Skip to main content

Loon and Terrestrial LTE can Co-exist

In our last post we looked at how Telstra and Ericsson have increased the distance of LTE cell from 100 km to 200 km. If you compare that to Google Loon or other HAPS that fly at 20 km above earth (details here), it should be an easy task. This is what Signals Research Group investigated as part of their report which is available here officially or on LinkedIn here, unofficially (or officially as well).
Fierce Wireless has a good summary of this report here and extract reproduced below:

Based on a study of Loon’s network in Peru, Signals Research Group (SRG) found that Loon has a “modest” detrimental impact on the existing terrestrial LTE network while improving coverage in areas where terrestrial LTE coverage doesn’t exist. It’s pretty much the same impact one would get from any cell site being introduced in the same area.

Any time a new cell site gets deployed in an LTE network, it will generate at least some interference with adjacent cells, and Loon, whose balloons fly more than 60,000 feet above the earth, is no different, the research firm said.

SRG conducted the study—which was sponsored by Loon—the last week of September in a region just south of Tarapoto, Peru. The analysis involved both drive and walk tests and a mix of smartphones, with scanner equipment provided by Rohde & Schwarz and test solutions from Accuver America.

“The upshot is it does exactly what it was targeted to do,” providing a basic means to connect to mobile data in areas of the world that don’t have terrestrial coverage, and when it does that, its impact is very modest on the terrestrial infrastructure that exists there, said Mike Thelander, president of SRG, who posted a short video on LinkedIn.

“I think there may be some concern perhaps from some operators that ‘you’re going to put these balloons overhead, and all they’re going to do is mess up my network,’ and that doesn’t happen,” he told FierceWirelessTech.

On the user end of the service, consumers can do anything with a Loon-serviced device that LTE can do; there’s no VoLTE for voice calls, but over-the-top apps like Skype work just fine, he said. It’s not the kind of user experience you’d get in a place like downtown Seoul by any means, but “it is quite good,” he said.

According to SRG, the performance of the Loon network is somewhat comparable to a terrestrial LTE network. The Loon network that it tested used a 2x10 MHz channel in Band 28, so comparisons with a terrestrial LTE network need to be made accordingly.

“Although we observed sustained data speeds in the high teens (Mbps) and a peak physical layer throughput that was just over 40 Mbps… we believe more typical data speeds with Loon are in the mid- to high- single digits,” the executive summary states. “Latency was also only modestly higher (13%) than the terrestrial LTE network.”

Loon’s balloons act like floating cell towers, transmitting a provider’s service directly to a subscriber’s LTE device below. Loon’s balloons actually receive a signal from the ground, which is then shared across multiple balloons that spread it to users below using standard LTE signals.

The SRG study was intended to look at the interaction between Loon and terrestrial networks, according to Loon spokesman Scott Coriell. Loon needs to partner with a local carrier in any given location in order for it to work.

“Our aim is to help these local carriers expand their networks to places where it was previously difficult or impractical, and to help them attract new customers or better serve existing ones,” Coriell said, adding that Loon is pleased with the study’s findings.

Currently, Loon has two deployments planned with partners in Kenya and Peru, and it’s in conversations with other mobile operators around the world, he said. Loon has a lot of experience flying above the U.S., and there are use cases where Loon could help expand service in the U.S. It has provided services in Puerto Rico, but it hasn’t announced anything commercial-wise in the contiguous U.S.

Loon came into limelight when it was used to provide emergency coverage to Puerto Ricans picking up the pieces after Hurricane Maria back in 2019.

While this was hailed as a success by many, the results indicated that it was not a smooth sailing.


While these experiments prove that technically it is possible for Loon and terrestrial LTE to co-exist, there are still operational challenges that would need to be solved for Loon and other HAPS solution to provide a coverage in time of need.

Related Posts:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

High-level Architecture Introduction of Mobile Cellular Networks from 2G to 5G

Here is an old tutorial explaining high level mobile network architecture, starting from GSM and then looking at GPRS, UMTS, LTE & 5G. Slides and video below High-level architecture of Mobile Cellular Networks from 2G to 5G from 3G4G Related links : Free 2G, 3G, 4G & 5G Training Videos 5G (IMT-2020) Wireless 5G vs 4G: what is the difference?

IEEE 802.11be Extremely High Throughput (EHT), a.k.a. Wi-Fi 7

We have been writing about Wi-Fi for a long time, weather it's to do with indoor connectivity , competition with 5G or just a name change to something simpler. When we last wrote about WiFi 6, a.k.a. 802.11ax, we were expecting a quick adoption of the technology in the industry. We are still not there yet.  You know what's strange? None of the new @madebygoogle gadgets from yesterday support Wi-Fi 6. Not the Pixel 5, not the Pixel 4a 5G, not the Nest Audio, and not the new Chromecast. pic.twitter.com/QtJ8iB9FeO — Ry Crist (@rycrist) October 1, 2020 Take for instance the new iPhone 12 supports Wi-Fi 6 in all their models as one would expect but none of the new Google Pixel phones (4a, 4a 5G and 5) support it. In fact none of the new Google devices support it. Which is rather bizarre. While we are still looking forward to Wi-Fi 6 becoming widespread, IEEE has already started working on the successor of 802.11ax, 802.11be - Standard for Information technology--Telecommunicati

CSI-RS vs SRS Beamforming

In an issue of Signals Flash by Signals Research Group (SRG), they talked about 2 different types of MIMO. Quoting from their journal, "CSI-RS versus SRS. Those operators that have tested or made token use of MU-MIMO leverage a flavor of MU-MIMO that is based on CSI-RS. The MU-MIMO network we tested was based on SRS, which makes it far more likely to observe sixteen spatial layers (versus eight)." I reached out to Emil Bj√∂rnson, Visiting Professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Associate Professor at Link√∂ping University to see if he has explained this in any of his videos. Here is what he said: " I'm not talking about 3GPP terminology in any of my videos. But you can listen to the slides that starts around 12:40 in this video (embedded below) . If you are looking for CSI-RS vs SRS based MU-MIMO, then jump to around 12:40 in this video where you can see CSI-RS being referred to as "grid of beams" and SRS is similar to the other option, which is t