WIRELESS COEXISTENCE TESTING

BASED ON IoT DEVICE APPLICATION

USE CASES
Keeping pace with the times

White paper | Version 01.00 | Naseef Mahmud

ABSTRACT
Over the years, radio receiver design has evolved and has been tested in multiple differ-
ent ways in order to ensure optimum performance. The capability of radio receivers to
overcome interference from different sources is constantly improving. In most cases from
an R&D point of view, product development engineers take into consideration the radio
frequency (RF) environment the device is meant to operate in and have programmed in
sophisticated software based interference mitigation and countering mechanisms that
are relevant for this sort of RF environmental profile. The evolution of receiver testing,
however, has lacked pace both from a device development standpoint and from a certifi-
cation and compliance standpoint. Although testing methods have evolved gradually over
time, they have mostly been outrun by the pace of technological advancement. Testing
techniques that ensure future-proof operation of RF receivers need to be developed and
employed since most connected products have a life span of 10 to 15 years. As a result,
suitable key performance indicators used to determine wireless functional performance
need to be carefully selected.

The widespread use of internet of things (IoT) products and their integration into our
modern lifestyles has resulted in the RF environment becoming more crowded and com-
plex and this trend continues to hold true in the future. User experience and perception
are two key factors influencing the widespread adaptation of newer IoT applications and
services. These key aspects need to be taken into consideration for wireless coexistence
testing techniques as we go forward.

This white paper describes the current and future IoT product landscape and the current
regulatory compliance standards that determine the market placement of these devices.
This paper goes on to explain the patterns of RF spectral activity at different locations and
times and shows how the RF environmental profile varies over time during a seven-day
period. Chapter 2 also provides a demonstration of how a non-sophisticated RF receiver
reacts to interference signals. Chapter 3 describes state-of-the-art RF coexistence testing
methods by considering the user experience and real-world IoT application use cases in
order to ensure optimal, future-proof performance.

INDEX TERMS
Radio Equipment Directive (RED), RF coexistence, electromagnetic interference
(EMI), electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), risk assessment, wireless transceivers,
­receivers, automotive IoT, consumer electronics, medical devices, test and certification,
ANSI C63.27

The Bluetooth® word mark and logos are registered trademarks owned by ­Bluetooth SIG, Inc. and any use of such marks by Rohde & Schwarz is under license.

2
CONTENTS
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Current state of IoT product landscape...........................................................................................................5
1.2 Future projection..............................................................................................................................................6
1.3 Regulatory and compliance standards............................................................................................................7
1.4 What is RF wireless coexistence and why do we need to test it?..................................................................7

2 Challenges and understanding the technology............................................................................................9

2.1 Same product, different RF environment........................................................................................................9
2.2 RF spectrum varies over time even at same exact location...........................................................................11
2.3 How do radio receivers react to interference signals?..................................................................................24

3 Testing procedure.........................................................................................................................................27
3.1 Risk categorization ........................................................................................................................................27
3.2 Test setups.....................................................................................................................................................28
3.3 Intended real-world use case and corresponding lab test setups ...............................................................29
3.4 Testing using recorded RF environment........................................................................................................32

4 Receiver robustness.....................................................................................................................................34

5 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................35

6 References....................................................................................................................................................36

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 3
1 INTRODUCTION
Radio receivers are not a new technology. Ever since their invention in 1894, wireless
receivers have seen widespread use in military and commercial applications. The type and
density of RF transmitters (such as cell towers, radio and TV broadcast) is very different
nowadays compared to what it once used to be. If we consider commercial civilian radio
applications of the last part of the 20th and the first part of the 21st century, the popular
applications included TV and radio broadcast services and telecommunications. In most
cases, the radio receiver was designed to receive signals in an environment with a limited
number of high-power RF transmitters. Up until quite recently, most of the RF interfer-
ence signals originated from spurious signals and the harmonics of other devices. But the
RF spectrum looks much different today. The number of IoT devices have skyrocketed.
The RF spectral activity of any location at any given time depends heavily on the popu-
lation density at that location at that time of the day. Currently, there are many different
types of connected products out there in the market serving different application areas.
Some of these wireless applications are meant to make our lives more comfortable while
others are designed to play a vital part in critical safety applications. The failure to carry
out those critical applications in the time of need, may in some cases result in injury to
the health of the user. Thus, the test efforts need to reflect this reality, which means that
some connected devices need to meet far more stringent test requirements than devices
serving “less demanding” applications.

IoT products need to coexist and function in their natural RF environment and, as ­system
designers, we need to understand how the radio receiver will react under different
electro­magnetic (EM) environmental operating conditions before the product is launched
into the market. Furthermore, because of economy of scale and specialization, OEMs rely
on components and modules from different suppliers. These components/modules from
different suppliers are then integrated together into the final product. Suppliers normally
perform tests to ensure functionality of that particular item, but because of the integration
and positioning of antenna, the electrical properties of the combined RF system change,
which is not verified for performance. Thus, the overall product performance needs to be
tested. Wireless coexistence testing helps us understand the behavior of the ­overall RF
receiver system under various EM environmental conditions. RF module/chipset ­suppliers
normally perform conducted RF coexistence tests, i.e. without the antenna integrated.
Antenna component suppliers characterize only the antenna performance without it
being integrated in the product casing and so the antenna performance changes after
integration, which is not taken into consideration. Therefore, OEMs need to perform
­radiated RF coexistence testing in order to verify the overall performance of the integrated
final product. This kind of test is also known as proximity coexistence testing and helps
ensure optimal performance in harsh, realistic RF environments. RF receiver performance
is mostly negatively influenced by co-channel and adjacent channel interference and with
the integrated antenna, connected to the casing material, it picks up more interference
from radiators located in its vicinity. Thus, the IoT product will need to survive a harsher
RF environment if the number of transmitters located nearby is greater. And this holds
true for any wireless product.

Chapter 1 of this white paper discusses the current state and future trends in the internet
of things (IoT) product landscape. The regulatory bodies are gradually waking up to the
issues of RF coexistence and so the compliance requirements are also getting stricter.
This paper will describe the current regulatory environment for IoT products from a RF
coexistence point of view. Chapter 2 explains the RF environment and its time-variant
characteristics in detail and also describes the properties of interference signals that
cause maximum deterioration to the overall IoT system performance. In chapter 3, the
intended use case of a popular and critical real-world application and the corresponding
lab based test and measurement (T&M) setup are shown. This paper also presents new

4
key performance indicators (KPI), such as video quality using frame freezes and round-trip
IP ping measurements, alongside the PER measurements to fully characterize receiver
performance. Chapter 4 describes the use of the UV-shaped analysis curve method as
an objective way of comparing different receivers according to their robustness with
respect to the handling of interference signals. Chapter 5 ends the paper with an overall
­conclusion.

1.1 Current state of IoT product landscape

Today's connected world is very different to what it was at the beginning of this c ­ entury.
Almost all connected products these days support bidirectional (both t­ ransmit and
receive) wireless communications. This means that IoT devices are not only meant
to receive data but also transmit data wirelessly, thus making them a potential RF
­interferer for all other connected devices located nearby and operating in the same
­frequency band. Most device manufacturers take advantage of the unlicensed ISM band.
Bluetooth, Zigbee, Google Thread and WLAN are the technologies of choice for a vast
­majority of the connected IoT products, followed by LPWAN technologies such as LoRa.
Smartphones, tablets, laptops, smart wearables and connected cars also support c ­ ellular
connectivity standards in order to cater to the growing mobility requirements of the
end users.

All connected products comprise a communications module (consisting of a t­ ransceiver

chip) and an antenna module to facilitate bidirectional wireless connectivity. The two
modules are normally procured from two different suppliers and then integrated together
to create a completely new radio product. Upon integration, the antenna quite often
­connects to the casing material (which is often made of steel or aluminum), thereby
changing the electrical properties of the material. This means that a large p
­ ortion of
­housing material starts to act like an antenna and picks up interference signals from
angles different to those certified for the original antenna module. The communica-
tions module manufacturers typically perform conducted in-device coexistence testing.
The component suppliers hardly ever test the combined performance of the final
system. Nevertheless, the RF communications chipsets coming from suppliers are
application-­agnostic and enable remote access to devices via one or more of the wireless
communications protocols mentioned above. The IoT applications may be categorized as
consumer electronic ­products but are normally further defined according to the i­ndustry
they serve, such as smart home, aerospace, smart city, transportation and mobility,
­medicals, smart health and smart ­manufacturing/Industry 4.0, as shown in Figure 1-1.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 5
 Figure 1-1: IoT product landscape categorized according to the industry served

Smart home Aerospace Smart city Transportation Medical Others

► Domestic appliances ► Drones ► Smart parking ► Fleet management ► Remote surgery ► Manufacturing and
► Smart lighting ► ATC equipment ► Street lighting ► Car-to-everything ► Wireless medical industrial IoT
► Smart doorlocks ► Aircraft onboard ► Trashcans communication implants ► Smart fitness
► Smart meters Wi-Fi connectivity ► Public hotspots ► In-vehicle connectivity ► External control devices ► Sport tracker
► Satellite FSS ► Payment devices ► Payment devices ► Patient health tracker
► Navigation systems

1.2 Future projection

According to the projection published in [1], in 2023, there will be around 29 billion
­connected products in the world and over 65 % of the total internet traffic will consist
of video data. The bit rate requirements are also increasing as UHD or 4K quality gains
mainstream adaptation (projection of roughly 66 % of all IoT devices in 2023). This means
that RF coexistence testing will need to cover more than just physical layer performance
­criteria as one of the KPI parameters. It will also need to combine the application layer
KPIs in order to consider user experience as a key metric.

Currently, at the end of 2020, the total number of connected products in circulation
is estimated at 20 billion connected products, which equates to an average of almost
3 devices per person in the world. But the actual number of connected products per
household in the developed world is significantly higher than the average. Today, coexis-
tence problems are already clearly evident in almost all wireless devices and specially in
devices with visual and/or audio interfaces. This generally goes vastly unreported since
the sudden drop in picture quality while streaming video content and the reduction in
download speeds are blamed on the bad internet connection quality. Users do not judge
products by the data sheet but rather by everyday usefulness and if an issue persists only
on the said device in a given operating location over time, users tend to stigmatize the
particular device or the brand associated with it. A general analysis of overall product use
experience as part of coexistence testing therefore makes sense.

It is projected that by 2030 there will be around 50 billion IoT devices. The average
­number of devices per household will go up to around 50 devices per household. Looking
at future trends in the connected product landscape, it is quite clear that most connected
devices will integrate some form of display and speaker system and the vast majority
of them will enable remote accessibility via a smartphone or web application. All these
aspects are an integral part of the functionality of most connected products and in fact
plays a vital role in influencing users’ decision when buying connected products. Thus,
user experience should be an important metric in determining the outcome of the wire-
less coexistence measurement.

6
Additionally, there are IoT products that depend on flawless end-to-end communications
as a vital part of product functionality. Examples are wireless patient monitors, automo-
tive eCall systems, pet trackers and smoke detectors. Users of such products would face
dire health and safety-related consequences if communications ever broke down.

1.3 Regulatory and compliance standards

Currently, there is only one recognized standard that is fully dedicated to wireless
­coexistence compliance for connected products.

ANSI C63.27 [2] describes four different wireless coexistence compliance testing
­methods: the conducted testing method, the radiated anechoic chamber method (RAC),
the multiple chamber test method and the radiated open environment method. The
­standard gives users the flexibility to choose the test method and test complexity they
feel is relevant for their device under test (DUT). Users can select the functional wire-
less performance as well as the KPIs relevant to DUT. The total number of interference
signals exposed to the DUT must also be selected by the user according to a device risk
classification. However, the standard also provides guidance on the minimum amount
of interference sources to be used for products that are in any of the predefined risk-tier
categories. The burden of responsibility falls on the user but at the same time they have
much more flexibility and freedom, in terms of functional wireless performance p ­ arameter
selection, to be fully compliant.

Apart from the ANSI standard, in the European Union, all consumer radio products need
to comply with the relevant RED requirements. The RED requirements are described in
harmonized EN specification documents. Specifications for radio receiver compliance as
described in the EN standards are typically listed under receiver blocking tests and are
mostly not as stringent as the ANSI C63.27 standard. Most of the blocking tests hardly
ever need to be performed using a radiated test setup. A radiated test setup is crucial for
testing a product in its final form under realistic real-world conditions. This also vastly
increases the test complexity. However, the EN standards are also updated constantly and
so a future revision will most likely increase the test complexity to ensure ­compliance.
There is always a transition period defined for changes in versions to take effect in the
EU. But since IoT products have a long shelf life as well as a long operational life, it
makes sense to employ wireless coexistence testing techniques that ensure future-proof
market placement and survival.

1.4 What is RF wireless coexistence and why do we need to test it?

The popularity of wireless communications devices is increasing fast. IoT devices are
found nearly everywhere in our world. As mentioned before, there are currently an
­average of 3 devices per person and the average per household is projected to increase to
50 devices. According to the UN World Urbanization Prospects census data, 56.17 % of
the world’s population lives in urban areas in towns and c ­ ities. This number is projected
to grow to a little over 60 % by 2030 and little over 67 % by 2050 [3]. But if we turn our
focus to the census data of high-income countries, in 2020 the percentage of the urban
population was 76.8 % and is projected to increase to 83.9 % by 2030 and 88.4 % by
2050. And we see a similar trend followed by middle income and upper middle income
countries as well. There is a visible trend as the world's population keeps on growing,
the majority of the population will be living in cities and towns with a higher likelihood of
clustering in apartment blocks. The number of large and mid sized towns will also most
likely increase in the future as the trend suggests. The population density in urban areas
is much higher and so is the number of transmitting connected devices. RF spectrum
crowding will continue to be an issue in the future as well. As more and more RF devices
transmit in the same space using the limited frequency spectrum, it will become increas-
ingly difficult for RF receivers to adequately receive radio data.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 7
 The fact that IoT devices are not cable connected makes it easier to run applications
remotely for sending and gathering data to and from wireless sensors. This makes our
lives more mobile, comfortable, safer and connected. But the long-term success of this
ecosystem depends on all this data being transferred over the air, not being lost due to
interference. This particularly applies at cell edges where the signal strength is mostly
lower and the receiver works harder to detect and demodulate signals. The presence of
strong interference signals further exacerbates the situation. But this can be avoided if RF
receiver characteristics are known beforehand and appropriate counter mechanisms are
implemented.

Wireless coexistence testing helps us understand the behavior of a RF radio receiver in various different
RF environments in order to ensure optimal performance even under worst-case EM operating conditions.

8
2 CHALLENGES AND UNDERSTANDING
THE TECHNOLOGY
2.1 Same product, different RF environment

Figure 2-1: RF environment profile varies significantly depending on deployment location

Multi-story house Apartment and stores Apartment building Hospital

The RF environmental profile varies drastically depending on location, type of building,

population density and time of day. This means that the same IoT device must withstand
the RF environment it is exposed to depending on the deployment location.

As an example, consider an IP security camera that is located in any of the building

types shown in Figure 2-1. The hospital RF environment is very crowded with many
potential interferers consisting of wireless patient monitoring devices, smart TVs, wire-
less ­biosensors, etc. in operation as well as medical staff, patients and guests all moving
around with many transmitters (smartwatch, smartphone, wireless headphone) on them.
The RF environment of store fronts, at certain times of the day and on some days over
the 7-day period, are also very crowded if not as busy as in the case of hospitals. The RF
spectrum inside private households and apartment blocks is also quite cluttered with all
the smart home products that are becoming the new normal for our modern lifestyles.

Wireless IP cameras transmit the captured video data to a network video recorder (NVR)
system for recording. Due to their lightweight design, the cameras do not have a built-in
storage system. The data is transferred wirelessly around the clock using a Wi-Fi or LTE
connection.

Figure 2-2: Video data from an IP smart security camera monitored at an NVR station

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 9
 Figure 2-2 shows the long-term video data from a wireless smart IP camera at a semi-­
residential apartment building being monitored at an NVR station. If we take a closer
look at the time scale of the recorded data, we can see that there are some white lines
­representing missing chunks of data between 2:30 am and 4:10 am. The white lines are
of variable width, signifying that the length of the missing data is not always constant.
The data is being recorded 24/7. Similar data transfer and recording breakdowns caused
by interference signals occur multiple times during a 24-hour recording window.

Based on the application, this may give rise to some security and safety related s­ ystem
vulnerabilities. Potential attackers may try to exploit this vulnerability and commit a
crime without having their identity unrevealed because of the data loss. Or in case of IP
­cameras that are deployed for roadside traffic monitoring applications also experience
a dramatic variation in RF spectral profile depending on whether the device is deployed
in a busy urban city center or at a rural countryside location. These cameras are mostly
monitored by automated computer programs, if they are even unintentionally interfered,
would lose the ability to notify the authorities without a delay about an accident, thus
losing valuable time to save the lives of those involved in the accident. The length of the
interruption delay is therefore quite an important factor and even though it is not officially
documented, varies from a couple of seconds to even up to several minutes.

Figure 2-3: One minute of video data failed to record because of loss of communications due to
­coexistence issues

Figure 2-3 shows the two screenshots of the missing recorded data from the NVR in
order to determine the length of missing data from an interference related breakdown
event. If we observe the two time stamps closely, we can see that almost a minute of
video data was lost (had failed to record) by this particular unintentional interference
event. The breakdown time length depends on factors such as time of day or week and
data traffic and location patterns, which will be explained in the next chapters.

10
2.2 RF spectrum varies over time even at same exact location
This section will show how the RF spectrum varies at any given location over
time. In order to do so, the RF spectrum (from 5 Hz to 7.5 GHz) was monitored at
Rohde & Schwarz Munich headquarters over the course of a 7-day period. The regions of
interest for IoT applications are the sub 1 GHz band, the 2.4 GHz ISM band, 3.5 GHz and
the 5 GHz band.

Measurement strategy: Measurements were performed three times a day, in the morning
between 6 am and 7 am, in the afternoon between 2 pm and 4 pm and at night between
9 pm and 10 pm.

Measurement setup and configuration: The spectrum monitoring setup included an omni­
directional antenna connected to a spectrum analyzer and was left for the duration of the
7-day measurement period. All measurements were remotely performed over the LAN
interface of the spectrum analyzer in order not to influence results. For each measure-
ment, the spectrum was observed for a duration of 60 seconds. The measurement was
configured to pick up all signals up to 7.5 GHz and their maximum received power levels
within this time interval.

Measurement locations: Three sets of 7-day long measurement sessions were performed.
The first set of measurements was performed at Rohde & Schwarz Munich headquarters
located downtown in a semi residential and commercial area. The second set of measure-
ments was performed at the Rohde & Schwarz Teisnach plant, at a countryside location.
The third set of measurements was performed in Planegg, which is a residential Munich
suburb.

RF spectrum data analysis and visualization: In order to better understand the variation in RF
spectrum over time, the gathered data was post-processed and categorized in mornings,
afternoons and nights. The mean and standard deviation for the 7-day measurements
were calculated for each of the categories. Moreover, the standard deviation between
categories has been calculated as well in order to easily identify the time of day with the
highest RF activity during the observation period.

The measurement results from all three locations are introduced at the end of the section
and used for comparison, so as not to overwhelm the readers with too much similar infor-
mation. If you are interested in all the data from all three locations, please get in touch
with the author via email (mahmud.naseef@rohde-schwarz.com).

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 11
 Figure 2-4: Standard deviation of 7-day average for morning, afternoon and night measurements at the
Rohde & Schwarz Munich headquarters

Figure 2-4 shows the calculated standard deviation plots between the different categories
at the Munich location. It is evident that the greatest variations can be observed between
the morning and afternoon RF spectrum activity (indicated by the red peaks) in two bands
of interest, the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz spectrum bands. In order to get a better idea of total
activity, the two regions need to be magnified.

12
Figure 2-5: Magnified standard deviation plot for (a) 2.4 GHz band (b) 5 GHz band

(a) 2.4 GHz band

(b) 5 GHz band

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 13
 Figure 2-5 shows the zoomed-in plots for the 7-day standard deviation (SD) of the three
categories in the (a) 2.4 GHz band and (b) 5 GHz band. Note that the deviations between
the morning and afternoon measurements vary the most among the categories with a
variation of approximately 8 dB in the 2.4 GHz band and approximately 12.5 dB in the
5 GHz band. The second highest variations in these two frequency bands were observed
in the night and afternoon SD trace. This indicates that the RF activity might be higher in
the afternoons compared to the nights and mornings.

RF receivers operating in these frequency bands will have to ensure performance under
worst-case conditions. Although this measurement does not represent the worst-case
scenario because a long-term monitoring measurement was not performed. However,
this sort of RF spectrum profiling helps us better understand the RF environment and, as
a result, helps us design receiver products with optimum performance as well as relevant
test and validation strategies in order to ensure performance.

To confirm our assumptions, the mean spectrum plots over the 7-day period for each of
the three individual times of the day would provide more spectrum activity information at
this location.

Figure 2-6: Spectrum plot of 7-day average RF activity at different times of day at Rohde & Schwarz
Munich headquarters

Figure 2-6 shows the full spectrum plot for the average RF spectrum activity of the 7-day
measurement period at the Rohde & Schwarz Munich headquarters location. It is interest-
ing to see that all three plots tend to almost overlap one another across the entire 7.5 GHz
spectrum, but all the peaks are blue, indicating higher peak power activities during the
afternoon. Please note that throughout the day there is significant spectrum activity in the
sub 1 GHz band. Other peaks in the 5 GHz bands come from the morning and night time
RF spectral activities.

14
Figure 2-7: Magnified mean spectrum plot for (a) 2.4 GHz band and (b) 5 GHz band

(a) 2.4 GHz band

(b) 5 GHz band

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 15
 Figure 2-7 shows a magnified view of the average spectrum activity in the 2.4 GHz and
5 GHz band for the afternoon, morning and night measurements. It confirms that the
peak spectrum activity is higher in the afternoons compared to the nights and mornings.
This makes sense since more people are at work during business hours. Please note that
measurements were taken with 2/3 of the employees working from home because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In the 2.4 GHz band, it is also evident that the mornings are slightly
busier than the night-time RF spectrum activity.

The 5 GHz spectrum is also busier in the afternoon and the night-time spectrum is
slightly busier than the morning spectrum. This may be explained by OTA system updates
­running on WLAN channels in this band.

To better understand the RF spectrum, we need to take a closer look at the 7-day
­afternoon measurements (shown in Figure 2-8, Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10) as well
as how the different days of week differ from one another and from the 2.4 GHz and
5 GHz spectrum for morning and night measurements in terms of RF activity (shown in
Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12).

Figure 2-8: Standard deviation plot for afternoons over 7 days overlaid on mean activity

Figure 2-8 shows the shaded standard deviation plot overlaid on the mean plot of the
7-day afternoon RF spectrum activity. It is observed that the standard deviation is as high
as 18 dB in the 2.4 GHz band and 21 dB in the 5 GHz band. This means that the RF spec-
trum activity varies significantly in the afternoon between different days of the week.

16
Figure 2-9: Afternoon spectrum plots for 7-day measurement period at Rohde & Schwarz Munich
headquarters

Figure 2-9 shows the stacked spectrum plots for the 7-day afternoon measurements. The
deep blue colored line represents the mean RF activity for the week. Please note that
below 2 GHz, Wednesday was the busiest day in terms of RF activity while in the sub
1 GHz band, Sunday and Saturday were the busiest. There are some significant variations
in daily RF activity in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz band.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 17
 Figure 2-10: Afternoon spectrum plots 7-days measurement week at (a) 2.4 GHz and (b) 5 GHz

(a) 2.4 GHz

(b) 5 GHz

18
Figure 2-10 shows RF spectrum activity in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz band. Looking at the
2.4 GHz band plot closely, it is observed that some days have much more RF activity than
the rest of the week. Specifically, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday were signifi-
cantly busier than the average weekly RF activity. Monday, Thursday, Wednesday and
Sunday were the busiest for the 5 GHz band compared with the weekly average.

Figure 2-11: 2.4 GHz spectrum plots for the 7-day measurement for (a) mornings and (b) nights

(a) Mornings

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 19
 (b) Nights

Figure 2-11 shows the 2.4 GHz band plots for the morning and night measurements.
Monday, Sunday and Wednesday mornings had the highest power level in terms of RF
spectrum activity. In case of the night-time measurements, Wednesday had the highest
peak power in the 2.4 GHz band followed by Saturday and Thursday night.

20
Figure 2-12: 5 GHz spectrum plots for 7-day measurement for (a) mornings and (b) nights

(a) Mornings

(b) Nights

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 21
 Figure 2-12 shows the 5 GHz band plots for the morning and night measurements at
Rohde & Schwarz Munich headquarters. The mornings of Thursday and Wednesday of
week 2 and Friday had the highest power level in terms of RF spectrum activity. In case
of night-time measurements, Wednesday and Saturday had the highest peak power in
the 5 GHz band and were significantly higher than the mean weekly RF spectrum ­activity.
The peak received power measurements in the mornings are at least 5 dB higher than
in the night measurements. Please also note that in Figure 2-12 (a), the morning spectral
activities of the two Wednesdays, measured a week apart, are completely different. This
suggests that RF spectral activities do not always follow a repetitive trend.

Figure 2-13: 7-day afternoons average spectrum activity of the three locations at Munich headquarters,
the Teisnach plant and Planegg, a suburb in Bavaria

Now that the spectrum plots are understandable for one location, we extend the mea-
surements to different locations, with a different demographic and population density.
Figure 2-13 shows a comparison of the average spectrum activity over a 7-day period at
three locations in Bavaria with two Rohde & Schwarz locations at Munich headquarters
and the Teisnach plant and one location at a residential suburb in Planegg. The orange
graph represents the spectrum measurement results from Planegg, the blue graph rep-
resents the results from Teisnach and the green graph represents measurement results
from downtown Munich. Please note that the noise floor is similar for both Teisnach and
Planegg, even at the higher end of the spectrum compared to Munich. The spectrum
results for Munich include a few high-power peaks but compared to the other two loca-
tions show less spectrum activity. However, keep in mind that this figure exhibits the
average activity over the 7 days and not all individual days separately.

The Planegg spectrum was much busier compared with the other two locations. Planegg
had significantly more spectrum activity than both Teisnach and Munich in the sub 1 GHz
spectrum. The LTE and 2.4 GHz ISM band (where both WLAN and Bluetooth® operate)
was also as slightly busier at Planegg. However, Planegg and Munich have comparable
results for both the 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz spectrum.

22
Summary of measurements and observations: To start off, a set of RF spectrum measurements
was performed over a period of 7 days at different times of the day at Rohde & Schwarz
Munich headquarters in August 2021. The results were then post-processed and
­categorized in morning, afternoon and night measurements. It was observed that the RF
spectral activity during the afternoon at this location was significantly higher than the
morning or night measurements. Diving deeper into the data and by closely analyzing the
2.4 GHz and 5 GHz band, it was observed that during the working week, the afternoons
saw higher peak power in both bands as compared to the night and morning measure-
ments. Another interesting observation was that both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz spectrum
saw comparatively higher spectrum activity during weekend morning and night times.
Increased RF activity was also observed on certain nights of the week in the 5 GHz band,
which may be explained by system updates that routinely run over the network. And
finally, the spectrum measurement campaign work was extended and a similar measure-
ment routine was performed at two other locations in Bavaria. The second location was
the Rohde & Schwarz Teisnach plant and the third was the residential Munich suburb
Planegg.

This comparison proves the hypothesis that big city locations certainly have higher power
peaks but not necessarily significantly greater spectrum crowding. Spectrum ­crowding
depends on the population density and the number of IoT devices present. The three
locations selected for this measurement campaign have very different population. The
Munich location with few surrounding residential buildings saw higher spectral activity
during weekdays and also had more activity at predictable times when system updates
were running. This was also the case for the Teisnach plant which is located in a rural
area. However, as with most factories these days, a significant part of the industrial
machinery have remote wireless connectivity and thus account for higher wireless activity
at 2.4 GHz. The most interesting results were observed at the residential Munich suburb,
where the spectrum was always busy with high spectrum crowding in every frequency
band.

What do these findings mean for IoT devices? This is the kind of RF environment that IoT devices
will have to operate in. As a manufacturer, it is not possible to choose where a device will
be located in the field. Depending on the type, IoT products need to be tested accord-
ingly to understand how they will behave in their intended environment. The performance
quality of an IoT device needs to be constant regardless whether it is located in a big city
like Munich, Paris, Tokyo or New York or in a rural location like Teisnach or Wilkhaven in
Scotland.

Please also note that the measurements at the Rohde & Schwarz locations were made
during the COVID-19 pandemic with a significant amount of the workforce working from
home and therefore not present at the campus.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 23
 2.3 How do radio receivers react to interference signals?
Now that we have seen how the RF spectrum varies over time, it is important to under-
stand how a bare-bone radio receiver reacts to different interference signal types before
the complex mitigation schemes are implemented for different wireless communications
standards so as to achieve optimum performance.

Figure 2-14: Radiated test setup for receiver performance measurement

¸SMW200A
¸FPL1007
vector signal generator
spectrum analyzer

Interference signal
Wanted signal
Bandwidth: 20 MHz, 16QAM
Received signal
Interference signal Wanted or intended signal
a: Bandwidth: 10 MHz, QPSK
b: CW

Figure 2-14 shows a radiated test setup consisting of a two-channel vector signal
­generator and a spectrum analyzer. The spectrum analyzer receives a 16QAM wanted
­signal with 20 MHz bandwidth from one channel of the vector signal generator.

The error vector magnitude (EVM) of the received wanted signal is 0.35 %. The EVM
value here is a measure of how well the signal is received and the constellation points are
mapped to the spectrum analyzer measurement grid. A lower EVM is desirable and indi-
cates better decoding of the received signal, i.e. less impairment added to the received
signal.

In the next steps, two different electromagnetic interference (EMI) signals with the same
power level and center frequency (as the wanted signal) are introduced in consecutive
iterations. In the first case, the EMI signal is a QPSK signal with a bandwidth of 10 MHz
and, in the second case, it is CW signal.

Figure 2-15: Constellation plot of the received signal with different EMI signals

EMI (none), EMV: 0.35 %

24
EMI (a), EMV: 20 %

EMI (b), EMV: 4.39 %

The EVM of the wanted signal is 0.35 %, with EM interference signal (a) (10 MHz QPSK)
it is 20 % and with CW signal as shown in EMI (b) it is 4.39 %. The wanted system power
level at the vector signal generator was set to –10 dBm at 3 GHz center frequency, and
both interference signals were set to a power level of –25 dBm at 3 GHz center f­ requency.
The distance between wanted and unwanted signal antennas was kept constant
­throughout the measurement.

Figure 2-15 shows the constellation plot on the spectrum analyzer screen for the receive
signal quality in the presence of different EMI signal types. It is quite evident that the
receiver suffers most when a modulated signal at a lower power level is present as an
interference signal and confirmed by the blurring of the constellation points, than when a
CW signal is acting as the interference signal at the same power level.

The wireless coexistence measurement method and system performance monitoring with
the packet error rate (PER) as the KPI using a radio communication tester were described
in [4] and [6]. A full characterization of different types of interference signals including
their effect on the wanted system performance, supporting WLAN and LTE technology,

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 25
 is described in [6]. The paper explains that both LTE and WLAN/Wi-Fi connections are
designed to sense the RF environment and try to establish a maximum possible data
rate connection using a channel that is comparatively less busy. The LTE device and base
­station can negotiate and set the modulation type, channel frequency and bandwidth
based on the RF environment. In the event that the RF environmental conditions deterio-
rate and EMI signals are detected during the communications session, the interference
mitigation algorithm kicks in and the algorithm can recognize repeating interference
­signals and implement countermeasures to reduce the effect on connection performance.
These measures include changing the channel, decreasing the connection bandwidth as
well as dropping down to a robust lower order modulation scheme, resulting in a lower
data rate but a stable connection, and then switching back to a higher data rate when the
conditions allow. For WLAN, the channel is sensed less frequently and in most cases the
performance suffers when RF spectrum conditions deteriorate.

A paper [6] published at the EMC Europe Conference in 2020, characterized ­different
aspects of the interference signal that have a significant effect on the wanted signal
receiver performance. The different interference signal types affect both LTE and WLAN
communications in a similar fashion.

Figure 2-16: Interference signal type characteristics affecting wanted system performance

Wanted signal
Power

bandwidth

Bandwidth Wanted signal,

Wi-Fi or Bluetooth®
or LTE signal

Interference signal BW fC BW Frequency

fC– ––– fC+ –––
2 2
BW BW
fC– ––– fC+ –––
4 4

Figure 2-16 shows the characteristics of the unwanted interference signal c ­ ompared
to the wanted signal that have the maximum influence on the intended system
­performance. The characteristics include signal bandwidth (BW), frequency positions and
power level relative to the wanted signal. The EMI signal bandwidth is half of the wanted
signal bandwidth and has the maximum influence. The frequency positions at the ­center
and channel edges affected the wanted system performance the most. And finally, in
case of the power level, the higher the interference signal power level, the higher the
impact on the wanted system.

An interesting observation regarding the interference signal characteristics is the modu-

lation type and its influence on the wanted system performance. Modulated interference
signals have a greater deterioration effect on the intended system performance when
compared with a CW interference signal with the same channel power level. However,
the type of EMI modulation scheme employed (such as QAM, QPSK or an even higher
order modulation scheme) makes a negligible difference to system performance.

26
3 TESTING PROCEDURE
3.1 Risk categorization
The radiated anechoic chamber (RAC) method as described in [2] has been validated in
[4]. Using this method, measurements can easily be repeated since the RF environment
inside the chamber can be controlled with respect to external RF influences. The antenna
position and path losses are easier to consistently calibrate and compensate. This white
paper introduces two different state-of-the-art test setups for different types of product
groups. The test setups consider the risk to the health of the user in case of ­operational
failure caused by coexistence issues. The classification is based on the ISO 14971
­standard [5] and is shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Example of four-level risk classification for wireless connected devices
Based on ISO 14971 [5] (which has five levels). Device classification by the author.

Negligible risk Low risk Moderate risk High risk

► Washing machine ► Navigation device ► Stove ► Medical implants
► Refrigerator ► Smart lighting ► Coffee machine ► Telemedicine
► Smart meter ► Robot vacuum ► Microwave ► Automotive infotainment

► Baby monitor
► Pet tracker

Test requirements strongly depend on the product group and operating conditions. The
greater the potential harm from product failure is, especially to the health of the users,
the stricter the test conditions need to be. The operational failure of products that fall
under the negligible and low risk tiers would only mean a degradation of user ­experience
whereas for the products listed in the moderate and high risk tiers, users may suffer
adverse health-related consequences.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 27
 3.2 Test setups
The first test setup is similar to the one described in [4]. This setup is used for testing the
products listed in the negligible and low risk tiers of Figure 3-1. The test setup is shown in
Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Measurement setup for testing low-risk devices

Test instruments Control and analysis software

Shielded chamber/test chamber

Microphone Device under test

R&S®SMW200A HD webcam
vector signal generator R&S®AdVISE
audiovisual monitoring

R&S®CMW500
wideband radiocommunication tester

Interference signal

Wanted signal
R&S®BBA
broadband amplifier

Spectrum monitoring

R&S®FSVA3000
signal and spectrum analyzer

For products listed in the moderate and higher risk tiers of Figure 3-1, the test setup as
shown in Figure 3-3 is applicable.

Figure 3-3: Measurement setup for testing high-risk devices

Test instruments Control and analysis station Shielded chamber

Microphone
HD
webcam

Ethernet
R&S®AdVISE
inspection software
Monitoring station,
Interference signals
Up to 8 antennas doctor/nurses station,
server system

Wanted signals

Spectrum monitoring

Patient monitoring,
device under test

28
 Both measurement setups are very similar to one another and consist of a radio commu-
nication tester, a spectrum analyzer, real-time audio and video inspection software and
an optional power amplifier. Measurements are performed in a completely reflection-free,
electromagnetically shielded anechoic chamber.

The biggest difference between the two setups is in the interference signal ­generation
capability. The number of interference signals needs to be significantly ramped up for
high-risk products. This is achieved by adding further vector signal generators and
­antennas to model complex signal scenarios (as seen in Figure 3-3).

The next section discusses the individual parts of the test systems, such as the
­application of the radio communication tester for wireless coexistence testing.

3.3 Intended real-world use case and corresponding lab test setups
This section describes a state-of-the-art wireless coexistence test used to reconstruct
real-world use cases in the lab. The intended use case for wireless connected devices
needs to be defined in order to identify the anticipated electromagnetic environment
and the corresponding functional performance of the communications system. Based
on this information, it is possible to define the worst-case RF scenario which can later be
­simulated for testing. Recreation of the electromagnetic environment for the intended
use of the device and, if applicable, the external control application or software in order to
ensure reliable functional wireless performance, should be done in a controlled measure-
ment area (examples are shown in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-6). Robustness and application
level testing for intentional and unintentional frequency jamming need to use realistic
interference signals generated in a repeatable manner. A common use case is shown
in Figure 3-4 (left). A user is streaming a video on a smartphone at home via the WLAN
­connection. A smart fridge is also connected to the same WLAN router and, because the
smartphone is located close to the smart fridge, it interferes with the video download and
decreases the overall data rate of the smartphone’s connection.

Figure 3-4: Left: a typical network setup for a wireless patient monitoring device in a hospital
­environment. Right: simulating the environment in a test laboratory

¸FPL1007

Intended
signal

¸CMW500
WLAN router Smartphone

Unintended
signal Wanted or intended signal (WLAN), DUT: Smartphone
channel 1, bandwidth: 20 MHz,
Unintended signal

video streaming from ¸SMW200A

Smart fridge ¸CMW multimedia server

Figure 3-4 (right) shows a T&M setup that replicates the real-world RF scenario (test setup
similar to Figure 3-2). The device under test is connected to a radio communication tester
(such as the R&S®CMW500) using a WLAN access point network generated by the tester.
The R&S®CMW500 can perform active end-to-end signaling tests.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 29
 The R&S®CMW500 media server stores a time-coded video file. The DUT is connected
to channel 1 and the video file is streamed through the phone’s internet web browser.
A vector signal generator introduces a modulated interference signal on the same
­frequency. This decreases the overall data rate, i.e. more packets are lost and need to be
retransferred. The effect can be seen in Figure 3-5.

The PER increases every time the EMI signal from the vector signal generator is switched
on (E1 and E3), and decreases as soon as the EMI signal is switched off (E2). But what
is also observed using the application inspection software is that every time the PER
increases over 10 %, the video freezes and the buffer wheel appears and the video
starts to lag. By using the time-coded video and the inspection software, it is possible to
­measure the drop or variation in frame rate, which is impossible to do by relying on just
human observation.

Figure 3-5: Whenever the PER of the WLAN connection exceeds 10 %, the real-time data stream
starts to freeze

E2
E3

E1

The reason for this video freeze is that in real-time video streaming, the media file starts

30
 the playback while the data is still being loaded. The playback is interrupted if the data
decoder runs out of data [7]. With UHD 4K video streaming becoming more popular,
this means that if the data rate repeatedly drops while data is being loaded, the picture
­resolution will also decrease, which in turn will degrade user experience. In many wire-
less applications, such as in wireless medical patient monitoring, having low latency is a
key requirement.

Figure 3-6 shows how a wireless patient monitor is connected to the patient server via
the hospital’s WLAN AP and the corresponding T&M setup in a lab (similar to Figure 3-3).

Normally in wireless IP connections, a round-trip (RT) IP ping test is performed to deter-

mine the latency of the connection on an external PC connected via Ethernet cables
using a network switch. This adds additional uncertainties. But this measurement can
be improved by replacing the external PC, halving the length of the Ethernet cables,
­removing the network switch and routing the entire end-to-end communications through
the radio communication tester. The tester also initiates IP ping tests, which decreases
the measurement uncertainty significantly and provides extremely accurate latency
results.

Figure 3-6: Left: a typical network setup for a wireless patient monitoring device in a hospital
­environment. Right: simulating the environment in a test laboratory

Radio communication tester

Ethernet Ethernet

Access point Monitoring station, Monitoring station,

doctor/nurses station, doctor/nurses station
Wireless server system Server system
communication
using WLAN or LTE Wireless
communication
using WLAN or LTE

Wireless patient monitor Wireless patient monitor

with patient with patient

In Figure 3-6, the radio communication tester replaces the WLAN AP and provides the
WLAN network to which the patient monitor connects, and also relays data to the patient
server. Placing the R&S®CMW500 in the center of the setup significantly decreases
measure­ment uncertainty when performing IP RT ping tests. Network switches and other
variables are no longer needed.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 31
 Figure 3-7: Round-trip IP ping measurement in the presence of EMI signals

Figure 3-7 shows an RT IP ping test initiated by the R&S®CMW500 to the wirelessly
­connected patient monitor using channel 1 of the WLAN connection. When interference
signals are introduced, the round-trip ping degrades from 126.417 ms to 154.373 ms
and also some ping requests were not replied to and were eventually timed out on a few
occasions.

3.4 Testing using recorded RF environment

The goal of RAC based coexistence testing is repeatability and to recreate complex,
accurate real-world RF conditions. With the exponential growth in the number of RF
interference sources, interference signal generation is getting quite expensive. As a
result, more and more manufacturers are seeking alternative ways of increasing the
test ­complexity in order to have a test environment that is representative of the environ-
ment that the device is intended for, while at the same time keeping costs down. This
has resulted in the RF spectrum recording and playback solutions gaining popularity. The
benefits of such solutions in addition to cost reductions are repeatability, a further cost
reduction in terms of data gathering and future-proof investments. Although this ­solution
is nothing new, its application in coexistence testing is. This approach was p ­ reviously
used in aerospace and defense applications. The setup is portable and is shown in
Figure 3-8. It consists of a digital I/Q recorder, a spectrum analyzer and an antenna for
recording and a digital I/Q recorder, vector signal generator, optional power amplifier and
an antenna for signal playback.

32
 Figure 3-8: Test setup for RF spectrum recording and playback

¸SMW200A,
with the following options:
B1007, B711, B13XT and B9

The setup can be used either

to record interference with
¸IQW100 and ¸FSW

Or to replay the signal with

¸IQW and ¸SMW200

¸IQW100, ¸FSW26,
with the following options: with the following options:
BD115, K110, K112, K200 B24, B512R and B517

Recorded real-world spectrum data is used to test IoT products in the chamber, simplify-
ing debugging operational product failures. Since the spectrum analyzer is used as the
frontend, the frequency of the recorded spectrum depends on the spectrum analyzer.
This makes the solution future-proof in case the IoT devices also need to be tested for
­compatibility in the presence of 5G signals. Another advantage is that the recorded data
can be shared via the internet. As a result, logistics costs for drive tests and real-world
field tests decrease over time as the amount of recorded data profiles in the library grows.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 33
4 RECEIVER ROBUSTNESS
There are many products in different price classes and from different vendors a ­ vailable
on the market. The UV-shaped curve method (as shown in Figure 4-1) described in this
section is used to set a comparison benchmark between different receiver designs.
The minimum acceptable PER for a stable communications connection is 10 %. Most
­receivers can handle out-of-band (OOB) interference better than in-band ­interference.
However, the critical question is how much better can they handle out-of-band
­interference? The power level for in-band and OOB interference at which the receiver
­performance degrades to 10 % is recorded, resulting in the U-shaped curve.

Figure 4-1: UV-shaped curve for receiver robustness comparison

Power in dBm

10 % packet error rate (PER) curve

Unwanted signal Wanted signal Frequency

The difference between a good receiver and a robust receiver is the ability to handle
much higher powered out-of-band interference (which is shown in Figure 4-1 as the
green V-shaped curve). A robust receiver will have much better sensitivity at cell edge
conditions.

This UV-curve method can be very useful for manufacturers to identify the good receiver
designs from the bad ones and also help select the receivers that are best suited for the
application they are intended to serve.

34
5 CONCLUSION
In a connected world with an ever increasing number of connected devices, today's IoT
products need to be tested using the RF spectral reality of tomorrow in order to ensure
the wireless performance of a device throughout its lifetime. Therefore, the ability to
­recreate almost real-world field environments in the lab and to monitor parameters that
represent end user experience is important. This white paper identifies the challenges
that a connected product faces in terms of RF spectrum crowding at different l­ocations
and at different times. This paper also introduces two different state-of-the-art test
­setups that are used based on risk assessments performed on the intended ­functionality
of the ­product. This paper discusses system performance monitoring parameters and
­introduces a strategy that combines application layer KPIs (such as video and round-trip
IP ping measurement) with physical layer KPIs (such as packet error rate measurement).
This document also explains the possibility of recording and playing back the real-world
RF spectrum data. And finally, it introduces a method of benchmarking (UV-shaped curve)
different types of receiver design based on in-band and out-of-band EM ­interference
­signal tolerance.

Figure 5-1: Generic radiated wireless coexistence measurement setup

Control and
automation software
R&S®OSP
open switch
and control
platform
Turntable
R&S®CMW500
radio Link antenna
Optional video analysis
communication R&S®AdVISE
-
tester inspection software
Monitoring
R&S®BBA150 antenna
broadband DUT
power amplifier R&S®OSP device under test
open switch
R&S®FSW and control
signal and platform
spectrum analyzer
Up to
R&S®SMW200 8 interference antennas
vector signal
generator (and
optionally up to 6
R&S®SGT100A)

Control room OTA full anechoic chamber

Figure 5-1 shows the block diagram of a wireless coexistence test setup. This type of
­testing can be performed completely automated or manually, depending on the user and
the total volume. At an R&D level, manual test methods are preferred, as it gives the users
more control. This is also the case for compliance testing, even though this varies from
the total number of tests each test house needs to perform, as manual tests are very time
consuming. But for manufacturers, who want to perform a shorter version of coexistence
testing after production as a form of quality assurance testing before the products are put
on the lorry, the automated version will be the popular choice.

Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 35
6 REFERENCES
[1] Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018–2023), white paper,
www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-
report/white-paper-c11-741490.html

[2] C63.27-2017 – American National Standard for Evaluation of Wireless Coexistence,

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7927764/

[3] Do more people live in urban or rural areas?, World, 1500 to 2050, Share of the
population which live in urban versus rural areas, source: UN World Urbanization
Prospects (2018) and historical sources, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/
urban-vs-rural-majority?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL

[4] Oussama Sassi, Mahmud Naseef, Pascal Hervé,“OTA testing method for RED,
coexistence and EM interference in vehicles”,
2019 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility – EMC EUROPE,
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/DOCUMENT/8871752

[5] ISO 14971:2019 Medical devices – Application of risk management to medical devices,
www.iso.org/standard/72704.html

[6] Oussama Sassi, Mahmud Naseef, Pascal Hervé, “Analysis challenge of interference on
the coexistence performance of a wanted radio signal”,
2020 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility – EMC EUROPE
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9245632

[7] Mihaela van der Schaar, Philip Cho, “Multimedia over IP and Wireless Networks,
1st Edition, Compression, Networking, and Systems”, page 85, Academic Press, 2007,
www.elsevier.com/books/multimedia-over-ip-and-wireless-networks/
van-der-schaar/978-0-12-088480-3

36
Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 37
38
Rohde & Schwarz White paper | Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases 39
Rohde & Schwarz
The Rohde & Schwarz technology group is among the trail-
blazers when it comes to paving the way for a safer and
connected world with its leading solutions in test & measure-
ment, technology systems and n ­ etworks & cybersecurity.
Founded more than 85 years ago, the group is a reliable
partner for industry and government customers around
the globe. The independent company is headquartered in
Munich, Germany and has an extensive sales and service
network with locations in more than 70 countries.

www.rohde-schwarz.com

Rohde & Schwarz customer support

www.rohde-schwarz.com/support

3683396552

R&S® is a registered trademark of Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG

3683.3965.52 01.00 PDP/PDW 1 en

Trade names are trademarks of the owners

PD 3683.3965.52 | Version 01.00 | February 2022 (ch) | White paper
Wireless coexistence testing based on IoT device application use cases
Data without tolerance limits is not binding | Subject to change
© 2022 Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG | 81671 Munich, Germany