Op 5g New Radio

Opinion Paper
Sample image: Please contact graphicspool@detecon.com for a specific cover image
Potential first steps in 5G New Radio

focusing on spectrum, sharing and deployment issues
May 2017
Potential first steps in 5G new radio
Table of Contents
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5
TDD as more favorable 5G-NR solution than FDD ................................................. 7
Deployment options for 5G-NR ............................................................................. 10
Massive MIMO vs higher order MIMO .................................................................. 12
Spectrum sharing .................................................................................................. 14
Future multi-hop mesh networks for IoT-based devices ....................................... 16
Summary ................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix ................................................................................................................. 21
5G requirements ................................................................................................... 21
5G RAN evolution ................................................................................................. 22
5G-NR modulations............................................................................................... 24
Potential TDD bands ............................................................................................. 25
IMT450 (TDD-extension of band 31): 380-470MHz .............................................. 25
FDD-Band 22 refarming to TDD-band 42 together with 43 ................................... 26
Spectrum sharing already in 4G-LTE .................................................................... 27
L-Band as new low band spectrum candidate for spectrum sharing ..................... 28
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 29
The Author .............................................................................................................. 31
The Company.......................................................................................................... 32
This paper intends to show general trends related to spectrum allocations potentially used for 5G
(especially <6GHz), even potentially/currently not available in all regions due to (inter)national alignments
for alternative usage. Some mentioned bands e.g. for region 1 might be substituted by equivalent region 2
or 3 bands.
Opinion Paper 2 Detecon International GmbH

Motivation
This paper starts a series of detailed views on latest evolutions in 5G-RAN, 5G-Core, slicing,
SDN/NFV, security, edge computing et al. in close cooperation with commercial use case
considerations.
The paper emphasizes some practical challenges of network deployments at different

spectrum bands, e.g. shorter coverage ranges at higher bands which need to be enhanced by
massive MIMO schemes, which increase computational efforts and equipment size again
limiting numbers of active elements, bandwidth and power (due to EMF). To keep deployment
cost reasonable, potential opportunities with slicing and sharing of equipment arise in radio
and core networks within 5G evolution.
One purpose is to indicate some of the latest trends in 5G development and direction around
5G-NR, new spectrum and sharing opportunities, and highlight implications for special
deployments.
Within the last years, mobile broadband traffic forecasts increased exponentially leading to
higher demands in spectrum, but also improved technological responses to cope with these
demands in the requested quality. Therefore, one first step is to cater for higher bandwidths,
(currently easier) available in higher bands1, but with poor2 short range coverage conditions.
More important, spectrum in general remains limited, and new spectrum bandwidth could be
added only linearly, potentially not covering the exponentially forecasted demands per area.
Since the current 4G-LTE standard reached a very effective and spectral efficient level, higher
orders of antenna elements might not bring enough additional capacity to the users. This in
general requires also smaller form factors of antenna and equipment and higher computational
efforts. One additional extension is to increase spectral efficiency by enhanced interference
mitigation measures, either within one site (enhanced resource scheduling for all bands
(favourable for D-RAN)) or between neighbour sites, requiring additional exchange and
computational efforts on the control plane (C-RAN) in close alignment with the required
backhaul network capacities.
All in all, it is expected to rollout much more new equipment in new spectrum ranges in macro
as well as small cell deployments with significant technical, operational and commercial
challenges to the mobile operators. To keep network complexity at least at a reasonable level,
the next generation also targets more efficient operations and higher flexibility in more efficient
usage of existing (or new) hardware with specialized software functions at distributed levels
(slicing, virtualization). To keep investments reasonable, spectrum and equipment sharing is
recommended in some levels to keep also competition.
In addition to mobile broadband traffic, new specialized kinds of traffic arise within the area of
machine type communications, better known as Internet of Things (MTC, IoT) connecting
everything in unforeseen use cases and traffic demands. These services of billions of devices
and traffic volumes need special consideration (=slices) in the next generation of wireless
network standardization. In the networks, these MTC services would be realized in special
1
Within this paper, the band notation mean low: <1GHz, medium: 1-3GHz, high: 3-6GHz, highest: >6GHz, especially
26/28/32GHz and >60GHz
2
“Poor” means, short range of coverage and therefore the need to deploy more sites per area. Of course this “poor”
characteristic is the essential step to reuse the same frequency in the nearby area which increase capacity density.
There is no good or bad spectrum, it depends on the requested use case.

(own) spectrum bands (=slices) with specialized access schemes, which are supported by the
new 5G-NR on the same hardware types as eMBB services.
5G-NR means the new radio interface access technology which is expected to provide
optimized support for a variety of different services, different traffic loads, and different end
users by flexible, scalable assignment of network resources. 5G-RAN means the optimized
radio access network resource management using 5G-NR and/or 4G-LTE resources,
connected to the (joint 4G and) 5G-core network.
While most of the new 5G services and use cases are widely possible with existing 4G-LTE
(Advanced Pro) standardized radio access, 5G-NR should support at least lowest latencies as
well as increase flexibility. 5G-NR should be capable to simultaneously support multiple
combinations of reliability, latency, throughput, positioning, and availability, but not necessarily
at the same time everywhere. 5G-NR will not offer full ubiquitous coverage at highest
capacities, rather enable smart-spot capacity at lowest ranges e.g. using millimetre waves in
urban and indoor environments. 4G-LTE-Advanced Pro has been already enhanced in various
areas (e.g. D2D, V2X) to have the potential to address most of the “5G use cases”. Special
services might move to 5G-NR bands or might benefit from the additional capacity and/or
reduced latency provided by a 5G-NR working alongside LTE as booster.
The main messages of this paper are condensed in the Summary section. For short:
1. In the long term, all IMT spectrum will be assigned technology agnostic and will be
used for 5G, but in the short term new bands would be used first for 5G, while legacy
bands would be refarmed to 5G within normal modernization cycles, but not
necessarily to higher order or massive MIMO. TDD-spectrum would gain more
importance in the future. 5G technology will also support service migration from
currently used lower bands to enable more efficient spectrum usage also in valuable
coverage spectrum which is currently out of focus due to limited bandwidth.
2. The high and highest spectrum use would not be favourable for the classical macro
cell deployments due to limited coverage range and limited spatial diversity in macro
cell deployments in these bands. In high and highest bands, small cell deployment will
dominate, but with shortest ranges and therefore highest capacity densities, which
naturally would require a lot of small cells to reach homogeneous performance
perception. The physical realizations need to be kept very small as well and almost
invisible to people, also compliant to EMF regulations. In this case, MIMO would
increase signal quality but less signal coverage. Backhauling would be one critical
issue.
3. In parallel to competition, sharing of equipment and spectrum will enable more cost
efficient rollouts. New slicing concepts would gain importance in distributed core
functionality using normal commercial of the shelf (COTS) hardware which could also
be shared to different Core Networks (CN). The RAN hardware might remain highly
specialized, usable only for dedicated bands and limited bandwidths, and with special
signal processors, but with overall enhanced resource management software which is
seen at (or near) the site in virtualized RAN-clouds on COTS hardware and openRAN
software.
4. Some network functions will be also transferred into the user terminals (smartphone,
laptop) respective smart aggregation routers (HUBs) controlling meshed networks on
multi-hop basis. This would enable higher battery life times, enlarged coverage and
capacity and lower the overall traffic on backhauling. These aggregations units might
perforrm some edge computing as well as complexity reductions within local areas.

Introduction
While in the past, every ~10years a new technology was introduced to fulfil the new or
increased demands, the next evolution of 5G technology intends to break with this tradition. In
the long term 5G will be much more than the simple evolution of mobile broadband. 5G is
designed as key enabler of the next generation of infrastructures that will support the digital
transformation of processes in all economic sectors and the growing consumer market
demand.
In the future with 5G-NR, we will see different spectrum owners, different spectrum users with
dedicated access to some parts of the spectrum, all using the same (own or shared) hardware
components and (potentially) same software, adapted to their individual purposes. 5G will
enable new markets for suppliers aside telecommunication service providers. Enterprises or
PPDR service providers etc. might deploy their own (standardized) equipment (HW&SW)
using licensed or unlicensed spectrum at least in a locally limited range. New networks might
be deployed and operated within unlicensed spectrum with LAA-capabilities, either 4G or 5G,
depending on latency and other requirements.
This paper starts a series of detailed views on latest evolutions in 5G-RAN, 5G-Core, slicing,
SDN/NFV, security, edge computing et al. in close cooperation with commercial use case
considerations.
The paper emphasizes some practical challenges of network deployments at different

spectrum bands. To keep deployment cost reasonable, potential opportunities with slicing and
sharing of equipment arise in radio and core networks within 5G evolution.
One purpose is to indicate some of the latest trends in 5G development and direction around
5G-NR, new spectrum and sharing opportunities, and highlight implications for special
deployments.

Figure 1: equivalent evolution of mobile technologies
Figure 1 tries to depict the evolution of mobile communications standards in a very simplified
example of a (lemonade) vending machine, where initially only two types/services were
possible (2G), increasing in flexibility to get different flavours/services in higher, but limited
quality (3G). In the next 4G machine, more services could be offered with more efficient
techniques and higher quality and capacities. The 5G machine then turns to a holistic machine,
to enable the needed service flexible on demand.
So almost all service requests might be realized in 4G already, but would be enabled much
more flexible and cost efficient in or together with 5G-NR. In general, every advantage comes
in junction with some disadvantage, some 5G-NR high data rate service would be limited to a
very short range as physics are applicable for 5G as 4G. One expected disadvantage of higher
flexibility is higher ratio of control data between all nodes, higher efforts in pre and post
processing of data and therefore more and higher capacity backhaul infrastructure.
For the agile3 introduction of new technology, independent evolutions of radio and the core
network is mandatory as well as the convergence between the 3GPP access and other access
technologies to enable high flexibility for deploying networks and network slices of different
characteristics for addressing various users and services’ needs adequately and efficiently.
In the future with 5G-NR, we will see different spectrum owners, different spectrum users with
dedicated access to some parts of the spectrum, all using the same (own or shared) hardware
components and (potentially) same software, adapted to their individual purposes. There will
be operation centres for mobile network services providers, parallel to CCTV and PPDR
service providers. Enterprises might use the same HW&SW components within their isolated
environments for massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) and special low latency
applications and security demands. 5G will enable new markets for suppliers aside
telecommunication service providers. Enterprises or PPDR service providers etc. might deploy
their own (standardized) equipment (HW&SW) using licensed or unlicensed spectrum at least
in a locally limited range. New networks might be deployed and operated within unlicensed
spectrum with LAA-capabilities, either 4G or 5G, depending on latency and other
requirements.
These multiple heterogeneous networks will need unified control mechanisms through
functional architectures across many operators’ frameworks (and ownership) of underlying
wireless or optical networks and technologies. 5G subsystems and interfaces need to be
3
simple, flexible, scalable and extensible

integrated into modern operating system architectures: converged optical, wireless or satellite
infrastructure for network access, back-hauling and front-hauling. The latter is in general a hot
topic in discussion, since equipment vendors are not keen to open their proprietary interfaces
between radio units and baseband units.
New technologies like Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Functions
Virtualization (NFV) provide new design principles for more flexibility and tighter infrastructure
integration. NFV allows the flexible placement and scaling of network functions eliminating
proprietary special purpose hardware. SDN allows to program the network to provide the
required connectivity. The overall architecture of 5G will change significantly compared to
previous generations to meet a large variety of business and performance requirements,
especially in terms of varying targets for cost, speed, latency and reliability.
Expecting very high throughput targets, small cell concepts for highest capacity density will
lead to smarter Ultra Dense Networks (UDN) with numerous small cells requiring new
interference mitigation and backhauling to be real smart cells. To increase flexibility and
improve user data rates, access networks will require very wide contiguous carrier bandwidths
which are potentially available at higher carrier frequencies with reduced coverage.
TDD as more favorable 5G-NR solution than FDD

The past decades have been dominated by frequency division duplex (FDD) technologies
within low to medium range spectrum bands. Now the era of time division duplex (TDD) might
arise with 5G-NR technologies, especially in the high and highest ranges of spectrum. Latest
research is also focusing on full duplex methods with transmitting and receiving at the same
time at the same frequency. This is achieved with high computational pre and post processing
at base and terminal equipment which is not expected for 5G-NR in the near future due to high
complexity at terminal side.
5G-NR will also improve performances of existing FDD-bands, while higher improvements are
expected (due to reciprocity and higher order MIMO) in higher spectrum allocations with large
bandwidths and more flexible TDD-spectrum assignments. The combination of TDD and
highest spectrums favours the support of highest capacities with shortest coverage ranges.
High capacity densities are desired in urban areas or indoors with high capacity and high
connectivity demand, but also require proper highest capacity backhauling.
In mobile communications, two main spectrum usage options exist:

1. Frequency Division Duplex (FDD): uplink and downlink can send at the same time
at different spectrum parts. The spectrum band is divided in three locations:
1. Uplink related part of the spectrum (in general lower part)
2. Downlink related part of the spectrum (in general upper part)
3. The guard band (duplex gap) between both parts
2. Time Division Duplex (TDD): uplink and downlink use the same spectrum, but at
different times
1. Since for eMBB the traffic demand is asymmetrical in favour to downlink, more
time is reserved for downlink than uplink. For massive IoT the uplink generates
higher demands, while more balance for ultra-reliable low latency services.
2. TDD also leads to the performance reduction in uplink: less time is available for
uplink transmission, respectively reduced coverage for the same performance.
E.g. for 10% of time for uplink, the coverage range is reduced by ~1/10.

Due to this uplink coverage issue (and the initial voice dominated service), for most
bands currently the favoured usage is for FDD.
E-UTRA TDD
Band MHz
33 1900 – 1920
34 2010 – 2025
35 1850 – 1910
36 1930 – 1990
37 1910 – 1930
38 2570 – 2620
39 1880 – 1920
40 2300 – 2400
41 2496 – 2690
42 3400 – 3600
43 3600 – 3800
44 703 – 803
45 1447 – 1467
46 5150 – 5925
Table 1: ITU-TDD-band definitions
It will be shown in the following, that TDD-based schemes will be more relevant for 5G-NR
than FDD:
1. Uplink and downlink share the same channel at different times. Due to reciprocity of
the channel, uplink and downlink channel impulse response functions are identical
(depending on stationarity of the channel). This is the essential advantage of TDD
schemes for beamforming and MIMO algorithms. In case a (known) trainings
sequence is transmitted, the channel impulse response can be estimated and re-used
for perfect transmission back to the transmitter. In FDD, the channel responses of
uplink band and downlink band are “only” similar due to different band parts, but not
identical and would not match perfectly. TDD-schemes will result in higher
performances than FDD in MIMO algorithms and beamforming.
2. Dynamic, faster UL/DL-switching on a per-cell basis for more flexible capacity also
based on traffic condition: In 3G and 4G the different configurations have to be
selected statically and in alignment with neighbour spectrum allocations in order to
minimize interference. In 5G-NR, the switching will be done more flexible and shorter
depending on latency requirements (scalable transmission time interval (TTI)). The
5G-NR uplink might send short trainings sequences, acknowledgements et al. for
each (or a subset of) narrowband resource (blocks), the downlink responds optimally
for a longer period with user data. Same in the opposite direction: the short uplink user
data is optimally received due to the knowledge of the channel, therefore the
disadvantage of TDD due to limited uplink coverage is compensated (depending on
the number of antenna). The estimation accuracy of the channel responses would
improve at least for stationary end-user devices, like CCTV-cams, IoT devices, etc.,
even if there would remain a time-variant mobile channel. The above mentioned ratio
of 10% uplink would require ~10 antenna array elements for beamforming. In case of
>50% uplink traffic, the coverage loss would be overcompensated in case of more
than 2 antennas.

In the beginning, 5G-NR will be deployed in currently not used frequency bands, especially in
the higher downlink capacity focused bands (e.g. bands 38, 40, 42, 43), followed by the
currently assigned, but widely unused bands (33-37, 39). The latter bands become more
attractive and enable larger coverage as the deployments are quite solid in urban areas and
might be used as broadband TDD-successor 5G-NR-IoT for the FDD low band 4G-NB-IoT
services, since for most IoT-services the uplink demands might be higher. In the above
mentioned bands with 5-20MHz bandwidth, maximum 4*4MIMO/beamforming seems
appropriate, while for the bands 40, 42 and 43 with bandwidths ~100MHz per operator a higher
order of 8-16 antenna4 is expected, but at the expense of coverage reduction. Massive MIMO
deployments with significant higher numbers of antenna would be only possible for highest
bands (>>6MHz, 26, 28GHz).
The TDD-bands 38 and 40 are already deployed in some networks as macro deployment,
otherwise these bands would be very beneficial for early 5G macro deployments. Any upgrade
or refarming to 5G-NR would be dependent on the real improvements based on trials and the
corresponding costs to switch from 2*2MIMO to 4*4 or 8*8MIMO and the reusability of existing
baseband equipment. The refarming of FDD-spectrum currently used for 3G (e.g. band 1) to
5G seems viable, if the new 5G-FDD upgrades would improve significantly relative to 4G-LTE-
Adv pro (or further 4.5G-evolutions). It is expected, that future 5G-NR windowing techniques
(see appendix) will reduce out-of-band (OOB) emissions (for FDD as well TDD) and reduce
guard band demands e.g. between band 33, 34 and band 1. It is expected, that current FDD-
spectrums would remain FDD, but upgraded in the long term with improved 4.5G or 5G modes
with improved OOB-filtering. Band 22 might be one exemption here, which might be better
assigned as TDD. On the opposite, one long term alternative (up to ~2027) is to combine band
33, band1, MSS-spectrum and band 34 to one enhanced “band1-e” (1900-2025//2090-
2215MHz with in total 2*125MHz FDD-spectrum, but this needs to be aligned on global
international basis with freeing potentially used parts in the DL-equivalents of band 33, 34.
Currently NB-IoT is an early enabler of machine type communications which use (in the best
case) unused small spectrum in LTE-guard band or other residual spectrum portions. In the
least favourable case, the NB-inband solutions compete with LTE-capacity. It is expected to
enhance early inband deployments in low spectrum bands to guard band deployments with
higher numbers of NB-IoT carriers. This alternative option for NB-IoT is in guard bands of LTE-
assignments with at least 10MHz, mainly in band 3. The IoT-capacity is naturally limited, as
bandwidth would be n*180kHz, possible for maximum n=11. In the mid-term, the higher
bandwidth option (1.4MHz) of Cat-M could enhance the options of flexibility regarding
coverage vs capacity. As alternative, the NB-IoT-guard band deployments could be used for
LTE service extension with same/optimized control channels etc. to extend the bandwidths to
narrowband services with lower quality, but larger coverage requirements. In analogy to TTI-
bundling, many repetitions could be sent on narrow band resources, which we call Voice over
Narrowband (VoN). Summarizing, NB-IoT might compete with Cat-M at lower bands (700-
900MHz), and survive in guard band option (of 10MHz LTE-carrier). Any NB-IoT deployment
in medium bands (e.g. 1800MHz) is less probable, since VoN would gain additional low quality
services in guard bands.
4
Keep in mind, one antenna might consist in multiple phased array elements with quasi-static elevation angle
(including remote electrical tilt RET), with reduced vertical beam width according to antenna length relative to
wavelength.

It is therefore expected, that mobile operators might join spectrum and equipment sharing
agreements (in case of bandwidth <40MHz) for the potentially/currently unused TDD-bands,
e.g. in band 33, 34 for 5G-NR-IoT-TDD services with uplink focus. Despite no beamforming in
the uplink, the coverage might be initially poor, but could be improved by a twostep
transmission of first narrowband training sequences followed by improved quality/coverage
due to beamforming, keeping in mind that >50% uplink ratio only needs 2 base station
antennas to compensate coverage issues.
5G-NR-TDD-bands 42, 43 are expected to be deployed in small cells for dedicated short range
coverage with reduced power settings. It is not recommended to deploy these bands as macro
cells, because additional transmit power requirements (for 400MHz bandwidth) would put the
risk to reduce other band power settings accordingly. In case higher power settings would be
needed in higher bands to achieve larger coverage, the power settings in low and medium
bands need to be reduced accordingly to compensate EMF-effects, which reduces coverage
in these bands of course. In the long term, operators would need to introduce inhomogeneous
power settings per site which also increases complexity. The latter is already expected (at
least at some locations) with the introduction of SDL within L-bands and potential 5G-NR-TDD-
deployments in bands 33, 34.
Deployment options for 5G-NR
Due to easier miniaturization within highest frequency bands, the higher orders will increase
significantly to the so called massive MIMO. In this context, all three parts of the
communication chain need special consideration e.g. for downlink:
1. Transmission from base station with higher power settings, higher antenna orders,
etc.
2. Reception at terminal station which limited space and power, and with uncontrollable
human behaviour potentially degrading performance
3. Propagation channel in between: the channel diversity is essential for any MIMO. A
lower rank would not enable mMIMO, but beamforming for multiple users would be
more applicable.
Since propagation mechanisms trend from predominantly reflection in low bands to scattering
in higher bands, the spatial channel diversity reduce in macro cells from many NLOS
components in low bands to LOS dominance in high bands. Therefore any channel diversity
is quite limited in macro cell designs, while small cell environments keep higher probability of
larger spatial diversity. In other words, the higher bands should not be used for MIMO macro
cell design since the required spatial channel is not sufficient to justify higher order MIMO.
Small cell environment, either indoor or outdoor, benefit from higher NLOS diversity (=> MIMO)
or LOS (=> beamforming). In macro cell designs, the MIMO order of 2-4 seems reasonable
for medium bands (<3GHz). For high bands (3-6GHz) this might increase to 8-16, but in small
cell environments with antenna below building height. Highest bands would use massive
numbers of antenna elements to form finer beams instead of exploration of the full rank of the
channel.
As depicted in Figure 2, the cell range is decreasing significantly with frequency (in urban
macro cell deployments even stronger) and also due to indoor penetration losses. Compared
to the 1800MHz cell range, the cell range at 2600MHz is less than 50% for indoor coverage

and less than 50% for outdoor at 3600MHz.5 Also seen in Figure 2 (green dots on the right
axis), the average DL cell capacity for full bandwidth of all carriers per band is approximated,
either for 4G-LTE or 5G-NR, with the assumptions for spectral efficiency and MIMO-gains
listed below6. Therefore Figure 3 shows the average capacity density for f<4GHz, normalized
to the value of 1800MHz, with the assumptions (!) of same macro design and same total
transmit powers (EIRP: equivalent isotropic radiated power). Despite the capacity is almost
the same, the 4G-LTE capacity density at 2600MHz increased up to 3 times relative to
1800MHz due to reduced macro cell ranges at 2600MHz. 5G-NR-TDD-8*8MIMO offer
densities larger than 11-times, with small cell LOS indoor or outdoor channel responses with
higher spatial diversity assumed in this case. At the moment, we assumed here a conservative
ratio of 2 between 5G-NR and 4G-LTE due to higher LOS probability and improved channel
estimations (reciprocity) of TDD-channels. If a higher improvement (due to improved intercell
interference mitigations) of 4 and higher channel ranks would be assumed, 5G-NR capacity
densities could be 30-40times higher than today with LTE at 1800MHz. Keep in mind, that
transmit powers have to be reduced at small cell deployments due to EMF limits which would
further increase capacity density, but also the need for more small cells!
LTE-FDD, 2*2MIMO 1.8 bps/Hz 5G-NR to 4G-LTE ratio 2

LTE-TDD, 2*2 MIMO 1.3 bps/Hz 2*2MIMO to 4*4 MIMO ratio 1.5
4*4MIMO to 8*8MIMO ratio 1.5
Figure 2: approximation of average cell capacity Figure 3: average cell capacity density
(right, green) as well free space propagation (normalized to 1800MHz)
(normalized to 1800MHz) for indoor and outdoor coverage
As an initial assumption, small cell deployment become short range smart spots with
~100times higher capacity density than macro cells. Assuming the bands 42, 43 are fully used
with 5G-NR, each 8*8-MIMO cell would need in average more than 6Gbps backhauling or
more than 30Gbps in peak conditions. Fixed-mobile convergence with fibre to the smart spot
(FTTSS, leaky fibre7) is mandatory to enable the mobile network to reuse the existing fixed
network infrastructure for the rollout.
5
This approximation assumes that total DL transmission powers per bandwidth remain the same, which is not
realistic: it is expected, that small cell environments reduce transmit powers significantly in order to be compliant to
regulatory safety/health limits at lower antenna heights. There is also a high probability for some sites to reduce all
bands macro cell transmission powers as well due to regulatory safety/health limits.
6
Here we assumed 1.5 only to include the reduced average probability of full rank channels
7
In analogy to the classical leaky feeder cable systems in tunnels/trains where the signal is pouring out of the coax-
cable at defined slots, 5G-NR would build a leaky fibre line system with dedicated optical to mm-wave transforming
access points covering a short range only.

The leaky fibre smart spot deployment is not expected to be homogeneous within the same
area as current macro cells, since the investments would be extremely high compared to the
expectations of reduced revenue.
Deployments in L-band 32 and TDD-bands 33, 34 as well as SDL in 738-758MHz would cover
4G or 5G demands for macro coverage until 2020 and beyond, especially depending on
capable terminal penetrations per band. In the latter bands with limited bandwidths spectrum
sharing is expected.
Massive MIMO vs higher order MIMO
One major difference of higher order MIMO and massive MIMO is the individual weighting of
each single antenna element in row and column dimensions (aka active antenna) in case of
mMIMO. The latter would enable full 3D beam steering (in the half sphere of antenna
direction), while at higher order MIMO in general one dimension of antenna feeding remains
mainly static and only azimuth beam steering would be enabled at fixed elevation beam. In
macro deployments, active antenna played only a minor role so far compared to the RET-
driven elevation beam steering. It is expected to continue with 4G-FDD 2 or 4 hoMIMO
deployments in macro cells in medium bands, and to switch to 5G-NR-TDD higher order MIMO
from high bands (>3GHz) in micro or small cell deployment. Highest bands (>>6GHz) will
enable massive MIMO with full 3D steering.
In case of massive MIMO concepts with significantly higher numbers of antenna elements
(e.g. 128*128) there has to be a technological switch of antenna design and materials. For
example, if 128 antenna elements would be used at 28GHz, the single radiating element would
be ~16times smaller, but 128 elements would be ~8 times larger than an antenna used for
1800MHz which needs to be compensated by other materials, e.g. dielectric antenna with
significantly reduced power levels per radiating element. The requirement to reduce power
levels in small cell deployments is also inline with potential regulator`s perspective limiting
overall radiation according to EMF safety limits, but significantly limits coverage and
performance.
In addition, 128*128 single antenna elements could form very sharp beams (<1°) towards the
user (or the other receiving base station in case of backhauling usage). Since base stations
are in most cases stationary, the directional patterns remain (mainly) constant for backhauling
links which ease computational efforts. Within deployment both mMIMO-antennas need to be
fixed against wind loads or vibrations, otherwise the beam width might need to be increased
again (=less antenna needed per beam) or the beam steering effort increase again
significantly. The very sharp beam angle requirements limit the maximum number of useful
antenna and the EIRP calculations. A maximum of ~32 antenna elements is expected for
highest bands, and ~8 for high bands (3…6GHz).
Since currently deployed radio units for small cells (f<6GHz) support ~40…60MHz (2-3 times
20MHz-carriers), next realizations are expected to support 100MHz bandwidth per
equipment8, so for full usage of bands 42 and 43 with 400MHz would require 4 radio units in
a cost-efficient and small size form factor including active antenna array and baseband
processing for all the smart 5G-NR algorithms, pre- and post-processing, etc.. Since the
computational effort increase with numbers of antenna elements, finally built beams and
8
In 5G up to 400MHz per carrier are foreseen in standard, but need HW&SW realizations as well.

especially with used bandwidth, the equipment might be too large to be deployed in small cell
environments. Current Base Band Units (BBU) support 1 20MHz-carrier with 4 antenna layers,
or equivalent 2 20MHz-carriers with 2 antenna layers, which means 80MHz bandwidth
support. mMIMO with e.g. N*M*B ~ 32*32*100= 90000MHz would increase efforts ~1300
times which needs to be compensated by more efficient hardware and software.
The step from existing 2*2 or 4*4 MIMO antenna schemes towards higher order MIMO would
depend on the size of the new antenna system. This step might effort a larger investment,
since most 2*2 MIMO equipment would not support 4*4MIMO which might be therefore
postponed to end of life of hardware. It is recommended to upgrade to one combined antenna
for many bands in one radome, but this might not be possible for all deployments due to space
and weight reasons. Also upgrades of 2 non co-located antenna systems with each 2*2 MIMO
might include different, severe issues of performance degradation when using them as
pseudo-4*4MIMO, announced as “distributed MIMO”. In general, MIMO might be more
resistant to imbalances compared to beamforming. If operators put more antennas next to
each other, n-MIMO is possible, but not necessarily n-beamforming, until the antenna
separation would be between 0.5...0.9 of wavelength.
Some issues with the mixed 2*2MIMO at band_x and 2*2MIMO at band_y might be with the
different elevation phased array physics (=beam directions) of band_x and band_y. Two
dislocated antennas with higher distance than half of wavelength do not support beamforming.
In case of colocation of both antennas in one radome (=shield), the rank of the channel might
still be less than/equal 2 due to correlation within the bands.
Example: Within current macro cell deployments 2*3W/MHz were exemplarily used with high
gain antennas (15…18dBi) to secure macro cell DL-coverage. For a total bandwidth of
400MHz in bands 42, 43, the variations from macro to small cell are summarized in the
following Table in the steps 1 to 8.
1. LTE1800 (0.) and NR3500 (1.) as reference for comparison with 2 polarizations and
30W per Tx for 10MHz (=3W/MHz (w/o antenna gain)); one cross polarized antenna
array with 18dBi is assumed.
2. Introduction of vertical antenna array f. fixed beam: exemplarily M=12 elements
(11dBi) + 7dB single antenna element factor. Each antenna element would feed 2.5W
per polarization. Each beam has a vertical beam width of 5° to 8°
3. Addition of more antenna columns (N=8) could lead to more vertical beams, but no
horizontal beamforming yet. Additional power increases EIRP.
4. Combination/beamforming of all powers to one beam with maximum coverage with
additional increase of EIRP. The horizontal beam width is also ~8° (in this example9)
5. Reduction of antenna element power by N² to renormalize to previous EIRP. This is
needed in case EMF limits have to be considered.
6. Reduction of transmit power per single-user-beam for N separable users leads to
reduction of coverage in multi-user case. EIRP would not change since N
beams/users benefit from (in average) 1/N of total power, here 8 times ~5mW result
in ~40mW per antenna element.
7. Reduction of transmit power per full band for highest performances. Instead of 10MHz
now up to 400MHz might be used per small cell site. This might happen for different
spectrum owners at the same location, independent from equipment sharing. In this
case, the uplink limitation would trend to downlink power limitation.
9
In case of 64*64 antenna elements, the beam width would reduce to ~1°, which seems not appropriate anymore
for backhauling usage with both BS have beam widths of ~1°. M=N<32 seems maximum.

8. Reduction of transmit powers to reach administrative EIRP threshold (in Germany of

10W) in total for small cells sites within permission process. In case of collocation of
WiFi, LTE2600, LAA5000 and NR3500 all powers reduce further. In the medium term,
it is expected to come back to more differentiated view of small cells like micro, pico
and femto cells. Micro and pico cells might be allowed/certified for higher or medium
power settings at the expense of more severe issues in EMF security distance
consideration which cause delays and additional costs in the overall rollout process.
The small pico cells might act as the multi-hop mesh network smart aggregation units
with first content based processing capability (edge computing) in addition to the
simple relay function.
# band #Pol num num single vertical horizontal single ant EIRP bandwidth W/MHz
elements elements ant gain beamforming beamforming transmit
vertical M horizontal N gain ~ log(M) gain ~log(N) power
0 LTE1800 2 1 1 18.0 dBi 0.0 dBi 0.0 dBi 30. W 3.79 kW 10 MHz 378.57
1 NR3500 2 1 1 18.0 dBi 0.0 dBi 0.0 dBi 30. W 3.79 kW 10 MHz 378.57
2 NR3500 2 12 1 7.2 dBi 10.8 dBi 0.0 dBi 2.5 W 3.79 kW 10 MHz 378.57
5 NR3500 2 12 8 7.2 dBi 10.8 dBi 9.0 dBi 39.1 mW 3.79 kW 10 MHz 378.57
8 NR3500 2 12 8 7.2 dBi 10.8 dBi 9.0 dBi 0.1 mW 10. W 400 MHz 0.03
Table 2: Higher Order MIMO: (example!) power settings in macro and small cells
Conclusion: Due to EMF power limits, the azimuth beamforming with N=8 combined antenna
reduce the coverage by 9dB in multi user/beam case. The full band usage at one cell with
400MHz bandwidth reduce further by 16dB leading in total to 25dB in macro, 42dB in small
cell reduction due to further reduced EIRP limits. It might not be possible to combine full
spectrum (=capacity) usage with the EMF-limits. Instead of full 400MHz, the single small cell
might only use smaller bandwidths of the frequency band at the beginning to keep more
coverage, and increase bandwidth step by step with small cell site densification.
Spectrum sharing
Currently the highest performance improvements in 4G result due to the operational control of
higher bandwidths and enlarged selection of better resources e.g. Carrier Aggregation. In
typical 3 to 4 operator cases per country, the usual available bandwidth per band and per
operator is in the range of 10-20MHz. Any improvement in 5G-NR to handle e.g. 100MHz
bandwidth carriers would also require the willingness of operators to share their existing
spectrum assets in spectrum sharing agreements, which remains of lower probability in
general to keep proper competition, but could be agreed for some bands. Only new spectrum
in bands 42, 43 would allow >100MHz bandwidth assignments for short cell ranges10. It is also
possible to assign/auction the total bandwidth of 400MHz to 3-4 mobile operators and one
industry consortium which could share their spectrum in their different (isolated)
locations/facilities11. In this case, Industry 4.0 related use cases need a special consideration
10
In cases of non-fiber backhauling, inband backhauling concepts might be used which are generally less attractive
due to access bandwidth reduction. This might change with mMIMO and dedicated backhauling beams towards fixed
fibre-access antennas.
11
In band 43, some FSS usage might persist in co-existence, therefore some regional bandwidth reduction could also
be handled proper by sharing concepts, at least in these areas.

in business cases. Equipment vendors might offer 5G managed services to industries

complementary to Telco also including LAA-bands.
Since deployment of new spectrum related equipment is quite expensive and proper site
acquisition is limited, it would be beneficial to share costs of equipment, align network planning
in coverage and capacity and to share spectrum between all operators. This could be seen as
wireless open access network extension of the fibre network (leaky fibre). Market realities and
competitive marketing may hinder this. More realistic may be bilateral or multilateral network
sharing agreements based on federated network slicing.
The backhaul capacity requirements have to be aligned between all partners as early as
possible to be upgraded in time. The ownership of the new equipment could be split to different
MNOs independent from the ownership of the used spectrum assets. The operation of the
shared 5G spectrum could also be done in a Joint Venture, but this seems more a financial
issue (to share OPEX costs) than a technical. In this sharing mode, the spectrum resource
remains under full control and maintenance of the operators, enabling QoS services.
All corresponding operators have their own Core Network(s) (CN) and access the commonly
used spectrum via their own PLMN-ID12 including their individual neighbour relations and
handover threshold of each MNO (Figure 4). Potential MVNOs for special user groups (e.g.
PPDR) or services (e.g. IoT) could be connected to the MNOs spectrum/networks or directly
to the shared (e.g. 5G) open access spectrum. Using federated network slicing, the core
network of one operator extends into the physical domain of another operator.
Early 4G based slicing concepts (considering consistency with existing user terminals) could
start with this approach of multiple flexible CN with one or more MMEs (=core-slices)
controlling the traffic and services with special QoS. The radio resource management will
remain responsible for each radio spectrum (=radio-slice), enhanced by special overall uplink
and downlink scheduling strategies combining multiple streams in different bands according
to quality requirements for 5G-RAN capable devices. The current 4G EPS bearers to one UE
with defined QoS requirements are mapped to resources in one band (or more with CA), which
would be extended in 5G to multiple bearers to the same UE, but these might be handled
within different spectrum bands for uplink and downlink as well. Which bands per site would
be applicable is different, keeping in mind that inter-site carrier aggregation or dual connectivity
etc. are challenges in today`s 4G-LTE Networks depending on X2-latencies.
12
Public Land Mobile Network Identifier, currently limited to 4-6, which might be increased in case of NW slicing for
special services

MOCN (Multi-Operator Core Network) – Wireless Open Access Network
MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
Core Network – Operator A Core Network – Operator B Core Network – Operator C Core Network – Operator D Core Network – Operator E
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
2G, 3G,
4G RAN
5G RAN
PLMN ID A
Core Network – WOAN
PLMN ID 5G-WOAN
MVNOs
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
All Core Networks are connected to
common 5G RAN and individual RAN RAN - WOAN
5G RAN in highest
spectrum
Figure 4: Multi Operator Core network access to a wireless open access radio network
In addition to the above mentioned spectrum sharing options of licensed spectrum assignment
(LSA) which guarantee coordinated spectrum access and QoS, new concepts are already
standardized in LTE-advanced Pro (R13) which will be used as well in 5G:
 General Authorized Access (GAA): Common use of unlicensed spectrum by different
users in uncoordinated manner (e.g. LBT: listen before talk), mainly used by WiFi access
 Licensed Assisted Access (LAA): GAA in combination with own licensed spectrum
Future multi-hop mesh networks for IoT-based devices
The pure existence of millions of cheap, “dumb” sensors in a “smart environment” measuring
and transmitting data (position, temperature, pressure, etc.) with different measurement cycles
will increase small data transmission hardly predicable. One option is to evaluate these data
at central servers instantaneously to give proper feedback to the unit, and for long term
evaluations (big data). Another option is to smart up at least some dumb sensor units by
applications to perform simple algorithms to send only critical values violating defined
thresholds (alarms), or to send only min/avg./max-value per day/month. These smarter IoT
devices/smartphones might act as aggregator of meshed network of dumb MTC units. Despite
these device to device communication is already standardized in 4G-LTE and evolving in 5G,
the aggregator unit could already be a smartphone, a WiFi-router- or fixed access router with
integrated IoT functionalities. This aggregator functionality opened non-3GPP-devices the
door to IoT-market.
Each machine type communication (and also all other 5G use cases) needs to be analysed in
coverage, mobility and capacity and costs of deployments and operations. Based on these
results it needs to be analysed how to monetize mMTC (or 5G) by connectivity providers to
cover new investments in the new technologies.

 Some IoT applications benefit from eMBB improvements in downlink introduced in LTE
Advanced (e.g. HD security cameras, smart glassed, virtual reality)
 LTE Cat-M1 (eMTC) enables the broadest range of IoT capabilities, delivering data rates
up to 1Mbps, while utilizing only 1.4 MHz device bandwidth (6 resource blocks, 1.08MHz)
in existing LTE FDD/TDD spectrum (inband). It will be designed to fully coexist with regular
LTE traffic, also support voice (VoLTE or VoN (Voice over Narrowband)).
 LTE Cat-NB1 (NB-IoT) reduce in complexity, cost and power for low-end IoT use cases.
(IoT at dumb devices: no MIMO, single transmit, half-duplex, grant free access with higher
probability of interference)
 LTE IoT also enhances the core network (SDN/NFV) to more efficiently handle IoT-centric
traffic and to support large number of devices.
The more often data are sent, the shorter is the battery life time, especially in poor coverage
conditions. Therefore multi-hop mesh networks enlarge coverage and enable reduced transmit
powers and longer battery life times. Hopping scenarios via at least 2 relays might enable 10-
15years of battery life times. In addition, if coverage is improved, less repetitions are needed,
which saves capacity.
Multi-Hop network scenario
No coverage
Direct access with licensed spectrum

Operator controlled D2D communication
Mesh on unlicensed or with
uplink licensed spectrum to
extend coverage in deep spots
D2D Advantage Challenge

 UL coverage extension  Increased intelligence of IoT devices (cat-M)
 Power consumption reduction  Unlicensed access or fixed access
 Increase of throughput, security  Non cellular IoT technology
Figure 5: Multi-Hop mesh network to enhance coverage and battery life times
5G will support novel schemes/hierarchies of network controlled device-to-device (D2D)

communication, including point-to-point, multicast and broadcast communication. Other novel
mechanisms include device duality schemes, where a device can act both as a “normal” end
user device (including sensor types) and as a network node extending the infrastructure part
of the system, e.g. IoT-router. These schemes will have to be supported over a wide range of
physical deployments, from distributed base stations to centralized cloud-RAN deployments
or distributed edge clouds. Self-backhauling, where devices can act as base stations and self-
establish wireless backhaul links to suitable donor base stations, is regarded as another
important feature. A multi-hop mesh network with these smart devices have also to be
compliant to EMF regulations.

Summary
5G-NR would break traditional principles of mobile communications, such as the strict
combination of paired spectrum allocations for uplink and downlink as well as the fundamental
separation of user and control planes. The beauty of 5G-RAN will be in the most flexible usage
of uplink and downlink resources, independent from the used spectrum or the underlying
technology. The 5G-RAN capability to in/exclude specific parts of different spectrum bands will
enable smoother refarming strategies also protecting some narrowband parts (including guard
band) while using the currently unused spectrum parts to increase spectrum efficient usage.
The new step in 5G RAN is less in the new air interface 5G-NR, which among others enables
lower latencies, but would be more in the flexible coordination of all resources in different
bands.
5G RAN related key messages:

1. The dual (or multiple) connectivity concept could support FDD-bands for uplink and
downlink coverage and TDD-bands for massive downlink capacity. 5G-NR would
break traditional principles of mobile communications, i.e. the strict combination of
paired spectrum allocations for uplink and downlink. The beauty of 5G-NR will be in
the most flexible usage of uplink and downlink resources, independent from the used
spectrum or the underlying technology, 4G/5G.
2. Today NB-IoT and 4G-LTE devices are not integrated. In future realizations, NB-IoT
would be just a flavour (=slice) of 4G-LTE running in parallel to classical 4G-LTE
services, e.g. to extend poor coverage issues with reduced quality requirements, e.g
Voice over Narrowband (VoN).
3. The 5G-NR network structure in high(est) bands might shift to multi-hop meshed
networks, transmitting and receiving on same or different frequencies or bands.
Especially for IoT-devices, multi-hop mesh would enable larger coverage at lower
battery consumption and higher capacity and lower the overall traffic on backhauling.
Some aggregation terminals (smartphone, laptop) might act as wireless backhaul
integrator for any (also non-)3GPP mesh-technology. These aggregations HUBs
might fulfil some edge computing functions as well as complexity reductions within
local areas.
5G deployment related key messages:

1. The high and highest spectrum use would not be favourable for the classical macro
cell deployments due to limited coverage range and limited spatial diversity in macro
cell deployments in these bands. In high and highest bands, small cell deployment will
dominate, but with shortest ranges and therefore highest capacity densities, which
naturally would require a lot of small cells to reach homogeneous performance
perception. The physical realizations need to be kept very small as well and almost
invisible to people, also compliant to EMF regulations. In this case, MIMO would
increase signal quality but less signal coverage. Backhauling would be one critical
issue.
2. Massive MIMO (mMIMO) deployments with larger numbers of antenna elements in
both dimensions need significant miniaturization and power limitation, and would be
suitable only at highest bands for Line-of-Sight (LOS) environments. With mMIMO,
the number of individually controlled radiating elements (“active” antenna) would
increase in both dimensions, enabling more flexible beamforming or MIMO algorithms.
It needs to be planned by radio planning, in which macro deployments the higher
angular flexibility in elevation is really required and beneficial. In the predecessor,

higher order MIMO (hoMIMO), the number of controllable(!) antenna-sub-arrays

increase in one dimension, while the sub-array might keep their classical phased array
fixed beam settings. For all MIMO solutions, the EIRP would increase significantly and
needs to be reduced according to EMF limits which limits MIMO coverage related
benefits in general.
5G Spectrum related key messages:

1. In the long term, all spectrum will be assigned technology agnostic and will be used
for 5G, but in the short term new bands would be used first for 5G, while legacy bands
would be refarmed to 5G within normal modernization cycles, but not necessarily to
higher order or massive MIMO. TDD-spectrum would gain more importance in the
future. 5G technology will also support service migration from currently used lower
bands to enable more efficient spectrum usage also in valuable coverage spectrum
which is currently out of focus due to limited bandwidth.
2. Existing 4G-LTE networks will persist, complement and cooperate with 5G-NR. Some
5G-NR requirements need also macro cellular deployments/realizations in low and
medium bands to be commercially successful. Current 5G-spectrum activities focus
on bands >6GHz and especially mm-wave bands due to higher bandwidth`s
availability and small antenna sizes favourable for massive MIMO. The major
challenge would be in the low and medium bands to enable spectral efficient macro
deployments. 5G-NR macro deployments would enable better latencies at larger cells
and at lower capacities. Otherwise, 5G-NR in highest bands would focus on isolated,
shortest range smart spot use cases due to extremely high costs of full coverage. New
5G technologies would enable spectrum refarming/migrations by integration of
existing services, or protected co-existence with existing (analogue) services.
3. TDD has some essential advantages and might become the major 5G-NR mode.
TDD-bands 33, 34 might become the first 5G-NR macro deployments13. Since there
would be some challenges with the small available bandwidth (5-20MHz), these bands
could be used by all operators in equipment (and spectrum) sharing independent from
spectrum ownership. They might get first attention as optimized 5G-NR-IoT-successor
of the FDD based 4G-NB-IoT networks (as the IoT traffic demand would more favour
for uplink) with realistic MIMO order up to 4. eMBB for downlink demands will follow
in higher TDD-bands 38, 40, 42, 43 with higher order MIMO and dominantly
beamforming. A logical combination of uplink dominated TDD-bands 33 and 34 with
downlink dominated TDD-Bands 42, 43 seems possible with 5G-NR independent from
duplex mode. Current FDD-bands above 3GHz might be reassigned to TDD, e.g. band
22 to band 42.
4. For larger coverage demands in non/less urban areas, the FDD-band 31 (450-
470MHz) might be refarmed to TDD and potentially enlarged as well (digital dividend)
to enable at least higher bandwidths and larger coverage, at maximum 2*2MIMO (due
to antenna size restrictions). Railways and highways need special deployments with
dedicated coverage depending on the used frequency, which would be quite
expensive. In a larger view 380-470MHz, which is widely used for TETRA and other
specialized narrowband applications, could be used for 5G sharing and slicing usage
13
Comment within review phase: Currently CEPT foresees an alternative usage of band 33, 34, e.g. for PMSE
(Programme Making, Special Events), which might exclude bands 33, 34 in Europe for mobile communications, as
well as band 40 or further parts of L-band (1427-1518MHz), but not necessarily worldwide. Bands in 470-694MHz,
and others will follow step by step after worldwide harmonization. In the long term, band 1 might also be extended by
the bands 33, 34 and the MSS-part to one enhanced “band1-e” (1900-2025//2090-2215MHz).

for critical infrastructure, railways, energy, governmental and other use cases
favourable with slicing in larger coverage demands. This larger bandwidth would be
more applicable to fit expected demands in this band than currently only 2*5MHz
bandwidth of band 31. SDL spectrum in 738-758MHz is favourable for sharing as
RAN-slice for eMBB services.
Sharing related key messages:

1. In parallel to competition, sharing of equipment and spectrum will enable more cost
efficient rollouts. New slicing concepts would gain importance in distributed core
functionality using normal commercial of the shelf (COTS) hardware which could also
be shared to different Core Networks (CN). The RAN hardware might remain highly
specialized, usable only for dedicated bands and limited bandwidths, and with special
signal processors, but with overall enhanced resource management software which is
seen at (or near) the site in virtualized RAN-clouds on COTS hardware and openRAN
software.
2. For spectrum bandwidths up to 40MHz, spectrum and equipment sharing is essential
to reduce deployment and maintenance costs per operator. Also at higher bands with
potentially higher bandwidths per operator (40…100MHz), spectrum and equipment
sharing remains beneficial. Despite the hardware capabilities might be less than the
spectrum assignments per operator in highest bands, almost continuous coverage per
operator should be secured.
3. The “new” L-band with supplementary downlink may be deployed to increase the 4G-
LTE DL-capacity. Depending on the spectrum assignments per country, the L-band
would be a first candidate for equipment (and spectrum) sharing of operators to reduce
costs and gain more experiences in spectrum sharing.
4. In order to enable highest small cell site densities within EMF regulatory boundaries,
an independent infrastructure company/joint venture is reasonable to benefit from
coordinated small cell deployment and (fibre) backhauling. This site sharing with open
access should prevent that some areas would be blocked for the 2nd / non-incumbent
operators. Alternatively, a local deployment per operator remains possible with
roaming to other operators. Equipment and spectrum sharing is highly recommended
to save investments for all operators, especially in early deployments.
5. It is not recommended to assign any (highest band) spectrum directly to such an
infrastructure joint venture to prevent monopoly in 5G spectrum. Spectrum sharing
could be done independently from spectrum ownership and is recommended for all
operators within increasing equipment rollout with capacity (=spectrum) demand.
Reduced spectrum usage enables higher power levels (EMF) and larger distances at
the beginning.
6. Since sharing could be one supporting element of new slicing concepts, sharing of
network resources will become one essential element of 5G in general. The main
focus of slicing is seen in distributed core network functions but also in RAN:
o Benefits of slicing in CN result due to higher diversity/specialization at different
network locations according to reduced latency and realization costs.
o Within RAN the resource management of available spectrum and improved
operations (neighbour planning, handovers, etc.) is also subject to virtualization within
openRAN initiatives, but is expected to remain with dominantly vendor proprietary
software and specialized signal processors limiting the opportunity for a standard
based dynamic RAN slicing.
Sharing and slicing might help in spectrum migration strategies to refarm analogue to digital
applications as well to protect narrowband applications outside of 5G, e.g. LAA in 380-
470MHz.

Appendix
5G requirements
New services such as IoT, Cloud-based services, industrial control, autonomous driving, and
mission critical communications are emerging and may require massive connectivity, extreme
broadband, ultra-low latency and ultra-high reliability. In many 5G publications, the enormous
data volume increase in all domains induced by human and non-human machine type users
give reason to also increase technical requirements in capacity, efficiency and reduced
response times:14
 Low latency: <1ms
 Low energy: >10years of battery life time
 Low complexity at low data rates, but full scalability to bandwidth
 High site density: ~1million nodes per km²
 High reliability for mission critical services/applications: only 1 of 100Million packets lost
or 500ms per year out of service
 High capacity (density): 10Tbps per km²
 High data rates, >1Gbps as total cell capacity, >100Mbps per user
 High spectral efficiency due to spatial multiplexing
 Various mobility requirements: static to high-speed trains
 Deep coverage, also within the use of multi-hop networks
Not all of the above mentioned 5G requirements will be reached in all bands and for all
coverages, but 5G-NR will support techniques to enable most of these with the same air
interface options.
Not all services will need e.g. these lowest latencies of 1ms. Many services in relation with
human interaction/reaction would work as well with low latencies of 20 to 200ms. Other, mainly
machine type communications MTC would need lower latencies which limit the relative
distance of these MTC units. 5G-NR would be able to support these MTC-use cases in
optimized air interfaces, which would be used less in other use cases, e.g. in 5G macro cells.
Especially latency requirements need to be considered in an overall latency budget calculation
with the major contributions beyond the air interface delays. Therefore, different service
requirements require different solutions, e.g. mobile edge computing optimized for a broader
set of services, but not one-fits-all. There will be islands of lowest latency capability within a
set of larger coverage cells related low to medium latency capability.
14
Omitting superlatives like “mega-ultra-super-extreme” which also indicates 5G as the last step in the evolution.

5G RAN evolution
In the following overview, the 3GPP technologies were briefly summarized by their main
differentiators.
3GPP Start Short description
Analogue voice service

1G 1980
Digital voice service; basic data.

2G, 1990
GSM, For a dedicated time a dedicated frequency is used per user.
TDMA/ Everything is standardized quite strict to harmonize worldwide
FDMA ecosystems.
Between uplink and downlink sub bands a fixed duplex gap is defined
per band and a subset of frequencies is assigned statically to cells.
Digital voice (CS) , data (PS) and high speed HS

3G, 2000
UMTS, In addition to F/TDMA, predefined (wideband) code sequences were
HSPA+, used to add 3rd dimension of multiple access. The carrier bandwidth
was limited to 5MHz. Dual and Multi Carrier solution were
WCDMA predecessors of 4G-Carrier Aggregation (CA).
Within initial UMTS the power settings were controlled to reach
minimum required service quality. The high speed HSPA+ extensions
used the remaining power to increase quality and data rates. In the
latter, the transmit time intervals reduced significantly the overall
latency.
Spatial separation with multiple antennas is foreseen, but not widely
used to improve quality/capacity.
With HSPA+ the operational modes increased in the standards to react
more flexible on different scenarios and to add recent improvements
to existing hardware by (static) software updates.
Within the higher bandwidth of 5MHz, the uplink and downlink
resources could be used more flexible and fast frequency hopping
increase performance.
Broadband data service only, voice services via packet.

4G, 2010
LTE, Instead of code sequences, different orthogonal carriers are used with
OFDMA minimum interference to improve quality. The smallest controllable
resource in time and frequency is significantly reduced relative to 3G.
Same transmit power is used for all subcarrier. The total carrier
bandwidth is static, but scalable up to 20MHz.
Spatial separation by different transmission modes (MIMO, transmit
diversity, beamforming, etc.) is possible, dominantly used with
2*2MIMO, also up to 4*4MIMO in FDD, 8*8MIMO in TDD in trials only.

In most countries, FDD-systems are deployed in <1GHz-bands for

better coverage and in >1GHz for capacity. In some higher bands TDD
is already used for higher capacity in smaller coverage.
Carrier Aggregation allows the combination of up to 5 carrier with the
possibility to combine a low band coverage improved uplink with a
higher band downlink which would not have the same uplink coverage.
Here some limitations of intermodulation products need to be
considered.
CA is favourable in downlink (and esp. supplementary downlink), but
increasingly used for uplink as well despite of reduced coverage in this
case. The broadband reception at terminal is better realized, but
transmission in different bands by dual radio terminals is not expected
soon.
In the new radio, the resources might be filtered (windowing) to reduce

5G, NR, >2020
out-of-band transmissions. This would improve quality and control finer
RSMA,
parts of the frequency individually. With a reduction of subcarrier
NOMA+
bandwidth, the coverage increase for lower data rates (like in 4G-NB-
IoT).
In addition, the same resources could be multiple re-used with different
transmit powers in case of improved sequential separation in time
(SIC) at base station.
In previous generations FDD was dominant due to coverage focus. In
the future mainly higher bands would be available. Due to channel
reciprocity, TDD would become the main favourable scheme which
gives also opportunity to switch uplink and downlink directions as well
as transmit durations more flexible than in 4G. The UL/DL-switching is
more flexible according to service latency requirements.
It is expected to use short uplink transmissions in high band for channel
estimations to form improved beamforming in downlink to compensate
for higher band losses.
In consequent extension of 4G-CA, the uplink stream and the downlink
could be taken from different bands, e.g. by combining an 4G-LTE FDD
(or 5G-NR) uplink with a 5G-NR TDD-downlink resource. Dual radio
transmission would be needed for broadband uplink.
Table 2: simplified comparison of 3GPP technologies15
15
GSM: Global Standard for Mobile Communications, UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard, LTE:
Long Term Evolution, NR: New Radio; CS: circuit switched, PS: packet switched, HS: high speed packet switched;
FDD: frequency division duplex, TDD: time division duplex;
TDMA: time domain multiple access, FDMA: frequency domain multiple access, WCDMA: wideband code DMA,
SDMA: space DMA, OFDMA: Orthogonal Frequency DMA, RSMA: Resource shared MA, NOMA: non-orthogonal
multiple access; MIMO: multiple input multiple output; SIC sequential interference cancelation

5G-NR modulations
Since 5G-NR is still in process of standardization, only a few new or updated options for 5G
waveforms or techniques are highlighted briefly in the following.
Orthogonal multiple access (OMA): here mainly improvements of 4G-LTE access schemes
would be used, which would not be a major step for justification of 5G-NR
equipment/investments.
 Downlink: CP-OFDMA (already in 4G-LTE defined)
 Cyclic Prefix (CP-OFDMA) with windowing/filtering delivers higher spectral efficiency
with comparable out-of-band emission performance and lower complexity than
alternative multi-carrier waveforms under realistic implementations
 Additional weighting, e.g. WOLA (weighted overlap add) increases OOB16
suppression relative to CP-OFDM
There exist further windowing/filtering techniques to reduce OOB emissions to improve signal
to interference per resource, each with different pros/cons, which will be finally selected by
standardization. The overall improvement on quality or coverage needs to be analysed. All
options are characterized more as 4G-upgrades than a big step in a new radio for 5G. No
significant investments for operators are expected here.
 Uplink: Single Carrier (SC)-OFDMA for scenarios with higher power efficiency
requirements is still the 4G-LTE selected option
Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA): for mMTC (massive Machine Type

Communication, IoT) non-orthogonal access and “autonomous, grant-free, contention based”
UL transmission is under discussion.
 Resource Spread Multiple Access (RSMA) in 5G-NR uplink only enables grant-free
transmissions efficient for sporadic transfer of small data with asynchronous, non-
orthogonal, contention-based access, especially useful for NR-IoT applications, but not
suitable for higher spectral efficiency.
 In this case of uncoordinated, asynchrony transmission, the interference probability
increases reducing quality and reliability, and due to retransmission finally the capacity will
reduce as well.
For NOMA, special SIC (sequential interference cancellation) techniques are under
consideration to combat increased interferences, which increases the effort of post processing
at the base station.
16
OOB: out of band emissions: interference into neighbor resource blocks which reduce signal quality.

Potential TDD bands
In the past, the majority of bands were assigned to FDD, based on voice-driven demand, with
limited TDD spectrum in between the FDD assigned sub-bands or in higher ranges. Recently,
the amount of spectrum assigned for TDD has increased. The asymmetric nature of TDD
brings a number of advantages. One key advantage of this is the flexibility it allows in the
adjustment of the downlink and uplink resource ratios to fit perfectly with current user
behaviour, where streaming and downloads take up a high proportion of downlink resources.
In addition to high volume downlink-centric eMBB applications, unpaired LTE is also optimally
suited to cover future M2M and Internet of Things demands which will be predominantly uplink-
oriented. Also, video uploads from closed-circuit television (CCTV) result in a higher uplink
bandwidth capacity requirement which have to be taken into account in specialised schemes.
For a lower band such as the 380-470MHz band good propagation conditions together with
uplink-oriented configuration schemes are quite beneficial, no (higher order) MIMO or
beamforming is needed. In higher bands, such as band 42, 43 with poor propagation and
downlink-oriented configuration, the cell sizes reduce significantly. Therefore, higher order
beamforming/MIMO would be more applicable, especially due to reduced antenna dimension
size. In higher bands, the reduced cell size is generally not an issue, because deployments
will be more capacity-oriented and capacity density is higher in that case.
IMT450 (TDD-extension of band 31): 380-470MHz
Currently FDD-band 31 (452.5-457.5 // 462.5-467.5MHz) use 2*5MHz partly refarmed from

previous CDMA-deployments (3 times 2*1.25MHz) for wide range rural coverage, especially
in Finland, Russia and Brazil. ITU-option-D8 foresee full TDD-usage of 20MHz. Depending on
the digital dividend evolution, further extensions seem possible here as well (DVBT ch21-25).
Since 2*5MHz would not be sufficient for the expected demands and also not commercially
successful, alternatively 380-470MHz could be seen as long term sharing and slicing
opportunity to integrate nationwide coverage of critical services in government, energy,
infrastructure, PPRD and others. Some essential (inter)nationally defined (analogue) services
might need special considerations and protection, which could be considered within 5G by
LAA techniques (e.g. LBT), see Figure 6 with one or many 5G carriers. The critical spectrum
parts (including guard bands) would not be used (masked) by 5G resource management or
used only locally/temporarily if not used by licensees.
The same technologies could be used also for other bands, e.g. band 33, 34 with temporary
and locally limited PMSE usage.

Spectrum efficient usage of centralized frequency resource management
5G carrier controls all 5G resources within the band
5G 5G 5G
380MHz 470MHz
Narrowband analogue carriers
e.g. amateur radio, TETRA
Figure 6: exemplary 5G (TD-based) overall resource management for refarming and co-existence with
legacy services.
User terminals constitute the most critical piece of equipment in a cellular network, as
constraints on their cost, size and weight are more stringent than the constraints on base
stations. The 380-470 MHz capable terminals could evolve steadily with the user demand,
starting with larger fixed CPEs with external (or additional outdoor) antennas or embedded in
cars and Wi-Fi capability to support the classical smart phones (Wi-Fi offload). In a second
wave, multimode smart phones or tablets might arise which offers direct access to the IMT450-
network also in real mobile situations. M2M devices should be small in general, but for 380-
470 MHz, the required antenna should be larger which might be an issue for some
applications. Due to larger antenna size requirements, this band pose challenges for
integration into mobile handsets, but could be one aggregation band for incar applications,
large device tracking or rural focus.
FDD-Band 22 refarming to TDD-band 42 together with 43
Currently FDD-band 22 (3410-3490//3510-3590MHz) could use 2*80MHz for fixed wireless

broadband access. A potential refarming is only possible after reassignment or auctions. In
the TDD-bands 42, 43 WiMAX networks have been widely used in the past, with a clear trend
to migrate to LTE-TDD, but with still poor ecosystem support, at the moment less than 100
device types support the new bands 42 & 43. In the long run, these band would attract global
ecosystems due to worldwide availability for 5G, and in the very long term C-band up to
4.2GHz is the next promising option after partial migration and coordination with current
(satellite) usage.

Figure 7: GSA 2017-device support of LTE FDD-bands Figure 8: GSA 2017-device support of
LTE TDD-bands
Spectrum sharing already in 4G-LTE
Currently spectrum is statically assigned to operators, which might not fully utilize their assets
everywhere full time, especially less in rural areas. Sharing of equipment and spectrum is
beneficial for rural and low traffic areas to minimize network infrastructure costs and operations
& maintenance. In such a case, one operator (or a consortium, Joint Venture) builds the
network as the HOST. The other operators or MVNOs use the coverage and capacity via
(National) Roaming as GUESTS. The operators are not required to share any common
network elements or spectrum. Traffic from one GUEST carrier is carried over the network of
the HOST. The shared RAN shall be capable of differentiating traffic associated with individual
participating MNOs or individual services, e.g. IoT, PPDR, and shall be able to conduct
admission control based on allocated RAN resources for each MNO.
In addition to geographical equipment sharing, it is important to provide flexible mechanisms

to control the usage of LSA (licensed shared access). In the case of 4G-LTE sharing, several
core network operators can dynamically “compete” for radio resources. The eNodeB offers
allocation of resources through different strategies, catering for all possible kinds of contractual
agreements between these operators. The split can be different from one operator to another
and evolve over time. The split is not necessarily related to spectrum ownership and could be
adapted individually depending on operators` needs. Strategies range from “fully pooled” to
“fully split” (Figure 9):
 Fully pooled / dynamic overbooking: This model allows complete sharing of all radio
resources between the different CN operators. There are no resources reserved per CN
operator. In the extreme (worst) case, subscribers from one CN operator can use all the
resources, a fair access to resources for each CN operator cannot be guaranteed. This
strategy can be useful at the early staged of deployments when the number of subscribers
are relatively low compared to the radio resources available.
 Fully split / static case: This model allows strict reservation of resources per CN operator
(which could be changed over time). If resources are reserved for a given CN operator
and if they are fully used, then a network attachment request or a new connection request
from a subscriber of this CN operator will be rejected even if resources reserved for other
CN operators are not fully used. This strategy is most often adopted in areas where there
is a risk of having subscribers of a given CN operator using all the radio resources. Thus
a fair access to resources is enforced.

 Partial reservation: This model allows to reserve resources per CN operator and to leave
a part of the resources unreserved. Thus a fair access to resources can be enforced and
non-reserved resources can be used when needed by the different subscribers. This is
probably the best compromise in resources sharing.
All mentioned strategies could be different for different frequency bands and services, e.g.
band 33, 34 for IoT services. Some higher PPDR-priorities might overrule any resource
management strategy in case of emergency, e.g. in 380-470MHz band.
Spectrum sharing options between operators
Fully pooled/dynamic
Fully shared spectrum: Soft capacity for all MNOs
Fully split/static
MNO1 MNO2 MNO3 MNO4 MNO5 MNO6
Partial reservation
Fully shared spectrum: Soft capacity for all

MNO1 MNO2 MNO3 MNO4 MNO5 MNO6
MNOs
Figure 9: spectrum sharing options in case of equipment & spectrum sharing in frequency domain
An alternative spectrum sharing of all spectrum for one operator at a dedicated time seems
less viable.
L-Band as new low band spectrum candidate for spectrum sharing
The ITU World Radio communication Conference in 2015 (WRC-15) has decided to identify
the frequency band 1427-1518MHz (L-band) for International Mobile Telecommunications
(IMT) which would be used for 4G assignments in the near future, but 5G-NR seems possible
as well. In 3GPP, there are three arrangements in portions of this L-band (1427 – 1518 MHz)
as follow:
1. FDD: band 11 (UE transmit: 1427.9-1447.9MHz, BS transmit: 1475.9-1495.9MHz)
and band 21 (UE transmit: 1447.9-1462.9MHz, BS transmit: 1495.9-1510.9MHz).
2. TDD: Band 45 (UE / BS transmit: 1447-1467MHz). (used in China)
3. SDL: Band 32 (BS transmit: 1452-1496MHz).
In Europe, ECC/DEC/(13)03 currently harmonises a 40MHz portion of L-Band (1452-1492

MHz, Band 32) for Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks Supplemental Downlink (MFCN
SDL), for example in Germany 20MHz are assigned to Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone each.
The new band will provide significant DL coverage benefits in carrier aggregation within low
bands, in particular Band 20. Band 32 could be used as shared spectrum for CA, with
maximum 20MHz carrier in 4G usage and full 40 MHz in case of 5G-SDL-usage.
Analog, the 20MHz of 738-758MHz might be used as SDL or for 5G-NR.

In most cases new antennas are needed for band 28 or band 32, so both rollouts might be
realized in one step, e.g. in rural areas first.
It needs to be mentioned, that within L-band from 1427-1518MHz, only the SDL part is
considered in region1 while in region 2 and 3 the full band is identified for IMT purpose.
Abbreviations
3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Program
4G-LTE Long Term Evolution
5G-NR Next / New Radio
CA Carrier Aggregation
CAT-M Terminal category for machine type
CCTV closed-circuit television
COTS commercial of the shelf
CoMP Coordinated MultiPoint
CN core network
CPE Customer premise equipment
CP-OFDMA Cyclic Prefix OFDMA
CS circuit switched
C-RAN Centralized RAN: CoMP, (fe)ICIC, HetNet, …
D-RAN Distributed or De-centralized RAN: slicing at site, EDGE
D2D device-to-device
dBi Decibel relative to isotropic radiated antenna
dB Decibel (as ratio)
DL Downlink
DVBT Digital Video Broadcast Television
eMBB Enhanced Mobile Broadband
EIRP equivalent isotropic radiated power
EMF electromagnetic force
EPC, EPS Enhanced Packet Core, System
FDD frequency division duplex
FDMA Frequency Domain Multiple Access
GAA General Authorized Access
GSM Global Standard for Mobile Communications
HS high speed packet switched
(fe)ICIC Further enhanced Intercell Interference Coordination
IMT International Mobile Telecommunications
IoT Internet od Things
ITU International Telecommunications Unit
LAA Licensed Assisted Access
LBT Listen before talk
LOS Line of Sight
LSA licensed spectrum assignment¸ licensed shared access
M2M Machine to Machine
MIMO multiple input multiple output

MNO Mobile Network Operator

mMTC (massive) Machine Type Communication
NFV Network Functions Virtualization
NB-IoT Narrowband Internet of Things
NLOS Non Line of Sight
NOMA Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access
NSA Non-Standalone 5G-NR
NW Network
OMA Orthogonal Multiple Access
OFDMA Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access
OOB Out of Band Emission
PMSE Program Making, Special Events
PLMN-ID Public Land Mobile Network Identifier
PPDR Public Protection Disaster Recovery
PS Packet Switched
QoS Quality of Service
RAN Radio Access Network
RET Remote Electrical Tilt
RSMA Resource shared multiple access
SC-OFDMA Single Carrier OFDMA
SDL Supplemental Downlink
SIC sequential interference cancelation
TDD time division duplex
TDMA Time Domain Multiple Access
TTI transmission time interval
SDN Software Defined Networking
SDMA Space Division Multiple Access
UDN Ultra-Dense Networks
UL Uplink
UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard
V2X Vehicular to everything
VoLTE Voice over LTE
VoN Voice over Narrowband
WCDMA Wideband Code Division Multiple Access
WRC World Radio Conference

The Author
Dr. Dietert joined Detecon International in 2012, focused on many international projects in
areas of radio network strategy, planning, optimization, capacity dimensioning, and spectrum
management.
Dr. Dietert is part of the Detecon knowledge team with focus on 5G led by F. Schröder, Dr. A.
Gerwens and Dr. W. Knospe.
The author thanks all colleagues for intensive and fruitful discussions and feedbacks, esp. N.
Zhelev, Dr. T. Eckstein, and L. Reith.
I greatly acknowledge my family for the endless support, patience and understanding during
this paper.

The Company
Leading Digital
Detecon is a consulting company which unites classic management consulting with a high
level of technology expertise.
Our company's history is proof of this: Detecon International is the product of the merger of
the management and IT consulting company Diebold, founded in 1954, and the
telecommunications consultancy Detecon, founded in 1977. Our services focus on consulting
and implementation solutions which are derived from the use of information and
communications technology (ICT). All around the globe, clients from virtually all industries
profit from our holistic know-how in questions of strategy and organizational design and in the
use of state-of-the-art technologies.
Detecon’s know-how bundles the knowledge from the successful conclusion of management
and ICT projects in more than 160 countries. We are represented globally by subsidiaries,
affiliates, and project offices. Detecon is a subsidiary of T-Systems International, the business
customer brand of Deutsche Telekom. In our capacity as consultants, we are able to benefit
from the infrastructure of a global player spanning our planet.
Know-how and hands-on expertise
The rapid development of information and telecommunications technologies has an

increasingly significant influence on the strategies of companies as well as on the processes
within an organization. The subsequent complex adaptations affect business models and
corporate structures, not only technological applications.
Our services for ICT management encompass classic strategy and organization consulting as
well as the planning and implementation of highly complex, technological ICT architectures
and applications. We are independent of manufacturers and obligated solely to our client's
success.
Detecon International GmbH

Sternengasse 14 - 16
50676 Cologne
Phone: +49 221 9161 0
E-Mail: info@detecon.com
Internet: www.detecon.com

www.detecon.com

Op 5g New Radio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Op 5g New Radio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opinion Paper

Sample image: Please contact graphicspool@detecon.com for a specific cover image

Potential first steps in 5G New Radio

Opinion Paper 2 Detecon International GmbH

The paper emphasizes some practical challenges of network deployments at different

Opinion Paper 3 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 4 Detecon International GmbH

The paper emphasizes some practical challenges of network deployments at different

Opinion Paper 5 Detecon International GmbH

Figure 1: equivalent evolution of mobile technologies

Opinion Paper 6 Detecon International GmbH

TDD as more favorable 5G-NR solution than FDD

In mobile communications, two main spectrum usage options exist:

Opinion Paper 7 Detecon International GmbH

Table 1: ITU-TDD-band definitions

Opinion Paper 8 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 9 Detecon International GmbH

Deployment options for 5G-NR

Opinion Paper 10 Detecon International GmbH

LTE-FDD, 2*2MIMO 1.8 bps/Hz 5G-NR to 4G-LTE ratio 2

Opinion Paper 11 Detecon International GmbH

Massive MIMO vs higher order MIMO

Opinion Paper 12 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 13 Detecon International GmbH

8. Reduction of transmit powers to reach administrative EIRP threshold (in Germany of

Opinion Paper 14 Detecon International GmbH

in business cases. Equipment vendors might offer 5G managed services to industries

Opinion Paper 15 Detecon International GmbH

MOCN (Multi-Operator Core Network) – Wireless Open Access Network

MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs MVNOs

Future multi-hop mesh networks for IoT-based devices

Opinion Paper 16 Detecon International GmbH

Multi-Hop network scenario

Direct access with licensed spectrum

D2D Advantage Challenge

5G will support novel schemes/hierarchies of network controlled device-to-device (D2D)

Opinion Paper 17 Detecon International GmbH

5G RAN related key messages:

5G deployment related key messages:

Opinion Paper 18 Detecon International GmbH

higher order MIMO (hoMIMO), the number of controllable(!) antenna-sub-arrays

5G Spectrum related key messages:

Opinion Paper 19 Detecon International GmbH

Sharing related key messages:

Opinion Paper 20 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 21 Detecon International GmbH

3GPP Start Short description

Analogue voice service

Digital voice service; basic data.

Digital voice (CS) , data (PS) and high speed HS

Broadband data service only, voice services via packet.

Opinion Paper 22 Detecon International GmbH

In most countries, FDD-systems are deployed in <1GHz-bands for

In the new radio, the resources might be filtered (windowing) to reduce

Table 2: simplified comparison of 3GPP technologies15

Opinion Paper 23 Detecon International GmbH

Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA): for mMTC (massive Machine Type

Opinion Paper 24 Detecon International GmbH

Potential TDD bands

IMT450 (TDD-extension of band 31): 380-470MHz

Currently FDD-band 31 (452.5-457.5 // 462.5-467.5MHz) use 2*5MHz partly refarmed from

Opinion Paper 25 Detecon International GmbH

Spectrum efficient usage of centralized frequency resource management