TECHNOECONOMICS OF DIMENSIONING

As already stated several times, the business plan and the dimensioning strategy are the main factors that affect the network size and overall investment. On top of the access network, a backhaul network should be implemented to connect the access with the core network, and there is also the core network infrastructure. The overall equipment depends on the number of PoP, almost in a linear manner. Further to the equipment costs, the deployment engineering costs should be also taken into consideration.

COST INCREASING FACTORS DURING DIMENSIONING

The dimensioning output may lead to an oversized/undersized network mainly for two reasons: either due to the business plan or due to a low quality study. In the first case it is the responsibility of the author of the business plan if it is not so realistic, while in the second case it is the responsibity of the designer if a study outcome is of low accuracy. The main parameters that impact the network size and hence the costs can be seen in Table 1. An ambitious business plan will most likely lead to a significant investment. However, in terms of network design and implementation, a huge network increases design complexity which results in longer time-to-market. A scalable deployment is preferable since a higher design quality can be obtained. In contrast, lack of scalability would further extend the transition period until the network implementation is finalized. The costs and complexity also depend on the number of PoP. If the distance between PoP is very small (i.e., less than 0.5 km) then the design complexity is increased significantly. For capacity-limited networks that require too many sectors it would be cost effective to use higher sectorization per BS or a dual sector layer if possible. Finally it should be mentioned that for areas under heavy construction the expected terrain changes should be considered since they may result in a long design and implementation period. Any condition that would result in longer engineering times (design, implementation) would also further increase costs. Furthermore, terrain changes may alter the coverage and hence a revision may be necessary after a period.

Table 1: Dimensioning Size and Cost Increasing Factors 

Factor	CapEX/OpEX	Complexity	Time-to-Market
Ambitious business plan	Very high	Very high	Very long
Unbalanced number of PoP	High	High	Long
Luck of scalability strategy	High	Very high	Long transition
Environmental changes	High	High	Long transition

SCALABILITY | STRATEGY INTERACTION

As mentioned previously, the most significant advantage of WiMAX is the flexibility and scalability of the air-interface. Therefore the concept “pay as you grow” is definitely applicable in WiMAX commercial networks. Scalability allows the reduction of initial investment and risks, and thereafter the network is expanded based on the market penetration and revenues. The majority of business plans provide the subscriber numbers and services per deployment year and in this context the dimensioning should be presented according to the scalability plan (network size/performance per year). The complexity in this case is not the increase of subscriber numbers or service area size, but when in parallel the coverage type is upgraded or new products (based on recently released standards) have to coexist with deployed equipment. The main types of scalability plan that have to be considered during dimensioning are presented as follows:

• Network expansion: Expansion may be in terms of subscriber numbers, service rates, or service areas or a combination and involves the deployment of new PoP or addition of sectors in existing PoP. A great challenge, in such scenario, is to optimize the positioning of PoP to achieve the best coverage and capacity outcome. It is more appropriate to determine the network size and PoP positions for the last deployment year, and then deploy only a subset of PoP that would satisfy the objectives of the initial phase.
• Coverage upgrade: It is common to allow the use of more demanding terminal profiles (i.e., nomadic/mobile) in the network after the first year so as to allow time to test the performance of the wireless network. In this case, not only the network is expanded from first to second year, but also the coverage should be upgraded too. The same approach “design for the future, deploy for present” as above should be applied, and the only difference is that a more dense network is probably required.
• Technology upgrade: The major change in terms of equipment is between the IEEE 801.16-2004 and 802.16e standards. The new products are based on software defined radio technology and therefore future standard releases will probably be implemented with minor changes. It is quite challenging to upgrade an existing fixed WiMAX network to coexist with mobile WiMAX, unless there is provision for additional spectrum. The major challenge is to replace subscriber equipment and restore access and it is likely that this transition phase will take a long time.

CUSTOMIZED NETWORK DESIGN | WiMAX Networks Dimensioning

Customized network dimensioning provides a major advantage to vendors/integrators by highlighting their expertise and by indicating a cost-optimum solution. In many RFPs or project cases the developed business plan has extensive details which can be exploited in a very positive manner. A common occasion is that the overall service area is broken down into subareas with distinct characteristics, such as common type of customers and terminal profiles, common terrain, or service requirements. Such distinction allows a customized treatment of each subarea, where its characteristics are matched with an optimum solution, thus avoiding an overall rough approximation. The main customizations that can be applied in dimensioning, provided that the necessary information is available, are described below:

• Nonuniform sectorization: The use of different sectorization schemes, depending on the coverage type may result in reducing the required PoP. In some subareas there might be only SMEs, where a fixed-outdoor unit would be utilized. Therefore, in this case there is no restriction to use trisector cells. If the available spectrum is sufficient, up to eight sectors can be deployed in a PoP, depending on the capacity requirements.
• Dual layer coverage: In many occasions the subscribers will use both fixed-outdoor and mobile units hence in this case a more efficient approach is necessary. If extreme capacity is required, a high number of sectors can be used, building a trisector layer for the mobiles and overlapping layer for the fixed, provided that frequency reuse can be applied. The neighboring list for mobile handovers will include only a sector in the first layer, while the demanding fixed links will be isolated in the second layer. This approach is very cost effective in cases where an extreme capacity demand would require a PoP every 0.2–0.5 km, if plain trisector cell layout was considered.
• Nonuniform channel bandwidth: Assuming that extreme capacity is still the performance indicator, by using higher channel bandwidth the capacity per PoP is increased and therefore the number of PoP is maintained at a reasonable level. While the overall network may be implemented with trisector cells, 5 MHz channel bandwidth and 1.3.3 reuse scheme (using 3 out of 4 available channels), a specific subarea with SMEs may be served by quad-sector cells, with 10 MHz bandwidth. In this case, the 10 MHz in the upper band will be assigned in sectors 1 and 3, while the 10 MHz in the lower band in sectors 2 and 4. This arrangement provides a 260 percent increase in capacity for the same footprint. It should be noted that the use of nonuniform channel bandwidth requires specialized sector configuration (transmit power, UL receive target level, and antenna arrangement) and extensive interference studies, applying the interference rejection filter methodology that takes into account the impact from trasmissions in all channels.
• Hybrid coverage: When both fixed-outdoor and nomadic/mobile coverage is required, the design approach is to select the operating range for the worst case condition. This usually leads to a huge upfront network size and investment. An alternative approach would be to consider that only a portion of the service area will be covered with the worst case terminal, hence the cell range can be selected higher. As the network evolves and additional PoP will be deployed for capacity upgrade, the percentage of the mobile coverage in the service area will also increase. This approach is particularly efficient for networks that extend to a large area, however with low subscriber density. The dimensioning is based on fixed-outdoor coverage that can reach higher ranges, however close to a BS there will be opportunity to use fixed-indoor/nomadic/mobile terminals also. 
• Divide and conquer principle: To apply the previous customizations, the service area can be processed in pieces, where each subarea has a specific characteristic. If the segmentation of the service area is not available in the business plan, the designers can perform such action, by requesting or collecting more information (i.e., from site survey). This principle usually drives the network size up, and it is most useful for the actual design phase. The equipment quantities are increased in an exact manner because greater detail is taken into account during the actual design. This method approaches an optimum wireless network design.

It should be mentioned that the advances of the WiMAX air-interface allows greater flexibility and customizations during the wireless network design and hence balances the complexity of accommodating terminals with different profiles.