Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1

Version 1.0, January 2017
Contributing and Supporting Companies:
White Paper
Coverage Analysis of LTE-M
Category-M1

Executive Summary
LTE-M provides low-cost LTE devices suitable for massive Machine-Type Communications (MTC) and the Internet of Things
(IoT) with substantially enhanced coverage compared to normal LTE devices. 3GPP has only published LTE-M coverage
targets and since coverage is a key pillar to all LPWA technologies, it is very important to understand how much coverage
LTE-M can actually provide. To this end, the group of supporting companies listed on the title page conducted a thorough link
layer simulation analysis to evaluate the actual coverage performance of 3GPP’s LPWA LTE-M technology.
The key finding is that LTE-M can realistically support a coverage gain of 21 dB relative to legacy LTE devices, which exceeds
the 18 dB 3GPP target. This 21 dB gain corresponds to a data rate of 1400 bps in downlink and 250 bps in uplink. For IoT
applications that can tolerate lower data speeds and longer acquisition times, a gain of beyond 21 dB can be supported. Also
important to note is that these results are achieved without using eNB power spectral density (PSD) boosting.
The analysis shows that the 155.7 dB maximum coupling loss (MCL) targeted by 3GPP was assuming a 20 dBm UE power
class with conservative noise figures from 3GPP TR 36.888. This 155.7 dB MCL target translates to a 160.7 dB MCL by
assuming a 23 dBm UE power class and the less conservative noise figures used in the Celluar IoT study on EC-GSM-IoT
and NB-IoT documented in 3GPP TR 45.820. The key finding is that using these assumptions with 21 dB gain, LTE-M can
support 164 dB MCL.
This analysis shows that LTE-M supports a very similar coverage gain compared to other LPWA technologies and thus
confirms LTE-M to be a very versatile LPWA technology. For IoT applications requiring higher data rates, low latency, full
mobility, and voice in typical coverage situations, LTE-M is the best LPWA technology choice. And for IoT applications
requiring deep coverage where latency, mobility and data speed requirements are less stringent, LTE-M is a strong LPWA
contender as well. Overall, this versatility allows LTE-M to support an extremely wide array of IoT applications which helps to
increase volume and drive economies of scale.
KEY FINDING
LTE-M provides +21 dB
of coverage gain at a data
speed of 1400 bps DL
and 250 bps UL exceeding
3GPP target of 18 dB.
KEY OBSERVATION
Assuming a 23 dBm UE
and less conservative
noise figures, LTE-M
supports 164 dB MCL.
CONCLUSION
LTE-M is a versatile LPWA
technology, supporting
high data rates, full
mobility, and voice in
typical coverage and also
supports deep coverage
scenarios.
Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1
White Paper
2 of 20

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction and Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................................... 4
3 Maximum Coupling Loss (MCL) .......................................................................................................................... 5
4 Coverage Targets ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 MCL Targets Using Conservative NFs and 20 dBm............................................................ 7
4.2 MCL Targets Using Less Conservative NFs and 23 dBm................................................. 8
5 LTE-M Coverage Enhancement Mode A and B ........................................................................................... 9
6 Coverage Techniques............................................................................................................................................... 9
6.1 TX Power................................................................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Repetition.............................................................................................................................................. 10
6.3 Cross Subframe & Cross PRB Channel Estimation............................................................ 10
6.4 Multi-Subframe Frequency Hopping........................................................................................ 10
6.5 Redundancy Version (RV) Cycling ............................................................................................... 10
6.6 Using Same RV and Scambling for Several SF........................................................................ 10
6.7 Power Spectral Density (PSD) boosting................................................................................... 11
7 Coverage Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 11
7.1 Primary Sync Signal (PSS) and Secondary Sync Signal (SSS)......................................... 12
7.2 Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH).......................................................................................... 13
7.3 MTC Physical Downlink Control Channel (MPDCCH)....................................................... 14
7.4 Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)......................................................................... 15
7.5 Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH)........................................................................... 16
7.6 Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) ........................................................................... 16
7.7 Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) ........................................................................... 17
8 Summary....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
9 References.................................................................................................................................................................... 19
White Paper
3 of 20

1 Introduction and Scope
Release 13 LTE-M was specified during the 3GPP eMTC work item [1] which was completed in
March 2016 and defined one new user equipment (UE) category – “Category-M1”. Although
coverage analyses were conducted during this work, 3GPP has not assessed to what extent
the maximum achievable coverage exceeds the target that the normative specification
provides. This white paper includes the results from such a coverage analysis. The analysis
was supported through link level simulations (LLS) conducted by several of the supporting
companies. The coverage performance is reported both in terms of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
and Maximum Coupling Loss (MCL).
Even though this analysis only considers the CAT-M1 UE, given that Coverage Enhancement
Mode A and B are defined as features within the standards, any category UE can support the
extended coverage feature. The uplink coverage performance is similar to CAT-M1 but given
that most other LTE category UEs have two receive antennas (where CAT-M1 only has one), the
downlink performance is 3-4 dB better than shown in this paper.
Before going into the LLS simulation results, the paper presents the foundation and
assumptions used to calculate the MCL. Also to provide some technical background, several
coverage techniques used in the LTE-M specification are described.
2 Abbreviations
3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project MAC Media Access Control RRC Radio Resource Control
BLER Block Error Rate MCL Maximum Coupling Loss RV Redundancy Version
CRC Cyclic Redundancy Check MIB Master Information Block RX Receive
CRS Cell-specific Reference Signals MPDCCH MTC Physical Downlink Control
Channel
SCH Synchronization Channel
dB Decibel MTC Machine Type Communications SF Subframe (1 ms)
dBm Power Ratio in decibels referenced
to one milliwatt
NF Noise Figure SFN System Frame Number
DL Downlink (from eNB to UE) PA Power Amplifier SNR Signal to Noise Ratio
eMTC Enhanced Machine-Type
Communications
PBCH Physical Broadcast Channel SSS Secondary Synchronization Signal
eNB Enhanced Node B (LTE base station) PDSCH Physical Downlink Shared Channel TBS Transport Block Size
FDD Frequency Division Duplex PRACH Physical Random Access Channel TM Transmission Mode
HARQ Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request PSS Primary Synchronization Signal TR Technical Report
I/Q In-phase and Quadrature PUCCH Physical Uplink Control Channel TS Technical Specification
LNA Low Noise Amplifier PUSCH Physical Uplink Shared Channel TX Transmit
LLS Link Layer Simulation PRB Physical Resource Block UE User Equipment
LPWA Low Power Wide Area PSD Power Spectral Density UL Uplink (from UE to eNB)
LTE Long Term Evolution RLC Radio Link Control WID Work Item Description
FACT
3GPP has not
assessed to what
extent the maximum
achievable coverage
exceeds the 3GPP
target.
FACT
Given that extended
coverage is defined as
a feature within the
standards, this means
any category UE can
support the extended
coverage feature.
White Paper
4 of 20

3 Maximum Coupling Loss (MCL)
MCL is a very common measure to describe the amount of coverage a system or design can
support. It is the limiting value of the coupling loss at which a service can be delivered, and
therefore defines the coverage of the service. Of course intuitively, it would be better to provide
“km of coverage” but “km of coverage” is not an appropriate measure as it highly depends
on the carrier frequency and the environment (e.g. indoor, outdoor, urban, sub-urban, and
rural). Therefore, MCL is a better measure of the design as it is independent of frequency and
environmental factors and thus MCL is used in this paper.
Without coverage enhancement, Legacy LTE systems (before Release 13) can operate up to
approximately 142 dB MCL and in most cases for outdoor urban or sub-urban environments,
the cellular network provides adequate signal strength to satisfy this MCL. However, indoor
coverage is more difficult because in-building penetration loss can be very high. For example,
if a device is underground or deep inside a building, the external wall penetration loss and in-
building penetration loss can in total exceed 50 dB.
Table 1 below shows the inputs and calculations for MCL (from TR 36.888 [6]):
MCL INPUT VALUE
Transmitter
(0) Max Tx power (dBm) PA power of UE or eNB
(1) Power in Channel Bandwidth (dBm) Calculated
Receiver
(2) Thermal noise density (dBm/Hz) Constant -174 dBm/Hz
(3) Receiver noise figure (dB) Depends on LNA
(5) Occupied channel bandwidth (Hz) Bandwidth of signal
(6) Effective noise power
= (2) + (3) + 10 log((5)) (dBm)
Calculated
(7) Required SNR (dB)
Value comes from link
simulation
(8) Receiver sensitivity
= (6) + (7) (dBm)
Calculated
(9) MCL
= (1) - (8) (dB)
Calculated
Table 1: MCL Calculation
FACT
MCL is a very common
measure to describe
the amount of
coverage a system can
support.
FACT
Without coverage
enhancement, LTE can
normally operate to a
maximum of
approximately 142 dB
MCL.
FACT
If a device is
underground or deep
inside a building, the
in-building
penetration loss can in
total exceed 50 dB.
As seen from the above table, the MCL calculation is a straightforward calculation and is based
on four inputs; UE PA Power, receiver noise figure (NF), occupied channel bandwidth and
required SNR.
White Paper
5 of 20

Max TX Power: For the downlink (DL) MCL calculation, this is the Power Amplifier (PA) power
of the eNB and for this analysis the eNB supports PA power of +46 dBm (same was used in [6,
7]). For the uplink (UL) MCL calculation, the PA power of the UE is used. LTE-M supports two
UE power classes; a 23 dBm Power Class 3 UE, and a new 20 dBm Power Class 5 UE. In this
paper, since the maximum coverage is of interest, a 23 dBm class 3 UE is assumed thus 23 dBm
is used in the MCL calculation.
Receive Noise Figure (NF): Similarly to how Max Transmit (TX) Power is based on the PA, the
NF is based on the receiver’s front end Low Noise Amplifier (LNA). The front-end insertion loss,
quality, and current draw of the LNA can affect the NF and so typically the NF for the UEs are
higher than for the eNB (which generally has less concerns with respect to power consumption
and cost). One common misconception is that the NF depends on the bandwidth of the signal
(e.g. 200 kHz for GSM versus >1.4 MHz for LTE) but given that UEs and eNBs need to be able to
support many different channels within a band, the front end LNA needs to be wide enough to
cover the entire band (e.g. band 20 is 30 MHz wide). 3GPP has used different NFs depending
on situation; a conservative set (including extreme conditions) and a less conservative set. The
following NFs shown in Table 2 have been used by 3GPP:
NOISE FIGURE SOURCE eNB UE
Conservative (TR 36.888 [5]) 5 9
Less Conservative (TR 45.820 [6]) 3 5
Table 2: 3GPP Noise Figures
In this paper, the less conservative NFs from TR 45.820 “Cellular system support for ultra-
low complexity and low throughput Internet of Things (CIoT)” are used, since they are equally
applicable to both NB-IoT and LTE-M.
Bandwidth of Signal: This is the bandwidth of the actual signal transmitted (not the bandwidth
of the system). For example, if 2 physical resource blocks (PRBs) are used, then 2*180,000 Hz is
used, not the full system bandwidth.
Required SNR: This value is a measure of how much noise the design (e.g. modulation, coding
rate, coding type, transmission mode, and diversity scheme) can tolerate and still work within a
certain performance. The performance metric is often Block Error Rate (BLER) but can also be
acquisition time or speed. In this white paper, the SNR was obtained through LLS. Since SNR is
also a common performance metric, all LLS results include both the MCL and SNR.
4 Coverage Targets
This section provides background information on the 3GPP targets that were used in the
development of the LTE-M specification.
FACT
The noise figure
depends mainly on
the front-end inser-
tion loss, LNA quality,
and current draw of
the LNA but does not
depend on the band-
width of the signal.
FACT
The “Required SNR”
is a measure of how
much noise the sys-
tem can tolerate while
maintaining a certain
system performance
(e.g. 10% error rate).
White Paper
6 of 20

4.1 MCL TARGETS USING CONSERVATIVE NOISE FIGURES AND 20 dBm UE
3GPP initially started considering LTE-M in Release 11, producing the TR 36.888 study item
technical report [6]. This technical report documents performance targets and an analysis of
some technical approaches for adapting LTE in order to make it suitable for MTC applications.
From the Release 13 work item description (WID) [1], the 3GPP target was to provide 15 dB of
coverage gain for LTE-M with UE power class of 23 dBm, relative to a baseline CAT-1 Release
10 UE. However, the same coverage enhancement should be available for the new 20 dBm
Power Class 5 UE as well, meaning that the actual target for LTE-M was to provide at least
18 dB of additional coverage for the limiting physical channel. Table 3 (below) shows the MCL
calculation and the required gain for LTE-M channels where the conservative NFs are from [6]
and a 20 dBm Power Class UE is assumed. The baseline SNR values are from [6] which were
based on CAT-1 but are adjusted by 4 dB loss due to the single receiver that was assumed for
CAT-M1:
PHYSICAL CHANNEL
NAME
PUCCH PRACH PUSCH PDSCH PBCH SCH MPDCCH
TRANSMITTER
(0) Max Tx Power (dBm) 20 20 20 46 46 46 46
(1) Power in Channel
Bandwidth (dBm)
20 20 20 32 36.8 36.8 36.8
RECEIVER
(2) Thermal Noise Density
(dBm/Hz)
-174 -174 -174 -174 -174 -174 -174
(3) Receiver Noise Figure (dB) 5 5 5 9 9 9 9
(5) Occupied Channel
Bandwidth (Hz)
180,000 1,080,000 360,000 360,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 1,080,000
(6) Effective Noise Power
= (2) + (3) + 10log((5))
-116.4 -108.7 -113.4 -109.4 -104.7 -104.7 -104.7
(7) Required SNR (dB) -7.8 -10 -4.3 0 -3.5 -3.8 -0.7
(8) Receiver Sensitivity
= (6) + (7) (dBm)
-124.2 -118.7 -117.7 -109.4 -108.2 -108.5 -105.4
(9) Baseline MCL
= (1) - (8) (dB)
144.2 138.7 137.7 141.4 145.0 145.3 142.2
Required Gain 11.5 17.0 18.0 14.3 10.7 10.4 13.5
Target MCL 155.7 155.7 155.7 155.7 155.7 155.7 155.7
Table 3: MCL calculation using conservative NF assumptions with 20 dbm Power Class UE
Note: the baseline reference data rate used in TR 36.888 for the PUSCH and PDSCH MCL
calculation was 20 kbps using a transport block size (TBS) of 72 bits with 2 physical resource
blocks (PRB).
The gain required to reach the target MCL is different for each channel, where the largest gain is
required for the PUSCH at 18 dB, and thus the 3GPP gain target was 18 dB.
KEY FINDING
The LTE-M 3GPP
coverage gain target
was 18 dB.
White Paper
7 of 20

4.2 MCL TARGETS USING LESS CONSERVATIVE NOISE FIGURES AND
23 dBm UE
Most of the recent Low power wide area (LPWA) 3GPP coverage analyses have been using less
conservative noise figures from TR 45.820 [7] for calculating MCL (e.g. for NB-IoT and EC-GSM-
IoT). TR 45.820 is a 3GPP study item technical report documenting assumptions and findings
on the cellular support of low complexity IoT devices. It reported the MCL supported by NB-IoT
and EC-GSM-IoT, but the assumptions are equally applicable to LTE-M, thus for the remainder
of this white paper, the noise figures in [7] are used. The following (Table 4) shows the updated
targeted MCL when less conservative NFs from [6] and a 23 dBm Power Class 3 UE are
assumed:
PHYSICAL CHANNEL
NAME
PUCCH PRACH PUSCH PDSCH PBCH SCH MPDCCH
TRANSMITTER
(0) Max Tx Power (dBm) 23 23 23 46 46 46 46
(1) Power in Channel
Bandwidth (dBm)
23 23 23 32 36.8 36.8 36.8
RECEIVER
(2) Thermal Noise Density
(dBm/Hz)
-174 -174 -174 -174 -174 -174 -174
(3) Receiver Noise Figure (dB) 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
(5) Occupied Channel
Bandwidth (Hz)
180,000 1,080,000 360,000 360,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 1,080,000
(6) Effective Noise Power
= (2) + (3) + 10log((5))
-118.4 -110.7 -115.4 -113.4 -108.7 -108.7 -108.7
(7) Required SNR (dB) -7.8 -10 -4.3 0 -3.5 -3.8 -0.7
(8) Receiver Sensitivity
= (6) + (7) (dBm)
-126.2 -120.7 -119.7 -113.4 -112.2 -112.5 -109.4
(9) Baseline MCL
= (1) - (8) (dB)
149.2 143.7 142.7 145.4 149.0 149.3 146.2
Required Gain 11.5 17.0 18.0 14.3 10.7 10.4 13.5
Target MCL 160.7 160.7 160.7 159.7 159.7 159.7 159.7
The input values that changed compared to the table in Section 4.1 have been
highlighted. As can be seen, changing the UE PA power from 20 to 23 and changing
the noise figures, the MCL targets and MCL baselines have now changed when the
required gains are kept the same. Using less conservative NFs from TR 45.820, the
baseline MCL changed from 137.7 dB to 142.7 dB. Using both less conservative NFs
from TR 45.820 and assuming a 23 dBm Power Class 3 UE, the LTE-M targeted MCL is
160.7 dB for the uplink and 159.7 dB for the downlink.
Table 4: MCL calculation using less conservative NF assumptions with 23 dBm Power Class 3 UE
KEY FINDING
Using less
conserverative NFs
with a 23 dBm UE, the
target MCL changed
from 155.7 dB to
160.7 dB.
White Paper
8 of 20

5 LTE-M Coverage Enhancement Mode A and B
The LTE-M specification has defined two Coverage Enhancement Modes: Mode A and Mode B.
The main difference is that Coverage Enhancement Mode A supports only moderate coverage
enhancements whereas Mode B supports very deep coverage. Coverage Enhancement Mode
A is a mandatory feature for CAT-M1 whereas Coverage Enhancement Mode B is an optional
feature. This paper analyses the coverage performance for Mode B.
To support the different levels of coverage, Mode A and B support different maximum number
of repetitions. Table 5 (below) shows those maximums [4, 5]:
Another difference is that there are some functions/features which are only supported in Mode
A such as connected mode mobility, 8 hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes, and
several transmission modes (TMs). The Coverage Enhancement Mode only applies when the
UE is in the Radio Resource Control (RRC) connected state. Mainly based on UEs’ periodically
reported signal quality, the eNB decides which coverage enhancement mode the UE should be
in. In general, the eNB keeps the UE in Coverage Enhancement Mode A unless the UE is in very
poor coverage.
6 Coverage Techniques
The following section provides background information and technical insights into many of the
techniques used to provide the coverage enhancement for the LTE-M specification.
6.1 TX POWER
For every dB the TX power is increased, there is a 1 dB increase in MCL. As mentioned in the
MCL section, LTE-M supports two UE Power Classes of PA; Class 3 PA 23 dBm, and Class 5
PA 20 dBm, so a Class 3 UE would have a 3 dB better UL MCL. Although increasing UE TX
power above 23 dBm sounds like an easy method to gain coverage, there are several issues in
doing so – increased cost, regulatory issues (e.g. specific absorption limits), increased inter-cell
interference, and peak current issues. In fact, for IoT devices the trend is to lower the TX power
to make the PA more practical to be integrated and thus reduce the cost. This is why the 20
dBm Class 5 UE was added as part of the LTE-M work.
LTE-M
CHANNEL
MODE A
REPETITIONS
MODE B
REPETITIONS
PSS/SSS 1 1
PBCH 1* 5
MPDCCH 16* 256
PDSCH 32 2048
PUSCH 32 2048
PUCCH 8 32
PRACH 32* 128
Table 5: Maximum number of repetitions for Mode A and Mode B
FACT
To support the
different levels of
coverage, Mode A and
B support different
maximum numbers of
repetitions.
FACT
CAT-M1 supports two
UE Power classes: 23
dBm Class 3 and 20
dBm Class 5.
* Practical values
White Paper
9 of 20

6.2 REPETITION
Repetition is the most common technique used by all LPWAs to improve coverage. Generally,
there is a linear relationship between repetition and gain (e.g. double the repetitions results in
3 dB coverage gain). This however only holds true if the UE or eNB can obtain accurate channel
estimations and frequency tracking and other low level functions (more on this later in sections
6.3 and 6.6) which is often not the case. The major downside to repetition is that it slows down
the transmission linearly (e.g. double the repetitions, halves the speed/doubles the latency).
6.3 CROSS SUBFRAME & CROSS PRB CHANNEL ESTIMATION
As mentioned above, repetition only provides linear gain if the UE or eNB can obtain good
estimates of the channel. Accurate channel estimation starts to become a dominant issue
at the lower SNRs (i.e. when more than ~12 dB of coverage gain is required). Using cross
subframe (SF) and cross PRB (physical resource block) channel estimation was found to be a
very effective method to improve channel estimation (see [8, 16, 17, 22]) and thus coverage.
During the LTE-M standardization, it was assumed that the deep coverage enhancement mode
(i.e. Coverage Enhancement Mode B) would mainly be used to overcome the large losses due
to in-building penetration (e.g. reaching meters in basements). As such, slow moving mobile
channels (e.g. ETU 1 Hz, and EPA 1 Hz) were used where the channel does not vary quickly in
time or frequency, which allows the use of cross SF and cross PRB channel estimation. When
the UE is moving quickly, the channel changes rapidly limiting the number of SFs and PRBs
which can be used.
6.4 MULTI-SUBFRAME FREQUENCY HOPPING
Given that an LTE-M UE’s maximum channel bandwidth (1.08 MHz) is typically smaller than
the LTE system bandwidth (e.g. 10 MHz), frequency hopping was specified to provide some
frequency diversity (see [18, 19, 20]). Unlike other frequency hopping techniques in LTE, the
LTE-M frequency hopping allows cross subframe channel estimation to still be used by the UE
and eNB because the hopping occurs across multiple subframes.
6.5 REDUNDANCY VERSION (RV) CYCLING
It was found that it was more spectrally efficient to send larger transport blocks (e.g. 1000bits)
versus fragmenting and sending small transport blocks (see [9, 15] for details) due to the CRC
and media access control (MAC) and radio link control (RLC) header overhead. The issue was that
the coding rate is not sufficient to support larger transport blocks, especially in the UL in Mode
B, when only 1 or 2 PRBs are allocated. Cycling redundancy versions across different subframes
improves the coding rate which allows the support for larger transport blocks when only 1 or 2
PRBs are allocated.
6.6 USING SAME RV AND SCRAMBLING FOR SEVERAL SF
The degree of cross subframe channel estimation that can be used mainly depends on the
ability to minimise any residual frequency error, so the LTE-M standard made some changes
to allow the eNB and UE to better minimize residual frequency error. It was determined that if
the contents of the SF are exactly the same for several SF, this allows the UE and eNB to apply
a differential phase detection algorithm on the data, allowing the data to be used for frequency
offset correction, in addition to the cell-specific reference signals (CRS) (see section 4 of [10] for
more details). In addition, this allows the option for the UE and eNB to do I/Q combining which
can also improve decoding performance.
FACT
Repetition is the most
common technique
used by all LPWAs
to improve coverage
where doubling the
repetitions results in
~3 dB coverage gain
but half the speed.
FACT
Accurate channel
estimation
starts to become
a dominant issue
at the lower SNRs.
White Paper
10 of 20

6.7 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY (PSD) BOOSTING
PSD boosting is an eNB implementation technique that can be used to improve DL coverage.
The eNB will reduce the power applied to certain PRBs which it can then use to boost the
power in the other targeted PRBs. If a user is allocated the reduced power PRBs, that user will
experience a reduced data rate (see [21]). For LTE-M, the generally accepted maximum amount
of PSD boosting possible is 4 dB. PSD boosting can be applied specifically to a channel (e.g.
PSS/SSS/PBCH) or to a specific user’s data in the PDSCH. However, it should be noted that the
coverage analysis done in this paper does not assume any PSD boosting.
7 Coverage Analysis
To determine the practical coverage that the Release 13 LTE-M specification can support, an
LLS analysis of every LTE-M channel was conducted. Every channel was analysed to find the
maximum possible coverage for each channel so that the channel with the lowest maximum
coverage could be identified which would set the overall realistic coverage expectation for the
LTE-M specification. For consistency, the simulation assumptions across the different channels
are common and based on the simulation assumptions used in TR 45.820, as shown in table 6
below:
KEY ACTIVITY
To determine LTE-M
coverage, simulation
analysis of every
channel was
conducted.
KEY TENET
For consistency, the
simulation assump-
tions across the
different channels are
common.
PARAMETER PSS/SSS PBCH MPDCCH PDSCH PUSCH PUCCH PRACH
System bandwidth 10 MHz
Configuration FDD
Carrier frequency 2 GHz
Antenna configuration 2x1, low correlation 1x2, low correlation
Channel model ETU 1 Hz
Number of RBs N/A N/A 6 6 1 1 6
Transmission mode N/A N/A
Random
Beam - Forming
TM2 TM1 N/A N/A
Frequency tracking error 1 kHz 30 Hz 30 Hz 30 Hz 30 Hz 30 Hz 30 Hz
Channel estimation N/A
Cross SF and
Cross PRB
Cross SF
Cross SF and
Cross PRB
Cross SF Cross SF N/A
Frequency Hopping No No Yes - 16 SF
Performance Target
Acq. Time
versus SNR
0.1% false
Detection
Probability
Acq. Time
versus SNR
1% BLER
DCI Format
6-1B (18 bits)
Data Speed @
10%BLER
versus SNR
using TBS from
936 to 152
Data Speed @
10%BLER
versus SNR
using TBS from
504 to 175
10% and 1%
missed
probability,
1% false alarm
prob.
Format 1A
10% and 1%
missed
probability
0.1% false alarm
prob.
Format 0
Table 6: LLS Assumptions
The approved versions of the Release-13 LTE-M specifications [2,3,4,5] were used in
developing the simulations.
White Paper
11 of 20

7.1 PRIMARY SYNC SIGNAL (PSS) AND SECONDARY SYNC SIGNAL (SSS)
This section includes the LLS results for the PSS and SSS. For system acquisition, the PSS and
SSS are the first signals the UE needs to acquire. The PSS/SSS are used mainly to help the UE
acquire system timing, frequency offset, and the cell ID. Given that these are the initial signals
that the UE has to decode, the assumed residential frequency offset for this channel was set to
1 kHz versus a frequency tracking error of 30 Hz that was used for all the other channels. The
raw frequency error due to crystal inaccuracies can be larger than 1 kHz so the UE may need
to perform some initial coarse frequency offset algorithm or parallel PSS/SSS correlations with
different frequency errors (e.g. in steps of 2 kHz). Figure 1 (below) provides the acquisition time
versus SNR/MCL for the combined detection time for PSS and SSS:
As seen from Figure 1, the PSS/SSS can still be detected beyond 165.5 dB MCL but the
acquisition time gets longer which may not be suitable for some applications. The PSS/SSS
can be acquired by non-coherently combining many PSS/SSS copies thus in deep coverage the
amount of time required to acquire the PSS/SSS goes up. Due to this accumulation, the MCL
limit is not defined by BLER but by an acceptable acquisition time. Given that IoT applications
have different acquisition time requirements, this limit is subjective and somewhat arbitrary so
a maximum MCL is not specifically defined for this channel and instead the PSS/SSS acquisition
time is provided for many MCLs. As seen from the above Figure 1, at a 164 dB MCL, the average
(or 50th percentile) PSS/SSS acquisition time is only 240 ms and the 90th percentile acquisition
time is 850 ms which can be expected to meet most IoT application requirements.
The PSS/SSS detection method analysed used the combined PSS and SSS sequences for
correlation which is generally only computationally practical when the cell-ID is known. This
holds at resynchronization, which is by far the most common situation given that Coverage
Enhancement Mode B is intended for stationary/in-building scenarios. The longer acquisition
time that may occur at the rare exceptions of unknown Cell-ID due to movement or at initial UE
power on is not deemed to have a significant impact on power consumption or latency.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
AcquistionTime(miliseconds)
Average
75%'tile
90%'tile
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
SNR (dB) and MCL (dB)
>90%'tile 5 repetitions
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
90%'tile
0
32
64
96
128
160
192
224
256
MCL 154 MCL 156 MCL
SNR -8.5 SNR -10.5 SNR
MPDDCHRepeats
64
96
128
RACHRepeats
1% Missed Dete
10% Missed De
10
100
1000
10000
MCL 160
SNR -14
MCL 158
SNR -10.5
DataRate(bps)
Figure 1: PSS/SSS Acquisition Time versus SNR/MCL
KEY TENET
For the PSS/SSS,
the MCL limit is not
defined by an error
rate target but by an
acceptable acquisition
time which is a more
subjective measure.
KEY FINDING
At 164 dB MCL, the
average PSS/SSS
acquisition time is
240 ms and 90th
percentile acquisition
time is 850 ms which
can be expected to
meet most IoT
application
requirements.
White Paper
12 of 20

7.2 PHYSICAL BROADCAST CHANNEL (PBCH)
This section includes the LLS results for the Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH). In general,
after the PSS/SSS is acquired, the next step in the system acquisition process is to decode
the PBCH (which transports the master information block (MIB)). The PBCH has 24 bits of
information and a 16 bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC) and contains essential information
about the system time, the system bandwidth, and the new essential scheduling information
for LTE-M system information. The following (Figure 2) shows the acquisition time versus MCL/
SNR for a correlation decoder where the false detection rate is <0.01% (see [11] for details on
the correlation decoder):
The above results were obtained using 5 PBCH repetitions fully occupying SF#0 and SF#9,
which is the maximum supported in the LTE-M specification.
Like PSS/SSS, the PBCH coverage limit is not defined by a BLER target but is defined by a
more subjective acquisition time limit. As seen from Figure 2, the PBCH can still be detected
beyond 165.5 dB MCL but the acquisition time gets longer which may not be suitable for
some applications. At 164 dB MCL, the 90%’tile PBCH acquisition time is 240 ms using a PBCH
correlation decoder.
The above results are for a PBCH correlation decoder which works by correlating the received
rate matched symbols against possible transmitted PBCH symbols and then tests the multiple
hypotheses. The results shown above are for a re-acquisition scenario similar to what was
shown for the PSS/SSS which is by far the most common case. For the PBCH re-acquisition
scenario in general, only the system frame number (SFN), an 8 bit field, is unknown. For a cold
acquisition scenario, this PBCH correlation decoder may not be practical so a different PBCH
decoder may be used. The following (Figure 3) shows the results for the “Keep Trying” PBCH
decoder (see [12, 13]) which was also studied by 3GPP:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
75%'tile
90%'tile
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
90%'tile
0
32
64
96
128
160
192
224
256
MCL 154 MCL 156 MCL
SNR -8.5 SNR -10.5 SNR
MPDDCHRepeats
0
32
64
96
128
MCL 15
SNR -2
MCL 152
SNR -18.3
PRACHRepeats 1% Missed Dete
10% Missed De
10
100
1000
10000
MCL 160
SNR -14
MCL 158
SNR -10.5
DataRate(bps)
Figure 2: PBCH Acquisition Time versus SNR/MCL for Correlation Decoder
KEY FINDING
At 164 dB MCL, the
90%’tile PBCH acqui-
sition time is 240 ms
using a PBCH correla-
tion decoder.
White Paper
13 of 20

Although the acquisition times for the “Keep Trying” decoder are longer, it can also successfully
decode the PBCH at 164 dB MCL and unlike the PBCH Correlation decoder works in all
acquisition scenarios. A key finding is that the “Keep Trying” PBCH decoder can successfully
decode the PBCH at >164 dB MCL.
If shorter acquisition times are desired also for scenarios with unknown PBCH content, such
as power-on initial acquisition, it is possible to use a third type of decoder that is able to
accumulate soft values over several PBCH transmissions even when the SFN counter changes
its value. Such a decoder based on modified handling of branch and/or path metrics in the
Viterbi decoder was presented in [14].
7.3 MTC PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL (MPDCCH)
This section includes the LLS results for the MTC Physical Downlink Control Channel (MPDCCH).
The MPDCCH is a control channel which is used mainly to assign dedicated PDSCH/PUSCH
resources to the UE. The following (Figure 4) provides the 1% BLER versus SNR/MCL for the
various MPDCCH repetition levels:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
75%'tile
90%'tile
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
100
200
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Acquistion
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
32
64
96
128
MCL 156
SNR -22.3
MCL 152
SNR -18.3
PRACHRepeats
1% Missed Detectio
10% Missed Detect
10
100
1000
MCL 160
SNR -14.5
MCL 158
SNR -10.5
DataRate(bps)
Figure 3: PBCH Acquisition Time versus SNR/MCL for “Keep Trying” Decoder
KEY FINDING
Although the acquisi-
tion times are longer,
the “Keep Trying”
PBCH decoder can
successfully decode
the PBCH at >164 dB
MCL.
0
100
200
300
400
500
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
90%'tile
0
32
64
96
128
160
192
224
256
MCL 154 MCL 156 MCL 158 MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166 MCL 168
SNR -8.5 SNR -10.5 SNR -12.5 SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5 SNR -22.5
MPDDCHRepeats
100
1000
10000
DataRate(bps)
10
100
1000
10000DataRate(bps)
MCL 154 MCL 156 MCL 158
SNR -12.6 SNR -14.6 SNR -16.6
SNR
16
24
32
1% Missed Prob
10% Missed Pro
PUCCHRepeats
Figure 4: MPDCCH Repeats at 1% BLER versus SNR/MCL
White Paper
14 of 20

As seen from Figure 4, a maximum MCL of 166.3 dB is possible with 1% BLER when using 256
repeats. At 164 dB MCL, between 64 and 128 MPDCCH repeats are required. A key finding is
that 164 dB MCL can be supported using between 64 and 128 MPDCCH repetitions which is
below the possible 256 repetitions that the LTE-M standard allows.
7.4 PHYSICAL DOWNLINK SHARED CHANNEL (PDSCH)
This section includes the LLS results for the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH). The
PDSCH carries the DL user data. Instead of providing several BLER curves for various transport
block size (TBS) and repetition combinations, this section provides the data rate versus SNR/
MCL, as this measure has more intrinsic benefit for the reader. Also, supporting higher data
rates at high MCL values is the more challenging metric. For this reason, TR 45.820 had the
requirement to not only support an MCL of 164 dB but to provide a data rate of at least 160
bps at 164 dB MCL. The following (Figure 5) shows the data rate versus the SNR/MCL for the
PDSCH:
Note: The above physical layer data rate doesn’t include MAC/RLC/PDCP/IP header overhead or
scheduling delays.
Like PSS/SSS and PBCH, the maximum supported MCL is rather subjective because the
standard supports such high repetitions. The maximum supported MCL is obtained when
the highest number of repeats (2048) is used with a small TBS (152 bits), but this results in a
very slow 67 bps data rate which may not meet the application needs and may not meet the
spectral efficiency needs of the operator. As mentioned above, TR 45.820 had a requirement
to support 160 bps at MCL of 164 dB and as seen from the above graph the LTE-M PDSCH can
support a data rate of 1400 bps at an MCL of 164 dB which is 8.5X faster than the TR 45.820
requirement.
7.5 PHYSICAL RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL (PRACH)
This section includes the LLS results for the Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH). The
PRACH is an UL control channel mainly used by the UE to start a random access request. The
following (Figure 6) provides the 1% and 10% detection rates versus SNR/MCL with less than
0.1% false alarm probability for various PRACH repetition levels:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
75%'tile
90%'tile
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
90%'tile
0
32
64
96
128
160
192
224
256
MPDDCHRepeats
0
32
64
96
128
MCL 156 MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168
SNR -22.3 SNR -26.3 SNR -30.3 SNR -34.3
MCL 152
SNR -18.3
PRACHRepeats
1% Missed Detection
10% Missed Detection
10
100
1000
10000
MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168 MCL 172
SNR -14.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -22.5 SNR -26.5
MCL 158
SNR -10.5
DataRate(bps)
10
100
1000
10000
DataRate(bps)
MCL 154 MCL 156
SNR -12.6 SNR -14.6
0
8
16
24
32
M
SN
MCL 152
SNR -10.6
1
1
PUCCHRepeats
Figure 5: PDSCH data rate at 10% BLER versus the SNR/MCL
KEY FINDING
164 dB MCL can
be supported using
between 64 and 128
MPDCCH repetitions
which is below the
possible 256 repeti-
tions that the LTE-M
standard allows.
KEY FINDING
At 164 dB MCL, LTE-M
can support a down-
link data rate of 1400
bps which is well
beyond the TR 45.820
requirement of 160
bps.
White Paper
15 of 20

Given that LTE-M is designed for latency tolerant applications, the 10% missed PRACH detection
target is the applicable target and also used in TR 45.820 [7]. However, the missed detection
target is not specified and thus is up to network implementation. As seen from the above Figure
6, the maximum MCL of 165 dB is possible using 128 repeats. A key finding is that 164 dB MCL
can be supported using between 64-128 PRACH repeats.
7.6 PHYSICAL UPLINK SHARED CHANNEL (PUSCH)
This section includes the LLS results for the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). This
channel carries the UL user data. As with the PDSCH, instead of providing several BLER curves
for various TBS and repeat combinations, this section provides the data rate versus SNR/MCL.
The following (Figure 7) shows the PUSCH data rate versus the SNR/MCL:
Note: The above physical layer data rate doesn’t include MAC/RLC/PDCP/IP header overhead or
scheduling delays.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
Average
75%'tile
90%'tile
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166
A
SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5
0
32
64
96
128
MCL 156 MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168
SNR -22.3 SNR -26.3 SNR -30.3 SNR -34.3
MCL 152
SNR -18.3
PRACHRepeats
1% Missed Detection
10
100
MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168 MCL 172
SNR -14.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -22.5 SNR -26.5
MCL 158
SNR -10.5
DataRate
0
8
16
MCL 156
SNR -14.6
MCL 152
SNR -10.6
10% Miss
PUCCHR
Figure 6: PRACH Repetition versus SNR/MCL
KEY FINDING
164 dB MCL can be
supported using
between 64-128
PRACH repeats.
54 MCL 156 MCL 158 MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166 MCL 168
8.5 SNR -10.5 SNR -12.5 SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5 SNR -22.5
10
100
1000
10000
DataRate(bps)
8
16
24
32
1% Missed Prob.
10% Missed Prob.
PUCCHRepeats
Figure 7: PUCSH data rate at 10% BLER versus the SNR/MCL
White Paper
16 of 20

TR 45.820 has a requirement to support 160 bps at MCL of 164 dB and as seen from the
above graph the LTE-M PUSCH can support a data rate of 250 bps at an MCL of 164 dB
which is beyond the TR 45.820 requirement. Even greater coverage can be supported, with a
corresponding reduction in data rate.
7.7 PHYSICAL UPLINK CONTROL CHANNEL (PUCCH)
This section includes the LLS results for the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH). The
PUCCH is an UL control channel mainly used by the UE to send acknowledgements. The
following figure provides the 1% and 10% BLER rates versus SNR/MCL for various PUCCH
repetition levels:
As seen in Figure 8, a maximum MCL of 165.5 dB can be achieved at the target 10% PUCCH
missed detection rate (10% is the target used in TR 45.820 [7]). A key finding is that 164 dB
MCL can be supported using between 16-32 PUCCH repeats.
8 Summary
As mentioned above, the determination of the coverage is not simply a matter of looking at
block error rates. For some channels, it is more appropriate to measure against an application
level performance criterion so in this paper we also measured data speed and acquisition times.
Table 7 summarizes the performance results from the LLS evaluation at an MCL of 164 dB:
4 MCL 156 MCL 158 MCL 160 MCL 162 MCL 164 MCL 166 MCL 168
5 SNR -10.5 SNR -12.5 SNR -14.5 SNR -16.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -20.5 SNR -22.5
MCL 156 MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168
SNR -22.3 SNR -26.3 SNR -30.3 SNR -34.3
52
8.3
1% Missed Detection
MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168 MCL 172
SNR -14.5 SNR -18.5 SNR -22.5 SNR -26.5
8
.5
10
100
1000
10000
DataRate(bps)
0
8
16
24
32
MCL 156 MCL 160 MCL 164 MCL 168
SNR -14.6 SNR -18.6 SNR -22.6 SNR -26.6
MCL 152
SNR -10.6
1% Missed Prob.
10% Missed Prob.
PUCCHRepeats
Figure 8: PUCCH Repetition versus SNR
KEY FINDING
At 164 dB MCL, LTE-M
can support an uplink
data rate of 250 bps
which is beyond the
TR 45.820 require-
ment of 160 bps.
KEY FINDING
164 dB MCL can be
supported using
between 16-32
PUCCH repeats.
White Paper
17 of 20

As can be seen from Table 7, not only is LTE-M capable of operating at an MCL of 164 dB but
the performance in terms of data speed and acquisition time are very good. If the application
can tolerate lower speeds and longer acquisition times, an MCL of beyond 164 dB can also be
supported. The coverage balance of the LTE-M channels is also very good where there is at
least one more repetition level available in the standard for all the LTE-M control channels. A
key finding is that through LLS, all the LTE-M channels are well balanced and can realistically
support a 164 dB MCL.
As mentioned, coverage performance can be expressed in MCL or gain. As shown in section 4.2,
the baseline is at 142.7 dB MCL thus in terms of gain, considering that LTE-M supports 164 dB
MCL, LTE-M can realistically provide 21.3 dB of gain relative to Release 12 LTE which exceeds
the 18 dB target by 3.3 dB.
The key purpose of this paper was to determine the coverage provided by the LTE-M
specification through LLS but there are other key performances indicators that can be evaluated.
For example, battery life and the message delivery time at different MCL levels are additional
performance indicators which are important. This work can serve as a basis for further study of
those topics.
LTE-M
CHANNEL
MCL PERFORMANCE
MAX MODE B
REPEATS
PSS/SSS 164 dB Acquisition Time=850 ms (90th
%’tile) -
PBCH 164 dB Acquisition Time=240 ms (90th
%’tile) 5
MPDCCH 164 dB 99% detection using 128 repeats 256
PDSCH 164 dB 1400 bps using 512 repeats 2048
PUSCH 164 dB 250 bps using 1536 repeats 2048
PRACH 164 dB 90% detection using 64-128 Repeats 128
PUCCH 164 dB 90% detection using 16-32 Repeats 32
Table 7: Summary of Performance at 164 dB MCL
KEY FINDING
Through LLS, all the
LTE-M channels are
well balanced and can
realistically support
164 dB MCL.
KEY FINDING
LTE-M can realistically
provide 21.3 dB of
gain which exceeds
the 18 dB 3GPP target
by 3.3 dB.
White Paper
18 of 20

9 References
The references are provided to offer the reader more detailed information on the coverage techniques and decoder types
mentioned in this paper. These papers may also include simulation results but since the simulation assumption are not the
same as this paper, the simulation result from these references are not comparable to those in this paper.
[1] RP-150492, “3GPP Work Item on Further LTE Physical Layer Enhancements for MTC”
[2] TS 36.211 V13.2.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical channels and modulation”
[3] TS 36.212 V13.2.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Multiplexing and channel coding”
[4] TS 36.213 V13.2.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer procedures”
[5] TS 36.331 V13.3.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification”
[6] TR 36.888 V12.0.0, “Study on provision of low-cost Machine-Type Communications (MTC) User Equipments (UEs) based on LTE”
[7] TR 45.820 V13.1.0, “Cellular system support for ultra-low complexity and low throughput Internet of Things (CIoT)”
[8] R1-150759, Sierra Wireless, ”PUSCH simulation Summary for Rel-13 LC UEs”
[9] R1-157880, Sierra Wireless, “PUSCH Performance for 1000-bit TBS”
[10] R1-157179, Sierra Wireless, “PUSCH RV Cycle Performance and Discussion”
[11] R1-132743, Sierra Wireless, “Further results for PBCH Correlation Decoder for MTC Coverage Improvement”
[12] R1-132908, Sierra Wireless, “An Analysis of Repetition and “Keep Trying” PBCH Decoding Methods”
[13] R1-134145, Sierra Wireless, ”Additional Single Receiver Performance Results for the “Keep Trying” PBCH decoding method”
[14] R1-152190, Ericsson, “PBCH repetition for MTC”
[15] R1-157854 Ericsson, “Bundle sizes for MTC”
[16] R1-154845, Sony, “Summary of Simulation Results for M-PDCCH”
[17] R1-154211, Sony, “Cross PRB Channel Estimation for M-PDCCH”
[18] R1-152281, Nokia Networks, “Summary of PDSCH Simulation Results”
[19] R1-152282, Nokia Networks, “Summary of PRACH Simulation Results”
[20] R1-152289, Sony, “Summary of Simulation Results for Physical Downlink Control Channel for MTC”
[21] R1-153580, Nokia Networks, “Summary of PDSCH and SIB/RAR/Paging Simulation Results”
[22] R1-151216, Ericsson, “PUSCH channel estimation aspects for MTC”
Coverage Analysis for LTE-M CAT-M1 Devices
White Paper

CONTACTS
Sierra Wireless Gus Vos (Editor) gvos@sierrawireless.com
Ericsson Johan Bergman johan.bergman@ericsson.com
Altair Yigal Bitran yigal@altair-semi.com
Sony Martin Beale martin.beale@sony.com
Virtuosys Mark Cannon mark.cannon@virtuosys.com
AT&T Robert Holden rholden@att.com
Verizon Yee Sin Chan yeesin.chan@verizonwireless.com
Sequans Ron Toledano rtoledano@sequans.com
Orange Ronan Le Bras ronan.lebras@orange.com
KDDI Toshiyasu Wakayama to-wakayama@kddi.com
Nokia Rapeepat Ratasuk rapeepat.ratasuk@nokia-bell-labs.com
NTT DOCOMO Naoto Okubo ookubona@nttdocomo.com
KT Corp Kyujin Park kyujin.park@kt.com
SoftBank Yosuke Akimoto yosuke.akimoto@g.softbank.co.jp
Telkomsel Tronic Haholongan Siregar tronic_h_siregar@telkomsel.co.id
SK Telecom Sangmin Lee lesam821@sk.com
Sierra Wireless is a registered trademark of Sierra Wireless Inc.
Ericsson is a trademark or registered trademark of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
Altair is a trademark of Altair Semiconductor Limited.
SONY is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation.
Virtuosys is a trademark of Virtuosys Limited.
AT&T is a trademark of AT&T Intellectual Property or AT&T affiliated company (“AT&T Marks”).
Verizon is a registered trademark of Verizon.
Sequans is a trademark of Sequans Communications SA.
The name ORANGE and the logo ORANGE displayed in this paper are trademarks owned by Orange Brand Services Limited,
a company belonging to Orange.
KDDI is a trademark of KDDI Corporation.
Nokia is a registered trademark of Nokia Corporation.
NTT DOCOMO is a trademark of NTT DOCOMO, INC..
KT is trademark of KT Corporation.
SoftBank, SoftBank’s equivalent in Japanese and the SoftBank logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of SoftBank Group Corp. in Japan and other countries.
Telkomsel is trademark of PT Telekomunikasi Selular.
SK Telecom is a trademark of SK Telecom Corporation.
All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.
Coverage Analysis for LTE-M CAT-M1 Devices
White Paper

Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1 (20)

Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1