LRTC 3.4 – 3.8 GHz Ericsson input PT1 XO 29 – 31/10 2012 Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS 2011-10-19 7/4/20182011-10-19 2012-10-12 LRTC 3.4 – 3.8 GHz Ericsson input PT1 XO 29 – 31/10 2012 © Ericsson AB 2012 1 1

Introduction The results in this contribution are preliminary and depend on parameters that may need to be modified. In some cases new system/deployment parameters are proposed to reflect realistic scenarios.

Contents BS – BS macro, micro, pico and femto MCL analysis (baseline BEM) & proposals for modifications to mobile system/deployment parameters BS – BS simulation analysis BS – UE analysis, initial work Proposed further work

BS – BS MCL analysis LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 7/4/20182011-10-19 2011-10-19 2012-10-12 BS – BS MCL analysis © Ericsson AB 2012 4 4 4

ECC decision on FQ Arr & BS-BS FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE 3400-3600 MHZ BAND BASED ON TDD 3400 MHz 3600 MHz 5 FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE 3400-3600 MHz BAND BASED ON FDD FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE 3600-3800 MHz BAND BASED ON TDD

BS – BS interference scenarios and general considerations Bands 22 (FDD) / 42 (TDD) Band 43 3400 MHz 3600 MHz 3800 MHz 5 Uplink Duplex Gap Downlink 3410 MHz 3490 MHz 3510 MHz 3590 MHz 5 Size of arrows do not represent magnitude of interference! Fq arr with TDD only (3.4 – 3.8 GHz) will not introduce any new scenarios. Interference from FDD DL to FDD UL is resolved by specs for FDD technologies. Note ”guard band” 3590 – 3600 GHz and additional spurious emission requirements in 3GPP specs for band 22 into band 43 and vice versa (applied in Europe), roughly -50 dBm/MHz, 20 dB lower than normal spurious. What about additional receiver requirements? In case of TDD system synchronization and aligned UL/DL configurations, there is no interference (relaxation of requirements due to agreement between operators), so only unsynch/non-alignment needs to be considered for BS-BS interference within bands 42 and 43.

Parameter set #1 (draft report) MACRO MICRO PICO FEMTO Tx Power 46 dBm 37 dBm 24 dBm 20 dBm Antenna Height 30 m 6 m 3 m 1 m Antenna Gain 17 dBi 9 dBi 0 dBi Feeder Loss 0 dB Noise Figure 5 dB 13 dB Antenna Tilt Loss 3dB M-M Actual angle o/w 3D omni ACLR 45 dB 43 dB COMMON PARAMETERS Propagation Model Free Space Frequency 3.5 GHz Bandwidth 10 MHz I/N Objective - 6 dB Penetration Loss for NLOS 18 dB Direct Horizontal Distance MACRO MICRO PICO FEMTO 70 m 30 m 20 m 15 m 5 m

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS 7/4/20182011-10-19 2012-10-12 ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db Rows represent the aggressing BS Columns represent the victim BS Additional Required Isolation: The amount of isolation required to meet the I/N criteria of -6 dB MACRO MICRO PICO LOS PICO NLOS Femto NLOS 53.77 32.69 12.86 -3.30 46.131 47.653 33.152 15.152 22.131 26.152 18.694 0.694 Pico NLOS 4.13 8.152 0.131 4.15 -3.305 © Ericsson AB 2012 8 8

OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS 2012-10-12 7/4/20182011-10-19 OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz MACRO MICRO PICO LOS PICO NLOS Femto NLOS -38.77 -38.98 -19.72 -3.55 -22.69 -44.653 -30.152 -12.152 -21.69 -47.152 -39.694 -21.694 Pico NLOS -3.69 -29.152 -3.053 -29.15 © Ericsson AB 2012 9 9

consideration of parameters and scenarios Co-sited macro base stations (antenna isolation < isolation from 70 m horizontal separation)? Possibly unrealistic BEM Solved by operator coordination instead of tighter BEM? Noise figure for micro base stations Propose 8 dB (from 3GPP) Micro base station power and antenna gain Currently worst worst case? Propose 35 dBm and 6 dBi (F.1336 omni peak) Other configurations to be handled by coordination Distance between micro and pico base stations pico: perhaps 10 meters more realistic? micro: 20 m worst worst case? 40 – 50 m instead? However what if located at intersection, or small city square? Distances between all combinations of macro, micro and pico base stations are needed, see proposed values above and below.

Parameter set #2, proposed modifications MACRO MICRO PICO FEMTO Tx Power 46 dBm 35 dBm 24 dBm 20 dBm Antenna Height 30 m 6 m 3 m 1 m Antenna Gain 17 dBi 6 dBi 0 dBi Antenna Type ITU-R F.1336 Sectorized Peak Gain ITU-R F.1336 Omni Peak Gain (k=0.7) Feeder Loss 0 dB Noise Figure 5 dB 8 dB 13 dB Antenna Tilt 6 degrees COMMON PARAMETERS Propagation Model Free Space Frequency 3.5 GHz Bandwidth 10 MHz I/N Objective - 6 dB Penetration Loss for NLOS 18 dB Direct Horizontal Distance MACRO MICRO PICO FEMTO 70 m 30 m 20 m 15 m 5 m & 10 m 5 m

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db/10 mhz Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS 7/4/20182011-10-19 2012-10-12 ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db/10 mhz Rows represent the aggressing BS Columns represent the victim BS Additional Required Isolation: The amount of isolation required to meet the I/N criteria of -6 dB MACRO MICRO PICO LOS PICO NLOS Femto NLOS 46.013 15.75 12.866 -5.133 -5.952 9.751 36.65 25.868 7.868 4.036 PICO LOS -1.133 17.868 18.69 ; 12.67 (5m ; 10m) 0.694 ; -5.32 -0.95 ; -5.74 -19.133 -0.131 -23.952 -7.963 -4.95 ; -9.74 © Ericsson AB 2012 12 12

OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS 2012-10-12 7/4/20182011-10-19 OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz MACRO MICRO PICO LOS PICO NLOS Femto NLOS -34.89 -22.04 -19.726 -1.726 -1.259 -22.69 -38.65 -29.856 -11.856 -11.358 -21.69 -38.994 -39.69 ; -33.67 (5m ; 10m) 0.694 ; -15.67 -20.54 ; -15.37 Pico NLOS -3.694 -20.994 -3.053 -17.372 © Ericsson AB 2012 13 13

Macro to Macro Simulation Results

2011-08-31 Deployment Scenario Offsetted Deployment  System 2 located at cell edge of System 1 Distance (m) 15

Simulaton Parameters Parameter Assumption/Value Simulation case 3GPP Case 1 Cellular layout Hexagonal grid, 19 sites, 3 sectors per site, wrap‑around Total eNB TX power (Ptotal) 46dBm Inter-site distance (ISD) Case 1 500m Deployment type Offsetted deployment System 2 Location Cell edge of System 1 Distance-dependent Path loss(dB) eNB-UE PL=128.1+37.6*log10(R),R in km eNB-eNB PL=98.45+20*log10(R),R in km Shadowing standard deviation Macro-UE 8 dB Shadowing correlation Between sites 0.5 Between cells per site 1.0

Simulaton Parameters Parameter Assumption/Value Carrier frequency 2 GHz Bandwidth 10 MHz Minimum distance between UE and BS 35m Deployment area Urban BS Height 30 m Mobile Station Height 1.5 m Maximum Coupling loss -70 dB Antenna pattern for macro eNBs to UEs (horizontal 2D) = 65 degrees, Am = 20 dB (65 degree horizontal beamwidth) BS antenna gain (incl. cable loss) 15dBi UE antenna gain 0 dBi UE noise figure 9 dB UE Power Minimum  -40 dBm, Maximum  23 dBm Sub-band noise power (DL) -142.4473 eNB noise figure 5dB PC Alpha 0.8 P0 -83.89 (SNR Target + Pnoise) SNR Target 10 dB

Simulation Results BS- to-BS Interference Scenario

Simulation Results BS- to-BS Interference Scenario

BS – UE Simulation study LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 7/4/20182011-10-19 2011-10-19 2012-10-12 BS – UE Simulation study © Ericsson AB 2012 20 20 20

External Interference Resource Block Collision (Causing Interference) 2011-08-31 Simulation Results BS- to-UE Interference Scenario time f Frequency Resources in the Cells UE System: 2 External Interference BS of System 1 BS of System 2 Downlink Downlink UE System: 1 - Both UEs Scheduled on Same Resource Block Desired Signal Resource Block Collision (Causing Interference) Signal Causing Interference 21

BS – UE interference scenarios and General observations Bands 22 (FDD) / 42 (TDD) Band 43 3400 MHz 3600 MHz 3800 MHz 5 Uplink Duplex Gap Downlink 3410 MHz 3490 MHz 3510 MHz 3590 MHz 5 The BS – UE interference is identical to that in a standard FDD scenario (BS interfering adjacent channel downlink). Since current networks (macro, micro, pico, femto?) can be operated without problems, we shouldn’t expect any difficulties in 3.4 – 3.8 GHz either. However some simulation results won’t hurt, if available. There will be similar in-block interference scenarios In some cases BS adjacent channel leakage will be reduced due to BEM requirements from BS-BS interference, UE will be bottleneck.

Simulation parameters Same as for BS – BS simulations.

2011-08-31 Simulation Results BS- to-UE Interference Scenario 24

2011-08-31 Simulation Results BS- to-UE Interference Scenario 25

the way forward LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 7/4/20182011-10-19 2011-10-19 2012-10-12 the way forward © Ericsson AB 2012 26 26 26

Further work ”Transitional BEM” and size of ”restricted channel” Feasibility for equipment, also receiver side BS-UE: Macro-micro, Macro-pico, micro-pico, and vice versa. All scenarios? Work method? Tools? Simulation parameters? LRTC to limit interference to adjacent services: FS FSS

LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41 2012-10-12 7/4/20182011-10-19 © Ericsson AB 2012 28 28