9-10 October 2008

Mobile Co-location
Conference
Telecom Slide Pack

Opening Statement

Telecom cellsites
Site Type

Potentially suitable for

co-location (38%)

Cluster headframes generally

difficult for co-location due to
low antenna positions for new
Assess Seeker, so mast
replacement required

Co-location typically
unavailable or highly
unlikely

Standard 1H
Standard 1L
Standard 2H
Standard 2L
Lattice Tower
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard

3A
3H
4L
4L X 2
5A
5B
5L

Wooden Pole
OPUS (guyed pole)
Powell Fenwick (guyed pole)
Bridge Mount
Building Mount
Clock Tower
Existing Structure
Indoor Antenna
special (incl lighting pole)
Other

Sites

%of
total

55
88
134
44
47

6.6%
10.5%
16.0%
5.3%
5.6%

1
5
68
9
2
2
17

0.1%
0.6%
8.1%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
2.0%

17
33
101
3
146
2
9
7
27
19

2.0%
3.9%
12.1%
0.4%
17.5%
0.2%
1.1%
0.8%
3.2%
2.3%
3

Grand Total
* These figures are approximate.

836

Telecom Site Types

Building Mount/Bridge Mount/Existing Structure
158 sites (19% of total)
Common in urban area

Typically leased or licensed

Co-site capable, not co-location
capable

Telecom Site Types - Special Sites

Telecom has also designed and uses a number of special sites due to particular
community or RMA constraints.

55 sites, 7% of total sites. These will typically not be co-location capable.

Telecom Site Types - Slimline Masts/Guyed Poles

9 broad types of slimline masts or guyed poles
255 sites (28% of total sites)
Operators encouraged to deploy slimline masts for RMA and community
reaction reasons.
Mast replacement typically required to enable co-location

Telecom Site Types Standard 1 and 2 Masts &

Lattice Towers
233 (~25% of total) Standard 1H, Standard 2H, Standard 2L masts these are capable of
co-location today, and can in many cases accommodate mast extension
47 (~ 5% of total) Lattice Towers these are capable of co-location today

88 (~ 10% of total) Standard 1L masts typically will require mast replacement

Example of co-location on a Standard 1H mast

No site alterations required

Unacceptable Performance
Degradation

Impact of 1dB UPD on Rural Coverage

North of Alexandra (Omakau) current coverage

1.0dB reduced coverage in vicinity of

Poolburn and Ida Valley

10

Impact of 1dB UPD on Rural Coverage

South Canterbury current coverage

South Canterbury 1.0dB reduced coverage

11

Impact of 1dB UPD on Indoor Coverage

Reduction in coverage range of voice services associated with UPD level
Environment

Path Loss
for 850MHz
design
coverage
(dB)

Urban (in-building)
Urban (in-building)
Urban (in-building)

118.0
117.5
117.0

Suburban (in-home)
Suburban (in-home)
Suburban (in-home)

125.0
124.5
124.0

Rural (in-car)
Rural (in-car)
Rural (in-car)

134.0
133.5
133.0

UPD
impact
(dB)

Nominal
850MHz
Coverage
Range
(m)

Range
lost
(m)

reduced
range
%

0.5
1.0

430
417
406

12
24

2.8%
5.6%

0.5
1.0

2,171
2,101
2,033

70
138

3.2%
6.4%

0.5
1.0

20,772
19,989
19,236

783
1536

3.8%
7.4%

12

Unacceptable Performance Degradation (UPD)

Urban (in-building) data rate range reduction due to UPD
Effective coverage range supporting each
data rate reduces as UPD increases

4500

Peak Uplink Data Rate (kbps)

4000
End-user operating at 300m from Urban cellsite at 1500 kbps
peak uplink data rate will reduce to 1250 kbps with 0.5dB
UPD reduction and to 1000 kbps with 1.0dB UPD reduction

3500
3000
2500

Urban 0dB

2000

Urban -0.5dB
Urban -1.0dB

1500
1000
500
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Distance from base station (m)

600

700
13

Unacceptable Performance Degradation (UPD)

Suburban (in-home) data rate range reduction due to UPD
4500

Peak Uplink Data Rate (kbps)

4000
3500
3000
2500

Suburban 0dB

2000

Suburban -0.5dB
Suburban -1.0dB

1500
1000
500
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Distance from base station (m)

3000

3500
14

Unacceptable Performance Degradation (UPD)

Rural (in- car) data rate range reduction due to UPD
4500

Peak Uplink Data Rate (kbps)

4000
3500
3000
2500

Rural 0dB
Rural -0.5dB

2000

Rural -1.0dB

1500
1000
500
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Distance from base station (m)

30000

35000
15

Multi-band Antenna Minimisation

Impact of Multiband Antenna Minimisation on Azimuth optimisation:

A new W2100
site deployed
here will
allow W2100
antennas at
neighbouring
sites to be
reoptimised
to address
other W2100
coverage
issues

Sub-optimisation of antenna gain if 2100MHz antennas are required to be optimised in

different direction

Reduced gain compared to required

antenna aimed in optimised direction
off axis (deg)

loss (dB)

-0.1

10

-0.3

15

-0.8

20

-1.4

25

-2.1

30

-2.9

35

-3.5

40

-4.4

45

-5.4

Table showing increased loss as

required optimisation off-axis
angle increases
16

Unacceptable Performance Degradation (UPD)

0.4dB NFE Formula calculation:
Effective BS receiver level has increased by
0.4dB to -107.6dBm (so less sensitive)
NFE = NF + I(ext) / NF = 0.4dB

-107.6dBm
-108.0dBm

+0.4dB
BS Receiver Noise Floor, NF
-10.0dB

-118.0dBm

External interference level, I(ext)

Effective BS receiver level has increased by
0.4dB to -107.6dBm (so less sensitive)

17

Site Alterations

Site Alterations - Key Comparators in Assessing the

Relative Value of Site Alterations
Type

Cost (est. ave.,

excl ASs own
costs)

Time (excludes
equipment order time)

Short Term Impact

RMA Approvals
required

Long Term Impact

Mast Extension

$29,000

Design: within Full Site

Application time

Possible outage to all users to

install

- Height (Ext only)

Build: shorter time

frame extension plus
new antenna mount

Existing positions on the mast

maintained

- incr RF output

In most cases can take

into account other
users forecasts

Design: within Full Site

Application time

Definite outage to all users to

install.

- Height

Build: longest new

mast and move of all
antenna

Existing positions on the mast

maintained

- incr RF output

Design: within Full Site

Application time, plus
other ASs approval

New arrangement will need

RF testing for all users.

- Height (if rearrangement puts

antenna further up the
mast)

(plus
strengthening
costs if required)
Mast Replacement

Antenna
Re-arrangement

Antenna
Minimisation

$204,000

$15,000 (AP
only, excludes
existing userss
costs)

$54,000 (AP
costs only,
excludes existing
users costs)

Build: Shortest

Design: within Full Site

Application time, plus
other ASs approval.
Likely to be longest to
agree
Build: Medium

Possible outage to all users to

install.

- Visual Impact

- Visual Impact

Major impact on affected

parties

-Visual Impact

New antenna will need RF

testing for all users

-Height (will change

with some new
antenna)

Possible outage to all users to

install.
Major impact on affected
parties
Forces technology change and
potentially significant deoptimisation for affected
parties

Can take into account

all other users
forecasts

No provision for future

forecast requirements,
generally only of shortterm benefit to one
party

- incr RF output

-Visual Impact
- incr RF output

Mast already full, will

generally only be of
benefit to first in the
Queue

No provision for future

forecast requirements,
generally only of shortterm benefit to one
party

Note - the assessments in the table are generalisations, there will be variances between sites and Territorial Authorities

19

Service Levels and

Penalties

Cumulative Penalty Example Anomalies

Cumulative Penalty Regime

Planned Process Timeframe
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3

Overall Delivery On Time

Financial Penalty
Non Financial Penalty
Financial Penalty

Scenario 1: Step 1 Late - Other Steps on time - End Date Late - 1 unit penalty
Step 1

Step 3 On time

Overall Delivery 1 Unit Late

1 Unit Penalty

1 Unit Penalty

Overall Delivery 1 Unit Early

Step 1 Late
Step 2 Early

1 Unit Penalty

Step 3 On time

Scenario 3: Step 1 Late - Other Steps on time - End Date Late - 1 unit penalty

1 Unit Penalty

Overall Delivery 1 Unit Late

Step 1 On time
Step 2 Late
Step 3 On time

0 Unit Penalty

Scenario 4: Step 1 Late - Step 2 on time - Step 3 Early - End Date on time - 0 unit penalty
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3

0 Unit Penalty

Step 2 On time

Scenario 2: Step 1 Late - Step 2 early - Step 3 on time - End Date Early - 1 unit penalty

Step 1
Step 2
Step 3

0 Unit Penalty

Step 1 Late

Step 2
Step 3

Step 1
Step 2
Step 3

Individual Penalty Regime

0 Unit Penalty

Overall Delivery On Time

Step 1 Late
Step 2 On time
Step 3 Early

0 Unit Penalty

1 Unit Penalty

21

Common Format Site

Database

Example 1 Telecom Rooftop Space Occupation

Auckland Hospital

23

Example 2 Co-Site on Building

Beaumont St, Auckland

24

Example 3 Co-site on Building

Victoria St West, Auckland

25

Example 4 Suitable Masts

26

Example 5 Unsuitable Masts

27

Implementation
Timeframes

Soft Launch
40 New Applications
40
Site Desktop
Assessment

Stage 1
Detailed Site
Design

Soft Launch is
complete 20WD after
10 Applications have
completed each Stage.

20 Proceed

Stage 2

Landlord and Third

Party Approvals, Final
Site Approval

15 Proceed

Stage 3
Project Plan

13 Proceed
Stage 4
Site Build

Current
Applications
Current Applications
will populate each Stage
at Soft Launch Start

13 Proceed
Stage 5

12 Complete
Strategy to Manage
Not all Applications complete the process
29
Avoid a BAU Application overtaking
all Soft Launch Applications