You are on page 1of 24

Redefining Research

Volume 6, No. 11 2x20MHz of LTE and the Heisenberg Uncertainty


October 7, 2010
Principle part II: Road Trip to Gothenburg

W
Michael W. Thelander
(510) 338 1284 ith 500 kilometers separating the two cities it came down to a
mike@signalsresearchcom choice between long security lines at the airport or long lines for the
www.signalsresearch.com
restroom at one of the gas stations lining the highways and byways
of rural Sweden. After much debate, the road trip to Gothenburg won the coin
Subscription information
Signals Ahead is published 18 times toss. If nothing else it allowed us to see the countryside and to see the steaming
per year and is only be available to our bratwursts topped with a shrimp salad at one of the many gas stations. Why
paid subscribers. For our corporate
customers, we have established the anyone would want to ruin a perfectly good shrimp by pairing it with a bratwurst
following rate structure.
we will never understand.
Corporate rates Fortunately, the drive went relatively quickly and we were soon rewarded
Group license1........................... $3,995
Global license........................... $7,995 when we hit the streets of Gothenburg. Literally blocks after exiting the freeway
Platinum package2 ................... $9,495 we observed our first triple digit data rate while inching along at a traffic light.
Payment options Needless to say, it made the trip worthwhile.
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@sig- Effective immediately, any unauthorized use share this issue across your entire organiza-
nalsresearch.com and we will respond of our research material will result in the non- tion with our blessing.
to your inquiry. This process is also
refundable cancellation of your subscrip- If you or your organization is interested in
automated on our web site at
www.signalsresearch.com. tion. We also reserve the right to post your distributing this report to outside organiza-
company’s name, with logo, to the “SRG Wall tions, please feel free to contact us to discuss
Once payment is received, we will
notify you of your user account of Shame.” If you received this issue from licensing terms and fees. If you would like to
information. We accept checks and all someone outside of your organization and leverage a figure or quote from this report
major credit cards and can create an
it did not come directly from SRG then the and you have at least a global license, please
invoice upon request.
licensing terms for our research are being contact us for permission and we will be happy
Terms and conditions to provide it. If you would like to leverage a
violated. If you forward this research to
Any copying, redistributing, or repub-
lishing of this material, including external organizations, either in whole or in figure or quote from this report and you have
unauthorized sharing of user accounts, part, or if you share the contents of the report at least a global license, please contact us for
is strictly prohibited without the writ-
ten consent of SRG. beyond the authorized allocation within your permission and we will be happy to provide it.
organization then the licensing terms for our If you would like a high-resolution version
research are being violated. of this issue, please contact us and we will
If you value the information and insight ensure that you receive it. If you would like
1
Up to five (5) unique users from the
same corporation. that we provide then I strongly urge you to to purchase the raw data for your own anal-
2
The platinum package includes five respect our hard work and livelihood and ysis please contact us to discuss terms. If
(5) hours of analyst time during the subscribe to our research. If you do not have a you haven’t done so already, please read the
subscription period.
platinum license or a global license, you may revised licensing terms which immediately
want to upgrade your license so that you can precede this paragraph.
The Gothenburg network is much smaller than the Stock- Table 3 contains several important metrics for all of the
holm network with roughly 60 cell sites up and running. We Gothenburg test scenarios.
had a basic idea where network coverage existed, but we also We obtained an adjusted average downlink PHY Layer
wanted to push the perimeter where network coverage was data rate of 39.25Mbps and a peak data rate of 102.05Mbps.
still spotty or nonexistent. These areas, combined with driving Figure 36 provides the distribution of the downlink PHY
down unfamiliar streets that turned into lengthy underground Layer data rates. As evident in the figure, we obtained an
tunnels or crossed long bridges had some impact on the adjusted average downlink PHY Layer data rate of 39.25Mbps
overall results that we present. If we should happen to return and a peak data rate of 102.05Mbps – there were other
to Gothenburg in the future to retest the network we can see instances where we hit a triple digit value that fell just short of
if these areas have been built out as well as retest the central the theoretical maximum value of a Category 3 device. Also
regions of Gothenburg where coverage was much better. We worth observing, the Block Error Rate (BLER) was 7.09% or
may also retest at least portions of the city on bicycles since on measurably higher than the BLER in Stockholm. The higher
more than one occasion we suddenly found ourselves driving rate suggests a more aggressive approach to sending data, and
on a bike path or a street reserved for buses and taxis. generally better than a more conservative approach since oper-
Figure 35 provides a geo plot of the areas in the city where ators typically set a target value of closer to 10%. Beyond 10%
we conducted our tests. Like the similar figure for the Stock- the lost/retransmitted data starts to become noticeable.
holm network, the figure is a bit incomplete since these routes Figure 37 contains a geo plot of the downlink PHY Layer
only include those test scenarios where we were testing a single data rates and Figure 38 contains a geo plot of the MIMO RI
device in the downlink and trying to maximize its throughput. values. The percentage of the time that we observed MIMO
RI=2 was considerably higher in Gothenburg. While we can’t
infer how much influence this had on the results, and it could
Literally blocks after exiting
merely reflect a more aggressive approach with little measur-
the freeway we observed our
able benefit, we do know that without MIMO RI=2 it would
first triple digit data rate while
not be possible to obtain the two separate streams of data, or
inching along at a traffic light.
spatial multiplexing.

Figure 35. “Oh the places we did go!” – Geo plot of some Test Routes with Speed (mph)
Gothenburg

Speed (mph)
45 <= x < 50 20 <= x < 25
40 <= x < 45 15 <= x < 25
35 <= x < 40 10 <= x < 15
30 <= x < 35 5 <= x 10
25 <= x < 30 0 <= x < 5

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

2  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Table 3. Gothenburg Results Summary

3 
Max UL
Avg DL Adjusted Avg UL Adjusted Max DL
Transfer PHY Avg Avg Median Avg
Scenario Date/ PC Transfer Avg Speed PHY Layer Avg DL PHY Layer Avg UL PHY Layer Median Median Median
Test # Size Time Layer RSSI RSRP RSRP RB
Description Time Config (mph) Thrghput PHY Layer Thrghput PHY Layer Thrghput CINR (dB) MCS 1 MCS 2
(MB) (sec) Thrghput Thrghput Thrghput (dBm) (dBm) (dBm) Allocation
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
(Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps)
1 Sep 12 Dell LTE 1,718.9 317 1.8 43.38 44.9 NM NM 78.0 NM 17 -63.5 -67.0 -90.0 14 14 99.2
1700
2 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 3,885.2 1338 14.7 23.23 29.5 NM NM 88.4 NM 6 -75.0 -100.4 -103.0 12 4 93.4
0515
3 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 13,399.3 2694 15.8 39.79 41.3 NM NM 101.3 NM 12 -69.7 -94.8 -97.0 15 13 97.7
0545
4 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 6,275.0 1278 11.3 39.28 39.8 NM NM 93.6 NM 12 -71.5 -97.2 -96.0 14 12 97.8
0635
5 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 1,742.5 624 11.3 NM NM 22.3 22.7 NM 40.07 17 -72.5 -93.7 -94.0 20 NM 65.7
uplink 0700
6 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 1,376.1 628 10.8 NM NM 17.5 19.5 NM 40.07 13 -74.0 -95.5 -95.0 20 NM 54.5
uplink 0710
7 Drive Test 12-Sep Dell LTE 4,121.8 995 11.3 33.1 36.4 NM NM 102.1 NM 14 -68.5 -92.8 -94.0 15 12 85.5
8 Pedestrian Sep 12 1815 Dell LTE 815.5 133 1.6 49.1 49.1 NM NM 62.2 NM 19 -53.5 -80.9 -81.0 16 16 98.3
9 Pedestrian Sep 12 Dell LTE 3,972.3 684 1.4 46.5 47.6 NM NM 96.4 NM 17 -59.2 -84.0 -83.0 16 14 97.3
2120
10 Pedestrian Sep 13 Sony LTE 4,141.4 682 2.0 48.6 52.7 NM NM 93.0 NM 17 -47.8 -73.6 -74.0 16 16 94.0
1100
11 Pedestrian Sep 13 1115 Sony LTE 2,675.8 440 2.9 48.7 48.7 NM NM 96.8 NM 18 -55.1 -80.5 -81.5 16 16 94.8
12 Pedestrian Sep 13 Sony LTE 1,715.5 281 2.6 48.8 48.8 NM NM 82.8 NM 15 -56.2 -82.1 -80.0 16 15 97.3
1045
13 Pedestrian Sep 13 Sony LTE 3,982.2 1094 1.5 NM NM 29.1 29.3 NM 40.07 19 -60.8 -83.0 -82.0 20 NM 77.8
Uplink 1030
14 Simultaneous Sep 13 Sony LTE 4,749.9 1186 9.3 32.0 32.9 NM NM 96.8 NM 14 -70.1 -97.2 -101.0 15 8 82.0
Drive Test 0730
15 Simultaneous Sep 13 Dell LTE 2,163.8 1161 9.3 14.9 20.3 6.0 8.1 31.5 38.69 13 -70.8 -96.0 -98.0 20/20 0/ 30.5/
Drive Test 0730 NM 53.2
16 User Experience Sep 13 1245 Sony LTE 2,557.7 526 8.9 38.9 39.5 NM NM 84.0 NM 13 -68.2 -95.9 -94.0 16 12 97.8
17 User Experience Sep 13 1245 Dell LTE 14.9 517 8.9 0.2 NM NM NM 4.9 NM 10 -68.9 -94.3 -93.0 16 0 11.3
18 Drive Test Sep 13 Dell LTE 296.2 372 5.7 6.4 28.9 NM NM 81.6 NM 22 -70.6 -92.6 -95.0 14 0 98.2
1300
19 Drive Test Sep 13 1310 Dell LTE 2,441.8 507 22.4 38.5 42.3 NM NM 82.0 NM 15 -69.9 -94.0 -96.0 16 14 91.5
20 Drive Test to Sep 12 Dell HSPA 137.1 892 50.6 1.2 1.5 NM NM 7.3 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
Gothenburg 1400
21 Drive Test to Dell HSPA 65.9 174 66.1 3.0 3.3 NM NM 8.1 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
Gothenburg
22 Drive Test to Dell HSPA 63.0 229 72.9 2.2 2.7 NM NM 9.2 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
Gothenburg
23 Drive Test to Dell HSPA 7.2 413 69.9 0.1 0.9 NM NM 8.2 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
Gothenburg
24 Drive Test to Dell HSPA 21.7 158 71.3 1.1 1.4 NM NM 8.4 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
Gothenburg

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 36. Gothenburg Downlink Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 36.10Mbps Max PHY Data Rate = 102.05Mbps
Median PHY Data Rate = 36.19Mbps Adjusted Avg BLER = 7.09%
Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 39.25Mbps Adjusted Median BLER = 7.0%
Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 39.01Mbps

80-90Mbps >90 Mbps


CDF 2.8% 0.9%
100

70-80Mbps 0-5Mbps
DL PHY Layer 5.9% 15.8%
80 Throughput
60-70Mbps
8.2%
5-10Mbps
3.4%
60
10-15Mbps
4.2%
50-60Mbps
40 13.5% 15-20Mbps
5.9%

20 20-25Mbps
6.4%
40-50Mbps
13.2% 25-30Mbps
0 7.0%
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 30-35Mbps
Mbps 35-40Mbps 5.6%
7.3%

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 37. Gothenburg Vehicular and Pedestrian Modes – Geo Plot of Downlink PHY Layer Data Rates

DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)


90 <= x < 105 30 <= x < 40
70 <= x < 90 20 <= x < 30
60 <= x < 70 10 <= x < 20
50 <= x < 60 5 <= x 10
40 <= x < 50 0.1 <= x < 5

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

4  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 38. Gothenburg Vehicular and Pedestrian Modes – Geo Plot of MIMO Rank Indicator Values
MIMO RI = 1 (29.75%); MIMO RI = 2 (70.25%)

MIMO Rank
Indicator
R1=1 R1=2

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

5  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


0545 Drive Test Results Figure 41 plots the downlink PHY Layer throughput as a
We decided to analyze the 0545 Drive Test since it was a function of the Serving Cell ID and the CINR, as well as the
very lengthy test with more than 13GB of data transferred. CINR as a function of RSSI. There are three instances where
Figure 39 provides information about the distribution of the throughput hit 0Mbps and while the other low points still
downlink PHY Layer data rates during this test. The adjusted maintain single digit throughput – due to the scale there isn’t
average throughput was 41.3Mbps and the peak PHY Layer enough granularity to show these differences.
throughput was 101.28Mbps. Figure 42 contains a scatter plot of the downlink PHY
Figure 40 contains a geo plot of the downlink PHY Layer Layer throughput versus CINR and Figure 43 is a scatter plot
data rates during this test. The figure indicates a few regions of CINR versus RSSI.
where we did not obtain any throughput. One of those regions Figure 44 plots the modulation schemes as function of the
was due to a lengthy tunnel that is not visible in the figure. Serving Cell CINR for the same portion of the drive test used
in Figure 42.

Figure 39. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test Downlink Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

Avg PHY Data Rate = 39.79Mbps Max PHY Data Rate = 101.28Mbps
Median PHY Data Rate = 40.84Mbps Avg RB Allocation = 97.74
Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 41.30Mbps Median RB Allocation = 100
Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 42.00Mbps

80-90Mbps >90 Mbps


CDF 2.3% 0.3%
100
0-5Mbps
70-80Mbps 7.8%
DL PHY Layer 6.9% 5-10Mbps
80 Throughput 3.8%
60-70Mbps 10-15Mbps
9.9% 5.7%
60
15-20Mbps
5.6%

40 20-25Mbps
50-60Mbps 6.1%
18.0%
20 25-30Mbps
7.7%

0 30-35Mbps
5.6%
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 40-50Mbps 35-40Mbps
Mbps 13.7% 6.7%

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

6  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 40 Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – Geo Plot of Downlink PHY Layer Data Rates
>25Mbps for 71.0% of the time; >40Mbps for 51.1% of the time; >70Mbps for 9.5% of the time

DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)


90 <= x < 105 30 <= x < 40
70 <= x < 90 20 <= x < 30
60 <= x < 70 10 <= x < 20
50 <= x < 60 5 <= x 10
40 <= x < 50 0.1 <= x < 5

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

7  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 41. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer
Throughput versus CINR, and RSSI Time Plots

DL Throughput (Mbps) Cell ID


100 300
90 Physical Layer Throughput
250
80
70
200
60
50 150
40
100
30 Serving Cell ID
20
50
10
0 0
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds

DL Throughput (Mbps) CINR (dB)


100 Serving Cell CINR 30
90
25
80
70 20
60 15
50
40 10

30 5
20 Physical Layer Throughput
0
10
0 -5
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds

RSSI (dBm)
Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI
-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

8  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 42. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – Downlink PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot

CINR (dB)
30
CINR (dB)
25
30
20
25
15
20
10
15
5
10
0
5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
-5 DL Throughput (Mbps)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
-10
-5 DL Throughput (Mbps)
-15
-10
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC
-15

Figure 43. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – CINR versus RSSI


RSSI Scatter Plot
(dBm)
-105
RSSI (dBm)
-105
-95
Great
OK -95
-85 Great
-15 -10
OK -5 0 5 -85
-75 10 15 20 25 30

-15CINR (dB) -10 -5 0 5 -75


-65 10 15 20 25 30

CINR (dB) -65


-55

-55
-45
Poor Good
-45
-35
Poor Good
-35
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 44. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1
and Antenna 2
Modulation
CINR (dB) Scheme

30 64QAM
25 Modulation
Antenna 1
20
16QAM
15
10
5 Modulation QPSK
0 Antenna 2
-5 Serving Cell CINR
-10
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

9  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


CINR (dB) MCS
30 30
MCS Antenna 1
Gothenburg Pedestrian Test Results during these tests, meaning that all instances of triple digit
Since the area covered by the pedestrian test was in the general data rates occurred while testing in vehicular mode.
vicinity of our hotel we collected on two separate occasions – Figure 47 provides some insight on the availability of spatial
Sunday night both before and after dinner, and on Monday multiplexing. During this test we obtained MIMO RI=2 for
morning. This action explains the two separate routes. Addi- 84.87% of the time. Recall that across all testing in Gothen-
tionally, we had a problem with one of the GPS receivers so burg the percentage was 70.25%.
while we collected accurate and complete information about As indicated in Figure 48 the availability of 64QAM was
the LTE network, this information did not always have a also quite good for the two antennas.
corresponding set of GPS coordinates. This latter phenomenon Figure 49 through Figure 52 provides additional informa-
explains the separation between the data points in the route tion for all or at least a portion of the pedestrian test results. The
that appears toward the top of the figure (reference Figure 46). only noteworthy observation pertains to the area around 1300
As indicated in Figure 45 the adjusted average downlink seconds where it is apparent that the low downlink throughput
PHY Layer throughput during these tests was 49.38Mbps. is due to a combination of low CINR and interference from
Also worth noting, we didn’t observe any triple digit data rates adjacent cells that have similar or even higher signal levels.

Figure 45. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test Downlink Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution

Avg PHY Data Rate = 47.53Mbps Max PHY Data Rate = 96.75Mbps
Median PHY Data Rate = 48.86Mbps Avg RB Allocation = 95.65
Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 49.38Mbps Median RB Allocation = 100
Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 50.14Mbps

>90 Mbps
80-90Mbps 1.9%
CDF 6.7%
100

70-80Mbps 0-5Mbps
DL PHY Layer 9.2% 4.5%
80 Throughput
60-70Mbps
10.7% 5-10Mbps
60 1.9%
10-15Mbps
2.8%
40 50-60Mbps
19.9% 15-20Mbps
3.3%

20 20-25Mbps
4.7%
40-50Mbps
16.9% 25-30Mbps
0 6.3%
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 30-35Mbps
Mbps 35-40Mbps 5.7%
5.6%

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

10  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 46. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – Geo Plot of Downlink PHY Layer Data Rates
>25Mbps for 82.8% of the time; >40Mbps for 65.2% of the time; >70Mbps for 17.7% of the time

DL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)


90 <= x < 105 30 <= x < 40
70 <= x < 90 20 <= x < 30
60 <= x < 70 10 <= x < 20
50 <= x < 60 5 <= x 10
40 <= x < 50 0.1 <= x < 5

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 47. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – Geo Plot of MIMO Rank Indicator Values
MIMO RI = 1 for 15.13% of the time; MIMO RI = 2 for 84.87% of the time

MIMO Rank
Indicator
R1=1 R1=2

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

11  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 48. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – geo plot of Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
Antenna 1 64QAM for 41.16% of the time; Antenna 2 64QAM for 32.35% of the time

Modulation
64QAM
16QAM
QPSK

Modulation
64QAM
16QAM
QPSK

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

12  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 49. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – DL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, DL PHY Layer
Throughput versus CINR, and RSSI Time Plots

DL Throughput (Mbps) Cell ID


Serving Cell ID
100 150
90
80 125
70 100
60
50 75
40
30 50
20 Physical Layer Throughput
25
10
0 0
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500
Seconds

DL Throughput (Mbps) CINR (dB)


100 30
Serving Cell CINR
90
25
80
70 20
60 15
50
40 10

30 5
20 Physical Layer Throughput
0
10
0 -5
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500
Seconds

RSSI (dBm)

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90
Serving Cell RSSI Top 1 Cell RSSI Top 2 Cell RSSI Top 3 Cell RSSI
-100
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500
Seconds
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

13  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 50. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – Downlink PHY Layer Throughput versus CINR Scatter Plot
CINR (dB)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-5 DL Throughput (Mbps)

-10

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

CINR (dB)
-95
Figure 51. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – CINR versus RSSI Scatter Plot

-85 Great
OK
-10 -5 0 5 -75 10 15 20 25 30 35

RSSI (dB) -65

-55

-45
Poor Good
-35

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 52. Gothenburg Pedestrian Test – Serving Cell CINR versus Modulation Schemes for Antenna 1
and Antenna 2
Modulation
CINR (dB) Scheme
Modulation Antenna 1
25 Serving Cell CINR 64QAM

20
15 16QAM
10
5
QPSK
0 Modulation Antenna 2
-5
-10
1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500
Seconds
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

14  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Gothenburg Uplink Drive Test Results Across the two tests that were used in the uplink drive tests
In Gothenburg we were able to test the uplink performance the adjusted average uplink PHY Layer data rate was 21.2Mbps
while driving and also in pedestrian mode. In order to create a despite there being several instances where we recorded very
more fair comparison with the Stockholm network the results low throughput – presumably we were in areas where network
shown in Figure 53 do not include any of the results from coverage was still being added. While not shown, the adjusted
the uplink pedestrian test. However, in order to show a more average uplink PHY Layer throughput in pedestrian mode
complete picture we have plotted the results from the pedes- was 30.54Mbps and we observed at least 30Mbps for 62.6% of
trian uplink test in Figure 54. the time.
While Figure 54 plots the uplink test results for both One of the areas where the Gothenburg network could have
vehicular and pedestrian modes, the uplink throughput some additional attention is with respect to transmit power
values provided at the top of the figure (e.g., >30Mbps for control. This conclusion is evident by looking at Figure 55 and
39.4% of the time) are exclusive to the drive test results, Figure 56 – the latter figure also shows a dropped call during a
meaning that we did not include the pedestrian results when cell handover.
making the calculations. It is evident that the dongle is almost always transmitting
at the maximum power level, except for a few instances where
the transmit power backs off after the device has achieved its
The adjusted average uplink PHY maximum theoretical throughput. In an unloaded network
Layer data rate was 21.2Mbps for and with USB dongles that can leverage the power supply
the vehicular mode tests while in of the host notebook computer this issue may not be all that
the pedestrian tests we observed at significant. However, it is not an acceptable solution when
least 30Mbps for 62.6% of the time. the network becomes loaded and/or when smaller form factor
devices, such as smartphones, are introduced.

Figure 53. Gothenburg Uplink Throughput Results – CDF and Pie Chart Distribution
Avg PHY Data Rate = 19.93Mbps Max PHY Data Rate = 40.07Mbps
Median PHY Data Rate = 18.83Mbps Avg Transmit Power = 19.84dBm
Adjusted Avg PHY Data Rate = 21.20Mbps Median Transmit Power = 21Bm
Adjusted Median PHY Data Rate = 23.10Mbps

CDF
100
40-50Mbps
UL PHY Layer 9.2%
80 Throughput

0-5Mbps
60 31.8%
35-40Mbps
23.2%
40

20

30-35Mbps 5-10Mbps
7.0% 8.0%
0 25-30Mbps
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5.7% 20-25 15-20 10-15Mbps
Mbps Mbps 6.9%
Mbps
4.0% 4.3%

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

15  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 54. Gothenburg Vehicular and Pedestrian Modes – Geo Plot of Uplink PHY Layer Data Rates
>5Mbps for 68.2% of the time; >20Mbps for 49.0% of the time; >30Mbps for 39.4% of the time

UL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)


40 <= x < 45 15 <= x < 25
35 <= x < 40 10 <= x < 15
30 <= x < 35 5 <= x 10
25 <= x < 30 0.1 <= x < 5
20 <= x < 25

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 55. Gothenburg Uplink Drive Test – UL PHY Layer Throughput versus Transmit Power
Transmit Power (dBm)
25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-5 UL Throughput (Mbps)

-10
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

16  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 56. Gothenburg Uplink Drive Test – UL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell ID, UL PHY Layer
Throughput versus Transmit Power, and Transmit Power versus Cell ID
UL Throughput (Mbps) Cell ID
45 Physical Layer Throughput 150
40
125
35
30 100
25
Serving Cell ID 75
20
15 50
10
25
5
0 0
75 125 175 225 275
Seconds

UL Throughput (Mbps) Transmit Power (dBm)


45 30
40
25
35
30 20
25
15
20
15 10
10
Physical Layer Throughput 5
5 Transmit Power
0 0
75 125 175 225 275
Seconds

Transmit Power Cell ID


25 Transmit Power 150

125
20

100
15
75
10
50

5
Cell ID 25

0 0
75 125 175 225 275
Seconds
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

17  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


In Case You Missed It Gothenburg Simultaneous User Drive
Test Results
➤ 9/7/10 “I’ll take what’s behind 3GPP” Release 9, no make
that Release 10 We look at many of the more interesting features As was the case in Stockholm we had difficulty obtaining
of 3GPP Release 9 and Release 10, including LTE Advanced. expected results when testing multiple devices simultaneously
Many of the LTE-Advanced features sound compelling on paper accessing the network. In the tests that we did in Gothenburg
but we discuss why some of them will have no material benefit in
a real world network. Additionally, there are pending improve-
we used the same FTP server – recall that in Stockholm we
ments to good old GSM that will support new and compelling used two different servers.
features, not to mention improve its voice capacity. In looking at the results in Figure 57 and Figure 58 (see next
➤ 8/10/10 “Backhaul Redux – are we there yet?” We explore page) it is evident that Device 1, the device that is doing simul-
many of the more challenging aspects associated with an opera- taneous transfers in both directions, is never able to obtain
tor’s next-generation backhaul strategy. In addition to analyzing
meaningful downlink data rates, in particular given the results
the various ways in which Carrier Ethernet can be implemented
we also look at the debate surrounding whether or not to imple- of Device 2 and the CQI values that it reports. Conversely, the
ment Carrier Ethernet at Layer 2/1 or at Layer 3. device is able to achieve very impressive uplink data rates when
➤ 6/16/10 “Turning TD-LTE, I really think so” Following the CQI values are favorable.
a recent trip to Shanghai where we attended the NGMN event, We used arrows to mark two points in the figures. These
we provide our views on the maturity and market opportunities
arrows point to instances where the downlink data rate of
for TD-LTE. We discuss the likely events over the next year
and the long-term outlook for the technology around the world, Device 1 is starting to ramp up, only to then decline once the
with a particular focus on the implications for Mobile WiMAX, Device 1 uplink data rates increase.
including 802.16m. We theorize that these results may have as much to do
➤ 6/7/10 – “Chips and Salsa XII – a chip of a different with the device being unable to support concurrent down-
color” We continue the long-standing tradition of providing link/uplink sessions and/or the server being unable to support
results from independent performance benchmark tests of leading
baseband chipsets. This time we collaborated with Agilent Tech- simultaneous downlink/uplink sessions to a single device.
nologies to test 5 leading Mobile WiMAX chipsets. We observed a similar phenomenon in Stockholm (reference
➤ 5/5/10 “Voice over LTE – a modern day Tower of Babel?”
Figure 33) although in that case we were using a different
We examine 5 different approaches for implementing VoLTE. We Samsung dongle and we believe accessing a different server,
look at the technical merits of each solution, who is advocating the although we are less certain about this last point.
various solutions, as well as the probability that any given solution
ever sees the light of day. Final Thoughts
Guinness doesn’t officially recognize the world’s heaviest
➤ 4/12/10 “Chips and Salsa XI – I’ll take Category 14 for
21Mbps please” In this issue, which was done in collaboration consumer of mobile data traffic, but if it did we would likely
with Spirent Communications, we provide results the industry’s be the recipient of the award. We also suspect that it will only
latest round of independent HSPA chipset testing. In this report be a matter of time before we return to Europe to retest these
we provide results for 10 different solutions, representing chipsets
from five different leading suppliers. Tested chipsets supported networks or to test LTE in other markets. The Verizon Wire-
Cat 8, Cat 9, Cat 10 or Cat 14 capabilities with 56 test scenarios less LTE network in North America could be interesting given
for the Cat 8-10 platforms and 46 test scenarios for the Cat 14 the use of 700MHz, but frankly it may prove less beneficial to
(HSPA+) platforms.
us given that everyone and his uncle will be testing and writing
➤ 3/11/2010 “186GB in an LTE Network – been there, about the network, albeit we assume with a fairly rudimentary
done that (Part 2)”In part two of a special two-part series
test methodology that doesn’t leverage the Accuver drive test
we provide results from the industry’s first independent drive test
of a commercial LTE network. Part two is specific to the Oslo tools that we have at our disposal.
network, plus it puts the LTE throughput results into perspective, In forthcoming issues we will present additional informa-
based on real usage scenarios. tion that we collected during our trip, including a comparison
➤ 3/11/2010 “186GB in an LTE Network – been there, of HSPA+ and LTE, the real user experience in an LTE
done that (Part 1)” In part one of a special two-part series
network, and a look at how the two networks perform from
we provide results from the industry’s first independent drive
test of a commercial LTE network. Part one provides the key an eNode B perspective. Until next time, be on the lookout for
conclusions and observations from testing two networks along the next Signals Ahead...
with the detailed results for the Stockholm network. Detailed
results include multiple KPIs which provide key insight into
how the network performs (modulation scheme, MIMO type,
throughput, # of resource blocks, CINR, RSSI, etc).

18  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 57. Gothenburg Simultaneous User Drive Test – DL and UL PHY Layer Throughput versus Cell IDa
DL/UL Throughput (Mbps) Device 2 DL Serving Cell ID
90 Throughput 200
80
Device 1 Cell ID Device 2 Cell ID
175
70 150
60
125
DL/UL
50 Throughput (Mbps) Device 2 DL Serving Cell ID
100
4090 Throughput 200
Device 1 Cell ID 75
3080 Device 2 Cell ID Device 1 Device 1 UL 175
2070 DL Throughput Throughput 50
150
1060 25
125
050
100
550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

790

800

810

820

830

840

850
40
75
30 Device 1 has much lower DL throughput (same Cell ID), Generally expected
Device 1 behavior for the given Device 1 UL
20 and higher or comparable CQI values CQI values (same Cell ID)
DL Throughput Throughput 50

10 25
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC
0
550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

790

800

810

820

830

840

850
DL/UL Throughput (Mbps) CQI
Device 2 DL
90 DeviceThroughput
1 has much lower DL throughput (same Cell ID), Generally expected behavior for the given 15
Device 1 CQI and higher or comparable CQI values CQI values (same Cell ID)
80 Device 2 CQI
Figure 58. Gothenburg Simultaneous User Drive Test – DL and UL PHY Layer Throughput versus Serving
70
Cell CQI
60 10
50
DL/UL Throughput (Mbps) CQI
40 Device 2 DL
90 Throughput 15
30 Device 1 CQI Device 1 UL 5
80 Device 2 CQI Device 1 DL
20 Throughput Throughput
70
10
60 10
0
50
550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

790

800

810

820

830

840

850
40
30 Device 1 has much lower DL throughput (same Cell ID), Generally expected behavior for the given Device 1 UL 5
and higher or comparable CQI values CQI values (same Cell ID) Device 1 DL
20 Throughput Throughput
10
0
550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

790

800

810

820

830

840

850
Device 1 has much lower DL throughput (same Cell ID), Generally expected behavior for the given
and higher or comparable CQI values CQI values (same Cell ID)

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

19  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


20 Antenna 1
16QAM
15

10 QPSK
Appendix
In5 the appendix we include
Modulationseveral figures that did not make their way into the main report. We include these figures without any
Antenna 2
commentary
0 but hopefully the information in the figures, combined with the figure titles, will be sufficient.
750 800 850 900 950
Seconds

Figure 59. Sodermalm Retest 0630 Drive Test – Serving Cell CINR versus MCS for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
CINR (dB) Modulation
MCS
CINR (dB) Scheme
25 Serving Cell CINR 28
25 MCS Antenna 1 64QAM
24
20
20 Modulation Antenna 1 20
15 16
15 16QAM
10 12
10
Modulation Antenna 2 8
5 QPSK
MCS Antenna 2 4
00 Serving Cell CINR 0
-5 750 800 850 900 950
400 450 500 Seconds 550 600 650
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC
Seconds

Figure 60. Stockholm 0909 1650 Drive Test – Serving Cell CINR versus MCS for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
Modulation
CINR (dB) MCS
Scheme
CINR (dB) Serving Cell CINR
25 28
30 64QAM
20 Modulation 24
25
Antenna 1 MCS 20
20
15 Antenna 1 16QAM
15 16
10
10 12
55 MCS Antenna 2Modulation QPSK
8
00 Antenna 2
4
-5 Serving Cell CINR
-5 0
-10 400 450 500 550 600 650
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds
Seconds Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 61. Gothenburg 0545 Drive Test – Serving Cell CINR versus MCS for Antenna 1 and Antenna 2
CINR (dB) MCS
30 30
MCS Antenna 1 Serving Cell CINR
25
25
20
20
15
10 15
5
10
0 MCS
Antenna 2 5
-5
-10 0
1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700
Seconds
Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

20  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 62. Gothenburg Simultaneous User Drive Test
Geo Plot of Combined Downlink PHY Layer Data Rates

Combined Throughput DL (Mbps)


140.0 60.0
130.0 50.0
120.0 40.0
110.0 30.0
100.0 20.0
90.0 10.0
80.0 0.0
70.0

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

Figure 63. Gothenburg Simultaneous User Drive Test – Geo Plot of Combined Downlink and Uplink PHY
Layer Data Rates

Combined Throughput DL (Mbps)


140.0 60.0
130.0 50.0
120.0 40.0
110.0 30.0
100.0 20.0
90.0 10.0
80.0 0.0
70.0

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

21  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 64. Stockholm Simultaneous User Drive Test – Geo Plot of Combined Downlink PHY Layer Data
Rates

Combined Throughput DL (Mbps)


140.0 60.0
130.0 50.0
120.0 40.0
110.0 30.0
100.0 20.0
90.0 10.0
80.0 0.0
70.0

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

22  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


Figure 65. Gothenburg Pedestrian Mode – Geo Plot of Uplink PHY Layer Data Rate

UL PHY Layer Data Rates (Mbps)


40 <= x < 45 15 <= x < 25
35 <= x < 40 10 <= x < 15
30 <= x < 35 5 <= x 10
25 <= x < 30 0.1 <= x < 5
20 <= x < 25

Source: Signals Research Group, LLC

23  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11


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 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 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).

24  October 7, 2010 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 6, Number 11