GSM to LTE Migration

GSM has been a tremendously successful technology serving over 3 billion subscribers worldwide, with an unsurpassed installed base infrastructure. Leveraging the GSM subscriber base, spectrum, coverage, and network infrastructure already in place will ensure continued profitability for GSM operators. LTE radio is expected to substantially improve end-user throughputs, spectral efficiency, and sector capacity, and the flat IP architecture will further reduce user plane latency.

Figure 2: LTE Spectral Efficiency LTE can be deployed in a wide selection of spectrum bands including the existing GSM bands and because of LTE spectrum bandwidth flexibility (ranging from 1.4MHz to 20MHz), it offers GSM operators a practical solution for progressively re-farming their existing spectrum. In comparison, UMTS/HSPA with its fixed 5MHz bandwidth allocation is more challenging. In the emerging markets, the GSM operators that have not deployed 3G services may now choose to leapfrog 3G and deploy LTE directly. Motorola will provide a migration path based on the Motorola GSM Horizon II BTS to support both GSM and LTE access functionality in a single base station. The Horizon II operating in the 900/1800 band supports a smooth migration to LTE. Motoro las integrated GSM and LTE network will deliver a significantly improved data user experience via LTE, and will seamlessly

connect with ultra low cost voice services via GSM at the same time.

For operators with additional spectrum, Motorola can also provide a complete LTE overlay network to work in conjunction with the installed GSM base. Source : business.motorola Motorola has led the way in cdma2000 innovation, with a deep heritage in developing world class CDMA systems for our global customers. cdma2000 is a widely deployed technology for 3G networks, delivering high performance data services around the globe. The CDG (CDMA Development Group, April 2008) estimates that cdma2000 subscribers worldwide exceed 418 million, including over 90 million 1xEV-DO users. Over the course of the next decade, operators will find it increasingly difficult to fulfill the rapidly growing mobile broadband demand on cdma2000 legacy networks, and will be inspired to investigate next generation technology alternatives to maintain their competitive edge. While there are several OFDM solutions being evaluated, it is expected that many traditional cdma2000 operators will want to take advantage of the benefits of LTE, and may choose to migrate along the 3GPP standards path. Migration of 3GPP2 service providers to LTE involves the overlay of the EPC elements (MME, SGW, and PDN-GW) and the potential to re-use the existing EV-DO BTS site, ancillaries and frame to deploy the LTE EUTRAN components. The migration of 3GPP2 service providers to LTEs EUTRAN/EPC configuration involves updates to the 1x/DO-A network, allowing for

seamless interworking, and hand-over of services between the two technologies.

Motorolas LTE solution presents a straight -forward evolution to the world of mobile broadband for 3GPP2 operators and ensures the best re-use of existing network elements and assets. LTE introduces a number of innovations that, in aggregate, continue to push ever closer to the theoretical maximum data rates defined by Shannons Law. Advances in multi-antenna techniques, OFDMA methods, wider bandwidth, and protocol efficiencies are fundamental to deliver the promise of 4G Mass Market Wireless Broadband. The amazingly high data rates and sector throughputs (capacity) per cell are fundamental to supplying the ever increasing demand for wireless broadband. LTE can be deployed in clear spectrum with bandwidth as wide as 20 MHz of paired spectrum (20MHz UL, 20 MHz DL). The high bandwidth of a single carrier radio will deliver unmatched economies when compared with multi-radio legacy approaches, and provides scope for significantly higher capacity compared to 3G-3.5G technologies camped to 5MHZ or smaller spectrum bandwidth.
Sector Data Peak Rate

The recognized sector data peak rate for LTE are as per the below table (Table 1a) depending on the frequency spectrum bandwidth used. It is important to notice that this theoretical maximum does not account for error rate coding, without which in a real life environment, much of the bits will have to be sent several times reducing spectral efficiency to a low level. In consequence, if you take into account a reasonable 5/6 error rate coding, you reach a peak data rate (Table 1b) that is more realistic for field deployment.

Table 1a. LTE Peak Data Rates (Mbps) No Error Rate Coding

Table 1b. LTE Peak Data Rates (Mbps) 5/6 Error Rate Coding

Sector throughput

While peak data-rates are important, the essential figure that defines the typical user experience, and more importantly network capacity(deployment cost & OPEX), is average sector throughput. In other words, on average, how much data rate can be realistically achieved in serving all subscribers in a typical sector. Figure 2 compares the average sector throughput capacity of various cellular radio technologies.

Figure 3. Sector Throughput (Capacity)

As we can see in the above figure, LTE provide a significant improvement in throughput capacity at any bandwidth compared to legacy technologies. These capacity improvements are a key to achieving efficiencies necessary to reach the mass market and lower cost per bit achieved by LTE. The difference in sector throughput achieved by LTE is achieved thanks to the following technical improvements:
Multiple antenna techniques to increase overall data rate. Better multi-path signal handling capability than CDMA technologies. No intra-cell interference, as the sub-carriers are for a single user in a time slot. Enhanced Interference cancellation is better for reduced inter-cell interference. Mitigation of the cell shrinkage vs. loading phenomena of CDMA technologies. More efficient Multicast, Broadcast. Lowered and more efficient control overhead. Frequency Selective scheduling for additional flexibility and efficiency.

User Peak and Expected Average Rate

Expected user data rate is very hard to evaluate and will depend on many factors typical of radio technologies (distance to cell, cell loading, subscriber speed, indoor, outdoor, macro layer or hotspot). LTE is quite capable of meeting network requirements for a multi-megabit user experience at the edge of cell even on a macro layer, and effectively delivering wireless broadband to rural markets. Also thanks to MIMO, Smart antennas, users are likely to have a more consistent experience in comparison to the 3-3.5G experience. In an indoor environment or hot spot areas with dedicated coverage, via pico - and femto-cells, users can expect to reach speed near to the peak rates above.
Latency

In addition to increased data rates, the latency enhancement is likely to provide a noticeable improvement in the user experience. With 3.5G networks, a user can expect a 2 second or longer delay to set up the first connection, and then a 50 ms latency (one way) afterwards. LTE being all IP and having a much flatter architecture, the initial data packet connection should be much faster, typically 50 ms, and then 5 ms latency (one way) afterwards. What this means, that after pressing buttons on the browser or media player, the user will perceive the LTE network as being very responsive, almost seeming instantaneous like a fixed line broadband connection. This will have a significant impact on user experience and satisfaction, especially when browsing, using netmeeting, streaming rich media, etc and will enable applications that previously could only be delivered with wired broadband, such as online gaming. With improvement in both data rate and latency front, it is expected that applications on LTE will provide a user experience very similar to that experienced at home with the wired broadband network providing the true realization of a broadband services that goes anywhere you go. In the near future, operators will be presented with, and challenged by, new and exciting opportunities to deploy LTE based mobile broadband services but like with any new network technology, comes the question of spectrum. Radio frequency is a valuable and finite resource and, today, there is simply not enough to satisfy demand. The need for spectrum is being driven by the pervasive convenience of mobile communications and increased penetration combined with improved performance and the falling costs of wireless devices & services.

This is where LTE can help in effect, LTE boasts leading radio spectral efficiency, meaning that LTE operators will make the most of their existing and new spectrum assets and provide significant capacity to support existing and future services. In addition, LTEs ability to take advantage of new spectrum allocations with bandwidth as large as 20MHz and the opportunity to potentially re-farm existing legacy spectrum with spectrum bandwidth as low as 1.4MHz is one of LTEs key feature that will enable early LTE deployments and open up markets that were previously inaccessible. Over the next several years the spectrum landscape will change along with the complex industry dynamics, subscriber migration and spectrum auctions in the 700MHz or 2.5-2.6 GHz bands will have a direct influence on the LTE ecosystem and in which band LTE will be deployed. Furthermore the identification of new IMT mobile bands at WRC-07 (450-470 MHz, 2300-2400 MHz, 698-862 MHz and 3400-3600 MHz) will help fulfill the projected need for future bandwidth as well as facilitate global roaming.

Figure 1: LTE potential bands Compared to HSDPA/HSDPA+, LTE is expected to substantially improve end-user throughputs, sector capacity and reduce user plane latency while delivering a significantly improved user experience and lower cost per bit. As such it is very likely that operators in the 3GPP market will wait to deploy LTE in the re-farmed 900/1800 MHz and newly licensed 2.5-2.6 GHz bands. Operators in the 3GPP2 market will deploy LTE in the recently auctioned AWS and 700 MHz bands and then will possibly deploy LTE in the re-farmed 850/1900 MHz bands after the former spectrum is consumed.

As with any new networks, the early availability of highly functional and cost effective handsets and infrastructure equipment is essential to the success of LTE. As with the legacy network technologies, it is expected that the industry will agree on a unified LTE candidate band list in order to maximize availability and economy of scale as well as enable an LTE global roaming experience similar to what subscribers are enjoying today with GSM. Motorolas LTE roadmap supports a wide range of frequencies, aligning with the growing needs of service providers globally as new bands receive the necessary regulatory approval and service provider allocation. WIMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) Related Links Recently WiMAX technology has gained growing interest due to its applications and advantages. WiMAX is fast emerging as a last-mile problem solution and broadband access technology. WIMAX stands for Worldwide Inte rope rability for Microwave Access based on IEEE 802.16 standard. As an air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access (FBWA) in metropolitan area networks (MANs) and for Mobile Broadband Wireless Access (MBWA) Systems thus allowing technology to be embedded in handheld devices and portable devices such as laptops. The interoperability and the standard compliance of the equipments from different vendors are assured. The key elements for coverage prediction including calculation of link budget taken into account the particularities of the WIMAX technology and different scenario were considered. The operation scenarios are specified based on real world conditions considering the regulatory rules for radio frequency spectrum utilization for licensed and licensed exempted bands and using appropriate propagation model to calculate the cell radius. Several coverage prediction models have been analyzed such as free space model, COST231 Okumara Hata model, COST231 Walfish Ikegami model and Stanford university interim (SUI) model but in our project we will focus on free space model as line of sight (LOS) and Stanford university interim (SUI) model was adopted because it provides acceptable accuracy for NLOS scenario and frequency up to 6 GHz. Finally the system performance is evaluated in terms of the maximum transmission data rate. 1 Overview of WiMAX technology General features of IEEE 802.16a , b , d ,

Femtocells Standardization in 3GPP

Related links Femtocells have been around since 2007. Before Femtocells, the smallest possible cell was the picocell that was designed to serve a small area, generally a office or a conference room. With Femtocells came the idea of having really small cells that can be used in houses and they were designed to serve just one home. Ofcourse in my past blogs you would have noticed me mentioning about Super Femtos and Femto++ that can cater for mor users in a small confined space, typically a small office or a meeting room but as far as the most common definition is concerned they are designed for small confined spaces and are intended to serve less than 10 users simultaneously. This blog post is based on IEEE paper on "Standardization of Femtocells in 3GPP" that appeared in IEEE Communications Magazine, September 2009 issue. This is not a copy paste article but is based on my understanding of Femtos and the research based on the IEEE paper. This post only focusses on 3GPP based femtocells, i.e., Femtocells that use UMTS HSDPA/HSPA based technology and an introduction to OFDM based LTE femtocells.

The reason attention is being paid to the Femtocells is because as I have blogged in the past, there are some interesting studies that suggest that majority of the calls and data browsing on mobiles originate in the home an the higher the frequency being used, the less its ability to penetrate walls. As a result to take advantage of the latest high speed technologies like HSDPA/HSUPA, it makes sense to have a small cell sitting in the home giving ability to the mobiles to have high speed error free transmission. In addition to this if some of the users that are experiencing poor signal quality are handed over to these femtocells, the overall data rate of the macro cell will increase thereby providing better experience to other users. Each technology brings its own set of problems and femocells are no exception. There are three important problems that needs to be answered. They are as follows:

Radio interference mitigation and management: Since femtocells would be deployed in adhoc manner by th users and for the cost to be kept down they should require no additional work from the operators point of view, they can create interference with other femtocells and in the worst possible scenario, with the macro cell. It ma not be possible initially to configure everything correctly but once operational, it should be possible to adjust th parameters like power, scrambling codes, UARFCN dynamically to minimise the interference.

Regulatory aspects: Since the mobiles work in licensed spectrum bands, it is required that they follow the regulatory laws and operate in a partcular area in a band it is licensed. This is not a problem in Europe where th operators are given bands for the whole country but in places like USA and India where there are physical boundaries within the country for the allocation of spectrum for a particular operator. This brings us to the next important point.

Location detection: This is important from the regulatory aspect to verify that a Femtocell can use a particula band over an area and also useful for emergency case where location information is essential. It is important to make sure that the user does not move the device after initial setup and hence the detection should be made everytime the femto is started and also at regular intervals.

3GPP FEMTOCELLS STANDARDIZATION

Since the femtocells have been available for quite a while now, most of them do not comply to standards and they are proprietary solutions. This means that they are not interoperable and can only work with one particular operator. To combat this and to create economy of scale, it became necessary to standardise femtocells. Standardized interfaces from the core network to femtocell devices can potentially allow system operators to deploy femtocell devices from multiple vendors in a mix-and-match manner. Such interfaces can also allow femtocell devices to connect to gateways made by multiple vendors in the system operators core network (e.g. home NodeB gateway [HNB-GW] devices). In 2008, Femto Forum was formed and it started discussion on the architecture. From 15 different proposals, consensus was reached in May over the Iuh interface as shown below.

There are two main standard development organizations (SDOs) shaping the standard for UMTS-related (UTRAN) femto technology: 3GPP and The Broadband Forum (BBF). More about 3GPP here. BBF (http://www.broadbandforum.org) was called the DSL Forum until last year. As a SDO to meet the needs of fixed broadband technologies, it has created specifications mainly for DSL-related technologies. It consists of multiple Working Groups. The Broadband Home WG in particular is responsible fo the specification of CPE device remote management. The specification is called CPE wide area network (WAN Management Protocol (CWMP), which is commonly known by its document number, TR-069. There are several other important organisations for femto technology. The two popular ones are the Femto Forum (www.femtoforum.org) and Next Generation Mobile Network (NGMN). 3GPP has different terminology for Femtocells and components related to that. They are as follows:

Generic term: Femtocell 3GPP Term: home NodeB (HNB) Definition: The consumer premises equipment (CPE) device that functions as the small-scale nodeB by interfacing to the handset over the standard air interface (Uu) and connecting to the mobile network over the Iu interface. Generic term: FAP Gateway (FAP-GW) or Concentrator 3GPP Term: home NodeB gateway (HNB-GW) Definition: The network element that directly terminates the Iuh interface with the HNB and the existing IuCS and IuPS interface with the CN. It effectively aggregates a large number of HNBs (i.e., Iuh interface) and presents it as a single IuCS/PS interface to the CN. Generic term: Auto-Configuration Server (ACS) 3GPP Term: home NodeB management system (HMS) Definition: The network element that terminates TR-069 with the HNB to handle the remote management of a large number of HNBs. In addition, there is a security gateway (SeGW) that establishes IPsec tunnel to HNB. This ensures that all the

Iuh traffic is securely protected from the devices in home to the HNB-GW. The HNB-GW acts as a concentrator to aggregate a large number of HNBs which are logically represented as a single IuCS/IuPS interface to the CN. In other words, from the CNs perspective, it appears as if it is connected to a single large radio network controller (RNC). This satisfies a key requirement from 3GPP system operators and many vendors that the femtocell system architecture not require any changes to existing CN systems. The radio interface between HNB and UE is the standard RRC based air interface but has been modified to incude HNB specific changes like the closed subscriber group (CSG) related information.

Two new protocols were defined to address HNB-specific differences from the existing Iu interface protocol to 3GPP UMTS base stations (chiefly, RANAP at the application layer). HNB Application Protocol (HNBAP): An application layer protocol that provides HNB-specific control features unique to HNB/femtocell deployment (e.g., registration of the HNB device with the HNBGW).

RANAP User Adaptation (RUA): Provides a lightweight adaptation function to allow RANAP messages and signaling information to be transported directly over Stream Control Transport Protocol (SCTP) rather than Iu, which uses a heavier and more complex protocol stack that is less well suited to femtocells operating over untrusted networks from home users (e.g., transported over DSL or cable modem connections). Figure above is representation of the protocol stack diagram being used in TS 25.467.

Security for femtocell networks consists of two major parts: femtocell (HNB) device authentication, and encryption/ciphering of bearer and control information across the untrusted Internet connection between the HNB and the HNB-GW (e.g., non-secure commercial Internet service). The 3GPP UMTS femtocell architectur provides solutions to both of these problems. 3GPP was not able to complete the standardization of security aspects in UMTS Release 8; however, the basic aspects of the architecture were agreed on, and were partially driven by broad industry support for a consensus security architecture facilitated in discussions within the Femt Forum. All security specifications will be completed in UMTS Release 9 (targeted for Dec. 2009). FEMTOCELL MANAGEMENT Management of femtocells is a very big topic and very important one for the reasons discussed above.

The BBF has created CWMP, also referred to as TR-069. TR-069 defines a generic framework to establish connection between the CPE and the automatic configuration server (ACS) to provide configuration of the CPE The messages are defined in Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) methods based on XML encoding, transported over HTTP/TCP. It is flexible and extensive enough to incorporate various types of CPE devices using various technologies. In fact, although TR-069 was originally created to manage the DSL gateway device it has been adopted by many other types of devices and technologies. The fundamental functionalities TR-069 provides are as follows: Auto-configuration of the CPE and dynamic service provisioning Software/firmware management and upgrade Status and performance monitoring

 Diagnostics

The auto-configuration parameters are defined in a data model. Multiple data model specifications exist in the BBF in order to meet the needs of various CPE device types. In fact, the TR-069 data model is a family of documents that has grown over the years in order to meet the needs of supporting new types of CPE devices tha emerge in the market. In this respect, femtocell is no exception. However, the two most common and generic data models are: TR-098: Internet Gateway Device Data Model for TR-069 TR-106: Data Model Template for TR-069-Enabled Devices HAND-IN AND FEMTO-TO-FEMTO HANDOVERS

The 3GPP specifications focused on handovers in only one direction initially from femtocell devices to the macrocellular system (sometimes called handout). A conscious decision was made to exclude handover from th macrocellular system to the femtocell devices (sometimes called macro to femtocell hand-in). This decision wa driven by two factors: There are a number of technical challenges in supporting hand -in with unmodified mobile devices and core network components. The system operator requirements clearly indicate that supporting handout is much more important to end users. Nonetheless, there is still a strong desire to develop open, interoperable ways to support handin in an efficient and reliable manner, and the second phase of standards in 3GPP is anticipated to support such a capability. NEXT-G EFFORTS

3GPP Release 8 defines the over-the-air radio signaling that is necessary to support LTE femtocells. However, there are a number of RAN transport and core network architecture, interface, and security aspects that will be addressed as part off 3GPPs Release 9 work efforts. While it is preliminary as of the publication of this article it seems highly likely that all necessary RAN transport and core network work efforts for LTE femtocells will b completed in 3GPP Release 9 (targeted for completion by the end of 2009). 3GPP STANDARDS ON FEMTOCELLS [1] 3GPP TS 25.331: RRC [2] 3GPP TS 25.367: Mobility Procedures for Home NodeB (HNB); Overall Description; Sage 2 [3] 3GPP TS 25.467: UTRAN Architecture for 3G Home NodeB; Stage 2 [4] 3GPP TS 25.469: UTRAN Iuh Interface Home NodeB (HNB) Application Part (HNBAP) Signaling [5] 3GPP TS 25.468: UTRAN Iuh Interface RANAP User Adaption (RUA) Signaling [6] 3GPP TR 3.020: Home (e)NodeB; Network Aspects (http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG3_Iu/R3_internal_TRs/R3.020_Home_eNodeB/) [7] 3GPP TS 25.104: Base Station (BS) Radio Transmission and Reception (FDD) [8] 3GPP TS 25.141: Base Station (BS) Conformance Testing (FDD) [9] 3GPP TR 25.967: FDD Home NodeB RF Requirements [10] 3GPP TS 22.011: Service Accessibility [11] 3GPP TS 22.220: Service Requirements for Home NodeB (HNB) and Home eNodeB (HeNB) [12] 3GPP TR 23.830: Architecture Aspects of Home NodeB and Home eNodeB

[13] 3GPP TR 23.832: IMS Aspects of Architecture for Home NodeB; Stage 2 [14] 3GPP TS 36.300: E-UTRA and E-UTRAN; Overall Description; Stage 2 [15] 3GPP TR 33.820: Security of H(e)NB 3GPP TR 32.821: Telecommunication Management; Study of SelfOrganizing Networks (SON) Related OAM Interfaces for Home NodeB [16] 3GPP TS 32.581: Telecommunications Management; Home Node B (HNB) Operations, Administration, Maintenance and Provisioning (OAM&P); Concepts and Requirements for Type 1 Interface HNB to HNB Management System (HMS) [17] 3GPP TS 32.582: Telecommunications Management; Home NodeB (HNB) Operations, Administration, Maintenance and Provisioning (OAM&P); Information Model for Type 1 Interface HNB to HNB Management System (HMS) [18] 3GPP TS 32.583: Telecommunications Management; Home NodeB (HNB) Operations, Administration, Maintenance and Provisioning (OAM&P); Procedure Flows for Type 1 Interface HNB to HNB Management System (HMS) [19] 3GPP TS 32.584: Telecommunications Management; Home NodeB (HNB) Operations, Administration, Maintenance and Provisioning (OAM&P); XML Definitions for Type 1 Interface HNB to HNB Management System (HMS) I would strongly recommend reading [3] and [6] for anyone who wants to gain better understanding of how Femtocells work.

Sumber : 3G and 4G Wireless Blog

Recently i have come across press releases trying to sell UMB (Ultra Mobile Broadband) as 4G technology. This is the same as trying to sell LTE and mobile -WiMAX as a 4G technology.

IMT has taken a clever approach and instead of calling the successor of 3G as 4G, they are calling it IMTAdvanced. The main requirements for 4G are as follows:
Peak data rate of 100Mbps for high mobility applications such as mobile access Approx. 1Gbps for low mobility applications such as nomadic/local wireless access

Doing some digging on the UMB topic, i realised that it is the same as LTE but an evolution from CDMA2000 This is being standardised by 3GPP2. Some of the key features (and comparing it with LTE) includes:
It used OFDMA based air interface (same as LTE) It supports FDD (LTE supports FDD and TDD and a combination of them so i am not sure if UMB only supports FDD) Scalable b/w of 1.25MHz to 20MHz (same as LTE) MIMO and Beamforming (Same as LTE but UMB also supports 4x4 antennas whereas LTE supports 2x2) Data speeds upto 275Mbps in DL and 75Mbps in UL (LTE has 144Mbps in DL and 57Mbps in UL but that is because of 2x2 MIMO)

Since the term 4G is already being abused so much, one option is to let people use 4G as they wish and then when IMT-Advanced is available, start calling it 5G. What do you think?

3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM family of technologies including LTE announced that it has published an educational report titled, MIMO Transmission Schemes for LTE and HSPA Networks as a tool to increase awareness of smart antenna systems also known as multiple-input multipleoutput (MIMO) technology and help guide their deployments in HSPA and LTE networks within 3GPPs specifications and technology standards. The 3GPP evolution continues to be the leader in standardizing the most advanced forms of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antennas.

Smart antenna, or MIMO, technology is commonly defined as, the use of two or more unique radio signals, in the same radio channel, where each signal carries different digital information, or two or more radio signals tha use beam forming, receive combining and spatial multiplexing (SM). Relative to a traditional 1x1 antenna system, a 2x2 MIMO system is expected to deliver significant cell throughput gain.

The MIMO Transmission Schemes for LTE and HSPA Networks report provides an overview and detailed information of the current and emerging MIMO techniques that significantly increase the performance of HSPA and LTE networks.

Smart antenna technology has arrived and will be a vital part of mobile broadband communications, stated Pantelis Monogioudis, Ph.D, of Alcatel-Lucent LTE-Advanced Technology Strategy. It is an exciting time for smart antenna technology as 3GPP has provided the leading technical standards for MIMO that the industry wi utilize to improve the capabilities of mobile broadband.

MIMO was first standardized in 3GPP Release 6 (Rel-6), and was further developed in Rel-7 with spatial multiplexing for HSPA+ using Double Transmit Adaptive Array (D-TxAA). As the report highlights, the use o multiple antennas at both transmitter and receiver allows: Substantial increase in peak data rate Significantly higher spectrum efficiency, especially in low-interference environments Increased system capacity (number of users)

Based on simulation results presented in the report, it was shown that the relatively simple MIMO transmission scheme based on 2x2 closed-loop SM, at low user equipment (UE) speeds, can increase by 20 percent the downlink (DL) sector spectral efficiency relative to a single antenna transmission, as well as increase the cell edge efficiency by approximately 35 percent. More advanced antenna configurations can provide benefits that are significant for users that are receiving a strong signal as well as cell edge users.

The 3GPP Rel-8 LTE specifications, completed in March 2009, included the most advanced forms of MIMO o any standard in the industry, and now, 3GPP is studying even more advanced MIMO enhancements for inclusion in 3GPP Rel-9 and Rel-10 for LTE-Advanced. The white paper, MIMO Transmission Schemes for LTE and HSPA Networks, was written by members of 3G Americas, and is available for free download on the 3G Americas website here.