Twitter Conversations from the 7th LTE World Summit

The following are the twitter conversations from LTE World Summit 2011. If you use twitter, it would be easy for you to understand them otherwise may be a bit of problem.

Tweets By:

Ajit Jaokar (@AjitJaokar)

Dan Warren (@TMGB)

Dean Bubley (@disruptivedean)

Dimitris Mavrakis (@dmavrakis)

Gabriel Brown (@Gabeuk)

Hamad Al-Marzouk (@dukeq8)

Kris Szaniawski (@kszaniawski)

Mico Naddeo (@kingcharles1666)

Olga Holin (@oholin)

Thomas Wehmeier (@twehmeier)

Zahid Ghadialy (@zahidtg)

17th MAY

@dmavrakis: 3GPP: 200 operators have committed to LTE, fastest adoption cycle in mobile

@dmavrakis: Bart Weijemanrs, MD of T-Mobile NL on stage

@dmavrakis: T-Mobile, TeliaSonera and Orange teaming up to drive device evolution for LTE at 1800MHz in Europe.

@disruptivedean: T-Mo NL speaker at #LTEWS sees network sharing as important. But also flexible to serve diff customers Sharing & flexibility compatible?

@disruptivedean: According to TMo NL speaker WhatsApp apparently got to 70% adoption on NL smartphones in 3 months! No wonder SMS revs fell at KPN.

@disruptivedean: Killing the MB traffic myth. TMo NL at #LTEWS says biggest problem is mass signalling load from simultaneous smartphone users

@dmavrakis: T-Mobile NL: Mobile needs developer guidelines to promote and to understand interdependency between internet and telco worlds

@dmavrakis: T-Mobile NL: spectrum, smartphones, voice, backhaul and seamless user experience between diff networks still need work for LTE

@twehmeier: I wonder if progress on LTE1800 in Europe will be slowed by legal challenges in the same way UMTS900 was hampered in past five years

@disruptivedean: So, who has been fired at operators, vendors or standards bodies for completely missing impact of app signalling when LTE was designed?

@dmavrakis: Common denominator in discussions and presentations so far in #LTEWS: Spectrum is the biggest challenge.

@twehmeier: Funny how the operators talk up the signalling challenge, whilst the vendors seem to think there are *quick* fixes. Quick=pricey?

@twehmeier: If planning to be “most operator-friendly platform” wouldn't you be spending BIIIIG on educating apps devs on being signalling aware?

@TMGB: @twehmeier I've been banging on about signaling aware apps and cross-app update correlation for months. Who do you think should spend big?

@disruptivedean: @TMGB @twehmeier Nobody bothers telling / helping developers to create signalling-lite apps. Or orients user pricing around signalling load.

@TMGB: @disruptivedean handset vendors hold the relationship to the app community and could implement the smarts for 'connect once, update many'

@disruptivedean: @TMGB yes & no. Apple was supposed to be trying but no sign yet. Best approach I've seen is SEVEN's signalling proxy & client in IP stack

@disruptivedean: Seems like consensus LTE1800 is critical for success. 2600 not viable for wide usage, DigDiv not enough capacity. regulator headache

@Gabeuk: If I heard right, T-Mo Netherlands CEO implied 70 percent of domestic smartphone users are using WhatsApp. Wow, that's viral.

@oholin: Nice to see that the focus is on enabling services above single connection technologies

@oholin: Huawei talking about LTE enabled services

@dmavrakis: Huawei believes Pocket WiFi will be a killer application for LTE

@dmavrakis: Huawei also looking at applications focusing on LTE uplink, including video broadcasting for professionals.

@kingcharles1666: Pocket Wifi. Like mifi but faster.

@oholin: Need to check Huawei's numbers on commercially launched networks. They say 20. Don't think that's right

@twehmeier: @oholin Depends on how strict you interpret “commercial launch". A few are technically pre-commercial trials for sure.

@oholin: @twehmeier I guess they should have better used our data though for their purposes 20 seems a better number

@dmavrakis: Seizo Onoe of NTT DoCoMo now on stage to talk about their LTE service called Xi (Crossy)

@dmavrakis: NTT DoCoMo: LTE service launched in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka (Dec 2010) with a phased coverage increase during 2011/2012.

@dmavrakis: NTT DoCoMo decided to share its 2.1GHz spectrum between UMTS and LTE and will deploy LTE at 1.5GHz during 2012.

@oholin: Docomo says spectrum needs to be used more efficiently and shared between technologies. I am a fan of efficiency

@disruptivedean: DoCoMo pitching LTE2100 shared with HSPA2100. Recommends all phones support LTE2100. Use my band & give me scale economies please!

@dmavrakis: Do most operators have enough spectrum at 2.1GHz to implement NTT DoCoMo's suggestion? I.e deploy LTE on existing 3G spectrum

@twehmeier: @dmavrakis Most in Europe have 2x10MHz. Very tough to refarm anytime soon to LTE. 2.1GHz is where all smartphone traffic goes...

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier Very true. Risk of cannibalizing UMTS capacity would scare most operators in Europe.

@dmavrakis: Deploying LTE at 2.1GHz makes sense in Japan, where indoor systems (DAS, tuned for 2.1GHz) are heavily deployed in urban areas

@kingcharles1666: Top tip from NTT: stop evolution of old technology. They will shut off 2G soon!

@TMGB: @kingcharles1666 NTT DOCOMO 2G is PDC, only deployed in Japan. Choice between turning off GSM vs. WCDMA is not so straight forward #LTEWS

@twehmeier: @kingcharles1666 If only operators in Europe had invested to ensure 3G coverage was >or= 2G like DoCoMo.

@TMGB: Tracking all the 'signaling kills the network' type tweets from #LTEWS - someone should make the point that LTE connections are always-on.

@disruptivedean: @TMGB multiple layers of signalling. Eg extra reporting on network quality and QoE from device midcall on volte...

@dmavrakis: @TMGB What about early deployments where devices will roam between LTE and 3G? Apparently HTC Thunderbolt is v aggressive #LTEWS

@TMGB: @dmavrakis if you're on LTE, you have to be connected else there is no signaling path (it's over IP).

@TMGB: @disruptivedean and agree on multiple layers, but is/was the connect/disconnect signaling that caused original problems.

@disruptivedean: No obvious mention anywhere on #LTEWS exhibition floor of SMS over SGs. Does it actually exist?

@dmavrakis: We are back! @informatm's @twehmeier on stage now presenting global survey results of the LTE ecosystem.

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier: 2011 will see LTE deployments to quadruple, but we will have most deployments during 2012

@kszaniawski: @twehmeier on stage presenting global survey results of the LTE ecosystem. 65% respondents set to launch in next 18 months

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier: Core bands emerging for LTE. 800, 1800, 2600MHz each have 15-20% of operator interest

@kszaniawski: @twehmeier on survey results - capacity cited as big driver in LTE survey >interesting as not what we're seeing with early launches

@oholin: @twehmeier talking about the results of first LTE survey

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier: TD-LTE represents a potential new entry into mobile market for greenfield operators and vendors #LTEWS

@kszaniawski: @twehmeier on survey results - 62% think primary solution for voice over LTE will be IMS-based VoIP (VoLTE) not surprisingly

@kszaniawski: @twehmeier on survey results - 58% think LTE will be complementary to fixed broadband. Only 17% think LTE will heavily substitute

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier: Most mobile operators believe LTE and WiFi will coexist and most of them will also need to have a carrier WiFi strategy

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier: 60% of mobile operator respondents believe that small cells will be necessary for LTE. #LTEWS

@disruptivedean: 62% of surveyed MNOs reckon IMS VoLTE will be primary voice tech for LTE. 23% reckon OTT-style, 13% CSFB. Wonder if 2012 will be same

@disruptivedean: LTE smartphones (on 3GPP networks) will need to have Grade-A SMS usability. 2 yrs ago we were told SMS was fixed for LTE. But where is it?

@oholin: @twehmeier: the factor which will have the greatest impact on the growth of LTE maturity: ( customer education) based on survey

@dmavrakis: Verizon's Chris Kimm on stage now to discuss about the role of 4G LTE in Verizon's 2020 network vision.

@dmavrakis: Verizon launched in 38 markets and 60 major airports covering 110 million subscribers during December 2010.

@kszaniawski: Chris Kimm of Verizon - how can I buy everything as a service & not have to commit. This the business opportunity for 4G

@dmavrakis: Verizon expects to enable VoLTE during 2012. Question via @disruptivedean

@disruptivedean: VZ speaker #LTEWS parachuted in from non-US corporate division, not VZW. Little new info. Claims VoLTE still OK for 2012, but also OTT VoIP

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera's Tommy Ljunggren on stage now to discuss about their experience with LTE.

@oholin: TeliaSonera: trust this technology

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera reiterates same message as last year on LTE: Mobile operators should stop trialing and start deploying.

@dmavrakis: Valid concern of a multinational operator: TeliaSonera prays that regulators will grant same frequencies to its opcos (800,1800,2600)

@kszaniawski: Tommy Ljunggren of TeliaSonera says need to get momentum going behind initiative for 1800 spectrum band as is most promising for #LTE

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera aims to harmonize spectrum across its footprint: 900, 1800 (2G); 900, 2100 (3G); 800, 1800 and 2600 (4G) - all MHz

@kszaniawski: Tommy Ljunggren of TeliaSonera says won't offer VoIP for free, you will have to pay for it if you’re not an exclusive subscription

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera is charging according to volume for MBB: LTE tariff is €60 with 30GB of monthly allowance. HSPA is around €35

@disruptivedean: TeliaSonera intending to charge extra for VoIP on LTE. Good luck with that. Start by defining 'voice' maybe? VPNs, workarounds etc.

@Gabeuk: @disruptivedean he wasn't specific thou. re: carrier VOIP vs OTT VOIP and what would be blocked/charged. No detail at all

@disruptivedean: @Gabeuk I know. His vendors & lawyers must be having fun defining 'voice' vs. 'telephony' vs. 'streamed audio' vs. 'sound' & metadata #LTEWS

@Gabeuk: TeliaSonera exhorting other operators to lauch LTE, but no actual new info or data to make the case.

@dmavrakis: Cameron Rejali of BT Wholesale on stage now to discuss whether the future of mobile is fixed.

@dmavrakis: Welcome everyone to #LTEchat. Live from #LTEWS, during a live panel including mobile operators and @twehmeier.

@dmavrakis: Global roaming argument brought up: 30 spectrum bands standardized by 3GPP so far from a global standard.

@dmavrakis: Consensus is that some harmonization should happen around spectrum. Natural forces rather than industry initiative likely

@dmavrakis: NTT DoCoMo expects that roaming will be an incremental process starting with some key bands

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera highlights CSFB and VoLTE problem. Operators have some breathing room since most LTE devices are now data only

@dmavrakis: Question to panel: Is the profit potential of LTE credible?

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera: mobile industry should sort out the roaming business model before switching on LTE.

@dmavrakis: NTT DoCoMo: Not sure whether LTE can allow a new premium revenue stream compared with existing HSPA/HSPA+ networks

@kszaniawski: NTT DoCoMo statement about RoI interesting. How do you assess/measure the business case for LTE network investment?

@dmavrakis: NTT DoCoMo on tsunami warning system (ATW): it's now a necessity and standardization needs to happen quickly

@dmavrakis: TeliaSonera highlights the lack of vision from regulators, so operators bet on all bands since they don't have visibility#

@dmavrakis: Spectrum issues dominate operator panel discussion. Regulators cited as primary culprit.

@kszaniawski: DT more philosophical than TeliaSonera saying that you will see the main bands determining developments altho a lot later

@kszaniawski: Doesn't seem to be much sense of urgency over using VoLTE either. Leisureliness seems to be a bit of a theme at conference

@disruptivedean: Opinion from AM of #LTEWS is negative. Spectrum fragmentation, slow rollout & uptake. And when VoLTE is ready, old telephony mostly obsolete

@twehmeier: Loved Question on iPlayer. Good reminder that this industry can be incredibly insular when you've got head down doing your day job

@twehmeier: Skype's biggest objective is to monetize more users. Strikes me that operators should be able to help them with that. Partnerships time.

@oholin: Not pointing fingers but I call to minimise the use of "ubiquitous" especially since it's used without understanding what it means

@disruptivedean: Stupidest idea of the day at #LTEWS 'email & social network only' data plan. Cue Facebook putting VPN, video & web proxy in next app update

@disruptivedean: Good to hear Ericsson at #LTEWS explicitly describing VoLTE as a *telephony* standard and not a general *voice* app one

@disruptivedean: Spoken to one silicon company at #LTEWS who agrees with me: may see dual-radio LTE + 2G voice phones as alternative to VoLTE or CS fallback

@zahidtg: @disruptivedean I was talking about exactly the same thing with Adrian Scrase in lunch :) #LTEWS. Good option as radios are becoming cheap

@disruptivedean: Unconvincing groupthink about role & control of WiFi by mobile operators at #LTEWS. Needs much better & granular approach to user needs

@disruptivedean: Seems to be a belief at #LTEWS that all smartphone WiFi usage is 'offload'. Industry needs to understand there's many other WiFi use cases

@kszaniawski: Dimitris Mavrakis now speaking at #LTE World Summit about how to reduce the cost of LTE network deployment

@oholin: @dmavrakis presenting now on cost per gigabyte: cost depends on network

@twehmeier: There is no single cost per gigabyte. Varies for every single operator and especially correlated to utilisation, says @dmavrakis

@twehmeier: Come on @dmavrakis, say it, our traffic-led business case found LTE wasn't necessary inUK until 2014. Non-traffic biz case is driver

@oholin: @dmavrakis very practical presentation so far with lots of case studies done by the network cost modelling tool

@kszaniawski: UK LTE vs HSPA case study - @dmavrakis arguing HSPA/HSPA+ will be perfectly capable of handling capacity in the UK in 2015 timeframe

@kszaniawski: Maintaining/installing new sites & backhaul are key determinants of cost in developing markets says @dmavrakis: see Egypt case study

@oholin: Judging by the number of listener's @dmavrakis' cost per gigabyte presentation is right on the money

@oholin: @dmavrakis LTE is just a piece of the puzzle

@kszaniawski: Wi-Fi offload business case is complex - 2015 US market case study shows even passive upgrades need management

@twehmeier: Lots of focus on selling LTE into enterprises at #LTEWS. Greater willingness to pay the premium versus consumers.

@twehmeier: Love the fact that Sprint have done a whole presentation on what they've done with “4G” WiMax so far without mentioning WiMax once!

@twehmeier: Sprint talked abt need to educate developers w/o saying who shd do it. Device OEMs talk it up in their plans, but are they doing it?

@kszaniawski: 4G? “When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”

@dmavrakis: Sprint saying that network and spectrum needs to be decoupled and networks need to move to software based platforms. #LTEWS

@dmavrakis: Sprint's vision is nice, but cognitive radio is nowhere near market and even today's software upgradable radios have limitations.

@twehmeier: So much spectrum chat. LTE WS 2010 just called-it wants its PPT decks back. Or, spectrum issues got much worse in last 12 months.

@twehmeier: 10 pres down+not a single traffic/revenue scissor slide! What refreshing change! Well done Sabah for laying down law

@oholin: Sad that some vendors still think that LTE is the whole picture and not just a piece in the puzzle

@twehmeier: Who coined hetnet term then? It is everywhere. Spoke to guy at Qualcomm who claimed it from early days of UMB. Any other claims?

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier I think someone from Huawei is claiming it also.

@oholin: Can't believe the term killer app also still in use

@twehmeier: Bengt of Northstream talking sense as always and handing out a lesson in spectrum and licensing history. Audience listening intently

@dmavrakis: Bengt Nordstrom at #LTEWS: Mobile devices take normally 2-3 years to mature to a market ready version. Same with LTE devices.

@zahidtg: Tim Hubbard, BT Wholesale: In January 10 million devices downloaded catchup TV in UK

@gabeuk: Good presentations from Jaime Lluch, Telefonica (small cells) and Tim Hubbard, BT (IP VPNs for mobile operators)

@zahidtg: I heard it many times today in #LTEWS where operators are talking about Coverage Layer (low freq) and capacity layer (high freq)

@zahidtg: #SON will help in Interference management in HetNet's. #LTEWS - I think SON can only help in limited ways for interference management.

@disruptivedean: Can you really call an HSPA subscriber network-limited to 512kbit/s max speed "mobile broadband" subscriber? Don't believe all the stats!

@zahidtg: Trying to get my head around. Panelists said that in Hetnet's, interference problems are less than no Hetnet's. Right?

18th May

@kingcharles1666: Day 2 of the #ltews (@ LTE World Summit)

@disruptivedean: Future of Voice roundtable at #LTEWS went well - thanks to all attendees for good discussion. I'm also doing a Spotlight pres at 11am

@disruptivedean: Interesting debate about dual-radio GSM+LTE phones as LTE voice easy option. Not popular with some network vendors. ZTE is advocate though

@disruptivedean: Lot of debate on Circuit Switched Fallback for LTE Voice. How long are call setup times in real world? User experience for dropped 4G data?

@kingcharles1666: According to vodafone speed is a killer app

@twehmeier: Vodafone Germany has 20,000 customers on its LTE network

@disruptivedean: Vodafone Germany has 20k customers for fixed-wireless LTE800 services. ADSL replacement & also offering own NGN fixed-style VoIP.

@oholin: The "number 1" operator has not got the number 1 presentation!

@oholin: Vodafone and Telefonica say: we want multi-mode devices as soon as possible

@Gabeuk: Few good stats on LTE performance in *loaded* cells from Vodafone Germany CTO at #LTEWS

@disruptivedean: Yota speaker at #LTEWS . Prime example of #happypipe operator. More than 1m users, now transitioning to shared wholesaler for 4 Russian MNOs

@disruptivedean: Yota believes future of telecom is for shared infra owners abstracted from retail operators & app/svcs = Under the Floor players UTF+MNO+OTT

@kszaniawski: Yegor Ivanov of Yota, Russia: justifying wholesale model he says it's no secret that many big operators not yet ready to deploy #LTE

@oholin: Yota - the competitive advantage is how you serve your customer! Let's Yota!

@disruptivedean: No recognition at #LTEWS that phone calls will need varying tiers. Call to important client should have higher QoS vs casual call to friend

@tmgb: PRT @disruptivedean: Call to client should have higher QoS vs call to friend (implies you care about the money more than about your mates?)

@AjitJaokar: @disruptivedean #LTEWS too many people in telco ind cannot ans why people make calls!

@AjitJaokar: @disruptivedean #LTEWS voice going from quality of service to quality of experience

@AjitJaokar: @disruptivedean #LTEWS humans don't interact in 'sessions'

@tmgb: @AjitJaokar agree QoS v QoE - QoS = call gets established and I can hear what is being said, everything else is QoE (@disruptivedean)

@dmavrakis: Getting ready for keynotes at #LTEWS, starting with Barclays capital discussing whether there are too many operators in market

@dmavrakis: LightSquared EVP of ecosystem development is on stage now to present about their disruptive business model

@dmavrakis: LightSquared operates 3 satellites today and will be operating 4 next year when they launch, covering 100% of North America

@dmavrakis: LightSquared will focus on network and service layer while partners on the rest: customer/device mgmt, marketing, distribution

@dukeq8: What an excellent speach ! Wholesale market for LTE is a sheft in the industry!

@twehmeier: LightSquared says will never have over 500 employees. Most telcos count employees in 1000s, many in 10s of 1000s, some 100s of 1000s

@dmavrakis: LightSquared shared surprisingly little information, nothing new.

@twehmeier: MetroPCS has 200,000 LTE connections. Quick back of envelope estimate - I'd say first million subs on LTE globally has been passed

@dmavrakis: @twehmeier Do you think biggest driver of LTE connections today is leap-froging from CDMA to LTE? Including Leap and Verizon

@twehmeier: @dmavrakis Yes, because they were happy to go dual antenna 4 voice and therefore haven't dithered launching handsets. Handsets drive scale

@twehmeier: Did i hear that right? Samsung to launch VoLTE handset in 4Q11 with Cellular South in the US?

@dmavrakis: He confirmed this in Q&A RT @twehmeier: Did i hear that right? Samsung to launch VoLTE handset in 4Q11 with Cellular South in the US?

@dmavrakis: Samsung speaker touting device expertise to drive networks business, including inhouse IOT.

@tmgb: @dmavrakis @twehmeier Samsung/Cell South - oh happiness :-)

@dmavrakis: Patent pool Sisvel's founder will present now on LTE IPR. Lets see if things will be less complicated that 3G

@dmavrakis: Theoretically, LTE IPR will be much more complicated when there will be 3 competing patent pools and bilateral agreements

@dmavrakis: Sisvel's founder mentioned that some meeting is taking place during the #LTEWS to create a new patent pool for LTE.

@dmavrakis: Sisvel: 4000 IPR declarations for LTE/SAE. Interdigital, Qualcomm, Nokia and Samsung leaders (ETSI database March 2011)

@dmavrakis: Interesting statistics for GSM by Sisvel: 561 families declared as essential but only 158 granted as essential

@twehmeier: Interesting analysis patents role in pushing up costs of DVD players. Retail cost in China =$20. Sums of patent licences if all paid=$19.

@kingcharles1666: LOL RT @dukeq8: I'm confused now that I choosed the wrong industry! I should be a lawyer.

@dmavrakis: CTO of CSL Christian Daigneault on stage now to discuss their LTE/DC-HSPA network

@AjitJaokar: #ltews mobile penetration in HK is 160 perc. @tomiahonen is in the right place :)

@twehmeier: Wonder how many infrastructure contracts sweetened by clauses that ops must do conf circuit singing & dancing about vendor's network?

@dmavrakis: CSL claims Hong Kong is highest market for tablets with 17% market penetration. Sweetspot for LTE?

@twehmeier: CSL HK are basically deploying in way many ops wd in ideal situation. 3G@ 2100+900, LTE @ 2.6+1800. Missing piece is LTE sub-1GHz.

@dmavrakis: CSL has a USB modem that supports everything from GSM 900 to DC-HSPA to LTE at 2.6GHz

@kingcharles1666: Very conservative view from FT orange on VoLTE and migration.

@oholin: 5 ITM analysts discussing LTE drivers and trends at the analyst spotlight

@oholin: @dmavrakis: "technology evolves with operator business models"

Please feel free to add comments and suggestions.

Some more pics from the exhibition LTE World Summit 2011

Some more pics from the exhibition in LTE World Summit 2011.

Aptilo Networks

KMW Communication

Samsung

Metrico Wireless

Berkeley Waritronics Systems

NEC

AllOt

Huawei

Acme Packet

Sequans
Please let me know if you liked this (or not)

Samsung Smart LTE! - Nice poster

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Test and Measurements (T&M) at the LTE World Summit 2011

Latest view from the exhibition in the LTE World Summit 2011. Here are some of the pics showing the progress in Test & Measurements market.

Setcom - http://www.setcom.eu/

Anritsu - http://www.anritsu.com/en-gb/

Agilent - http://www.home.agilent.com/

Rohde & Schwarz (R&S) - http://www.rohde-schwarz.co.uk/en/

Aeroflex - http://www.aeroflex.com/

3GPP Femtocells: Architecture and Protocols

3GPP Femtocells: Architecture and Protocols

View more documents from All About 4G

Advanced IP Interconnection of Services (IPXS) in 3GPP Rel-11

The following is edited from the 3GPP documents:

IP is being introduced in both fixed and mobile networks as a more cost-effective alternative to circuit switched technology in the legacy PSTN/PLMN, as well as the underpinning transport for delivering IMS based multi-media services.

In order to ensure carrier grade end to end performance, appropriate interconnect solutions are required to support communications between users connected to different networks. There are currently a number of initiatives underway outside 3GPP addressing IP Interconnection of services scenarios and commercial models to achieve this; for example, the GSM Association has developed the IPX (IP Packet Exchange). Also, ETSI has recently defined requirements and use case scenarios for IP Interconnection of services. These initiatives require the use of appropriate technical solutions and corresponding technical standards, some of which are already available and others which will require development in 3GPP.

Moreover, new models of interconnection may emerge in the market where Network Operators expose network capabilities to 3rd party Application Providers including user plane connectivity for the media related to the service.

The main objective of IPXS is thus:

To specify the technical requirements for carrier grade inter-operator IP Interconnection of Services for the support of Multimedia services provided by IMS and for legacy voice PTSN/PLMN services transported over IP infrastructure (e.g. VoIP).

These technical requirements should cover the new interconnect models developed by GSMA (i.e. the IPX interconnect model) and take into account interconnect models between national operators (including transit functionality) and peering based business trunking.

Any new requirements identified should not overlap with requirements already defined by other bodies (e.g. GSMA, ETSI TISPAN). Specifically the work will cover:

• Service level aspects for direct IP inter-connection between Operators, service level aspects for national transit IP interconnect and service level aspects for next generation corporate network IP interconnect (peer-to-peer business trunking).

• Service layer aspects for interconnection of voice services (e.g. toll-free, premium rate and emergency calls).

• Service level aspects for IP Interconnection (service control and user plane aspects) between Operators and 3rd party Application Providers.

To ensure that requirements are identified for the Stage 2 & 3 work to identify relevant existing specifications, initiate enhancements and the development of the new specifications as necessary.

The following is a related presentation on Release-8 II-NNI with an introduction to Rel-9 and Rel-10 features.

II-NNI in the 3GPP standard

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

The 3GPP references can be seen from the presentation above.

European Commission conducted a study on this topic back in 2008 and produced a lengthy report on this. Since the report is 187 pages long, you can also read the executive summary to learn about the direction in technical, economic and public policy.

What is '4G' ?

One of the most popular posts is Dilbert's definition of '4G'. So I decided to go back and see how and if the definition of '4G' has changed over the time.

Back in 2008, '4G' was more of WiMAX. Here is a video from that time:

2009 video of Cisco where they are pushing for 4G = IP :

2010 video that says 4G = fast :

Now from 2011, where consumers in US are being asked What '4G' means:


WKRG.com News

And finally my '4G' FAQ from 2006 that is seriously outdated and needs updating :)

4G and Wi-Fi Change The Wireless Game

Towerstream 4 gwe presentation final (1)

View more presentations from Carl Ford

Presented on Feb. 2, 2011 by Jeff Thompson, CEO, Towerstream in 4G Wireless Evolution Conference in Miami, Fl.

New Security Algorithms in Release-11

Security in 3GPP

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

I did mention in my earlier blog post about the new algorithm for 3GPP LTE-A Security. The good news is that this would be out hopefully in time for the Release-11.

The following from 3GPP Docs:

The current 3GPP specifications for LTE/SAE security support a flexible algorithm negotiation mechanism. There could be sixteen algorithms at most to support LTE/SAE confidentiality and integrity protection. In current phase, 3GPP defines that there are two algorithms used in EPS security, i.e. SNOW 3G and AES. The remaining values have been reserved for future use. So it is technically feasible for supporting new algorithm for LTE/SAE ciphering and integrity protection.

Different nations will have different policies for algorithm usage of communication system. The current defined EPS algorithm may not be used in some nations according to strict policies which depend on nation’s security laws. Meanwhile, operators shall implement their networks depending on national communication policies. To introduce a new algorithm for EPS security will give operators more alternatives to decide in order to obey national requirements.

Picture: Zu Chongzi

Picture Source: Wikipedia

Some work has been done to adapt LTE security to national requirements about cryptography of LTE/SAE system, i.e. designing a new algorithm of EPS security, which is named ZUC (i.e. Zu Chongzhi, a famous Chinese scientist name in history). Certainly the new algorithm should be fundamentally different from SNOW 3G and AES, so that an attack on one algorithm is very unlikely to translate into an attack on the other.

The objective of this work item is to standardise a new algorithm in EPS. This will include the following tasks:

• To develop new algorithms for confidentiality and integrity protection for E-UTRAN

• To enable operators to quickly start to support the new algorithm

• Not to introduce any obstacle for R8 roaming UE

The following issues should at least be handled in the WI:

• Agree requirement specification with ETSI SAGE for development of new algorithms

• Delivery of algorithm specification, test data and design and evaluation reports

The algorithm is provided for 3GPP usage on royalty-free basis.

The algorithm shall undergo a sequential three-stage evaluation process involving first ETSI SAGE, then selected teams of cryptanalysts from academia and finally the general public.

The documents related to the EEA3 and EIA3 algorithm could be downloaded from here.

If you are new to LTE Security, the following can be used as starting point: http://www.3g4g.co.uk/Lte/LTE_Security_WP_0907_Agilent.pdf

Service Layer Optimization element to Improve Utilisation of Network Capacity

Picture Source: Simple LTE for 4G Mobile Broadband

The following is an extract from 4G Americas whitepaper, "Optimizing the Mobile Application Ecosystem":

Applications have diverse requirements on the mobile network in terms of throughput, relative use of uplink vs. downlink, latency and variability of usage over time. While the underlying IP based Layer 3 infrastructure attempts to meet the needs of all the applications, significant network capacity is lost to inefficient use of the available resources. This inefficiency stems primarily from the non-deterministic nature of the aggregate requirements on the network from the numerous applications and their traffic flows live at any time.

This reduction in network utilization can be mitigated by incorporating application awareness into network traffic management through use of Application or Service Layer optimization technologies. A Service Layer optimization solution would incorporate awareness of:

1) device capabilities such as screen size and resolution;

2) user characteristics such as billing rates and user location;

3) network capabilities such as historic and instantaneous performance and;

4) application characteristics such as the use of specific video codecs and protocols by an application such as Video on Demand (VOD) to ensure better management of network resources.

Examples of Service Layer optimization technologies include:

* Real-time transcoding of video traffic to avoid downlink network congestion and ensure better Quality of Experience (QoE) through avoidance of buffering

* Shaping of self-adapting traffic such as Adaptive Streaming traffic through packet delay to avoid downlink network congestion

* Shaping of error-compensating flows such as video conferencing through use of packet drops to avoid uplink network congestion

* Shaping of large flows such as file uploads on the uplink through packet delays to conserve responsiveness of interactive applications such as web browsing

* Explicit caching of frequently accessed content such as video files on in-network CDNs to minimize traffic to backbone

* Implicit caching of frequently accessed content such as images in web content on in-network caches to improve web page retrieval speeds

Service Layer optimization technologies may be incorporated in the data path in many locations:

1) the origin server;

2) the UE device;

3) as a cloud-hosted offering through which devices and/or applications and/or networks route traffic or;

4) as a network element embedded in a service provider’s network.

Further, in a service provider’s network the optimization function may be deployed in either the core network and/or edge aggregation locations. When Service Layer optimization entities in the network are deployed at both core and edge locations, they may operate in conjunction with each other to form a hierarchy with adequate level of processing to match the traffic volume and topology. Such a hierarchy of network entities is especially effective in the case of caching.

The 3GPP standard network architecture defines a number of elements such as QoS levels that are understood and implemented in the network infrastructure. However, much of this network capability is not known or packaged for use in the Service Layer by application developers. One approach to resolving this discrepancy may be to publish standard Service Layer APIs that enable application developers to request network resources with specific capabilities and also to get real-time feedback on the capabilities of network resources that are in use by the applications. Such APIs may be exposed by the network to the cloud or may be exposed to application clients resident on mobile devices through device application platforms and SDKs. The network APIs being defined by the Wholesale Application Community are an example of the recognition of the need for such Service Layer visibility into network capabilities. Future versions of the WAC standards will likely incorporate and expose network Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities.

Pic Source: Aria Networks

Why does Optimization matter? A good answer to this question is provided in Telecoms.com article as follows:

For many people, says Constantine Polychronopoulos, founder and chief technology officer of mobile internet infrastructure specialist Bytemobile, the definition of optimisation as it relates to mobile networks is too narrow; restricted to compressing data or to the tweaking of the radio access network in a bid to improve throughput. While these are key elements of optimisation, he says, the term ought to be interpreted far more broadly. “The best way for us to think of optimisation,” he says, “is as a set of synergistic technologies that come together to address everything that has to do with improving network and spectrum utilisation and user experience. If you stretch the argument, it includes pretty much every thing that matters. This holistic, end-to-end approach to optimisation is the hallmark of Bytemobile’s solutions. Point products tend to be costly and difficult or impossible to evolve and maintain.”

And optimisation matters, he says, because the boom in mobile data traffic experienced in some of the world’s most advanced mobile markets represents a serious threat to carrier performance and customer satisfaction. US operator and pioneer iPhone partner AT&T is a case in point, Polychronopoulos says.

“If you look at what’s been said by Ralph de la Vega (president and CEO of AT&T Mobility) and John Donovan (the firm’s CTO), they have seen a 5,000- per cent increase in data traffic over the past two years. The data points from other operators are similar,” he continues. “They see an exponential growth of data traffic with the introduction of smartphones, in particular the iPhone.”

Operators may have received what they’d been wishing for but the scale of the uptake has taken them by surprise, Polychronopoulos says. The type of usage consumers are exhibiting can be problematic as well. Bytemobile is seeing a great deal of video-based usage, which can often be a greater drain on network resource than web browsing. Given the increasing popularity of embedding video content within web pages, the problem is becoming exacerbated.

Dr. Polychronopoulos is keen to point out that there are optimisation opportunities across different layers of the OSI stack—Bytemobile offers solutions that will have an impact on layers three (the IP layer) through seven (the application layer). But he stresses that some of the most effective returns from optimisation technologies come from addressing the application layer, where the bulk of the data is to be found.

“An IP packet can be up to 1,500 bytes long,” he says. “So at layer three, while you can balance packet by packet, there is only so much you can do to optimise 1,500 bytes. At the top layer, the application can be multiple megabytes or gigabytes if you’re watching video. And when you’re dealing with those file sizes in the application layer, there is a whole lot more you can do to reduce the amount of data or apply innovative delivery algorithms to make the content more efficient,” he says.

By optimising content such as video, Polychronopoulos says, significant gains can be made in spectral and backhaul network utilisation. A range of options are open to operators, he says, with some techniques focused on optimising the transport protocol, and others designed to reduce the size of the content.

“With video, we can resize the frame, we can reduce the number of frames, we can reduce the resolution of the frame or apply a combination of the above in a way that does not affect the video quality but greatly improves network efficiencies,” he says. “So if you go to a site like YouTube and browse a video, you might download something like 100MB of data. But if you were to go through a platform like ours, you may download only 50MB when the network is congested and still experience not only the same video quality, but also fluid video playback without constant re-buffering stalls.”

It is possible, he explains, to run these solutions in a dynamic way such that data reduction engages only when the network is congested. If a user seeks to access high-volume data like video during the network’s quiet time, the reduction technologies are not applied. But when things are busier, they kick in automatically and gradually. This could have an application in tiered pricing strategies. Operators are looking at such options in a bid to better balance the cost of provisioning mobile data services with the limited revenue stream that they currently generate because of the flat rate tariffs that were used to stimulate the market in the first place. Being able to dynamically alter data reduction and therefore speed of delivery depending on network load could be a useful tool to operators looking to charge premium prices for higher quality of service, Polychronopoulos says.

If it is possible to reduce video traf- fic in such a way that data loads are halved but the end user experience does not suffer proportionally, the question arises as to why operators would not simply reduce everything, whether the network was busy or not. Polychronopoulos argues that in quiet times there are no savings to be made by reducing the size of content being transported.

“The operator has already provisioned the network one way or another,” he says, “so there is a certain amount of bandwidth and a certain amount of backhaul capacity. When the network is not congested, the transport cost is already sunk. When it becomes congested, though, you get dropped calls and buffering and stalled videos and the user experience suffers. That’s where optimisation shines. Alternatively, media optimisation can be factored in during toplevel network provisioning when the savings in CAPEX can be extremely compelling.”

While LTE is held up by some within the industry as the panacea to growing demand for more mobile broadband service, Polychronopoulos is unconvinced. If anything, he says, the arrival of the fourth generation will serve only to exacerbate the situation.

“LTE is going to make this problem far more pronounced, for a number of reasons,” he says. “As soon as you offer improved wireless broadband, you open the door to new applications and services. People are always able to come up with new ways of inundating any resource, including bandwidth. We’re going to see more data-driven applications on mobile than we see on the typical desktop, because the mobile device is always with you.” And while LTE promises greater spectral efficiency than its 3G forebears, Polychronopoulos says, the fact that spectrum remains a finite resource will prove ever more problematic as services evolve.

“We’re reaching the limits of spectral efficiency,” he says. “Shannon’s Law defines the limit as six bits per Hertz, and while we may be moving to higher-bandwidth wireless broadband, spectrum remains finite. To offer 160Mbps, you have to allocate twice the amount of spectrum than in 3G, and it’s a very scarce and very expensive resource.”

Operators have been wrong to focus exclusively on standards-based solutions to network optimisation issues, Polychronopoulos says. In restricting themselves to 3GPP-based solutions, he argues that they have missed what he describes as “the internet component of wireless data.” Internet powerhouses like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (which he dubs ‘the GYM consortium’) have established a model that he says is a great threat to the mobile operator community in that it establishes a direct consumer relationship and disregards the “pipe” (wireless broadband connection) used to maintain that relationship.

“The operators have to accelerate the way they define their models around wireless data so that they’re not only faster than the GYM consortium in terms of enabling popular applications, but smarter and more efficient as well,” he says. Dr. Polychronopoulos then makes a popular case for the carriers’ success: “The operators have information about the subscriber that no other entity in the internet environment can have; for example, they know everything the subscriber has done over the lifetime of their subscription and the location of each event. They don’t have to let this data outside of their networks, so they are very well positioned to win the race for the mobile internet.”

Possible Release-12 features

Not sure if everyone checked the presentation from yesterday, it has a slide that lists possible Rel-12 features that I have listed below:

Release 12 content not yet defined, but Study Items (SI) in Release 11 indicate where specification work is likely

•Study on IMS based Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Services

•Study on IMS based Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Services (Stage 2)

•Study on IMS Network-Independent Public User Identities

•Study on Integration of Single Sign-On (SSO) frameworks with 3GPP networks

•Study on Coordinated Multi-Point operation for LTE

•Study on UE Application Layer Data Throughput Performance

•Study on Uplink MIMO

•Study on Non Voice Emergency Services

•Study on UICC/USIM enhancements

•Study on Alternatives to E.164 for Machine-Type Communications

•Study on enhancements for Machine-Type Communications (MTC)

•Study on Support for 3GPP Voice Interworking with Enterprise IP-PBX

•Study on Security aspects of Integration of Single Sign-On (SSO) frameworks with 3GPP networks

•Study on Core Network Overload solutions

•Study on Continuity of Data Sessions to Local Networks

•Study on Non-MTC Mobile Data Applications impacts

•Study on System Enhancements for Energy Efficiency

•Study on Solutions for GSM/EDGE BTS Energy Saving

•Study on HSDPA Multipoint Transmission

•Study on Inclusion of RF Pattern Matching as a positioning method in the E-UTRAN

Release 11 completion date set for September 2012, Release-12 work will start after that.

3GPP Standards Update for FemtoZone during MWC 2011

From the Mobile World Congress, not so long back.

3GPP Standards Update - Adrian Scrase (16/02/2011) from ETSI – World Class Standards on Vimeo.

The presentation is embedded below:

3GPP Standards Update for FemtoZone during MWC 2011

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Advanced Telephony Services for LTE

With LTE World Summit just round the corner, I was going through the last year's presentations and realised that we didn't talk of this one before.

The concept for the advanced telephony services has been around since the early days of IMS and this was one of the ways IMS was sold. Unfortunately IMS didn't take off as planned and only now with the standardisation of VoLTE, there is a possibility of the advanced services becoming a reality.

The following presentation summarises some of these advanced telephony services concepts.

Delivering a Global IP telephony service for LTE

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

ANDSF: Access Network Discovery and Selection Function

The following is a recent news from Mobile Europe:

WeFi has launched a product that is intended to enable mobile operators to route traffic over the mobile macro network or a WiFi hotspot without the consumer having to manage their own settings.

The product, from WeFi, enables operators to set network management policies using a 3GPP-defined function for the Evolved Packet Core called ANDSF – Access Network Discovery and Selection Function. WeFi said that its WeANDSF is the first standards-compliant product on the market, although it said that as the standards are not yet fully finalised, the product is more accurately described as a pre-standards compliant product.

ANDSF, specified in 3GPP standards 23.402 and 24.312, is intended to allow mobile operators to set network management policies and priorities, and to control where, when and under what circumstances a subscriber’s device connects to which wireless network, be it cellular or Wi-Fi.

Operators may choose to route traffic according to application type to reduce network load, or to provide the best available customer experience. Although operators are increasingly looking at using WiFi for offload in congested areas, one problem for them is that once traffic is routed over WiFi control is lost over any traffic policies they have set for that user. ANDSF keeps a link to the operator's core network, allowing the operator visibility of traffic even when it is routed over WiFi.

WeFi said that the product is already in trials with several mobile operators. As handset manufacturers are yet to include the device element of ANDSF, WeFi is also providing a device client, although it sees that role diminishing as handset vendors deliver ANDSF-compliant handsets, “when these become available in the market by 2012”.

The following presentation is by Fraunhofer Fokus on ANDSF:

Access Network Discovery and Selection in the Future Broadband Wireless Environment

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

For more details see:

3GPP TS 23.402: Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses

3GPP TS 24.312: Access Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF) Management Object (MO)

Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) simulation service in IMS (USSI)

I hope we all know USSD. If not then hopefully my old blog post will help remind you of USSD. Apparently USSD is as popular as it was nearly a decade back since it is supported by 100% of the phones. As a result 3GPP have made sure that a USSD like service is available in LTE/SAE since USSD was designed for a CS domain and in SAE we have only the PS domain.

Picture Source: Aayush Weblog

The following is from the 3GPP document:

Today mobile initiated unstructured SS data in MMI mode are widely used to interact with proprietary home-network provided services, e.g. to activate or deactivate certain features or to interrogate some parameter settings.

The user dials a certain feature code, e.g. in the format “*# ”, this code is forwarded to the home network and answered with a text string providing the requested information. Unlike common SMS the string is displayed immediately and not stored on the UE.

A typical use case is the interrogation of the account balance in a prepaid service. The prepaid user e.g. dials "*101#", the message is forwarded to the HPLMN and further to the IN system where the account balance is checked and finally the current value is transferred to the user in a short answer string, e.g. "Balance: € 35,40". Another use case is controlling the active UE for incoming calls and messages in case of a hunting service / multi SIM service.

From a network perspective the functionality is as follows:

1. The user sends the request

2. USSD is sent as MAP message to the HPLMN

3. USSD is forwarded to a Service Node (SN) [non-standardized functionality]

4. USSD is answered

5. answer

6. answer

The mentioned functionality is not available in the EPS. So e.g. a business customer who is subscribed to a certain multi SIM service will use his UEs via CS and EPS/IMS. Dependent on the access he would have to use different mechanisms for controlling the active UE.

This problem can be avoided when introducing completely new services. Then mechanisms can be used that are available via all access networks, e.g. web interfaces via GPRS or EPS. However we are talking about existing services with a broad customer base that is accustomed to use USSD codes as they are fast and simple to use.

As USSD is widely used in CS domain, operators would benefit from re-using the already deployed servers also when the user accesses services that make use of USSD over IMS.

It is therefore desirable to create in 3GPP a service which provides the same capabilities for the user, like the well known "GSM Mobile User Initiated USSD" feature.

For the user, it is important that the user experience is transparent (I.e. the look and feel of the service is independent of the transport mechanism used to convey the USSD payload to the network).

Possible solutions

There are several possibilities to solve this issue. One would be to re-introduce USSD in EPS. This is not the intention as it creates too much overhead. The idea is to specify a light weight solution which provides the same look and feel for the user but uses existing network mechanisms, i.e. only to simulate the USSD service.

One variant could be that the UE when being attached via the EPS to the IMS encapsulates the USSD codes in IP messages and forwards them to the network. This could happen either via the Ut interface as XCAP data using http or in a SIP message.

It should be noted that there are also user initiated MMI mode USSDs for VPLMN use. The differentiation, if USSD are intended for HPLMN or VPLMN use, is done via the range of the feature code. If USSD for VPLMN use were to be supported / simulated this may prevent certain solutions (e.g. using the Ut) and have some architectural impact (considering all possible roaming scenarios for the IMS).

Proposal

To specify an easy solution having no architectural impact. Only the simulation of mobile initiated USSD – MMI mode for HPLMN use should be supported. The functionality should be available for Multimedia Telephony, i.e. it can be implemented with the MMTel UE client and USSD messages are sent to and answered by the MMTel AS.

Though there isn't much details on this feature available, Ayush's weblog has some more details on this feature here.

Multimedia Telephony (MMTel) in 3GPP Rel-7

Came across MMTel multiple times in the last few months so decided to dig a bit more in detail.

The following from wikipedia:

The 3GPP/NGN IMS Multimedia Telephony Service (MMTel) is a global standard based on the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), offering converged, fixed and mobile real-time multimedia communication using the media capabilities such as voice, real-time video, text, file transfer and sharing of pictures, audio and video clips. With MMTel, users have the capability to add and drop media during a session. You can start with chat, add voice (for instance Mobile VoIP), add another caller, add video, share media and transfer files, and drop any of these without losing or having to end the session.

The MMTel standard is a joint project between the 3GPP and ETSI/TISPAN standardization bodies. The MMTel standard is today the only global standard that defines an evolved telephony service that enables real-time multimedia communication with the characteristics of a telephony service over both fixed broadband, fixed narrowband and mobile access types. MMTel also provides a standardized Network-to-Network Interface (NNI). This allow operators to interconnect their networks which in turn enables users belonging to different operators to communicate with each other, using the full set of media capabilities and supplementary services defined within the MMTel service definition.

One of the main differences with the MMTel standard is that, in contrast of legacy circuit switched telephony services, IP transport is used over the mobile access. This means that the mobile access technologies that are in main focus for MMTel are access types such as High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) and EDGE Evolution that all are developed with efficient IP transport in mind.

MMTel allows a single SIP session to control virtually all MMTel supplementary services and MMTel media. All available media components can easily be accessed or activated within the session. Employing a single session for all media parts means that no additional sessions need to be set up to activate video, to add new users, or to start transferring a file. Even though it is possible to manage single-session user scenarios with several sessions – for instance, using a circuit-switched voice service that is complemented with a packet-switched video session, a messaging service or both – there are some concrete benefits to MMTel’s single-session approach. A single SIP session in an all-IP environment benefits conferencing; in particular, lip synchronization, which is quite complex when the voice part is carried over a circuit-switched service and the video part is carried over a packet-switched service. In fixed-mobile convergence scenarios, the single-session approach enables all media parts of the multimedia communication solution to interoperate.

An interesting presentation on MMTel is embedded below.

3GPP MMTel General Overview

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

If you are still hungry for more on this topic then Ericsson's old presentation on MMTel is available on Slideshare here.

Smart Grids (again)

I blogged about smart grids just the other day but they seem to be the 'in thing' and keep popping up everywhere.

The very interesting picture above is from The Guardian article here, that promises that consumers will be able to cut down on their bills by taking advantage of smart meters.

Meanwhile European Commission is making Smart Grids a high priority. The following is from one of their communique:

The European Commission presented its Communication on smart grids. It sets policy directions to drive forward the deployment of future European electricity networks. Bringing together latest progress in Information and Communication technologies and network development will allow electricity current to flow exactly where and when it is needed at the cheapest cost. Smart grids will give in particular to consumers the ability to follow their actual electricity consumption in real time : smart meters will give consumers strong incentives to save energy and money. Estimates show that smart electricity grids should reduce CO2 emissions in the EU by 9% and the annual household energy consumption by 10%. They also help to ensure secure functioning of the electricity system and are a key enabler of both the internal energy market and integration of vast amounts of renewable.

You can read the complete press summary here. A new report entitled 'Smart Grids: from innovation to deployment' is available to download from here. The European Commission Smart Grids taskforce webpage is here.

The following is from IEEE Spectrum :

On 17 March, game designers at the Institute for the Future, in collaboration with us at IEEE Spectrum, ran a 24-hour forecasting game called Smart Grid 2025. Weenlisted the help of listeners like you and game players around the world to brainstorm solutions to the problems the smart grid will face. That way, by 2025—when all our homes have smart meters and utilities are linking up wind farms and solar plants to national grids—it'll be running as smoothly as it possibly can.

Steven Cherry's guest is Jake Dunagan, the game's project leader at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif. He was on this show in early March in advance of the Smart Grid 2025 game to talk about how it would work, and now he's back to tell how it went.

This interview was recorded 4 April 2011. (Listen below)

Background on Smart Grids from the same IEEE article: One of the hottest topics in engineering is the smart grid—the idea of adding computer intelligence to a nation's basic electrical grid. The goal is to transport and use energy more efficiently in the grid itself—and also in your home. By adding intelligence to our electrical meters, fuse boxes, even our home appliances, each of us can use electricity more wisely and consume less of it.

But it's still early days for smart grid deployment. In fact, today, the smart grid still raises more questions than it answers—questions like, who will profit from the smart grid? How do we keep the smart grid from knowing too much about our personal lives? Is the smart grid dangerously hackable? Will the smart grid force you to do your laundry at night? Will the smart grid make us healthier? What kind of appliances are needed to accommodate the smart grid?

Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.

User Data Convergence (UDC) in Release 9 and its evolution

The below is mish-mash from the specs (see refrences at the end)

With the increase of service entities and the resulting user data types, User Data Convergence (UDC) is required to ensure the consistency of storage and data models.

UDC:

• simplifies the overall network topology and interfaces

• overcomes the data capacity bottleneck of a single entry point

• avoids data duplication and inconsistency

• reduces CAPEX and OPEX.

UDC simplifies creation of new services and facilitates service development and deployment though a common set of user data.

UDC promotes service and network convergence to support the increasing number of new services including Internet services and UE applications. A new facility User Data Repository (UDR) is considered for UDC.

In UDC, all the user data is stored in a single UDR allowing access from core and service network entities.

To achieve high performance, reliability, security and scalability, the UDR entity may consist of a network of different components distributed geographically, and exposes capabilities via open interfaces in multiple access entry points.

In the current 3GPP system, user data are scattered in several domains (e.g. CS, PS, IMS) and different network entities (e.g. HLR, HSS, Application Servers). With the increase of user data entities and the resulting data types, it is more difficult for integrated services to access necessary user information from plural entities.

The scenario mentioned herein is kind of called “User Data Silo”, which is the major paradigm of user data deployment for the time being, as illustrated by Fig.1. below

With the user data silos, user data are independently accessed, stored and managed independently. That brings many challenges to network deployment and evolution. Different user data access interfaces impose complexity on network topology as well as on application development, especially for booming Internet services and incoming IP-based UE applications; separated user data increases management workload. Moreover, new networks and services such as IMS are expected, so that the introduction of their user data only makes things worse, not to mention network and service convergence even if those user data have a lot in common and are correlated to each other. Separation also undermines the value of user data mining.

User data convergence is required to ensure the consistency of storage and data models. User data convergence will simplify overall network topology and interfaces, overcome the data capacity bottleneck of a single entry point, avoid data duplication and inconsistency and reduce CAPEX and OPEX. Also it will simplify the creation of new services and facilitate service development and deployment though a common set of user data. Finally it will promote service and network convergence to support the increasing number of new services including Internet services and UE applications. In this regard, a new facility User Data Repository (UDR) should be considered for user data convergence.

As illustrated by Fig. 2 above, User Data Convergence, as opposed to User Data Silo, is simply to move the user data from where it belonged, to a facility here called User Data Repository (UDR) where it can be accessed, stored and managed in a common way. Despite of the diversity of user data structures for different services, user data can be decomposed and reformed by a common data model framework (e.g. tree-like data model, rational data model) provided by UDR. In that case, user data categorized by services can be regrouped and identified by user ID, leaving no data redundancy. Also, convergence in data model will unify the user data access interface and its protocol, which will promote new service application development. Thereby, the capability of user data convergence can be open to creation of data-less applications.

There are plenty of data distributed in the 3GPP system which is used to perform the services, for instance, the configuration data of a network entity, the session data of a multimedia call, the IP address of a terminal, etc. With respect to user data, it refers to all kinds of the information related to users who make use of the services provided by the 3GPP system.

In 3GPP system, user data is spread widely through the different entities (e.g. HLR, HSS, VLR, Application servers) and also the type of user data is various. It is of paramount importance to categorize the user data before going through the convergence of user data.

The UDC shall support multiple application user data simultaneously, e.g. HSS and others.

Any application can retrieve data from the UDC and store data in it. The applications shall be responsible of updating the UDC with the dynamic changes of the user profile due to traffic reasons (e.g. user status, user location…) or as a consequence of subscriber procedures.

User Subscription Data: Before a user can enjoy a service, he may need to subscribe the service first. The subscription data relates to the necessary information the mobile system ought to know to perform the service. User identities (e.g. MSISDN, IMSI, IMPU, IMPI), service data (e.g. service profile in IMS) , and transparent data (data stored by Application Servers for service execution) are the examples of the subscription data. This kind of user data has a lifetime as long as the user is permitted to use the service and may be modified during the lifetime. User may be accessed and configured via various means, e.g. customer service, web interface, UE Presence service. The subscription data is composed of different types such as authentication data, configuration data, etc. Different type of data may require different levels of security.

User content Data: Some applications may have to store content defined by the user and that here may be quite large (e.g. Photos, videos) User content data can reach very high volume (e.g. Hundreds of Mbytes and more), and the size required to store them may largely vary over time. They generally do not require the real time constraints as user profile data may require. Storage of user data content is not typically subject of UDR. Storage of user data content is not typically subject of UDR. UDC on user content data can be achieved by converging them with links or references, such as URLs, to other entity.

User Behaviour Data: Such data concerns the usage of services by a user as services are consumed. Generally there are event data records that can be generated on various events in the usage of services by a user and that can be used not only for charging or billing purposes but e.g. for user profiling regarding user behaviour and habits, and that can be valuable for marketing purposes. The amount of such data is also quite different from other categories, they present a cumulative effect as such data can be continuously generated by the network implying a need for corresponding storage. Usage data may require real time aspects about their collection (e.g. for on line charging), they are also often characterized by a high amount of back office processing (e.g. Billing, user profiling). Processing of user behaviour data such as for CRM, billing, data mining is not typically subject of UDR. Those might be processed with lower priority or by external systems whereby UDR supports mass data transfer.

User Status Data: This kind of user data contains call-related or session-related dynamic data (e.g. MSRN, P-TMSI), which are typically stored in VLR or SGSN. These dynamic data are only used by their owner transitorily and proprietarily, and hardly shared by other services in the short term.

Figure 4.1-1 below presents the reference UDC architecture. UDC is the logical representation of the layered architecture that separates the user data from the application logic, so that user data is stored in a logically unique repository allowing access from entities handling an application logic, hereby named Application Front Ends.

In the architecture, the User Data Repository (UDR) is a functional entity that acts as a single logical repository of user data and is unique from Application Front End’s perspective. Entities which do not store user data and that need to access user data stored in the UDR are collectively known as application front ends.

NOTE: Depending on the different network deployment, there may be more than one UDC in an operator’s network.

Application Front Ends (FE) connect to the UDR through the reference point named Ud to access user data.

Figure 4.1-2 shows how the UDC reference architecture is related to the overall network architecture by comparing a Non-UDC Network with an UDC Network. In the non-UDC Network, the figure shows NEs with their own database storing persistent user data and a NE accessing an external database; in both cases, when UDC architecture is applied, the persistent user data are moved to the UDR and concerned NEs are becoming Application-FEs (NE-FEs) according to the UDC architecture. This figure also shows that network interfaces between NEs are not impacted .A Network Element (NE), which in its original form represents application logic with persistent data storage, when the UDC architecture is applied, may become a NE Front End, since the related persistent data storage is moved to the UDR.

3GPP TS 23.335 gives more details and information flows for User Data Convergence

Further evolution of UDC is being studied part of 3GPP TR 23.845. The TR tries to address the assumption of multiple UDRs in a PLMN, to identify consequences and the possible impacts on existing UDC specifications. From a practical point of view, even if the aim is to have one single logical repository, a certain number of considerations may drive to have more than one UDR in a PLMN.

For very large networks with a very large amount of users, although an UDR may be implemented in a distributed architecture and multiple database servers with geographical distribution and geographical redundancy, an operator may consider to deploy several UDRs between which it will distribute the users.

More details in the technical report.

References:

3GPP TR 22.985: Service requirement for the User Data Convergence (UDC) (Release 9)

3GPP TS 23.335: User Data Convergence (UDC); Technical realization and information flows; Stage 2 (Release 10)

3GPP TS 29.335: User Data Convergence (UDC); User Data Repository Access Protocol over the Ud interface; Stage 3 (Release 10)

3GPP TS 32.182: User Data Convergence (UDC); Common Baseline Information Model (CBIM) (Release 10)

3GPP TR 32.901: Study on User Data Convergence (UDC) information model handling and provisioning: Example Use Cases (Release 11)

3GPP TR 29.935: Study on UDC Data Model.

3GPP TR 23.845: Study on User Data Convergence (UDC) evolution (Release 10)

LTE World Summit 2011 promising to be bigger than ever

The LTE World Summit next month, promises to be a bigger and better event than ever before. Long gone are the days when LTE used to be compared with WiMax and debated about but since then LTE has become an undisputed winner; the standard of choice.

Surprisingly there is a WiMAX & TDD Networks conference running in parallel at the same venue. Malaysia's 'Packet One' Network, which is a WiMax based network, recently decided that it will convert to TD-LTE network, probably by end of 2012. This is a blow for the WiMax standard.

Last year in Dec. Verizon launched LTE and Telia Sonera marked its first anniversary. Surely there would be lots of lessons and advice for new networks. Then there is going to be NTT Docomo, always willing to share its knowledge, technical know how and future research direction.

There are going to be four parallel tracks this time which will allow a lot of diverse topics to be covered in the shortest amount of time but it also means that some of us who would like to attend a lot of different presentations would lose out on some of these interesting presentations. Fortunately there are going to be lots of analysts and critics who are going to hopefully do justice to the conference and the presentations in blogs and tweets.

Along with the standard tracks that involve Business Models, Policy & Strategies, Spectrum, etc. there is also a track on Hetrogeneous Network Management (inc. Femtocells or as they are called now, Small cells).

There are also Breakfast briefing sessions from analysts. I would be presenting one such on the first day so please feel free to join me or any of the other analysts. I would ofcourse be blogging about the event hopefully in the same amount of detail as I always do. There will also be plenty of tweets sso be tuned to this event.

Cognitive radio – the way out of spectrum crunch?

Another presentation from the Cambridge Wireless Event on Avoiding Cellular Gridlock. One of the ways suggested in the discussions with regards to the 'Geo-location database' (see slide 12) is that they could also be done using Smart Grids. Though it sounds simple in theory, practically we may never see that happen and that would not be due to any technical reasons.

Cognitive radio – the way out of spectrum crunch?

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Nice presentation on GPS, Geotagging and its Future

Nice presentation on GPS, Geotagging and its Future

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Mobile Phone Antennas and Networks

We all remember the so called 'Antennagate' where the iPhone 4 loses coverage due to the way its held. As can be seen from the above picture, there are a lot of antennas already in the phones and yes they are on the increase with LTE and other technologies being added all the time.

Apple admitted the fault and claimed to have fixed the problem but its well known in technical circles that the fix is more of a software hack which doesn't really fix the problem just pretends to fix it. That is why the networks dread it and you can find awful lot of information on the web about the problems.

In a recent Cambridge Wireless event, I heard an interesting talk from Trevor Gill of Vodafone and one of the slides that caught my attention was the impact of these poorly designed phones on the network. The slide is embedded below.

It is estimated that the RF performance of iPhone4 is around 6dB worse than most other 3G phones. What this means is that you may be getting 4 bars of reception on your other phone where iPhone4 may be having only 1 or 2 bars or reception. So if the reception is poor with 1 or 2 bars, iPhone4 may have no reception at all.

To fix this problem, either the networks can increase the number of base stations to double the existing amount which is a huge cost to the networks and extra radiation or the phones can fix it themseles by having an extra antenna. In fact as the slide says, extra antenna on each phone would translate to increase in network capacity by 20-40%, cell area by 30% and cell edge throughput by 40-75%.

One final thing that I want to mention is that testing (RF, RRM, Conformance, etc.) are mandated by the networks for most phones but they overlook the testing procedure for phones like iPhone. What this means is that they do get a lot more new customers but they get new sets of problems. If these problems are not handled well, the impression they give is that the particular network is rubbish. Another thing is that the devices use a certain build/prototype for testing but the one that they release may contain other patches that can cause chaos. One such problem was Fast Dormancy problem that I have blogged about here.

Hopefully the networks will be a bit more careful and will put quality before quantity in future.