Can a mid-sized building have more capacity than a small city?
September 28, 2015

A question to mobile operators: You have just acquired the rights to deploy an indoor system inside a large building and are about to deploy 50+ antennas inside the building. Now, would you like to add a full LTE cell to each antenna? That’s right… would you like a complete LTE single-sector base station where you were planning to install just an antenna? What about two LTE base stations where you were planning to install just an antenna?

Adding an LTE (or 3G) cell in the macro network is expensive, very expensive, and difficult as h*$%! So, rather than getting more cell sites, operators try to increase capacity by buying more spectrum (billions), and improving spectral efficiency (even more billions). As frequent readers of this blog know, SpiderCloud offers a way to add a massive amount of capacity indoors – using scalable small cell systems.

One of SpiderCloud’s customers recently asked our system engineering team to estimate the capacity of a SpiderCloud dual-carrier LTE system. We have a rather sophisticated modeling tool that accounts for interference between small cells and macros, generates randomized distribution of users and more. So, for this analysis, we took an 180,000 ft2 4-floor building. Based on the building’s floor plans, 24 radio nodes were sufficient to provide coverage, and this system was capable of delivering more than 2.5 Gbps of throughput, at less than 50% loading!

2.5 Gbps in an 180,000 ft2 is a lot of capacity, enough to stream HD movies to 500 Netflix subscribers simultaneously! Not surprising, since this building has 48 LTE cells, equivalent to 16 3-sector macro base stations, sufficient to cover a small city. Though the actual capacity delivered by a SpiderCloud system will depend upon the backhaul connection commissioned by the operator, adding capacity is as easy as provisioning more backhaul, a topic we discussed in a previous post.

SpiderCloud’s approach is very different from big macro base stations vendors, all of whom are still looking for a way to somehow make their macro base station technology (Dots, Lamps, and everything else) applicable to indoor. Macro base station roadmaps are rightfully designed to incrementally squeeze more bps out of existing macro cell site grid, and more $$s out of operators. The whole point is to sell the operator increasingly expensive-to-deploy features like coordinated multipoint and 4x4 MIMO on existing platforms – basically, a gravy train for the big vendors, a sink-hole for their customers.

SpiderCloud’s offers a disruptive alternative – a really easy to deploy system with so much capacity on day one that our customers do not have to buy a capacity upgrade for a very, very long time.

- Art King, SpiderCloud Wireless, Director of Enterprise Services & Technologies
- Amit Jain, Vice President of Marketing & Product Management

Twitter: @EMobilityInside
Visit our Enterprise IT site @

Kista plays catch-up… again!
September 21, 2015

So, efforts to target the enterprise IT buyer by the mobile infrastructure industry received another strong validation last week. If you recall, SpiderCloud’s strategic collaboration with Cisco to deliver compelling offerings to enterprise customers was unveiled at MWC15. Well, it looks like Ericsson has finally realized that their “carrier-grade Wi-Fi” is not good enough for enterprise, and HP has realized that they cannot turn a blind-eye to licensed spectrum. So, here they are with a new press release.

17 Sep 2015 – Ericsson Press Release


  • Bilateral reseller agreement opens up enterprise market opportunities beyond Ericsson's carrier-grade Wi-Fi and provides go-to-market opportunities for Ericsson's industry-leading small cells through HP's global enterprise channels
  • Leverages HP's acquisition of Aruba Networks through integration of HP's enterprise WLAN technology into Ericsson RBS 6402 picocell

There are a number of apparent gaps in the technology collaboration that appear problematic and make us ask questions, such as:

  • It only covers the RBS 6402, which is a picocell product targeted at the SMB market (up to 5,000 m2 building). The medium-large building “Radio Dot” platform is visibly missing from the announcement. Is HP-Aruba Wi-Fi in-scope for the Dot, or does a parallel infrastructure need to be put in place?
  • Where is support for enterprises who have HP-Aruba systems in-place now? We don’t see it. By contrast, current generation Cisco AP’s sport a modular port where our jointly developed cellular Clip-On module can be simply plugged into them. This provides for an implementation that leverages the pre-existing enterprise transport infrastructure, to quickly bring critical mobile service to the Cisco enabled buildings.
  • What are the RF deployment tradeoffs for implementation to stay within the standards based PoE+ power budget? From a product perspective, will there be multiple versions of the RBS 6402 that include the different mixes of 3G, LTE and Wi-Fi radios, or only one version? And, how many radios can be active?

What’s our take on the commercial effects?

The reseller agreement validates that mobile wireless infrastructure vendors have to find a way to offer their products directly to Enterprise. We have seen this trend emerging over the last three years as mobile has become business critical, and energy efficient (metal coated) window glass rollouts are accelerating.

While this transition was started with the emergence of scalable small cells that are “IT friendly” and achieve a Wi-Fi price point, the completion of transition will be stable, operator models that facilitate “frictionless adoption” by enterprises. This change in thinking is at the vanguard of many operators whose customers are demanding better service. We documented some of the building blocks to the future in our post Enterprise Small Cell Deployment Insights as a start point for commercialization thinking about the transition.

Finally, the technology exchange involved in the agreement is not clear on the roles of each of the Wi-Fi divisions. The need to seek an external source for 802.11ac technology for the RBS 6402 raises red flags. On the RBS 6402, there are additional new questions beyond our Small Cell “Super Bass-O-Matic’76”? post that unpacked the technology realities of the first RBS announcement.

As always, nothing is simple when planning for the complex landscape we live in globally.

- Art King, SpiderCloud Wireless, Director of Enterprise Services & Technologies

Twitter: @EMobilityInside
Visit our Enterprise IT site @

Scalable Indoor Small Cells vs. Extending Macro Cells Indoors
August 31, 2015

Large macro base stations companies have a seemingly attractive offer for wireless operators – “Just use our macro base stations indoors! We can offer you new indoor radio heads that connect to the baseband/digital units you love, and you will be on your merry way.” The problem with this offer is that it is trying to force-fit technology designed for towers and other outdoor environments – called CPRI – into an enterprise environment.

CPRI is a standard designed to carry baseband I/Q samples from the baseband unit to a radio head. CPRI was developed so that base station OEMs could source radio transceiver units from multiple suppliers. Over time, CPRI made it possible for the radio transceivers (radio heads) to be moved from the base station chassis to the tower top, with a fiber optic cable in between. This move to remote radio heads reduced cable losses, and boosted the coverage of macro base stations. All good things.

However, CPRI was never designed to be bandwidth efficient.  A single 20 MHz LTE carrier with 2x2 MIMO requires 4.9152 Gbps of bandwidth to carry CPRI between the baseband unit and each radio head*. Considering that a 20 MHz LTE carrier can deliver up to 150 Mbps on the downlink and 50 MHz on the uplink, CPRI’s bandwidth efficiency is less than 3%. In practice, it is even lower. Some vendors compress CPRI, but compression adds cost and barely increases CPRI efficiency by a factor of 3.

The CPRI approach works fine when there is dedicated fiber between the base station and each radio head, but is not appropriate for buildings. Networks inside buildings are built with switched Ethernet. Enterprises want to connect all kinds of equipment to their Ethernet LAN – from computers and printers to Wi-Fi APs and small cells. The Ethernet LAN is the “neutral host” network infrastructure for the enterprise, and all these devices need to share the bandwidth on the LAN. Over the last 20 years, a wide range of technologies have been developed to share the LAN, from QoS to VLAN, and they were developed for a good reason: it does not make sense for enterprises to go around deploying custom cable infrastructure for every new technology they need.

Some vendors are proposing non-CPRI approaches that split baseband processing between the baseband unit and the radio head,  and are able to work on Ethernet instead of fiber. Such approaches require slightly less than 1 Gbps per radio head to carry a 20 MHz channel. Still, the throughput required on LAN increases linearly with the number of radio heads connected to the baseband unit, making it unfeasible to share the enterprise LAN.

SpiderCloud’s scalable small cell system is the only system that can serve thousands of subscribers in buildings as large as 1.5 million square feet and works on a shared enterprise LAN. In a SpiderCloud system, all baseband processing is done by its small cells, called radio nodes. Up to hundred dual carrier radio nodes are connected to SpiderCloud’s small cell controller, Services Node. The Services Node is responsible for anchoring all the user sessions, managing mobility and interference, and SON. This architecture ensures that the only traffic between SpiderCloud’s small cell and Services Node is actual user traffic, and some few hundred kbps of overhead. In other words, deploying a SpiderCloud small cell system on an Enterprise LAN is no different than deploying an enterprise Wi-Fi system. SpiderCloud’s ability to share the enterprise LAN is one of the main reasons why Cisco selected SpiderCloud to build 3G and LTE modules that clip on to Cisco’s market-leading Aironet Wi-Fi access points.

Finally, let’s consider what happens in the future with LTE-Advanced and 5G. With LTE-Advanced and 5G, operators are looking for ways to use more spectrum and more antennas. The amount of bandwidth required for CPRI scales linearly with channel bandwidth, number of channels and number of antennas. If CPRI-based approaches are struggling to, but are unable to offer 20 MHz LTE on Enterprise LANs, how will they offer LTE-Advanced and 5G? Perhaps, this is the reason why NGMN and many other organizations looking at the future of mobile networks, believe that densification using small cells is the way forward.

* This is how the math works:  30.72Msps (sampling rate) * 15b (sampling width) * 2 (I/Q) * 16/15 (1 control word per 15 data words) * 10/8 (CPRI line coding of 10b/8b) * [2 (for 2 Tx antennas) + 2 (for 2 Rx antennas)] = 4.9152 Gbps. Assuming peak cell throughput of 150Mbps in DL and 50Mbps in UL, the best-case efficiency of CPRI (bandwidth on CPRI link / actual throughput delivered by cell) is less than 3%!

- Amit Jain, Vice President of Marketing & Product Management
Twitter: @SpiderCloud_Inc

Fact Check: Adding Capacity in an E-RAN System
August 24, 2015

We have encountered a number of incorrect opinions about how to add capacity to an E-RAN installation. It’s time to clarify the concerns, and set the record straight.

Adding capacity to an E-RAN installation is done by increasing the size of backhaul connecting it to the mobile core. Further, the contemporary Ethernet Network Termination Equipment “NTE” that are implemented by Tier One operators, adding capacity is performed by an OSS system by increasing the logical rate on a 1Gbps Ethernet physical port. There is no need to visit the building, add additional Radio Nodes and cabling, or install new cards in a chassis.   

In the balance of this post, we review the E-RAN technical characteristics that support the approach of increasing backhaul to add capacity to an E-RAN.

E-RAN Technical

  • Each SpiderCloud Radio Node (SCRN-310) offers 2 cells (sectors) of capacity, and supports up to 128 active users.
  • Up to 100 SCRN-310s can be connected to a Services Node. The Services Node supports over 10,000 subscribers.
  • The number of Radio Nodes in a building is based on coverage. Each radio node covers 750-1000 sq. m. (7,500-10,000 sq. ft.).
  • A single 20Mhz wide LTE carrier can deliver up to 150Mbps of downlink to a mobile device.
  • The fronthaul network supporting the cloud of Radio Nodes associated with a Services Node is typically a 1Gb PoE+ link to an Ethernet VLAN with a 10Gbps backbone that interconnects the switches.

To make sense of this, typical commercial structures in the USA and Europe allocate anywhere from 15-25 sq. m. per person (150-250 sq. ft.) and, for purposes of this Fact Check, we’ll use a density of 10 sq. m. per person. This means that the maximum population supported by a single RN-310 with 750 sq. m. of coverage will be 75 people - of which only a small amount will be consuming capacity from their serving Radio Node at any moment in time.

Clearly, there is a huge amount of RF link capacity available to serve the mobile devices in this example. Note that each RN provides more capacity to a 1,000 sq. m. area than many DAS (or remote radio head systems) provide to a 10,000 sq. m. building. We shared, in this post, our view of spectrum re-use and how the E-RAN is analogous to the wired network revolution that was led by the emergence of 10Base-T and Ethernet switches.

In our experience, there is rarely a situation in which an operator has to add a Radio Node due to RF resource contention.

Now, let’s look at the backhaul that connects the Services Node to the mobile core. When an E-RAN system is viewed from end to end, the sizing of the backhaul is generally the bottleneck in any performance scenario. What limits the capacity of an E-RAN system is the backhaul that the operator delivers. If the operator delivers 100 Mbps of backhaul to an E-RAN with 20 RNs, it will operate at <5% of its capacity. If an operator wants to add capacity to an E-RAN, all they need to do is to increase the backhaul coming into the building.

Fact Check Recap:
Question: How do you add capacity to an E-RAN?
Answer: Increase the size of the backhaul as-needed. No truck rolls or on-site work required.

To our readers, if you have additional questions or areas of interest around implementation, please contact us. We’re happy to Fact Check what you may have been told.

- Art King, SpiderCloud Wireless, Director of Enterprise Services & Technologies

Twitter: @EMobilityInside
Visit our Enterprise IT site @