Mobile Telecoms Technology & Market Disruptions

Sometimes its good to take a step back and look at the new applications and services that are already happening or may be happening sometime soon. Some of these have a possibility to disrupt the existing industries and markets, giving rise to not only new players but a completely new order.

Embedded below is a presentation from Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis. While there are a few things that I look at differently, there are many interesting points that the industry should already be looking at.

A good example of disruption would be the SIM card evolution that Apple introduced in iPadAir2 and iPadMini3. While they had great expectations, it didnt work out exactly as they had hoped due to the operators not letting Apple use the feature they wanted. In fact John Legere, T-Mobile US CEO, took to twitter to explain the problem. See here.

Another example is the new MVNO model by Google (Fi) in the USA. The problem in USA compared to Europe is that the operators have monopoly in many areas (fixed and mobile) and they can also get away with charging far higher amounts.

In addition, the problem that the operators have is that they focus on areas where they don't have issues; crying wolf if required. An example is taking advantage of 'data tsunami' and using it to hoard spectrum, as be seen from the tweet below:

Verizon Wireless admits to hoarding spectrum, ends any argument about a spectrum crunch http://t.co/0aqpGxlEvm
— Kevin Ahoy (@FlightsimGeek) February 23, 2015

Anyway, here is the presentation. Let me know what you think.

4.5G: Integration of LTE and Wi-Fi networks

With LTE-A getting ready to meet the IMT-Advanced requirements and fulfilling the role of promised '4G', we believe the next phase of evolution before 5G will be successful interworking of LTE and Wi-Fi networks.

This whitepaper (embedded below) explores this feature, we call 4.5G, in detail.



We are very thankful to Anritsu for kindly sponsoring this whitepaper. They have their own whitepaper on this topic which is also worth a read, available here.

4.5G: Integration of LTE and Wi-Fi networks from eXplanoTech

Let us know what you think about this.

SIPTO Evolution

Couple of years back I did a post on SIPTO (Selected IP Traffic Offload) and related technologies coming as part of Rel-10. I also put up a comparison for SIPTO, LIPA and IFOM here. Having left it for couple of years, I found that there have been some enhancements to the architecture from the basic one described here.

I have embedded the NEC paper below for someone wanting to investigate further the different options shown in the picture above. I think that even though the operator may offload certain type of traffic locally, they would still consider that data as part of the bundle and would like to charge for it. At the same time there would be a requirement on the operator for lawful interception, so not sure how this will be managed for different architectures. Anyway, feel free to leave comments if you have any additional info.

NEC: Mobile Traffic Offload from Zahid Ghadialy

Myths and Challenges in Future Wireless Access

Interesting article from the recent IEEE Comsoc magazine. Table 1 on page 5 is an interesting comparison of how different players reach the magical '1000x' capacity increase. Even though Huawei shows 100x, which may be more realistic, the industry is sticking with the 1000x figure. 

Qualcomm is touting a similar 1000x figure as I showed in a post earlier here.

Overview of 3GPP Release-12 Study Item UPCON

Mobile operators are seeing significant increases in user data traffic. For some operators, user data traffic has more than doubled annually for several years. Although the data capacity of networks has increased significantly, the observed increase in user traffic continues to outpace the growth in capacity. This is resulting in increased network congestion and in degraded user service experience. Reasons for this growth in traffic are the rapidly increasing use of smart phones and tablet like devices, and the proliferation of data applications that they support, as well as the use of USB modem dongles for laptops to provide mobile Internet access using 3GPP networks. As the penetration of these terminals increases worldwide and the interest in content-rich multi-media services (e.g. OTT video streaming services) rises, this trend of rapidly increasing data traffic is expected to continue and accelerate.

Here are couple of presentations on this topic:

Towards User-Plane Congestion Management in LTE EPS from Zahid Ghadialy

Overview of 3GPP Study Item UPCON from Zahid Ghadialy

Related blog posts:

• Data growth from 0.6EB/Mo to 10.6EB/Mo by 2016 (18x)
• Operators strategy for supporting the ‘Mobile Data Explosion’
• Data v/s Signalling Traffic in Dongles and Phones
• Capacity planning in mobile data networks experiencing exponential growth in demand
• 3GPP based 'Sponsored Data Connectivity'
• Downlink traffic distribution during 27 hours in one GGSN
• A Twitter discussion on 'Data Tsunami' myth
• Mobile Video is more than 50% of the data traffic

Four Options for Traffic Offloading

Data v/s Signalling Traffic in Dongles and Phones

From a presentation by Peter Zidar in the Small Cells Global Congress 2012.

The above picture shows that even though the amount data traffic carried by dongles is much more than the amount of traffic carried by the mobile phones, the amount of signalling is far higher from the mobiles than that of dongles. This is mainly because the mobiles need to conserve the battery power and for this reason they disconnect from the network as soon as there is no need for exchange of data. Remember the Fast Dormancy issue in the smartphones? If not see this post.

Related posts:

• On Signalling Storm...
• A Twitter discussion on 'Data Tsunami' myth
• M2M and the 'Big Data'
• Understanding smartphone traffic

Data growth from 0.6EB/Mo to 10.6EB/Mo by 2016 (18x)

A slightly old slide that I found while looking for some information but worth putting up here.

1 EB (Exabyte) = 1000000000000000000B = 1018 bytes = 1000000000gigabytes = 1000000terabytes = 1000petabytes

As we can see, Cisco predicts (and I agree) that the mobile data consumption will increase from 0.6 exabytes per month to 10.6 exabytes per month by 2016. What is really debatable is what actually is a mobile device and how much of this data will go through the operators network.

If for example a tablet contains SIM card but you use your own home/work WiFi. Does this qualify as a mobile device and is this data included. What if its exactly the same scenario and the device does not have a SIM card then would you say this is a mobile device? What happens when the operator allows you to use an Operator WiFi which is secured via login/password and you use the tablet without SIM card on an operator WiFi. Would you count this data, is the device considered as a mobile device.

The bottom line is that data usage will continue to grow but probably not on the mobile networks. WiFi would be a prime candidate for offloading, due to it being mostly free (or costing much less - except in the hotels). Some of the recent pricing by the operators make me feel that they do not want the users to use their network for every day use, only for important work.

See Also:

• Operators strategy for supporting the ‘Mobile Data Explosion’
• Cellular or WiFi: Which is the preferred network access?
• Data Consumed by Different Streaming Applications
• A Twitter discussion on 'Data Tsunami' myth
• How Mobile Broadband users use their data allowance
• Understanding smartphone traffic

Cellular or WiFi: Which is the preferred network access?

I was going through this report by Cisco on "What do Consumers want from WiFi" and came across this interesting picture. 

With the ease and availability of easy WiFi, it would be the preferred access technology whenever possible. Cellular access would be generally reserved for mobility scenarios or where there is no wifi network to allow access.

Another interesting observation from above is that the survey puts WiFi and Cellular security to the same level. Though the cellular is more secure in case of an open public WiFi scenario where an eavesdropper may be able to get hold of login/password information it is generally at the same level of security to a secured WiFi. On the other hand with cellular, lawful interception may be much more easy as compared to using secure WiFi.

I am sure that the content of last paragraph are debatable and am happy to hear your viewpoints.

A slidecast of the Cisco whitepaper mentioned above is embedded as follows:

KT: Cloud Communication Center for managing Data Explosion

Interesting presentation from Korea Telecom in the LTE World Summit that argues that to manage the data explosion

Day 2-keynote-0900 sung-man-kim-20120524 from ceobroadband

A Twitter discussion on 'Data Tsunami' myth

Participants:


@disruptivedean - Dean Bubley
@StevenJCrowley - Steve Crowley
@WhatTheBit - Stefan Constantine
@labboudles - Leila Abboud
@twehmeier - Thomas Wehmeier
@jamncl4 - Jonathan Morgan
@wifidave - Dave Wright

@disruptivedean: Data tsunami myth washing further out to sea: Telefonica mobile data grew 35% YoY to Q1, vs. data rev growth of 28%. http://www.telefonica.com/en/shareholders_investors/html/financyreg/resultados2012.shtml


@disruptivedean: Increasingly convinced that some cellular data growth numbers & forecasts are over-inflated - mainly to sway regulators on spectrum policy

@StevenJCrowley: Wonder how much of Telefonica lower data growth is from Spain's unusually bad economy versus normal "S curve"

@twehmeier: Did you see that shockingly unbalanced story on data traffic in FT? Pure spin. Telefonica is v representative of Euro ops. The other factor is vendors perpetuating the myth to sell their products and services

@WhatTheBit: you should do some research into operator spectrum holdings versus actual utilization, I'm sure the results would B shocking

@twehmeier: The other factor is vendors perpetuating the myth to sell their products and services

@disruptivedean: Don't think Spanish economy that much an issue. Growth been flattening in UK & Germany for a while - http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/smoking-gun-i-think-o2-uk-has-falling.html


@disruptivedean: The contrast in attitude between TF corporate vs. TF Digital is striking sometimes.

@labboudles: that's interesting, is it typical of others ops numbers, ie data makes them money so stop whining abt capex/google?

@disruptivedean: It's certainly true for VF in Europe - they have faster data rev growth than traffic growth. Caps/tiers fixed the problem


@disruptivedean: Basic pricing tiers/caps + user-controlled WiFi have "fixed" the problem. Has undermined need for more complex solutions & tech

@twehmeier: Indeed. amazes me how little emphasis placed on imprtnce of pricing. Next prob will be working out how to bring traffic back

@disruptivedean: Yes, especially with LTE - in some places/networks we're heading for overcapacity. Not quite as bad as fibre in 2001, but scary

@twehmeier: And that will likely lead to more naive pricing models that only serve to accelerate self-commoditisation of value of data!


@twehmeier: Telenor firsy reported faster data revenue growth versus traffic back in 2010. And that's in some of the world's most advanced smartphone and MBB markets...

@labboudles: thought so since that was case in France, but admit had not looked at all ops trends

@disruptivedean: Also beware that some operators (eg AT&T) have started adding in WiFi hotspot traffic to bump up the numbers

@twehmeier: Shameless lobbying....

@labboudles: where is there overcapacity?! Places where LTE has been built and already used?

@twehmeier: imagine a market where Wi-Fi is ubiquitous and all operators deploy LTE on top of pre-existing HSPA/HSPA+. And remember average utilisation of European 3G networks is typically only in the 35-40% range and pretty steady

@labboudles: that's a ways off in real world though


@labboudles: ok that I just don't understand, then why is my user experience of mobile Internet so crap n London, Paris ?

@disruptivedean: Depends how you calculate it. Bear in mind many MNOs don't "light up" all spectrum initially, but add extra capacity


@disruptivedean: Plenty of other bottlenecks - most notable is poor coverage, could be backhaul, stuff in core network, even DNS etc


@disruptivedean: Congestion often caused by too much signalling (setting up/tearing down IP conxns), not sheer data "tonnage"

@jamncl4: Actually I think we are also seeing the impact of the shift from laptops to tablets and smartphones


@jamncl4: People can't afford multiple data plans so they shift from laptop to Smartphones which inherently use less data

@wifidave: How did you arrive at 35%/28%? I found 15.4% YoY in "mobile data revenue", and couldn't find traffic figures.

@jamncl4: Same with tablets which also pull usage away from laptop except most tablets are wifi only


@jamncl4: WiFi is in enough places that I can't justify two data plans so I stick to wifi tablet and data pla smartphone

@disruptivedean: It's on page 6 of the results presentation, showing rapid convergence of traffic & revenue growth

@jamncl4: The smartphone will take a few years to catch up to laptops in terms of data requirements thus "slowdown" growth

@disruptivedean: Bear in mind rising % of people don't have "plans" but use PAYG for data. But yes, dongle traffic falling, phone rising

@jamncl4: But Smartphone require higher signaling than laptops due to apps & power saving techniques;massive signal growth

@disruptivedean: Tablet/laptop substitution (or not) largely irrelevant as both are generally WiFi-only & will most likely stay that way

@jamncl4: Multi device plans could be interesting moving forward and there impact on this


@jamncl4: I disagree. Majority of traffic has come from laptops in past so more wifi & tablets reduces the traffic

@wifidave: @disruptivedean OK, I see. The 27% is a subset of the 15.4%.

@jamncl4: I think the real issue is that people don't want to pay for 2 plans & the 1 plan in general is Smartphone for now. Multidevice PAYG plans will be interesting on their impact.

@wifidave: Ponder this > Assuming TF #s are cell data, they represent a mobile data Traffic/Rev YoY growth ratio of 1.29:1 . The same ratio for #ChinaMobile in Q4'11 was 1.28:1 . For #ChinaMobile, cell data grew at 56.1% traffic and 43.5% revenues.


@wifidave: ATT says that "wireless data traffic" doubled in 2011 from 2010. (http://www.attinnovationspace.com/innovation/story/a7781181). but elsewhere report that their Wi-Fi traffic increased 550% in Q4'11. (http://www.vision2mobile.com/news/2012/01/wif.aspx). all while wireless data revenues only grew 19.4% YoY in Q4'11 (http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=22304&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=33762)


@wifidave: The real growth (337% and 550% for CM and ATT) is in Wi-Fi as Dean said. Not adding much to rev yet.

@disruptivedean: Absolutely agree more WiFi = less "big device mobile data traffic". Unconvinced it matters if big device = laptop/tablet


----------------------x------------------------o---------------------------x------------------------

Operators strategy for supporting the ‘Mobile Data Explosion’

My presentation from 3G, HSPA+ and LTE Optimisation conference, 17-18th April 2012, Prague, Czech Republic -  #ITMoptimisation

Operators strategy for supporting the ‘Mobile Data Explosion’

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Capacity planning in mobile data networks experiencing exponential growth in demand

Key note presentation by Dr. Kim Larsen at Informa’s 3G, HSPA & LTE Optimization conference in Prague.

You can follow the complete discussion on Twitter using tag #ITMoptimisation

Capacity planning in mobile data networks experiencing exponential growth in demand from Dr. Kim (Kyllesbech Larsen)

Related Post:

• Summary of tweets from #ITMoptimisation

Discussion on 'Offload' and 'Onload'

An interesting discussion on Twitter about Offload and Onload that is reproduced below. Discussions have been edited for clarity:


@StevenJCrowley: Exhibit 1: In last year's VNI, Cisco estimated that in 2014, 23% of US mobile data would be offloaded. It's close to 50% today.


@dmavrakis: it depends how you define offload. Some of this 50% may be simple WiFi access rather than offload.

@StevenJCrowley: From what I see I'd suggest Wi-Fi (or femto) access is offload if the device is 2,3,4G capable but does not access a macrocell


@dmavrakis: So if I buy a SIM-only handset and not even put a SIM in and use WiFi, it's considered offload?


@StevenJCrowley: Seems to me that's not considered offload because without a SIM it's not a 2,3,4G capable device.


@StevenJCrowley: BTW my old AT&T iPhone 3G won't work as a Wi-Fi-only device without an old inactive SIM still in it. Don't know about iPhone 4.


@disruptivedean: I agree with @dmavrakis . Most smartphone WiFi use if "private WiFi", not offload. Some may even be onload (or "OTT WiFi")

@disruptivedean: Easy way to think of it: anything you'd do on an iPod Touch isn't offload WiFi if you do the same thing on iPhone


@disruptivedean: Other example: if I use WiFi to connect my phone to my printer (or corp WLAN) = traffic never destined for 2G/3G


@simonchapman: app downloads (500MB+ for some games), AirPlay etc are much greater than 2/3/4G use. Where is 50% figure from? 


@SteveLightley: the actual presence of decent connectivity encourages higher capacity activity. Is that offload?


@disruptivedean: I refer to extra use as "elastic". See chart on p18 of my Carrier WiFi paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/61910980/Disruptive-Analysis-Carrier-WiFi


@StevenJCrowley: Decent connectivity / more use is offload, as 3G4G w/o Wi-Fi is onload. U.S./FCC/Cisco perspective


@StevenJCrowley: I define "onload" as a 2nd operator capturing traffic via WiFi, eg Vodafone handset + O2 WiFi app


@dmavrakis: Also core network onload via WLAN gateways without local breakout.


@disruptivedean: A thought about "offload". I only "onloaded" to 3G data on my PC in the first place because WiFi wasn't everywhere I needed it. Now it is.


@StevenJCrowley: 50% rough estimate. AT&T said 40% of iPhone traffic on Wi-Fi in early 2010. Its Wi-Fi network data tripled since


@StevenJCrowley: Does not include femto offload. See also "#2" from this blog post bit.ly/wxHvRl


@StevenJCrowley: AT&T recently said macrocell data growth down to 40% a year.


@StevenJCrowley: I like Dean's chart. Offloading important in U.S. from 4G spectrum requirements issue.


@StevenJCrowley: And here spectrum debate is more political than technical, thus broad brushes.


@StevenJCrowley: It's basically, "We need spectrum to stream NetFlix." "No, you're inside and can use Wi-Fi."


@StevenJCrowley: Dean's and Ofcom's analyses are the types of things current FCC should be doing but doesn't


@disruptivedean: The whole spectrum reqts issue likely to take a hit as data growth << expected on many networks. S-curve not exponential


@disruptivedean: To be fair, Cisco is between a rock & a hard place with VNI. Scared people into making sure it didn't come true. Self-denying


@Gabeuk: To everyone discussing offload on my Twitter today, the premise seems wrong... connectivity & access is the start point. Will elaborate l8er


@SteveLightley: I struggle to understand how if it would never have happened how it can be classed as offloaded


@SteveLightley: a VoIP call on an ott or mno app IS offload but Netflix in Starbucks over wifi is not


@SteveLightley: looking forward to gabe's view on access etc when he gets here! 


@TMFAssociates: AT&T seems to have changed its tune over the last year as well http://gigaom.com/broadband/atts-vanishing-spectrum-crisis/


@StevenJCrowley: AT&T will spin it. "If only we had more spectrum we could have sent more data." Etc.


@dmavrakis: Arguably spectrum is the MNO's most valuable possession. Isn't it natural that they want more?


@StevenJCrowley: More spectrum than needed is an idle asset that costs the company money.


@TMFAssociates: But if you corner the market then you can foreclose the possibility of competition


@dmavrakis: I agree conditionally. Twitter is again not the best medium for this discussion

Couple of interesting posts related to the above:

• Watch out for dodgy offload & optimisation claims and stats - Dean Bubley (@disruptivedean)
• What to make of AT&T’s vanishing spectrum crisis

What is your opinion?

Release 12 study item on Continuity of Data Sessions to Local Networks (CSN)

LIPA was defined as part of Release-10 that I have already blogged about. Imagine the situation where a user started accessing local network while camped on the Home eNode B (aka Femtocell) but then moved to the macro network but still wants to continue using the local network. Release 12 defines this feature and is called Continuity of Data Sessions to Local Networks (CSN). This study item was originally part of Release 11 but has now been moved to Rel-12.

From SP-100885:

Justification

Basic functionality for Local IP Access (LIPA) has been specified in Rel-10.

LIPA signifies the capability of a UE to obtain access to a local residential/enterprise IP network (subsequently called a local network) that is connected to one or more H(e)NBs.

The current study item investigates extending LIPA functionality to allow access to the local network when a UE is under coverage of the macro network and provide related mobility support.

LIPA allows a UE to work with devices in the local network – e.g. printers, video cameras, or a local web-server. If the local network offers services that enable exchange of digital content (e.g. UPnP) LIPA allows the UE to discover supporting devices and to be discovered.

Examples for services that become available by LIPA are:

·         The pictures stored in a UE’s digital camera may be uploaded to a local networked storage device or printed out at a local printer.

·         A portable audio player in the UE may fetch new content from a media centre available on the local network.

·         A UE may receive video streams from local surveillance cameras in the home.

·         A local web-server in a company’s intranet may be accessed by the UE.

·         Support of VPN.

LIPA does not require the local network to be connected to the Internet but achieves IP connectivity with the UE through one or more H(e)NBs of the mobile operator.

In Release 10  3GPP has only specified the support of LIPA when the UE accesses the local network via H(e)NB.

On the other hand an operator may, e.g. as a chargeable user service, wish to provide access to the local network also to a UE that is under coverage of the macro network. Access to the local network when a UE is under coverage of the macro network should be enabled in Rel-11.

In Rel-10 it had been required for a UE to be able to maintain IP connectivity to the local network when moving between H(e)NBs within the same local network.

However, access to the local network may be lost as a UE moves out of H(e)NB coverage into the macro network, even if other services (e.g. telephony, data services, SIPTO) survive a handover to the macro network and are continued. This may result in an unsatisfactory user experience.

The current study item will allow continuation of data sessions to the local network when the UE moves between H(e)NB and the macro network.

Therefore, in Rel-11, the 3GPP system requires additional functionality to allow

·         A UE to access the local network from the macro network

·         A UE to maintain continuity of data sessions to the local network when moving between a H(e)NB and the macro network

Objective:              to propose requirements and study feasibility for the following scenarios:

Provide a capability to the mobile operator to allow or restrict

­        Access to an enterprise/residential IP network when a UE is under coverage of the macro network, assuming that the IP address of the local IP network (e.g. residential/enterprise gateway) is available to the UE.

­        Continuity of data session(s) to an enterprise/residential IP network when a UE moves between a H(e)NB in an enterprise/residential environment and the macro network.

The support of Continuity of Data Sessions to Local Networks should be an operator option that may or may not be provided by individual PLMNs.

Service Aspects

The user should be able to decline access to the local network from the macro network. The user should also be able to decline continuity of data sessions to local networks when moving between H(e)NB and the macro network (e.g. in the case when data sessions to local networks is charged differently if accessed from macro coverage or via the H(e)NB).

A difference in QoS may be noticeable by the user when the local network is accessed from the macro network or via the H(e)NB.

Mobile Video is more than 50% of the data traffic

With the popularity of video streaming, its no surprise that video is already more than 50% of the data traffic flowing through the network.

Overcapacity or Capacity Crunch?

A Qualcomm presentation from not too long back:

How to meet data demand?

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

And another report from the UMTS Forum that is suggesting that the data traffic will grow 67 times from 2010 to 2020, summary embedded below:

Summary of report: Mobile traffic forecasts 2010-2020

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Then I came across this interesting discussion on Twitter and a blog post by Dean Bubley in Disruptive Wireless blog.

Overcapacity has been summarised in few words as: Overcooked forecasts + WiFi offload + optimisation + LTE + more spectrum + caps/tiers + well-designed apps

In the blog post Dean's mentioned about the falling data usage that has been reported by O2. I would strongly recommend reading it.

From the network point of view, I think overcapacity is better for the time being as we are prepared for the short term future. In the long run, new devices and innovative apps may suddenly start driving up the data demand again and hopefully by that time we have sorted out some more of the capacity crunch issues.

What do you think?

Downlink traffic distribution during 27 hours in one GGSN

Click on the pic to enlarge

Interesting pic from a recent event in Cambridge Wireless.

Two interesting NGMN papers on Backhaul

There are some interesting blog posts on Broadband Traffic Managemenet on Backhaul. Here are few excerpts:

Traditional network management practice says that network element usage level should not exceed 70% of its capacity. If it does - it is time to do something - buy more or manage it better. So, according to a recent Credit Suisse report - it is time to do something for wireless networks, globally. For North America, where current utilization at peak time reaches 80% it is even urgent.

Phil Goldstein (pictured) reports to FierceWireless that - "Wireless networks in the United States are operating at 80 percent of total capacity, the highest of any region in the world, according to a report prepared by investment bank Credit Suisse. The firm argued that wireless carriers likely will need to increase their spending on infrastructure to meet users' growing demands for mobile data .. globally, average peak network utilization rates are at 65 percent, and that peak network utilization levels will reach 70 percent within the next year. .. 23 percent of base stations globally have capacity constraints, or utilization rates of more than 80 to 85 percent in busy hours, up from 20 percent last year .. In the United States, the percentage of base stations with capacity constraints is 38 percent, up from 26 percent in 2010"

And

The Yankee Group provides the following forecast for mobile backhaul:

Average macrocell backhaul requirements were 10 Mbps in 2008 (seven T1s, five E1s). In less than three years, they have more than tripled to 35 Mbps in 2011, and by 2015, Yankee Group predicts they will demand 100 Mbps.

There were 2.4 million macro cell site backhaul connections worldwide in 2010, growing to 3.3 million by [2015?]

Yankee's new research conclude:

"The market for wholesale backhaul services in North America will grow from $2.45 billion in 2010 to $3.9 billion in 2015, with the majority of this growth coming from Ethernet backhaul. Successful backhaul service providers will be those that can demonstrate price/performance and reliability, have software tools in place and can meet the specific needs of the mobile market.

And recently:

A Dell'Oro Group report forecasts that "Mobile Backhaul market revenues are expected to approach $9B by 2015. This updated report tracks two key market segments: Transport, which includes microwave and optical equipment, and Routers and Switches, which includes cell site devices, carrier Ethernet switches, and service provider edge routers .. routers and switches expected to constitute 30% of mobile backhaul market "

Shin Umeda, Vice President of Routers research at Dell’Oro Group said: “Our research has found that operators around the world are concerned with the rate of mobile traffic growth and are transitioning to Internet Protocol (IP) technologies to build a more efficient and scalable backhaul network. Our latest report forecasts the demand for IP-based routers and switches will continue to grow through 2015, almost doubling the market size of the Router and Switches segment in the five-year forecast period”

I have some basic posts on why Backhaul is important, here and here.

NGMN has timely released couple of whitepapers on the Backhaul.

The first one, 'Guidelines for LTE Backhaul Traffic Estimation' document describes how a model is developed to predict traffic levels in transport networks used to backhaul LTE eNodeBs. Backhaul traffic is made up of a number of different components of which user plane data is the largest, comprising around 80-90% of overall traffic, slightly less when IPsec encryption is added. These results reveal that the cell throughput characteristics for data carrying networks are quite different to those of voice carrying networks.

The purpose of second one, 'NGMN Whitepaper LTE Backhauling Deployment Scenarios' is to support operators in their migration from current architectures to new, packet-based backhaul networks. With the introduction of LTE operators need to look at how the backhauling network, the network domain that connects evolved NodeBs (eNBs) to MME and S/P-GW, is capable of adapting to the new requirements, namely the adoption of a packet infrastructure, without disrupting the existing services. This paper introduces some reference architectures, moving from a pure layer 2 topology to a full layer 3 one, discussing some elements to be considered in the design process of a network.

They are both long but interesting read if you like to learn more about Backhaul and the best way in future proofing the network deployments.

Converged Mobile Offload Architectures

Converged Mobile Offfload Architectures

View more presentations from All About 4G