TDD vs FDD
by Mark Goosen, Spescom Telecommunications
Next generation time division duplex (TDD) systems will provide greater spectral efficiency for the emerging data-centric services.
Traditional microwave depends on using two
separate radio channels simultaneously: one
channel to transmit and one channel to receive.
This technique - known as frequency division
duplexing (FDD)- has been in use for decades.
FDD requires two radios at each end of a link;
one transmitting while the other receives. The
technique is efficient when the traffic is fairly
constant and balanced in both directions. This
happens in circuits that are always active such as
E1/T1 circuits. Over the past five years, TDD radios,
which send and receive both voice and data over
the same radio channel, have been rapidly gaining
in popularity. TDD is now allowed by regulatory
and standards organisations all over
the world. New technologies such
as 802.16 (Wimax), 802.11 (Wi-Fi),
Bluetooth, Home RF and 3G cellular
all support TDD technology.
Why change?
Several things have changed that
have made TDD a practical and in
many cases preferable alternative to
FDD microwave. Firstly, much of
the world’s traffic is moving towards
IP-based technology. A primary
reason for IP’s popularity is that it is packet-
based, which is a very efficient way to transmit
data, and increasingly voice (VoIP). IP traffic is
typically very bursty and highly asymmetric, i.e.
the upstream and downstream traffic patterns
can vary dramatically over very short periods of
time. This is very different from the ‘always-on’
50% upstream, 50% downstream scenario that
characterises FDD systems.
TDD-based radios of this type can provide
performance equal to that of FDD radios, and
in the case of bursty IP type traffic, provide
much better data rates on one radio channel
than an FDD radio could provide on two radio
channels.
The largest application for microwave radios is
backhaul of cellular traffic. The future direction
for 3G networks is to migrate to an IP-based
infrastructure.
Elektron January 2006
New fast and lower cost hardware has made it
possible to use one radio channel instead of two to
carry both upstream and downstream data traffic.
Since only one receiver and one transmitter are
required at each end of a link, the cost of building
a TDD radio is inherently lower than the cost of
building an FDD radio. Most RF chip sets that
are the building blocks of cost-effective systems
operate in TDD mode, which means that two TDD
chip sets are required to implement an FDD radio.
Also, radio frequency diplexers required in FDD
systems to provide frequency-domain separation
between the received and transmitted signals
have remained at cost points that are significantly
higher than the RF switches required to provide
(time domain) separation between transmitted and
received signal paths in TDD systems.
TDD systems, coupled with quality of service
(QoS) features, now feature extremely low latency,
which is critical for real time applications carrying
voice and video services. Around the globe,
regulators are increasingly allocating spectrum in
contiguous blocks. Traditionally, FDD allocations
have been by channel pairs, separated by 50 to
100 MHz of guard band. This separation has
resulted in precious spectrum being unused or
wasted, translating to lost revenue opportunity.
TDD systems employ only one channel rather
than a pair of channels, making it more flexible in
dealing with potential interference, a major source
of signal impairment in the unlicensed bands.
Are all TDD products the same?
All TDD radios provide the ability to transmit and
receive on the same channel, a significant benefit.
However, most TDD radios are configured by the
user, to provide a fixed ratio of upstream versus
downstream traffic. The user will typically set the
device for 50% upstream and 50% downstream,
or perhaps choose a 75%/25% split if most
of their traffic is downstream as sometimes
happens with internet access. Dynamic TDD is
a major improvement that allows the radio to
constantly change the allocation of upstream and
downstream capacity to utilise the full bandwidth
of a channel, depending upon the traffic being
sent in any given second. For example, if for a
few moments there is a large amount of upstream
traffic, the system will give 100%
of the channel capacity to the
upstream direction. This is ideal
for IP traffic which tends to
be highly dynamic in terms of
upstream/downstream direction
and volume of traffic
Spectrum efficiency
A particularly valuable aspect
of Dynamic TDD is that it
uses spectrum very efficiently,
translating to more capacity
and users (and hence greater
revenue potential). This is because it utilises only
one channel, enabling 100% use of the available
spectrum, regardless of the actual downstream-
to-upstream channel utilisation pattern. It
eliminates the need for a guard band between
the upstream and downstream channels. It also
enables advanced technologies such as adaptive
modulation, and adaptive antenna arrays.
Frequency flexibility
FDD systems require a pair of channels to
be assigned, usually with the transmitting
channel and the receiving channel spaced 50 to
100 MHz apart on the frequency. Normally these
frequencies must be licensed on a link-by-link
basis from the local country regulatory authority.
Traditionally, microwave links were issued in
pairs. Increasingly, governments have recognised
the advantage of the TDD technique and are also
issuing single channels for TDD use, or they are
33
allowing a pair of duplexed channels to be used
as two separate individual channels. As it happens,
most of the new low frequency allocations being
issued around the world are now being issued in
a “TDD friendly” way.
The growing trend toward licence-exempt
frequency allocations is particularly “TDD
friendly” in that there are no duplex pairs issued.
Although either the FDD or TDD techniques
can be used, TDD has a large advantage in
licence-exempt bands, in that only one clear
channel needs to be located. In licence-exempt
installations, the installer seeks to select channels
that avoid local interference. TDD radios are
much more flexible in their channel selection,
and thus it is easier to configure to avoid local
interference.
Cellular deployment
Traditionally, FDD systems had an interference
avoidance advantage over TDD systems in
cellular deployment scenarios. FDD systems had
additional protection against interference at the
base station from neighbouring base stations. The
reason for this is that base station transceiver to
base station transceiver interference is line of sight,
whereas interference from subscriber stations
to the base station transceiver is often non-line
of sight. Because FDD systems separate transmit
from receive paths on separate frequencies, this
particular interference problem can be minimised.
However, in dynamic TDD systems, base stations
can be synchronised to transmit and receive at
34
the same time with minimal losses in spectral
efficiency relative to unsynchronised systems (and
with all of the gains in spectral efficiency related
to a fully symmetric FDD system, which cannot
efficiently re-allocate upstream signal spectrum
when downstream-to-upstream throughput
exceeds a particular threshold). This efficiency gain
of synchronised TDD systems over FDD systems
increases with increased asymmetry between
downstream and upstream throughput levels.
For this reason, this traditional advantage of FDD
systems over (unsynchronised) TDD systems
have more recently turned into an advantage of
(synchronised) dynamic TDD systems over FDD
systems in a cellular access environment.
Minimising inventory levels
FDD diplexers possess a fixed centre frequency
and therefore cannot be tuned to accommodate
different channel pairs within the band. As a
result FDD radios are frequently factory set to one
pair of frequencies, and the operator or support
organisation is forced to inventory multiple radios.
In some cases the FDD radios can shift their
paired channels within the portion of the band not
excluded by the diplexer, however the number of
useable channels is usually restricted.
Conclusion
FDD is an older scheme that was best suited
for applications - such as voice - that generate
symmetric traffic, while TDD is best suited
for bursty, asymmetric traffic, such as internet
or other data- centric services.
In TDD, both the transmitter and receiver operate
on the same frequency but at different times.
Therefore, TDD systems reuse the filters, mixers,
frequency sources and synthesisers, thereby
eliminating the complexity and costs associated
with isolating the transmit antenna and the receive
antenna. An FDD system uses a duplexer and/or
two antennas that require spatial separation and,
therefore, cannot reuse the resources. The result is
more costly hardware. TDD utilises the spectrum
more efficiently than FDD. FDD cannot be used
in environments where the service provider
does not have enough bandwidth to provide the
required guardband between transmit and receive
channels.
TDD is more flexible than FDD in meeting the need
to dynamically reconfigure the allocated upstream
and downstream bandwidth in response to customer
needs. TDD allows interference mitigation via
proper frequency planning. TDD requires only
one interference-free channel compared with FDD,
which requires two interference-free channels.
In summary, TDD is a more desirable duplexing
technology that allows system operators to receive
the most from their investment in spectrum and
telecom equipment, while meeting the needs of
each individual customer.
Contact Mark Goosen, Spescom
Telecommunications, Tel (011) 266-1763,
mgoosen@za.spescom.com
Elektron January 2006