Ultra-Long-Range Wireless Backhaul

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is seeking to develop new solutions to extend the range of wireless terrestrial backhaul links to reduce backbone infrastructure costs while providing robust and reliable high-speed communications meeting the needs of recently adopted Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications (CRTC) 50/10 broadband requirements.

Challenge sponsor: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)

Funding mechanism: Grant

Opening date: November 18, 2020
Closing date: December 16, 2020, 14:00 Eastern Standard Time

Prospective applicants should refer to the Grant Instructions and Procedures document.

Challenge

Problem statement

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of affordable and reliable high-speed Internet to allow all Canadians to participate in the digital economy. Bringing Internet connectivity to remote and rural communities remains a significant challenge given the wide areas and the low-population densities that have to be covered. Typical backbone infrastructure solutions like fibre optic networks, microwave links and satellite services are often uneconomical. Innovation, Science, and Economic Development's (ISED) Spectrum and Telecommunications Sector (STS) is seeking a technical solution to increase the achievable tower-to-tower distance in wireless terrestrial backhaul links – when compared to existing solutions – that would result in a significant reduction of the number of wireless hops required to reach remote communities. This may also enable new multi-hop paths based on locations where power and road access are available to service communications towers. The proposed solution must demonstrate innovations and developments beyond current state of the art technology, in one or more of the following areas:

path loss characterization and system design, including adaptive antenna design and/or waveform design to compensate for fading due to over-the-horizon transmission paths, antenna deflection, and other fading phenomena;
power amplification design to increase the achievable transmission power in the operating frequency range; or
any other areas and solutions which may contribute

Restrictions on frequency bands available for wireless backhaul in Canada may be loosened in underpopulated areas of the country, opening up opportunities for innovative approaches to deliver this service.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The solution must:

In Phase 1:

develop a complete system design, including full technical specifications and expected performance.
be based on system elements comprised of off-the-shelf commercially available components, and newly designed components, for which the approach, specifications, expected functionality and performance will be fully documented.
identify and propose radio spectrum for use in Canadian remote areas.
use theoretical modelling and/or simulations to assess and demonstrate the system performance of the proposed solution including a sensitivity study of primary design parameters (power, frequency band and bandwidth, other) to the key performance goals (range, throughput, latency, number of backhaul hops, other).
select a real deployment use case to connect to a remote site and demonstrate the estimated performance through analysis/simulation
demonstrate the feasibility and commercial viability of using radio spectrum to implement ultra-long-range wireless backhaul links (e.g., over-the-horizon ranges), to provide high backhaul throughput to support the low latency broadband access speeds to remote and rural communities

In Phase 2:

carry out a field trial of a functional prototype system as a proof-of-concept installation.
validate the performance of the deployed prototype system build and compare it with the theoretical expected performance.

Note: Applicants are reminded that under Section D, Question 1a (Scope) of the Phase 1 Proposal Submission Form, proposals must describe how solutions clearly meet all of the Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes listed in this section. However, applicants should focus their response to Question 5 (Phase 1 Project Plan) by elaborating a project plan that addresses Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes 1-6. Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes 7-8 can be addressed during Phase 2 work.

Additional outcomes

The solution should:

achieve a capacity of greater than 400 Mbps of user data over-the-air
achieve an aggregate spectral efficiency of at least 5 bps/Hz
achieve over 100 km per hop, for a given link reliability of at least 99.9%
achieve a latency of less than 25 milliseconds round trip

Background and context

Existing backhaul technology makes use of state-of-the-art modulation, coding and antenna configurations and processing, reflecting significant investment and technology validation in real scenarios. Despite that, current systems are limited. For example, current commercial off-the-shelf wireless backhaul solutions typically operate in microwave bands or higher (i.e., 4 GHz and above). The typical separation between hops is limited by the radio horizon, which corresponds to 50 to 80km, depending on various factors such as tower location and height. These microwave systems are also limited by various factors such as high propagation loss, high weather attenuation and limited transmission power. On the other hand, in remote areas of Canada where backhaul links are lacking, lower frequency bands, such as ultra high frequency (UHF) are available for backhaul transmission. These lower frequencies, especially the sub-1GHz frequencies, could have significant advantages over microwave frequencies including low line-of-sight (LOS) propagation path loss, signal penetration, non-LOS (NLOS) propagation, and robustness against fading.

A combination of approaches behind existing backhaul equipment, and a re-engineering to exploit favourable frequency bands and power amplifier equipment could be leveraged for their ability to deliver high throughput over long distances and their increased resilience in NLOS conditions while leveraging existing investment in chipsets and in RF components. This could help accelerate the development of cost-efficient equipment solutions.

Through its Connect to Innovate program, the Government of Canada is funding the deployment of backbone infrastructure to rural and remote communities. Innovative and cost-effective solutions resulting from this ISC challenge could help ISED achieve its connectivity objectives. Connecting remote and rural areas is not only a challenge in Canada. Several other countries around the world require solutions on that front. The major global digital companies such as Facebook, Google and Microsoft are deploying substantial efforts to increase connectivity and reach unconnected populations. Interesting commercial opportunities might arise.

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1:

The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $130,000.00 CAD
The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 6 months
Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 2

Phase 2:

The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $1,000,000 CAD
The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 24 months
- Note: Only eligible businesses that have completed Phase 1 could be considered for Phase 2.
Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated

Kick-off meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

Progress review meeting(s)

Teleconference/videoconference

Final review meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

All other communication can take place by telephone, videoconference, and WebEx.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

for profit
incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees^{Footnote *}
research and development activities that take place in Canada
50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in Canada^{Footnote *}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote *}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote *}

Evaluation criteria

The applicant must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all mandatory criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed solution and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass

The Applicant's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.
OR
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.
OR
There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass: The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 6 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail: The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (inclusive) including:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 7 or higher.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.

Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).

Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, proposals should include the following information:

Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria — Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR
The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

20 points/Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR
The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 50% to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes(if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants will receive 10 points.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Describe potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points

Question 6: Phase 1 Project Risks

Describe potential project risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants should address the following risks, as applicable:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Other project-related risks

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points

Question 8: Inclusivity

If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each Applicant in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided.5 points

Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Proposal

Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 15 points

Question 10: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points

Question 11: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate a realistic overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

key tasks
estimated cost for materials
human resources
project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points

Question 12: Commercialization Approach

Demonstrate a realistic overall commercialization approach/business model that can successfully take the technology/service to market, and how the technology/service will help you develop and sell other products.

Responses should include:

Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
Non-ISC funding sources
Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 12 points

Question 13: Resulting Benefits to Canada

Describe the benefits that could result from the commercialization of the proposed solution. Applicants should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:

Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations within your firm. Responses could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Responses could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, investment in Canada's economy, etc.
Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public to the degree that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Responses could include: solution-related environmental benefits, solution-related accessibility benefits, and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Innovation Benefits

Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points
Economic Benefits

Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points
Public Benefits.

Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@canada.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

A glossary is also available.

With regard to this proposal challenge Phase 1: We understand the intent of this challenge in providing a full breakdown of a solution for a long distance backhaul as described.

However, we believe that the added component of providing & demonstrating "commercially viability" of a 'specific set of points' (i.e. specific point-to-point communities) is an entirely separate analysis undertaking all it's own. This is what companies spend months trying to find the "needle-in-a-haystack" proposition, as one has to do extensive research on such an underserved community with enough population, then find an appropriate backhaul source, assessment of competition, costs, marketing, etc. We need to know if this is what you're asking for with 5 and 6.

We can provide the solution and 'general commercial viability', but the determination of commercial viability between 2 real proposed communities is outside the scope of merely 'the solution'. For example, if we use 2 points where tower heights are unusually high due to terrain and elevation of the chosen 2-site examples, we cannot defend the expenses of such a solution where we may not follow through with an actual deployment to those 'demonstration' sites.

Can you please clarify?

This innovation challenge looks for novel solutions in system design for broadband wireless backhaul solutions, possibly implementing latest cutting edge, or new purposely designed technologies, related to signal processing, active antenna design, electronics design and engineering, etc. to achieve breakthroughs beyond what is possible with current COTS solutions. The objective is to be able to develop systems enabling high capacity wireless backhaul solutions for very long distances, and/or between non-line-of-sight locations. Thus, to remove or reduce the current deployment constraints (extremely tall towers and/or high terrain locations in order to have line of sight) and reduce the number of hops between end points of presence, increase flexibility in field deployments, and in this way reducing the deployment costs and enabling terrestrial high capacity backhaul to more remote locations.

This is an innovation challenge on technology solutions, not on systems planning and deployment. If the applicant is successful in developing a technological solution as described above, a proof of concept field deployment needs to demonstrate its practical feasibility in the field. The intent of the requirement #6 is to demonstrate that the new solution would be able to achieve practical (i.e. commercially viable) solutions to service remote points that are not reachable by today's solutions. Commercial viability refers to ability to manufacture and deploy systems with reasonable capital costs, not to the long-term operation of such systems.

The example proposed in the inquiry would not necessarily meet the required objective: two very tall towers/ locations communicating at distance is the solution of choice for today's microwave backhaul systems. The proposed solution would have to demonstrate marked increases in systems gains, enabling communication ranges beyond what is currently possible, and/or additional flexibility in tower height and locations (i.e., with lower terrain elevation) for the end points.