SenzaFili SMCLBKH FullReport

Report Backhaul for small cells
Backhaul for small cells

Finding the right cost/performance tradeoffs
to meet the backhaul challenge
By Monica Paolini
SENZA
CONSULTING
Table of contents
1. The backhaul challenge 5

2. Report scope and roadmap 6
3. A new backhaul paradigm 7
4. Defining small cells and deployment typologies 8
5. Backhaul requirements 10
6. Fiber or wireless? 12
7. Wireless options: spectrum tradeoffs 13
8. A decision tree: Fiber, LOS or NLOS, licensed or unlicensed? 16
9. Topologies 18
10. Opportunistic deployment models 20
11. Integrated backhaul in a single-box form factor 22
12. Vendor strategies 24
13. Vendor innovation 25
14. Financial analysis: assumptions 34
15. Sensitivity analysis: fiber 37
16. What is cheapest: PTP or PMP? LOS or NLOS? 38
17. Cost reduction with single-box integrated backhaul 41
18. LOS relays: how much do they add to the TCO? 42
19. Cost savings with a wholesale model 43
20. Findings 45
21. In their own words 46
2012 Senza Fili Consulting www.senzafiliconsulting.com Reproduction and redistribution prohibited |2|
List of figures
Figure 1. Bakchaul for macro and small cells: basic topology 7
Figure 3. Survey results: small-cell backhaul capacity requirements 11
Figure 4. Backhaul capacity requirements 11
Figure 5. Survey results: Percentage of small cells using fiber for backhaul 12
Figure 6. Trenching costs for fiber compared to cost of wireless backhaul link 12
Figure 7. Survey results: Most-used spectrum bands 13
Figure 8. Small-cell backhaul decision tree 16
Figure 9. Small-cell topologies 18
Figure 10. Small-cell hybrid topology 18
Figure 11. Total capacity requirements in a small-cell hub 20
Figure 12. Impact of topology on spectrum choice 21
Figure 13. Vendors' solutions for small-cell backhaul by spectrum band and architecture 26
Figure 14. Cost of sub-6 GHz spectrum: comparison of FDD and TDD bands. 27
Figure 15. Huawei eRelay terminal equipment 30
Figure 16. Vendor solutions by volume (cubic cm) and equipment weight (kg) 30
Figure 17. Taqua W-Series 31
Figure 18. BLiNQ X100 31
Figure 19. Vendor solutions by capacity (mbps) and power consumption (Watt) 31
Figure 20. BridgeWave PicoHaul 32
Figure 21. Siklus EtherHaul-600 33
Figure 22. Sub10 Liberator 33
Figure 23. E-Band E-Link 1000LR 33
Figure 24. Backhaul as percentage of total equipment costs 34
Figure 25. Small-cell cumulative capex and opex over a five-year period 35
Figure 26. Spectrum costs per small cell for the sub-6 GHz spectrum 36
Figure 27. Capex with variable trenching costs; opex with variable leased fiber costs 37
Figure 28. Cost savings from PTP-LE, PMP-L and PMP-LE compared to PTP-L 38
Figure 29. Cost impact of number of cells per hub in PMP-L on equipment, backhaul TCO and small-cell TCO 39
Figure 30. TCO per mbps 40
Figure 31. Cost savings from integrated (single-box) backhaul 41
Figure 32. Cost of adding a relay to a LOS link 42
Figure 33. Wholesale model cost savings on backhaul and small-cell TCO 44
List of tables
Table 1. Macro and small-cell backhaul compared 7
Table 2. What is a small cell? 8
Table 2. Deployment typologies 9
Table 3. Backhaul requirements 10
Table 4. Spectrum options: tradeoffs 13
Table 5. Spectrum options: comparison 15
Table 6. Choosing among topologies 19
Table 7. Integrated backhaul: requirement or option? 22
Table 8. Comparison of vendors' solutions 28
Table 7. Backhaul options compared in the financial analysis 34
Table 11. Cost assumptions 35
Table 12. PTP or PMP? 40
Table 13. Wholesale models 43
1. The backhaul challenge
Small cells have emerged from the realization that the traditional macro-cell topology large, we do not yet have conclusive answers, because mobile operators and their
cannot cope with the traffic loads seen in high-density locations today or expected in a vendors are still going through a steep learning curve, but some trends are emerging.
few years. Small cells in multi-layer heterogeneous networks (HetNet) will bring relief to
the macro network and enable a more intensive use of limited spectrum assets. Most mobile operators we talked to see small cells as a fundamental shift in how they
plan and deploy their networks in the long term. In the short term, however, small cells
Mobile operators will benefit from small cell as they address the growth in data adoption will be deployed gradually, only as congestion grows and as operators have access to the
and traffic. To ensure that small cells will meet their requirements, they have been required funding. Despite some interest in third-generation (3G) small cells, operators
instrumental in driving specifications and product development for small cells. agree that it will be Long Term Evolution (LTE) that will drive large-scale deployments. We
Nevertheless, much of the initial skepticism about small-cell performance and cost has expect operators to start deploying small cells in large volume only when LTE networks
come from mobile operators as small cells force operators to radical changes in the way are at capacity and this will not happen in the immediate future, because the LTE
they plan and manage their networks. networks have been launched only recently, and most of their subscribers are still on 2G
and 3G networks.
The move from traditional telecom assets, such as cell towers or the roofs of high-rise
buildings, used for macro cells to the lampposts and building walls where small cells As operators try to develop a model to deploy small cells, backhaul is consistently named
reside is a game changer. From an operational viewpoint, these nontelecom assets are a as a top challenge. Backhaul is an area where the macro model quickly breaks down.
nightmare for planning, permitting, deploying, managing, and maintaining. The Mature solutions for macro-layer backhaul microwave and fiber are not sufficient to
traditional model of rolling out base stations on cell towers and building roofs does not meet the requirements of small cells. Costs and performance requirements make the
scale to small cells a fundamentally new approach is needed. small-cell backhaul market fundamentally different from the macro backhaul market.
Yet, over the last year there has been a rapid alignment among mobile operators. They Overall, operators are confident that, from a technology perspective, solutions will
now agree that small cells will be necessary, and that now is the right time to start become available to meet their cost and performance requirements when they will start
planning for them. Some operators have started limited deployments, but most of the their deployments. But it is equally clear that multiple technologies and solutions will be
activity is still in trials, product evaluation, and business planning. necessary. No single solution will suffice, and the debate is about what are the best
solutions in terms of technology, spectrum, line-of-sight (LOS), architecture, topology,
The wider appreciation for the benefits of small cells has led to a correspondingly deeper and form factor for specific environments.
understanding of the challenges they bring. Questions about small cells have not gone
away, but they have evolved from high-level ones about whether a shift to a multi-layer This report provides an overview of the tradeoffs involved in the backhaul choice; it also
topology is warranted or even possible, to much more specific ones on how to most provides tools to support mobile operators efforts to develop their small-cell backhaul
effectively deploy small cells in challenging radio frequency (RF) environments. By and strategy and vendors' assessment of their product roadmap.
2. Report scope and roadmap
The challenges posed by small-cell backhaul have to be addressed before we will see We also report on a short online survey that confirms our much more detailed findings
large commercial deployments. According to some of the operators we interviewed, the from the interviews.
lack of a good framework for small-cell backhaul is slowing down planning and may
single-handedly stunt the growth of the entire small-cell market. The report is organized in four parts:
At the same time, there is no expectation that a single technology, spectrum band, Requirements (sections 3 to 0). The sections include definitions, deployment
equipment form factor, or topology will be the one-size-fits-all solution that would be typologies and requirements for small-cell backhaul solutions.
ideal to keep complexity and costs down. What operators are looking for is the right Solutions (sections 0 to 12). These sections assess different technologies (fiber,
balance that will optimize cost/performance tradeoffs. While we expect the needle
wireless), spectrum bands (sub-6 GHz, microwave, millimeter wave [MMW];
pointing at different directions depending on the environment that each operator covers,
licensed and license-exempt bands), architectures (line of sight versus non LOS
we have identified some guidelines that are emerging at the intersection between: [NLOS]; point to point [PTP] versus point to multipoint [PMP]), topologies, form
factors, and deployment models.
A better understanding among mobile operators of their requirements in terms of
cost, performance, scale, installation restrictions, spectrum availability, and timing Vendors (sections 13 and 14). These sections discuss vendor strategies and profile
Advances in product planning from the vendor community both for backhaul and for innovative solutions.
radio access network (RAN) equipment. Financial analysis (sections 16 to 0). These sections look at the financial tradeoffs of
In this report we focus on the tradeoffs that mobile operators face as they develop their different choices, including fiber versus wireless, PTP versus PMP, LOS versus NLOS,
small-cell backhaul strategy, and that vendors have to take into account as they develop and at the cost impact of integrated backhaul, relays, and wholesale business
the equipment that the market demands. models.
At the end, we summarize our findings (section 22) and let the vendors say what makes
Our analysis is based on a wide set of in-depth interviews with mobile operators and
their solutions stand out in the market (In their own words, section 23).
vendors that covered:
Technologies that will enable small-cell deployments

Backhaul topologies that will work in different environments
Cost/performance requirements that backhaul equipment has to meet to build a
solid business model
Vendor solutions that are available or will be introduced in the market.
4. A new backhaul paradigm
Functionally, small-cell backhaul is a type of mobile backhaul that transports traffic to an In a macro-cell network, backhaul links to the aggregation point have high capacity and
aggregation point (AP), in the same way that fiber or wireless backhaul in the macro-cell high reliability requirements (Figure 1). In a multi-layer network with small cells, small
layer does. Yet the requirements are sufficiently different (Table 1) that macro-cell and cells can have a backhaul link to a macro station, which aggregates the traffic over its
small-cell backhaul are essentially different, barely overlapping markets, with products backhaul link to an aggregation point further in the network. This approach allows mobile
having different form factors, features, and performance expectations. operators to leverage their existing infrastructure and backhaul connectivity, and
facilitates the coordination of transmission between the macro and small layers. At the
Table 1. Macro and small-cell backhaul compared same time, it imposes a further load on the macro-layer backhaul, which increases
Macro-cell layer Small-cell layer capacity requirements and backhaul costs. Alternatively, the aggregation point for small-
Ideally carrier-grade equipment, but in cell backhaul can be a location with fiber connectivity.
Carrier-grade, high-reliability equipment many environments reliability requirements
can be relaxed
Equipment to maximize performance and Compact equipment, with low power
reliability, even if this means higher costs consumption, built-in antenna, and low cost
and larger equipment ($2,000/link for volume purchases)
Installed mostly on lampposts, utility posts,
external building walls, etc., closer to street
Installation on cell towers and the roofs of
level. Easy and fast to install, with ability to
high-rise buildings
use self-organizing networks (SON)
functionality
A highly variable percentage of sites (we
LOS commonly available have seen estimates ranging from 20% to
80%) are not within LOS
Long distances required, making MMW
Short distance required and preferred,
spectrum attractive only in metropolitan
because this allows for more intensive
areas where links are shorter. Microwave
spectrum reuse. For this reason, MMW is
spectrum is ideally suited for macro-cell
preferred to microwave spectrum
backhaul
NLOS license-exempt spectrum to be used
Licensed spectrum, with some rural
where no other NLOS spectrum is available Figure 1. Bakchaul for macro and small cells: basic topology
locations as possible exceptions
and LOS links/relays are not possible
5. Defining small cells and deployment typologies
Before we tackle their backhaul requirements, we need to define what small cells are and Table 2. What is a small cell?
where we should expect to encounter them. Interfaces We do not exclude an interface (2G, 3G, LTE, and Wi-Fi) from being
supported, as we believe that eventually small cells will support multiple
To encompass most operators plans for small-cell deployments, we have adopted an interfaces, but the throughput and latency requirements we use rest on
inclusive definition of small cells, with two important exclusions: the assumption that LTE will be the shared interface, with the others as
optional.
Sectorization The typical small-cell configuration will have a single sector, and often it
Residential or enterprise femto cells that operators do not install or control.
will have an omnidirectional antenna. However, we expect to see a
Typically operators sell femto cells or provide them free of charge to their growing percentage of small cells supporting multiple sectors, when
subscribers, who use then within their premises. They are excluded from this report located in top high-traffic areas or where most traffic originates from
because these femto cells do not required dedicated backhaul and they use the well-defined areas (e.g., by a road intersection, if most traffic comes
broadband connection to the home or business location. from cars or buses).
Wi-Fi hotspots, even though they have backhaul requirements that are comparable Coverage Up to 200 meters radius, but we expect that most small cells will have a
to small cells. While in the future we expect small cells to include Wi-Fi as an sub-50 meter range.
additional wireless interface to be included within the small-cell enclosure, today in Form factor Up to 10 kg compact enclosure, typically with a system-on-a-chip (SoC)
architecture, with integrated antennas. Small cells can be installed on a
most cases they use available wireline broadband links that are not carrier-grade.
variety of street-level or indoor assets, including utility poles, building
Basically this leaves small cells to be defined as any base station that is between a macro walls, and multiple system operator (MSO) cable strands. For some
cell and a femto cell, with a few restrictions (Table 2). A flexible definition is in order here operators, a one-box form factor (small cell and backhaul module, with
antenna in the same enclosure) is a desirable or required form factor.
both because small-cell form factors are still being defined as vendors develop their
Small-to- The ratio of small cells to macro cells is still subject to heated debate, but
products, and because operators will benefit from (and require) different small-cell form
macro ratio eventually it will depend on how rapidly traffic grows. We expect to see
factors for different environments and markets. In indoor locations, small cells with a variation in small-cell density depending on location, but we are not
small enclosure, less power, and a restricted range are likely to be the best fit for most placing specific constraints on this.
operators. In rural locations, small cells typically need to be ruggedized and cover a wider Capacity We expect the capacity to be in line with LTE capabilities, spectrum
area, but they can have more power and be larger. City planners have also started to list bandwidth, and number of sectors, so it can range from the 10 mbps to
specific limitations in what they allow on their streets, and these will have an impact on the gbps region, with a typical backhaul requirement below 100 mbps in
the form factors that mobile operators will be able to select. the short to medium term.
Not only will small cells vary in features and form factor, but they will be used in different
deployment typologies (Table 2), which will greatly affect the backhaul options that are
available, meet the requirements, and are cost effective.
Table 3. Deployment typologies
Indoor Indoor small cells are used to increase capacity in indoor locations that are difficult to reach from outdoor locations, or to provide better indoor coverage
and capacity. Indoor small cells reduce the impact of interference with the macro layer and can improve network utilization, but to install and maintain
them, operators need a relationship with real estate owners. As a result, most mobile operators initially opt for outdoor small cells. Examples include
operator-driven deployments in the enterprise, airports, malls, hospitals, educational establishments, and hotels.
Backhaul considerations: Wireline backhaul is mostly used, although in buildings with limited wireline availability or access, wireless links can be used to
create small local networks (e.g., covering one floor of a building).
Outdoor dense urban Initially, this will be the most common deployment scenario. Mobile operators identify areas of high data traffic that cannot be served exclusively by the
macro layer, and install outdoor small cells to provide the additional capacity needed. Small cells are to be installed at street level on nontelecom assets,
such as lampposts or outside building walls.
Backhaul considerations: Although small cells are often in close proximity to fiber, in most cases it is too expensive to take fiber to the small cell and then
pay for the leasing fees. Instead, in most markets it is more cost-effective to use wireless backhaul to aggregate traffic at a location with fiber. Limited
availability of LOS locations and restricted/expensive access to street-level installation locations act as major constraints in the choice of backhaul
solutions.
Outdoor high-traffic ex- Outside urban areas, there are pockets with high traffic loads. They can be transportation hot spots (e.g., train stations, park-and-ride locations, busy
urban intersections), or other locations such as parks, museums, or stadiums.
Backhaul considerations: Backhaul selection is similar to that for dense urban areas, but often with more restricted but less expensive fiber access, and
greater availability of LOS.
Outdoor - rural Some rural areas have small pockets of relatively high traffic, such as small villages, groups of houses, or tourist locations. While the macro layer provides
coverage, small cells may provide the additional capacity where needed.
Backhaul considerations: In most cases we envision a LOS wireless point-to-point link to the macro site, with few if any restrictions on size or form factor.
Low power consumption may be a requirement in some areas, especially in developing countries
6. Backhaul requirements
Backhaul requirements (Table 4) vary depending on the deployment typology and the Table 4. Backhaul requirements
capacity of the small cell. With respect to deployment typologies, requirements vary as LOS A combination of LOS and non-LOS (NLOS) solutions is needed to cover a
follows: typical outdoor small-cell deployment; the operator's decision of where
to use each is dependent on factors such as topology, RF environment,
Indoor locations tend to have a higher density of lower-capacity locations, typically and spectrum availability
connected with wireline backhaul, so the throughput and power requirements are Throughput 100 mbps at the edge, up to > 1 gbps at aggregation points (see section
10)
often less stringent. Where wireless backhaul is used, link distances required are
shorter and simple topologies with few nodes are used. A compact, unobtrusive Latency 5 ms
design is required. Link distance 50 to 100 m at the edge, up to 400 m to aggregation point
Antennas Compact design, with integrated antenna within the equipment.
Outdoor locations in dense urban areas are the most challenging ones for backhaul,
Remote alignment capabilities
as LOS is unavailable in a high percentage of locations. Throughput varies, but some
Form factor Many operators prefer a single-box small cell with a fully integrated
small cells with multiple interfaces (e.g., Wi-Fi, 3G, and LTE) and / or multiple sectors backhaul module that can support different wireless and wireline
generate traffic levels that in some cases may reach 1 gbps in a few years time. Only solutions. Public/city agencies increasingly impose requirements on as
moderate link distances are required, but a compact form factor and easy color, size, safety features, etc. Relays are required to connect small cells
installation are crucial to keeping deployment and site rental costs down, and to not within LOS
facilitate the permitting process. Power Power over Ethernet (PoE)
Topologies Star, hub-and-spoke, ring, hybrid, and mesh topologies (see section 10),
Outdoor locations in high-traffic areas nonurban areas have requirements similar to supported with multiple hops supported at required latency. Up to 10 hops may be
those of dense urban areas, but may require longer links and have more relaxed used with licensed spectrum; up to two for unlicensed spectrum
form-factor requirements. Installation Easy to install, configure, and, for LOS equipment, align. Remote
alignment for LOS link is a valuable option
Rural locations have LOS more frequently, and do not require a highly compact
LTE- Support for SON, inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) and, when
design as long as ease of installation is preserved, but they need longer links. In Advanced available, enhanced ICIC (eICIC).
many instances, the throughput requirements are lower, because rural small cells Meet latency requirements for the X2 interface
carry the traffic from areas that have only a moderate concentration of traffic
compared to dense urban areas.
A recent survey on small-cell backhaul found backhaul throughput requirements to be
mostly around 100 mbps (Figure 2). This number can be higher if small cells combine
multiple air-interface modules (Figure 3). An LTE small cell can support Wi-Fi for a tiny
marginal cost, so vendors increasingly support Wi-Fi in their small cells. It gives them
extra capacity almost for free. At the same time, an LTE small cell may also include
support for 3G to support subscribers who do not yet have an LTE handset. In some
locations, multiple-sector small cells may be deployed to use a narrow beam to cover
areas where traffic is concentrated. For instance, a small cell at the center of a four-way
intersection may use four sectors, each with a beam aligned in the direction of a branch
of the intersection.
Figure 3. Backhaul capacity requirements

LTE-A = LTE-Advanced; HSPA = High Speed Packet Access
Figure 2. Survey results: small-cell backhaul capacity requirements
7. Fiber or wireless?
With backhaul capacity and latency being major concerns, and with the increasing
availability and affordability of fiber, shouldnt fiber be the most commonly adopted
backhaul solution? Our survey (Figure 4) indicates that only a minority of links will use
fiber for backhaul. The reasons are easy to understand:
Fiber can be quite expensive both to install and to lease, if it is available at all.
Performance requirements for small-cell backhaul can be met by both fiber and
wireless backhaul.
Operators that own a fiber network or have a privileged relationship with the incumbent
fiber service provider will undoubtedly use fiber at many locations. Many operators have
no such relationship, and they have to pay market prices for fiber leases, which
especially in emerging countries are often too high to justify fiber backhaul for a small Figure 4. Survey results: Percentage of small cells using fiber for backhaul
cell, especially when compared to the very low opex that most wireless solutions require.
Even operators that own a fiber network may decide to use wireless backhaul for those
cells that are far from fiber, or where fiber cannot be easily brought to the small cell.
Trenching costs alone (Figure 5) can be multiples of the cost of wireless equipment. In
most urban locations fiber is available near a small-cell location. But to bring it to the
utility pole or lamppost requires expensive digging and time-consuming permitting
procedures. In some locations, it can be challenging to bring fiber from the ground up to
the small cell, and it adds an expense.
Depending on the trenching costs, the market conditions, and the wireless alternatives
available, operators will find fiber to be cost effective in a highly variable percentage of
small-cell sites among those where fiber is available.
Fiber availability, however, is crucial in small-cell deployments. In most cases, fiber is

available at the aggregation point and the aggregation point (one small-cell location,
the macro-cell site, or another location) may be selected specifically because it has fiber
connectivity.
Figure 5. Trenching costs for fiber compared to cost of wireless backhaul link
8. Wireless options: spectrum tradeoffs
What wireless backhaul option should an operator select where fiber is not available or Table 5. Spectrum options: tradeoffs
cost effective? Multiple options are available, and none works in all markets or for all Sub-6 GHz Sub-6 GHz is the ideal spectrum for small-cell backhaul
locations within a market. The basic features of different solutions depend on the type of licensed because it gives operators the flexibility to reach locations
spectrum used. Table 5 lists the benefits and disadvantages of the bands considered, and that are not within LOS, and makes it easier to combine
eNodeB and backhaul in a single enclosure. PMP
Table 6 compares their key features.
architecture is the most common, but PTP can also be
used.
However, most operators cannot freely choose among the available options, because
The downsides that severely restrict adoption are that
spectrum availability, deployment environment, and capacity requirements constrain the
available bands in sub-6 GHz spectrum are scarce and
choice, often to the point that only one spectrum band is suitable for a given small cell. expensive, and that they commonly come in narrow
Our survey shows that the sub-6 GHz licensed bands and the 60 GHz band are going to be channels that have limited capacity, especially when used
the most heavily used (Figure 6). Our interviews with mobile operators also indicate an in a NLOS environment.
increasing focus on these two bands as the ones ideally suited to address small cells The capacity limitations are compounded in a PMP
specific requirements in a NLOS and LOS environment, respectively. architecture, where available capacity is shared among
cells in the PMP network and frequency reuse is limited.
Compared to a PTP architecture, the operator gets less
capacity for the same spectrum within the same area: With
PTP the operator can pack many links (especially with
MWW spectrum) within the coverage area of one PMP
network using the same spectrum.
As a result, only operators with sufficient access to the sub-
6 GHz licensed spectrum can use this solution, and only at
the edge of small-cell networks, where capacity
requirements are lower.
Sub-6 GHz Mobile operators are understandably leery of using license-
license- exempt spectrum for backhaul, because they cannot
exempt control throughput and manage interference. Even if
interference is low when they deploy the links, it may
become unmanageable at any point in time, since
everybody has equal rights to use the spectrum.
Figure 6. Survey results: Most-used spectrum bands
In many areas, especially the dense urban areas that small
cells target, interference in these intensely used bands is
already high, thus discouraging further mobile operators
from relying on these bands for backhaul. 60 GHz band not well suited to covering long-distance links
However, these bands offer a temporary or fallback is beneficial in a small-cell environment, where short range
solution to operators that do not have access to sub-6 GHz translates into less interference among adjacent links and,
licensed spectrum and have small cells with NLOS. In these hence, greater spectrum reuse.
circumstances, many operators we talked to prefer to use a The high frequency also allows for smaller antennas, which
60 GHz relay hop between the small cell and the are a requirement for small-cell installations.
aggregation point to establish LOS. A relay increases the However, LOS requirements make it difficult to integrate
costs but protects the investment more effectively and the backhaul module within the small cell.
improves performance.
No channelization or antenna design requirements
Microwave Microwave is by far the spectrum band most commonly increase the flexibility of the solutions in this band, making
PTP/PMP used for cellular backhaul. Microwave backhaul is a mature it possible to reduce the antenna size and widen the beam
solution, with many vendors providing equipment, at a width.
steady decline in price. Yet microwave has very strong
Low-cost equipment is available from an increasing
competition in the small-cell market because it combines
number of vendors and makes it possible to use relay links
some of the disadvantages of other bands without
to overcome LOS limitations (see section 10).
providing a unique benefit.
Unlike sub-6 GHz bands, microwave requires LOS. Where 7080 GHz This licensed band is inexpensive, but in most countries it is
there is LOS, a mobile operator is better off using 60 GHz or (e-band) subject to tight regulations dictating specific antenna
e-band, because they have smaller antennas, more designs and channelization, which result in bigger antennas
capacity, and lower spectrum costs. Because microwave compared to the 60 GHz band. Regulatory changes are
links can reach more-distant locations, they can be used in expected to remove these constraints in some markets,
rural small-cell deployments or other locations where the and will increase the attractiveness of this band for small-
small cell is far from the aggregation point. For cell backhaul.
metropolitan locations, the longer radius can become a In some countries, including the US, links are licensed and
liability, because it decreases the ability to reuse spectrum registered in a database, which means interference can be
(i.e., to use multiple links in the same area, thereby more effectively avoided or managed, thus protecting the
increasing the capacity density, measured in mbps per operators investment in the backhaul equipment.
square mile). In areas where microwave backhaul is used Like the 60 GHz band, e-band is prone to atmospheric
intensively, additional spectrum for small cells may not be attenuation and rain fade, but the effect of oxygen
available at all target locations. attenuation is much smaller.
In some bands and countries, regulatory requirements Still, it is a wide band (10 GHz available in the US) that can
result in antenna sizes that are too large for small cells. transport high traffic volumes, and it is well suited to the
60 GHz This is the unlicensed band that has attracted the highest short distances that small-cell backhaul requires. It is lightly
interest among operators and backhaul vendors. used, and the narrow LOS beams reduce the potential for
interference.
The atmospheric and oxygen attenuation that makes the
Table 6. Spectrum options: comparison
Spectrum Channel Max Link Frequency Interference Equipment Antenna Integrated
LOS/NLOS PMP/PTP Latency
bands size throughput distance reuse potential cost size backhaul
(1)
Sub-6 GHz Usually up
NLOS PMP, PTP Up to 6 GHz 200 mbps Up to 2 km
licensed to 10 MHz
Sub-6 GHz Possible

20 to 40
license NLOS PMP, PTP Up to 6 GHz 200 mbps 500 m
MHz
exempt
(1)
PMP 10.5 GHz, 26 Up to 20
LOS PMP 7 to 56 MHz 300 mbps
microwave GHz, 28 GHz km
(2) (3)
PTP 3.5 to 80 Up to 50
LOS PTP 5 to 40 GHz 500 mbps
microwave MHz km
Up to 3 km

40.5 to 43.5 40.5 to 43.5 Challenging
LOS PTP, PMP 40 MHz 2.0 gbps (300 m
GHz (4) GHz
urban)
Up to 1.7

57 to 66 No
60 GHz LOS PTP 2.5 gbps km (200 m
GHz restriction
urban)
71 to 76, Up to 2 km
70 to 80 GHz LOS PTP 81 to 86 Up to 5 GHz 2.4 gbps (200 m (5)
GHz urban)
Definitions and notes:
: High, large. : Low, small. : Average.
Frequency reuse: Ability to reuse the same spectrum channel within the same footprint, thereby increasing the capacity density. As a result, PMP has a low frequency reuse while narrow-
beam, short-reach links have a high frequency reuse.
Integrated backhaul: The backhaul module is included in the small-cell enclosure in a single-box solution. NLOS solutions can more easily accommodate integrated backhaul because they
do not require antennas to be aligned.
(1) Potential self-interference.
(2) Potential frequency congestion.
(3) In some countries and bands, antenna size is constrained by regulatory requirements.
(4) MWS (Multimedia Wireless System) band in the European Union.
(5) Subject to regulation in some countries which results in larger antennas than for the 60 GHz band. Regulations are under review in many countries and may be relaxed.
9. A decision tree: Fiber, LOS or NLOS, licensed or unlicensed?
There is no single backhaul technology that alone can meet

the requirements of small-cell deployments. Operators have Is fiber available and cost effective?
to decide on a location-by-location basis which solution to
YES NO
use. Based on the feedback from operators and from the
features of available solutions, we have drawn a decision
tree that reflects the priorities of an operator that is open to Is sub-6 GHz licensed
using any backhaul solution available. Select fiber
spectrum available?
YES NO
Fiber is not available or cost effective at most locations, but
where it can be used, it is ideal from a performance
perspective. LOS between small cells or to the aggregation Is the capacity in the
sub-6 GHz spectrum NO Is there reliable LOS?
point cannot be taken for granted: sub-6 GHz spectrum may
sufficient?
not be available, or operators may not have enough to meet
YES NO
their capacity requirements. Sub-6 GHz license-exempt YES
spectrum is prone to interference.
Select NLOS sub-6 Is microwave/millimeter Is LOS possible with a relay

If a wireless backhaul option is considered, the first YES
GHz licensed spectrum available? hop?
consideration is whether sub-6 GHz licensed spectrum is
available and provides sufficient capacity for present and YES NO NO
anticipated future traffic load. If this is the case, sub-6 GHz
solutions are generally preferred, because they are easier to
install (no antenna alignment), are most likely to support Is the sub-6 GHz unlicensed spectrum
Select LOS
integrated backhaul, and, if a PMP architecture is being used, available and not congested?
require less equipment (one hub at the aggregation point
can serve multiple small cells, while with NLOS PTP each link YES NO
requires two modules).
Select NLOS sub- Consider using fiber even if expensive, or
6 GHz unlicensed moving the small cell to a different location
Figure 7. Small-cell backhaul decision tree
In cases where sub-6 GHz licensed spectrum is not available, LOS becomes the next
candidate. If there is reliable LOS (i.e., the LOS path is unlikely to be disrupted by, for
instance, a truck driving by, a new street sign, foliage in the summer, or Christmas
decorations in the winter) and spectrum is available (which in most instances is), then
LOS links are the most compelling solution. If spectrum is available but LOS is not, the
operator may consider using a relay hop that will create LOS.
If LOS cannot be established or the spectrum is not available, the sub-6 GHz license-
exempt spectrum is the best option left, provided that interference levels are acceptable.
If not, the operator has to go back to the drawing board and consider moving the small
cell to a nearby location, or reconsider using fiber if available, even if it is expensive.
In practice, operators may wish to limit the number of backhaul solutions they support, in
order to keep complexity under control, or some may not want to use a specific solution
(e.g., some operators do not want to use license-exempt spectrum for backhaul). In this
case, some of the branches of the decision tree do not apply.
Equally important in the decision is how different choice points are evaluated. For
instance, cost-effectiveness or capacity requirements may be established using very
different criteria, even by operators within the same market, and thus lead to different
choices.
Some operators have a clear preference for a technology (e.g., 60 GHz) and therefore are
more willing to consider relay hops, even if they could use sub-6 GHz spectrum. The
specific solution to be considered within each category (fiber, wireless LOS, wireless
NLOS) depends largely on spectrum and product availability.
10. Topologies
With the possible exception of rural installations, small-cell deployments naturally form already incurred for the relay, and in most cases the added cost is offset by the added
hot zones with a high density of small cells, which are grouped in local backhaul networks capacity by the cell.
and share an aggregation point, typically with a fiber link, to which all backhaul links
converge. Different topologies (Figure 8) can be used depending on the environment's Figure 8 shows only examples of possible topologies. In real deployments, the topology
morphology and the traffic distribution. depends on multiple constraints tied to the location of the aggregation point and the
small cells, and we expect to see hybrid topologies (Figure 9), which in many cases use a
macro cell as the aggregation point. The advantage of this approach is that the macro cell
is already connected to the fiber backbone, which can carry the additional traffic from
the local small cells.
Figure 8. Small-cell topologies

A = aggregation point; R = relay; S = small cell
In most instances, small-cell backhaul links two small cells or a small cell to an
aggregation point. However where the RF conditions require it for instance if LOS is Figure 9. Small-cell hybrid topology
required but not available between two small cells a backhaul relay can be added at a The macro cell serves as the aggregation point. M = macro cell
third location that is in LOS with both small cells. The relay allows the operator to use
higher frequencies that require LOS. The same result can be achieved by installing a small
cell at the relays location. While this requires additional equipment and installation of a
Even with four to five small cells, the underlay backhaul traffic load can exceed the load
small cell, the marginal cost is low because site acquisition and installation costs are
of the macro cell, and operators need to ensure that sufficient capacity is available at the
macro site. Alternatively, the aggregation point can be a small cell or another location
where fiber connectivity is available.
Table 7. Choosing among topologies
Each topology has distinctive features that make it better suited to some environments Star With direct links only, a star topology precludes hops that can reach cell
than to others (Table 7). sites that are farther away or difficult to reach. This is well suited to
situations in which there is LOS from the aggregation point to all small
The size of the network depends on the density of small cells, location of the aggregation cells or where a NLOS solution is used.
While the other topologies are best suited for PTP architectures, star is
points, distance of small cells from the aggregation points, number of hops allowed
the topology most commonly used for PMP (although it can be used for
(usually not more than three, unless a ring topology is used), and backhaul technology PTP as well).
used. Hub and More flexible than the star topology, the hub-and-spoke topology makes
spoke it possible to reach cells that are farther away and encourages the mix of
Because macro sites can be used for aggregation, there is a trend toward including all the different solutions within the same local backhaul network.
small cells within the coverage area of a macro-cell site within a network. As a result, in Ring The advantage of the ring model is that it provides redundancy, but it
dense urban areas, small-cell backhaul networks are going to cover a small area in which supports fewer small cells and makes it more difficult to combine
cell sites are close to each other. This approach also facilitates the coordination of macro- different backhaul solutions within the same ring (e.g., by mixing LOS
and NLOS to suit the RF conditions of the cell site). To create redundancy
cell and small-cell layer activity with enhanced ICIC (eICIC) and coordinated multipoint
in a ring, the nodes in the network need to support the traffic load of the
(CoMP) in LTE-Advanced, which requires a low latency over the X2 interface connecting
entire ring, so higher-capacity links are required.
eNodeBs (eNBs). Hybrid The hybrid topology provides the greatest flexibility and is ideally suited
for gradual deployments, which start with a few small cells and gradually
When using ring, hub-and-spoke, or hybrid topologies with multiple hops, the backhaul evolve to include new ones that may be at challenging locations. A
capacity may impose limits on the size of the network, especially in the ring case, where hybrid network allows the operator to use different solutions to
each link is typically required to have the same capacity as the entire small-cell backhaul optimize backhaul performance.
network. As a result, the capacity constraints of sub-6 GHz PMP backhaul will restrict the
number of small cells that can be included in a backhaul network.
11. Opportunistic deployment models
The feedback we got from mobile operators planning for or deploying small cells Initially, operators expect to see four to five small cells within the coverage area of a
indicates that the initial density of small cells will be low and that hybrid topologies will macro base station, but they expect to increase this number as traffic grows. With four to
prevail. However, small-cell deployments and their topologies will continue to evolve five LTE single-sector small cells in each branch in a hub-and-spoke or ring topology, sub-
through time as traffic loads increase, and operators will need to add small cells. The RAN 6 GHz solutions have sufficient capacity to carry backhaul traffic (Figure 10).
network is increasingly considered as a dynamic environment, in which cell location and
density are subject to change, and in which the supported RAN and backhaul interfaces For more small cells, or multi-sector cells, or with the upgrade to LTE-Advanced, other
continue to evolve. To effectively manage these more complex networks, backhaul has backhaul solutions (e.g., using 60 GHz or e-band) are necessary.
to provide the needed flexibility to accommodate the evolution in the RAN.
From the perspective of RAN and backhaul efficiency, deploying a dense small-cell
network from the beginning is ideal, because it allows the operator to use the best-suited
topology to maximize capacity in the RAN and to optimize backhaul performance (e.g., by
ensuring a high percentage of LOS links).
In practice this is unlikely to happen, because this approach requires a higher level of
upfront investment than operators are willing to commit to. Equally important, however,
is the uncertainty of how traffic patterns will evolve and thus where additional capacity
will be required. Although a brisk growth in data traffic is expected, it is difficult to predict
how exactly it will be distributed across locations, as usage models are still evolving. Thus
it makes sense for operators to constrain themselves to opportunistic deployment
models in which they add small cells as needed, where they notice that the macro
network or neighboring small cells are not able to carry the entire traffic.
As a result, the number of small cells per macro cell will grow through time, but initially it
will be low, constraining the backhaul solutions used. For instance, a low density of small Figure 10. Total capacity requirements in a small-cell hub
cells generally lowers the percentage of cell sites in LOS to their nearest neighboring site
because as the sites are located at considerable distance from each other. The addition of
small cells increases the percentage of links with LOS, but because the additional is The backhaul capacity restrictions of sub-6 GHz solutions lead to a preference for using
gradual, the operator is likely to retain the backhaul link initially installed to avoid them at the edge of the network, and for MMW (i.e., 60 GHz and e-band) solutions when
expensive replacements, even if a LOS link would provide a better performance. aggregating backhaul from multiple small cells.
Figure 11 shows how this approach could be used in the examples of topologies we have
shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
In the star topology, both sub-6 GHz and MMW can be used if there is LOS. Without LOS,
only sub-6 GHz can be used. The star topology is a good scenario for sub-6 GHz solutions,
because capacity requirements are low if a PTP architecture is used and each small cell
uses a separate link to the aggregation point. If the operator has sufficient spectrum, a
PMP architecture provides more flexibility (i.e., the operator can add a small cell without
having to install new equipment at the aggregation point) and cost savings (i.e., less
equipment has to be installed and maintained). The downside of the PMP architecture is
that the maximum capacity density (mbps per square mile) is lower than for the PTP
architecture, in which the same spectrum channel can be more extensively reused. For
the expensive and scarce sub-6 GHz spectrum, this is a crucial aspect. Operators with
control over substantial spectrum assets will be able to support PMP, but the others will
have to rely on PTP, unless they have a low density of small cells and/or their capacity
requirements are contained.
At the opposite end, in a ring topology, we expect MMW technologies to dominate

because each node in the network has to support the high capacity required to provide
redundancy. When one node goes down, the other nodes have to carry all the traffic, so
the capacity at each node is equal to that of the entire network. Sub-6 GHz PTP backhaul
can be used in cases where the density of cells is low or cells generate small amounts of
traffic, but unless long links are required, Sub-6 GHz PTP backhaul does not present any
advantage over higher-capacity MMW backhaul.
In hub-and-spoke and hybrid topologies, we expect a mix of backhaul technologies. The

high-capacity links are served by MMW, with the lower-capacity edge locations
connected by sub-6 GHz links. For links that can be served by MMW and sub-6 GHz, Figure 11. Impact of topology on spectrum choice
because of a combination of LOS and contained capacity, the ratio between the two
solutions is dependent on the operators preference and on equipment costs and
features. For instance, the connection between a relay and two small cells can use either
sub-6 GHz (in the example for the hub-and-spoke topology) or MMW (in the example for
the hybrid technology).
12. Integrated backhaul in a single-box form factor
The topic on which there is the least agreement both among operators and among Table 8. Integrated backhaul: requirement or option?
vendors is the desirability and feasibility of integrated backhaul. At the macro layer, RAN Single-box required Single-box optional or not preferred
and backhaul are separate pieces of equipment, and this gives operators the flexibility to
The smaller equipment footprint reduces A single-box approach may reduce vendor
choose the best-of-breed solution for each. The tighter small-cell constraints in terms of installation costs and complexity, site lease choice if the small-cell vendor supports
cost, permitting restrictions, and installation complexity have driven the request and in requirements and opex costs, and only a selected group of backhaul vendors
some cases the requirement from mobile operators to combine RAN and backhaul in permitting efforts. (or supports only its own solution).
the same enclosure. The lower cost and complexity of a single-box approach, however, For NLOS solutions, the equipment can be For LOS solutions, a single-box solution
may lead to reduced performance and flexibility. As a result it is debatable which added to the small-cell enclosure, in most may not be feasible backhaul antennas
approach is best. We summarize the positions on both sides of the issue in Table 8. cases without a major impact on the have to be aligned, and a single-box
performance of the backhaul link. platform may not allow sufficient flexibility
Undoubtedly, there will be demand for single-box solutions and, in the long term, we to do so. As a result, an operator using a
expect this to become more widely available and, possibly, the dominant form factor. A single-box form factor may find itself
forced to plan small-cell installation on the
single-box small cell that can accommodate multiple RAN interfaces and multiple
basis of backhaul constraints, and end up
backhaul solutions will greatly improve operators' business cases and open the way for with a suboptimal small-cell placement
the massive small-cell deployments that will be necessary to provide the needed (e.g., too high on a lamppost).
capacity, to increase spectrum efficiency, and to optimize network utilization. Some operators are aggressively pushing The single approach may work in the
vendors for integrated backhaul solutions. longer term, when an industry-wide
Currently, the efforts to integrate backhaul into small cells come mostly from small-cell This will accelerate progress toward modular approach allows vendors to easily
vendors. Most backhaul vendors are exploring options to support their solutions as a interoperability among vendors. combine small-cell and backhaul solutions
module for small-cell enclosures. This approach offers a valuable opportunity for new from any combination of vendors. But we
entrants or for specialized backhaul vendors to enter the small-cell market, because in are far from that point, with vendors
most instances operators will choose the small-cell vendor first, and then require currently focused on stand-alone solutions.
integration with the backhaul provider of their choice. To date, mobile operators have Emerging consensus
been an important driver of partnerships between small-cell vendors and backhaul Integrated backhaul is a target for the long A separate backhaul module is going to be
providers, and we have heard of multiple instances where this has led to partnerships for term, when small-cell backhaul solutions the dominant solution in the short term,
trials. reach maturity and volume and the although operators highly welcome the
ecosystem becomes established. But it is ability to have access to single-box
unlikely to be used across all small-cell solutions for NLOS backhaul and are
locations because it excessively penalizes working with vendors to expand the range
performance in many LOS environments. of integrated solutions available.
Among the vendors that have been most active on the integrated-backhaul front are
Airspan, Alcatel-Lucent, Powerwave, Nokia-Siemens, and Huawei. Common among all of
them is the initial integration of their own backhaul solution, but with a longer-term
commitment to accommodate third-party solutions. Although operators insist on
interoperability, it is understandable that small-cell vendors want to first ensure the
products they prepare to launch will initially work with a backhaul solution they have
control of. In a second phase, integration with third-party providers will become a higher
priority as operators begin to demand it because as they need access to multiple
backhaul technologies and the small-cell vendor may not be able to provide them all.
Airspan has a small-cell product (6 kg weight, 48x22 cm size, under 120 W in power
consumption) that supports LTE, WiMAX, and Wi-Fi for less than $7,000 per unit in
volume. As an option, it provides a backhaul module, iBridge, that operates in the sub-6
GHz band in 10 MHz TDD channels. It provides 90 mbps capacity using a PTP or PMP
architecture in a NLOS environment. Eventually, Airspan plans to extend the range of
backhaul spectrum used, to include the 28, 60, and 80 GHz bands.
Alcatel-Lucent's lightRadio small cell supports LTE, 3G, and Wi-Fi as RAN technologies
(700MHz, 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, AWS, and 2100 MHz). Inside, it has room to include a
backhaul module, and the company plans to offer solutions in multiple bands, including
sub-6 GHz unlicensed NLOS, microwave, 60 GHz, and 70-80 GHz, developed either in-
house or through third parties, with throughput ranging from 5 mbps to multiple gbps.
Huaweis Atom Cell supports 3G, LTE, and Wi-Fi, if desired, in a visually appealing
spherical design (2.5 kg weight, 15x11x11 dimensions, and less than 30 W power
consumption), along with eRelay (based on TD-LTE) and Wi-Fi as integrated wireless
backhaul solutions. Wi-Fi backhaul provides 450 mbps speed with 3x3 MIMO in a PTP
architecture (see the section on vendors below). The peak rate of eRelays cell is 240
mbps with 8x2 beamforming, in a NLOS PMP architecture that supports up to 13
terminals.
Nokias Flexi Zone is also based on a modular design which incorporates backahul, initially
using the PTP FlexiPacket Lite Microwave in the sub-6 GHz bands, but with plans for
inclusion of other bands. Expected to be commercially available at the end of 2012, the
Flexi Zone small cell supports Wi-Fi, 3G and LTE and will operate within the Liquid Radio
HetNet platform, supporting remote baseband pooling.
13. Vendor strategies
The high-capacity and low-cost requirements and the need to operate in complex While there is no high-volume demand today, operators are actively looking for solutions
environments mandate a new approach to backhaul for small cells, markedly different and trialing them, and vendors that do not have a compelling solution available or on
from the one that has so far prevailed in the macro network. their roadmap will find it difficult to enter the market when demand picks up.
The emerging market for small-cell backhaul promises to be a huge opportunity for Small-cell backhaul may have easier-to-meet requirements in terms of resiliency,
equipment vendors, but it is also a big challenge. For sure, it has already spurred the availability, latency, or performance so much so that some operators may even use
development of highly innovative new backhaul products and encouraged the further license-exempt spectrum because small cells are seen as a complementary layer in the
development of existing technologies that did not have a well-defined market before the overall cellular network (at least initially; we believe that in due course this will change).
emergence of small cells. But small cells operate in an environment that is much more sensitive to cost and form
factor and that is fundamentally much less under the control of the operator. As they
From an industry perspective, this has increased the pace of change and activity in the move closer to street level and to subscribers, operators find a much more rapidly
backhaul market, traditionally dominated by evolving, but mature, microwave changing environment, where LOS and interference conditions may suddenly change at
technologies. any time. This is a much more challenging environment than cell towers and high-rise
building roofs, and vendors will need a more sophisticated approach to address the new
For operators, these high activity levels in product development provide the opportunity requirements, not just a cheaper version of what they currently offer.
to articulate their requirements to vendors as the vendors seek a better understanding of
what operators need. From talking to both vendors and operators, it is clear this has In the meantime, new entrants have gained lots of traction by heralding a leaner
become a two-way process in which tradeoffs about what can be done, what is needed, approach not tied to legacy solutions, one that more directly addresses the mobile
and what is cost effective are continuously reassessed to find a good balance. operators requirements. While most products are still in development or in a test phase,
the feedback we got from operators is very encouraging, and many tier-one vendors are
For established vendors, small-cell backhaul is a challenge, because simply repurposing partnering with these startups to provide a complementary small-cell backhaul solution
their existing solutions to the new market is not sufficient. Some vendors have started to while they develop their own. We expect that this area will soon be ready for
follow this path as they wait for demand to grow, but they run the risk of being left consolidation but possibly also for overcrowding: we are seeing new entrants
behind. Among some vendors established backhaul vendors who have successfully emerging, and there are already more players than a market in which volume is essential
penetrated the macro-cell backhaul market, complacency is driven by the belief that if can support.
they have a carrier-grade, high-reliability, high-performance solution for the critical
infrastructure elements, they can easily address the much less demanding small-cell
market.
15. Vendor innovation
The small-cell backhaul market is evolving quickly, and its players are still finding their Overall the results indicate that while there is substantial differentiation among vendors,
position within the small-cell ecosystem. We gathered a wealth of information from in- MMW equipment has a smaller and lighter form factor and provides more capacity. We
depth interviews with vendors and from operators feedback that indicates product expect it to capture the largest portion of the wireless backhaul market for small cells,
development is gearing up to deliver highly innovative and effective products designed although it cannot address the entire market, because MMW solutions require reliable
with a realistic assessment of the operators' need in mind. Yet, most of the products are LOS, which is available in only some locations.
still at the development or trial stage, so it is too early to pick winners or even to know
exactly what the final specs and their price point for the commercial products will be. As a result, sub-6 GHz licensed-spectrum solutions that do not require LOS are an
effective complement to LOS MMW solutions and will play an important role.
Assessing the vendor offerings can be a somewhat complex process, given the many
spectrum bands and architectures that can be used, and in addition to the established With most of the traction coming from MMW and licensed sub-6 GHz, the market
players, many new entrants have attractive, although very narrowly focused, solutions. prospects for microwave solutions face more uncertainty. A possible exception is PMP,
Figure 12 shows the highly competitive environment, by spectrum band and which gives operators that have access to the needed spectrum a flexible and cost-
architecture, of the wireless backhaul vendors that are most active in the small-cell effective solution, even though they will still need LOS.
market (it does not include all backhaul vendors).
Most backhaul vendors approach the license-exempt sub-6 GHz market with extreme
Table 9 provides a more detailed overview of features of small-cell backhaul solutions. caution and in most cases want to steer clear of it, because interference potential in
We summarize the results in the following figures showing comparisons among vendors these bands makes it impossible for them to offer a performance guarantee. This market,
along different dimensions: however, may initially address in a cost-effective way the early demand for small-cell and
Wi-Fi offload, because there are ready-to-deploy solutions, such as those from Ruckus
Equipment volume (Figure 15) Wireless or Ubiquiti, that can be used as an interim solution as long as interference
Equipment weight (Figure 15) remains manageable.
Capacity (Figure 18Error! Reference source not found.)
Power consumption (Figure 18). The rest of this section reviews the innovative approaches from a selected group of
vendors that we believe address in novel ways the new challenges that small-cell
Table 9 and the graphs in Figure 15 and Figure 18 are based on data provided by vendors
deployments present.
and in most cases refer to products in their roadmap that are not commercially available
at present, so they are subject to change. As such, the graphs should not be interpreted
as a comparison across vendors products, but rather as an indication of the key features
that we should expect in products that will soon become commercially available.
Figure 12. Vendors' solutions for small-cell backhaul by spectrum band and architecture
Licensed sub-6 GHz highest level of flexibility and ease of installation. In a PMP architecture, the
backhaul module can be built into the small-cell enclosure, and the backhaul
Of all the bands that can be used for small-cell backhaul, licensed sub-6 GHz is the most antenna does not have to be lined up with the antenna at the other side of the link.
challenging to work on from a vendor perspective because of the multiple requirements Narrow channels and fragmented spectrum ownership indicate that the combining
that have to be jointly satisfied: multiple channels through carrier aggregation can be an effective and highly
valuable way to improve both spectrum and cost efficiency. DesignArt Networks and
Limited spectrum availability, high costs, and narrow channels make it imperative Huawei are both been working in this direction.
that the equipment maximizes spectral efficiency. In the MMW band, there is
Despite the limited availability and the lack of a harmonized band available globally for
sufficient spectrum and so capacity is not an issue. Here every MHz counts. A lot.
backhaul, most markets have substantial spectrum assets that are underutilized or
Spectrum allocation, channelization, and the type of duplexing allowed (time-
unused in the sub-6 GHz range. This is because they are not well suited for cellular and
division duplex [TDD] or frequency-division duplexing [FDD]) changes greatly across
the business model for other services, such as residential fixed broadband (i.e., DSL
countries. As a result, vendors have to develop solutions that have the flexibility to
replacement), has proven to be challenging, with a small number of exceptions in
meet the regulatory requirements of the markets they target, as well as the
developed markets. A prime example is the 3.5 GHz band in Europe, which sits largely
operator-specific spectrum allocations.
unused after plans to deploy WiMAX as an alternative to wireline residential broadband
While PTP and PMP are both possible in the sub-6 GHz spectrum and PTP allows for
and mobile broadband have failed in most countries. In the US, spectrum in the 2.3 GHz
a more intensive spectrum use, PMP is typically the preferred architecture, for two
and 3.65 GHz band also offers potential for backhaul use.
reasons: sub-6 GHz spectrum is not awarded on a per-link basis (as it is for most
microwave bands), and PMP in combination with NLOS gives mobile operators the
TDD is the most commonly used duplexing scheme in the sub-6 GHz part of the For an operator planning a wide small-cell network, purchasing TDD sub-6 GHz spectrum,
spectrum, because TDD spectrum is more easily available, less used, and, crucially, less where available, may be a cost-effective way to provide backhaul connectivity across the
expensive (Figure 13). Although prices for TDD spectrum have recently started to operator's footprint (unlike microwave spectrum, TDD spectrum is awarded on a
increase due to higher demand, driven initially by WiMAX and more recently by the TDD country-wide or region-wide basis, not on a per-link basis). Alternatively, owners of TDD
version of LTE (TD-LTE), they are still dramatically lower than FDD bands, whose high spectrum may adopt a wholesale model to sell backhaul capacity to mobile operators.
value is driven in the RAN by mobile operators.
Figure 13. Cost of sub-6 GHz spectrum: comparison of FDD and TDD bands.
Source: BLiNQ
Table 9. Comparison of vendors' solutions

Cambridge
BridgeWave Ceragon Ceragon DragonWave
Alcatel-Lucent BLiNQ Bluwan (FTTA) Broadband
(PicoHaul, PG60C) (sub-6 GHz) (E-link Mini) (Avenue)
(VectaStar Metro)
Spectrum Microwave 2.3 to 2.4, 2.5 to 40.5 to 43.5 GHz 60 GHz 10.5, 26, and 28 2.3 to 6.0 GHz 71 to 76, 81 to 86 24, 26, 28, 32, 38,
2.7, 3.3 to 3.8 GHz GHz GHz 42, 60 GHz
Max 1 gbps 83 mbps / 10 MHz Hub: 2 gbps / 1 1 gbps 150 mbps 5 mbps / 5 MHz, 1 gbps Up to 500 mbps /
capacity GHz Ethernet 28 MHz 100 mbps / 40 56 MHz
Terminal: 100 MHz
mbps / 40 MHz
LOS/NLOS LOS NLOS/LOS LOS LOS LOS NLOS/LOS LOS LOS
PTP/PMP PTP PMP PMP PTP PMP PTP, PMP PTP PTP
Cost Link: $2,500 in PTP link: $6,300 Link: $14,000 Link: <$8,000
2014 PMP hub: $5,000
PMP terminal:
$1,200
Size 31x21x8 cm 24x16x9 cm 38x38x10 cm 31x25x13 cm 37x7x11 cm 22.5x5 cm Link: 27x27x18
Site: 41x28x51
Weight 3 kg 3.4 kg <2.3 kg 5.6 kg 3.5 kg 3 kg Link: 7.7 kg
Site: 15.8 kg
Power <30 W 25 W (65 W for <20 W 35 W 20 to 35 W 20 to 35 W Link: 45 to 55 W
the AP) Site: 200 to 250 W
Preferred Hub and spoke Star, relays Star with macro Star, hub-and- Hub-and-spoke,
topology for AP, daisy spoke daisy chain, ring,
chaining, mesh relays
Small cells 10 on average 4 supported Average 8 30 supported, 5 in 32 supported, 10 on average 5 to 20 per site
per AP expected deployments typical 10
Roadmap More small cells Plans for sub-6 Plans for sub-6
supported (16) GHz GHz
Notes: AP: Aggregation point; Single box: Small-cell base station enclosure includes wireless backhaul module.
Bluwan: Bluwan Backhaul Multiplexer uses division multiplexing technology to create a PMP architecture, but at the hub a dedicated modem/antenna is allocated to each link to small cells,
as it would be done in a PTP architecture.
DragonWave: Two products that can be used in the same link Avenue Link: smaller form factor; Avenue Site: larger, it can include three radios and therefore support three small cells (but
capacity is not shared)
Sub10
E-Band Huawei (eRelay) Intracom (WiBAS) NEC Siklu (EtherHaul) SkyFiber Taqua
(Liberator)
Spectrum 71 to 76, 81 to 86 2.5, 3.4 to 3.6, 3.6 10.5, 26, 28 GHz 60 GHz 60 GHz 860 nm 60 GHz 2.3, 2.6, 3.5 GHz
GHz to 3.8 GHz
Max 1 gbps / 250 MHz 180/90 DL/UL 157 mbps / 28 200 mbps / 50 1 gbps / 500 MHz 100 mbps, 1 gbps 320 mbps / 176 72 mbps / 10 MHz
capacity mbps / 20 MHz MHz MHz MHz; 1 gbps / 550
MHz
LOS/NLOS LOS NLOS/LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS NLOS
PTP/PMP PTP PTP, PMP PMP PTP PTP PTP PTP PMP
Cost Link: <$5,000 Link: $2,000 in Link: $11,000 for $12,500 (320
2013 100 mbps mbps), $19,995 (1
gbps) today;
$1,000 to$2,000
planned for 2015
Size 20 cm 4.4 l (1 carrier), 18 29x24x10 cm 23x23x11 cm 15x15x7 cm 18x25x61 cm 18x18x6 cm 30x30x12 cm
l (2 carriers)
Weight 3.6 kg 3.5 kg (1 carrier), 4.1 kg (antenna 3 kg (including 1.5 kg 8.6 kg 2.5 kg <9 kg
19.5 kg (2 carriers) excluded) antenna)
Power 20 W <15 W (1 carrier) <43 W <15 W <45 W 18 to 22 W <80 W
Preferred Ring, star, mesh Star with macro as Hub-and-spoke Daisy chain, rings, Star, daisy chain Star with macro as
topology aggregation point initially; mesh later mesh, relays a hub, multiple
included sectors supported
at the AP
Small cells 1 to 10 20 per AP with 4 50 to 300 m 3 to 10 per macro AP can support up 4 cells per sector
per AP sectors distance between cell to 36 links supported
small cells
Roadmap Extension to 6 to Increase capacity Wider channels,
38 GHz; 500 mbps to 1 gbps, smaller support for more
/ 56 MHz channels size cells, higher
capacity
Notes: AP: Aggregation point. Single box: Small-cell base station enclosure includes wireless backhaul module. DL: Downlink. UP: Uplink
Huawei: TD-LTE is used as the interface.
SkyFiber: Light-based transmission. No license required.
The most recent announcement in the sub-6 GHz space comes from Huawei, which has
announced an LTE TDD-based solution. Huaweis eRelay is well-suited to bands, such as
the 3.5 GHz band in Europe, that are unlikely to be used for cellular access but can use
LTE technology and take advantage of the scale of the LTE market. Huawei uses multiuser
beamforming and virtual multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) in eRelay to improve
spectrum efficiency. The solution fits well with Huaweis Atom Cell, the small-cell product
line developed to support multiple interfaces through a modular design that facilitates
the addition of backhaul as one of the radio modules. In the roadmap, Huawei plans to
further integrate eRelay with its TD-LTE solution, allowing operators to use the same
band for backhaul and access. This is akin to a reverse in-band backhaul: in this case it is
not the cellular access frequency that gets reused for backhaul, but the backhaul
frequency that becomes available for access when capacity demand requires it.
Figure 14. Huawei eRelay terminal equipment

Source: Huawei
Taqua aims to provide a simple-to-deploy (30-minute installation) with the W-Series. It

has a PMP architecture with a small remote module at the small cell and a multisector
hub unit at the aggregation site supporting both 5 MHz and 10 MHz channels. It is based
on TDD orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) that supports MIMO to
improve spectral efficiency. Traffic management is also a key feature to effectively
allocate backhaul resources across small cells. This is a solution designed for mobile
operators with TDD sub-6 GHz spectrum allocations, which are largely unused and less
expensive than FDD spectrum.
Figure 15. Vendor solutions by volume (cubic cm) and equipment weight (kg)
Figure 16. Taqua W-Series

Source: Taqua
BLiNQ also has a compact, TDD/OFDM-based, easy-to-install solution for the sub-6 GHz
bands. It uses managed adaptive resource allocation (MARA) for coordinated scheduling
along the time, space, and frequency domains, which works in a way that is similar to
self-organizing networks (SON) in LTE, allowing operators to optimize resource allocation
and spectrum utilization in their backhaul.
Figure 17. BLiNQ X100

Source: BLiNQ
Ceragon takes a completely different tack: instead of focusing on one solution, it strives
to provide a multiband approach, supporting both PTP and PMP, both LOS and NLOS in
its product line, and it is working to expand the range of products targeted at small cells.
Realizing that no single backhaul solution will suffice, Ceragon expects that the same
multi-interface, multilayer environment that is emerging in the RAN will spread to the
backhaul. In this environment, Ceragon wants to be a backhaul vendor that has a
complete solution for the small-cell needs of a mobile operator. Figure 18. Vendor solutions by capacity (mbps) and power consumption (Watt)
On the license-exempt side, Ruckus Wireless has developed a mesh-based backhaul

initially designed to support Wi-Fi networks, many of which are used by mobile operators
for Wi-Fi offload but can be used to support small-cell networks at 100 mbps up to 100 m
(NLOS) and 200 m (LOS) in an urban environment. Multiple radios and, when available,
with the introduction of IEEE 802.11ac can increase the capacity of the backahul link. The
Ruckus solution is currently integrated in the same box with the Wi-Fi access radio, and
the same enclosure can include an LTE or 3G small cell as well. This is a low-complexity,
cost-effective solution for operators looking for a short time-to-market solution that can
leverage the existing Wi-Fi infrastructure operators can effectively upgrade their
existing Wi-Fi hotspots to become LTE/3G and Wi-Fi small cells, or add small cells to the
already-deployed Wi-Fi footprint.
Figure 19. BridgeWave PicoHaul

MMW spectrum
Source: BridgeWave
The other main source of innovation in small-cell backhaul comes from equipment for
Siklu is another vendor that initially focused on the 80 GHz e-band spectrum and has now
MMW spectrum, which is both underused and well-suited for small-cell backhaul.
moved to the 60 GHz license-exempt band, which has allowed the company to develop a
Bluwan is one of the new entrants, with a unique focus on the 42 GHz band. It uses a smaller terminal. The focus at Siklu is to develop an all-silicon product designed in-house
multichannel TDD approach to pack 2 gbps in a 1 GHz channel at the hub, allocated to that combines low cost with a small footprint two key requirements from mobile
100 mbps per terminal. This allows operators to deploy relatively low-capacity links operators deploying small cells. Commercial availability is expected for 2013.
initially, and then increase their capacity as traffic grows. In countries where the
Sub10 is a vendor entirely focused on the 60 GHz solution. It has a product that is
spectrum is available, this is an interesting solution, enabling operators to leverage
commercially available today with two versions that support 320 mbps and 1 gbps
spectrum that is still underused. Other vendors are looking at this spectrum band with
throughput. The cost is still quite high, due to the high cost of the components, but the
interest, and we expect to see more vendors in this space if the 42 GHz band now
company expects to drive costs to the $1,000 to $2,000 price point by 2015, in line with
available in only some countries becomes more widely accessible.
the plans of other vendors.
Most of the MMW activity has concentrated in the 60 GHz band, with BridgeWave, NEC,
Siklu, and Sub10 emerging as the major players.
BridgeWave is one of the early vendors in the 80 GHz space but, interestingly, for its
PicoHaul product line it has chosen to focus mainly on the 60 GHz band because of the
cost, spectrum features, and equipment size of the band. To keep the TCO down and
improve link reliability, BridgeWave is working toward a solution that will allow remote
antenna alignment. Initially this can be used during installation, but eventually it can be
used dynamically to compensate for sway (e.g., due to wind).
Figure 20. Siklus EtherHaul-600

Source: Siklu
Figure 22. E-Band E-Link 1000LR

Source: E-Band
Figure 21. Sub10 Liberator

Source: Sub10
In the 80 GHz space, Aviat, Ceragon, E-band and Intracom are developing solutions
targeted at the small-cell market. Ceragon and E-band expect their solutions to be
commercially available at the beginning of 2013. While E-band is exclusively focused on
the 80 GHz MMW band, Aviat and Ceragon have traditionally focused on microwave and
sub-6 GHz bands. Intracom has mostly developed PMP microwave products.
Because regulatory restrictions on antenna size are likely to increase, many vendors have
started to explore the 80 GHz opportunity. If these restrictions are eliminated, e-band
can deliver a throughput comparable to the 60 GHz band with the same equipment size,
but within a licensed-spectrum band, which mobile operators prefer to license-exempt
spectrum whenever it is available.
16. Financial analysis: assumptions
In evaluating the tradeoffs of different solutions, financial considerations are critical for
two reasons. The first is that the business model for small cell is very cost sensitive and
there are still many areas of uncertainty in the overall proposition not just on the Table 10. Backhaul options compared in the financial analysis
backhaul. Operators have to deploy a large number of small cells to get the capacity they Fiber Assumes fiber is available for leasing, but trenching is needed (aerial
need, but they are not likely to see an increase in revenues linearly linked to the capacity installation would lower costs, but it is not permitted in many markets). We
increase. So they can only deploy small cells and keep their profit margins if small cells assume that trenching is required for 10 m at $400/meter.
PTP-L Point-to-point LOS wireless backhaul using licensed spectrum, modeled after
lower the overall network traffic cost-per-bit. This has the result to increase the pressure
the 70-80 GHz e-band. It assumes a spectrum cost of $80 per year.
on all the cost components equipment, installation, recurring costs, and spectrum.
PTP-LE Point-to-point LOS wireless backhaul using license-exempt spectrum,
modeled after the 60 GHz band. No spectrum cost is assumed.
The second reason is that in small-cell deployments backhaul is likely to represent a PMP-L Point-to-multipoint NLOS using licensed spectrum, modeled after the 3.5
bigger percentage of the total cost of ownership (TCO; it includes both opex and capex GHz TDD band. We estimated a cost of $87 per year for the spectrum.
over a period of time) than for the macro layer. In the macro layer, we usually estimate PMP-LE Point-to-multipoint NLOS using license-exempt spectrum, modeled after the
wireless backhaul equipment to account for 20-30% of equipment costs. For small cells, 5 GHz band. No spectrum cost is assumed.
the percentage we estimate ranges from 37% to 45% (Figure 23). If fiber is chosen, the
disparity is even bigger, as prevailing lease prices do not linearly scale up with capacity
requirements, so generally the per-mbps price on the lease is higher for small cells
because they have lower capacity requirements than a multi-sector base station.
To assess the financial tradeoffs for different solutions for small-cell backhaul we looked
at the business case for a single small cell (assuming it is part of a larger deployment, so it
will benefit from scale and volume discounts) and split it into two categories:
Ex-backahul: all capex and opex items that do not include backhaul.
Backhaul: all capex and opex items related to backhaul, calculated as a marginal
costs (i.e., the costs are not those for a backhaul link installed separately from a
small cell; so it is assumed that the installation and small cell will be done by the
same crew and at the same time).
The total cost to install a small cell is the sum of these two categories. The same ex- Figure 23. Backhaul as percentage of total equipment costs
backhaul model was used to compare five backhaul options described in Table 10.
Cost assumptions as listed in Table 11. The cumulative capex and opex for the solutions intent to provide an initial assessment of the different options making some uniform
considered is shown in Figure 24, both for the overall case (backhaul plus ex-backhaul) assumptions and generalizations that make fair comparisons possible. Operators or
and for backhaul only for a five-year period. vendors looking at specific environments can extend this framework with their own cost
assumptions.
While we realize there is great variability across markets, for deployments of different
sizes and location types, we tried to estimate some middle-of-the-road costs, with the
Table 11. Cost assumptions

Fiber PTP-L PTP-LE PMP-L PMP-LE Ex-backhaul
CAPEX
Backhaul/small-cell equipment $2,500 $2,000 $2,200 $1,750 $3,000
Planning, permitting, installation, commissioning
$9,000 $3,500 $3,500 $2,190 $2,190 $3,000
(wireless), trenching/installation fees (fiber)
OPEX
Site lease, leasing fees (per year) $12,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,200
Power, maintenance/year (per year) $200 $600 $600 $375 $375 $1,050
Spectrum (per year) $80 $87
Figure 24. Small-cell cumulative capex and opex over a five-year period
Often the capex and, within it, the equipment costs play a paramount importance in the
selection of a solution, but in the case of backhaul both at the macro and small-cell level
opex accounts for most of the TCO. This is especially true for the fiber case, in which
capex accounts for only 17% of the TCO. For wireless backhaul solutions, capex accounts
for 32% to 35% of the TCO. Wireless equipment accounts for 5% (PMP-LE) to 8% (PMP-L).
This should be kept in mind in the analysis that follows. While it is crucial that equipment
costs reach the target price points, the small-cell backhaul business model is even more
sensitive to other cost items, most notably opex ones, which, as we will see, strengthen
the case for one-box integrated backhaul solutions and wholesale models.
Backhaul equipment (Figure 24) estimates are in a part derived on information provided
by vendors, mostly on products currently under development, so they refer to future
estimated costs and subject to change. However, the costs we estimate reflect what
believe is a price-point that vendors have to meet to ensure the economic viability of
small-cell deployments.
Figure 25. Spectrum costs per small cell for the sub-6 GHz spectrum
The lower cost for PMP solutions is largely due to the fact that fewer equipment units
have to be purchased and installed. In a PTP architecture, two terminals are needed for
each link. In a PMP architecture, the hub terminal supports multiple small cells, so a
network of 4 small cells requires a total of 5 terminals (compared to 8 in the PTP case).
Cost assumptions for spectrum in the PMP-L case are based on spectrum costs for TDD
3.5 GHz spectrum in recent auctions and assuming that the operator uses the band
exclusively for small-cell backhaul and deploys 7,500 small cells on average during the
considered five-year period (i.e., on Year 1 we expect the operator to have a small
number of small cells, but by Year 5 the number will be higher than 7,500). To make
comparisons with the PTP-L case, we extrapolated the yearly cost for the license and
treated it as an opex cost item.
Of course the spectrum costs go down as the size of the small-cell deployment increases
(Figure 25) and, where spectrum is available for purchase, operators can determine the
value of the spectrum to them based on the number of small cells they plan to deploy, if
this is the only intended use of the spectrum.
17. Sensitivity analysis: fiber
The choice to use fiber for backhaul depends primarily on trenching costs which affect
the capex, and leased costs which affect the opex. These are two cost items that vary
greatly across countries, within the operator footprint, and across operators. Some
operators, for instance, own the fiber network, so access to fiber can be very inexpensive.
New entrants, on the other hand, may face steep prices from incumbents where they are
free to set wholesale prices.
To look the impact of these two costs factors we did a sensitivity analysis and compared
it to the results we previously obtained for wireless backhaul (Figure 26).
Trenching costs linearly increase the fiber capex. In the base case we assume $4,000 in
trenching costs, with the rest of the capex allocated to bring fiber to the small-cell
enclosure and to the installation fee that many fiber providers charge. The graph shows
that only if trenching is below $1,000 or if the installation fee ($4,000) is not charged
and trenching is within the $5,000 mark the capex is comparable to wireless. If the
trenching costs are higher, the modeled operator is better off with wireless from a capex
perspective.
However, moderate trenching costs could be absorbed if only the opex for fiber were
lower. It is the lease costs that primarily make fiber more expensive than wireless
alternatives. Fiber backhaul capex is $3,000 (or 50%) more than PTP-L, but the backhaul
opex is more than four times that of PTP-L. To match the wireless opex, fiber leasing
costs should be $2,500 per year. This is a price that is available in some markets, but it is
still below the average wholesale price. Fiber lease prices, however, are decreasing and
lower prices will accelerate the adoption of fiber with time.
Figure 26. Capex with variable trenching costs; opex with variable leased fiber costs
18. What is cheapest: PTP or PMP? LOS or NLOS?
The first step in our analysis shows that unless fiber costs are quite low, fiber is more For the opex, spectrum costs account for a small portion (at most 5%) of the difference
expensive than wireless. Of course, fiber presents some performance and reliability across solutions. Site rental fees, which account for 73% to 77% of opex, make the
advantages over wireless, so it is justifiable to pay a premium for fiber connectivity. But is difference between PTP and PMP. In a PMP architecture, fewer sites are needed and this
that premium worth three times more (our analysis points to fiber backhaul TCO to be quickly drives the opex down. The reduction in site rental fees results in a 36% cost
577% of PMP-LE TCO to 359% of PTP-L TCO, assuming a lease price of $12,000 per year)? savings in PMP-L and 39% in PMP-LE compared to PTP-L.
In some cases, for instance where the small-cell site can be used as an aggregation point,
the premium will be justified. For most small cells, we expect operators to choose
wireless backhaul.
If they do, what are the solutions that are cheaper to use, if we assume that they have
equal access to all i.e., they have spectrum and LOS where needed, and all technologies
meet their requirements? We realize that hardly any operator will be in this situation, but
we use this scenario only to make a comparison that rests purely on financial grounds.
We have seen that there are substantial differences in equipment (Figure 23) and
installation costs that make the overall capex (Figure 24) most expensive for PTP-L and
least expensive of PMP-LE. Equipment capex for PTP-LE is 20% cheaper than for PTP-L,
PMP-L is 12% cheaper, and PMP-LE is 30% cheaper (Figure 27). Again compared to PTP-L,
capex is 8% cheaper for PTP-LE, 27% for PMP-L, and 34% for PMP-LE.
The difference in capex between PMP and PTP mostly comes from installation costs
($3,500 for PTP, $1,290 for PMP) and only to a lesser extent from equipment costs ($300
to $750). The differences in installation costs are due to the fact that PTP requires more
equipment (a terminal at each end of the link; PMP allows for multiple small cells to be Figure 27. Cost savings from PTP-LE, PMP-L and PMP-LE compared to PTP-L
connected to the same terminal in the aggregation point) and the two ends of the link to
be aligned. In the base case, we assumed four small cells per hub in the aggregation point
for the PMP architecture. Capex is lower for the license-exempt spectrum options, due to
the fact that equipment is less expensive ($500 difference in the PTP cases; $450 in the
PMP cases).
The cost savings that the PMP architecture brings are clearly dependent on the number
of small cells that are linked to the hub in the aggregation point (Figure 28). At one
extreme, if each hub supports only one small cell, we effectively have a PTP architecture
that results in a high TCO because in this configuration the hardware is more expensive
and there is no difference in the site rental fees compared to PTP, as the number of
terminals is the same.
As the number of cells per aggregation point increases, the costs in a PMP network go
down, resulting in TCO cost savings over both PTP-L and PTP-LE with just two small cells
per aggregation point.
If we compare PTP-L and PMP-L, equipment costs remain higher for PMP-L until we reach
four cells per aggregation point. At this point the price is almost the same: $2,500 for
PTP-L and $2,450. At ten cells per aggregation point, the cost savings of PMP-L over PTP-L
reach 32%.
The backhaul and overall small-cell TCO is lower for PMP-L from two cells per aggregation
point. This is because installation costs and site rental fees are the major drivers in the
cost reduction for PMP architectures. Costs savings of PMP-L over PTP-L amount to 8%
for the small-cell TCO, and to 15% for the backhaul TCO. At ten cells per aggregation
point, the cost savings of PMP-L over PTP-L are 22% for the small-cell TCO, and to 42% for
the backhaul TCO.
From an exclusively financial perspective, the best course of action is to use a PMP
architecture with the maximum number of small-cells per aggregation point. However,
we do not suggest or expect any operator to follow this path. Instead use this analysis is
the first step to decide what the appropriate tradeoffs are. Since in the PMP architecture,
the capacity is shared among small cells within the hub, the capacity available for each
cell rapidly decreases as the number of cells increases. As a result, only a small number of
cells can be supported in PMP hub with the spectrum assets that most operators have
access to.
Figure 28. Cost impact of number of cells per hub in PMP-L on equipment, backhaul
TCO and small-cell TCO
Furthermore, where LOS is available, PTP links provide higher capacity, which in many
cases is required, especially if using a ring or hub-and-spoke topology in which the
backhaul link supports multiple small cells. If the operator is trying to maximize capacity,
not only PTP provides higher-capacity links, but it does so cost-effectively, if we look at
the backhaul TCO on a per-mbps basis (Figure 29). PTP-L and PTP-LE have a higher
capacity (1 gbps) compared to PMP-L and PMP-LE (200 mbps). From this perspective,
PMP is much more expensive: PMP-L costs are 334% higher than PTP-L, while PMP-LE
costs are 311% higher.
The take-home message is that both PTP and PMP have their cost benefits and they
depend on the type of deployment and requirement of the operator (Table 12), with PTP
solutions cost effective for locations that need high-capacity links, and PMP solutions for
locations where less capacity is needed.
Figure 29. TCO per mbps
Per-link maximum throughput is indicated at the top of each column
Table 12. PTP or PMP?

Low-capacity requirements
PMP High small-cell density
PMP spectrum available
Star topology, or for edge small cells
High-capacity requirements
PTP Low small-cell density
LOS is available
Ring or hub-and-spoke topologies where a small-cell location
aggregates traffic from multiple edge small cells
19. Cost reduction with single-box integrated backhaul
The debate over whether integrating backahul in the small-cell enclosure is far from unclear whether the possible impact on performance makes integrated-backhaul
being resolved. It is unclear whether it will work reliably for LOS links. Some operators solutions reliable across a wide range of location types.
worry that a single-box solution will limit the range of choice for backhaul solutions. If all
these issues were set aside, and our operator can choose between two boxes or one,
how much could it save with integrated backhaul?
To estimate the cost savings, we made the following assumptions:
Capex / equipment: costs will remain unchanged. There will be some cost savings
from having only one enclosure, but also some additional costs due to integration.
Overall we expect that these two cost drivers will balance each other.
Capex / installation: in PTP, we expect the cost to be approximately cut in half (57%
cost savings), because the one-box cost advantage only applies to one end of the
link. The other end of the link will still have to be installed. In PMP, the backhaul
capex cost savings will be higher (83%) because the single-box installation will affect
a higher percentage of backhaul sites (we assume four small cells per aggregation
hub in the PMP architecture).
Opex: the site lease for the backhaul link will disappear and maintenance costs will
be halved.
These cost savings will result in an overall reduction of the TCO ranging from 22% for
PTP-LE to 27% for PMP-LE (Figure 30). For the backhaul TCO, the cost savings range from
42% to 68%. The opex savings are approximately the same for the four cases examined,
and the small change among them is due to the higher cost savings in the PMP
architecture mentioned above.
The predicted cost savings in the single-box scenario are quite attractive. As a result, we
expect mobile operators to add pressure to vendors to develop single box solutions for
NLOS backhaul, where single-box solutions require collaboration between the RAN and
backhaul vendors, but are feasible from a technology point of view. For LOS links, the Figure 30. Cost savings from integrated (single-box) backhaul
cost advantage may drive further development work on the vendors side, but it is still Percentages indicate cost savings of integrated backhaul over base case
20. LOS relays: how much do they add to the TCO?
The percentage of small-cell locations with LOS vary greatly across environments. Tokyo, cell network where capacity requirements are lower is going to be the most cost-
Dallas, Rome, New Delhi will have very different percentages of LOS locations, which effective solution. But in cases where a high-capacity link is required, or the operator has
depend on building types, materials and density, but also on other factors, like vegetation no access to sub-6 GHz spectrum, the extra cost of a relay may be warranted. At the
or macro-cell locations (which are likely to act at the end point of many LOS links). same time, however, the possibility of using sub-6 GHz license-exempt should also be
Smaller cities are likely to have more LOS locations, but there is no way to generalize. considered if sub-6 GHz spectrum is not available to the operator and if the link supports
Venice, for instance, is a small city but probably a more challenging RF environment than a single small cell.
most North American cities. When we asked vendors and operators, we heard estimates
from 20% to 80% for LOS locations. In some cases this may depend on how strict the LOS
requirements are. In the 60 GHz and 80 GHz, the antenna beam is very narrow, so LOS
has to be reliable and the installation location has to be sufficiently stable (sway can have
severe disruptive effects).
In the case in which an operator wants to use a LOS link, either because of capacity
requirements or because of preference for LOS, but there is no LOS, a relay hop can be
used that has LOS with the small cell on one end, and with an aggregation point at the
other end. The relay basically consists of two connected terminals.
On the basis of our financial model, we looked at what is the impact on the TCO of adding
a relay to a PTP-L or a PTP-LE LOS backhaul link. Adding a relay amounts to adding a
backhaul link, so effectively this doubles the backhaul TCO. The overall small-cell TCO is
53% higher in the PTP-L case and 52% higher in the PTP-LE case. It is a steep increase, due
to the fact that overall backhaul costs represents a high percentage of the small-cell TCO Figure 31. Cost of adding a relay to a LOS link
and, as a result, doubling them has a major cost impact.
From a financial viewpoint, if the operator has the ability to choose between LOS and
NLOS solutions, the high costs of relays suggest that using PMP at the edge of the small-
21. Cost savings with a wholesale model
Recently Bob Azzi, Sprints Senior Vice President, Network, said "we're going to all be Table 13. Wholesale models
1
after that street corner," referring to an expected land grab for small-cell locations. Backhaul Operators deploy and manage their own small-cells, but where they
Indeed, this is likely to be the case, as operators will target a largely overlapping footprint sharing have them installed at the same locations, they can share the backhaul
of high-traffic areas, mostly in urban areas. There are just so many lampposts and other link to the aggregation point. This model allows operators to retain
control over the RAN, but reduce backhaul costs. This is the model we
locations suitable for small cells and their backhaul terminals and so much telecom
considered in our analysis.
equipment that can be fit in any of them.
This is the model that gives operators more room for differentiation and
it is the one that they are more likely to embrace at least in countries like
One way to address it, as well as to reduce the cost to deploy and operate the small-cell the US where infrastructure sharing is still viewed with suspicion. By
infrastructure, is to use a wholesale model in which operators share some of the assets. sharing the backhaul, operators share locations, but retain full control of
Table 13 lists some models that can be used for small cells. the network performance.
Some European spectrum owners are trying to use this model of the 3.5
We looked at the backhaul sharing model to see what costs savings it may deliver at the GHz band which is currently underused.
single small-cell site level, but assuming a deployment-wide sharing agreement. This RAN and Operators share the RAN and the backhaul. This model requires
backhaul operators to share spectrum and to ensure that their subscribers
model may be appealing in both the sub-6 GHz and in the MMW bands, and for fiber
sharing devices can access the spectrum bands of their partners.
backahul. This model may deliver steeper cost savings than that backhaul-only
sharing model, but it does not allow operators to differentiate on the
In the sub-6 GHz bands, it may allow to pool together limited spectrum holdings to basis of performance, as they all use the same network.
increase capacity of backhaul links and to reuse spectrum more efficiently. It also allows Outsourcing Operators may keep their RAN and backhaul separate, but have a third-
spectrum owners to put to use spectrum assets that they own, but have not used model party install and manage the network. The cost savings of this approach
extensively, as it is the case with the 3.5 GHz band in Europe. The advantage for are lower than those for the previous two models, but the outsourcing
operators is that they can use sub-6 GHz spectrum (and hence NLOS links) without model allows operators to control both RAN and backhaul.
Capacity Operators may have an MVNO-type relationship with another operator
committing to a spectrum acquisition.
leasing or other service provider that owns the spectrum, and builds and
operate a network of small cells. This is the model that Clearwire is
following in the US.
1 . Steven Lawson, Small cells could raise big problems, Computerworld, May 2012.
For MMW and fiber, sharing LOS links enable operators to reduce costs and take
advantage of the high-capacity links that these technologies allow. Without backhaul
sharing, operators would have more capacity that they need for the majority of links, and
sharing allows them to fully use this capacity and reduce costs. This will also facilitate the
deployment of relays and therefore encourage a wider use of MMW, because the
additional costs incurred with relays can be shared among operators that share the
backhaul link.
We assumed that three operators would share the backhaul link, so capex and opex
items would be split by three. However, backhaul sharing results in additional costs to
manage traffic from different operators and to provide the service to them. We
estimated these additional costs to be 20% of the re-computed backhaul costs.
A wholesale backhaul sharing arrangement of this type can deliver a 56% to 58%
reduction in the backhaul TCO, and a 20% to 12% reduction in the overall small-cell TCO
(Figure 32).
The cost savings at the single small-cell level can be quite high, but they also impose
restrictions on the operators, as they need to locate their small cells in the same locations
and this limits their ability to differentiate their service from that of their competitors.
Some operators view this ability to differentiate as critical in their small-cell strategy and
the potential cost savings of backhaul sharing are not likely to change their mind.
Furthermore, this model assumes that operators will be able to share the same location,
each with its own small-cell enclosure, but this is not necessarily the case. It may not be
possible to fit three small cells and a backhaul terminal on the same lamppost.
Figure 32. Wholesale model cost savings on backhaul and small-cell TCO
22. Findings
Small cells are creating a new market for backhaul which is markedly different from aggregation point. For the direct links to the aggregation point and high-capacity
the macro-backhaul market. Small-cell deployments require low-cost solutions that ones, LOS is going to be the choice for operators.
are easy to install and maintain, compact and low power, unlike the big, more
expensive, higher-reliability links in the macro layers. Where LOS is not possible and a high-capacity link is required, operators can add a
relay that is in LOS with the small cell and with the other end of the link. A relay
At the same time, backhaul costs figure more prominently in the small-cell business doubles the cost of wireless backhaul, and adds 52% to 53% to the small-cell TCO.
case than in the macro-cell one. Backhaul accounts for 37% to 42% of the small-cell
TCO, against a 20% for the macro-cell TCO. Two spectrum bands are emerging as the favorite choice among. Licensed sub-6 GHz
band are the preferred ones for NLOS backhaul, with operators planning to use
Fiber is a crucial technology to provide backhaul to small cells, but we expect it to sub-6 license-exempt bands only where no other option is available, or as an interim
see it used in a minority of small cells in most deployments, both because of the high solution. These bands provide limited capacity and are difficult to get, but allow
cost of fiber compared to wireless backhaul and because it is difficult and expensive operators to reach small cells in challenging RF locations. The 60 GHz is emerging as
to bring fiber to small-cell locations such as lampposts. At a lease cost of $2,500 per the preferred LOS band, as it is inexpensive, widely underused but available in many
year, fiber becomes as expensive as wireless backhaul. markets, and its limited reach and the narrow beam allow for an effective frequency
reuse.
To succeed in this market, wireless backahul vendors need high-capacity products
with new form factors that they can sell at price points that are much lower than Some operators are strongly pushing for an integrated backhaul module to be added
current backhaul products. Operators need new solutions, not ones repurposed to the small-cell enclosure, often by a backhaul vendor of their choice. Other
from the macro-backahul product lines. A target price point of $2,000 per link by operators prefer to retain the flexibility to combine small-cell and backhaul vendor
2015 is needed to support a successful business plan for small-cell deployments. as they see fit. Vendors are also split as to whether this one-box approach will work
with LOS solutions. If available, we estimate that integrated backhaul can save
As small-cell backhaul emerges as a stand-alone market, it has become a fertile operators 22% -27% of their small-cell TCO.
ground for backhaul specialists that focus primarily on small cells, such as BLiNQ,
Bluewan, Sub10 or Taqua. Consolidation is likely as the small-cell market takes off Wholesale models can also provide cost savings. We looked at the financial
over the next few years. implications of sharing a backhaul link among three operators installing their small
cells at the same location. This approach can save operators 12% to 20% of the
No single wireless solution will suffice. Operators will need to mix LOS backhaul, small-cell TCO, as they can more effectively utilize the capacity provided by high-
where LOS is possible and they need a high-capacity link, with NLOS backhaul, where capacity links, leverage license-exempt spectrum, or benefit from widely deployed
LOS is not available and capacity requirements are not too stringent. We expect to wireless interfaces like LTE.
see NLOS to be mostly used at the edge of the small-cell network connected to an
23. In their own words
We asked vendors to tell us what makes their solution stand out in the increasingly Bluewan
crowded small-cell backhaul market. Here are their largely unedited responses.
Bluwan's Fibre Through The Air (FTTA) PMP millimeter-wave solution combines the
Alcatel-Lucent efficiency of a time-division-duplex (TDD) PMP architecture with the pure performance of
wide band millimeter wave radios to deliver scalable (2 gbps/sector) and configurable
Our metro-cell backhaul solution leverages our industry-leading IP macro-cell backhaul capacity to small-cell sites. This is twenty times more capacity delivered on a single sector
portfolio, lightRadio wireless expertise, end-to-end OAM, and professional services. We than existing PMP microwave solutions. Calculations show that mobile operators rolling
offer maximum metro-cell deployment flexibility with support for any access to the out small cells can benefit from a 200% to 300% saving in TCO over a five-year period
metro-cell site (e.g., wireless/microwave, Ethernet, fiber, GPON, bonded xDSL) in support using PMP millimeter wave; the savings stem from minimized equipment footprint and
of self-built and/or leased deployments. We are adapting our leading IP backhaul reduced site rental and licensing costs.
capabilities into a form factor that addresses metro-cell deployment requirements. This
approach allows us to offer operational consistency with the macro-cell backhaul BridgeWave
network the foundation to support seamless mobility between metro cells and macro
cells, and to address any metro-cell deployment, including the most complex mesh BridgeWaves PG60C is designed to provide full-rate gigabit capacities in a backhaul
topology. solution that is ideal for small-cell environments where gaps in macro-cell coverage exist.
As a result of its aesthetically friendly design, the PG60C can be installed in the most
BLiNQ challenging environments, such as street-level light poles or on the side of a building,
where other solutions using traditional parabolic dish antennas might not be allowed.
BLiNQ is defining intelligent small-cell wireless backhaul. The nonline-of-sight systems BridgeWaves PG60C utilizes the license-free 60 GHz and is designed with advanced
operate in multipoint configuration in licensed sub-6 GHz spectrum. They implement a carrier-grade Ethernet capabilities that are required to manage large-scale, dense
unique patent-pending interference management technology that coordinates the backhaul networks.
operation and transmit power of the backhaul nodes to maximize capacity and
performance. BLiNQs systems are ideal for below-roofline base stations where Cambridge Broadband Networks
traditional backhaul solutions such as optical fiber and microwave are expensive or
technically not feasible. Operators can now deploy compact base stations to quickly VectaStar Metro is a line-of-sight multipoint microwave backhaul platform for metro
provide capacity where needed. cells. Multipoint microwave is the fastest-growing form of backhaul in the industry, which
is not surprising considering its nearly ideal mix of performance, flexibility, and low cost
of ownership. The topology uses only one access-point radio for multiple links,
dramatically reducing the number of installations and the backhaul spectrum required.
Its multipoint topology has significant traffic aggregation benefits too. Its compact, street- NEC
level design achieves near-100% site coverage in dense urban scenarios.
NEC believes that small-cell backhaul has to deliver high capacity at low cost on day one
Ceragon and be ready to support operator deployments of LTE over the next 3 to 5 years. 60GHz
is the only wireless technology capable of delivering this, and with our innovation
Ceragon solutions for small cells are compact, cost-effective, and easy to install critical expertise in wireless transmission, NEC's solution will exploit the high capacity, low
elements in the unique physical, networking, and regulatory challenges that face latency, low footprint, and low TCO advantages of 60GHz. In addition, the NEC solution
operators as they begin to consider small-cell installations. Our solutions offer optimal enables gradual adoption of more complex topologies with automated resource control,
flexibility and support all microwave technology, starting from sub-6 GHz microwave links giving our customers flexible choice of network performance and cost to suit a variety of
PTP or PMP (FibeAir-2000, FibeAir-2500) to compact all-outdoor 6 to 42 GHz systems service and QoE (quality of experience) requirements.
(FibeAir IP-10C), to 70 to 80 GHz millimeter wave (e-band) with FibeAir-70.
Siklu
DragonWave
Leveraging its disruptive all-silicon radio technology, Siklu designed and developed the
DragonWave's approach is to provide high-capacity links of 500 mbps and above to meet EtherHaul-600, an ultra-small, all-outdoor, small-cell backhaul product that enables rapid
intensive LTE bandwidth demands. DragonWave is the first in the industry to offer a deployment anywhere, from street lamps to rooftops. The Siklu invisible solution offers
complete site solution with all the key elements that are required, in "Avenue Site." This extremely low power consumption and plug-and-play installation into an operator's self-
combined with high capacity, low latency, and low packet-delay-variation (PDV) organizing network (SON). Operating in the unlicensed, uncongested 57 to 66 GHz
backhaul meets the needs of an LTE microcellular deployment. spectrum, the integrated all-silicon Siklu approach brings down costs to a fraction of
other millimeter- wave solutions and will represent a key stepping stone to the mass
E-band deployment of small cells.
Highest power, longest distance full-duplex GigE solution in the industry. Skyfiber
Intracom SkyFibers Optical Wireless Broadband (OWB/NextGen FSO) technology provides an

innovative and cost-effective solution for small-cell backhaul. OWB uses infrared light to
A synergistic solution can be established with the combination of PMP and e-band PTP deliver 1gbps of bandwidth across 1-mile hops at very low cost. No RF spectrum is
backhaul options. These technologies have carrier-grade performance and make needed, and a link can be rapidly deployed in as little as one day, which provides a
effective use of spectrum resources. The small cells will be deployed in an ad hoc significant advantage in network costs and time to revenue. SkyFibers OWB has several
manner, at least initially, and the PMP (26 to 28 GHz) backhaul is a cost-efficient and, advantages over other wireless gigabit technologies (millimeter wave), including less rain
simultaneously, carrier-grade solution. It can cover the area of several macro cells with attenuation and more reliable beam alignment due to active tracking capabilities.
60% to 70% LOS probability, and accommodate up to 40 small cells. For the remaining SkyFiber is the smart small-cell backhaul alternative: it alleviates spectrum crunch while
locations, which do not have LOS with the hub site, a 60 GHz PTP link can efficiently rapidly enabling new revenue.
extend the backhaul, bypassing the clutter obstacles.
Sub10 Taqua
The Sub10 Liberator 60 GHz wireless ethernet bridge is the smallest, lightest, most Taqua has designed a NLOS backhaul system that is simple to use and to integrate into
spectrally efficient system available to the market today. Data bandwidth, subject to link the carrier's network and processes. With SNMP, we integrate with existing network
type and modulation, can be 160/320/1000 mbps at a full duplex rate. Liberator is element managers to allow the carrier to have an end-to-end view of its small cells and
proving to be attractive to many mobile service providers for femto- and pico cell small-cell backhaul. Taqua's leading link-budget provides greater deployment flexibility,
backhaul, owing to oxygen-absorption limiting range and narrow beam width, which higher capacity, and higher-quality backhaul links. Ease of installation is achieved with an
reduce interference between links. This powerful combination allows very high, innovative pointing algorithm that allows technicians to quickly determine the best
interference-free reuse of the 60 GHz band. Liberator is also proving to be a simple and possible orientation and highest-quality link.
cost-effective fibre replacement for the SME sector.
About Senza Fili
SENZA
Senza Fili provides advisory support on wireless data technologies and services. At Senza Fili we have in-depth expertise in financial modelling, market forecasts
and research, white paper preparation, business plan support, RFP preparation and management, due diligence, and training. Our client base is international and
spans the entire value chain: clients include wireline, fixed wireless, and mobile operators, enterprises and other vertical players, vendors, system integrators,
investors, regulators, and industry associations.
CONSULTING We provide a bridge between technologies and services, helping our clients assess established and emerging technologies, leverage these technologies to support
new or existing services, and build solid, profitable business models. Independent advice, a strong quantitative orientation, and an international perspective are
the hallmarks of our work. For additional information, visit www.senzafiliconsulting.com or contact us at info@senzafiliconsulting.com or +1 425 657 4991.
About the author

Monica Paolini, PhD, is the founder and president of Senza Fili. She is an expert in wireless technologies and has helped clients worldwide to understand
technology and customer requirements, evaluate business plan opportunities, market their services and products, and estimate the market size and revenue
opportunity of new and established wireless technologies. She has frequently been invited to give presentations at conferences and has written several reports
and articles on wireless broadband technologies. She has a PhD in cognitive science from the University of California, San Diego (US), an MBA from the University
of Oxford (UK), and a BA/MA in philosophy from the University of Bologna (Italy). She can be contacted at monica.paolini@senzafiliconsulting.com.
2012 Senza Fili Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved. No selection of this material can be copied, photocopied, duplicated in any form or by any means, or redistributed without express written permission
from Senza Fili Consulting. While the report is based upon information that we consider accurate and reliable, Senza Fili Consulting makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the
information in this document. Senza Fili Consulting assumes no liability for any damage or loss arising from reliance on this information. Names of companies and products here mentioned may be the
trademarks of their respective owners.

SenzaFili SMCLBKH FullReport

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

SenzaFili SMCLBKH FullReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report Backhaul for small cells

Backhaul for small cells

1. The backhaul challenge 5

1. The backhaul challenge

2. Report scope and roadmap

Technologies that will enable small-cell deployments

4. A new backhaul paradigm

5. Defining small cells and deployment typologies

Figure 3. Backhaul capacity requirements

Figure 2. Survey results: small-cell backhaul capacity requirements

Fiber availability, however, is crucial in small-cell deployments. In most cases, fiber is

8. Wireless options: spectrum tradeoffs

9. A decision tree: Fiber, LOS or NLOS, licensed or unlicensed?

There is no single backhaul technology that alone can meet

Select NLOS sub-6 Is microwave/millimeter Is LOS possible with a relay

Figure 7. Small-cell backhaul decision tree

Figure 8. Small-cell topologies

11. Opportunistic deployment models

At the opposite end, in a ring topology, we expect MMW technologies to dominate

In hub-and-spoke and hybrid topologies, we expect a mix of backhaul technologies. The

12. Integrated backhaul in a single-box form factor

13. Vendor strategies

15. Vendor innovation

Table 9. Comparison of vendors' solutions

Figure 14. Huawei eRelay terminal equipment

Taqua aims to provide a simple-to-deploy (30-minute installation) with the W-Series. It

Figure 16. Taqua W-Series

Figure 17. BLiNQ X100

On the license-exempt side, Ruckus Wireless has developed a mesh-based backhaul

Figure 19. BridgeWave PicoHaul

Figure 20. Siklus EtherHaul-600

Figure 22. E-Band E-Link 1000LR

Figure 21. Sub10 Liberator

16. Financial analysis: assumptions

Table 11. Cost assumptions

17. Sensitivity analysis: fiber

18. What is cheapest: PTP or PMP? LOS or NLOS?

Table 12. PTP or PMP?

19. Cost reduction with single-box integrated backhaul

To estimate the cost savings, we made the following assumptions:

20. LOS relays: how much do they add to the TCO?

21. Cost savings with a wholesale model

23. In their own words

Intracom SkyFibers Optical Wireless Broadband (OWB/NextGen FSO) technology provides an

About the author

You might also like