THE LTE STANDARD - Qualcomm
THE LTESTANDARDDeveloped by a global community tosupport paired and unpaired spectrumdeploymentsApril 2014Prepared bySignals Research Groupwww.signalsresearch.comProject commissioned by Ericsson and QualcommSignals Research Group conducted a comprehensive review of the 3GPP standardization process and the underlying specifications that define LTE. The analysissought to identify and quantify the similarities and differences within the overarching LTE specification documents as they pertain to the implementation requirements for specific frequency bands, with a particular focus on paired (FDD) and unpaired (TDD) spectrum. This whitepaper provides the findings from that study,including the results from our review of nearly 83,000 3GPP submissions, which demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of submissions occurring during asix-year period apply to both LTE duplex schemes and that companies from all over the globe supported and contributed to the modest number of submissions whichwere more specific to LTE operating in paired or unpaired spectrum.As the sole authors of this paper, we stand fully behind the analyses and opinions that are presented in this paper. In addition to providing consulting services onwireless-related topics, Signals Research Group is the publisher of the Signals Ahead research newsletter.The views and opinions expressed in this paper may not reflect the views and opinions of Ericsson and Qualcomm.
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.com1.0 Executive SummarySignals Research Group (SRG) conducted an exhaustive analysis of the 3GPP standardizationprocess that led to the development of LTE, and we reviewed all of the primary specificationsthat define the LTE standard. There is a misconception among some of the industry followersthat LTE systems configured to operate in unpaired (LTE TDD) or paired (LTE FDD) spectrum have different origins, different technical characteristics, and different prominent contributors in the 3GPP standardization process.LTE is one standard developedby organizations fromall over the world.The objective of the whitepaper is to correct this misconception and establish that LTE is onestandard developed by organizations from all over the world. It is truly a global standard, havingbeen designed to operate in both paired and unpaired spectrum bands with a minimum amountof additional complexity. In this whitepaper we use LTE TDD to refer to the unpaired modeof LTE since this is the term used within the 3GPP standards body. However, TD-LTE is alsocommonly used instead of LTE TDD.A further objective is to identify and quantify the similarities and differences between LTE asspecified for use on paired spectrum, in which the downlink and uplink communications usedifferent channels, and LTE as specified for use in unpaired spectrum, in which the downlinkand uplink communications share a common radio channel and divide time. Based on this study,which included categorizing nearly 83,000 submissions that were submitted to the 3GPP over asix-year period (April 2005 through February 2011), we offer the following observations:The overwhelming majority of 3GPP submissions for LTE are duplex scheme agnostic, meaningthat they apply equally to both duplexing options. We identified 42,957 submissions out of82,657 total that pertain to the development of the LTE standard. Of these submission documents, 82.5% of them do not distinguish in any way between the two duplex modes, meaning thatonly 17.5% of all LTE submissions contain duplex-specific language. Taking it one step further,we classified only 7.0% of the documents as pertaining to LTE TDD and 3.7% of the documentsas relating specifically to LTE FDD. An additional 6.8% of the documents discuss both duplexschemes. We included all of these documents even though the language in the documents couldmerely state that the recommendation applies equally to both duplex schemes. A subjective reviewof these documents would have identified these occurrences and resulted in a lower percentageversus our all-inclusive approach which inevitably includes “false positives” in the results. Net-Net:The actual number of submissions that identify duplex-specific features and recommendationsaccounts for as few as 10.7% and no more than 17.5% of all submissions pertaining to LTE.Distribution of 3GPP Submissions by Duplex SchemeLTE Duplex Specific7,510LTE Duplex Neutral35,447No. of LTE SubmissionsApril 2014LTE DuplexNeutral82.5%LTE DuplexSpecific17.5%LTE TDDOnly7.0%LTE FDD <E TDD6.8%LTE FDDOnly3.7%Source: Signals Research GroupPage 2
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comWe identified at least 104 companies that submitted contributions to the 3GPP standardizationprocess during the timeframe of the review. Of these companies, 58 companies made contributions that specifically address LTE TDD and 52 companies made contributions that specificallyaddress LTE FDD. Further, no single country or region can claim it had more influence duringthe standardization process.Country/Regional Distribution of Submissions to the 3GPP RAN Working 6%Europe30%South Korea15%Japan10%LTE TDDEurope30%South Korea15%South Korea17%US23%China13%US22%Japan16%LTE FDDJapan17%US19%LTE Duplex NeutralSource: Signals Research GroupEurope was the largest contributor with 28% of all LTE TDD submissions coming from theregion. Other large contributors included the United States (23%), China (19%), South Korea(17%) and Japan (10%). Relative to the total number of contributions, each country’s/region’scontributions to LTE TDD was between 4.1% and 9.1% of its total LTE contributions and forLTE FDD the range was between 3.5% and 4.2%.There is a very high degree of commonality in the technical specifications (TS) betweenthe FDD and TDD modes of LTE. Based on our review of eight TS documents which define themajority of the LTE radio access network (RAN) as well as other pertinent specifications andpublications, it is very apparent that the overwhelming majority of the specifications are duplexagnostic, meaning that they apply equally to both duplex schemes. While perhaps self-evidentto most industry followers, LTE FDD and LTE TDD share a common core network with absolutely no distinction between the two duplexing modes of LTE.LTE FDD and LTE TDD are virtuallyidentical with the exception of afew technical characteristics thatare specific to the Physical Layer.April 2014LTE FDD and LTE TDD are virtually identical with the exception of a few technical characteristics that are specific to the Physical Layer. Examples where the two LTE modes are largelyidentical include the downlink physical layer channels, the use of resource blocks, the mapping ofcontrol channels to resource elements, the channel coding, the scrambling of each code word, themodulation types and how they work, and the basic implementations of MIMO. In the uplink,areas with large commonalities include the use of SC-FDMA, control channels (PUCCH),modulation schemes, channel coding, how resource elements are mapped in the frequency andtime domain, and PRACH (Physical Random Access Channel), which defines the Physical Layerchannel that carries attempts by the mobile device to access the system, including responses toPage 3
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.compaging messages and requests to transmit data. For both duplex schemes, the Medium AccessControl (MAC) Layer is identical, with one minor distinction, the RLC (Radio Link Control)Layer is identical, and the Radio Resource Control (RRC) Layer is essentially identical, withsome distinction regarding when a couple of messages can be sent.Differences between the FDDand TDD modes primarilypertain to when an action orevent is done and not to why orhow something is executed.There are some differences between the LTE FDD and LTE TDD modes that we identified,but these differences primarily pertain to when an action or event is done and not to why orhow something is executed. The differences associated with when something is done stem fromthe discontinuous downlink/uplink transmissions that are an inherent part of any TDD duplexscheme. In a similar fashion there are also differences, or what are perhaps better classified asoptions/configurations, within each duplex scheme. These unique configurations allow LTE tobe deployed in 34 different frequency bands – 23 LTE FDD and 11 LTE TDD – support sixpotential channel bandwidths, and seven possible downlink/uplink configurations for LTE TDD.A global contingent of operators and vendors harmonized LTE TDD on a single frame structure, even though it removed some commonality with earlier time-division-duplexing-based3GPP 3G standards. During the early development stages of LTE, LTE TDD had two framestructure options, including one frame structure that was very similar to the frame structure usedby TD-SCDMA (or LCR TDD, as it is referred to in the 3GPP specifications). Other than thisdistinction, LTE TDD had little, if anything, in common with earlier time-division-duplexingbased 3GPP 3G standards. Following the initial recommendations by China Mobile, VodafoneGroup, and Verizon Wireless, the 3GPP RAN Working Group agreed to “a single optimizedTDD mode, based on Frame Structure 2, further optimizing performance and ensuring ease of implementation of FDD and TDD modes within the same E-UTRA equipment.”Following this decision within 3GPP the LTE specifications no longer support a relationshipthat previously existed with LCR TDD. Further, this action was consistent with an earlierrecommendation from Vodafone Group, T-Mobile International, TeliaSonera, and Telefonicathat: “Unnecessary fragmentation of technologies for paired and unpaired band operation shall beavoided. This shall be achieved with minimal complexity.” Operators recognized that the pitfallsassociated with the large discontinuity between how the 3G (UMTS) specifications definedFDD and TDD modes resulted in the unsuccessful market adoption of a global 3G solution fortheir unpaired spectrum.A recent IEEE paper1 from engineers at Datang Telecom further reinforces this approach.The papers states, “ during the process of developing LTE and LTE-Advanced specifications, themaximum commonality between TDD and FDD has been emphasized in the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), and realized by achieving a good balance between the commonality of basicstructures and optimization of individual characteristics.”1 Technical Innovations Promoting Standard Evolution: From TD-SCDMA to TD-LTE and Beyond, Shanzhi Chen,Yingmin Wang, Weiguo Ma, and Jun Chen, State Laboratory of Wireless Mobile Communications, China Academy ofTelecommunications Technology, IEEE Wireless Communications, February 2012April 2014Page 4
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comTable of Contents1.0 Executive Summary 22.0 Introduction 63.0 The LTE Specifications and the Commonality between Duplex Schemes 83.1 Following the Development of LTE Release 8 83.1.1 Support for Paired and Unpaired Spectrum 83.1.2 Support for Different Channel Bandwidths 113.1.3 Support for Different Frequency Bands 123.2 Similarities and Differences in the LTE Standard for the Two Duplexing Schemes 144.0 The LTE Specifications and the Commonality between Duplex Schemes 214.1 Our Methodology 214.2 Results and Analysis 265.0 Conclusions 31Index of FiguresFigure 1. Architecture for 3GPP Accesses 15Figure 2. Frame Structure Type 1 (FDD) 17Figure 3. Frame Structure Type 2 (TDD) 17Figure 4. Distribution of 3GPP Submissions by Duplex Scheme 27Figure 5. Country/Regional Distribution of LTE TDD Submissionsto the 3GPP RAN Working Groups 28Figure 6. Country/Regional Distribution of LTE FDD Submissionsto the 3GPP RAN Working Groups 28Figure 8. LTE TDD Submissions as a Percentage of Total Submissions –country/regional results 29Figure 7. Country/Regional Distribution of Duplex Agnostic LTE Submissionsto the 3GPP RAN Working Groups 29Figure 9. LTE FDD Submissions as a Percentage of Total Submissions –country/regional results 30Index of TablesTable 1. LTE Operating Bands 13Table 2. Scope of Study 21Table 3. Category Counting Methodology 24Table 4. Key Word Criteria 25April 2014Page 5
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.com2.0 IntroductionAccording to our latest count, LTE was deployed in approximately 20 different frequency bandsaround the world and using five of the six potential channel bandwidth options that are definedin the LTE specifications. Most of the deployments involved the use of paired spectrum witha dedicated radio channel for the downlink communications between the eNodeB (LTE basestation) and the mobile device, and a dedicated radio channel for the uplink communications.According to the GSA (Global mobile Suppliers Association) there were also 21 deployments ofLTE in unpaired spectrum, in which the downlink and uplink communications share a commonradio channel and divide time.Although there hasn’t been a lot of distinction in the popular press about one operator using a 20MHz radio channel and another operator using a 10 MHz radio channel, there has been morethan idle curiosity paid to the existing or anticipated deployments of LTE TDD networks. Thecuriosity in LTE TDD is somewhat warranted because these deployments will reinforce theglobal adoption of LTE as the standard of choice and they will result in far greater utilization ofcertain spectrum resources that previously were sitting fallow. The spotlight that sometimes getscast on LTE TDD has also created some confusion in the market since there is a belief that LTETDD is somehow much different than LTE FDD and that LTE TDD had its genesis in earliertime-division-duplexing-based 3GPP 3G standards.At the request of Ericsson and Qualcomm, Signals Research Group (SRG) conducted an exhaustive analysis of the 3GPP standardization process that led to the development of LTE, and wereviewed all of the primary specifications that define the LTE standard. As an organization, SRGhas a long history and a specialized focus on technology-related matters, not to mention morethan a passing interest in the work taking place within the 3GPP standards body. Therefore, wewere well-suited for the actions and skill sets required for this study.It is quite possible that a largenumber of operators willsupport a mix of LTE FDD andLTE TDD in their networks.Over an extended period of time it is quite possible that a large number of operators aroundthe globe will support a mix of LTE FDD and LTE TDD in their networks. For most of theseoperators, LTE TDD provides an additional capacity layer that will be used to offload mobiledata traffic from their more widely-deployed LTE FDD networks. Regardless of the exact mixof LTE deployment configurations, including frequency, channel bandwidth and duplex schemeoptions, the findings from our study demonstrate that all of these configurations stem from acommon set of LTE specifications.This whitepaper documents the findings from our study of the decision-making process within3GPP that led to the LTE standard, an analysis of approximately 84,000 3GPP submissions, anda review of the primary LTE specifications.Chapter 3 contains a technical analysis of the LTE specifications. It includes insight into theoriginal criteria that defined the LTE performance requirements, including support for pairedand unpaired spectrum. Chapter 3 also discusses the dual emphasis within 3GPP on the need tosupport a wide range of deployment options with only a minimal number of differences in howeach option is implemented. Finally, the chapter concludes with an analysis of the similaritiesand differences between the two duplexing options, as defined in the primary specifications thatdefine the LTE standard.Chapter 4 provides the results of our analysis of approximately 84,000 3GPP submissions. Thechapter begins by providing the methodology that we used to analyze the documents and thehighly-objective criteria that we used to classify each submission so that we could quantifythe number of submissions that only pertained to a specific duplex scheme. Finally, Chapter 4April 2014Page 6
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comconcludes by providing a series of figures and tables, along with our commentary, that revealthe vast majority of the submissions were duplex scheme agnostic and that a large contingent ofoperators and vendors from around the globe were responsible for endorsing and developing thecommon and duplex specific parts of LTE.April 2014Page 7
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.com3.0 The LTE Specifications and the Commonality betweenDuplex SchemesThis chapter begins by providing a brief history lesson of the work and rationale within 3GPP thatultimately led to the current LTE standard. It is followed by our analysis of the current LTE Release 8specifications, which identifies the similarities and differences in the implementation of LTE pertainingto the choice of frequency band and the use of paired or unpaired spectrum.3.1 Following the Development of LTE Release 8The first discussions regarding the development of a new radio interface to follow the plannedenhancements of HSPA began back in November 2004 within the 3GPP organization. Sincethe beginning, a global contingent of operators and vendors recognized the need for a commonset of specifications that would achieve the performance criteria and which would also provideenough flexibility to support the widely diverse spectrum and technology migration strategies ofoperators all over the world.As noted in one of the very first submissions,2 the E-UTRA (Evolved UMTS Terrestrial RadioAccess) requirements included, but were not limited to the following: Significantly increased peak data rates Increased Significantly improved spectrum efficiency Radio cell edge bit ratesAccess Network latency below 10 msScalable bandwidth “1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz bandwidth are required”3 Operationin paired and unpaired spectrumThe last two requirements are particularly important because they demonstrate the operatorsand vendors recognized from the start that in order for LTE to become a truly global standard,it would need to satisfy the requirements of all operators who would be migrating to the technology from a different starting point – different technologies, different frequencies and differentamounts of paired and unpaired spectrum resources.There was universal recognition fromthe start that LTE must operate inboth paired and unpaired spectrum.3.1.1 Support for Paired and Unpaired SpectrumAs with the need for scalable bandwidths, there was universal recognition from the start thatLTE must operate in both paired and unpaired spectrum. In the very early days of the LTE standardization process most of the discussion within 3GPP focused on the choice of modulationand access schemes that would most effectively and efficiently achieve the requirements of thenew standard, while introducing the least amount of complexity. Throughout this entire processthere was very little distinction in the 3GPP submissions between the two duplex schemes thatwere previously included as part of the scope of the study item during the initial RAN PlenaryWorking Group meeting. Instead, the discussion focused on the best combination of modulation2RP-050155, “Agreed Text Proposals for the Requirement TR,” 3GPP RAN Rapporteur, March 20053 1.25 MHz was later changed to 1.4 MHz to include guard bands and to help with emissions. The current specificationdefines 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz allocations.April 2014Page 8
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comand access schemes for the downlink direction and for the uplink direction, irrespective of theduplex scheme.Ultimately, the 3GPP RAN Working Group 1 selected OFDM/OFDMA for the downlink andOFDM/SC-FDMA for the uplink. The 3GPP felt SC-FDMA (Single Carrier – FrequencyDivision Multiple Access) would be more efficient in the uplink due to limitations in the mobiledevice and its ability to mitigate the high peak to average power ratios (PAPR) that are aninherent characteristic of OFDMA.The initial flexibility and uncertaintypertaining to how each conceptsupported paired or unpairedspectrum did not go unnoticedby the operator community.Just as there were multiple concept proposals (e.g., OFDMA, MC-WCDMA, MC-TDSCDMA) for how to address the E-UTRA requirements, at the time there was also a fairamount of flexibility and uncertainty pertaining to how each proposed concept or technicalfeature supported paired or unpaired spectrum. This initial flexibility and uncertainty did not gounnoticed by the operator community. In its submission,4 Vodafone Group, T-Mobile International, TeliaSonera and Telefonica stated the following:“Unnecessary fragmentation of technologies for paired and unpaired band operation shall beavoided. This shall be achieved with minimal complexity. “In case both TDD and FDD are used in E-UTRA the differences in the physical layer shouldbe kept to the absolute minimum necessary, it should be investigated during the study item howthis can be achieved.”The operators concluded their submission with the following recommendation, that reads, in part,“Our current assumption is that one single technology should be developed to support the deployment of E-UTRA in both paired and unpaired spectrum. In other words in the case both FDDand TDD would be required, the difference in the specifications should be the minimum necessary for the support of the different frequency arrangements.”Operators expressed concernsthat they didn’t want thematerial differences that existbetween the paired and unpairedimplementations of UTRA tocontinue with E-UTRA.The operators’ concerns weren’t without good justification. As the operators mentioned in theirsubmission, there are large differences between the paired and unpaired implementations ofUMTS. These material differences made it virtually impossible, or at least highly impractical,for them to use their unpaired spectrum that many of them licensed during the 3G spectrumauctions that took place toward the beginning of the last decade. The technical requirements forthe TDD variant of UMTS were well-defined within 3GPP, but because of their dissimilaritywith the more widely deployed FDD requirements, the UMTS TDD ecosystem never developedand to date most operators have not done much to use their unpaired 3G spectrum.Given the limited spectrum resources and the realization that future spectrum allocations wouldconsist of a greater mix of unpaired spectrum, operators recognized that it didn’t make sense todevelop “different technologies” for paired and unpaired spectrum. Worth pointing out, in ouranalysis of the 3GPP submissions and in our review of all of the RAN Working Group meetingnotes, the dissimilarity in how paired and unpaired modes of UTRA and E-UTRA were treatedis clearly evident. With UTRA (e.g., UMTS/HSPA ), the TDD modes were treated as separate agenda items within each RAN Working Group meeting and there were a large number ofcontributions that were specific to the TDD mode. We note that with UTRA there are actuallytwo distinct and quite different TDD modes: LCR-TDD (Low Chip Rate – TDD) refers to4 R1-050731, “Support of operation in paired and unpaired spectrum,” Vodafone Group, T-Mobile International, TeliaSonera, Telefonica, RAN WG1 Meeting #42, September 2005April 2014Page 9
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comTD-SCDMA and operates in 1.6 MHz of unpaired spectrum. HCR-TDD (High Chip Rate –TDD) specifies the implementation that was originally targeting 5 MHz and 10 MHz unpairedspectrum. Moreover, there were separate technical specifications for TDD and FDD in UTRA.With E-UTRA, there was very littleindividual attention paid and veryfew individual meeting agendaitems identified that were specificto one of the two modes of LTE.With E-UTRA, there was very little individual attention paid and very few individual meetingagenda items identified that were specific to one of the two modes of LTE. There were, however,individual submissions that may apply to a specific duplex scheme. Further, as required by the3GPP Working Group, if a feature is not common to LTE FDD and LTE TDD then it mustbe clearly expressed and justification provided. This requirement simplified our review of the3GPP specifications and it helps validate the conclusions that we reach. Our analysis of the3GPP submissions in the next chapter focused on identifying those submissions/contributionswhich are specific to either the TDD mode or the FDD mode of LTE instead of applying to theoverarching LTE standard, which encompasses both duplexing schemes.At the RAN Plenary #37, which took place in September 2007, a crucial change to the LTEspecification began to unfold, and this proposed change eventually resulted in the very highcommonality between the FDD and TDD modes of LTE. Prior to the September RAN Plenary,3GPP was working toward two different frame structures for the TDD implementation – namelyFrame Structure 1 and Frame Structure 2. As discussed in a subsequent section the frame structure defines the basic physical layer of the air interface and how information (e.g., data andcontrol channel information) are grouped together.The rationale for the additional frame structure was that it was needed to support a smoothmigration from LCR-TDD (TD-SCDMA) to LTE in unpaired spectrum. However, as threenoteworthy contributors to the submission,5 namely China Mobile, Vodafone Group, andVerizon Wireless, rightfully pointed out, “the LTE specification should be simplified and the numberof deployment options reduced in order to have a competitive LTE system.” The operators also citedthree specific benefits associated with the proposed single TDD frame structure. ReducedLTE system and specification complexity, including reduced test complexity andthe elimination of the potential need for a mobile device to support two unique TDD modes(e.g., for roaming); Speeding up the LTE specification process and allowing the specifications to become stablemuch faster; and Simplifying the product development discussions to “remove any confusion in product development as to the basic physical layer design that should be considered for LTE TDD mode.This submission was followed by a second proposal,6 submitted by a who’s who of vendors andoperators from around the globe to consolidate on,“A single optimized TDD mode, based on Frame Structure 2, further optimizing performanceand ensuring ease of implementation of FDD and TDD modes within the same E-UTRAequipment.”5 RP-070750, “A proposal for simplifying LTE TDD,” China Mobile, Vodafone Group, Verizon Wireless, RAN PlenaryMeeting #37, September 20076 RP-070750, “Way forward for simplifying LTE TDD,” China Mobile, Vodafone Group, Verizon Wireless, Alcatel-Lucent,CATT, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, Nokia Siemens Networks, Nortel, Qualcomm, RITT, ZTE, RAN Plenary Meeting #37,September 2007April 2014Page 10
The LTE STANDARDDeveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentswww.signalsresearch.comUltimately, at the RAN Working Group 1 Meeting #51 held in November, the proposed changeswere reflected in a change request (CR) to the 36.211 (E-UTRA; Physical channels and modulation) specification, and support for LTE in unpaired 1.6 and 3.2 MHz channels was removed.In Section 3.2, we explain the differences between the two remaining frame structures that areused to support LTE in paired and unpaired spectrum. However, from an historical perspective, this decision, which was endorsed by operators and vendors from around the globe, helpedsolidify the commonality between the paired and unpaired modes of LTE. Further, this decisionremoved some of the commonality in the basic frame structure that previously existed betweenLCR-TDD (TD-SCDMA) and LTE TDD.The requirement for scalablebandwidths was intended to helpoperators more easily migrate fromnarrowband technologies to LTE.Operators on a global basis havealready deployed 1.4, 5, 10, 15,and 20 MHz LTE networks.3.1.2 Support for Different Channel BandwidthsThe requirement for scalable bandwidths was intended to help operators more easily migratefrom narrowband technologies (e.g., GSM and CDMA2000) to LTE while also recognizing thatwider bandwidth deployments of LTE would be required to achieve the target peak data rates.Ultimately, operators licensed, or would license, spectrum where they would, at least initially, belimited to narrowband deployments of LTE whi
of LTE since this is the term used within the 3GPP standards body. However, TD-LTE is also commonly used instead of LTE TDD. A further objective is to identify and quantify the similarities and differences between LTE
Apr 05, 2017 · Cisco 4G LTE and Cisco 4G LTE-Advanced Network Interface Module Installation Guide Table 1 Cisco 4G LTE NIM and Cisco 4G LTE-Advanced NIM SKUs Cisco 4G LTE NIM and Cisco 4G LTE-Advanced NIM SKUs Description Mode Operating Region Band NIM-4G-LTE-LA Cisco 4G LTE NIM module (LTE 2.5) for LATAM/APAC carriers. This SKU is File Size: 2MBPage Count: 18Explore furtherCisco 4G LTE Software Configuration Guide - GfK Etilizecontent.etilize.comSolved: 4G LTE Configuration - Cisco Communitycommunity.cisco.comCisco 4G LTE Software Configuration Guide - Ciscowww.cisco.comCisco 4G LTE-Advanced Configurationwww.cisco.com4G LTE Configuration - Cisco Communitycommunity.cisco.comRecommended to you b
QUALCOMM , Qualcomm Enterprise Services , QES , MSM . Qualcomm Enterprise Services, QES, Qualco mm CDMA Technologies, QCT, Qualcomm Technology Lice nsing, QTL, Qualcomm Wireless & Internet, QWI, Qualcomm Internet Service s, QIS, Qualcomm Government Technologies, QGOV, Qua lcomm MEMS Technologies, QMT, Qualcomm Technologies & Ventures .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
References in this presentation to "Qualcomm" may mean Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and/or other subsidiaries or business units within the Qualcomm corporate structure, as applicable. Qualcomm Incorporated includes Qualcomm's licensing business, QTL, and the vast majority of its patent portfolio. Qualcomm
Samsung Galaxy S4 Active with LTE Samsung Galaxy Note LTE / Note II LTE / Note 3 LTE Samsung Galaxy ACE 3 LTE Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 LTE / Note 8.0 with LTE Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 with LTE . 5 Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 LTE / Tab 3 7.0 LTE Sony Xperia V / Z / SP / Z Ultra / Z1
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
