Voice Service in an LTE Network- CSFB
Alberto Teković 1, Ivan Pešut 2, Zlatan Morić 2
1
Vipnet d.o.o, Vrtni put 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
University College Algebra, Ilica 242, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
a.tekovic@vipnet.hr
Abstract – Long Term Evolution technology supports only packet
based services. All connections between mobile terminal and core
network are end-to-end IP connections. Therefore voice call
service as the most important circuit switch service will be
replaced with Voice Over LTE technology. Although the final
goal is clear, the transition path to Voice Over LTE technology is
still subject of discussion and various solutions are planned or
already implemented by various mobile operators. This paper is
comparing different ways of current handling the voice traffic in
LTE networks and provides the measurement results for one of
the methods (Circuit Switch Fallback).
Keywords – CS fallback, CSFB, IMS, IP Multimedia Subsystem,
LTE, OTT, Over the top, Simultaneous Voice and LTE, SVLTE,
Voice over LTE, VoLTE,
I. INTRODUCTION
Apart from the ever present aim to increase overall
efficiency of new mobile technologies LTE system was
primarily designed to anticipate the trend of exponentially
growing data traffic in mobile networks and easier integration
with already existing data networks that are predominantly
using Internet Protocol (IP).
The result is the first all-IP and Packed Switched-only (PS-
only) mobile technology. All connections between mobile
terminal and core network in LTE are end-to-end IP
connections and traditional Circuit Switched (CS) services are
not provided any more. It includes the most important CS
service of all which is Voice Call service.
Even with declining share Voice Call service is still major
source of revenue for mobile operators. Data traffic by its
volume has surpassed voice traffic in the most of the mobile
networks during the last several years. It is expected to reach
95 % by 2015 [1], but voice call service is still contributing
with more than 50 % of total revenues at the moment. This
advantage will change in favor of data traffic soon (next 3 to 5
years), however, considering the size of mobile industry, Voice
Call will stay in focus long enough after LTE networks pass
through all opened issues related to that service.
Before the comparison of different solutions currently used
to handle Voice Calls in LTE networks, two facts have to be
underlined:
1. LTE already has well defined Voice Call solution (called
Voice over LTE, or shortly VoLTE) and it was planned from
the beginning [2].
2. Even without VoLTE there are many third-party
applications that are providing acceptable solution for Voice
th
55 International Symposium ELMAR-2013, 25-27 September 2013, Zadar, Croatia
Call service in the form of various free VoIP software installed
on smartphones (Viber, Skype and others to be mentioned as
the most popular ones). Combined with LTE's data service
these applications are sufficient for many LTE customers.
However, both of these solutions carry some restrains.
The first one, VoLTE, requires IP Multimedia Subsystem
(IMS). IMS has been chosen as the architecture for voice and
multimedia communication services for LTE. Although IMS is
not new technology it has not been as widely adopted as
experts predicted years ago, when LTE was in drafts. It is so
due to cost and complexity of IMS [3]. This is the main reason
why VoLTE wasn't implemented as the first and only solution
for Voice Call service. It left operators coping with transitional
solutions where the re-use of existing equipment was the
imperative.
The second one, so called Over The Top (OTT) solution,
where third-party software is used for voice calls, would turn
the mobile operators to data-only providers (regarding LTE
networks), destroying the current business model where
relatively small amount of traffic (10 to 20%) generated by
voice service is still generating the most of the revenues, as
explained previously. This is unacceptable for mobile
operators. Additional details are given below in the section
about OTT.
II. CURRENT TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR VOICE SERVICE
IN LTE
There are 5 main solutions for Voice Call service in LTE:
x Simultaneous Voice and LTE (SV-LTE)
x Over the top (OTT)
x Voice over LTE via Generic Access (VoLGA)
x Circuit Switched Fall Back (CSFB)
x Voice over LTE (VoLTE)
A. Simultaneous Voice and LTE (SV-LTE)
SVLTE (Simultaneous Voice and LTE) is based on mobile
terminals that contain dual radio systems where one is used for
data traffic only, carried over LTE, while the second one is
used for CS voice calls on 2G/3G network. There are no
requirements on the network itself. Disadvantage of this
solution is high power consumption and increased (production)
cost of this kind of terminals. This method was implemented
by Verizon, but they plan to introduce VoLTE by the end of
2013 or early 2014. [4]
251
B. Over The Top Content (OTT)
OTT is a scenario in which telecom service provider
delivers one or more services across IP networks, usually the
internet. It is not limited to voice service on LTE but here it
will be mentioned in that context only. Some mobile operators
initially tried to block services like Skype, Viber, etc., but
quickly realized that the only way to compete it is to offer
better-quality alternative solutions to the customers.
Single solution like VoLTE has one significant advantage
over the multiple alternative VoIP services: each customer
should have installed all applications used by its contacts and
to maintain the list of "who is using which application".
VoLTE would be common to all users in the network.
However, the longer it takes to implement VoLTE, the stronger
third party OTT VoIP services become.
C. Voice over LTE via Generic Access (VoLGA)
The VoLGA was based on the 3GPP Generic Access
Network (GAN). GAN provides a controller node - the GAN
controller (GANC) - inserted between the IP access network
and the 3GPP core network. The GAN provides an overlay
access between the terminal and the CS core without requiring
specific enhancements or support in the network it traverses.
This provides a terminal with a 'virtual' connection to the core
network already deployed by an operator. The terminal and
network thus reuse most of the existing mechanisms,
deployment and operational aspects. [5]. Although VoLGA
was a low-cost, low-risk approach for bringing their primary
revenue generating services (voice and SMS) to their upcoming
LTE access network deployments [6] VoLTE, quickly won
over a VoLGA, leaving just one operator (T-mobile) that used
it.
D. Circuit Switched Fall Back (CSFB)
3GPP has standardized the procedure for switching to 3G
network. It is called CS fallback (CSFB) as "fallback" to
"lower" technology. To provide CS services LTE reuses 2G/3G
infrastructure which is the most preferred solution from
business perspective because it relies on the technologies that
were already invested in and licensed for the years to come
using the existing and operational equipment.
CS Fallback works in a way that mobile terminal is
camping on LTE when MTC arrives via paging message.
Terminal is informed that network is calling for CS (voice call)
service and it switches to 3G where communication is
continued. Similar procedure takes place in the case of MOC.
Mobile terminal sends a CS fallback service request to the
MME which replies with handover command. Once the
procedure of handover to 3G is done the terminal continues
communication in 3G domain.
In more details, for an incoming CS Call, the UE is
registered to the CS core network in addition to MME. In the
case UE receives CS paging, or wants to initiate a mobile
originated CS Call, the UE indicates that the NAS: Ext-Service
Request message is for the CS fallback to MME. Than MME
indicates that S1: Initial Context Setup Request is for CS
Fallback (CSFB). Depending on the target system and the
capability of the target cell, eNodeB performs PS handover or
th
55 International Symposium ELMAR-2013, 25-27 September 2013, Zadar, Croatia
252
cell change order procedure and the UE starts the CS call setup
once it moves to target cell [7].
For CSFB functionality UE, MME, MSC and E-UTRAN
have to support additional functionalities while the most basic
requirement is overlapping of GERAN/UTRAN and E-
UTRAN coverage areas. Other requirements to network
elements are [3]:
UE has to support:
x Access to E-UTRAN/EPC as well as access to the
CS domain over GERAN and/or UTRAN
x Combined procedures for EPS/IMSI attach, update
and detach
x CS fallback and SMS procedures for using CS
domain services
MME
x Deriving a VLR number and LAI from the GUTI
received from the UE or from a default LAI
x Maintaining of SGs association towards
MSC/VLR for EPS/IMSI attached UE
x Initiating IMSI detach at EPS detach
x Initiating paging procedure towards eNodeB when
MSC pages the UE for CS services
x Support of SMS procedures
x Rejecting CS Fallback call request (e.g. due to
O&M reasons)
x Use of the LAI and a hash value from the IMSI to
determine the VLR number when multiple
MSC/VLRs serve the same LAI
MSC
x Maintaining SGs association towards MME for
EPS/IMSI attached UE
x Support of SMS procedures as provided in 3GPP
specification
E-UTRAN
x Forwarding paging request and SMS to the UE
x Directing the UE to the target CS capable cell
At MME - MSC Server interface a new protocol SGsAP
has to be added to support CS fallback. SGsAP protocol is
based on the BSSAP+. Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP) is used to transport SGsAP signaling messages.
A CS Fallback and IMS capable UE would follow the
procedures for domain selection for UE originating
session/calls according to 3GPP specification 23.221. If a UE
is configured to use SMS over IP services and it is registered to
IMS then it would send SMS over IMS, even if it is EPS/IMSI
attached.
 The home operator has option to activate/deactivate the UE
configuration to use SMS over IP by means of device
management in order to allow alignment with HPLMN support
of SMS over IP.
When UE performs CS fallback procedure for Mobile
Originating Call for the purpose of emergency call, it needs to
indicate to the MME that this CS fallback request is for
emergency purpose. MME also indicates to the E-UTRAN via
the appropriate S1-AP message that this CS fallback procedure
is for emergency purpose.
While CSFB is offering easy provision of voice terminals
for LTE networks and lower investments in equipment there
are also drawbacks that come with this method. Some of them
to mention are:
x increased call setup latency
x problem of required 2G/3G signal coverage
x data session drops
A. Increased call setup latency
One of the undesired effects of CSFB is additional time
needed to set up a call. Call set-up latency is very important
factor in user's experience of service quality during the phone
calls. Apart from the set-up time itself, problem is the step back
that has been taken with CSFB where this parameter is
deteriorated in comparison to the previous user's experience.
Once accustomed to some level of quality it is hard to "go
back", especially with the tag of "new technology" where the
expectations are quite the opposite. More details and
measurement results of CSFB call set-up latency has been
provided in the chapter III.
B. Problem of required 2G/3G signal coverage
Another problem is requirement of radio signal coverage
overlapping between 2G/3G and LTE networks. In many
countries LTE will use "digital dividend" band (700 to 800
MHz band) so expected propagation of LTE signal will be
better than 3G signal. There will be the areas with LTE signal
only. The same goes for LTE microcells – it will be
unreasonable to request 2G/3G coverage for all LTE microcells
just to have CSFB functionality. CSFB can also be the problem
for mobile operators that provide only LTE service. CSFB
requires them to provide 2G/3G service as well (national
roaming or their own).
C. Data session drops
Mobile terminals are not capable to maintain parallel
connections on LTE and 3G at the same time. It means that
every CS session will drop all active LTE data sessions when
the voice call takes place. This is probably the most critical
CSFB issue. Many applications can't be used if sudden
connection drop is guaranteed with each voice call.
III. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR CSFB
Performance measurement scope was to determine voice
call setup latency in 4G network having CSFB as a voice
service, to compare it with legacy 2G and 3G networks and to
th
55 International Symposium ELMAR-2013, 25-27 September 2013, Zadar, Croatia
analyze the magnitude of the influence to the end user
experience.
Measurements have been conducted in the commercial
mobile 2G/3G/4G networks, in the test location with excellent
radio conditions and enough capacity. This was to assure that
call setup delays aren't additionally increased by
retransmissions or some other functionality, typical for bad
coverage areas and capacity issue cases.
In order to measure call setup time figures for a typical user
behavior, two main test cases have been identified: Mobile
Originated Call (MOC) and MOC during active data session,
which is now a typical scenario for a smartphone user. In both
tests, called party (B side) was a fixed network number with an
automatic answering capability. Third test case has been
reserved for the worst case scenario in terms of call setup
latency, which is 4G to 4G voice call.
For every test case, 100 calls have been made, and average
figures have been calculated. Measurements have been
conducted on a Samsung Galaxy SIII LTE mobile phone, using
Nemo Handy measurement application (Anite Ltd.) due to its
capability to create customized measurement scripts
(scenarios), and its automatic statistical evaluation report.
A. TEST 1 Mobile Originated Call
In this test, simple mobile originated voice call service has
been analyzed. According to the measurement results, call
setup latency is increased in 4G CSFB network for 35.1
percent compared to legacy 3G, and 8,7 percent compared to
legacy 2G network as shown in Fig 1. According to experience,
call setup time in a single mobile network can vary several
seconds, due to retransmissions caused by poor radio
conditions or capacity issues. Therefore, call setup latency
increase of 0.4s compared to 2G and 1.3s compared to 3G in
4G CSFB shouldn’t be treated as critical from the end user
experience perception.
Figure 1. Call Setup Latency for MOC
B. TEST 2 Mobile Originated Call during active data session
According to the latest research from Wireless Smartphone
Strategies, global smartphone shipments grew 36 percent
annually to reach 210 million units in the first quarter of 2013
[8]. Furthermore, typical smartphone user is “always on” in
order to track news headlines, follow social media, and
research products. Therefore it is important to analyze CSFB in
a typical smartphone user’s scenario of a voice call attempt
during an active data session.
253
 Therefore, in this second test the measurement terminal
performs PDP content activations, than starts an FTP download
session and during that download sessions starts a voice call. In
this scenario, every radio access technology needs to execute
different procedure steps:
x In the GSM system, with the arrival of the voice
call service request data connection gets
suspended until the voice call is ended, and then
reactivates again.
x In the UMTS system, with the arrival of the voice
call service request Radio Access Bearer (RAB)
reconfiguration occurs from data only RAB (HS
RAB in this case to) into multiRAB (voice+ HS
RAB).
x In the LTE system, data connection gets
suspended with the arrival of the voice call, and
then reestablished on the legacy 2G or 3G
networks, as explained in chapter II.
Comparing results from Fig. 1 and Fig 2. Between same
radio access technologies (RAT), significant call setup time
latency increase for 3G network can be noticed. This is due to
RAB reconfigurations procedure. For the 2G and LTE- CSFB
network figures are even better for 0.1s. Comparing results
from the Fig 2 between different RAT, it can be concluded that
absolute difference in call setup delay of 0.4s compared to 2G
and 0.3s compared to 3G in 4G CSFB has no significant
influence to the end user experience perception.
Figure 2. Call Setup Latency for MOC during active data session
C. TEST 3 mobile to mobile voice call
Last test scenario was reserved for the worst case in terms
of call setup latency, since now two mobile terminals need to
carry through CSFB procedure. For this test case, comparison
with mobile to mobile voice call in 2G and 3G network has
been performed.
As shown in Fig. 3, call setup latency is significantly
increased in comparison with previous test cases. Furthermore,
due to double CSFB procedure, the call setup latency increase
in 4G case, compared to 3G (2.1s), and 2G (1.1s) couldn’t be
classified as irrelevant.
th
55 International Symposium ELMAR-2013, 25-27 September 2013, Zadar, Croatia
254
Figure 3. Call Setup Latency for mobile to mobile voice calls
IV. CONCLUSION
From the results it can be concluded that from the user
perceptive point of view CSFB doesn't cause critical call setup
latency degradation, except for the mobile to mobile voice call
in a 4G network (double CSFB).
Problem with the data session drop can be also qualified as
non-critical, since the automatic data transfer reestablishment
occurs immediately after the fallback to legacy 2G/3G
network. Since the user is at that very moment „occupied“ with
the voice call service, in most of the cases he wouldn't notice
that data reestablishment occurred. However, mobile operator
has to take into account KPI degradation caused by CSFB.
Since the CSFB is not planned to be permanent voice call
service solution in a 4G network, issues related to the 2G/3G
system coverage are not likely to happen often. There aren’t
many 4G only operators, and macro strategy of upgrading
existing 2G/3G towers is often preferable 4G upgrade path. For
the operators that will decide to take different evolution path
like AT&T [9], CSFB as a voice service is not a preferable
solution.
REFERENCES
[1] O. Malik, “Mobile data is growing, but voice & sms slowing”, 2012.
available at: http://gigaom.com/2012/04/29/as-mobile-data-zooms-
voice-sms-revenues-slow/
[2] M. Poikselka; H. Holma; A. Toskala; J. Hongisto; J. Kallio, “Voice over
LTE VoLTE”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, United Kingdom, May2012.
[3] VoLTE Conference, Paris, 10 to 12 October 2012.
[4] T. Parker, “Verizon pushes back VoLTE service until 2014”, 2012.
available at: http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/verizon-
pushes-back-volte-service-until-2014/2012-10-11
[5] Agaur, “What next For VoLGA”, 2010., available at:
http://lteworld.org/blog/what-next-volga
[6] “VoLGA Overview”, available at: http://www.volga-
forum.com/overview.php
[7] H. Holma; A. Toskala, “LTE for UMTS OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based
Radio Access”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, United Kingdom, January 2010.
[8] N. Shah, “Global Smartphone Shipments Reach 210 Million Units in Q1
2013”, 2013., available at:
http://blogs.strategyanalytics.com/WSS/post/2013/04/26/Global-
Smartphone-Shipments-Reach-210-Million-Units-in-Q1-2013.aspx
[9] B.Smith, “AT&T's Project VIP On Track - Small Cells and DAS”,
2013., availabla at: http://www.convergedigest.com/2013/05/at-project-
vip-on-track-small-cells-and.html