AT&T upgrading to HSPA+ but will it ensure reliability??

Please keep visiting for insights, analysis, discussions on wireless technologies, business and trends now at shahneil.com

————————————————————————————————————————

Stephen Lawson of IDG News Service recently mentioned in his article why AT&T needs to spend $5 Billion on its wireless network. I agree with him on this as AT&T has to catch up with the coverage offered by Verizon Wireless.

Though AT&T boasts of the fastest 3G Network and it might be too, but customer satisfaction and connection reliability index especially in urban areas are the two main reasons which might blur AT&T’s image. And with inclusion of bandwidth hungry smartphone (iPhone primarily) users in its portfolio, loading their networks and juicing out the backhaul, situation might get out of control for AT&T  unless they start acting on it. Apart from the loading the other important factor which I mentioned earlier is coverage which affects the reliability.

Issue 1: 3G Speed & Reliability Tests

AT&T’s 3G network is based on HSPA (High-Speed Packet Access) and an upgrade to HSPA+, a system designed to deliver as much as 7.2M bps (bits per second). Verizon uses EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized), which that carrier said offers as much as 1.4M bps in real-world performance. The speed of the network for individual subscribers depends on a variety of factors. But what matter here is the reliability along with the speed. The PC World test, conducted by Novarum last year, found mixed results for network speeds among AT&T, Verizon and Sprint but showed AT&T in last place for reliability in all 13 cities tested.

The above analysis puts light on The “reliability” score depicts the percentage of  the tests in which the service maintained an uninterrupted connection at a reasonable speed (faster than dial-up) for Verizon, Sprint and AT&T in 13 different cities.

Issue 2: CAPEX on wireless infrastructure

Recent reports from TownHall Investment Research depicts that AT&T is short on CAPEX behind key competitor Verizon and Sprint on its Wireless infrastructure. AT&T’s capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $21.6 billion, compared with $25.4 billion for Verizon and $16 billion for Sprint (including Sprint’s investments in WiMax operator Clearwire). Over that time, Verizon has spent far more per subscriber: $353, compared with $308 for AT&T. Even Sprint has outspent AT&T per subscriber, laying out $310 for network capital expenditure. That investment shortfall has been the major cause of AT&T’s poor network performance, which has been reflected in tests by Consumer Reports and PC World

The other issue is AT&T invests more in its wired infrastructure than in its wireless network, even though the wireless business contributes a majority of the carrier’s profit. AT&T gets 57 percent of its operating income from wireless and only 35 percent from wired services, but wireless only gets 34 percent of the capital expenditures, with the wired network taking up 65 percent of that spending.

Issue 3: Backhaul Capacity

Along with invest in upgrades to HSPA 7.2 in the base stations, AT&T needs to remove the backhaul bottlenecks to accommodate high speed data in the core. The backhaul limiting the speeds is the primary concern  as I mentioned in my previous post for operators choosing the right backhaul solution considering the capex/opex. The $5 billion investment gap could expand to $7 billion because of the need for new backhaul capacity to link AT&T’s wireless network into the wired Internet.

Issue 4: Old Infrastructure

Another looming problem for AT&T is that its E911 emergency calling system, which works on its older GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) network, hasn’t been adapted to use 3G and is unlikely to make the migration soon. That means AT&T will have to maintain that old network for the foreseeable future, including possibly more capital investment for more power-efficient GSM equipment.

Solutions:

Hot on the heels of T-Mobile USA’s announcement that it upgraded its 3G footprint to HSPA 7.2, AT&T Mobility said it upgraded its own 3G cell sites across the country with HSPA 7.2 software. However, AT&T clarified that it is still working to deploy increased backhaul capacity to the sites, a job that it will continue into 2011. With this the customer experience will definitely get a boost with improvement in consistency in the data sessions access. So apart from base station upgrades and increasing backhaul capacity AT&T needs to add more number of  base stations especially in the urban areas where the user confidence level is shaky and expand their coverage.  AT&T has already started taking some smart steps by moving the 3G service to its longer range 850MHz radio band in the San Francisco area which seems to have helped coverage there, and the company will probably take that strategy nationwide while testing coverage in specific areas and “surgically” increasing capacity.

So the ball is in AT&T’s court and they have to act, spend and expand !!

-

Neil Shah

References:

Analyst: AT&T Needs to Spend US$5B to Catch up by Stephen Lawson, IDG News Service
A Day in the life of 3G: Mark Suvillan, PC World
AT&T plans to double 3G speeds Ian Paul, PC World
AT&T upgrades cell sites to HSPA7.2 software: by Phil Goldstein, Fiercewireless.com

Understanding the WiMAX Business Model

Please keep visiting for insights, analysis, discussions on wireless technologies, business and trends now at my new blogsite shahneil.com

————————————————————————————————————————

Multimedia services and Internet applications have been the primary drivers in growth and demand of mobile broadband. It has ensured the operators to innovate and upgrade to newer technologies and architectures to offer services at lower cost but at the same time with improved user  experience to the end users.

The transition to the next generation network has been already envisioned by the industry players and the move has been outlined to meet the set objectives. The higher level objectives include offering higher data rates, greater system efficiencies, increased data capacity, highly scalable and flatter all-IP architecture with successful interoperability with mobile devices across different networks and technologies. This leads to advent of next generation networks like Mobile WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access)  developed jointly by IEEE and WiMAX forum based on IEEE802.16e-2005 global standard and LTE (Long Term Evolution) developed by 3GPP in its Release 8.

We will deep dive into the WiMAX business model analyzing the total cost of ownership, revenues and map the current state of WiMAX deployments around the world.

As a standards-based technology with wide industry support, a large ecosystem of developers, and a rapidly growing list of commercial installations, WiMAX stands to benefit from economies of scale and a vast embedded base of WiMAX enabled devices – driving down costs while spurring growth in subscriber adoption.

The other important factor operator is considering in how the platform fits into their existing short term and long term business model, measuring the total cost of ownership and with potential for harnessing time-to-market advantages to grow subscriptions and generate revenue. In the end, detailed business modeling customized to the operator’s market profile and service goals will provide the understanding of how to optimize the WiMAX investment to optimize the returns.

COSTS

We will first identify the Cost Model for WiMAX concerning the operator’s investment.

As always done we will break the cost into two major components:

1. CAPEX: Capital Expenditure

2. OPEX: Operating Expenditure

The initial investment on a WiMAX deployment focuses largely on capital components associated with procuring the necessary equipment throughout the network and systems architecture. With the introduction of WiMAX service and subscriber adoption with growing usage rates the operating expenses will consume the growing share of total cost of ownership. The end-to-end deployment and operational efforts contributes to the cost of ownership.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of WiMAX network = CAPEX +OPEX

The Capital expense normally consumes a larger percentage of the total costs but the operating expenses will outweigh the initial capital outlay over time. With WiMAX it is estimated that over the course of 6 years the capital expenses such as infrastructure, core and backhaul equipment will contribute to roughly 25%-30 of the TCO while the operating expenses including IT & operations site maintenance, device subsidies, support and administration will account to roughly 70%-75% of the TCO.

Operating costs can be expected to comprise the largest share of the cost of ownership.

Operators will need to pay due attention to deploying a WiMAX service network that can be readily operationalized with effective management capabilities and strong integration to the systems architecture.

WiMAX offers significant cost advantages in either greenfield or overlay installations over traditional cellular or broadband alternatives. The economics of WiMAX deployment has been demonstrated as favorable to markets as diverse as emerging markets with challenging price constraints seeking access to basic voice and data connectivity to mature markets seeking to enhance existing broadband services with mobile broadband applications.

As a licensed spectrum technology platform, WiMAX investment decisions are predicated by access to appropriately regulated spectrum.  Almost three quarters of the spectrum allocated for WiMAX globally is focused in the 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands.

WiMAX networks deployed at 3.5 GHz may require almost 30% more sites for a given coverage area than a 2.5 GHz installation. The increase in sites at 3.5 GHz results in approximately 13% increase in total cost of ownership for the system over 2.5 GHz. Fixed costs common to both a 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz network including such operational line items as subscriber acquisition, systems integration and network management results in the 30% increase of sites to contribute only a 13% increase in cost of ownership. It is important to note that over time as capacity increases and the 2.5 GHz system requires investments in new build out earlier than the 3.5 GHz system – both the 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz system will demonstrate parity in cost of ownership.

REVENUES

The WiMAX architecture  can realize host of rich Web-based applications and enhanced Internet services as well as operator managed “walled garden” services in the same network, allowing operators to explore creative service offerings and Internet friendly business models. This may include personal communications, mobile entertainment, mobile commerce, enterprise applications and a rich mobile web with connections across a landscape of devices.  To complement that, the over-the-air activation protocols and associated network conformance testing and certification in the WiMAX Forum are structured to ensure successful network entry and provisioning of a variety of mobile Internet devices, including embedded communications devices and consumer electronics distributed through retail channels.

With the all-IP flat architecture in the entire  service delivery value chain has changed  the relationship between the operators and end user. There are different actors like content providers, advertisers, application service providers playing different roles and sharing the stage with the wireless operator. Operators are  collaborating with  these different actors in driving differentiation  through content, applications and high level personalization of products and services. Thus by providing the different mix of value added services, devices  and plans for different end-user segments operators may realize stronger growth, higher  revenue (ARPU),greater  market share( no. of subscribers)  and a swift return on WiMAX investment.

FACTS & FIGURES:

Considering some trends and statistics of ongoing WiMAX deployments and subscriber acquisition throughout the world, we have following figures and growth projections:

Products

Lets have a look at some of the WiMAX Certified products from WiMAX vendors.

- Neil Shah

Femtocells & Relays in Advanced Wireless Networks

With the huge growth of mobile phones complementing with a revolution wireless network technologies there has been a huge change in the consumer’s lifestyle and dependence on mobile phones. With the emergence of smart phones (mobile web) consumers are replacing not only their fixed lines but have started downsizing the number of personal computers in home. But they have far way to go as this demographic for this adoption is quite limited due to various factors. Fundamentally, consumers want great voice quality, reliable service, and low prices. But today’s mobile phone networks often provide poor indoor coverage and expensive per-minute pricing. In fact, with the continued progress in broadband VoIP offerings such as Vonage and Skype, wireless operators are at a serious disadvantage in the home.

Hence the wireless operators are looking to enhance their macro-cell coverage with the help of micro-cell coverages(indoor) deploying small base stations such as Femtocells or with the help of Relay technology.These miniature base stations are the size of a DSL router or cable modem and provide indoor wireless coverage to mobile phones using existing broadband Internet connections.

Pointing out some key advantages of Femtocells and Relays we will then focus on their adoption in advanced wireless networks(WiMAX and LTE)

FEMTOCELLS

Technical Advantages:

Low Cost: The Business Model would be initially by offering Femtos as a consumer purchase through mobile operators

Low Power: around 8mW- 120 mW lower than Wi-Fi APs.

Easy to Use: Plug-and-Play easily installed by consumers themselves

Compatibility & Interoperability: Compatibility with UMTS,EVDO standards and WiMAX,UMB & LTE standards

Deployment: In Wireless Operator owned licensed spectrum unlike WiFi

Broadband ocnnected:Femto cells utilize Internet protocol (IP) and flat base station architectures, and will connect to mobile operator networks via a wired broadband Internet service such as DSL, cable, or fiber optics.

With the above set up Femtocells solves following existing problems and extends the wireless coverage reach enabling newer applications and services

Customer’s point of view:

Increased Indoor Coverage: Coverage radius is 40m – 600m in most homes providing full signal throughout the household

Load sharing: Unlike in macro cells which supports hundreds of users, Femtos will support 5-7 users simultaneously  enabling lesser contention in accessing medium delivering higher data rates/user.

Better Voice Quality: As the users will be in the coverage envelope and closer to Femtos, they will definitely be supported with a better voice and sound quality with fewer dropped calls

Better Data/Multimedia Experience: It will deliver better and higher data performance with streaming musics, downloads and web browsing with lesser interruptions and loss of connections compared to a macro-cell  environment

Wireless Operator’s point of view:

Lower CAPEX: Increased usage of femtocells will cut down huge capital costs on macro cell equipments & deployments. This includes costs savings in site acquisitions, site equipments, site connections with the switching centers.

Increased network capacity: Increased usage of femtocells will reduce stress on macro cells increasing overall capacity of mobile operators

Lower OPEX: With lesser macro cell sites it reduces the overall site maintenance, equipment maintenance and backhaul costs.

Newer Revenue Opportunities: With provision of excellent indoor coverage and superior user experience with voice and multimedia data services operators has an opportunity of raising its ARPU with more additions to family plans

Reduced Churn: Due to improved coverage, user multimedia experience and fewer dropped calls, will lead to a significant reduction in customer churn

Technical hurdles:

Spectrum: Femtocells works on licensed spectrum and as the spectrum is the most expensive resource it will be a major technical hurdle for the wireless operator for frequency planning.

RF Coverage Optimization: Radio tuning and optimization for RF coverage in macro cells is manually done by technicians which is now not possible at each femtocell level, henceforth self optimization and tuning over time according to the indoor coverage map has to be done either automatically or remotely which is a technical challenge.

RF Interference: Femtocells might be prone to femto-macro interference and also femto-femto interference in highly dense macro or micro environments which might affect the user experience.

Automatic System Selection: When an authorized user of a femto cell moves in or out of the coverage of the femto cell – and is not on an active call – the handset must correctly select the system to operate on. In particular, when a user moves from the macro cell into femto cell coverage, the handset must automatically select the femto cell, and visa versa

Handoffs: When an authorized user of a femto cell moves in or out of coverage of the femto cell – and is on an active call – the handset must correctly hand off between the macro cell and femto cell networks. Such handoffs are especially critical when a user loses the coverage of a network that is currently serving it, as in the case of a user leaving the house where a femto cell is located

Security & Scalability: A femto cell must identify and authenticate itself to the operator’s network as being valid. With millions of femto cells deployed in a network, operators will require large scale security gateways at the edge of their core networks to handle millions of femto cell-originated IPsec tunnels

Femto Management: Activation on purchase and plug and play by end user is an important step and with a proper access control management allowing end-user to add/delete active device connections in the household. In addition, operators must have management systems that give first-level support technicians full visibility into the operation of the femto cell and its surrounding RF environment.

RELAYS:

Relay transmission can be seen as a kind of collaborative communications, in which a relay station (RS) helps to forward user information from neighboring user equipment (UE)/mobile station (MS) to a local eNode-B (eNB)/base station (BS). In doing this, an RS can effectively extend the signal and service coverage of an eNB and enhance the overall throughput performance of a wireless communication system. The performance of relay transmissions is greatly affected by the collaborative strategy, which includes the selection of relay types and relay partners (i.e., to decide when, how, and with whom to collaborate).

Relays that receive and retransmit the signals between base stations and mobiles can be used to effectively  increase throughput extend coverage of cellular networks. Infrastucture relays do not need wired connection to network thereby offering savings in operators’ backhaul costs. Mobile relays can be used to build local area networks between mobile users under the umbrella of the wide area cellular networks

Advantages:

Increased Coverage: With multi-hop relays the macro cell coverage can be expanded to the places where the base station cannot reach.

Increased Capacity: It creates hotspot solutions with reduced interference to increase the overall capacity of the system

Lower CAPEX & OPEX: Relays extending the coverage eliminates the need of additional base stations and corresponding backhaul lines saving wireless operators deployment costs and corresponding maintenance costs. The relays can be user owned relays provided by operators and can be mounted on roof tops or indoors.

Better Broadband Experience: Higher data rates are therefore now available as users are close to the mini RF access point

Reduced Transmission power: With Relays deployed there is a considerable reduction in transmission power reducing co-channel interference and increased capacity

Faster Network rollout: The deployment of relays is simple and quickens the network rollout process with a higher level of outdoor to indoor service and leading to use of macrodiversity increasing coverage quality with lesser fading and stronger signal levels

As a hot research topic with great application potential, relay technologies have been actively studied and considered in the standardization process of next-generation mobile communication systems, such as 3GPP LTE-Advanced

and IEEE 802.16j (multihop relays for WiMAX standards).

Relay Types

Two types of RSs have been defined in 3GPP LTE-Advanced and 802.16j standards, Type-I and Type-II in  3GPP LTE-Advanced, and non-transparency and transparency in IEEE 802.16j.

Specifically, a Type-I (or non-transparency) RS can help a remote UE unit, which is located far away from an eNB (or

a BS), to access the eNB. So a Type-I RS needs to transmit the common reference signal and the control information for the eNB, and its main objective is to extend signal and service coverage.Type-I RSs mainly perform IP packet forwarding in the network layer (layer 3) and can make some contributions to the overall system capacity by enabling communication services and data transmissions for remote UE units.

On the other hand, a Type-II (or transparency) RS can help a local UE unit, which is located within the coverage of an eNB (or a BS) and has a direct communication link with the eNB, to improve its service quality and link capacity. So a Type-II RS does not transmit the common reference signal or the control information, and its main objective is to increase the overall system capacity by achieving multipath diversity and transmission gains for local UE units.

Pairing Schemes for Relay Selection

One of the key challenges is to select and pair nearby RSs and UE units to achieve the relay/cooperative gain. The selection of relay partners (i.e., with whom to collaborate) is a key element for the success of the overall collaborative strategy. Practically, it is very important to develop effective pairing schemes to select appropriate RSs and UE units to collaborate in relay transmissions, thus improving throughput and coverage performance for future relay-enabled mobile communication networks.

This pairing procedure can be executed in either a centralized or distributed manner. In a centralized pairing scheme, an eNB will serve as a control node to collect the required channel and location information from all the RSs and UE units in its vicinity, and then make pairing decisions for all of them. On the contrary, in a distributed pairing scheme, each RS selects an appropriate UE unit in its neighborhood by using local channel information and a contention-based medium access control (MAC) mechanism. Generally speaking, centralized schemes require more signaling overhead, but can achieve better performance

Relay Transmission Schemes

Many relay transmission schemes have been proposed to establish two-hop communication between an eNB and a UE unit through an RS

Amplify and Forward — An RS receives the signal from the eNB (or UE) at the first phase. It amplifies this received signal and forwards it to the UE (or eNB) at the second phase. This Amplify and Forward (AF) scheme is very simple and has very short delay, but it also amplifies noise.

Selective Decode and Forward — An RS decodes (channel decoding) the received signal from the eNB (UE) at the first phase. If the decoded data is correct using cyclic redundancy check (CRC), the RS will perform channel coding and forward the new signal to the UE (eNB) at the second phase. This DCF scheme can effectively avoid error propagation through the RS, but the processing delay is quite long.

Demodulation and Forward — An RS demodulates the received signal from the eNB (UE) and makes a hard decision at the first phase (without decoding the received signal). It modulates and forwards the new signal to the UE (eNB) at the second phase. This Demodulation and Forward (DMF) scheme has the advantages of simple operation and low processing delay, but it cannot avoid error propagation due to the hard decisions made at the symbol level in phase one.

Comparison between 3GPP LTE Advanced and IEEE 802.16j RSs

Below shows comparison between Type I(3GPP- LTE Advanced) and Non-Transparency(IEEE -802.16j) RSs

Technical Issues

Practical issues of cooperative schemes like signaling between relays and different propagation delays due to different locations of relays are  often overlooked.  If  the difference in time of arrival between the direct path from source to destination and the paths source-relay-destination is constrained then relays must locate inside the ellipsoid as depicted below. Thus,  in practice, such a cooperative system shoiuld be a narrow band one, or guard interval between transmitted symbols should be used to avoid intersymbol interference due to relays.

In band relays consume radio resources and Out of band relays need multiple transceivers.

References:

IEEE P802.16j/D9, “Draft Amendment to IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems: Multihop Relay Specification,” Feb. 2009.

S. W. Peters and R. W. Heath Jr., “The Future of WiMAX: Multihop Relaying with IEEE 802.16j,” IEEE Commun.Mag., vol. 47, no. 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 104–11.

Y.Yang, H. Hiu, J. Xu, G. Mao, “Relay technologies for WiMAX and Advanced Mobile systems” IEEE Commun. Mag., Oct,2009.

C. K. Lo, R. W. Heath, and S. Vishwanath, “Hybrid-ARQ in Multihop Networks with Opportunistic Relay Selection,” Proc. IEEE ICASSP ‘07, Apr. 2007, pp. 617–20.

HSPA, EVDO, WiMax then LTE but what about the mobile backhaul??

With HSPA, EVDO maturing, WiMax getting deployed and LTE getting ready to buzz around, it is soon changing the way mobile phones will access the networks. The bandwidth hungry new services, applications and the non-stop touch clicks on your smart handhelds are eventually going to obsolete these mature 3G networks. Whereas, the 4G access networks are definitely envisioned to control this ever-increasing wireless broadband traffic but what bout the evolution of backhaul?? Is it ready? or is it going to be a major bottleneck analogous to the traffic jams seen if only one lane was operating out of a four lane expressway.

So, let’s have a closer look on how the mobile backhaul network is currently positioned.

The trend below depicts the exponential growth in asynchronous data demand for next 5 years.

Mobile Traffic Projections for the next 5 years

Over the next few years, “user experience” will still continue to rely on 3G (and in some regions on 2G) technology.But for the mobile operator, LTE/WiMax is already part of the game plan. Operators have to learn the technology, and its impact on their networks, applications and service offering. Though, service providers are seeking revenue and profit growth through new differentiated packet-based services. Many of these services, such as mobile Internet and mobile TV, require high bandwidth—and the current backhaul infrastructure is not optimized for handling such traffic. Hence, providers have to add backhaul capacity while keeping operational costs under control, a situation that is forcing carriers to migrate their access and core networks to the new 3G and 4G infrastructure.

There are three main transport technologies in the backhaul arena – fiber, copper and wireless point-to-point microwave.

The costs of backhaul form a significant part of service providers’ revenue accounting for three quarters of mobile transport costs and 25-30% of total operating expenses. The 2G infrastructure carried voice traffic through switched TDM (T1/E1 or SDH/SONET) or ATM. As with 3G/4G services, already  the bandwidth requirements have shot exponentially and to transport voice and data efficiently has been the need of the hour.

Basic requirements for a 4G Backhaul network:

1. Capacity: A single tail site should be scalable to 100Mbps+ capacities to avoid bottlenecks

2. Latency: A solution that supports 10msec or less end-to-end latency

3. All IP: Support IP traffic from head to tail.

Current migrating strategy is transporting Ethernet packets over point-to-point Microwave. Over 50% of all mobile backhaul deployments worldwide (and nearly 70% outside the U.S.A.), point-to-point microwave systems offer simple and cost efficient backhauling for voice and high-speed data services. That’s because point-to-point microwave supports higher data rates than traditional copper T1/E1 lines, it delivers between 25% and 60% more bits compared with similar TDM based systems, and easily overcomes the high cost and limited availability associated with fiber. Thus, operators can connect the TDM ports today, and gradually shift traffic to the Ethernet ports in the future. This shift can be done from remote, so no additional CAPEX or OPEX are needed. The industry has already established that the end game of next generation mobile backhaul networks is all-IP/Ethernet. Ethernet is not only more scalable, it also offers huge cost savings across the entire network value chain.

Ethernet cost savings per 1 Million subscribers

Also migrating to high capacity and lower latency Ethernet/All IP network, the systems should also support QoS aware Adaptive Coding and Modulation and Statistical Multiplexing. The former helps optimizing network for spectrum efficiency, increasing the radio capacity and  thus reducing cost/bit and latter in optimizing traffic management over the network reducing congestion and improving efficiency. An IP over Ethernet infrastructure has the advantage of the bandwidth growth curve of Ethernet moving from 10 Megabits per second (Mbps) to 10 Gigabits per second (Gbps) today and 100 Gbps in future. This coupled with the decreasing cost of Ethernet ports provides growth opportunities with increasing economies of scale.

Ethernet microwave Vs. TDM microwave equipment cost comparison

Thus, of the three backhaul technology options operators can choose from, wireless point-to-point microwave can deliver the best cost-performance features, bringing faster ROI and driving forward the proliferation of advanced mobile services in the LTE/WiMax era. But in the longer run a hybrid  solution of microwave, optical or IP/MPLS core might be seen as a balanced solution that might reduce the OPEX with improved scalability, higher bandwidth, lower latency and better efficiency. So operators pull up the socks and get ready for the great migration.

Also, a point to note with CISCO’s recent acquisition of Starnet Networks which makes it now one of the most dominant player in mobile backhaul solutions market.

From the recent news releases:

Verizon has committed to deploying fiber to 90% of the cell sites in its territory by 2013, closely following VZW’s LTE rollout schedule

Qwest plans to run fiber 7,500 to 17,000 cell sites in its territory

- Neil Shah

References:

“ATM to ALL IP”  Cost effective Network Convergence – Tellabs ’2009.

“LTE Backhaul Solutions”- Ceragon June 2009

Cable Backhaul: A towering OpportunityWebinar Harris Stratex Networks Nov’2009