Redefining Research: 186GB in An LTE Network - Been There, Done That (Part II)

Redefining Research
Volume 6, No. 4 March 12, 2010 Michael W. Thelander (510) 338 1284 mike@signalsresearch.com www.signalsresearch.com
Subscription information Signals Ahead is published 18 times per year and is only be available to our paid subscribers. For our corporate customers, we have established the following rate structure. Corporate rates Group license1 .......................... $3,995 Global license........................... $7,995 Platinum package2 .................. $9,495 Payment options To subscribe to Signals Ahead, please fill out the form on the last page of this issue and return it to us or contact us via email at sales@signalsresearch.com and we will respond to your inquiry. This process is also automated on our web site at www.signalsresearch.com. Once payment is received, we will notify you of your user account information. We accept checks and all major credit cards and can create an invoice upon request. Terms and conditions Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.
n the first part of our two-part issue on LTE network performance we presented our test methodology, which included the use of the Accuver XCAL LTE and XCAP LTE tools, and we identified eleven key findings based on a consolidated analysis of the performance in the two networks. We also included the detailed results for the LTE network in Stockholm. In part two of this special two-part edition we provide the detailed results for the LTE network in Oslo. Consistent with our approach in the first edition, we provide results for all of the test scenarios that we conducted. Further, we provide additional insight into some of the more interesting test scenarios, applying a consistent set of analytical tools and figures that we used in the Stockholm analysis. Following the presentation of the results for the Oslo network we provide some perspective on our experience in the worlds first commercial LTE network. In particular, we take a trip down memory lane to when we first started doing this type of activity and we discuss what these broadband data rates mean for the typical mobile data user. Finally, we include an appendix that contains figures, without analysis and commentary, for some of the test scenarios which we analyzed in more detail but which didnt find their way into the main report.
186GB in an LTE Network been there, done that (part II)

If you would like a high-resolution version of this issue, please contact us and we will ensure that you receive it. If you would like to purchase the raw data for your own analysis please contact us to discuss terms. If you havent done so already, please read the revised licensing terms which appears on the next page. plot of the test routes that we used. Thanks to the ring roads that circled the city we were able to fairly quickly cover a lot of territory. During our tests we covered 91.6 miles. Table 2 provides the complete set of results for the Oslo tests. Of note, some of the tests were done while simultaneously testing the Huawei test modem, thus there was an inherent impact to the throughput results that we achieved with the Samsung modem. Further, Huawei and Netcom were doing some test-
2 The platinum package includes five (5) hours of analyst time during the subscription period.
Up to five (5) unique users from the same corporation.
Detailed Results Oslo

The drive test in Oslo occurred on February 11 through February 12. Figure 30 provides a geo
ffective immediately, any unauthorized use of our research material will result in the non-refundable cancellation of your subscription. We also reserve the right to post your companys name, with logo, to the SRG Wall of Shame. If you received this issue from someone outside of your organization and it did not come directly from SRG then the licensing terms for our research are being violated. If you forward this research to external organizations, either in whole or in part, or if you share the contents of the report beyond the authorized allocation within your organization then the licensing terms for our research are being violated. If you value the information and insight that we provide then I strongly urge you to respect our hard work and livelihood and subscribe to our research. If you do not have a platinum license or a global license, you may want to upgrade your license so that you can share this issue across your entire organization with our blessing. If you or your organization is interested in distributing this report to outside organizations, please feel free to contact us to discuss licensing terms and fees. If you would like to leverage a figure or quote from this report and you have at least a global license, please contact us for permission and we will be happy to provide it.
ing in one of the clusters (Cluster 3) and this testing, which included altering some of the power levels for the control channels, artificially limited the number of available resource blocks to 52 versus the full 100 that would normally be available. The first two set of results (Oslo 1300 and Oslo 1740) were impacted by this testing as well as during brief periods with some of the other drive tests when we moved into and out of the cluster. We also note that for much of the testing, specifically the testing that occurred on February 12th, we used the FTP protocol instead of the UDP protocol. In order to compensate for the use of FTP we established multiple FTP sessions whenever possible. In the case of the DL/UL testing Oslo Pedestrian DL/UL Combined we only used a single thread. This may have had some impact on the results which were not as good as we would have expected. Setting aside these considerations, we would have expected even higher data rates than what we recorded, in particular given some of the relatively favorable CINR values that we observed. This finding as well as some of the reasons why this is true will become more apparent true when we look at some of the results in more detail.
Figure 30 .Oh the places we did go!

Vehicular and Pedestrian Speeds (Mph) 30 <= x < 50 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 20 12.5 <= x < 15 10 <= x < 12.5 7.5 <= x < 10 5 <= x < 7.5 2.5<=x5 0 <= x < 2.5
Geo plot of all Test Routes with Speed (mph) - Oslo
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC
March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4
3
Date/Time Transfer Size (MB) 4,138.4 2,739.2 2,914.7 27.82 1 18.02 1 38.7 35.9 9.5
2 2 2 2
Table 2. Oslo Results Summary

Transfer Time (min:sec) Avg Speed (mph) 15.2 9.6 12.0 55.26 1 49.94 1 80.7 84.4 40 40 64.5 76.7 81.9 78.4 75.7 76.9 78.1 30 2
3
No.
Scenario
Avg PHY Layer Throughput (Mbps) Avg CINR (dB) 15.1 16.2 14.6 5.6 14.9 13.0 13.5 15.5 15.2 13.6 15.1 13.3 14.4 15.6 11.7 12.1 56.8/29.6
3
Adjusted Avg PHY Layer Throughput (Mbps) Max PHY Layer Throughput (Mbps) Median CINR (dB) 16.5 17.0 17.0 6.0 17.0 13.0 13.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 18.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 -78.9 -69.6 -73.6 -75.9 -74.2 -78.0 -69.8 -71.0 -74.8 -67.5 -66.3 -71.4 -74.9 -77.4 -68.1 -65.9 -73.3 46.2 39.2 60.8 59.6 85.8 88.6 75.6 79.5 79.0 69.5 95.9 89.5 91.0 54.7 Avg RSSI (dBm) Avg RB Allocation 76.1 71.3 16.7 16.4
Median RB Allocation 52.0 44.0 60.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 92.0 100.0 96.0 84.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0
1 Feb 11: 1339 Feb 11: 1454 Feb 11: 1448 Feb 11: 1340 Feb 11: 1800 Feb 11: 1830
2 2
Oslo 1300 Drive Test 25:26 14:11 3:38 48:04 14:33 7:03 5:37 2:46 48:03 23:48 47:40 2:54 15:58 11:45 12:25 6:55
3
Feb 11: 1300 14.4 27.4 1 13.39 1 38.4 32.7 9.5 13.6 25.2 23.4 30.6 22.9 11.7 35.1 33.1 7.3 2 15.3/3.7 10.4 2 15.3/3.7 33.1 38.0 49.7 24.4 31.7 27.6 27.6 13.88
36:34
16.2
2 364.9 5,378.7 3,565.1 716.0 651.3 522.0 8,436.4 5,463.9 8,190.3 254.9 4,203.2 2,912.6 1,127.7 988.2 1.2 1.4 1.7 7.8 7.1 18.6 17.2 28.0 14.5 13.0 7.0 9.6 14.0 9.8
Oslo 1740 Drive Test
Cluster 3 & 4 Drive Test - Simultaneous
Cluster 3 & 4 Drive Test - Simultaneous
Cluster 4 Drive Test 1340
6 Feb 11: 1835 Feb 12: 0510 Feb 12: 0515 Feb 12: 0610 Feb 12: 0640 Feb 12: 0730 Feb 12: 0830 Feb 12: 10:00 Feb 12: 10:25 Feb 12: 10:15
Cluster 4 Drive Test 1800
Cluster 4 Drive Test 1830 - UL Only
Cluster 4 Drive Test 1835 - UL Only
Oslo Drive 0510
10
Oslo Drive 0515
11
Oslo Drive 0610
12
Oslo Drive 0640
13
Oslo Drive 0730
14
Oslo Drive 0830
15
Oslo Pedestrian
16
Oslo Pedestrian - UL Only
17
Oslo Pedestrian - DL/UL Combined
Simultaneous Testing with Huawei Device UL Data Rate DL/UL Data Rate
Figure 31. Oslo DL Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 29.8Mbps Avg BLER = 8.0 Median PHY Data Rate = 25.7Mbps Adjusted Median BLER = 7.0 Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 32.1Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 27.9Mbps 80-90Mbps 0.1% 100 DL PHY Throughput 7080Mbps 0-5Mbps 6.1% 60-70Mbps 4.1% 5-10Mbps 8.7% 8.6% 50-60Mbps 11.4%
80
60
10-15Mbps 10.0%
40 40-50Mbps 10.2% 20 30-40Mbps 12.1% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Mbps

15-20Mbps 10.6%
20-30Mbps 18.0%
Figure 31 provides additional insight into the distribution of the downlink PHY Layer data rates throughout the tests that took place in the Oslo network. The average downlink PHY Layer data rate was 29.8Mbps and the adjusted average data rate was 32.1Mbps. These calculations and the results presented in the figure exclude the test scenarios which involved simultaneous testing with the Huawei test modem and the Oslo 1300 and Oslo 1740 drive tests.
Figure 32 provides a geo plot of the downlink PHY Layer data rates. We note that the ring roads included frequent multikilometer length tunnels where we typically dropped the connection, not to mention lost the GPS signal. That said, the LTE signals carried much further into the tunnel than we had anticipated including one instance where we were 40 meters underground and at least a couple of turns away from seeing either end of the tunnel.
Figure 32. Oslo Vehicular and Pedestrian Modes Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps) 60 <= x < 90 50 <= x < 60 40 <= x < 50 30 <= x < 40 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 15 5 <= x < 10 0.25 <= x < 5
Figure 33. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
>10Mbps 74% of the time, >25Mbps for 16.39% of the time, >40Mbps for 4% of the time
Figure 34. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two
Geo plot of Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
Modulation Type 64QAM 16QAM QPSK
Modulation Type 64QAM 16QAM QPSK
Oslo 1300 Drive Test Results

For the more detailed analysis of the Oslo network we are going to start with the Oslo 1300 Drive Test (reference Figures 33-34 on the previous two pages). Figure 35 provides additional insight into the distribution of downlink PHY Layer data rates during this test scenario. Although there were some instances of data rates exceeding 70Mbps the average throughout the entire test scenario was 16.2Mbps. Based on the underlying data we determined that we only obtained a resource block allocation greater than 52 resource blocks for approximately 7% of the time recall the vendor testing that was taking place in one of the clusters. This fact goes a long way toward explaining why the achievable data rates were not higher than what we observed. Figure 36 provides some more insight into the results. Specifically, this figure and several subsequent figures focus on the data that was collected during the second half of the drive test. The variance in the throughput results can be explained by some additional insight into the number of resource blocks that were available. Between 1810 and 1844 seconds only 52RBs were available for allocation to the modem. Between 1845 and 1960 seconds 100RBs were available. For the duration of the
test scenario only 52RBs were available, with the exception of 1970-1971 seconds. We note that just because 100RBs were available, it doesnt necessarily mean that they were assigned to the modem. We discuss this issue in more detail in a forthcoming test scenario. Figure 37 provides a scatter plot of the downlink PHY Layer throughput versus CINR. The somewhat abnormal shape to the distribution is largely a function of the underlying number of resource blocks that were assigned with each data point. Still, we would have expected somewhat higher throughput results for some of the data points where only 52RBs were available given the associated high CINR values. Figure 38 provides a scatter plot of the CINR versus RSSI. In general the plot is quite clean, indicating little interference. This should be expected given that the network in at least some of the areas within this test had been optimized. Figure 39 provides a plot of the Serving Cell CINR versus the modulation scheme for the two antennas. The information presented in this figure focuses exclusively on the range between 1800-2000 seconds. The switch to 2TX SFBC at 1960 seconds (loss of Antenna 2 modulation) is consistent with the handover to a new cell a cell that was also only allocating no more than 52RBs.
Figure 35. Oslo 1300 Drive Test DL Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.2Mbps Avg RB Allocation = 46.2 Median PHY Data Rate = 14.2Mbps CDF Median RB Allocation = 52.0 Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.7Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 14.5Mbps 50-60Mbps 60-70Mbps 70-80Mbps 1.2% 40-50Mbps 0.6% 1.2% 0.9% 0-5Mbps 306.1% 40Mbps 3.6% 5-10Mbps 23.5%
100
DL PHY Layer Throughput
80
60
20-30Mbps 19.3%
40
20
15-20Mbps 21.2% 10-15Mbps 22.5%
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mbps
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80

DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1810 1860 100RB now available (1845-1960) 1910
DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots
Cell ID 300 Serving Cell ID 250 200 PHY Layer Throughput Only 52RB available (1810-1844) Only 52RB available 150 100 50 0 1960 2010 Seconds 2060 2110 2160 2210
DL Throughput (Mbps)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
CINR (dB)
30 25 20 15
Serving Cell CINR PHY Layer Throughput
10 5 0 -5 -10
1810
1860
1910
1960
2010 Seconds
2060
2110
2160
2210
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 1810
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
1860
1910
1960
2010 Seconds
2060
2110
2160
2210
Figure 37. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 20 25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5 -5 0 -10 -5 -10 CINR Figure 38. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two CINR versus RSSI (dB) Scatter Plot -100 CINR (dB) 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 DL Throughput (Mbps) 40 DL Throughput (Mbps) 50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80
OK OK
-10 RSSI (dBm) -10 RSSI (dBm) -5 -5 0 0 5 5
-90 -100 -80 -90 -70 -80 -60 -70 -50 -60 10 10 15 15
Great Great
20 20 25 25
Poor Poor
-40 -50 -40
Good Good

CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 1810 Modulation Antenna 2 1840 1860 Modulation Antenna 1
Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
Modulation Scheme 64QAM
16QAM Serving Cell CINR QPSK
1890
1910 (sec)
1940
1960
1990
2010
Figure 40. Oslo 0515 Drive Test geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
>10Mbps for 88% of the time; >25Mbps for 50% of the time; >40Mbps for 30% of the time
Oslo 0515 Drive Test Results

The Oslo 0515 Drive Test occurred early on a Friday morning. Figure 40 provides a geo plot of the downlink PHY Layer data rates. We attribute some of the dead spots to tunnels (not visible in the figure), areas where network coverage is still be rolled out, and one instance where it appears that we failed to start a new data transfer blame it on Lady GaGa. Figure 41 provides a geo plot of the CINR values. Note the instances where the CINR is very low or even negative in value, which is a good indication that the network is still be rolled out in these areas. Figure 42 provides additional insight into the distribution of downlink PHY Layer data rates. During this drive test the average data rate was 23.4Mbps and the adjusted average data rate was 27.6Mbps. Figure 43 provides additional information into the results. This figure and subsequent figures focus on the second half of the test scenario, or between 1000-1750 seconds. We theorize that at least some of the dropped calls was due to a thinlystretch network that is still being built out note the gradual declining of the CINR followed by the huge spike in the CINR value once the modem attaches to the next cell.
10
Figure 41. Oslo 0515 Drive Test geo plot of CINR Values
CINR Values (dB) 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 17.5 <= x < 20 15 <= x < 17.5 12.5 <= x < 15 10 <= x < 12.5 7.5 <= x < 10 0 <= x < 7.5 -5 <= x < 0 -15 <= x < -5
Figure 42. Oslo 0515 Drive Test DL Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate =23.4Mbps Avg RB Allocation =79.5 Median PHY Data Rate = 20.1Mbps CDF 100 DL PHY Layer Throughput Median RB Allocation = 100.0 Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 27.6Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 23.5Mbps 70-80Mbps 0.9% 60-70Mbps 5.4% 50-60Mbps 9.1% 40-50Mbps 7.7% 30-40Mbps 7.8% 0-5Mbps 25.5%
80
60
40
5-10Mbps 7.3% 10-15Mbps 7.7% 15-20Mbps 9.2%
20 20-30Mbps 19.4% 0
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Mbps
1 1

DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 Serving Cell ID
Cell ID 500 450 400 PHY Layer Throughput Erratic assigning of RBs (1330-1440) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 1,300 1,350 Seconds 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 0 1,750
DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 Seconds 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 1,750
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 Seconds 1,450 Top 2 Cell RSSI 1,500 1,550 Top 3 Cell RSSI
1,600
1,650
1,700
1,750
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
1 2
Figure 44. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 35 CINR (dB) 3035 2530 2025 15 20 1015 510 05 -5 0 -10 -5 -15-10 -15 CINR (dB) Figure 45. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot
-110 CINR (dB) -110 -100 -100 -90 -90 -80 -15 -10 -10 -5 -5 0 0 5 5 10 -80 -70 -70 -60 -60 -50 -40-50 -40
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 DL Throughput (Mbps) 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
80 80
90 90
OK OK
Great Great
15 20 15 20 25 25 30 30
35 35
RSSI (dBm) -15 RSSI (dBm)
10
Poor Poor
Good Good

CINR (dB) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 1000 1050 Modulation Antenna 1
16QAM
QPSK Serving Cell CINR 1100 Seconds 1150 Modulation Antenna 2 1200
13
Figure 47. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One

DL Throughput (Mbps) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 Serving Cell ID
Cell ID 500 450 PHY Layer Throughput 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 300 350 400 Seconds 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 0
DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Seconds 450 500 550 600 650 700 PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 750
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 1 50
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
100
150
200
250
300
350
400 Seconds
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
14
Figure 48. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 25 20 1520 15 10 5 10 05 0 -50 0 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 CINR Plot Figure 49. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One CINR versus RSSI Scatter(dB) CINR (dB) 10 10 20 20 30 40 50 50 60 60 70 70 80 80 DL Throughput (Mbps) 30 40 DL Throughput (Mbps)
OK OK
-15 RSSI (dBm) -15 RSSI (dBm) -10 -10 -5 -5 0 0 5 5
-100 -100 -90 -90 -80 10 -80 -70 10 -70 -60 -60 -50 15 15
Great Great
20 20 25 25
Poor Poor
-50 -40 -40
Good Good
Throughout this entire test scenario all of the cell sites had the ability to allocate 100RBs we werent in the area where the parameters had been altered as part of the vendor testing. However, there were numerous instances where the modem was being assigned far fewer than 100 or even 50RBs. For example, between 1330 and 1440 seconds the two cells that we were using only assigned an average of 44RBs with wide swings in the number of assigned RBs from 1 to 100 despite fairly
good CINR values. This phenomenon helps explain the low throughput in this portion of the figure, but we cant explain why the modem wasnt being assigned more resource blocks. Figure 44 provides a scatter plot of the downlink PHY Layer throughput versus CINR values. We believe that the vertical stacking of data points on the Y axis (positive CINR and no throughput) was due to our failure to start another file transfer. Figure 45 provides a scatter plot of the CINR values versus RSSI. Figure 46 provides a plot of the serving cell CINR versus the modulation schemes for the two antennas. The figure limits the range to 1000-1200 seconds. Figure 47 looks at the results from the first half of the Oslo 0515 Drive Test scenario. Throughout this portion of the drive test all of the cell sites had the ability to assign a full 100RBs. That said there was a strong correlation to the number of RBs March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4
15

CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 100 Modulation Antenna 1
16QAM
Serving Cell CINR Modulation Antenna 2 150 175 200 Seconds 225 250 275 300
QPSK
125

CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 500 525 550 575
Modulation Scheme Modulation Antenna 1 64QAM
16QAM
QPSK Serving Cell CINR Modulation Antenna 2 650 675 700 725 750
600
625
Seconds
assigned to the Samsung modem and the throughput with lower resource block assignments occurring when interference was higher, meaning that throughput was consequently lower than what it could have been. Further, as we will demonstrate in a bit, the results were achieved largely with the use of 2TX SFBC versus 2TX Open Loop SM. Figure 48 provides a scatter plot of the downlink PHY Layer throughput versus CINR. Lady GaGa is to blame for at least some of the stacking that occurs on the Y axis. Figure 49 provides a scatter plot of CINR values versus RSSI. This figure also highlights those areas where the RSSI was quite high, indicating an area where interference issues could exist.
Figure 50 and Figure 51 highlight two different sections of this test scenario. It should now be more apparent why the results are relatively low at the beginning of the test (1-260 seconds) before improving and then once again being quite good at the end of the test (500-750 seconds, less the region from 690-740 seconds)
16
Figure 52. Oslo Pedestrian geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
Figure 53. Oslo Pedestrian
Geo plot of MIMO Transmission Type
MIMO Type 2TX Open-loop SM
2TX SFBC
17
Figure 54. Oslo Pedestrian DL Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 33.1Mbps Median PHY Data Rate = 30.1Mbps Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 33.1Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 30.1Mbps CDF 100 DL PHY Layer Throughput Avg RB Allocation = 91.0 Median RB Allocation = 100.0
70-80Mbps 2.8% 0-5Mbps 4.3% 5-10Mbps 8.7%
80
60-70Mbps 7.5%
60
50-60Mbps 14.6%
10-15Mbps 13.6%
40 40-50Mbps 12.8% 15-20Mbps 6.0%
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mbps 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
30-40Mbps 12.3%
20-30Mbps 17.4%
Oslo Pedestrian Mode Test Results

We now turn to the pedestrian test that we conducted. Figure 52 provides a geo plot of the downlink PHY Layer data rates. Figure 53 provides a geo plot of the assigned MIMO transmission type during this test. Note that the region where there was low throughput (no higher than 15Mbps) is consistent with the region where Open Loop SM was not available. Figure 54 provides additional insight into the distribution of downlink PHY Layer data rates during this test. The average downlink PHY Layer data rate was 33.1Mbps.
Figure 55 sheds some additional insight into why some of the areas produced much higher throughput than other areas note the low CINR and potential interference from multiple cells between 250-400 seconds. Figure 56 provides a scatter plot of the downlink PHY Layer data rates versus CINR. The cluster of data points that are isolated from the main group stand out. In looking at the results these data points where there is low CINR (7dB) and high throughput (40-60Mbps) all occurred at the beginning of the log file. We suspect that these are erroneous values since in the log file the CINR jumps from 7 to the range of 15-20 immediately thereafter. Figure 57 provides a scatter plot of the CINR values versus RSSI. Finally, Figure 58 and Figure 59 provide plots of the Serving Cell CINR values versus modulation scheme. The absence of the second antenna reporting/using a modulation scheme between 300-425 seconds is consistent with the lower throughput in the region, just as the favorable reporting of the two antennas during the first 200+ seconds of the test is consistent with the higher throughput that we were observing.
18
Figure 55. Oslo Pedestrian

DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 50 100 150
Cell ID 500 450 Serving Cell ID 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 PHY Layer Throughput 200 250 300 350 Seconds 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 50 0
DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Seconds 400 450 500 550 600 650 PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 700
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Seconds 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI
19
Figure 56. Oslo Pedestrian DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 20 25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5 -5 0 -10 -5 -15 -10 -15 10 10 20 20 30 30 40 50 60 60 70 70 80 80 90 90
DL40 Throughput (Mbps) 50 DL Throughput (Mbps)
Figure 57. Oslo Pedestrian CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot OK OK

-15 RSSI (dBm) -15 RSSI (dBm) -10 -10 -5 -5 0 0 5
CINR (dB) -100 CINR (dB) -100 -90 -90 -80 10 -80 -70 10 -70 -60 -60 -50 15 15 20 20 25 25
Great Great
Poor
-50 -40
Good Good
-40
Poor
Figure 58. Oslo Pedestrian Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 300 350 400 450 seconds 500 550 600
Modulation Scheme 64QAM Serving Cell CINR Modulation Antenna 1 16QAM
QPSK Modulation Antenna 2
20
Figure 59. Oslo Pedestrian Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 seconds 150 200
16QAM Modulation Antenna 1 QPSK Serving Cell CINR Modulation Antenna 2
Oslo Simultaneous Modem Testing Samsung and Huawei

During our testing we also had the opportunity to collect data with the Huawei test modem. In its current configuration the test modem is more like a small test board with two separate antennas that we mounted on the roof of the car. The form factor, in particular the placement of the antennas, most likely had at least some influence on the results. However, the device was a Category 2 device meaning that its maximum data rate was limited to 50Mbps the Samsung device was a Category 3 device meaning that it could support peak data rates as high as 100Mbps with a 20MHz channel. We also note that Huawei logged the data for us using their own drive test tool and then subsequently provided the log files to us in CSV format while we were in Barcelona. We assume that the integrity of the data was preserved.
Our purpose in presenting these results is to demonstrate that the first two LTE chipsets that we have used came from what we consider to be non-traditional chipset suppliers.
Our purpose in presenting these results is not to compare the performance of the two solutions since that would be meaningless. Instead, our purpose is to demonstrate that Huawei does have a solution that will soon be available perhaps in early 2011 and that the first two LTE chipsets that we have used came from what we consider to be non-traditional chipset suppliers. In the coming months, we will be conducting the industrys first LTE chipset performance benchmark tests in conjunction with Spirent Communications. Stay tuned! Figure 60 provides a plot of the downlink PHY layer throughput for the two devices, plus the combined throughput (secondary Y axis).
Figure 60. Samsung and Huawei Test Modem DL Throughput Results

Mbps 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Seconds 40 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Total DL Throughput Samsung Modem Mbps 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Huawei Modem 10 0
21
Figure 61. Huawei Test Modem DL Throughput Results

Mbps 50 40 Huawei DL PHY Layer Throughput 30 20 10 0 1 100 200 300 400 Seconds 500 600 700 800
Figure 61 provides a plot of the downlink PHY Layer data rates for the Huawei device when tested by itself. Figure 62 provides a scatter plot of the data rate versus the CINR value, albeit for a different set of data points. Both plots suggest quite good performance for a Category 2 device without any dropped handovers, let alone low throughput during a handover. Then again, we must point out that we were not always in control of the results and Huawei had optimized their network using their modem. This was most evident in one of the clusters where we observed that the network was strongly favoring the Huawei device over the Samsung device this was the same cluster where some of the testing was taking
place. For some reason that we cannot explain this phenomenon did not occur in other areas, including the area that we used to produce the results that appear in Figure 60.
Some Perspective
In January 2002 we conducted our first drive test of a 3G network the Verizon Wireless 1X network in San Francisco. At the time independent testing and writing about the performance of a cellular network was a novelty and to the best of our knowledge we were the first ones to actually do it previously there wasnt much to test. We took a trip down memory lane to refresh our memory to see what we wrote about our experience and we came across the following comment, we even
Figure 62. Huawei test Modem DL Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 DL Throughput (Mbps)
22
In Case You Missed It

1/28/2010 The Trouble with TwittersWe look at the
impact of smartphone signaling on an operators 3G network. As part of our research into this report, we leveraged the Anite Nemo Handy drive test tool to capture the signaling traffic while using seemingly benign applications. In addition to identifying the worst offenders, we offer commentary on what the industry needs to do to address the growing problem.
1/04/10 2010 a look ahead We provide our thoughts
on the year ahead, including our list of important truisms and trends that we believe are and will continue to shape the wireless industry. tion Networks We look at the Service Assurance industry which provides the services that are necessary to ensure that services offered by operators meet pre-defined service quality levels and customer experience targets. In particular, we look at the ecosystem of suppliers, from large NEMs to small startups, and we present many of the key trends that will emerge in the years to come.
12/15/09 Service Assurance - Ensuring Next-Genera-
recorded an average speed of 90kbps when we downloaded a 60kB file we believe that even higher data rates are possible in less congested regions of the city. The underlining of the word average was retained from the earlier text. Fast forward a mere eight years and the achievable data rates have increased by not one, not two, but three orders of magnitude. Of course, the channel bandwidth also increased by up to 16x (2x1.25MHz versus 2x20MHz). If Gordon Moore can get a law named after him then we should at least be able to get a theorem named after us. How about, every 2.5 years the achievable data rate in a cellular network increases by an order of magnitude? Unfortunately, this theorem will soon run out of juice although LTE-Advanced could theoretically prolong the theorem and our notoriety for another few years.
11/19/09 LTE in the Americas We discuss the key themes
100Mbps network soon increasing to 300Mbps is like driving a Ferrari during rush hour traffic on Interstate 880 between Oakland and San Jose.
On a more serious note, a 100Mbps network soon increasing to 300Mbps with Category 5 devices is like driving a Ferrari during rush hour traffic on Interstate 880 between Oakland and San Jose. When we were in Australia using Telstras HSPA+ network we demonstrated this fact by using HSPA+ from an ideal location to access servers located somewhere on the Internet. Specifically, we demonstrated that the chokepoint in todays HSPA+, LTE and Mobile WiMAX networks is generally not the network but the applications that are being used and even the Internet itself. Very few applications require 100Mbps and a large number of servers lack that high of a [fixed] connection to the Internet or they have too many users simultaneously accessing the server which prevents any one user from receiving the full capabilities of the server. It goes without mentioning that these limitations, including incorrect TCP window size settings, can easily result in erroneously conclusions about how these next-generation networks perform. In the LTE drive tests that we conducted in Stockholm and Oslo we were probably one of the few users at the time at least we were one of the few users, if not the only user, in the pertinent cell sector of the network where we were testing at any given time. Had there been other, or at least more, users our achievable data rate would likely have been lower and this is one of the reasons why higher overall throughput is still beneficial even if it cannot be used by any one user. It is a shared resource.
and trends that emerged from the LTE Americas Summit that took place in Dallas, Texas and we compare those themes and trends with what emerged from the LTE event that took place during the summer in Europe.
11/04/09 Lets Go to the Video We provide performance
benchmark tests results from lab-based tests that were conducted on several leading smartphone platforms. In collaboration with Spirent Communications, we tested 7 handsets, including handsets from Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG and Sony Ericsson. KPIs include VMOS, average start time, A/V synch faults, video missing and video interruptions. Tests were conducted using 3G, Wi-Fi and playback from local memory. some light on why AT&T made its decision to deploy LTE over HSPA+ and why the strategies of AT&T and Telefonica should not be misinterpreted as the inevitable downfall of HSPA+. By looking strictly at the spectrum holdings of the operators, we can determine which potential mergers or partnerships make sense and which operators need spectrum to fulfill their network evolution strategy. rounding Portland area In this 54-page special report we provide the first detailed assessment of the individual user experience in a Mobile WiMAX network. For this study we leveraged a Rohde and Schwarz network analyzer and other sophisticated data capture tools to analyze a wide assortment of KPIs (MIMO A/B/ availability, RSSI/CINR values, transmit power, modulation type, DL/UL throughput, etc). Our analyses are based on transferring 47GB of data and traveling nearly 420 miles around the Portland area over a 5-day period.
10/01/09 Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad [4G] World We shed
9/09/09 Wireless in Washingtonand the sur-
23
Figure 63. Required Application Layer Throughput

Internet Surfing

Downloading Email
That said, the correlation between the number of users and the achievable end user throughput of any one user is not linear since fading conditions and other RF challenges mean that any given user is seldom able to utilize the full capabilities of the network. Further, a large number of active users does not necessarily suggest a large number of concurrent data transfers since applications, like Internet surfing and doing email, involve large periods of idle time while reading a web page or typing/reading an email. To put things into perspective, we used a number of popular applications and recorded the Application Layer throughput while using those applications. With the exception of the Skype video call, which occurred outside of the Netcom facilities, we used the applications from the depths of the Grand Hotel Lobby in Oslo a location where we had just recorded data rates of 55Mbps using our test methodology. Figure 63 shows the achievable throughput while surfing the Internet. For this test we used the CNN website and clicked through several of the pages note the spikes in the data rates. During this test the peak data rate was 8.7Mbps while loading most of the web pages only resulted in a peak data rate of a few megabits-per-second. As a side note, until we used the LTE network we had never personally experienced Internet surfing where the web page loaded as fast as it took the screen to refresh or virtually instantaneously. Figure 64 highlights the observed data rates while downloading 12 email messages, or 4.2MB of transferred data. As noted in the figure, the peak data rate was only 3.5Mbps. Figure 65 shows the required data rate while watching a YouTube video. Other than the initial burst of data at the beginning of the video (top Net Meter figure), the typical data rate was in the range of 0.5-1Mbps. Assuming an average of 750kbps, we calculate that there could have been as many as75 concurrent users all watching a YouTube video without interruption from the same cell sector. 24

Watching a YouTube Video

A Father and Son Skype Video Session
Michael Thelander, CEO, SRG

Michael Thelander is the CEO and Founder of Signals Research Group. In his current endeavor he leads a team of industry experts providing technical and operator economics analysis for clients on a global basis. Mr. Thelander is also responsible for the consultancys Signals Ahead research product, including its widely acclaimed Chips and Salsa series of reports that focus on the wireless IC industry. Previously, Mr. Thelander was an analyst with Deutsche Bank Equity Research. Prior to joining Deutsche Bank, Mr. Thelander was a consultant with KPMG (now known as BearingPoint) and a communications officer with the United States Army. Mr. Thelander has also published numerous articles for leading trade publications and engineering journals throughout his career. He has been an invited speaker at industry conferences around the world and he is frequently quoted by major news sources and industry newsletters, including The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and The China Daily. Mr. Thelander earned a Masters of Science in Solid State Physics from North Carolina State University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business.
Figure 66 shows the required application layer throughput during a Skype video session. Assuming that the uplink is the limiting factor and a sustainable throughput of 15Mbps is possible this would equate to approximately 70 concurrent video sessions.
Final Thoughts
The LTE networks in Stockholm and Oslo are still in the early stages of being rolled out and optimized, still in their current state the performance is quite astounding. We look forward to returning sometime later this year to retest the network. Until next time, be on the lookout for the next Signals Ahead...
25
Appendix A Additional Results

In the appendix we include a list of figures that didnt make their way into the main report. No analysis is provided.
Figure 67. SRG Official Drive Test Vehicle in Oslo
26
Figure 68 Sodermalm Drive Test #8 Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
>10Mbps for 72% of the time; >25Mbps for 31% of the time
DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps) 40 <= x < 55 35 <= x < 40 30 <= x < 35 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 15 7.5 <= x < 10 2.5 <=x < 7.5 0.25 <= x < 2.5
Figure 69. Sodermalm Drive Test #8 geo plot of CINR Values

DL Data Rates Stockholm 40 <= x < 55 35 <= x < 40 30 <= x < 35 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 15 7.5 <= x < 10 2.5 <=x < 7.5 0.25 <= x < 2.5
CINR Values (dB) 20 <= x < 25 17.5 <= x < 20 15 <= x < 17.5 12.5 <= x < 15 10 <= x < 12.5 7.5 <= x < 10 0 <= x < 7.5 -5 <= x < 0 -15 <= x < -5
27
Figure 70. Sodermalm Drive Test #8 CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.6Mbps Median PHY Data Rate =16.1Mbps Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate =18.0Mbps CDF 100 DL PHY Layer Throughput 30-35Mbps 15.3% 60 5-10Mbps 17.3% 40 25-30Mbps 14.1% 35-40Mbp 1.9% 0-5Mbps 11.1% Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate =17.6Mbps Avg RB Allocation =49.3 Median RB Allocation =50
80
20 20-25Mbps 12.3% 5 10 15 20 Mbps 25 30 35 40 15-20Mbps 14.5%
10-15Mbps 13.5%
28
Figure 71. Sodermalm Drive Test #8

DL Throughput (Mbps) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 50 PHY Layer Throughput 100 150
Cell ID 450 Serving Cell ID 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 200 250 Seconds 300 350 400 450 500
DL Throughput (Mbps) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 Seconds 300 350 400 450 PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 500
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 1 50 100 150 200
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
250 Seconds
300
350
400
450
500
29
Figure 72. Sodermalm Loop #8 DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 20 25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5 -5 0 -10 -5 -15 -10 -15 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 DL Throughput (Mbps) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 73. Sodermalm Loop #8 CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot OK OK

-15 RSSI (dBm) -15 RSSI (dBm) -10 -5 0 5
CINR (dB) -110 CINR (dB) -100 -110 -90 -100 -80 -90 10 -70 -80 -60 10 -70 -50 -60 -40 -50 -40
Great Great
15 20
-10
-5
15
20
Poor Poor
Good Good
Figure 74. Sodermalm Loop Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 250 300 350 seconds
Modulation Scheme Modulation Antenna 1 Serving Cell CINR 64QAM
16QAM
QPSK Modulation Antenna 2 400 450
30
Figure 75. Stockholm West 0700 geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
>10Mbps for 67% of the time; >25Mbps for 25% of the time
DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps) 40 <= x < 55 35 <= x < 40 30 <= x < 35 25 <= x < 30 20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 15 7.5 <= x < 10 2.5 <=x < 7.5 0.25 <= x < 2.5
Figure 76. Stockholm West 0700 CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 15.5Mbps Median PHY Data Rate =13.5Mbps Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate =16.8Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate=14.2Mbps Avg RB Allocation=49.2 Median RB Allocation=50.0
CDF 100 DL PHY Layer Throughput
40-45Mbps 45-50Mbps 3.2% 1.8% 35-40Mbps 2.5% 30-35Mbps 6.3%
80
0-5Mbps 18.1%
60
25-30Mbps 11.5% 5-10Mbps 15.8% 20-25Mbps 9.1%
40
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 Mbps 30 35 40 45 50
15-20Mbps 13.0%
10-15Mbps 18.9%
31
Figure 77. Stockholm West 0700 DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots
DL Throughput (Mbps) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 600 800 Seconds 1000 1200 PHY Layer Throughput 0 Serving Cell ID 50 Cell ID 100
DL Throughput (Mbps) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 600 PHY Layer Throughput 800 Seconds 1000 Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 1200
RSSI (dBm) -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 600 800
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
1000 Seconds
1200
32
Figure 78. Stockholm West 0700 DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 20 25 15 20 10 15 5 10 0 5 -5 0 -10 -5 -15 -10 -15
5 5
10 10
15 15
20
25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
DL Throughput (Mbps) 20 25 DL Throughput (Mbps)
Figure 79. Stockholm West 0700 CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot (dB) CINR OK OK
-15 RSSI (dBm) -15 RSSI (dBm) -10 -10 -5 -5 0 0 5 5 -60 -70 -50 -60 -40 -50 -40 -100 CINR (dB) -90 -100 -80 -90 -70 -80 10 15 20 25
Great Great
10
15
20
25
Poor Poor
Good Good
Figure 80. Stockholm West 0700

CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 750 800 Serving Cell CINR
Modulation Scheme Modulation Antenna 1 64QAM
16QAM
QPSK Modulation Antenna 2 850 seconds 900 950

33

DL Throughput (Mbps) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 Serving Cell ID
Cell ID 300 250 200 150 PHY Layer Throughput 100 50 0
300
350 400 Seconds
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
DL Throughput (Mbps) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Seconds 450 500 550 600 650 700 PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 750
-40 -50 -60 -70 -80
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
-90
50
100
150
200
250
300
350 400 Seconds
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
34
Figure 82. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part One DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 30 CINR (dB) 25 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 20 15 10 5 0 -5 0 5 10
10 15
15 DL Throughput (Mbps) 20
20 25
25
30
35
Source: 30 Signals Research Group, LLC 35
DL Throughput (Mbps) CINR (dB) CINR -100
Figure 83. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part One OK OK

-5 RSSI (dBm) -5 RSSI (dBm) 0 5 0 5
versus RSSI Scatter Plot Great Great

15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30
CINR (dB) -100-90 -90 -80 10 -80 -70 10 -70 -60 -60 -50
Poor
-50 -40
Good Good
-40
Poor

CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 25 50 75 Serving Cell CINR
Modulation Antenna 1 Modulation Scheme 64QAM
16QAM
QPSK Modulation Antenna 2 100 125 150 175 200
35
Figure 85. Oslo 0510 Drive Test Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates
Figure 86. Oslo 0510 Drive Test CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 25.2Mbps Avg RB Allocation =75.6 Median PHY Data Rate = 19.7Mbps CDF 100 DL PHY Layer Throughput Median RB Allocation = 92.0 Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 25.9Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 20.7Mbps 60-70Mbps 1.2% 0-5Mbps 13.3%
80
50-60Mbps 16.9%
60 40-50Mbps 10.2% 40 30-40Mbps 8.4% 20 20-30Mbps 13.3% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mbps 45 50 55 60 65 70 15-20Mbps 9.0%
5-10Mbps 13.2%
10-15Mbps 14.5%
36
Figure 87. Oslo 0510 Drive Test

DL Throughput (Mbps) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 25
Cell ID 500 Serving Cell ID 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 PHY Layer Throughput 50 75 100 125 150 200 50 0 Seconds
DL Throughput (Mbps) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 25 PHY Layer Throughput 50 75 Seconds 100 125 150 Serving Cell CINR
CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 200
RSSI (dBm)
-40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100
Serving Cell RSSI
Top 1 Cell RSSI
Top 2 Cell RSSI
Top 3 Cell RSSI
25
50
75 Seconds
100
125
150
200
37
Figure 88. Oslo 0510 Drive Test DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) 25 CINR (dB) 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 0 -5 0 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
DL Throughput (Mbps) DL Throughput (Mbps)

Figure 89. Oslo 0510 Drive Test CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot
CINR (dB) CINR (dB) -100 -100
OK OK
-15 -15 RSSI (dBm) RSSI (dBm) -10 -10 -5 -5 0 0 5 5
-90 -90 -80 -80 10 -70 10 -70 -60 -60 -50 -50 -40 -40 15 15
Great Great
20 20 25 25
Poor Poor
Good Good
Figure 90. Oslo 0510 Drive Test

CINR (dB) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 25
Serving Cell CINR
Modulation Antenna 1
16QAM
QPSK Modulation Antenna 2 50 75 Seconds

100
125
150
200
38
Signals Ahead Subscription

The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer four distinct packages that have been tailored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to five users from the same company. The Global License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an unlimited number of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Platinum package includes the Global License, plus up to five hours of analyst time. Other packages are available. Corporate Rates (18 issues) Group License ($3,995) Global License ($7,995) Payment Terms American Express Check Purchase Order Name: Affiliation: Mailing Address: Platinum ($9,495)
Visa MasterCard Check Number PO Number
Credit Card #
Exp Date
Title: Phone: (
Mailing Address Signals Research Group, LLC ATTN: Sales 5245 College Avenue, Suite 824 Oakland, CA 94618 Our fax number is (510) 338-1284. Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at sales@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your billing information. We will not process your payment until after the trial subscription period is completed. Terms and Conditions: Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.
please note disclaimer: The views expressed in this newsletter reflect those of Signals Research Group, LLC and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless industry. This report is provided for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a basis for any investment decision. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but Signals Research Group, LLC makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Opinions, estimates, projections or forecasts in this report constitute the current judgment of the author(s) as of the date of this report. Signals Research Group, LLC has no obligation to update, modify or amend this report or to otherwise notify a reader thereof in the event that any matter stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate. If you feel our opinions, analysis or interpretations of events are inaccurate, please fell free to contact Signals Research Group, LLC. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the topics that influence the wireless industry. Reference in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares of such company. Signals Research Group, LLC and/or its affiliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may frequently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent with the analysis provided in this report. Signals Research Group, LLC seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals Research Group, LLC might have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Additional information and disclosures can be found at our website at www.signalsresearch.com. This report may not be reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group, LLC (copyright 2004, all rights reserved by Signals Research Group, LLC).
39

Redefining Research: 186GB in An LTE Network - Been There, Done That (Part II)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Redefining Research: 186GB in An LTE Network - Been There, Done That (Part II)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Redefining Research

186GB in an LTE Network been there, done that (part II)

Up to five (5) unique users from the same corporation.

Detailed Results Oslo

Figure 30 .Oh the places we did go!

Geo plot of all Test Routes with Speed (mph) - Oslo

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Table 2. Oslo Results Summary

Oslo 1740 Drive Test

Cluster 3 & 4 Drive Test - Simultaneous

Cluster 3 & 4 Drive Test - Simultaneous

Cluster 4 Drive Test 1340

Cluster 4 Drive Test 1800

Cluster 4 Drive Test 1830 - UL Only

Cluster 4 Drive Test 1835 - UL Only

Oslo Drive 0510

Oslo Drive 0515

Oslo Drive 0610

Oslo Drive 0640

Oslo Drive 0730

Oslo Drive 0830

Oslo Pedestrian - UL Only

Oslo Pedestrian - DL/UL Combined

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

40 40-50Mbps 10.2% 20 30-40Mbps 12.1% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Mbps

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Figure 34. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two

Geo plot of Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

Modulation Type 64QAM 16QAM QPSK

Modulation Type 64QAM 16QAM QPSK

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Oslo 1300 Drive Test Results

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Figure 36. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two

Serving Cell CINR PHY Layer Throughput

Serving Cell RSSI

Top 1 Cell RSSI

Top 2 Cell RSSI

Top 3 Cell RSSI

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

-40 -50 -40

Figure 39. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two

16QAM Serving Cell CINR QPSK

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Oslo 0515 Drive Test Results

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

5-10Mbps 7.3% 10-15Mbps 7.7% 15-20Mbps 9.2%

March 12, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 4

Figure 43. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two

CINR (dB) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 1,750

Serving Cell RSSI