May 22, 2012
Utilities Must Work Closely with Wireless Vendors on Smart Grid
At the UTC Telecom 2012 show, Aviat Networks was able to meet with utilities regarding their networking needs. Bottomline, utilities must work closely with their wireless backhaul and other solution providers in order to implement smart grid capabilities.
UTC Telecom 2012 is the annual show of the utilities industry in North America. New technologies and products were displayed to help the industry with its latest challenges. Also various utilities shared their experiences in implementing new networks to deliver leading edge smart grid capabilities.
The show was extremely well attended with a myriad of vendors including many consulting firms. The key message that I took away was the need for utilities to work very closely with their equipment vendors—especially wireless backhaul solution providers—and consultants to implement next generation networks capable of handling the multitude of applications associated with smart grid.
It was interesting to hear from AltaLink about the findings from its extensive lab testing and network implementation:
- How far do you drive MPLS into the network?
- How do you “tweak” the MPLS settings to accommodate microwave radios adapting in modulation?
- What kind of MTU sizes need to be passed and how well do vendor capacities relate to the particular MTU sizes?
BC Hydro talked to the two critical issues it is struggling with: end-to-end management and security across the entire network. Balance the needs/wants of the IT dept., the communications dept. and various internal administrative groups is a real task! Some people think that only the commercial mobile networks must deal with overzealous users demanding unlimited bandwidth to address their video/gaming/voice applications…what happens when all the utilities’ departments find out that there is bandwidth available?!
Aviat Networks’ Eclipse Packet Node radios and skilled network engineers can help you find the right solution for your smart grid implementation. Whether your utility is just starting to look at the issues or ready to buy the critical components of the network, Aviat Networks is able to help.
Randy Jenkins
Director of Business Development
Aviat Networks
Related articles
- The 12 Biggest Smart Grid Companies (solarfeeds.com)
- Cellular Service Revenue for Smart Grid Will Reach $1 Billion (smipp.wordpress.com)
- Smart Grid Wireless Technology Comparison Chart (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- Migrating Utility Networks to Smart Grid with Hybrid Radios (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- Bandwidth explosion: As Internet use soars, can bottlenecks be averted? (arstechnica.com)
May 11, 2012
3 Models for Microwave Link Error Performance? Laine Explains
In the second episode of Aviat Networks’ Radio Head Technology Series, Principal Engineer Dick Laine explains ITU-R models for Fixed Wireless Systems.
As most radio engineers know, Vigants calculations, which are discussed in a broadly cited Bell System Technical Journal article, are widely used to determine reliability or error performance for microwave link design. In Video 2 of Aviat Networks’ popular Radio Head Technology Series, which is now available for viewing, Principal Engineer Dick Laine explains how he uses Vigants calculations in conjunction with the three completely separate ITU-R Fixed Wireless System (FWS) models for TDM.
Because of all these models, he likes to use Vigants calculations as a “sanity check” to see that he is close to the correct result for his path engineering plans. The free Aviat Networks’ Starlink wireless path engineering tool can be used to handle Vigants calculations for Aviat Networks’ and other vendors’ equipment.
Can’t wait to hear more of Dick’s experienced views on microwave radio transmission engineering? You can get ahead of the learning curve by registering for the series and get these videos sent to your inbox as soon as they are released.
Related articles
- ITU calls for inclusion of ICT at Rio+20 Summit (ghanabusinessnews.com)
- Metropolitan Area Network (computrnetworking.wordpress.com)
- 3 Truths about High Fade Margin in Point-to-Point Path Design (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- LTE – Lessons Learned So Far (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- Dick Laine’s 4 Keys to Successful Transmission Engineering of Microwave Links (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
April 6, 2012
Wireless Network Services: Disaster Monitoring and Recovery
Category F5 tornado (upgraded from initial estimate of F4) viewed from the southeast as it approached Elie, Manitoba, on Friday, June 22, 2007. (Photo credit: Justin1569 at Wikipedia)
In 2011, the United States experienced its worst tornado outbreak in more than 50 years. And communication systems were not spared from the carnage.
In the video below, Robert Young, senior manager for Aviat Networks’ Americas TAC/NOC explains how the company’s San Antonio network operations center (NOC) and its expertise in disaster monitoring and recovery helped microwave communication systems rebound from severe weather challenges. He details how the Aviat Networks Technical Assistance Center (TAC) and NOC team provided support for customers during the 2011 tornado outbreak.
One of the special services Aviat Networks’ NOC offers is in the form of Special Event Recovery and Monitoring. Two of Aviat Networks’ major customers were directly affected by the 2011 tornado outbreak. The storms were tracked, and the customers were preemptively notified of the storm tracks. Approximately 600-plus tornadoes were monitored in one week, and Aviat Networks managed disaster recovery of more than 300 outages due to the storms.
March 23, 2012
10 Things to Know About the Status of Asymmetrical Wireless Backhaul
The ECC held a meeting in March to further consider updating regulations to allow the use of asymmetrical links in microwave backhaul (Photo credit: blese via flickr)
Last autumn we wrote about potential plans from a microwave competitor regarding using asymmetric band plans for point to point microwave communication links. To update this topic, we have put 10 things in parentheses that you should know about the current status of asymmetrical links in wireless backhaul. Last month at an Electronic Communications Committee SE19 (Spectrum Engineering) meeting this microwave technology subject was discussed again. (1) The proposal under consideration has been reduced in scope and (2) the regulators present still wish to see more evidence regarding the need for change before agreeing to such significant amendments.
Asymmetric Band Plan Altered
A quick reminder of what was originally requested back in the autumn of 2011; a move from channel sizes of 7, 14, 28 and 56MHz to channel sizes of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 and 56MHz in order to support different granularities of channel widths in all bands from L6GHz to 42GHz. However in March these proposals were altered to reflect channel sizes of 7, 14, 28 and 56MHz (i.e., no change to existing channel sizes) and asymmetric only in the 18GHz band and above.
The national regulatory authorities stated that even the (3) revised proposal cannot be accommodated with existing planning tools so they cannot imagine asymmetric links being deployed alongside existing links in their countries. A few stated that in block allocated spectrum the owner of the spectrum may be able to implement this channelization, but Aviat Networks believes that (4) the complexity of coordinating links even in block allocated spectrum should not be underestimated.
Saving Spectrum?
Traditionally, links are planned on an equal bandwidth basis, e.g., 28MHz + 28MHz, with a constant T/R spacing throughout the band in question. This new proposal would see links of 28MHz + 7MHz and furthermore makes the claim that spectrum would be saved. Numerically speaking this arrangement would save 21MHz for each pair, but (5) saved spectrum is only of value if it is reused. In many cases the “saved” spectrum would be orphaned due to difficulties coordinating it into usable pairs.
Asymmetric Channel Plan Limits Future
In our last blog on this topic we reflected on the fact that while there is some level of asymmetry today, (6) this trend may well be balanced in the near future by cloud services and other services that involve the user uploading content. We believe that (7) committing to an asymmetric channel plan now limits the future. (8) Symmetric channel planning allows networks to dynamically adjust to changing demands. A related concern is the fact that (9) spectrum once reallocated may not be easily clawed back to create symmetric pairs in the future. While some applications are experiencing asymmetry in traffic presently, we should not forget that some traffic patterns are still symmetric and where asymmetry is a feature, (10) the scale of this phenomenon may be overstated. Indeed, a major European operator present at the SE19 meeting voiced skepticism about the need for asymmetric support.
What do you think? Will mobile traffic remain or increasingly become asymmetric? Are asymmetric microwave links needed or can they be practically deployed in existing bands? Answer our poll below and tell us. Select all answers that apply.
Ian Marshall
Regulatory Manager
Aviat Networks
Related articles
- Study: U.S. mobile backhaul demand to grow nearly 10x by 2016 (fiercewireless.com)
- LTE – Lessons Learned So Far (aviatnetworks.com)
- A Timely Update on Wireless Security (aviatnetworks.com)
- Are Auctions an Appropriate Way to Allocate Microwave Spectrum? (aviatnetworks.com)
March 8, 2012
Are Auctions an Appropriate Way to Allocate Microwave Spectrum?
Recently the U.S. Congress requested information from the FCC regarding the usage of the 11, 18 and 23GHz microwave point to point bands. This move is seen by many industry watchers as the first step in preparing these bands for auctioning.
Auctioning spectrum is seen by many in the political establishment as a good way of raising large sums of money. The 3G auctions in Europe raised $30 billion in the U.K. and $45 billion in Germany and although these figures will probably never be reached again, the attraction for governments trying to balance the books in an economic downturn is clear to see. However, these figures were for cellular access spectrum and there is evidence of microwave spectrum auctions being priced too high for operators and no bids being received, e.g. the original 28GHz auction in the U.K during 2000-2002. But even if the bidding process itself is successful, is granting large amounts of spectrum to a single operator the right way to allocate microwave spectrum?
Let’s look a little deeper into how microwave spectrum is used and allocated in most cases today in licensed common carrier frequency bands. An operator wanting to install a microwave link between points A and B would seek to obtain an individual license for that link in that specific location and frequency. This allows others to apply for other frequencies or even the same frequency in different locations. This approach maximizes use of the available spectrum.
Now let’s look at the block licensing approach. Here a block of spectrum (either on a national or regional basis) is allocated to one user. Block allocations on a regional basis make sense for multipoint applications like fixed wireless access or mobile network applications. However, in the case of point to point (PTP) allocation a block license holder may not have requirements for that entire spectrum, but because it is now their spectrum, no one else can gain access, often resulting in under utilization. This is the situation currently with the 38GHz band in the U.S. and is leading to some in the industry to push for the availability of additional spectrum.
Another example of this is the 28GHz LMDS band, where service take up has been very low, but has effectively blocked out this band from other uses/users. Another concern for the block licensing approach and one that affects equipment vendors is that with fewer operators there are fewer equipment contracts thus leading some manufacturers to be “frozen” out of the market. This will ultimately reduce choice for all and reduce innovation and competition.
Referring back to the announcement, it makes no mention of what would happen to the holders of existing link licenses who will have engineered their networks based upon the current rules. What would happen to these links should that band now be auctioned off as a block? Spectrum auctions also break the U.S. into many smaller regions, with each regional block license being auctioned to the highest bidder. This leads to the question of demarcation and coordination between adjacent regions, particularly for links that may need cross-regional boundaries.
All in all, it would appear that based on evidence to date, auctioning FCC Common Carrier microwave spectrum will be tremendously complicated and likely not in the long term interests of the industry.
Ian Marshall
Regulatory Manager
Aviat Networks
Related articles
- Congress declares another spectrum auction, but is anybody selling? (digitaltrends.com)
- Averting a spectrum disaster: Now for the hard part (news.cnet.com)
- FCC: New Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul, Relaxed ACM Rules (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- Feds Update Spectrum Release to Relieve Wireless Congestion (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
- Ireland Issues Spectrum Consultation on Wireless Communications (blog.aviatnetworks.com)
August 5, 2011
Fiber Isn’t Everything: Key Role of Microwave in Mobile Backhaul
If fiber is this much of a mess in your wiring closet, just imagine the difficulty of deploying it to your cell site. Image by DrBacchus (Rich Bowen) via Flickr
Last year in August, Aviat Networks presented its argument for why fiber optics technology isn’t everything where backhaul of wireless networks is concerned. If anything, this point has only been reinforced by analyses and anecdotal stories showing that fiber can be overkill for the mobile backhaul requirements of LTE wireless. Plus, there is the simple truth that fiber cannot be deployed to every cell site due to financial and topological issues. That’s why microwave technology remains the world’s first choice for backhauling wireless networks. So let’s look at last year’s FierceWireless webinar slide presentation and refresh our memories.
These slides present the findings of an Ovum survey of North America’s largest backhaul players to understand their strategies regarding media types used to supply cell-site backhaul.
Ovum found that demand for wireless backhaul equipment in North America will continue to grow as mobile operators upgrade their networks to support higher-speed LTE networking technologies. The most common backhaul strategy for mobile operators in the region comprises leasing services over fiber combined with owning and operating microwave-based facilities. Microwave has a distinct advantage vis-a-vis leased services over the long-term due to the opex associated with leasing.
If you would like to see more, you may register for the on-demand replay of the full webinar. It will also present the latest trends and advancements in microwave transmission technology that support the evolution of mobile backhaul networks to all-IP.
Related articles
- Telecom PR: Looking for the “Back Story” in Today’s Wireless Boom (customerthink.com)
- Backhaul for the Mobile Broadband or Wireless Broadband Network (aviatnetworks.com)
- Pictures From LTE World Summit (for 4G Wireless) (aviatnetworks.com)
- Ethernet OAM Meets Demands on Microwave (Wireless) Networks (aviatnetworks.com)
- Small Cell Mobile Backhaul: The LTE Capacity Shortfall (aviatnetworks.com)
July 29, 2011
‘The Cloud’ and What it Means for Wireless Technology
Image via Wikipedia
The cloud is an all-encompassing thing that’s actually been around for a while (e.g. distributed computing, Network Attached Storage). Most of it exists today in the enterprise but is being pushed to the Internet and rebranded “The Cloud.” This affects three wireless networking segments: consumers (e.g., you, me, mom, dad), Internet providers (e.g., mobile operators, ILECs, CLECs) and wireless solutions vendors (e.g., Symmetricom, Aviat Networks).
For consumers, it represents the ability to store information—pictures, music, movies—virtually and access them wherever we go from devices of our choice. No longer do we have to worry about backing up smartphones, tablets or laptops. The downside is that this magic is going on in the background all while your data caps are being reached. So, watch out….
On the mobile operator side, this will represent a substantial increase in bandwidth used. In addition, bandwidth usage starts to become more symmetrical as more uplink bandwidth is utilized while uploading to the cloud. This also means more frequency consumption on the RAN-side as subscribers stay “on” more often. Operators need to figure how to get users off the air interface as quickly as possible. This calls for greater throughput and potentially much lower latency. Trickling data to end users compounds the air interface problem. For the most part, subscribers won’t realize what’s happening and data caps are more likely to be reached. This translates into either more revenue and/or dissatisfied customers. Clearly, operators must monetize transport more effectively and at the same time provide more bandwidth.
Lastly, for wireless solutions vendors this translates into increased sales of wireless equipment to ease the sharp increase in bandwidth consumption. This also translates into more intelligent and robust network designs (e.g., physical and logical meshes, fine-grained QoS controls) as subscribers rely more on network access for day-to-day activities. As for the cloud in general and the overall effect:
- Traffic starts to become more and more symmetrical (i.e., photos and videos automatically upload and then downloaded to all individual peer devices (e.g., your iPhone video uploads to the cloud and then syncs to your laptop and iPad)
- Lots more bandwidth will be used. Today, content drives bandwidth demand (e.g., you open a browser and connect to a website, you launch your Facebook mobile app and upload photos). Tomorrow, those activities will happen automatically and continuously
- Over the Air (OTA) updates to the phone are now downloaded over Wi-Fi or 3G/4G networks. Seemingly, updates are the only things that have changed, but it still amounts to about 150 MB per phone per update—another bandwidth driver
- More prevalent use of video conferencing—low latency, sustained bandwidth demand
Therefore, the amount of bandwidth consumption will rise dramatically this September when Apple releases iOS 5 and iCloud. Android has already driven much bandwidth demand, but it’s not nearly as “sexy” as what Apple is releasing for its 220 million users—or alternately total iOS devices: iPod touch, iPad, iPhone). It’s more than just bandwidth—it’s quality, reliable bandwidth where QoS and Adaptive Modulation will play significant roles—of this, I’m certain.
At a recent TNMO event they were talking about LTE-Advanced and leveraging the cloud for virtual hard drives. Imagine, no physical hard drive in your computer. Laptops are connected via 4G wireless/5G LTE wireless to a cloud-based hard drive, equating to lots and lots of bandwidth plus stringent latency requirements….
Steve Loebrich
Director of Product and Solutions Marketing, Aviat Networks
Related articles
- The storage vs bandwidth debate (gigaom.com)
- Apple’s iCloud and what it means for wireless data service – CNET (news.google.com)
- Evolution of Microwave: History of Wireless Communications (aviatnetworks.com)
- Backhaul for the Mobile Broadband or Wireless Broadband Network (aviatnetworks.com)
- Managing Wireless Networks with Element Management Systems (aviatnetworks.com)
July 27, 2011
Managing Wireless Networks with Element Management Systems
An EMS can be thought of as managing all the elements in a complex network, keeping them all in balance. Image by michael.heiss via Flickr
Managing a wireless network is essential. Radios, routers and third-party add-ons control vast amounts of valuable user data. Any wireless network downtime damages the user’s business and the operator’s long-term reputation. Thus, operators need a powerful but easy-to-use element management system (EMS) to monitor and administer all the disparate elements in their wireless communication networks.
Also, operators should be able to manage complete networks from a user-friendly interface, which must provide all the necessary information for fast network management system decision-making. And this system must be capable of complete standalone operation or being integrated into an operational support system using NorthBound Interfaces (NBIs).
Other additional functionality in the form of event management and notifications capability is also necessary in an EMS for wireless networks. An EMS should inform wireless operators about network events and device failures and let them to diagnose problems and apply network updates remotely. This reduces the time between a fault occurring and the fault being repaired. It may even allow a repair to be completed before a wireless link fails completely. For day-to-day management, operators need an EMS that can:
- Deploy, manage and auto-discover wireless equipment—including all Aviat Networks devices, partner products and third-party devices
- Display an entire network at once, via one of several map views
- Provide an overview of network events
- Deliver notifications of important network events
- Enable analysis of network events, device events and performance data
- Generate detailed reports on all aspects of a network
The ProVision EMS solution can manage all Aviat Networks wireless solutions, partner wireless equipment and third-party devices from a user-friendly GUI.
Fortunately, such a carrier-class EMS solution does exist. Aviat Networks develops its ProVision EMS based on customer demand and continues to upgrade it as per user requests and requirements. For customers, implementing ProVision is vastly more efficient than developing an in-house EMS, saving time, resources and money. Aviat Networks EMS solutions are the most cost-effective way to manage wireless solutions. Aviat Networks works closely with customers to make sure that ProVision is user-friendly. The goal is that ProVision EMS allows operators to manage their networks proactively—rather than reactively—and with reduced network operating costs.
Look for future blog posts on must-have EMS data features and stats on operators using carrier-class EMS.
Mick Morrow
Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Aviat Networks
Related articles
- Ten of the world’s most disastrous IT mistakes (pcauthority.com.au)
- The Truth about the Wireless Bandwidth “Crisis” (mobileopportunity.blogspot.com)
- FabLab helps the developing world set up long-distance wireless Ethernet (hackaday.com)
- Network Services from Aviat Networks’ Network Operations Center (aviatnetworks.com)
- Aviat Networks Interoperability Lab for Wireless & Network Testing (aviatnetworks.com)
July 22, 2011
Evolution of Microwave: History of Wireless Communications
This image of microwave energy in a "total sky" picture of the known universe shows it's everywhere in primordial space, more than 13 billion years ago.
Microwaves are as old as the beginning of the universe. Well, they’ve been around for at least 13.7 billion years—very close to the total time since the Big Bang, some 14 billion years ago. However, we don’t want to go that far back in covering the history of microwave communications.
Having just observed the 155th anniversary of the birth of Nikola Tesla, arguably the most important inventor involved in radio and wireless communications, this is a good time to take a broader view of the wireless industry. If you have been in the wireless transmission field for some time, you are probably familiar with Dick Laine, Aviat Networks‘ principal engineer. He has taught a wireless transmission course for many years—for Aviat Networks and its predecessor companies.
The embedded presentation below comes from one of those courses. In a technological field filled with such well-educated scientists and engineers from some of the finest universities and colleges, it’s hard to believe that microwave solutions and radio itself started in so much controversy by men who were in many cases self-taught. Dick’s presentation goes over all of this in a bit more detail. Hopefully, it’s enough to whet your appetite to find out more. If you like the presentation, consider hearing it live or another lecture series on wireless transmission engineering at one of our open enrollment training courses.
Related articles
- NASA’s ‘Age of Aquarius’ Dawns With California Launch (spacefellowship.com)
- Solar Power from the Moon (empressoftheglobaluniverse.wordpress.com)
- Ireland Issues Spectrum Consultation on Wireless Communications (aviatnetworks.com)
- Backhaul for the Mobile Broadband or Wireless Broadband Network (aviatnetworks.com)
- Homage to Nikola Tesla, Great Inventor of Wireless Technology (aviatnetworks.com)
July 1, 2011
Antennas: Why Size is Important for This Wireless Equipment
Image via Wikipedia
In response to the recent FCC docket 10-153, many stakeholders proposed relaxing antennas requirements so as to allow the use of smaller antennas in certain circumstances. This is an increasingly important issue as tower rental costs can be as high as 62 percent of the total cost of ownership for a microwave solutions link. As these costs are directly related to antenna size, reducing antenna size leads to a significant reduction in the cost of ownership for microwave equipment links.
The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), of which Aviat Networks is a major contributor, proposed a possible compromise that would leave Category A standards unchanged while relaxing Category B standards. The latter are less demanding than Category A, and after some further easing, might allow significantly smaller antennas. The rules should permit the use of these smaller antennas where congestion is not a problem, and require upgrades to better antennas where necessary.
A further detailed proposal from Comsearch proposed a new antenna category known as B2, which would lead to a reduction in antenna size of up to 50 percent in some frequency bands. This would be a significant cost saving for link operators.
At the present time, the industry is waiting for the FCC to deliberate on the responses to its 10-153 docket, including those on reducing antenna size.
See the briefing paper below for more information.
Ian Marshall
Regulatory Manager, Aviat Networks
Related articles
- Testing the T-shirt antenna (physorg.com)
- Ball Aerospace to build F-35 antennas (bcbr.com)
- Small Cell Mobile Backhaul: The LTE Capacity Shortfall (aviatnetworks.com)
- Ireland Issues Spectrum Consultation on Wireless Communications (aviatnetworks.com)
- Network Services from Aviat Networks’ Network Operations Center (aviatnetworks.com)