band Availability And Capacity
Requires 8 (or 2N) radios
Requires 1 Hub and 4 remote radios or N+1 radios
Remote radio
Hub transceiver
PTP radio
Hub and remotes may be NLOS
(Each link is LOS)
Source: ABI Research
Spectrum Block as a % of Region's
Spectrum Allocation
Along with the variety in technical backhaul solutions, operators also have a number of
120% bands that they can establish PTP, and increasingly PMP, wireless links. Wireless
spectrum
backhaul spectrum exists in a number of spectrum allocations. Wireless backhaul takes
100%the sub-6 GHz (licensed and unlicensed), microwave (6 to 42 GHz), V-Band (60
place in
Western Europe
Latin America
GHz), and E-band (70/80 GHz band). Satellite is an option for rural sites and TV White
Eastern Europe
Middle East
Space is
80%being discussed as a possible option, but it does have its limitations.
Asia-Pacific
Africa
North America
60%
4.1. Data Throughput
The data
throughput is an essential consideration for mobile telcos—even for small cells that
40%
are often deployed in dense population centers. Small cells may have a small physical coverage
area of often 0.5 Km2 to 4 Km2, they could be handling large amounts of traffic from multiple
20%
customers. The data throughputs are also a function of the modulation and compression
schemes implemented on the backhaul link as well as how wide the channels are. Generally,
0%
the higher the frequency band, the greater the throughput. The 60 GHz V-band can handle 7+
1-10 GHz
11-20 GHz
21-30 GHz
31-40 GHz
41-50 GHz 51-60 GHz
61-70 GHz
71-80 GHz
81-90 GHz 91-100 GHz
Gbps while the E-band can handle 10+ Gbps (see table below).
Source: ABI Research
TABLE 4-1: WIRELESS BACKHAUL SPECTRUM BAND AND THROUGHPUT COMPARISON
Characteristics
Sub-6 GHz
Unlicensed
Sub-6 GHz
Licensed
Microwave
(6-42 GHz)
V-band
(60 GHz)
E-band
(70/80 GHz)
Satellite
2.4 GHz,
5.8 GHz
below 6 GHz
6 to 56 GHz
56 to 64 GHz
70 to 80 GHz
4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20
to 30 GHz
Capacity
150 to 450
Mbps
170 Mbps
(20 MHz TDD)
1 Gbps+
7 Gbps+
10 Gbps+
2 to 10 Mbps down/
1 to 2 Mbps up
Latency
~10 ms
5 ms/hop
<1 ms/hop
<200 us max., 40
to 50 µs typ./ hop
65 to 350
µs/hop
300 ms
Carrier Frequency
Range (Km)
250m max
<50
5~30,++
<1
~3
Ubiquitous
Topology
NLoS
NLoS
LoS
LoS
LoS
Universal
Installation
PMP
PMP
PMP, PTP
PTP
PTP
PMP
Source: ABI Research
Spectrum Block as a % of Region's
Spectrum Allocation
ABI Research has conducted a survey of 33 countries around the world to investigate which
spectrum bands have been allocated for wireless backhaul as well as the licensing procedures
45%
they utilize. A summary of the spectrum band utilizations can be found in the chart below.
40% percent of the wireless backhaul spectrum links were in the 1 GHz to 10 GHz and
Fifty-nine
Western Europe
Latin America
11 GHz to
35%20 GHz bands. Generally speaking, state regulators are now trying to reallocate
Eastern
Europe
backhaul spectrum to higher bands (21 GHz and above). This is partly because Middle
the 1East
GHz to 10
30%
GHz band is already heavily congested in a number of markets,
and also regulators
Asia-Pacific
Africa intend to
25%
keep spectrum
in the sub-4 GHz band for end-user access services.
North America
20%
In the case of the European Commission, they have established a Radio Spectrum Policy
15% program to “… to identify and analyze strategic spectrum issues relative to
Group work
wireless10%
backhaul for mobile networks.” A final report is expected by June 2015. Standard and
regulatory bodies in other regions and countries will also need to give careful consideration to
5%
spectrum and licensing issues in relation to wireless backhaul.
0%
1-10 GHz
Source: ABI Research
11-20 GHz
21-30 GHz
31-40 GHz
41-50 GHz
51-60 GHz
61-70 GHz
71-80 GHz
81-90 GHz
91-100 GHz
Characteristics
Sub-6 GHz
Unlicensed
Sub-6 GHz
Licensed
Microwave
(6-42 GHz)
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
6 to 56 GHz
below 6 GHz
2.4 GHz,
Carrier Frequency
5.8 GHz
V-band
(60 GHz)
E-band
(70/80 GHz)
Satellite
56 to 64 GHz
70 to 80 GHz
26
4 to 6, 10 to 12, 20
to 30 GHz
Capacity
150 to 450
Mbps
170 Mbps
(20 MHz TDD)
1 Gbps+
7 Gbps+
10 Gbps+
2 to 10 Mbps down/
1 to 2 Mbps up
Latency
~10 ms
5 ms/hop
<1 ms/hop
<200 us max., 40
to 50 µs typ./ hop
65 to 350
µs/hop
300 ms
Range (Km)
250m max
<50
5~30,++
<1
~3
Ubiquitous
Topology
NLoS
NLoS
LoS
LoS
LoS
Universal
Installation
PMP
PMP
PMP, PTP
PTP
PTP
PMP
CHART 6: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION BY FREQUENCY RANGE
WORLD MARKET
Source: ABI Research
Spectrum Block as a % of Region's
Spectrum Allocation
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
Western Europe
Latin America
Eastern Europe
Middle East
Asia-Pacific
Africa
North America
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1-10 GHz
11-20 GHz
21-30 GHz
31-40 GHz
41-50 GHz
51-60 GHz
61-70 GHz
71-80 GHz
81-90 GHz
91-100 GHz
Source: ABI Research
By and large, there is sufficient spectrum in the 21 GHz to 30 GHz and 31 GHz to 42 GHz bands
for mobile operators. However, momentum is starting to build in the 60 GHz to 70 GHz and 71
GHz to 80 GHz bands as they are either unlicensed or at least lightly licensed. Furthermore,
due to the generous channel bandwidths, data throughput is in the 7+ Gbps to 10+ Gbps
throughput, which is more than adequate for small cell and even macrocell backhaul. The fact
that the 60 GHz band incurs oxygen and rain attenuation that helps to keep transmission
ranges short and thereby allow spectrum reuse in other locations.
Data for the chart above came from Table 4-2, Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation,
World Market on the next page. The full spectrum band allocations, along with their licensing
conditions, as collected by the ABI Research Survey can be found in Table 6-2, Appendix:
Backhaul Spectrum Allocation Summary.
In the following sub-sections, ABI Research will analyze which wireless backhaul spectrum
bands are utilized and how are they utilized.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
56
57
64
70
71
75
76
80
81
86
92
95
Source: ABI Research
Africa
South Africa
UAE
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Middle
East
Uruguay
Mexico
Brazil
South
America
Argentina
United States
Canada
Singapore
North
America
New Zealand
Malaysia
Japan
Indonesia
India
Australia
Asia-Pacific
Poland
Hungary
Czech Republic
Croatia
Eastern
Europe
United Kingdom
Italy
Germany
France
Denmark
Frequency (GHz)
Western
Europe
Nigeria
TABLE 4-2: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION WORLD MARKET
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
28
4.2. Sub-6 GHz
4.2.1. Unlicensed
In the sub-6 GHz unlicensed category, there are small cell mobile backhaul solutions that
operate in the 2.4 GHz or 5.x GHz unlicensed bands. The 2.4 GHz band is highly congested
when compared to the 5.x GHz band, which has a shorter range and a large spectrum block.
The close proximity of Wi-Fi access points, as an example, permits them to be interconnected
in a Wi-Fi mesh to exchange data traffic with each other and a gateway point, replacing costly
cable runs for backhaul and reducing total operator CAPEX.
Wi-Fi, however, is not the only solution available for unlicensed operation in the sub-6 GHz
bands, with several vendors implementing proprietary modulation schemes for interference
mitigation and performance advantages.
While unlicensed spectrum is essentially “free” to the user, the spectrum comes with a
drawback in that it is by definition regulated by rules (technical limitation) and subject to
adjacent and co-channel interference. In some very limited situations, ISM bands have been
used wireless backhaul, which raises the possibility that backhaul may interfere with Wi-Fi
access and vice versa. However, due to the limitation associated to the licensing regime, such
approach will remain extremely limited and is not the priority for future wireless backhauling
deployment.
4.2.2. 4 GHz to 9 GHz Case Examples
Spectrums in the 4 GHz to 9 GHz band range are commonly used as backhaul links in many
countries across different regions except Japan, which has not allocated spectrum in the 4 GHz
to 9 GHz range for wireless backhaul (see table below).
Spectrum in the 4 GHz to 9 GHz bands has been traditionally a good fit for wireless backhaul.
Spectrum below 6 GHz can be effectively used for NLoS. However, the 4 GHz to 9 GHz
bands also house unlicensed spectrum in the 5.8 GHz bands. The unlicensed 5.8 GHz band
is being used by mobile carriers for backhaul, especially in emerging markets such as Brazil,
but the unlicensed ISM nature of the band has meant there are increasing numbers of Wi-Fi
access points and client devices that are contributing to the “noise floor” of the band. As the
growth of personal and commercial 802.11n access points and hotspots has grown, along with
smartphones, tablets, and ultrabooks, the reliability of the unlicensed 5.8 GHz band will reduce
the reliability of the band for mobile operator backhaul links.
Regulators have been reporting that the 4 GHz to 9 GHz bands are becoming increasingly
congested. A number of countries, such as Denmark, have reported that the 7 GHz band is one
of the most crowded bands in the country. The bands will remain popular with telcos because
of the Non-line of Sight or at least “near” Line of Sight capabilities of the sub-6 GHz bands.
More needs to be done to manage and coordinate spectrum use in the sub-9 GHz bands for
NLoS PMP and also PTP backhaul links. It is not just developed markets such as Germany and
Singapore that have widely encouraged the use of PMP in the sub-7 GHz bands but also South
Africa, which is using the 4 GHz, 6 GHz, 7 GHz and 8 GHz bands for small cell PMP backhaul.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
29
TABLE 4-5: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, 3-9 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY
REGION
Western Europe
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Eastern Europe
Country
Denmark
7
Croatia
France
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.1125
8.025-8.5
Germany
3.8-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
Italy
North America
Country
Canada
4
6
7
Poland
6
7
8
Hungary
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Australia
3.58-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.11
7.725-8.275
India
6
7
Indonesia
4.4-5
6.425-7.11
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
7.725-8.275
8.275-8.5
Japan
7.425-7.725
--
Malaysia
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Latin America
Country
3.7-4.2
5.295-6.425
6.425-6.930
7.125-7.25
7.3-7.25
7.725-8.275
United States
Asia-Pacific
Country
3.8
6
7
8
Czech Republic
3.800-4.200
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.750
United Kingdom
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Argentina
7.11-7.9
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
Brazil
3.7-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-6.7
6.7-6.875
5.9-6.4
6.4-7.1
7.4-7.8
7.7-8.3
8.2-8.5
Mexico
7.425-7.725
Uruguay
6
7
8
Venezuela
--
New Zealand
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.925-6.42
6.42-7.1
Singapore
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.725
7.725-8.5
Middle East
Country
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.85-6.425
7.425-7.725
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Saudi Arabia
7
UAE
6
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Nigeria
6
7
8
South Africa
4
6
7
8
Source: ABI Research
Wavelength (mm)
Attenuation (dB/km)
100 30
40
20
10
4
2
1
0.4
0.2
1
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.004
0.002
20
15
25
10.0
8.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
250
1.0
0.8
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
30
4.2.2.1. Stakeholder Analysis
In the sub-6 GHz band, there are six vendors providing licensed and unlicensed solutions:
Cambium Networks, Ceragon, DragonWave, Fastback Networks, Proxim, and Radwin. Two
provide solely licensed backhaul solutions: Airspan and BLiNQ Networks. Uniquely, Ericsson
only provides an unlicensed sub-6 GHz solution.
For the sub-6 GHz bands, vendor support demonstrates a high level of competition, although
many of them are specialized vendors that tend to specialize in carrier-grade Wi-Fi-related
solutions. The size of the antennas/wave-guides can take up a sizable footprint at the cell site.
The sub-6 GHz band does have other non-mobile cellular backhaul stakeholders. In Europe,
some countries use the 4 GHz band for coordinating with receiving satellite earth stations,
which may constrain use in certain locations. Both the lower and upper 6 GHz bands may have
to be shared with satellite uplinks.
4.3. Microwave Spectrum in 10 GHz to 42 GHz Range
Microwave is a mature technology and has been used for many years to backhaul traditional
cell site macrocells, and it was designed for carrier-grade LoS operation over long distances.
This LoS technology is suitable for connecting rooftop microcells, rather than a dense cluster
of outdoor picocells and femtocells. It is, however, a very well understood and commonly used
backhaul technology, which renders it attractive as an option for small cell backhaul.
Equipment operating in these bands is now being designed to be compatible with small cell
backhaul by reducing the power requirements, since small cell links are much shorter and
require a compact form factor with an integrated antenna, which can lower cost. ABI Research
believes microwave plays an important role in small cell backhaul now and in the future.
Since link capacity is a function of channel size and spectral efficiency, it is the subject of
considerable innovation and optimization by the vendor community.
4.3.1. 10 GHz to 18 GHz Case Examples
Spectrum bands within 10 GHz to 18 GHz are generally used for medium-haul systems. This
spectrum range is commonly used in a large number of countries as backhaul links. The
exceptions are countries such as New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia (see table below).
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
31
TABLE 4-6: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, 10-18 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED
BY REGION
Western Europe
Country
Denmark
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
12
15
18
France
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
17.7
Germany
12.75-13.25
14.5-15.35
17.7
Italy
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.5-15.35
17.7-19.7
Eastern Europe
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Asia-Pacific
Country
11
13
14
18
Czech Republic
10
11
13
15
18
Indonesia
11
13
15
18
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7
Japan
17.85-17.97
18.6-19.72
Malaysia
10.15-10.3
10.5-10.65
13.75-14.4
15.7-16.6
Poland
Latin America
Country
10.7-11.7
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Australia
India
New Zealand
Singapore
Canada
United States
10.55-10.68
10.7-11.2
11.2-11.7
12.7-13.25
14.5-15.35
14.975-15.35
17.8-18.3
Argentina
10.55-10.6
10.6-10.68
10.7-11.7
38.6-40
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
Brazil
10.7-11.7
14.5-15.4
17.7
Mexico
14.4-15.35
Uruguay
13
15
Venezuela
10-10.68
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
11
13
15
18
--
UAE
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Nigeria
11
13
15
18
--
60
Frequency Reuse
Range
20
10
Working Range
Distance (Km)
-10.5-10.68
10.7-11.7
12.2-12.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7
Saudi Arabia
70
30
13
15
18
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Source: ABI Research
40
10.7-11.7
14.5-15.35
21.2-23.6
Middle East
Country
South Africa
50
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Croatia
Hungary
North America
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
32
Spectrum in the 10 GHz to 18 GHz range is used for a combination of PTP and PMP backhaul
links. The 10 GHz to 12 GHz and the 15 GHz to 18 GHz bands are used for PMP in Germany, Saudi
Arabia, Malaysia, and Singapore.
There is a degree of congestion being experienced in a number of the 10 GHz to 18 GHz bands.
The 12 GHz, 15 GHz, and 18 GHz bands are heavily congested in Denmark. Similarly Germany
and Italy reported heavy duty use in the 12.75-13.25, 14.5-15.35, and 17.7-19.7 GHz bands. As can
be seen in Chart 4-2, Regional Backhaul Spectrum Allocation by Frequency Range, the 10 GHz
to 18 GHz bands had the largest allocation of spectrum bands available for wireless backhaul
(29.4%) although the 1 GHz to 10 GHz spectrum is also very heavily used with 28.6%. Mature
microwave solutions and reasonably good propagation characteristics that support PTP and
PMP applications have made it a popular spectrum category for wireless backhaul. There
is, however, a need to relieve some of that congestion using very high microwave and even
millimeter spectrum bands.
4.3.2. 20 GHz to 42 GHz Case Examples
In a number of regions, spectrum bands above 20 GHz are used as backhaul links since higher
frequency bands allow higher bandwidth. As congestion has built up in the 1 GHz to 10 GHz
and 11 GHz to 20 GHz bands, a number of countries in developed markets have taken steps
to make available the 20 GHz to 42 GHz bands. A number of countries in Western Europe
have allocated substantial amounts of spectrum in the 20 GHz to 42 GHz for backhaul links
compared to other regions. Countries in Asia-Pacific allocate more commonly in the spectrum
range between 20 GHz and 30 GHz (see table below).
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
33
TABLE 4-7: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, 20-42 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED
BY REGION
Western Europe
Country
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
North America
Country
Canada
United States
Source: ABI Research
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
23, 26
32, 36, 38
19.7
22-23.6
25.053-25-431
26.061-26.439
31.871-32.543
32.683-33.355
37.268-38.22
38.528-39.48
19.7
22-23.6
24.5-26.5
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
40.5-43.5
Eastern Europe
Country
Croatia
Czech Republic
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
23
38
23
26
28.2205-28.4445
29.2285-29.4525
31
32
38
Poland
23
26
32
38
Hungary
24.5-26.5
37-39.5
PTP: 23, 26,
28, 38 and 42
PMP: 24.5-26.5;
27.5-29.5
20
22-22.6
22.6-23
24.5-26.5
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
40.5-43.5
Latin America
Country
Argentina
Brazil
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
3.7-4.2
5.295-6.425
6.425-6.930
7.125-7.25
7.3-7.25
7.725-8.275
3.7-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-6.7
6.7-6.875
Australia
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
3.58-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.11
7.725-8.275
6
7
4.4-5
6.425-7.11
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
7.725-8.275
8.275-8.5
---
New Zealand
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.925-6.42
6.42-7.1
Singapore
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.725
7.725-8.5
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
7.11-7.9
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
Middle East
Country
5.9-6.4
6.4-7.1
7.4-7.8
7.7-8.3
8.2-8.5
Saudi Arabia
7
UAE
6
Mexico
7.425-7.725
Uruguay
6
7
8
Venezuela
Asia-Pacific
Country
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.85-6.425
7.425-7.725
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Nigeria
6
7
8
4
6
7
8
South Africa
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
34
PMP applications have gained significant footholds in the higher 20 GHz bands, especially the
26 GHz to 29 GHz bands. In the United States, the 31 GHz to 32 GHz bands were also dedicated
to local multipoint distribution service (LMDS), a digital TV broadcast service (aka wireless
cable). LMDS had a modicum of success in the United States and to a lesser degree in Europe,
but was ultimately overtaken by cable, IPTV over copper and/or fiber-optic) and satellite.
The LMDS spectrum bands were then re-allocated for wireless backhaul for mobile cellular
networks. PMP architectures can be found in Germany, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and
South Africa.
Most regulators reported that there are ample amounts of spectrum available. The spectrum
bands are LoS but have the available spectrum to support PMP deployment scenarios. Multiple
links can be set up with a single node. Propagation characteristics are lower than the 10 GHz
to 18 GHz band but still attractive for traditional microwave backhaul applications. Ironically it
is the E-band and V-bands (60+ GHz) that are drawing the interest of vendors and operators
because of signal absorption at 60 GHz due to oxygen absorption. This dampening of the
signal helps to curtail transmission distance and lends itself to small cell site deployment
scenarios.
4.3.3. Stakeholder Analysis
The 10 GHz to 42 GHz microwave range represents the core spectrum bands used for wireless
backhaul, both in PTP and PMP configurations. LoS is invariably required because the signal
does a poor job of penetrating physical structures. However, some vendors are experimenting
with near line-of-sight (nLoS) solutions where transmissions may be bounced off buildings.
Thirteen vendors are able to address backhaul solutions in the 10 GHz to 42 GHz band. These
include Alcatel-Lucent, Aviat Networks, Bluwan, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge
Communication Systems, DragonWave, Ericsson, Huawei, Intracom, NEC, Siklu Communication,
Sub10 Systems, and Vubiq Networks.
At present, the 10 GHz to 42 GHz band may be the most popular with operators for their
current wireless backhaul needs. It also incurs very substantial competition, with Ericsson, NEC,
Huawei, and DragonWave controlling a significant proportion of the shipment volume.
4.3.3.1. 10 GHz Band
In the past, the 10 GHz bands have been used for fixed wireless access voice and data links,
but in a number of countries, the licenses have been taken back and the spectrum repurposed.
The band, and those nearby, has also been allocated to military and government purposes
(including radar), but as those stakeholders have upgraded their communications hardware,
they have been able release spectrum back to the commercial sector.
At present the upper part of the 10 GHz band, (the 10.7 to 11.7 GHz band) has been allocated for
backhaul in a number of countries reviewed as part of the ABI Research survey: USA; Canada;
Brazil; Croatia; Hungary; Poland; Argentina; Czech Republic; Australia; Singapore; Indonesia;
Venezuela; Saudi Arabia; Poland; and France.
There is interest in allocating the lower 10 GHz band for backhaul on a light licensed basis.
Equipment vendors such as Mimosa are attempting to lobby the FCC in the United States to
free up the 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz band. From the countries that ABI Research surveyed, only
Malaysia and Venezuela, have issued backhaul spectrum in the lower 10 GHz band (10.15-10.3
and 10-10.68 GHz respectively). Supporting arguments in favor of the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz cite
the relatively uncongested state of the band. In some counties the band has amateur radios
and some government applications such as radar. Vendors such as Mimosa advocate that link
planning spectrum databases can be used to avoid government sites. The use of the 10 GHz
band could help to free up congested wireless backhaul spectrum bands below 10 GHz and it is
more resistant to rain fade signal attenuation than higher bands.
Italy
3.800-4.200
5.925-6.425
Hungary
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.750
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
United Kingdom
7.425-7.725
North America
Country
Canada
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Latin America
Country
3.7-4.2
5.295-6.425
6.425-6.930
7.125-7.25
7.3-7.25
7.725-8.275
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Argentina
Brazil
7.425-7.725
7.725-8.275
8.275-8.5
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.11-7.9
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
Japan
--
Malaysia
--
35
New Zealand
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.925-6.42
6.42-7.1
Singapore
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.725
7.725-8.5
5.9-6.4
6.4-7.1
7.4-7.8
E-band7.7-8.3
(70/80
8.2-8.5
East
Backhaul Band
UnitedMillimeter
States
3.7-4.2
4.4.
Wave
V-band (60 GHz) and
GHz)Middle
Bands
Country
(GHz)
5.925-6.425
The millimeter wave
(MMW) bands include the unlicensed 60 GHz band and the licensed/
6.425-6.7
Mexico
7.425-7.725
lightly licensed 70/80
GHz E-band. These frequencies are compelling
small cell backhaul
Saudi for
Arabia
7
6.7-6.875
Uruguay
6
because little congestion occurs in these bands, and they
are
very
compatible
with
short
small
UAE
6
7
cell ranges, thanks to their high frequencies.
8
Venezuela
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.85-6.425
which
reduces
7.425-7.725
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
4.4.1. Deployment Considerations
MMW backhaul uses a very narrow beam width,
interference
between links
in
Nigeria
6
7
close proximity. The high frequencies also translate into smaller, more compact antennas
and
8
help meet the zero footprint requirements of small cell backhaul. Also, the typical full duplex
South Africa
4
bandwidth capacity seen for 60 GHz bands is between 0.5 Gbps and 1 Gbps, while in the
6
70 GHz to 80 GHz E-band, it can reach up to 2 Gbps. The 70/80 GHz bands also have7 the
advantage of longer transmission distances (~3 Km versus <1 Km) because its signal is8 not
absorbed
Source: ABI Researchby oxygen atoms to same degree as the 60 GHz band (see Figure below). Of course,
a disadvantage for MMW is that it requires LoS, and this limits flexibility when planning small
cell placement.
FIGURE 4-2: OXYGEN AND RAIN ABSORPTION VERSUS TRANSMISSION
Wavelength (mm)
Attenuation (dB/km)
100 30
20
15
25
10.0
8.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
250
1.0
0.8
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
80
100
150
200
250 300
400
40
20
10
4
2
1
0.4
0.2
1
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.004
0.002
0.001
10
Frequency (GHz)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Small cell backhaul bandwidth today may require 100 Mbps, and if the small cells are
interconnected in a daisy-chain, the backhaul band width may need to reach 200 Mbps or
more. With LTE and LTE-Advanced small cells and the requirement for simultaneous 3G/LTE/
Wi-Fi support, this backhaul bandwidth could easily reach peak rates of 1 Gbps, now well within
the capability of a 60 GHz to 70/80 GHz link with a 7 Gbps channel. As MNOs densify their
RANs, capacity requirements increase and transmission ranges decrease, making millimeter link
an attractive proposition for small cell backhaul, since the propagation characteristics of the
link can be used to improve its reliability where range is not a prime factor (see Figure below).
The highly directional beam in a millimeter link transmits data between two transceivers and
transports it in a straight line with little or no fading or multipath radio interference. This is a
highly efficient use of spectrum because multiple microwave transceivers can function within a
few feet of each other and reuse the frequency band for transmitting separate data streams.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Nigeria
11
13
15
18
--
South Africa
36
Source: ABI Research
FIGURE 4-1: POTENTIAL WORKING AND FREQUENCY REUSE RANGES OF THE MILLIMETER
GHz BAND
70
60
Frequency Reuse
Range
Distance (Km)
50
40
30
20
10
Working Range
0
30
40
50
60
70
Frequency (GHz)
Source: Ofcom
These very high frequency backhaul links have a number of additional deployment advantages
that can count in their favor:
■■ Multiple V band Radio Co-location Possible - The very narrow beams associated with
60 GHz radios enables a number of 60 GHz radios to be installed on the same rooftop
or even on the same mast. Co-located radios operating in the same transmit and receive
frequency ranges can be isolated from one another based on small lateral or angular
separations and the use of cross-polarized antennas.
■■ Easy to Install – V band vendors state that while the beam-width is much narrower
than lower frequency microwave and licensed-band radios and sub-6 GHz license-free
radios, it is still wide enough to be accurately aligned by a non-expert installer. They also
reassure that installations are not affected by building sway from wind nor tilt from sunbased heat expansion.
■■ Physical Security – E and V band vendors report that there is a high degree of inherent
physical security with theses narrow beam LoS transmissions. In order to intercept the
signal, a third party would have to locate a receiver that is lined up on the exact same
trajectory, and in the immediate locale of the targeted transmitter. Furthermore, the
intercepting receiver would have to be tuned to the carrier signal of the transmitting
radio and be in the main beam in order to ensure reception. As a result, the presence of
this third party radio would block/degrade the transmit path of the transmitting radio
and therefore reveal its presence to the network manager.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
37
4.4.2. V Band (60 GHz)
The V-band ostensibly ranges from the 40 GHz to 75 GHz band. Parts of that band of spectrum
are used for millimeter wave radar and various scientific applications. The 60 GHz band has
been attracting considerable interest recently. There is only 70 MHz available in the 2.4 GHz
band and 500 MHz in the 5 GHz band for Wi-Fi, compared to the 7 GHz available in 60
GHz V band.
They are well suited to high-capacity, short-hop (<2 Km) communications with narrow beams.
The Wi-Fi 802.11ad low power, very short range devices will operate in the 60 GHz band,
potentially offering data throughputs of up to 10 Gbps.
4.4.2.1. European Commission 60 GHz Rule Change
In late 2013, the European Commission issued a decision, “2013/752/EU,” that made a number
of amendments to a prior policy document (“2006/771/EC”). The main objective of the revised
policy document is to constrain transmission power levels to ensure they do not interfere with
other wireless equipment. In the case of the short-range devices operating in the 57 GHz to 66
GHz band, they are restricted to 40 dBm EIRP and 13 dBm/MHz EIRP densities. Fixed outdoor
installations are excluded from complying with these restrictions. Furthermore, it will ensure
that these short-range devices do not become a serious source of inference for backhaul links
in the 57 GHz to 64 GHz band.
4.4.2.2. Federal Communications Commission 60 GHz Rule Change
In late 2013, the FCC recently voted unanimously to change the rules governing the 60 GHz
unlicensed band and said that the new raised power levels would improve the use of unlicensed
spectrum for high-capacity short-range outdoor backhaul, which is particularly useful for small
cells.
There are several reasons why this rule change is important for small cell backhaul. In the 60
GHz band, wireless transmissions are attenuated by oxygen absorption and moisture or “rain
fade,” which limits their range; also, the signal will not penetrate foliage or buildings, and thus,
requires a clear LoS. At this high frequency, the antenna is a small dish that matches the small
form factor of the small cell and can be installed unobtrusively outdoors.
The FCC therefore raised the power limit for outdoor links operating in the 57-64 GHz band
on an unlicensed basis. The EIRP limit is raised from 40 dBm (equivalent to 10 Watts) to a
maximum of 82 dBm (158,489 Watts) depending on how high the antenna gain is. The new
power limit is comparable to others the FCC has in the fixed microwave services. The FCC this
will support higher-capacity outdoor links, such as small cells, extending to about one mile (1.6
Km). The FCC also eliminated the need for outdoor 60 GHz devices to transmit an identifier.
Indoor 60 GHz devices, (for example, based on WiGig’s 802.11ad standard) are still constrained
to the much lower power limitations which prevents interference with outdoor fixed link
devices.
4.4.2.3. Singapore – A Licensed 60 GHz Regulatory Environment
In some countries, such as Singapore, the regulatory authorities, have opted to permit the
deployment of high power 60 Hz outdoor links but within a licensed environment. In the
case of Singapore, the rationale for this decision was based on the concern that Singapore
represents a highly dense urban environment and the IDA felt it was prudent to control the
location and deployment of 60 GHz V band high power (i.e. over 40dBm EIRP) links to ensure
there is no possible interference between 60 GHz V band transceivers. No such licensing
restrictions have been placed on low power 60 GHz V band devices, which are intended for
indoor environments.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
38
The IDA is aware of the unlicensed allocation of the 57 to 66 GHz bands by the European
Commission and also the FCC. It is ABI Research’s view that the IDA has taken a cautionary
policy outlook and is monitoring 60 GHz outdoor deployments in other developed markets and
may alter its policies once more feedback from commercial information has been accrued. It is
also interesting to note that the IDA is monitoring potential applications of Intelligent Transport
Systems (ITS) in the 63 to 64 GHz bands.
4.4.3. 70 GHz Plus
Even higher spectrum bands are in the process of being allocated. Frequencies in the E-band
(70 GHz, 80 GHz and even 90 GHz bands) are being allocated on a licensed or “lightly” licensed
basis. This licensed, or indeed lightly licensed approach to backhaul spectrum allocation does
give the operator a high degree of service delivery assurance that the 60 GHz unlicensed
spectrum does not have. In the case of the 60 GHz band, it is the technical specifications
(modulation, beam width, and network design) that must assure the backhaul link’s quality of
service.
The United States was one of the first countries to rule that spectrum at 71 GHz to 76 GHz, 81
GHz to 86 GHz, and 92 GHz to 95 GHz was available for high-density fixed wireless services.
From ABI Research’s survey, eight countries, including France, Germany, Malaysia, the Czech
Republic, Poland, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates have allocated the 80 GHz
band for wireless backhaul.
It is noticeable that very few emerging markets have issued spectrum in these high millimeter
bands for backhaul. This can be partly attributed to a more urgent need for small cell
deployments in developed markets but also there is a concern among emerging market
operators and regulators that the current generation of E-band and V-band wireless backhaul
solutions is not suited to their emerging market needs.
4.4.4. 60 GHz to 100 GHz Case Examples
For the spectrum band above 50 GHz, North America and Western Europe have allocated
substantially more >50 GHz bands for backhaul links compared to other regions. Eastern
Europe, Middle East, and Asia-Pacific have started to allocate spectrum bands above 50 GHz
range for backhaul links. Latin America and Africa have not yet assigned any spectrum above
50 GHz for backhaul links (see Table below).
North America
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Canada Backhaul Spectrum
19.3-19.7
Wireless
Policy Recommendations & Analysis
21.8-22.4
23-23.6
24.25-24.45
25.05-25.25
25.25-26.5
27.5-28.35
38.6-40
United States
Nigeria
23
South Africa
23
26
28
38
42
39
--
Source: ABI Research
TABLE 4-8: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM SUMMARY, >50 GHz COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY REGION
Western Europe
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
North America
Country
Canada
United States
-71-76
81-86
Eastern Europe
Country
--
Australia
--
70
80
India
--
Indonesia
--
70
75
Japan
--
Hungary
71-76
81-86
92-95
71-76
81-86
92-95
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Czech Republic
Poland
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Asia-Pacific
Country
Croatia
55.78-57
71-86
64-66
71-76
81-86
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Latin America
Country
71-76
81-86
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Brazil
--
Uruguay
--
Middle East
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Saudi Arabia
--
UAE
80
Malaysia
-71-76
81-86
New Zealand
--
Singapore
--
Africa
Country
Backhaul Band
(GHz)
Nigeria
--
South Africa
--
Source: ABI Research
4.4.5. Stakeholders Analysis
The 60 GHz (V-band) and the 70/80 GHz (E-bands) are currently relatively sparsely used but
that is expected to change over the next 5 to 10 years as small cell deployment starts to grow
in number. Despite the propagation-limiting characteristics of the 60 GHz band that make it
suitable for spectrum re-use in dense urban areas, vendor support for the unlicensed\lightly
licensed 60 GHz band is currently limited. There are seven V-band vendors (BridgeWave
Communications, DragonWave, Ericsson, NEC, Siklu Communications, Sub10 Systems,
and Vubiq Networks) versus 12 E-band backhaul vendors (Aviat Networks, BridgeWave
Communications, Ceragon, DragonWave, E-Band Communications, Ericsson, Huawei,
LightPointe Wireless, Loea Communications, NEC, Siklu Communication, and Sub10 Systems).
ABI Research believes that the characteristics of the 70/80 GHz spectrum bands, such as short
distance transmissions, the assurance of licensed spectrum (even if it is lightly licensed), as well
as the wider channel sizes that permit potential 10+ Gbps throughput, are drawing interest from
the hardware vendor community.
4.5. Potential Regulatory Considerations
From ABI Research, the utilization of the 60 GHz V-bands has only had limited adoption in the
countries surveyed. Of the 23 countries, only Germany had backhaul links using the 60 GHz bands.
It is a promising band for backhaul services. The 60 GHz band has been set aside in a number
of countries. In the United States, Canada, and Korea, 7 GHz has been put aside in the 57.05
GHz to 64 GHz range. In Europe, 7 GHz has been allocated in the 57 GHz to 66 GHz band, and
Australia has set aside 3.5 GHz in the 59.40 GHz to 62.90 GHz bands.
Complementary to this, a larger proportion of the 70/80 GHz bands compared to the 60 GHz
bands can be dedicated to backhaul services. Not only will LTE and LTE-Advanced contribute
to the growth in traffic but high speed wireless backhaul will be needed for 5G, which should
reach commercial implementation by 2020. Fiber optic cannot be deployed in all cell site
scenarios. The 70/80 GHz E-band has excellent characteristics for small cell wireless backhaul
(see Table 1-1), in particular short link distances allowing for spectrum re-use and very wide
channel sizes to permit data throughputs of 10+ Gbps.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
40
4.6. Future Spectrum Bands for Backhaul Links
Regulators are responding to the needs of mobile operators by releasing spectrum for backhaul
in a number of bands. Generally speaking, the emphasis has been on the higher frequency
bands for allocation for mobile backhaul links. During the course of the research, ABI Research
came across the following country developments:
■■ Australia: The Australian telecommunication regulator ACMA anticipates that all of the
bands above 7 GHz will experience a growth in demand, in particular within the bands
50 GHz, 58 GHz, 71 GHz to 76 GHz, and 81 GHz to 86 GHz. Although it is thought that
there is sufficient spectrum to meet growing backhaul requirements, ACMA anticipates
that in highly dense areas, demand may exceed supply in 10 years within certain
frequency bands, particularly in the 7.5 GHz, 13 GHz, 15 GHz, and 22 GHz bands. ACMA
routinely conducts licensing studies and seeks input from stakeholders for potential
requirements for backhaul spectrum assignments.
■■ India: According to the Indian telecommunication regulator TRAI, the 15 GHz band is
currently totally congested and not available for backhaul links. The Indian regulator is
now considering allocation of backhaul links in the 26 GHz, 28 GHz, 42 GHz, 60 GHz, 70
GHz, and 80 GHz bands.
■■ Indonesia: The Indonesian regulator MCI is in the final process of issuing backhaul
spectrum in the 2.75 GHz to 2.95 GHz, 3.18 GHz to 3.34 GHz, 3.7 GHz to 3.95 GHz, 7.1 GHz
to 7.6 GHz, and 8.1 GHz to 8.6 GHz bands. Indonesia has a large landmass and a number
of islands. Therefore, the operator needs spectrum bands that allow transmissions over
distances of 10 to 30 Km.
■■ Malaysia: Due to the lack of cheap and high-quality fixed line infrastructure in Malaysia,
the dominant backhaul solution for the operators continues to be microwave. LTE
backhaul uses E-band and fiber depending on the location and capacity requirement.
So far, Malaysia has more than 20,000 microwave backhaul links. Although Telekom
Malaysia (TM) is deploying FTTT, fiber-optic backhaul for all LTE base-stations is often
cost prohibitive. In some cell sites, TM will continue to use microwave links.
■■ Italy: The Italian regulator AGCOM is currently in the process of assigning 3.6 GHz and
3.8 GHz bands, which operators expressed interest in for LTE and small cells. Another
band that might be open for backhaul in the future is 40 GHz.
■■ Germany: The German regulator is in consideration to assign new backhaul spectrum in
the frequency range 92 GHz to 95 GHz.
■■ United Arab Emirates: At present, more than 70% of base-stations in the United Arab
Emirates use fiber-optic backhaul. Because most cell sites are connected to fiber optic,
the United Arab Emirates regulator expects that operators are less likely to apply for
microwave backhaul licenses.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
41
5.Evaluating wireless spectrum backhaul
licensing procedures
Wireless backhaul national licensing procedures are almost as diverse as the spectrum
bands they manage. Wireless backhaul national licensing procedures have evolved in
response to local conditions. What are the different wireless spectrum backhaul licensing
approaches? What are their relative merits?
5.1. Types of Licensing Procedures
There are effectively five licensing models:
■■ Per link
■■ Block spectrum
■■ Shared license
■■ Lightly licensed spectrum
■■ Unlicensed spectrum
As shown in the chart below, per link has been the most favored model to date, with 59% of
countries opting for this model.
5.2. Per Link Spectrum Licensing
The per link spectrum licensing method has been the traditional way of mobile backhaul
spectrum licensing. Spectrum is issued to operators upon request. Across different regions,
a majority of countries issue the spectrum bands for backhaul links on a per link basis only.
Some countries such as France and the United Kingdom use per link as well as block spectrum
licensing methods for backhaul links frequency allocation. Per link represented 65.5% of license
models in operation.
5.2.1. SWOT Analysis
Per link is effective for PTP backhaul connections. Deployments are highly localized due to
directed antennas with narrow beam widths. Therefore spectrum can be reused. Regulators
find that it is a model that works, even if it is not perfect. They often keep the spectrum on
a very short leash with license durations typically of 1 year. This means that the spectrum is
comparatively cheap. However, the operator may have to acquire microwave link hardware with
different spectrum band configurations, which can impact the cost of equipment. Furthermore,
the operator does not have long-term assurance that it has access to the PTP spectrum.
TABLE 5-1: SWOT ANALYSIS PER LINK
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Effective for PTP backhaul connections
■ May have to acquire microwave link hardware with different
■ Spectrum can be efficiently used
■ A tried and tested licensing model
spectrum band configurations
■ Can have a heavy licensing administrative overhead
■ Spectrum is comparatively cheap
Opportunities
Threats
■ It is a fairly mature licensing model; some regulators and operators
■ Licenses are often very short duration but usually renewed;
would like to move away from the licensing model where possible
operator cannot be 100% certain he has the spectrum for the
long-term
Source: ABI Research
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Can be used for PTP links, but are particularly useful for PMP
■ License cost can be significantly higher than per link licensing
application scenarios
■ Gives the operator more certainty of operation
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
42
5.2.2. Spectrum Band Analysis
Per link spectrum licensing was by far the most common form of wireless spectrum backhaul
licensing in the markets that ABI Research surveyed. Nineteen out of twenty-two countries
used this licensing model. Per link was also largely associated with PTP backhaul deployments.
Per link licensing typically takes place from 18 GHz to 42 GHz, with exceptions in certain
markets or PMP backhaul applications.
5.3. Block Spectrum Licensing
Per block licensing has been gaining traction in the higher spectrum bands (28 GHz and
higher). Regulators such as Ofcom have taken steps to minimize the administrative and
Strengths
Weaknesses
financial overhead of wireless backhaul licensing. Block spectrum represented 20.7% of license
models in operation.
■ Effective for PTP backhaul connections
■ Spectrum
can be
efficiently used
5.3.1.
SWOT
Analysis
■ A tried and tested licensing model
■ May have to acquire microwave link hardware with different
spectrum band configurations
■ Can have a heavy licensing administrative overhead
Block spectrum licenses can be used by operators for PTP links, but they are also increasingly
■ Spectrum is comparatively cheap
being
used for PMP links. Block spectrum allocation does give the operator more certainty
of operation. Regulators would want to see that there was substantial need by the operator
Opportunities
Threats
for
block spectrum licensing. Principally, the operator
would need to demonstrate that it is
planning to connect a number of macrocell sites and/or small cell sites with PMP services.
■ It is the
a fairlyanticipated
mature licensing model;
some in
regulators
operators
■ Licensesbelieves
are often very
short block
duration but
usually renewed;
Given
growth
smalland
cells,
ABI Research
that
spectrum
needs to
would like
move away
from the licensing
where possible
operator
be 100% certain he has the spectrum for the
become
a to
more
prevalent
form model
of licensing
in a number
of cannot
markets.
long-term
TABLE
5-2: SWOT ANALYSIS BLOCK SPECTRUM
Source: ABI Research
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Can be used for PTP links, but are particularly useful for PMP
■ License cost can be significantly higher than per link licensing
application scenarios
■ Gives the operator more certainty of operation
Opportunities
Threats
■ Could grow in use by regulators
■ Speed of license issuing can be a hassle to roll out
■ They would need to see that there was substantial demand for it;
■ Licensing fees need to be viable for mobile backhaul; operators
this would come from small cell deployments
already pay significant amounts in access spectrum license fees
Source: ABI Research
Strengths
Weaknesses
5.3.2. Spectrum Band Analysis
■ Reduced
regulatory/administrative
the operator
■ Operator needs
to take
measures
to ensureof
its23
backhaul
Per
block the
spectrum
licensingburden
has on
been
primarily associated
with
theproactive
ex-LMDS
bands
GHz
links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users
■
License
fees
can
be
comparatively
low
as
the
license
is
not
exclusive
to 28 GHz in Europe and the 31 GHz bands in the United States. Only a handful of countries use
■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to
■ Still
fast tospectrum
rollout
the
perquite
block
method for the majority of their
backhaul needs. Italy uses the block
resolve the interference issue themselves
■ Some moderate guarantees against interference
assignment
method exclusively. Allocated spectrum blocks are from bands 26 GHz and 28
GHz and are not shared. France allows block and per link allocation together in bands 23 GHz,
Threats
26Opportunities
GHz, 32 GHz, 38 GHz, and 70/80 GHz. South Africa
has been allocated spectrum on a per
block basis in a number of bands including the 26 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, and 42 GHz bands.
Operators
arein required
to share the spectrum.
■ Likely to grow
use by regulators
■ Unresolved interference conflicts are a possibility, but usually the
■ Operators are keen on it, especially if there is a low probability
regulator can step in as a last resort
of interference
Source: ABI Research
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Has many of the same traits as lightly licensed
■ Less of a guarantee of no interference
■ Reduced the regulatory/administrative burden on the operator
■ Operator needs to take proactive measures to ensure its backhaul
■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive
■ Still quite fast to roll out
links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users
■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to
resolve the interference issue themselves
■ Effective for PTP backhaul connections
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
■ Spectrum can be efficiently used
■ A tried and tested licensing model
■ May have to acquire microwave link hardware with different
spectrum band configurations
43
■ Can have a heavy licensing administrative overhead
■ Spectrum is comparatively cheap
Opportunities
Threats
■ It is a fairly mature licensing model; some regulators and operators
■ Licenses are often very short duration but usually renewed;
would like to move away from the licensing model where possible
operator cannot be 100% certain he has the spectrum for the
long-term
5.4.
Lightly Licensed Spectrum
Source: ABI Research
In a number of markets, regulators are striving to reduce the burden of regulation on operators.
Weaknesses
Strengths
Where there are technical solutions to mitigate interference, there are then opportunities
for implementing a “lightly licensed” approach. In a lightly licensed approach, the licensee
■ Can
used for PTP links, butsmaller
are particularly
PMP
■ License
cost can
be licensee
significantly higher
per link
pays
abecomparatively
feeuseful
for for
a non-exclusive
license.
The
thenthan
pays
anlicensing
application scenarios
additional nominal fee for each wireless backhaul link that it deploys. The operator must take
■ Gives the operator more certainty of operation
measurements and perform an interference analysis to assess the probability of affecting any
existing users in the vicinity. All backhaul transmitters must be identifiable in the event that they
Opportunities
Threats
cause interference to any existing operators in the vicinity. If interference is caused between the
licensees that cannot be mediated by immediate technical solution, licensees are required to
■ Could grow
use by regulators
■ Speed of license issuing can be a hassle to roll out
resolve
the indispute
between them.
■ They would need to see that there was substantial demand for it;
this would come from small cell deployments
■ Licensing fees need to be viable for mobile backhaul; operators
already pay significant amounts in access spectrum license fees
5.4.1. SWOT Analysis
Source: ABI Research
TABLE
5-3: SWOT ANALYSIS LIGHTLY LICENSED SPECTRUM
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Reduced the regulatory/administrative burden on the operator
■ Operator needs to take proactive measures to ensure its backhaul
■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive
■ Still quite fast to rollout
■ Some moderate guarantees against interference
links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users
■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to
resolve the interference issue themselves
Opportunities
Threats
■ Likely to grow in use by regulators
■ Unresolved interference conflicts are a possibility, but usually the
■ Operators are keen on it, especially if there is a low probability
regulator can step in as a last resort
of interference
Source: ABI Research
Strengths
Weaknesses
5.4.2. Spectrum Band Analysis
A major push into light licensing has been seen in the 71 GHz to 76 GHz, 81 GHz to 86 GHz,
■ Has many of the same traits as lightly licensed
■ Less of a guarantee of no interference
and
92 GHz to 95 GHz bands. Regulatory implementation
is still limited, with only 8 of the 22
■ Reduced the regulatory/administrative burden on the operator
■ Operator needs to take proactive measures to ensure its backhaul
markets
surveyed
by
ABI
Research
doing
so.
The
majority
ofcause
these
markets
in developed
links
do
not
interference
to anywere
neighboring
existing users
■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive
■
If
there
is
interference,
often
the
two
operators
are
required to
markets.
ABI
Research
expects
that
more
markets,
both
in
developed
and
emerging
markets,
■ Still quite fast to roll out
thegreater
interferenceflexibility
issue themselves
will adopt light licensing regimes as a means to give resolve
telcos
with their backhaul
rollout plans.
Opportunities
Threats
There is interest in allocating the lower 10 GHz band for backhaul on a light licensed basis.
■ Unresolved interference conflicts are a possibility, but usually the
■ Regulators are investigating the potential of shared licensing
Equipment
vendors such as Mimosa are attempting
to lobby the FCC in the United States to
regulator can step in as a last resort
free up the 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz band. From the countries that ABI Research surveyed, only
■ Operators have some concerns about assured delivery of service
Malaysia and Venezuela, have issued backhaul spectrum in the lower 10 GHz band (10.15-10.3
Source: 10-10.68
ABI Research
and
GHz respectively). Supporting arguments in favor of the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz cite the
relatively uncongested state of the band.
long-term
Source: ABI Research
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
44
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Can be used for PTP links, but are particularly useful for PMP
■ License cost can be significantly higher than per link licensing
application scenarios
■ Gives the operator more certainty of operation
Opportunities
Threats
■ Could grow in use by regulators
■ Speed of license issuing can be a hassle to roll out
5.5.
Shared Spectrum Licensing
■ They would need to see that there was substantial demand for it;
■ Licensing fees need to be viable for mobile backhaul; operators
In many
respects, the shared licensing regime is a variant
of the light licensing regime. The
this would come from small cell deployments
already pay significant amounts in access spectrum license fees
administrative requirements are reduced, but there is also an explicit requirement to share a
Source: ABI Research
block
of spectrum with one or more participants. In the shared spectrum licensing method,
microwave backhaul frequencies are not exclusive for any operator and are to be shared with
Strengths
Weaknesses
other operators on a first-come, first-served basis in a particular location. Shared spectrum
licensing represented 3.4% of license models in operation. Regulators are actively reviewing
■ Reduced
the regulatory/administrative
burden
on the operator
■ Operator
to take proactive
measures
to ensure its backhaul
shared
spectrum
licensing, but
it may
prove challenging
toneeds
implement
shared
spectrum
for
links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users
■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive
backhaul due to the high quality of service requirements for backhaul.
■ Still quite fast to rollout
■ Some moderate guarantees against interference
■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to
resolve the interference issue themselves
5.5.1. SWOT Analysis
A few regulators have dabbled in issuing shared spectrum licenses where there is a primary
Opportunities
Threats
and a secondary user, or there is a first-come, first-served policy in a given location. The first to
deploy has primacy, and the second cohabiting licensee is prohibited from causing interference
Likelylocation.
to grow in useThe
by regulators
■ Unresolved
interference
are a possibility,
but usually the
in■that
incentive is to encourage effective
utilization
of conflicts
the wireless
backhaul
regulator can step in as a last resort
■
Operators
are
keen
on
it,
especially
if
there
is
a
low
probability
spectrum by the operator community.
of interference
TABLE5-4:
Source: ABI Research SWOT ANALYSIS SHARED SPECTRUM LICENSING
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ Has many of the same traits as lightly licensed
■ Less of a guarantee of no interference
■ Reduced the regulatory/administrative burden on the operator
■ Operator needs to take proactive measures to ensure its backhaul
■ License fees can be comparatively low as the license is not exclusive
links do not cause interference to any neighboring existing users
■ Still quite fast to roll out
■ If there is interference, often the two operators are required to
Opportunities
Threats
■ Regulators are investigating the potential of shared licensing
■ Unresolved interference conflicts are a possibility, but usually the
resolve the interference issue themselves
regulator can step in as a last resort
■ Operators have some concerns about assured delivery of service
Source: ABI Research
5.5.2. Spectrum Band Analysis
Quite separate from unlicensed spectrum bands where a number of participants may “share” a
block of spectrum, regulated shared spectrum bands, where two or more operators explicitly
share spectrum, can be found in India, Singapore, and Nigeria. Regulators are assessing assured
shared spectrum licensing models. Such assured shared spectrum arrangements permit
cohabitation in a given spectrum band, but rules define where, when, and how the respective
participants can use the spectrum band.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
45
5.6. Unlicensed Spectrum Licensing
Unlicensed spectrum can be used for backhaul links in certain circumstances. Based on
the unlicensed spectrum licensing method, operators don’t need to pay a license fee. The
unlicensed model has been adopted in a number of markets, but feedback has been largely
negative. Complaints regarding interference from a growing number of public and private Wi-Fi
access points are often at the heart of the concern.
At present, unlicensed backhaul is using the Wi-Fi spectrum bands (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands)
or the much higher 60 GHz band. Unlicensed spectrum represented 10.3% of license models in
operation.
5.6.1. SWOT Analysis
Historically, operators have been leery of unlicensed spectrum, especially as it relates to the WiFi bands. In a world where operators need assured data throughput, low latency, and versatile
capacity, utilizing 2.4 GHz and even 5 GHz unlicensed spectrum is often the plan of last resort.
However, the allocation of spectrum in the high 50s GHz/60s GHz bands is serving to redeem
the unlicensed model. A “zero” administrative model is to be welcomed by the regulators.
Technical solutions to mitigate interference as well as an open dialog between operators to
address sources of interference are essential. A first-come, first-served policy in terms of siting
backhaul links is at the heart of what makes the model work.
TABLE 5-5: SWOT ANALYSIS UNLICENSED SPECTRUM
Strengths
Weaknesses
■ No licensing requirements; therefore, reduced administrative
■ Heavy reliance on topology, proximity, and technical expertise to
burden
mitigate the impact of interference
■ No licensing fees to be paid
■ Fast rollout
■ Can provide temporary spectrum solutions for locations that need
"immediate" spectrum coverage, e.g., an event
Opportunities
Threats
■ Spectrum is available in 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, and 60 GHz
■ Very real threat of loss of connection as the "noise floor" rises to
mask the operator's transmissions
■ 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz do not provide long-term viable spectrum
solutions
Source: ABI Research
5.6.2. Spectrum Band Analysis
Unlicensed wireless backhaul has proved to be an anathema to most operators. Higher data
100%
100%
throughputs and lower latencies
are becoming pressing requirements for mobile operator
9%
19%
90%
90% attitude should start
as their 3G and 4G subscriptions and traffic grow. This
to change as
unlicensed
V-band (60 GHz)
traction in the market and cost of
21% solutions gain commercial
80%
80%
19% license-exempt
equipment drops. Significant amounts of spectrum are available (7 GHz of
70%
70%
spectrum is available in the 57 GHz to 64 GHz band), and the short propagation distances
60% also help to mitigate against interference. The
60% FCC and the European Commission have
should
22% a license exempt
50%a proactive approach to the 60 GHz V-Band50%
taken
and have recommended
61%
approach
to the active use of the 57 to 64 GHz band.
40%
40% In the late 2013/early 2014 timeframe,
both regulatory authorities have tightened up the power transmit allowances for short range,
30%
30%
largely indoor applications (<40 dB EIRP) and outdoor, high power V band transceivers
20%
41%
20%
10%
10%
9%
0%
0%
Spectrum Share
License Duration
Shared
Per Link
>10 Yr
5 Yr
Block Spectrum
Unlicensed
10 Yr
1 Yr
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
46
intended for backhaul applications. It should be noted that some national regulators, such
as the IDA, have taken a cautionary, licensed approach to the 60 GHz V band. In the case of
Singapore’s
IDA, it has applied experimental licensing
conditions that minimize licensing fees.
Strengths
Weaknesses
The IDA is more concerned about potential interference from uncontrolled deployment of high
power
V Band transmitters. It is ABI Research’s opinion
that the IDA is monitoring the situation
■ No licensing requirements; therefore, reduced administrative
■ Heavy reliance on topology, proximity, and technical expertise to
in other
burden markets.
mitigate the impact of interference
■ No licensing fees to be paid
Fast rolloutof operators have used the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands for wireless backhaul. These
A■number
■
Can have
provide temporary
spectrum solutions
for locations
that and
need Brazil. In the case of Brazil, carriers were using
bands
been commonly
used
in India
"immediate" spectrum coverage, e.g., an event
the bands for temporary backhaul coverage at major events, including carnivals, New Year’s
Eve,
and sporting events. The growth in 2.4 GHz and
5.8 GHz access points and client devices
Threats
Opportunities
has had a detrimental effect on backhaul using such spectrum bands.
■ Spectrum is available in 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, and 60 GHz
■ Very real threat of loss of connection as the "noise floor" rises to
mask the operator's transmissions
5.7. Quantitative Spectrum License Summary
■ 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz do not provide long-term viable spectrum
Based on research carried out by ABI Research, the per
link licensing model is predominant,
solutions
with 59% of all license models deployed. This was followed up by block spectrum with almost
Source: ABI Research
22% and then shared and unlicensed with an equal 9.4% (see Chart below).
CHART 7: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM LICENSE SUMMARY WORLD MARKET
100%
100%
9%
90%
21%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
30%
20%
20%
41%
10%
9%
0%
22%
40%
30%
10%
19%
50%
61%
40%
19%
90%
0%
Spectrum Share
License Duration
Shared
Per Link
>10 Yr
5 Yr
Block Spectrum
Unlicensed
10 Yr
1 Yr
Source: ABI Research
In terms of license duration, ABI Research estimates that 41% of licenses are of 1-year duration,
whereas 5- to 10-year license durations represented 41%. It is quite remarkable that the
1-year duration model is so prevalent. By and large, it seems that regulators have a general
but unbinding principle of honoring the renewal of the 1-year license for a further term. The
rationale given by regulators is that they wanted to prevent mobile operators from sitting on
unused per link backhaul licenses. Generally speaking, wireless backhaul spectrum license fees
in the 10 GHz and above bands have been priced well below the spectrum pricing fees of enduser access spectrum. A more detailed segmentation, by country, can be found in Table 5-6
below.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
47
TABLE 5-6: REGIONAL BACKHAUL SPECTRUM LICENSE SUMMARY WORLD MARKET
Country
Unlicensed
Per Link
Block
Spectrum
Shared
1 Yr
5 Yr
10 Yr
>10 Yr
Western Europe
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Eastern Europe
Croatia
Czech Republic
Poland
Asia-Pacific
Australia
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
New Zealand
Singapore
North America
Canada
United States
Latin America
Uruguay
Middle East
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Africa
Nigeria
South Africa
Worldwide Analysis
Total
Spectrum Share
3
20
7
3
11
6
5
5
9%
61%
21%
9%
41%
22%
19%
19%
Source: ABI Research
5.8. Stakeholders Analysis
Microwave
E-Band
Fiber-optic
Copper
Satellite
InSegment
the context of licensing
proceduresV-Band
and mandates,
the regulators
inevitably
come to the
(6-42 GHz)
(60 GHz)
(70/80 GHz)
fore. They outline the parameters of how a license could be secured, the terms and conditions
ofFuture-proof
the license, and invariably
are in charge
recommendation
the
Medium
Medium of the overall
High strategicHigh
Medium of how
Low
Available Bandwidth
wireless
spectrum resources of a country should be allocated in the long-term interests of the
Deployment
Low
High Ofcom (United
Medium Kingdom),
High
citizens
ofCost
the country. Regulators
suchLow
as the FCCLow
(United States),
the European Commission, and the iDA (Singapore) have taken additional steps to stimulate a
Suitability
for
Outdoorwith stakeholders
Outdoor
Aggregation
Indoor
Rural/
wider
process
of consultation
inOutdoor
the ecosystem,
and indeed
the community
Heterogeneous Networks
LRAN/Access
LRAN/Access
LRAN/Access
& Core
LRAN/Access
Remote only
at large.
Support for X2
Mesh/Ring Topology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes where
available
Indoors
Yes
Interference
Immunity
High
High
High
Very High
Very High
Medium
Range (Km)
5~30,++
1~
~3
<80
<15
Unlimited
Time to Deploy
Weeks
Days
Days
Months
Months
Months
Yes
Light License/
Unlicensed
Licensed/Light
License
No
No
Yes
License Required
Note:
Blue shading Indicates preferred choice for LTE mobile backhaul.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
48
One critical aspect is to put a focus on the long-term sustainability of the industry and not just
on securing the maximum tax receipts from the auction or leasing of spectrum. A number of
operators and equipment vendors have expressed concern that end-user access-type spectrum
valuations could be potentially applied to backhaul spectrum bands.
5.9. Potential Regulatory Considerations
5.9.1. Types of Licensing Model
From the research interviews conducted with the operator and equipment vendor community,
there is concern for the unlicensed model for backhaul. The greatest concern was for the 2.4
GHz and even the 5.x GHz bands, due to the potential interference and congestion from Wi-Fi
users. As the amount of traffic continues to rise and the need to compensate by using higher
order modulation schemes (e.g., from 256 QAM to 1024 QAM) grows, there is concern that
ambient background transmissions from other unlicensed backhaul links could degrade the
QoS for all active participants. The 60 GHz ISM V-band is a more viable solution, but operators
have yet to fully embrace the 60 GHz band for their backhauling needs.
From discussions with various stakeholders in the ecosystem, per link licensing for PTP
deployment in the main microwave bands is “fit for purpose” for macrocell site deployments.
Interference is minimal and the first-come, first-served award of license links is reasonably
efficient. In some countries, the administrative workload of preparing the PTP application could
be streamlined. A light licensing model should be promoted, perhaps highlighting best practice,
and could be advocated to regulators in emerging and developed markets. As the deployment
of base-stations shifts from macrocells to small cells, there will be a greater need for block
spectrum licensing for PMP and NLoS backhaul applications.
Given the increased investments that mobile operators will have to make in wireless backhaul, it
is essential that mobile operators get “greater assurance of spectrum tenure” for their backhaul
assets, even for PTP applications. From ABI Research’s own survey of the 23 countries, 40%
relied on 1-year, roll-over type license agreements. ABI Research recommends that a term of 5
years be made the default timeline for PTP licenses. For PMP, per block, a 5- to 10-year license
period would help to reassure the operator it can recoup its investment.
5.9.2. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul
If operators were to be able to acquire more of their spectrum for wireless backhaul via
per block licensing and those licenses were of longer license duration, it would also be
advantageous to be able to trade spectrum with other stakeholders. This would dis-incentivize
operators from sitting on unused backhaul spectrum and allow operators with a greater need
for backhaul spectrum to be able to secure it. Mechanisms could be put in place to “limit” the
amount of spectrum any one particular operator can secure. This is to prevent anti-competitive
hoarding of spectrum.
North America
Canada
United States
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Latin America
Uruguay
47
Middle East
Saudi Arabia
UAE
6.Strategic recommendations and
regulatory policy options
Africa
Nigeria
South Africa
Mobile operators have a challenging time backhauling the mobile voice and data traffic from
Worldwide Analysis
varied
residential
home,
skyscraper,
public
Total environments such3 as urban,20suburban,
7 rural, office,
3
11
6
5
5
buildings,
tunnels, etc. Therefore,
as
mobile
operators
need
Spectrum Share
9%
61%the table
21%below outlines,
9%
41%
22%
19% a variety
19% of
technical and spectrum frequency solutions.
Source: ABI Research
TABLE 6-1: LTE MOBILE BACKHAUL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFFS WIRELESS VS. FIXED VS.
SATELLITE
Segment
Microwave
(6-42 GHz)
V-Band
(60 GHz)
E-Band
(70/80 GHz)
Fiber-optic
Copper
Satellite
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Outdoor
LRAN/Access
Aggregation
& Core
Indoor
LRAN/Access
Rural/
Remote only
Support for X2
Mesh/Ring Topology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes where
available
Indoors
Yes
Interference
Immunity
High
High
High
Very High
Very High
Medium
Range (Km)
5~30,++
1~
~3
<80
<15
Unlimited
Time to Deploy
Weeks
Days
Days
Months
Months
Months
Yes
Light License/
Unlicensed
Licensed/Light
License
No
No
Yes
Future-proof
Available Bandwidth
Deployment Cost
Suitability for
Heterogeneous Networks
License Required
Note:
Blue shading Indicates preferred choice for LTE mobile backhaul.
Source: ABI Research
The “blue” highlighted cells indicate attributes that particularly benefit LTE mobile backhaul.
Fiber optic does have its role to play in specific scenarios, and microwave links in the 6 GHz
to 42 GHz bands have been a mainstay of wireless backhaul for macrocell sites. However, the
V-band and E-bands could play a more prominent role in mobile operators’ backhaul networks.
As a result, a complex evolution is going on in backhaul usage. Copper line-based backhaul is
projected to drop from 15% of macrocell site usage to 10% by 2019. Fiber optic’s prevalence
does grow from 10.6% to 25%, but there is still a heavy dependence on LoS microwave, NLoS
OFDM, LoS millimeter wave, and even some Wi-Fi (primarily 5.8 GHz). This usage outlook
reflects maturing technical solutions that will need the spectrum support from national
regulators. This pressure to support backhaul solutions and spectrum for the macrocell site
market is also reinforced by the need to support the backhaul connectivity for small cell
deployments that are expected to reach 14 million by 2019 on a worldwide basis.
6.1. The Changing Face of Cell Site Backhaul
The macrocell microwave LTE backhaul market, while it will not grow at the same rate as
small cell microwave backhaul, does show consistent growth. In 2013, the majority share of
backhaul links deployed is the traditional microwave LoS. The higher bandwidth requirements
of LTE are also driving a significant share of fiber and, to a lesser degree, bonded copper xDSL
connections. Microwave LoS in the 6 GHz to 38 GHz bands is still a long-term viable solution
for macrocell sites Data throughput can handle the LTE-supported end-user traffic profiles and
transmission distances also suit macrocell site topologies.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
48
LoS millimeter (60 GHz to 80 GHz) backhaul should show a marked rise in deployment by
2019, from 11% to 23.5%. Transmission distances are curtained to 1 Km to 3 Km or so but being
able to support data throughput of up to 7 Gbps makes it suitable for macrocell sites in
downtown locations with high levels of traffic. OFDM NLoS sub-6 GHz backhaul links could be
used for macrocell sites, but deployment would be largely redundant and better suited to small
cell site deployment scenarios.
Macro Cell-site Backhaul Usage
CHART 6-1: LTE MACRO BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019
100%
2.0%
90%
11.0%
1.0%
23.5%
80%
70%
60%
60.1%
39.9%
50%
40%
30%
10.0%
20%
15.0%
10%
25.0%
10.6%
0%
2013
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
Fiber
Source: ABI Research
Macro Cell-site Backhaul Usage
To address the backhaul needs of small cells, fiber optic proves too costly and logistically
challenging
scale. Microwave and7.2%
millimeter wave are expected
100% to execute on a comprehensive
2.1%
3.2% millimeter wave usage is
to capture
61.5%
of
backhaul
links
by
2019.
What
is
significant
is
that
90%
expected to grow from a meager12.2%
3.2% in 2013 to 24% in 2019. Licensed sub-6 GHz for NLoS
80%
24.0%
is also expected to prove a viable small cell solution in 2019, representing
28%, but it will be
70% by sufficient available sub-6 GHz spectrum. Sub-6 GHz licensed technologies grow
challenged
2.6%
at the expense
of copper and to 31.2%
some extent microwave. ABI Research believes that the NLoS
60%
and the 50%
low-cost characteristics of sub-6 GHz make this choice viable,
28.0% particularly in highdensity urban or metropolitan environments. The higher bandwidth and data rates available in
40%
the 60 GHz band means that this technology will become a popular option as links are daisychained30%
and aggregated for transport
back to the network core.
49.3%
20%
37.5%
10%
0%
Source: ABI Research
2013
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
Fiber
Macro Cell-site
40%
30%
10.0%
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
20%
49
15.0%
10%
25.0%
10.6%
0%
2013
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
Fiber
Source: ABI Research
CHART 6-2: LTE SMALL BACKHAUL USAGE WORLDWIDE, 2013 AND 2019
100%
90%
Macro Cell-site Backhaul Usage
7.2%
3.2%
2.1%
12.2%
80%
24.0%
70%
2.6%
31.2%
60%
28.0%
50%
40%
30%
49.3%
20%
37.5%
10%
0%
2013
2019
Satellite
OFDM NLoS (sub-6 GHz)
Microwave LoS (6-38 GHz)
Wi-Fi (sub-6 GHz)
LoS MMW (60-80 GHz)
Copper
Fiber
Source: ABI Research
6.2. Ecosystem Development and Recommendations
There are at least 30 vendors in the wireless backhaul ecosystem. Some may argue that the
ecosystem is too fragmented, but ABI Research argues that this level of competition is healthy
for the current status of the backhaul market. The backhaul market has been a hotbed of
innovation. This is beneficial because operators will need a wide range of fixed and wireless
backhaul solutions from a larger number of manufacturers to cater to the various deployment
scenarios that they need to address.
In the mainstream macrocell microwave backhaul market, the largest vendor is Ericsson
with approximately 30% of the market. NEC is in second place with a strong backhaul
product portfolio. Huawei, Alcatel-Lucent, and DragonWave also have strong traction in the
marketplace.
Small cell site deployment represents a potential line of disruption to the incumbents. Vendors
such as Tarana Wireless, Cambridge Broadband Networks, Cambridge Communication
Systems, Siklu Communication, and Vubiq Networks are providing novel solutions.
The level of competition is intense and not every vendor will remain commercially viable in the
long term. A number of the smaller vendors will start to merge with larger vendors once the
majority of operators have selected their primary and secondary suppliers. A small percentage
of operators will opt for multi-vendor (three or more) arrangements but given that the vast
majority of backhaul vendors have proprietary solutions, operators will not be able to use these
backhaul solutions in a modular manner.
One particular characteristic of innovation that is shifting the potential costs of wireless
backhaul manufacture is digital and signal processing. Vendors are innovating at the silicon
level and bringing advanced digital and signal processing techniques to bear on the problem
so link performance is maximized and interference is mitigated in complex PMP and NLoS
topologies.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
50
6.3. Regulatory Recommendations
A number of regulatory initiatives therefore need to be put in place.
6.3.1. Greater Support and Coordination for the Bands below 6 GHz
■■ Key Takeaway: Greater support for the sub-6 GHz bands, principally from 4 GHz to 6
GHz.
■■ For true NLoS wireless backhaul services, the spectrum bands have to be below 6 GHz.
There are nLoS solutions that can be added to the operator’s toolkit, but ABI Research
does recommend that there should be sufficient support for true NLoS transmissions
because there are expected to be a number of small cell scenarios where it will help the
operator to backhaul traffic from inaccessible small cell sites.
■■ Efforts should therefore be focused on making available spectrum in the bands below
6 GHz for true NLoS wireless backhaul with channel sizes that could support data
throughput over 2 Gbps to 5 Gbps. Across the 23 markets that ABI Research surveyed,
the bands below 6 GHz are in use for backhaul in a large proportion of cases. Closer
inspection is recommended to see if greater coordination could be established for wider
channels and consistent support across regional markets.
6.3.2. Active Promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for Wireless Backhaul
■■ Key Takeaway: More active promotion of the 70/80 GHz E-bands for wireless backhaul in
the international regulatory community.
■■ Fiber optics cannot be deployed in all cell site scenarios. The 70/80 GHz E-band
has excellent characteristics for small cell wireless backhaul, in particular short link
distances allowing for spectrum re-use and very wide channel sizes to permit data
throughputs of 10+ Gbps. The spectrum is to be lightly licensed or licensed, which gives
the mobile operator a high level of assurance over QoS. Furthermore it has better signal
propagation characteristics compared to the 60 GHz.
6.3.3. Active Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for Wireless Backhaul
■■ Key Takeaway: Promotion of the 60 GHz V-band for wireless backhaul in the
international regulatory community.
■■ Based on ABI Research’s investigation, the utilization of the 60 GHz V-bands has only
had limited adoption so far in the countries surveyed. Of the 23 countries surveyed, only
Germany had backhaul links using the 60 GHz bands.
■■ It is a promising band for backhaul services and can complement the 70/80 GHz bands.
The 60 GHz band has been set aside in a number of countries. In the United States,
Canada, and Korea, 7 GHz has been put aside in the 57.05 GHz to 64 GHz range. In
Europe, 7 GHz has been allocated in the 57 GHz to 66 GHz band, and Australia has set
aside 3.5 GHz in the 59.40 GHz to 62.90 GHz bands.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
51
6.3.4. Promotion and Support for PMP Backhaul Spectrum and Applications
■■ Key Takeaway: Active promotion and support for spectrum needed for PMP backhaul
applications, with the associated need for per block licensing in the 10 GHz, 26/28 GHz,
and future 60 GHz bands. Mesh, daisy-chain routing technologies are at the heart of
PMP. PMP is an attractive technology because it helps to route backhaul through the
concrete and glass landscape that can block or deflect microwave and millimeter wave
transmissions.
■■ At present, there is PMP spectrum support mainly in the 10.5 GHz, 26 GHz, and 28 GHz
bands. It is estimated that in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, there is approximately 2 GHz
available that supports high capacity throughput, and the propagation characteristics
make the spectrum band effective for mid-distance backhaul (5 to 10 +/- Km).
■■ There is interest in the PMP community to use the 60 GHz V-bands. In many markets,
there has yet to be substantial traction in the 60 GHz band for PMP, but it should an
option in the operator’s toolkit for future backhaul deployment, especially small cells.
6.3.5. Align Microwave Bands in the Mainstream 10 GHz to 42 GHz Microwave Bands
■■ Key Takeaway: The main microwave bands are not going away and will remain the
workhorse of the backhaul industry. Over time, there is likely to be greater support
for PMP to make microwave more versatile. The 10 GHz to 42 GHz bands are generally
deemed to have sufficient spectrum, but more effort is needed to align similar
microwave bands in more markets, particularly at the regional level. This would have the
benefit of bringing down the cost of equipment. It is not a critical measure, more of a
“constructive measure” that would benefit the whole backhaul industry.
■■ Potential bands that have secured a degree of regional support include the 6 GHz,
7 GHz, 8 GHz, 11 GHz, 13 GHz, 18 GHz, 23 GHz, 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, and 40 GHz.
Refining the list would require additional study.
6.3.6. Promote and Coordinate the Lower 10 GHz Band as an Light Licensed Band
■■ Key Takeaway: There is interest in the lower 10 GHz (10.0 to 10.5 GHz) band being
made a light licensed band. In a number of markets, the upper 10 GHz (10.7 to 11.7
GHz) has been licensed in a large number of countries surveyed but the lower 10 GHz
band has only been licensed in a small number of countries and yet the spectrum band
is comparatively uncongested as it is partially used for amateur radio and radar. A
database of government sites can be used to prevent interference.
■■ The 10 GHz band could help to address the spectrum needs of emerging market
operators. A number of emerging market operators have expressed concern that while
the E and V Bands (60 through to 70/80 GHz) provide a very high-capacity backhaul
solution, they are also a high-cost solution. Emerging market operators have argued
that they need low-cost 100 Mbps solution that have transmission ranges in the 10 to 20
Km. Many of the sub-9 GHz bands, including the 5.8 GHz unlicensed band, are already
experiencing congestion. Vendors such as Mimosa are currently lobbying the US’s FCC
to make the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz bands available for backhaul.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
52
6.4. Evolution in Licensing Model
■■ Key Takeaway: From the research interviews conducted with the operator and
equipment vendor community, there is concern about the unlicensed model for
backhaul. The greatest concern was for the 2.4 GHz and even the 5.x GHz bands, due
to the very real possibility of interference and congestion from public and private WiFi users. A number of operators cited situations where they had deployed ISM band
backhaul links, only to experience high levels of interference. Indeed many operators
referred to sub-6 GHz unlicensed backhaul as the “backhaul solution of last resort.”
■■ The 60 GHz unlicensed V-band is a more viable solution, but operators have yet to fully
embrace the 60 GHz band for their backhauling needs because they have concerns
about interference and QoS assurance in the mid- to long term. Strong growth is
expected in 802.11ad Wi-Fi devices over the next 5 to 10 years, which has already been
allocated the 60 GHz band.
■■ From discussions with various stakeholders in the ecosystem, per link licensing for
PTP deployment in the main microwave bands is “fit for purpose” for macrocell site
deployments. Interference is minimal and the first-come, first-served award of license
links is reasonably efficient. In some countries, the administrative workload of preparing
the PTP application could be streamlined. A light licensing model should be promoted,
perhaps highlighting best practice, and this could be advocated to regulators in
emerging and developed markets.
■■ As the deployment of base-stations shifts from macrocells to small cells, there will be a
greater need for block spectrum licensing for PMP and NLoS backhaul applications.
■■ Given the increased investments that mobile operators will have to make in wireless
backhaul, it is essential that mobile operators get “greater assurance of spectrum
tenure” for their backhaul assets, even for PTP applications. From ABI Research’s
own survey of 23 countries, 40% relied on 1-year, roll-over type license agreements.
ABI Research recommends that a term of 5 years be made the default timeline for
PTP licenses. For PMP per block licenses, a 5- to 10-year license period would help to
reassure operators that they can recoup their investment.
6.4.1. Trading Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul
■■ Key Takeaway: If there is to be a larger amount of per block licensing and longer license
duration, it would also be advantageous to be able to dispose, and acquire, spectrum
from other stakeholders. This would dis-incentivize operators from sitting on unused
backhaul spectrum and allow operators with a greater need for backhaul spectrum to be
able to secure it. Mechanisms could be put in place to limit the amount of spectrum any
one particular operator can secure to prevent anti-competitive hoarding of spectrum.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
53
7. Appendix: Backhaul Spectrum Allocation
Summary Analysis
TABLE 7-1: APPENDIX: BACKHAUL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION SUMMARY
COUNTRIES SURVEYED BY REGION
Country
Western Europe
Denmark
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
7
12
15
18
23
26
32
38
Per Link
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.1125
8.025-8.5
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
17.7-19.7
22-23.6
25.053-25-431
26.061-26.439
31.871-32.543
32.683-33.355
37.268-38.22
38.528-39.48
71-76
81-86
Per Link
Block Spectrum
Licensing
License
Duration
15 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
No plans to
change the
licensing
procedures at
the moment
Most crowded bands are 7 GHz, 12 GHz,
15 GHz, 18 GHz, and 23 GHz bands.
Fees depend on
frequency band and
bandwidth. The lower
frequency and the higher
bandwidth the higher
price. Regional licenses
are issued in 18 GHz
band and higher
frequency band (18 GHz,
23 GHz … ).
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
PTP
Source: ABI Research
Country
Western Europe
France
License
Duration
10 Yr
(Both per link
and block
spectrum
licensing is
issued in
France)
Source: ABI Research
Country
Western Europe
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Germany
3.8-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
12.75-13.25
14.5-15.35
17.7-19.7
22-23.6
24.5-26.5
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
40.5-43.5
55.78-57
71-86
Per Link
Source: ABI Research
License
Duration
10 Yr
PTP
PTMP
92-95
Apply License fee and
annual frequency usage
fee. Prices are calculated
based on frequency band
and bandwidth. (e.g. <28
MHz: EUR100 to 300, 14
MHz channel at 7.2 band:
EUR680, 28 MHz, and 56
MHz channels cost about
EUR1,500 for frequency
bands (0.4-7.5 GHz), and
are cheaper at higher
frequencies: fees
between EUR300-1,088,
80 GHz costs
EUR1,100-1,500)
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Country
Western Europe
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Italy
3.800-4.200
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.750
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.5-15.35
17.7-19.7
22-23.6
24.5-26.5
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
40.5-43.5
55.78-59
64-66
71-76
81-86
Block
Per Link
License
Duration
54
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Light Licensing:
Light licensed
bands include
5.8 GHz, 65, 75,
and 85 GHz
bands.
Comments
License Fees
Potential for shared access of spectrum at
3.6-4.2 GHz for wireless broadband use
and NLoS small cell backhaul. Potential
use of spectrum at 55-100 GHz for fixed
wireless services for mobile backhaul. The
dominant use of these spectrum bands
today is for the provision of backhaul
within mobile networks, accounting for
more than 80% of the current fixed link
license base.
In light-licensing the
users of a band are
awarded non-exclusive
license which are
typically available to all
and are either free or
only have a nominal fee
attached to them.
Comments
License Fees
Potential for shared access of spectrum at
3.6-4.2 GHz for wireless broadband use
and NLoS small cell backhaul. Potential
use of spectrum at 55-100 GHz for fixed
wireless services for mobile backhaul. The
dominant use of these spectrum bands
today is for the provision of backhaul
within mobile networks, accounting for
more than 80% of the current fixed link
license base.
In light-Licensing , the
users of a band are
awarded non-exclusive
license which are
typically available to all
and are either free or
only have a nominal fee
attached to them.
Comments
License Fees
Highest demand: 6L, 7.5G, 8L, 13, 18, 23,
and 38. There had been block allocation in
the past in band 23 and 38 for few
operators, but it is not official. 70/80 has
more capacity, larger channel sizes ...
starting with 66M, and lower fees
Prices are not fixed ..
calculated based on
several elements like the
amount of spectrum,
congestion fees
(different for each
band), and hop
length/cut off length
ratio.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Western Europe
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
United
Kingdom
7.425-7.725
12.75-13.25
17.7-19.7
20
22-22.6
22.6-23
24.5-26.5
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
40.5-43.5
64-66
71-76
81-86
Block
Per Link
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Light Licensing:
Light licensed
bands include
5.8 GHz, 65, 75,
and 85 GHz
bands.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Eastern Europe
Croatia
Source: ABI Research
Spectrum
(GHz)
3.8 (3.600-3.800)
6 (6.425-7.125)
7 (7.125-7.425)
8 (7.725-8.275)
8.275-8.500
11 (10.700-11.700)
13 (12.750-13.250)
14 (14.500-14.620)
18 (17.700-19.700)
23 (22-22.6)/
(23-23.6)
38 (37.000-39.500)
License
Type
Per Link
License
Duration
The license
duration is set
on request:
normally 5 yrs,
but operators
can request
shorter or
longer period.
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Country
Eastern Europe
Czech Republic
Spectrum
(GHz)
4
6
7
10
11
13
15
18
23
26
28.2205-28.4445
29.2285-29.4525
31
32
38
70
80
License
Type
Per Link
License
Duration
5-yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
No
55
Comments
License Fees
Duplex sub-bands 28.2205–28.4445 GHz
and 29.2285–29.4525 GHz are designated
for utilization in the fixed service and for
fixed links of mobile networks
infrastructure. Number of rights for use of
radio frequencies is limited. Only 3
current operators can use these
sub-bands. Each operator has a radio
frequencies assignment for 56 MHz. Rest
of the spectrum is used as guard-bands.
Other bands allocated for fixed wireless
point-to-point links can be used by all
users.
10 GHz (license
exception band, see
general authorization).
70/80 GHz (license
exception band, see
general authorization.
Comments
License Fees
Light Licensing
Light Licensing
Source: ABI Research
Country
Eastern Europe
Spectrum
(GHz)
Hungary
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
10.7-11.7
22-23
24.5-26.5
37-39.5
71-76
81-86
License
Type
Per Link
Per Link
Per Link
Block Licensing
Per Link
Light Licensing
Light Licensing
License
Duration
5-yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP/PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
59-63
32
The bands 6, 11, 23, 26, 38 GHz are heavily
used.
The 59-63 GHz band is to be made
available by next summer when the new
national regulation will be out.
• Regarding the band 32 GHz, no demand
has been raised by the service providers
until now, but it can change in the near
future
• The 59-63 GHz band is to be made
available by next summer when the new
national regulation will be out.
• Regarding the band 32 GHz no demand
has been raised by the service providers
until now, but it can change in the near
future
Source: ABI Research
Country
Eastern Europe
Poland
Source: ABI Research
Spectrum
(GHz)
6
7
8
11
13
15
18
23
26
32
38
71-76
75
License
Type
Per Link
Light Licensing
Light Licensing
License
Duration
Up to 10 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Currently no
plan
Comments
License Fees
Apply issuing fee
EUR465 and annual
frequency utilization fee
based on frequency
range.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Australia
3.58-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.11
7.725-8.275
10.7-11.7
14.5-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
37-39.5
Per Link
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
1 Yr
56
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
PTP
Comments
License Fees
Currently in Australia, the majority of
bands are lightly to moderately utilized;
however, the limited spectrum below 3
GHz has resulted in a shift to further use
spectrum within the 6 to 8 GHz range. It is
anticipated that all of the bands above 7
GHz will experience a growth in demand,
in particular within the bands 50 GHz, 58
GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz. Although
it is thought that there is sufficient
spectrum to meet increased backhaul
requirements, the ACMA anticipates that
in highly dense areas, demand may
exceed supply in 10 years within certain
frequency bands (i.e. 7.5 GHz, 13 GHz, 15
GHz, and 22 GHz).
Apply license issue fee
and license tax.
Comments
License Fees
Nearly 80% of backhauls use microwave
link. 20-year license is issued to the
regions demanded for spectrum.
Operators need to apply spectrum from
regional management. Operators are able
to use spectrum as long as the length of
regional license.
Often used for wireless backhaul
Being considered for backhaul
Spectrum fee is charged
based on the AGR
(annual gross revenue).
AGR= revenue operators
earn minus mobile
termination charges,
mobile roaming charges,
etc. Operators have to
pay certain % of AGR to
the license fees.
Comments
License Fees
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
India
6
7
13
15
18
21
Wi-Fi: 2.4, 5.8
3.4, 3.5
Issued per
region to 22
license areas.
Shared
Spectrum
License
Duration
20 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
26
28
42
60
70
80
Unlicensed
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Indonesia
4.4-5
6.425-7.11
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
7.725-8.275
8.275-8.5
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
Per Link
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Japan
17.85-17.97
18.6-19.72
22.21-22.5
Per Link
License
Duration
5 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
27.5-29.5
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
71-76
81-86
ABI Research
considers the
implementation of
block spectrum
licensing and shared
spectrum licensing,
but its not
applicable at the
moment because it
needs some change
of high-level
regulation.
The license fee is around
US$100-1,000 per year
for SHF band (<23 GHz)
regarding some
parameters power,
bandwidth, zone.
Source: ABI Research
License
Duration
5 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
Annual spectrum fee
applies based on
frequency, transmitter
6.425-7.11
7.125-7.425
7.425-7.725
7.725-8.275
8.275-8.5
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
31.8-33.4
37-39.5
71-76
81-86
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
ABI Research
considers the
implementation of
block spectrum
licensing and shared
spectrum licensing,
but its not
applicable at the
moment because it
needs some change
of high-level
regulation.
US$100-1,000 per year
for SHF band (<23 GHz)
regarding some
parameters power,
bandwidth, zone.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Japan
17.85-17.97
18.6-19.72
22.21-22.5
22.5-22.55
22.55-22.6
23-23.2
Per Link
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
5 Yr
License Fees
Annual spectrum fee
applies based on
frequency, transmitter
power output,
classification of radio
station.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
Malaysia
10.15-10.3
10.5-10.65
13.75-14.4
15.7-16.6
24.25-27
27-29.5
31-31.3
71-76
81-86
Per Link
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
PTP
PTMP
Lightly Licensed
Lightly Licensed
Comments
License Fees
Due to the lack of cheap and quality fixed
line infrastructure in Malaysia, the
dominant backhaul solution for the
operators continues to be Microwave.•
LTE backhauls use E-band and fiber
depending on the location and capacity
requirement. • So far Malaysia has over
20,000 microwave backhaul links.•
Telekom Malaysia is deploying FTTH. But
fiber-optic backhaul for all LTE station is
not possible. In some cell sites, TM will
still use microwave links
Application RM60,
station fee (RM120 for 30
MHz up to 3 GHz, RM240
for more than 3 GHz),
annual fee with respect
to bands per station.
Comments
License Fees
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
New Zealand
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.925-6.42
6.42-7.1
License
Type
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
PTP
Currently no
plan
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Annual License Fee:
NZD204.45 per
transmitter.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
Singapore
18-22
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.725
7.725-8.5
10.5-10.68
10.7-11.7
12.2-12.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
License
Type
Per Link, Shared
use
License
Duration
1 Yr
Comments
PTP
PTMP
License Fees
Apply application fee
and processing fee and
annual frequency
management fee.
Source: ABI Research
Country
North America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Canada
2.025-2.11
2.2-2.285
3.7-4.2
5.295-6.425
License
Type
Given the
immediate need
for spectrum,
licenses are
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
The study prepared
by RedMobile
concluded that
demand for backhaul
Comments
License Fees
Because of propagation characteristics and
population centers, deployments are not
distributed uniformly across the country or
within the frequency bands. As indicated in
Apply monthly fee,
annual fee, and
telephone channel
equivalencies (license
57
Country
Asia-Pacific
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Per Link, Shared
1 Yr
Singapore
18-22
use
5.925-6.425
6.425-7.125
7.125-7.725
7.725-8.5
10.5-10.68
10.7-11.7
12.2-12.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
58
PTP
PTMP
Apply application fee
and processing fee and
annual frequency
management fee.
Source: ABI Research
Country
North America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Canada
2.025-2.11
2.2-2.285
3.7-4.2
5.295-6.425
6.425-6.930
7.125-7.25
7.3-7.25
7.725-8.275
10.55-10.68
10.7-11.2
11.2-11.7
12.7-13.25
14.5-15.35
14.975-15.35
17.8-18.3
19.3-19.7
21.8-22.4
23-23.6
24.25-24.45
25.05-25.25
25.25-26.5
27.5-28.35
38.6-40
71-76
81-86
92-95
License
Type
Given the
immediate need
for spectrum,
licenses are
being granted
on a first-come,
first-serve,
non-standard
basis for
deployment at
a specific site in
parts of the
25.25-26.5 GHz
and 27.5-28.35
GHz bands,
pending the
establishment
of technical
requirements
and a formal
licensing
process
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Lightly licensed
Lightly licensed
Lightly licensed
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
The study prepared
by RedMobile
concluded that
demand for backhaul
spectrum in
frequencies below 38
GHz will grow from
878 MHz in 2010 to
between 2603 MHz
and 3394 MHz by
2015, depending on
the modelling
scenario.
Extrapolating this
forecast using a
linear regression
suggests that a total
of 3438-4435 MHz of
backhaul spectrum
will be required by
2017. Over the same
period, the volume
of traffic carried over
wireless backhaul
links is assumed to
increase with the
rapid growth in fixed
and mobile
broadband traffic
Comments
License Fees
Because of propagation characteristics and
population centers, deployments are not
distributed uniformly across the country or
within the frequency bands. As indicated in
Industry Canada’s Radio Spectrum
Inventory, Footnote 26, although on
average, approximately 65% of all backhaul
links in Canada are located outside of
metropolitan areas, Footnote 27 the
number of assignments in these urban
areas tends to be greater in bands above 15
GHz. Multiple backhaul solutions in Canada
including fiber optics, leased lines,
microwave and satellites. Canadian
operators requested 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz,
92-95 GHz for fixed point-to-point
services. Rogers commented that
deployment of advanced wireless access
technologies, such as HSPA and LTE, which
support mobile broadband services, Rogers
is in need of access to more spectrum for
fixed point-to-point backhaul services. In
June 2012, Industry Canada announced
that the Department will issue spectrum
licenses in the bands 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz,
and 92-95 GHz. Licensing for all areas will
be on an FCFS basis and all licensees will
have shared access to the spectrum.
Apply monthly fee,
annual fee, and
telephone channel
equivalencies (license
fees payable for a radio
license authorizing
operation on certain
frequencies for radio
apparatus installed in a
fixed station or space
station).
Comments
License Fees
Source: ABI Research
Country
North America
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
United States
3.7-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-6.7
6.7-6.875
10.55-10.6
10.6-10.68
10.7-11.7
38.6-40
71-76
81-86
92-95
Per Link
Light licensing
bands: 71-76,
81-86, 92-96
GHz
License
Duration
License for
stations under
fixed wireless
service will be
issued for a
period not to
exceed 10
years.
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Lightly licensed
Lightly licensed
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
In Aug 2013, FCC on
voted to change
rules in the 57-64
GHz band, that it
said will improve
the use of
unlicensed
spectrum for
high-capacity, short
range outdoor
backhaul, especially
for small cells.
In March 2014, Mimosa said its proposal to
free spectrum in the lower part of the 10
GHz band, pursuant to Subpart Z rules,
would address the need for efficient
microwave backhaul to serve both fixed
and mobile wireless broadband services.
Lightly licensed users of the newly freed
10 GHz spectrum would refer to a
spectrum database for link planning
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Argentina
7.11-7.9
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
PTP
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Country
North America
Spectrum
(GHz)
United States
3.7-4.2
5.925-6.425
6.425-6.7
6.7-6.875
10.55-10.6
10.6-10.68
10.7-11.7
38.6-40
71-76
81-86
92-95
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Per Link
License for
PTP
In Aug 2013, FCC on
stations under
voted to change
fixed wireless
rules in the 57-64
Light licensing service will be
GHz band, that it
bands: 71-76, issued for a
said will improve
81-86, 92-96 period not to
the use of
GHz
exceed 10
unlicensed
years.
spectrum for
high-capacity, short
Lightly licensed
range outdoor
Lightly licensed
backhaul, especially
for small cells.
Comments
License Fees
59
In March 2014, Mimosa said its proposal to
free spectrum in the lower part of the 10
GHz band, pursuant to Subpart Z rules,
would address the need for efficient
microwave backhaul to serve both fixed
and mobile wireless broadband services.
Lightly licensed users of the newly freed
10 GHz spectrum would refer to a
spectrum database for link planning
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Argentina
7.11-7.9
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
21.2-23.6
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
PTP
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Brazil
Spectrum
(GHz)
5.9-6.4
6.4-7.1
7.4-7.8
7.7-8.3
8.2-8.5
10.7-11.7
14.5-15.4
17.7-19.7
21.8-23.6
37-39.5
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
Per Link
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Mexico
7.425-7.725
14.4-15.35
21.2-23.6
License
Type
PTP
PTMP
Source: ABI Research
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
Uruguay
5.850-6.425
7.975-8.025
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
24
17.7-19.7
Source: ABI Research
License
Type
License
Duration
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
PTMP
Monthly prices for each
channel, depending on
bandwidth are: Up to
3,00 MHz of
BW$1.644,00; Up to 5,00
MHz of BW$2.117,00; Up
to 15,00 MHz of
BW$3.662,00; Up to
20,00 MHz of
BW$4.231,00, More than
20,00 MHz of
BW$4.724,00
(US$1=BW$23.3).
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
Country
Latin America
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
Venezuela
2.3-2.5
3.6-4.2
4.4-5
5.85-6.425
7.425-7.725
8.2-8.5
10-10.68
10.7-11.7
12.75-13.25
14.4-15.35
17.7-19.7
23.065-23.5
37-39.5
Per Link
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
60
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
Comments
License Fees
PTP
PTMP
Source: ABI Research
Country
Middle East
Saudi Arabia
7
11
13
15
18
23
26
28
32
38
Per Link
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
PTMP
New frequency
assignments above
3 GHz for
point-to-point fixed
radio links are
permitted only on
an individual link by
link basis and are
not allowed on a
city, regional, or
Kingdom-wide
basis. New
frequency
assignments for
fixed point-to-point
radio links below (3)
GHz frequency
range are not
permitted.
Spectrum fee is
calculated based on
bandwidth, antenna
height, mobile or
non-directional antenna
factor, power factor,
spectrum demand
density factor,
high-usage cities factor,
geographical coverage
factor.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Middle East
UAE
Spectrum
(GHz)
6-80
License
Type
Per Link
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
PTP
Comments
License Fees
As most cell sites are connected to
fiber-optic, operators are less likely to
apply for microwave backhaul. More than
70% of base-stations use fiber-optic
backhaul.
Application Fee Dirham
500, Spectrum Fee is
calculated based on
Frequency range factor
and bandwidth factor
Comments
License Fees
All requests for microwave transmission
link frequencies may be granted. NCC will,
however, reserve the right to allocate
whatever frequency it deems fit to any
hop as dictated by frequency
co-ordination requirements in that region.
Application Fee N10,000,
Spectrum Fee is
calculated based on
unite price (varies
according to region/tier
of state in which
applicant seeks to
operate, bandwidth,
frequency range, and
Source: ABI Research
Country
Africa
Nigeria
Spectrum
(GHz)
6
7
8
11
13
15
18
23
License
Type
License
Duration
Per Link, Shared Not Sure.
Short-term: 3
months,
Medium term
license-1 Yr
(renewable
yearly for a
maximum of
three Yr), Long
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
7 GHz is reserved for
long-haul high
capacity interstate
Links. All present
microwave links
below 7 GHz will be
decommissioned in
the very near future.
GHz frequency
range are not
permitted.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
61
Source: ABI Research
Country
Middle East
UAE
Spectrum
(GHz)
License
Type
License
Duration
Per Link
6-80
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
PTP
Comments
License Fees
As most cell sites are connected to
fiber-optic, operators are less likely to
apply for microwave backhaul. More than
70% of base-stations use fiber-optic
backhaul.
Application Fee Dirham
500, Spectrum Fee is
calculated based on
Frequency range factor
and bandwidth factor
Comments
License Fees
All requests for microwave transmission
link frequencies may be granted. NCC will,
however, reserve the right to allocate
whatever frequency it deems fit to any
hop as dictated by frequency
co-ordination requirements in that region.
Application Fee N10,000,
Spectrum Fee is
calculated based on
unite price (varies
according to region/tier
of state in which
applicant seeks to
operate, bandwidth,
frequency range, and
duration of license.
Comments
License Fees
All requests for microwave transmission
link frequencies may be granted. NCC will,
however, reserve the right to allocate
whatever frequency it deems fit to any
hop as dictated by frequency
co-ordination requirements in that region.
Application fee and
license Fee
Source: ABI Research
Country
Africa
Nigeria
Spectrum
(GHz)
6
7
8
11
13
15
18
23
License
Type
License
Duration
Per Link, Shared Not Sure.
Short-term: 3
months,
Medium term
license-1 Yr
(renewable
yearly for a
maximum of
three Yr), Long
term license-5
Yr, 10 Yr or 15
Yr and
reviewable.
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
7 GHz is reserved for
long-haul high
capacity interstate
Links. All present
microwave links
below 7 GHz will be
decommissioned in
the very near future.
Source: ABI Research
Country
Africa
South Africa
Spectrum
(GHz)
4
6
7
8
15
18
23
26
28
38
42
License
Type
Block Spectrum
Allocation,
operators need
to share the
spectrum
License
Duration
1 Yr
PTP/ PTMP
PTP
PTMP is used
in small cells,
city area
Spectrum for
Future
Consideration
7 GHz is reserved for
long-haul high
capacity interstate
Links. All present
microwave links
below 7 GHz will be
decommissioned in
the very near future.
Source: ABI Research
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Asia-Pacific
North America
Latin America
Middle East
Africa
United Kingdom
Germany
Ireland
Belgium
Italy
Russia
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Ukraine
Hungary
Malaysia
Indonesia
Vietnam **
Thailand **
United States
Argentina
Venezuela
Peru
Uruguay
Mexico
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Brazil **
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Lebanon
Kenya
DR Congo
Nigeria
Ghana
South Africa
Cameroon
Rwanda
Zambia
Tanzania
Guinea
Senegal
Mauritania
Morocco
Countries support 1 or more bands in 10.5, 26 or 28 GHz
Source: ABI Research
Note:
Regular font indicates commercial, while Regular font indicates commercial.
Wireless Backhaul Spectrum Policy Recommendations & Analysis
8. Acronyms
802.11ac
IEEE standard; supports Wi-Fi services in the 2.4 GHz band and 5.8 GHz
data throughput
ASAAuthorized Shared Access
BTS Base Transceiver Station
E-band70/80 GHz bands
ECEuropean Commission
EIRP
Effective Isotropically Radiated Power; the amount of power that a
theoretical isotropic antenna (distributes power in all directions) would
emit to produce the peak power density observed in the direction of
maximum antenna gain
FCC
Federal Communications Commission, USA
FTTTFiber to the Tower
HRANHigh RAN
IDANational regulator of Singapore. Infocomm Development Authority
ISM Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
LMDS Local Multipoint Distribution Service; a broadband wireless access
technology originally designed for digital television transmission
LoS Line of Sight
LRAN Low Radio Access Network; typically aggregates traffic from 10 to 100
RBS sites and feeds it into the HRAN. The HRAN takes the aggregated
traffic and feeds it into the core network.
LTE-TDD Time Division Duplex LTE
LTE-FDD
Frequency Division Duplex LTE
Microwave
Microwave; solutions are typically from 6 GHz to 45 GHz
MMWMillimeter Wave; solutions are typically in the 60 and 70/80 GHz bands
MCIMinistry of Communication and Informatics, Indonesia
NLoS Non Line of Sight
nLoS“near” Line of Sight
OBSAI Open Base-Station Architecture Initiative
PoP Point of Presence
PMPPoint to Multi-point
PTPPoint to Point
QoSQuality of Service
RSPG Radio Spectrum Policy Group
SON Self-organizing Networks
SRDShort Range Devices. Often low power (<40 dB)
TVWS TV White Space
TRAITelecom Regulatory Authority of India
V-band60 GHz bands
WiGigWireless Gigabit Alliance, promotes use of SRD in 60 GHz band
X2 Mesh
The X2 interface enables eNodeBs to communicate directly between
each other. This allows for interference management (especially in
HetNets) and seamless handover.
62
Floor 2,
The Walbrook Building
25 Walbrook,
London EC4N 8AF UK
Tel: +44 (0)207 356 0600
[email protected]
www.gsma.com
©GSMA November 2014