In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems

Eva Lagunas; Hayder Al-Hraishawi; Jorge L. Gonzalez-Rios; Luis M. Garces-Socarras; Symeon Chatzinotas

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A software-defined-radio testbed shows that load-balancing PDU scheduling keeps satellite carrier-aggregation packet order near-ideal, including across GEO and MEO orbits.

desk verdict First real SDR testbed for satellite carrier aggregation, with a sensible LB scheduler that clearly beats RR, but the multi-orbit claim rests on a static delay assumption that needs more validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19439 v1 pith:TZCDJRNG submitted 2025-08-26 eess.SP

Jorge L. Gonzalez-Rios , Eva Lagunas , Hayder Al-Hraishawi , Luis M. Garces-Socarras , Symeon Chatzinotas This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords carrieraggregationsatellitecommunicationssoftware-definedradioPDUschedulingloadbalancingmulti-orbitGEO/MEOpacketorderingtestbed

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper describes an in-lab, software-defined-radio testbed for satellite carrier aggregation (CA) and reports measurements from it. The central claim is that a gateway-side load-balancing PDU scheduler, chosen from a look-up table keyed by a load-balancing factor α, restores near-ideal packet ordering at the receiver even when the two aggregated carriers have different bandwidths. In the α = 0.4 case, mean PDU misplacement drops from about 378 packets under round-robin to about 5. The paper further claims that multi-orbit CA—one carrier through GEO and one through MEO—is feasible if the scheduler prepends an initial burst of PDUs equal to the number that fit in the differential propagation delay. A reader should care because CA is a low-complexity way to meet peak demand in satellite networks, and this is a working implementation rather than a simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-balancing factor α = (C2·FR2)/(C1·FR1), a dimensionless ratio of the usable capacity on carrier 2 to that on carrier 1, is the central object. The scheduler uses α to select a PDU-to-carrier sequence from a precomputed look-up table. For multi-orbit CA, an initial prefix of PDUs is assigned to the faster MEO carrier, with length equal to the number of PDUs that can be transmitted during the GEO-minus-MEO differential propagation delay (about 188 ms in the example). The prefix plus the periodic α-sequence is the mechanism that keeps the receiver's FIFO buffer in order.

What would settle it

Repeat the MEO-GEO CA experiment while modulating the MEO trip-time sinusoidally with, say, a 1 s period and ±20 ms amplitude instead of the slow drift used here; if mean PDU misplacement grows well beyond the ~5 baseline, the fixed-average-prefix assumption is the cause. Alternatively, compute the required initial prefix for a 20 MHz carrier and test whether a single fixed prefix still yields ordered delivery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery, on its own terms, is that packet ordering is not a barrier to carrier aggregation in satellite links. At the gateway, incoming PDUs are mapped to carriers by a periodic sequence that mirrors the usable-capacity ratio α, and the receiver needs only a FIFO. With this scheduler, measured misplacement distances averaged close to 5 PDUs in an unbalanced two-carrier GEO configuration, versus roughly 378 for round-robin; across all tested α values, LB stayed under about 5.4 mean misplacement while RR degraded to nearly 440. For GEO+MEO operation, the paper adds a prefix to the sequence whose length is computed from the average differential trip time, and reports that the mult

Load-bearing premise

The scheduler treats the MEO propagation delay as a fixed average when computing the initial PDU sequence length (Section 4.1), while the testbed emulates a varying MEO trip-time; if the real delay varies faster or wider than assumed, the prefix is miscalibrated and packet reordering returns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the LB scheduling result holds generally, TCP can absorb the residual reordering instead of requiring a resequencing buffer at the receiver.
GEO+MEO carrier aggregation is usable for carriers around 5–7 MHz with a single fixed delay-compensation prefix, so pooling resources across different orbit types becomes practical.
Because all scheduling intelligence sits at the gateway, the user terminal stays a simple FIFO receiver, keeping terminal complexity and cost low.
Since CA does not add aggregate capacity, the practical offering is on-demand rate increase and congestion relief, not spectral efficiency gain.
The same testbed methodology can be extended to over-the-air systems with real channel dynamics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An unstated consequence is that the fixed-prefix approach will likely need adaptive delay estimation for lower orbits or wider carriers; the paper itself limits single-prefix validity to roughly 5–7 MHz bandwidths.
A natural extension is replacing the look-up table with on-the-fly sequence generation, which would scale to more than two carriers or rapidly changing modulation and coding schemes.
The small residual misplacement distances suggest that a modest resequencing buffer at the terminal could eliminate the remaining reordering, decoupling gateway design from strict delay-prefix accuracy.
If the testbed results transfer to real channels, satellite operators could treat CA as a fast, software-only tool for balancing load across transponders on different satellites without PHY-layer coordination.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, worth a look if you work on satellite resource management. The paper's actual contribution is a working in-lab SDR testbed for CA over two carriers, including the first multi-orbit (GEO+MEO) demonstration I know of. The LB scheduler, with a look-up table based on fill-rate ratio, is simple and practical. Their comparison to round-robin is stark: mean PDU misplacement around 5 with LB vs 378 with RR at α=0.4. That is a real result, reproduced across α values in Table 3. The gateway-side buffering and FIFO receiver design is a sensible way to keep the UT cheap.

The main soft spot is the multi-orbit delay compensation. The scheduler computes a fixed prefix based on an average MEO trip time (188.1 ms differential) and then sends that many PDUs first. The stress-test note is right that a real MEO pass has a delay swing of tens of milliseconds, which at their symbol rates is several PDUs. If the prefix is miscalibrated, reordering returns. The authors actually acknowledge this in Section 6: 'a single prefix works fine for carriers with BW around 5-7 MHz ... this depends on the BW of the carriers and the actual NGSO orbit.' So the claim 'validates feasibility' is stronger than the evidence. They only tested one geometry, short bursts, no statistics. No repeated runs, no confidence intervals; every number is a point estimate. That limits how much you can lean on the exact misplacement distances.

Another minor thing: the throughput results are all similar, so the only differentiator is ordering quality. Fine as a demo, but not a system-level evaluation.

Net: the testbed is a genuine engineering contribution and the LB vs RR comparison is convincing for the GEO case. The multi-orbit experiment is a proof-of-concept, not a feasibility proof. A serious referee should engage; the authors should be pushed to add repeated runs, vary the MEO delay within a pass, and either temper the conclusion or extend the test. I'd send it to peer review, with a request for more rigor.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an in-lab SDR-based carrier aggregation (CA) testbed for satellite communications, developed under the ESA CADSAT activity. The gateway uses a load-balancing PDU scheduler that selects one of two carriers according to a load-balancing factor alpha, implemented through a lookup table, and sends an initial prefix to the MEO carrier when aggregating GEO and MEO links to compensate for the differential propagation delay. The user terminal merges the two streams with a simple FIFO buffer. Experimental results compare round-robin (RR) and load-balancing (LB) scheduling for GEO-only, MEO-only, MEO-GEO, and GEO-MEO CA, reporting mean and maximum PDU misplacement distances. The central claim is that LB scheduling gives near-ideal packet ordering (mean misplacement ~5 PDUs at alpha=0.4) whereas RR degrades badly (mean misplacement ~378 PDUs), and that multi-orbit CA is feasible with the proposed fixed delay-compensation prefix.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a valuable experimental validation of satellite CA, which has mostly been studied theoretically. The explicit design of a gateway-side PDU scheduler with a lookup table, the physical calculation of the differential-delay prefix, and the inclusion of multi-orbit scenarios are useful contributions to the SatCom community. The LB-versus-RR comparison is a clear, practically relevant result. However, the multi-orbit feasibility claim rests on an assumption of a fixed average MEO delay, and the reported metrics are point estimates from a single campaign. These limitations, partly acknowledged in Section 6, mean the quantitative claims should be treated with caution until robustness is demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[§4.1, §5 (Fig. 4), §6] The multi-orbit feasibility claim rests on a fixed average MEO delay. The initial sequence length (38 PDUs) is computed from a constant 188.1 ms differential; yet the testbed emulates a varying MEO trip-time, and a real MEO pass can vary by ~33 ms, i.e. several PDU durations at the demonstrated parameters. The paper only reports one prefix setting for BW ≈ 5–7 MHz, and §6 concedes the result 'depends on the BW of the carriers and the actual NGSO orbit.' Please add a robustness analysis: quantify the maximum tolerable delay variation, test over longer emulated passes or multiple delay profiles, or substantially weaken the multi-orbit conclusion.
[§5, Table 3, Figures 3–4] All reported misplacement metrics are single-campaign point estimates. There are no repeat runs, standard deviations, or confidence intervals, so the magnitude of the LB advantage (e.g., mean 5.35 vs 378.53 at α=0.4) cannot be separated from run-to-run variability. Max misplacement in Fig. 4 is especially outlier-sensitive. Please report the number of repetitions and the dispersion, or at least the empirical distribution, for the key LB-versus-RR comparisons. This is needed to support the 'close to ideal' claim.

minor comments (5)

[§5, Testbed Results] In the carrier setup description, 'carrier 2 with BW1 = 2MHz' should read 'carrier 2 with BW2 = 2 MHz.'
[§4.1] The 'average propagation delay' used for the initial sequence length should be defined more precisely: specify the averaging interval and the expected delay variation for the assumed MEO orbit, since the testbed emulates a time-varying delay.
[Figure 3] The two bursts of 2,500 PDUs are noted in the text but not in the caption; state explicitly why the transmission was split into two bunches and whether the pause between them affects the reported ordering metrics.
[Table 3] Add units (PDU positions) and state the number of transmitted PDUs and, if available, the number of trials per configuration.
[References] Reference [18] is listed as ETSI TR 102 376-2; if the intended citation is the DVB-S2X standard, please cite EN 302 307-2 instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scheduler and prefix are design constructions, the results are experimental measurements, and self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are validated experimentally on an SDR testbed, not derived from a fitted model or from a self-citation chain. The load-balancing scheduler in Section 4 is a design construction: the PDU sequences in Table 2 are generated to realize the load-balancing factor α of Eq. (1), and the multi-orbit prefix in Section 4.1 is computed from orbital distances, DVB-S2 frame timing, and modulation/coding parameters. Neither quantity is fitted to the measured misplacement metric used in Section 5; the comparison against round-robin and across different α values is an independent performance evaluation. The only self-citations, e.g., refs. [8], [15], and [16], are peripheral prior simulation works and are not used to justify the current testbed results. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the limitation of the fixed-prefix assumption in Section 6, noting that it works for BW around 5-7 MHz and depends on the actual NGSO orbit, which further reduces any concern of a hidden circular validation. Thus, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, and no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DVB-S2/S2X protocols, a testbed constructed from USRPs and an emulator, and the assumption that the emulator and the average-delay model capture the real satellite channel sufficiently well. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption MEO propagation delay variation is slow and can be treated as a fixed average for scheduling.
Section 4.1 'we take an average propagation delay as the trip time to obtain the initial sequence length' and the assumption that the MEO orbit (approx. 8000 km) varies slowly. This underpins the multi-orbit prefix calculation.
domain assumption The in-house channel emulator faithfully reproduces satellite channel effects, including the varying MEO trip-time.
The testbed's validity depends on the emulator injecting representative noise and multi-orbit delays. This is stated in Section 3 but not validated against real satellite measurements.
domain assumption The fill-rate (FR) abstraction correctly represents the fraction of carrier capacity available to the user under multi-user operation.
FR is defined in Section 4 as an abstraction of other simultaneous users; the load-balancing factor alpha in Eq. (1) relies on FR values being accurate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZCDJRNG

@misc{pith2026250819439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZCDJRNG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19439}
}

read the original abstract

Carrier Aggregation (CA) is a technique used in 5G and previous cellular generations to temporarily increase the data rate of a specific user during peak demand periods or to reduce carrier congestion. CA is achieved by combining two or more carriers and providing a virtual, wider overall bandwidth to high-demand users of the system. CA was introduced in the 4G/LTE wireless era and has been proven effective in 5G as well, where it is said to play a significant role in efficient network capacity management. Given this success, the satellite communication (SatCom) community has put its attention into CA and the potential benefits it can bring in terms of better spectrum utilization and better meeting the user traffic demand. While the theoretical evaluation of CA for SatCom has already been presented in several works, this article presents the design and results obtained with an experimentation testbed based on Software Defined Radio (SDR) and a satellite channel emulator. We first present the detailed implementation design, which includes a Gateway (GW) module responsible for PDU-scheduling across the aggregated carriers, and a User Terminal (UT) module responsible for aggregating the multiple received streams. The second part of the article presents the experimental evaluation, including CA over a single Geostationary (GEO) satellite, CA over a single Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellite, and CA combining carriers sent over GEO and MEO satellites. A key contribution of this work is the explicit consideration of multi-orbit scenarios in the testbed design and validation. The testing results show promising benefits of CA over SatCom systems, motivating potential upcoming testing on over-the-air systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19439 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** illustrates the HW part of the testbed. Essentially, 2 x 2 Universal Software Radio Peripherals (USRPs) have been used to emulate the two pairs of carriers. Different USRPs are needed to emulate carriers of different bandwidths. Note that, while the synchronization between USRP-TX and USRP-RX is achieved with the conventional pilots of the Super-Frame (SF), there is no synchronization across the two carriers. The fu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Results regarding ordering of PDUs: Carrier 1 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overall comparison between CA scenarios: (Left) Maximum misplaced packet distance; (Cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

CA is achieved by combining two or more carriers and providing a virtual, wider overall bandwidth to high-demand users of the system

Abstract Carrier Aggregation (CA) is a technique used in 5G and previous cellular generations to temporarily increase the data rate of a specific user during peak demand periods or to reduce carrier congestion. CA is achieved by combining two or more carriers and providing a virtual, wider overall bandwidth to high-demand users of the system. CA was intro...

work page
[2]

In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems

Introduction Multi-path transmission is a long-standing topic in wireless communication [1]. Since its definition in 3GPP Release 10, carrier aggregation (CA) has become a key technology component in LTE and 5G cellular communication systems [2]. Its popularity has rapidly increased in network deployments pri- marily because of its ability to allow operat...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

Load Balancing and PDU Scheduling

Satellite carrier aggregation demonstrator description Figure 1 depicts the implementation scheme of the satellite CA demonstrator developed in this work. The testbed implements CA for a single User Terminal (UT) over two carrier frequencies (which may be in different bands, have different bandwidths, and operate on different modulation and coding schemes...

work page 2025
[4]

fill-rate

Load Balancing and PDU Scheduler A key component in the GW part of Figure 1 is the load balancing and PDU scheduler, which needs to decide to which carrier to send the incoming PDUs. This decision will have a strong impact on the way the packets are received at the UT side, potentially causing packet disordering issues. The goal is to design a PDU schedul...

work page 2025
[5]

In particular, we investigate the case of CA in two carriers with the same SNR (i.e

Testbed Results As first results, we show the performance of CA with Round Robin (RR) scheduling and with the pro- posed Load Balancing (LB) scheduling (Section 4) for a single user performing CA over two carriers, whose only difference is in the bandwidth. In particular, we investigate the case of CA in two carriers with the same SNR (i.e. SNR 1 = SNR2 =...

work page 2025
[6]

In particular, this work presents the SDR-based testbed built during the ESA CADSAT project and reports the relevant results achieved during the testing campaign

Conclusions and Remarks This paper analyzes the benefits of the CA technique applied to satellite communications systems. In particular, this work presents the SDR-based testbed built during the ESA CADSAT project and reports the relevant results achieved during the testing campaign. The learned take-home lessons are: • The CA with LB scheduling behaves s...

work page 2025
[7]

Li, M. et al. Multipath transmission for the internet: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & T utorials18, 2887–2925 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

& Kottkamp, M

Roessler, A. & Kottkamp, M. White Paper: LTE-Advanced (3GPP Rel.11) Technology Intro- duction. https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/ (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 24 references

[9]

& Vanelli-Coralli, A

Icolari, V., Cioni, S., Arapoglou, P ., Ginesi, A. & Vanelli-Coralli, A. Flexible precoding for mobile satellite system hot spots. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , 1–6 (2017)

2017
[10]

Kodheli, O. et al. Satellite Communications in the New Space Era: A Survey and Future Challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys T utorials 23, 70–109 (2021)

2021
[11]

Ha, V. N. et al. User-Centric Beam Selection and Precoding Design for Coordinated Multiple- Satellite Systems. In 2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) , 1–6 (2024)

2024
[12]

Eappen, G. et al. Optimal Linear Precoding Under Realistic Satellite Communications Sce- narios. IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular T echnology 6, 81–91 (2025)

2025
[13]

Marrero, L. M. et al. Accurate Phase Synchronization for Precoding-Enabled GEO Multibeam Satellite Systems. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society 5, 712–729 (2024)

2024
[14]

Gonz ´alez-Rios, J. L. et al. Doppler Shift in Precoded Cooperative Multi-Gateway Satellite Sys- tems: Effects and Mitigation. In 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 1–6 (2024)

2024
[15]

Singh, V. et al. Diversity Combining Scheme for Time-Varying STBC NGSO Multi-Satellite Systems. IEEE Communications Letters 28, 882–886 (2024)

2024
[16]

Rojas, C. L. M. et al. Time-Misalignment Estimation in Overlapped DVB-S2X Waveforms. In 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 1–6 (2024)

2024
[17]

& Gat, Y

Freedman, A., Rainish, D. & Gat, Y . Beam Hopping – How To Make it Possible. Ka and Broadband Communication Conference, Bologna, Italy (Oct. 2015)

2015
[18]

Aravanis, A. I. et al. Power allocation in multibeam satellite systems: A two-stage multi- objective optimization. IEEE T ransactions on Wireless Communications 14, 3171–3182 (2015)

2015
[19]

& Erl, S

Cocco, G., de Cola, T., Angelone, M., Katona, Z. & Erl, S. Radio resource management optimization of flexible satellite payloads for dvb-s2 systems. IEEE T ransactions on Broadcasting 64, 266–280 (2018)

2018
[20]

URL https: //artes.esa.int/projects/cadsat

ESA CADSAT Project: Carrier Aggregation in Satellite Communication Networks. URL https: //artes.esa.int/projects/cadsat
[21]

Kibria, M. et al. Carrier Aggregation in Multi-Beam Satellite Communications. IEEE Globe- Com, Hawaii, USA (Dec. 2019)

2019
[22]

Kibria, M. G. et al. Carrier aggregation in satellite communications: Impact and performance study. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society 1, 1390–1402 (2020)

2020
[23]

ETSI EN 302 307-1 V1.4.1

Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Second generation framing structure, channel coding and modulation systems for Broadcasting, Interactive Services, News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications; Part 1: DVB-S2 (2014). ETSI EN 302 307-1 V1.4.1

2014
[24]

ETSI TR 102 376-2 V1.2.1

Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Second generation framing structure, channel coding and modulation systems for Broadcasting, Interactive Services, News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications; Part 2: DVB-S2 Extensions (DVB-S2X) (2021). ETSI TR 102 376-2 V1.2.1

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

CA is achieved by combining two or more carriers and providing a virtual, wider overall bandwidth to high-demand users of the system

Abstract Carrier Aggregation (CA) is a technique used in 5G and previous cellular generations to temporarily increase the data rate of a specific user during peak demand periods or to reduce carrier congestion. CA is achieved by combining two or more carriers and providing a virtual, wider overall bandwidth to high-demand users of the system. CA was intro...

work page

[2] [2]

In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems

Introduction Multi-path transmission is a long-standing topic in wireless communication [1]. Since its definition in 3GPP Release 10, carrier aggregation (CA) has become a key technology component in LTE and 5G cellular communication systems [2]. Its popularity has rapidly increased in network deployments pri- marily because of its ability to allow operat...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Load Balancing and PDU Scheduling

Satellite carrier aggregation demonstrator description Figure 1 depicts the implementation scheme of the satellite CA demonstrator developed in this work. The testbed implements CA for a single User Terminal (UT) over two carrier frequencies (which may be in different bands, have different bandwidths, and operate on different modulation and coding schemes...

work page 2025

[4] [4]

fill-rate

Load Balancing and PDU Scheduler A key component in the GW part of Figure 1 is the load balancing and PDU scheduler, which needs to decide to which carrier to send the incoming PDUs. This decision will have a strong impact on the way the packets are received at the UT side, potentially causing packet disordering issues. The goal is to design a PDU schedul...

work page 2025

[5] [5]

In particular, we investigate the case of CA in two carriers with the same SNR (i.e

Testbed Results As first results, we show the performance of CA with Round Robin (RR) scheduling and with the pro- posed Load Balancing (LB) scheduling (Section 4) for a single user performing CA over two carriers, whose only difference is in the bandwidth. In particular, we investigate the case of CA in two carriers with the same SNR (i.e. SNR 1 = SNR2 =...

work page 2025

[6] [6]

In particular, this work presents the SDR-based testbed built during the ESA CADSAT project and reports the relevant results achieved during the testing campaign

Conclusions and Remarks This paper analyzes the benefits of the CA technique applied to satellite communications systems. In particular, this work presents the SDR-based testbed built during the ESA CADSAT project and reports the relevant results achieved during the testing campaign. The learned take-home lessons are: • The CA with LB scheduling behaves s...

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Li, M. et al. Multipath transmission for the internet: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & T utorials18, 2887–2925 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

& Kottkamp, M

Roessler, A. & Kottkamp, M. White Paper: LTE-Advanced (3GPP Rel.11) Technology Intro- duction. https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/ (2014)

work page 2014