LTE_P1

Redefining Research

Subscription informationSignals 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 ratesGroup license1 .......................... $3,995Global license........................... $7,995Platinum package2 .................. $9,495

Payment optionsTo 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 [email protected] 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 conditionsAny copying, redistributing, or repub-lishing of this material, including unauthorized sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the writ-ten consent of SRG.

1 Up to five (5) unique users from the same corporation.2 The platinum package includes five (5) hours of analyst time during the subscription period.

In 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 world’s 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 didn’t find their way into the main report.

Volume 6, No. 4 March 12, 2010 Michael W. Thelander (510) 338 1284 [email protected]

www.signalsresearch.com

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 haven’t done so already, please read the revised licensing terms which appears on the next page.

Detailed Results – OsloThe drive test in Oslo occurred on February 11 through February 12. Figure 30 provides a geo

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 inher-ent impact to the throughput results that we achieved with the Samsung modem. Further, Huawei and Netcom were doing some test-

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

Figure 30 .“Oh the places we did go!” Geo plot of all Test Routes with Speed (mph) - Oslo

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 avail-able. 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 pro-tocol 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.

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

30 <= x < 5025 <= x < 3020 <= x < 2515 <= x < 2012.5 <= x < 15

10 <= x < 12.5 7.5 <= x < 105 <= x < 7.52.5<=x50 <= x < 2.5

Vehicular and Pedestrian Speeds (Mph)

Effective immediately, any unauthorized use of our research material will result in the non-refundable can-cellation of your subscription. We also reserve the right

to post your company’s 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 licens-ing 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 per-mission and we will be happy to provide it.


Tabl

e 2.

Osl

o Re

sult

s –

Sum

mar

y So

urce

: Sig

nals

Res

earc

h G

roup

, LLC

No.

Scen

ario

Date

/Tim

eTr

ansf

er

Size

(MB)

Tran

sfer

Ti

me

(min

:sec)

Avg

Spee

d (m

ph)

Avg

PHY

Laye

r Th

roug

hput

(M

bps)

Adju

sted

Av

g PH

Y La

yer

Thro

ughp

ut

(Mbp

s)

Max

PH

Y La

yer

Thro

ughp

ut

(Mbp

s)

Avg

CIN

R (d

B)M

edia

n CI

NR

(dB)

Avg

RSSI

(d

Bm)

Avg

RB

Allo

cati

onM

edia

n RB

Al

loca

tion

1O

slo 13

00 D

rive

Test

Feb

11:

1300

4,13

8.4

36:3

415

.216

.216

.776

.115

.116

.5-7

3.3

46.2

52.0

2O

slo 17

40 D

rive

Test

Feb

11:

1339

2,73

9.2

25:2

69.

614

.416

.471

.316

.217

.0-6

5.9

39.2

44.0

3Cl

uste

r 3 &

4 D

rive

Test

- Si

mul

tane

ous

Feb

11:

1454

2,91

4.7

14:11

12.0

27.4

127

.82

155

.26

114

.617

.0-6

8.1

60.8

60.0

4Cl

uste

r 3 &

4 D

rive

Test

- Si

mul

tane

ous

Feb

11:

1448

364.

93:3

89.

813

.39 1

18.0

2 1

49.9

4 1

5.6

6.0

-78.

959

.660

.0

5Cl

uste

r 4 D

rive

Test

1340

Feb

11:

1340

5,37

8.7

48:0

414

.038

.438

.780

.714

.917

.0-6

9.6

85.8

100.

0

6Cl

uste

r 4 D

rive

Test

1800

Feb

11:

1800

3,56

5.1

14:33

9.6

32.7

35.9

84.4

13.0

13.0

-73.6

88.6

100.

0

7Cl

uste

r 4 D

rive

Test

1830

- UL

Onl

yFe

b 11

: 18

3071

6.0

7:03

7.09.

5 2

9.5

240

213

.513

.0-7

5.9

--

8Cl

uste

r 4 D

rive

Test

1835

- UL

Onl

yFe

b 11

: 18

3565

1.35:

3713

.013

.6 2

13.8

8 2

40 2

15.5

16.0

-74.

2-

-

9O

slo D

rive

0510

Feb

12:

0510

522.

02:

4614

.525

.227

.664

.515

.217

.0-7

8.0

75.6

92.0

10O

slo D

rive

0515

Feb

12:

0515

8,43

6.4

48:0

328

.023

.427

.676

.713

.616

.0-6

9.8

79.5

100.

0

11O

slo D

rive

0610

Feb

12:

0610

5,46

3.923

:48

17.2

30.6

31.7

81.9

15.1

18.0

-71.0

79.0

96.0

12O

slo D

rive

0640

Feb

12:

0640

8,19

0.3

47:4

018

.622

.924

.478

.413

.315

.0-7

4.8

69.5

84.0

13O

slo D

rive

0730

Feb

12:

0730

254.

92:

547.1

11.7

49.7

75.7

14.4

15.0

-67.5

95.9

100.

0

14O

slo D

rive

0830

Feb

12: 0

830

4,20

3.2

15:5

87.8

35.1

38.0

76.9

15.6

17.0

-66.

389

.510

0.0

15O

slo P

edes

tria

nFe

b 12

: 10

:00

2,91

2.6

11:4

51.7

33.1

33.1

78.1

11.7

12.0

-71.4

91.0

100.

0

16O

slo P

edes

tria

n - U

L O

nly

Feb

12:

10:2

51,1

27.7

12:2

51.4

7.3 2

10.4

230

212

.112

.0-7

4.9

--

17O

slo P

edes

tria

n - D

L/UL

Com

bine

dFe

b 12

: 10

:1598

8.2

6:55

1.215

.3/3.7

315

.3/3.7

356

.8/2

9.6

311

.011

.0-7

7.454

.780

.0

1 Sim

ulta

neou

s Tes

ting

with

Hua

wei

Dev

ice

2 UL

Data

Rat

e3 D

L/UL

Dat

a Ra

te


0

20

40

60

80

100

90858075706560555045403530252015105

Mbps

DL PHYThroughput

Avg PHY Data Rate = 29.8Mbps Avg BLER = 8.0Median PHY Data Rate = 25.7Mbps

Adjusted Median BLER = 7.0Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 32.1Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 27.9Mbps

0-5Mbps6.1%

5-10Mbps8.6%

10-15Mbps10.0%

15-20Mbps10.6%

20-30Mbps18.0%

30-40Mbps12.1%

40-50Mbps10.2%

50-60Mbps11.4%

60-70Mbps8.7%

70-80Mbps

4.1%

80-90Mbps0.1%

Figure 31. Oslo DL Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution


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 pre-sented 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 multi-kilometer length tunnels where we typically dropped the con-nection, 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 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 32. Oslo Vehicular and Pedestrian Modes – Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates


60 <= x < 9050 <= x < 6040 <= x < 5030 <= x < 4025 <= x < 30

20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 2010 <= x < 155 <= x < 100.25 <= x < 5

DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)

60 <= x < 9050 <= x < 6040 <= x < 5030 <= x < 4025 <= x < 30

20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 2010 <= x < 155 <= x < 100.25 <= x < 5



Figure 34. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two Geo plot of Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2


64QAM16QAMQPSK

Modulation Type

64QAM16QAMQPSK

Modulation Type


Figure 35. Oslo 1300 Drive Test DL Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

8075706560555045403530252015105

Mbps

CDF

Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.2Mbps Avg RB Allocation = 46.2Median PHY Data Rate = 14.2Mbps

Median RB Allocation = 52.0Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.7MbpsAdjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 14.5Mbps

0-5Mbps6.1%

5-10Mbps23.5%

10-15Mbps22.5%15-20Mbps

21.2%

20-30Mbps19.3%

30-40Mbps3.6%

40-50Mbps0.9%

50-60Mbps0.6%

60-70Mbps1.2% 70-80Mbps

1.2%

DL PHY LayerThroughput

Oslo 1300 Drive Test ResultsFor the more detailed analysis of the Oslo network we are going to start with the Oslo 1300 Drive Test (reference Fig-ures 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. Spe-cifically, 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 doesn’t necessarily mean that they were assigned to the modem. We discuss this issue in more detail in a forth-coming 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 informa-tion 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 36. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots

CINR (dB) DL Throughput (Mbps)

RSSI (dBm)

PHY Layer Throughput

Serving Cell CINR

Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Seconds1810 1860 1910 1960 2010 2060 2110 2160 2210

Seconds1810 1860 1910 1960 2010 2060 2110 2160 2210

Seconds1810 1860 1910 1960 2010 2060 2110 2160 2210

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

Cell ID DL Throughput (Mbps)


Serving Cell ID


Only 52RB available

(1810-1844)

100RB now available(1845-1960)

Only 52RB available


Figure 37. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

Figure 38. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

Figure 39. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part Two Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

DL Throughput (Mbps)

CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good

64QAM

CINR (dB)

Serving Cell CINR

Modulation Antenna 1


Modulation Scheme

16QAM

QPSK

0

5

10

15

20

25

1810 1860 1910 1960 2010 1840 1890 1940 1990

(sec)





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 ResultsThe Oslo 0515 Drive Test occurred early on a Friday morn-ing. 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 thinly-stretch 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.

60 <= x < 9050 <= x < 6040 <= x < 5030 <= x < 4025 <= x < 30

20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 2010 <= x < 155 <= x < 100.25 <= x < 5




Figure 42. Oslo 0515 Drive Test DL Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

8075706560555045403530252015105

Mbps

CDF


Avg PHY Data Rate =23.4MbpsAvg RB Allocation =79.5Median PHY Data Rate = 20.1Mbps


0-5Mbps25.5%

5-10Mbps7.3%

10-15Mbps7.7%

15-20Mbps9.2%

20-30Mbps19.4%

30-40Mbps7.8%

40-50Mbps7.7%

50-60Mbps9.1%

60-70Mbps5.4%

70-80Mbps0.9%


Figure 41. Oslo 0515 Drive Test– geo plot of CINR Values

25 <= x < 3020 <= x < 2517.5 <= x < 2015 <= x < 17.512.5 <= x < 15

10 <= x < 12.57.5 <= x < 10 0 <= x < 7.5-5 <= x < 0-15 <= x < -5

CINR Values (dB)



Figure 43. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots


PHY Layer Throughput Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR


RSSI (dBm)

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750

Seconds1,000

0 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750

Seconds1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750

Seconds

Erratic assigning of RBs

(1330-1440)


Figure 44. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-100

-110

-40

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

RSSI (dBm)

OK

Poor

Great

Good



Figure 45. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-100

-110

-40

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

RSSI (dBm)

OK

Poor

Great

Good


Figure 46. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part Two Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

CINR (dB)

Serving Cell CINR



Seconds

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200

64QAM

Modulation Scheme

16QAM

QPSK



Figure 47. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots



Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR

Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI RSSI (dBm)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750Seconds

1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750Seconds

1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750Seconds

1

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40


Figure 48. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good


Figure 49. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good


Throughout this entire test scenario all of the cell sites had the ability to allocate 100RBs – we weren’t 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 can’t explain why the modem wasn’t 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 lim-its 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




Figure 50. Oslo 0515 Drive Test Part One Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

64QAM

CINR (dB)

Serving Cell CINR

Modulation Antenna 1 Modulation Antenna 2

Modulation Scheme

16QAM

QPSK

Seconds

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

100 125 175 225 275150 200 250 300

CINR (dB)

Serving Cell CINR



Modulation Scheme

Seconds

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

500 525 575 625 675 725550 600 650 750700

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK


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 sec-onds) 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)


Figure 53. Oslo Pedestrian Geo plot of MIMO Transmission Type


Figure 52. Oslo Pedestrian – geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates >10Mbps for 90% of the time; >25Mbps for 63% of the time; >40Mbps for 51% of the time


60 <= x < 9050 <= x < 6040 <= x < 5030 <= x < 4025 <= x < 30

20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 2010 <= x < 155 <= x < 100.25 <= x < 5


2TX Open-loop SM 2TX SFBCMIMO Type


Figure 54. Oslo Pedestrian DL Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

8075706560555045403530252015105

Mbps

CDF


Avg PHY Data Rate = 33.1Mbps Avg RB Allocation = 91.0Median PHY Data Rate = 30.1Mbps Median RB Allocation = 100.0Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 33.1Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 30.1Mbps

0-5Mbps4.3%

5-10Mbps8.7%

10-15Mbps13.6%

15-20Mbps6.0%

20-30Mbps17.4%

30-40Mbps12.3%

40-50Mbps12.8%

50-60Mbps14.6%

60-70Mbps7.5%

70-80Mbps2.8%


Oslo Pedestrian Mode Test ResultsWe now turn to the pedestrian test that we conducted. Fig-ure 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 aver-age 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 Serv-ing 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 through-put 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.


Figure 55. Oslo Pedestrian DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Cell ID DL Throughput (Mbps)

Seconds

Seconds

Seconds


Serving Cell ID

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Serving Cell CINR

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40


RSSI (dBm)

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700



Figure 56. Oslo Pedestrian – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CINR (dB)


-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

OK

Poor

Great

Good


Figure 57. Oslo Pedestrian – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CINR (dB)


-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

OK

Poor

Great

Good


Figure 58. Oslo Pedestrian – Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

CINR (dB)

seconds

Serving Cell CINR Modulation Antenna 1


Modulation Scheme



Figure 59. Oslo Pedestrian – Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

CINR (dB)

seconds

Serving Cell CINR



Modulation Scheme

0

5

10

15

20

25

50 100 150 200

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK


Oslo Simultaneous Modem Testing – Samsung and HuaweiDuring 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 Hua-wei 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 Hua-wei 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 industry’s 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


Seconds

MbpsMbps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 40 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Samsung Modem

Huawei Modem

Total DL Throughput


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 with-out 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 phenom-enon did not occur in other areas, including the area that we used to produce the results that appear in Figure 60.

Some PerspectiveIn January 2002 we conducted our first drive test of a 3G net-work – the Verizon Wireless 1X network in San Francisco. At the time independent testing and writing about the perfor-mance 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 wasn’t much to test. We took a trip down memory lane to refresh our memory to see what we wrote about our experi-ence and we came across the following comment, “…we even


Figure 61. Huawei Test Modem – DL Throughput Results

Seconds

Mbps

Huawei DL PHY Layer Throughput

0

10

20

30

40

50

8007006005004003002001001

Figure 62. Huawei test Modem – DL Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot


CINR (dB)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45



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 magni-tude. 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.

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 increas-ing 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 Telstra’s HSPA+ network we demonstrated this fact by using HSPA+ from an ideal location to access servers located some-where on the Internet. Specifically, we demonstrated that the chokepoint in today’s HSPA+, LTE and Mobile WiMAX net-works is generally not the network but the applications that are being used and even the Internet itself. Very few applica-tions 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 erro-neously 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 ben-eficial even if it cannot be used by any one user. It is a shared resource.

In Case You Missed It ➤➤ 1/28/2010 “The Trouble with Twitters”We look at the

impact of smartphone signaling on an operator’s 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.

➤➤ 12/15/09 “Service Assurance - Ensuring Next-Genera-tion Networks” We look at the Service Assurance industry which provides the services that are necessary to ensure that ser-vices offered by operators meet pre-defined service quality lev-els 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.

➤➤ 11/19/09 “LTE in the Americas” We discuss the key themes 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 “Let’s 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 hand-sets 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.

➤➤ 10/01/09 “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad [4G] World” We shed 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 evolu-tion strategy.

➤➤ 9/09/09 “Wireless in Washington…and the sur-rounding Portland area” In this 54-page special report we provide the first detailed assessment of the individual user experi-ence 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, modula-tion 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.


Figure 63. Required Application Layer Throughput Internet Surfing


Figure 64. Required Application Layer Throughput 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 trans-fers 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 popu-lar applications and recorded the Application Layer through-put while using those applications. With the exception of the Skype video call, which occurred outside of the Netcom facili-ties, 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 surf-ing 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 down-loading 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 inter-ruption from the same cell sector.

Figure 65. Required Application Layer Throughput Watching a YouTube Video



Figure 66. Required Application Layer Throughput A Father and Son Skype Video Session


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 pos-sible this would equate to approximately 70 concurrent video sessions.

Final ThoughtsThe 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...

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 eco-nomics analysis for clients on a global basis. Mr. Thelander is also responsible for the consultancy’s 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 engi-neering 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 Econo-mist, The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Reu-ters, 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.


Appendix A – Additional ResultsIn the appendix we include a list of figures that didn’t make their way into the main report. No analysis is provided.

Figure 67. SRG Official Drive Test Vehicle in Oslo



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


40 <= x < 5535 <= x < 4030 <= x < 35

25 <= x < 3020 <= x < 2515 <= x < 20

10 <= x < 157.5 <= x < 102.5 <=x < 7.5

0.25 <= x < 2.5

DL Data Rates – Stockholm

Figure 69. Sodermalm Drive Test #8 – geo plot of CINR Values


20 <= x < 2517.5 <= x < 2015 <= x < 17.512.5 <= x < 1510 <= x < 12.5

7.5 <= x < 10 0 <= x < 7.5-5 <= x < 0-15 <= x < -5

CINR Values (dB)

40 <= x < 5535 <= x < 4030 <= x < 3525 <= x < 3020 <= x < 25

15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 157.5 <= x < 102.5 <=x < 7.50.25 <= x < 2.5



Figure 70. Sodermalm Drive Test #8 – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

Mbps

CDF


35-40Mbp1.9%

30-35Mbps15.3%

25-30Mbps14.1%

20-25Mbps12.3%

15-20Mbps14.5%

10-15Mbps13.5%

5-10Mbps17.3%

0-5Mbps11.1%

Avg PHY Data Rate = 16.6Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate =17.6MbpsMedian PHY Data Rate =16.1Mbps Avg RB Allocation =49.3Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate =18.0Mbps Median RB Allocation =50

0

20

40

60

80

100

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40



Figure 71. Sodermalm Drive Test #8 DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots


Seconds

Seconds

Seconds


Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR


RSSI (dBm)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500



Figure 72. Sodermalm Loop #8 – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

Figure 73. Sodermalm Loop #8 – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

Figure 74. Sodermalm Loop – Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

OK

Poor

Great

Good

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

OK

Poor

Great

Good

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK

CINR (dB)

seconds


Modulation Scheme

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

250 300 350 400 450






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


Figure 76. Stockholm West 0700 – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

CDF

Mbps


35-40Mbps2.5%

45-50Mbps3.2%

40-45Mbps1.8%

30-35Mbps6.3%

25-30Mbps11.5%

20-25Mbps9.1%

15-20Mbps13.0% 10-15Mbps

18.9%

5-10Mbps15.8%

0-5Mbps18.1%

Avg PHY Data Rate = 15.5Mbps Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate=14.2MbpsMedian PHY Data Rate =13.5Mbps Avg RB Allocation=49.2Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate =16.8Mbps Median RB Allocation=50.0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


40 <= x < 5535 <= x < 4030 <= x < 3525 <= x < 3020 <= x < 25

15 <= x < 20 10 <= x < 157.5 <= x < 102.5 <=x < 7.50.25 <= x < 2.5



Figure 77. Stockholm West 0700 – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots


Seconds

Seconds

Seconds


Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR

Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI RSSI (dBm)

0

50

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

600 800 1000 1200

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1200600 800 1000

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

600 800 1000 1200



Figure 78. Stockholm West 0700 – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

Figure 79. Stockholm West 0700 – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

Figure 80. Stockholm West 0700 Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

0

5

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

OK

Poor

Great

Good

-15

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

OK

Poor

Great

Good

-15

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK

CINR (dB)

seconds


Modulation Scheme

Serving Cell CINR


-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

750 800 850 900 950





Figure 81. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part One DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots



Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Seconds1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750

Seconds1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750

Seconds1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40



Figure 82. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part One – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

Figure 83. Oslo 1300 Drive Test Part One – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot



CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

OK

Poor

Great

Good


CINR (dB)

CINR (dB)

RSSI (dBm)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

OK

Poor

Great

Good

64QAM

CINR (dB)

Serving Cell CINR



Modulation Scheme

16QAM

QPSK

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5025 75 125 175100 150 200





Figure 85. Oslo 0510 Drive Test – Geo plot of DL PHY Layer Data Rates >10Mbps for 80% of the time; >25Mbps for 45% of the time; >40Mbps for 31% of the time


0

20

40

60

80

100

706560555045403530252015105Mbps

CDF


Avg PHY Data Rate = 25.2MbpsAvg RB Allocation =75.6Median PHY Data Rate = 19.7Mbps


0-5Mbps13.3%

5-10Mbps13.2%

10-15Mbps14.5%

15-20Mbps9.0%

20-30Mbps13.3%

30-40Mbps8.4%

40-50Mbps10.2%

50-60Mbps16.9%

60-70Mbps1.2%

Figure 86. Oslo 0510 Drive Test – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution


60 <= x < 9050 <= x < 6040 <= x < 5030 <= x < 4025 <= x < 30

20 <= x < 25 15 <= x < 2010 <= x < 155 <= x < 100.25 <= x < 5





Serving Cell ID



Serving Cell CINR


RSSI (dBm)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Seconds1 25 50 75 125100 150 200

Seconds1 25 50 75 125100 150 200

Seconds1 25 50 75 125100 150 200

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

Figure 87. Oslo 0510 Drive Test DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR, and CINR versus RSSI Time Plots



Figure 88. Oslo 0510 Drive Test – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

Figure 89. Oslo 0510 Drive Test – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

Figure 90. Oslo 0510 Drive Test Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good

CINR (dB)


RSSI (dBm)

CINR (dB)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

OK

Poor

Great

Good

64QAM

16QAM

QPSK

CINR (dB)

Seconds



Modulation Scheme

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 25 50 75 125100 150 200





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 wire-less 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 incon-sistent 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).

Signals Ahead Subscription The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer four distinct packages that have been tai-lored 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) ❒➤ Platinum ($9,495) Payment Terms❒➤ American Express ❒➤ Visa ❒➤ MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date / / ❒➤ Check Check Number ❒➤ Purchase Order PO Number Name: Title: Affiliation: Phone: ( ) Mailing Address:

Mailing AddressSignals Research Group, LLC – ATTN: Sales5245 College Avenue, Suite 824Oakland, CA 94618

Our fax number is (510) 338-1284.

Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at [email protected] 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.

LTE_P1

Documents

lte network

licensing

test scenarios

global license

detailed results

provide

tests

signalsresearch