Breaking News
News & Analysis

60 GHz DuoTargets Small Cells

1/3/2014 08:00 AM EST
15 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
zewde yeraswork
User Rank
Blogger
Magnacom
zewde yeraswork   1/3/2014 10:02:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Magnacom's digital modulation technology remains an area to watch as small cell base stations continue to develop into a technology of the present.

bobdvb
User Rank
Manager
Consumer Devices.
bobdvb   1/3/2014 10:40:11 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the drive towards carrier grade 60GHz is because the cost of the early adoption is high for consumer devices, by using it for backhaul there is a way to introduce the technology and shake it down before trying to take it to mass-production in consumer devices.

When 60GHz does come into homes it will be interesting because I think the customer support issues will be significant.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Interesting development...
junko.yoshida   1/3/2014 12:05:07 PM
NO RATINGS
We all know small cells are an important operator-focused solution. Integration of LTE and Wi-Fi within small cells is definitely a good idea destined to address QoS issues.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Consumer Devices.
rick merritt   1/3/2014 1:04:05 PM
NO RATINGS
@BobDVD: These folks are saying 60 GHz will ride Wi-Fi's coat tails to volumes that make it attratctive for small cell backhaul and ultimately for 5G Wi-Fi offload.

What do others think?

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Consumer Devices.
krisi   1/3/2014 1:19:05 PM
NO RATINGS
I am somewhat sceptical about these efforts...signal attenuation is much larger at 60 GHz than at 5 GHz...the press release states teh distance of 150m, sounds too good to be true...unless I am missing something...Kris

y_sasaki
User Rank
CEO
Reality check
y_sasaki   1/3/2014 2:05:55 PM
NO RATINGS
As long as my knowledge, "60GHz, 2Gbps, 150m point-to-point" is theoritically possible.

 

According to Wikipedia, 60GHz attenuation by atomosphic O2 monocules is about 5dB/Km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

So it is about 0.75dB at 150m - not so severe.

Frii's equasion shows  it is theoritically possible to achieve little over 200m range link with 15dBm (31mW) TX Power, -60dBm receive sensitivity, 20dBi TX antenna gain + 20dBi RX antenna gain.

Shannon's equasion shows minimum required SNR=1.0 (same as noise floor!) to achieve 2Gbps on 2GHz/channel bandwidth. Assuming -60dBm receive signal on -90dBm noise floor, 30dB margin will be good enough to be practical.

This is just very basic theoritical reality check. You may need lot more margnin for real implementation - such as cable loss complement, obstacles between antenna LOS, interferance, etc.

My caliculation is depends on highly sensitive directional antenna (20dBi each). Very high-gain dish antenna (40-50dB) are common for backhaul link or satellite link, but I'm not sure if such antenna is available for 60GHz band.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Reality check
krisi   1/3/2014 2:11:11 PM
NO RATINGS
thank you @y_sasaki...yes, with directional antenna it might be theorethically possible...but in practice various object can enter direct line of sight line and Internet connections would be lost...so even if this can be built it will not be highly reliable I am afraid...Kris

WiLess
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Reality check
WiLess   1/3/2014 3:57:25 PM
NO RATINGS
802.11ad spec includes dynamic beam forming and beam tracking. With the proper implementation, if the object block the propagation path, the protocol will find another path that maintain the link and the connection will be kept. Of course, there are limits to what that algorithm can do. For example, the bird crossing RF link is  different from Boeing 747 crossing it. Having a duplicate RF path can help with such events as well.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Reality check
krisi   1/3/2014 5:37:50 PM
NO RATINGS
thank you @WiLess...I do realize that the algorithm will try to find another path in case of blockage (your 747 example)...perhaps in city environment there is enough bouncing off bulding to create that alternative paths...time will tell...I would rather have less bits more reliably than more bit interuppted but it could be just me, I don't watch movies on my cell phone ;-)...Kris

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Consumer Devices.
Bert22306   1/3/2014 5:55:24 PM
NO RATINGS
I think that moving up to the 60 GHz band, or similarly high frequency, is pretty much a given, for WiFI as well as for 5G. There's simply no other way to offer link capacities of 10 Gb/s and more, with reasonable channel bandwidths, down in the UHF or L bands. If WiFi is supposed to be a shared medium, it doesn't really make sense to require each user to grab 80 MHz or more of spectrum, in the 2.4 or 5 GHz bands, does it? So, increasing the frequency channel was the logical move.

At the same time, increased consumer demand for wireless spectrum can only be met realistically with more frequency reuse, aka small cells. Which works well with these higher frequencies that don't propagate very far. It helps keep inter-cell interference in check.

So, this is all logical and predictable. Which is why I have been questioning the FCC's drive to take back TV UHF spectrum for use in RF cellular broadband. The TV frequencies now being targeted are in the 600 MHz band. Way too low to give any good payoff.

As to propagation loss, free space propagation signal attenuation, at 800 MHz and 2 Km range, is 96.5 dB. This is what you'd expect in today's larger cells. Signal attenuation of a 60 GHz channel, at 2 Km, is a much higher 134 dB. But the point is, you wouldn't use such a large cell with 60 GHz. So scale the cell down to 150 meters, and now attenuation is 111.5 dB.

So, assuming that the mobile device sensitivity is -70 dBm, which is not unreasonable, the base station transmitter would need to transmit an ERP of 14 Watts to reach the mobile device at the max range of 150 meters. Electronically steered antennas, of course, would provide antenna gain, and reduce that power requirement. I think this is feasible.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Top Comments of the Week
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.
Flash Poll