W H I T E PA P E R

G1 vs Legacy FWA
Comparing Next-Generation
Fixed Wireless Access (ngFWA)
vs. Legacy FWA Technologies
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 2

Traditional Challenges of FWA

Given the scope, scale, and urgency of closing the digital divide, broadband service
providers need a better network toolbox that gives them the ability to deploy new or
upgrade existing infrastructure to achieve both high capacity and greater coverage on
short timelines, with viable network costs across a wide range of terrain and conditions.
Until recently, operators had three choices for fixed-wireless access deployments:
3GPP (4G/5G), Wi-Fi, and satellite.

Mobile networks (4G/5G) require expensive licensed spectrum that can be better used
for higher-margin mobile services and lack support for the hundreds of megabits or
gigabit speeds required for residential broadband. Legacy fixed wireless access (FWA)
networks based on re-purposed indoor wireless technology (Wi-Fi) struggle with
interference from within their own and other networks and their inability to work
around physical obstructions like other houses and trees that are common in outdoor
residential neighborhoods. Finally, while new low earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband
networks now being deployed are uniquely suited to reaching very remote areas and
oceans, they will have nowhere near enough capacity to serve mainstream residential
markets at scale, given their necessarily wide distribution and very limited bandwidth
per satellite.

To be sure, all of these wireless technologies have been contributing to closing the
broadband gap, but mostly at the margins of the problem. The central question
remains: how can service providers deliver 100s of Mbps cost-effectively to broad
populations, and much sooner rather than later?

Obstructions

One of the many challenges fixed wireless systems face springs first from pervasive
obstructions to line-of-sight (LoS) signals present in most markets. Obstructions can
reduce the throughput and reliability of a link or, in many cases, deteriorate the signal
to the point of non-viability. The probability of achieving LoS links falls precipitously
with link distance in urban and suburban markets. Evidence from our customers
serving rural markets indicates the challenges are significant there as well.

Interference

Examples of interference include both interference with other radio networks as well
as self-interference between the operator’s own cells. Interference can take the form
of constant or bursty traffic depending on the source. Dynamic channel impairments
include transient impacts on the link, such as moving vehicles, rustling foliage, etc.
The ability to anticipate and cancel the harmful effects of interference is particularly
important in dense urban and suburban environments where many Wi-Fi networks can
disrupt link performance for conventional systems.
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 3

Capacity

Modern broadband networks must support a large number of subscribers downloading

a terabyte or more a month with speeds at or greater than 100/20 Mbps, driving the
need for much higher aggregate network capacity compared to a mobile network. To
support this demand for capacity, ISPs will often have multi-cell installations within
a single market. This raises the potential for service degradation from inter-cell
interference. In an attempt to mitigate this problem, prior-generation FWA installations
use multiple frequency bands in alternating patterns, which is spectrally inefficient and
creates significant deployment complexity.

Take a Closer Look

ngFWA Tarana G1

Tarana’s Gigabit 1 (G1) platform is purpose-built from the ground up specifically to

address the unique requirements and challenges of the modern fixed wireless network
use case.

With precise digital Tx (transmit) and Rx (receive) beamforming and complete

multipath integration, G1 offers reliable, gigabit service to each user, even in the face
of significant challenges, such as obstructions that require non-line-of-sight (NLoS)
propagation. G1 excels in dynamic and multipath-rich propagation channels with no
requirements for clear line-of-sight.

Figure 1: Leveraging multipath

G1’s advanced interference cancellation techniques can remove up to 50 dB of

self-interference and up to 40 dB of interference from other transmitters. This
greatly increases G1’s ability to reliably achieve maximum link rates regardless of
self or outside interference. This is particularly useful in dense deployments where
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 4

interference is the norm. Interference is one of the single largest factors when
determining a cell’s overall capacity.

Asynchronous Burst Interference Cancellation (ABIC) is a Tarana innovation that

cancels bursty interference (e.g., Wi-Fi) that might interrupt or degrade a transmission.
This is a problem in any unlicensed or lightly licensed spectrum, such as 5 GHz
or 6 GHz, especially with the proliferation of new consumer devices. Unlike other
technologies, G1 doesn’t need to resend data if there is data loss due to bursty
interference. Instead, G1 cancels out the interference in real-time while it is occurring.
G1 can achieve full-rate links despite offending signals that are up to 1,000 times
stronger than its own. This type of interference cancellation is unique to G1.

4G/5G

3GPP standards-based 4G/5G radio networks offer excellent mobile services, which is
their primary intended use. However, they fall short of meeting the modern demands
of fixed-wireless access (FWA) services on a large scale, as these require significantly
higher speeds over long ranges, greater network capacity, and consistent and uniform
service delivery.

The 3GPP standards were developed based on the premise of licensed spectrum use and
mobile end-user devices (typically mobile phones) that are inherently limited in power,
size, and computational capacity. The 3GPP standards have progressed by adding more
capabilities, cost, and complexity to the base station to improve system performance
while keeping the user equipment (UE) relatively simple.
An example of this is 5G massive MIMO systems, which aim to provide higher spectral
efficiency and improved link budgets by utilizing a large number of radio chains at the
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 5

base station side (≥ 64T, 64R). These systems also concentrate nearly all signal
processing intelligence within the base station to allow for a simpler and cheaper UE.

The base stations are equipped with advanced features, such as digital beamforming
and multiple simultaneous MIMO layers, resulting in improvements. However, this is
within the inherent constraints of a highly asymmetrical system architecture. Since the
majority of the intelligence and processing power resides in the base station, there is a
missed opportunity for link enhancement through distributed collaboration with the
UE. Additionally, the ability to implement interference mitigation at the UE is limited,
making operation in noisy or unlicensed environments difficult to impossible.

G1 Outperforms 4G/5G

b 2x faster link speeds on average and 8x faster link speeds at the cell edge using
equivalent spectrum
b 3x higher overall spectral efficiency
b Symmetric link budget in uplink and downlink
b Self and outside interference cancellation
b Ease of network design/install

802.11ax Wi-Fi 6

IEEE 802.11ax is a standard for wireless local area networks (LANs), also known as
Wi-Fi 6. Of particular note for FWA applications is the introduction of a long OFDM
symbol (for longer links), higher QAM modulation, support for multi-user MIMO, and
OFDMA. 802.11ax also takes advantage of new spectrum, i.e., the 6 GHz spectrum,
which is being made available for unlicensed use in many countries.

The highest advertised gigabit speeds for 802.11ax require 160 MHz of bandwidth. With
k=2 frequency reuse, the requirement rises to 320 MHz of bandwidth per tower and 640
MHz (4 channels) for a network-wide deployment based on 160 MHz channels. Even
with the 850 MHz of 6 GHz spectrum available for outdoor use, this will be a challenge.

802.11ax products are further hampered by the fact that current products are single
carrier, i.e., the spectrum used must be a continuous band of frequencies. This is in
contrast to G1, which operates dual 40 MHz carriers. This allows for the use of multiple
frequency bands (including 5 GHz if needed) rather than being reliant on finding
a single 80 MHz channel. Using different bands per carrier can, in some cases and
regulatory domains, yield higher overall EIRP; boosting link performance. Dual carriers
also provide operators much greater freedom and choice when selecting the
best frequencies.

As mentioned above, the impact of interference and other link impairments is a crucial
factor when designing a large-scale fixed-access network. Leveraging multipath to work
around prevalent obstructions requires wide antenna apertures that increase exposure
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 6

to self and external interference sources, as well as motion in the radio channel.
Examples of interference include interference with other radio networks, as well as
self-interference between the operator’s own cells. Interference can take the form of
constant or bursty traffic depending on the source. Dynamic channel impairments
include transient impacts on the link, such as moving vehicles, rustling foliage, etc.

When it comes to 802.11ax, there is nothing in the standard specifically designed to

mitigate the effects of interference or motion. The best case is the use of channel
changes (assuming there is a better channel, which may not be the case) or using
CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance) to try to mitigate
multiple devices transmitting at the same time. Neither attempts to actually deal with
interference.

G1 Outperforms 802.11ax

b 7x cell area (fewer towers)

b 4x sector capacity
b NLoS operation
b Self and outside interference cancellation
b Rapid adaptation

LEO Satellites

Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks are designed to provide broadband in the most
remote, hard-to-reach locations. While they work well for this intended application,
they are less successful at delivering fixed wireless access in mainstream markets, with
unique requirements for high network capacity and spectral efficiency at scale.

Density and system capacity are crucial factors when determining if an FWA system can
meet both current and future needs as broadband demands grow. One of the primary
limiting factors for satellite broadband is the need to keep density low due to overall
capacity limitations, as well as to reduce the impact of interference, both
self-interference and that from other satellite constellations. While capacity
improvements can modestly improve the total number of subscribers supported
per satellite, the technology has very little ability to reduce interference, so this will
continue to be an additional factor limiting overall capacity.

Weather is an important consideration for satellites. Due to the propagation properties

of the Ku band, precipitation can reduce or fully block all throughput. Solar activity is
also a concern. The satellites are equipped with solar shielding, but they can’t deploy
it while the satellites are transmitting; the shielding would block the signals, so they
shut down, deploy shielding while the flare passes, then retract the shielding and
start transmitting again once the flare has passed. User terminals also require clear
line-of-sight from the user terminal to the sky (satellite). Non-line-of-sight (NLoS)
operation is not supported.
 G1 vs. Legacy FWA • White Paper • 7

Satellite networks are well-suited for delivering broadband in the sparsest, most remote
settings where natural terrain features make other technologies difficult to implement.
This advantage quickly dissipates, however, when even modest density and capacity
requirements are added to the equation. G1, in contrast, can deliver high capacity, high
link speed, and interference cancellation across a wide range of densities, from rural to
urban locales.

G1 Outperforms LEO Satellites

b 5x spectral efficiency
b 4.5x capacity
b NLoS operation
b Self and outside interference cancellation
b 300–750x higher density

Summary
As noted, existing FWA approaches are based on technologies that fulfill their original
purpose well (4G/5G for mobility and Wi-Fi for indoor networks), but that are not as
successful at scalable fixed access in mainstream residential markets. To deliver fast,
affordable residential access more broadly, the industry needs a next generation of
FWA (ngFWA).
Interested in learning more about our
innovative solutions? Get in touch with us at
taranawireless.com/how-to-buy

Tarana’s mission is to accelerate the deployment of

fast, affordable internet access around the world.
Through a decade of R&D and more than $400M of
investment, the Tarana team has created a unique
next-generation fixed wireless access (ngFWA)
technology instantiated in its first commercial
platform, Gigabit 1 (G1). It delivers a game-changing
advance in broadband economics in both mainstream
and underserved markets, using either licensed
or unlicensed spectrum. G1 started production in
mid-2021 and has been embraced by more than 200
operators in 21 countries and 45 states. Tarana is
headquartered in Milpitas, California, with additional
research and development in Pune, India.

© Tarana Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved. 240200

@taranawireless taranawireless.com