Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp 127–144 | Cite as

Impact of Interference Between Neighbouring 5G Micro Operators

  • Kimmo Hiltunen
  • Marja Matinmikko-Blue
  • Matti Latva-aho
Article

Abstract

Local small cell deployments will become an important part of the future 5G networks, in particular in the higher frequency bands. In order to speed up the wide-spread deployment of such ultra-dense networks, new business and spectrum authorization models are needed. The recently proposed concept of micro operators with local spectrum micro licensing has gained significant interest in research, industry and regulation to complement the traditional models based on networks deployed and operated by the mobile network operators. While assessing the applicability of the proposed micro operator concept, one important aspect is to evaluate the impact of the inter-operator interference on the performance of the victim network when deployed in the same or adjacent channel. To support such interference evaluations between micro operators, this paper proposes a deployment scenario including two neighbouring buildings, propagation models for connections both within a building and between the buildings, and a criteria for the required minimum separation distance based on the observed throughput loss. Finally, system simulations are performed to evaluate the impact of the key deployment aspects on the required minimum separation distance between the micro operators in the 3.5 GHz band. The obtained results indicate that the required minimum separation distances are highly scenario-specific, which needs to be considered in the overall local spectrum micro licensing model development and the setup of appropriate rules to coordinate the interference.

Keywords

5G Micro operator Spectrum sharing Radio wave propagation Interference management Radio network performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge Business Finland for funding the “Micro-operator concept for boosting local service delivery in 5G (uO5G)” project.

References

  1. 1.
    EC. (2016). Communication from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Connectivity for a competitive digital single market—Towards a European gigabit society. COM (2016) 587 Final. European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    GPPP. (2017). 5G innovations for new business opportunities. The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matinmikko, M., Latva-aho, M., Ahokangas, P., Yrjölä, S., & Koivumäki, T. (2017). Micro operators to boost local service delivery in 5G. Wireless Personal Communications, 95(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zander, J. (2017). Beyond the ultra-dense barrier: Paradigm shifts on the road beyond 1000x wireless capacity. IEEE Wireless Communications, 24(3), 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saldana, J., et al. (2017). Alternative networks: Toward a global access to the Internet for all. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(9), 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EC. (2016). 5G for Europe: An action plan. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2016) 588 Final. European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CEPT ECC. (2014). Licensed shared access. ECC Report 205. European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications, Electronic Communications Committee.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FCC. (2016). Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550–3650 MHz Band, Order of Reconsiderations and Second Report and Order. FCC-16-55. Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matinmikko, M., Roivainen, A., Latva-aho, M. & Hiltunen, K. (2017). Interference study of micro licensing for 5G micro operator small cell deployments. In Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications (CrownCom). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matinmikko, M., Latva-aho, M., Ahokangas, P. & Seppänen, V. (2018). On regulations for 5G: Micro licensing for locally operated networks. Telecommunications Policy (to appear).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahokangas, P., Moqaddamerad, S., Matinmikko, M., Abouzeid, A., Atkova, I. Francis Gomes, J., & Iivari, M. (2016). Future micro operators business models in 5G. In International conference on Restructuring of the Global Economy (ROGE). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta, A. K., Andrews, J. G., & Heath, R. W. (2016). On the feasibility of sharing spectrum licenses in mmWave cellular systems. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 64(9), 3981–3995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta, A. K., Alkhateeb, A., Andrews, J. G., & Heath, R. W. (2016). Gains of restricted secondary licensing in millimeter wave cellular systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 34(11), 2935–2950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    3GPP. (2013). Small cell enhancements for E-UTRA and E-UTRAN – Physical layer aspects. 3GPP TR 36.872, V12.1.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parkvall, S., Dahlman, E., Furuskär, A., & Frenne, M. (2017). NR: The new 5G radio access technology. IEEE Communications Standards Magazine., 1(4), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hiltunen, K. (2014). The performance of dense and heterogeneous LTE network deployments within an urban environment. Doctoral dissertation. Aalto University.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    3GPP. (2017). Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz. 3GPP TR 38.901, V14.1.1. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehtomäki, J., Vuohtoniemi, R., Matinmikko-Blue, M. & Hiltunen, K. (2018). Building-to-building propagation loss measurements at 3.5 GHz with application to micro operators. In IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (to appear).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berg, J.-E. (1995). A recursive method for street microcell path loss calculations. In IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damosso, E. & Correia, L. M., Eds. (1999). Digital mobile radio towards future generation systems. Final report. European Commission. http://www.lx.it.pt/cost231/final_report.htm. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  21. 21.
    Berg, J.-E. (1996). Building penetration loss along street microcells. In IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Semaan, E., Harrysson, F., Furuskär, A. & Asplund, H. (2014). Outdoor-to-indoor coverage in high frequency bands. In IEEE Globecom 2014 Workshop—Mobile Communications in Higher Frequency Bands.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ökvist, P., Asplund, H., Simonsson, A., Halvarsson, B., Medbo, J. & Seifi, N. (2015). 15 GHz propagation properties assessed with 5G radio access prototype. In IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC)—Workshop on 5G Channel Measurements and Modeling.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ITU-R. (2016). Compilation of measurement data relating to building entry loss. Report ITU-R P.2346-1. International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication sector.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aalto University, AT&T, BUBT, CMCC, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, KT Corporation, Nokia, NTT DOCOMO, New York University, Qualcomm, Samsung, University of Bristol, University of Southern California. (2015). 5G channel model for bands up to 100 GHz. White paper. http://www.5gworkshops.com/5GCM.html. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  26. 26.
    3GPP. (2017). Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios. 3GPP TR 36.942, V14.0.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    3GPP. (2017). Base station (BS) radio transmission and reception. 3GPP TS 36.104, V14.4.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    3GPP. (2017). User equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception. 3GPP TS 36.101, V14.4.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CEPT ECC. (2012). Broadband wireless systems usage in 2300-2400 MHz. ECC Report 172. European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications, Electronic Communications Committee.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimmo Hiltunen
    • 1
  • Marja Matinmikko-Blue
    • 1
  • Matti Latva-aho
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Wireless Communications (CWC)University of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations