Wireless Network Architecture

Nextel Dramatically Improves Trunking Efficiencies and

Quality of Service with Digivance® Simulcast Network

Improving Grade of Service (GOS) While Reducing RF Channels

white paper

In Detroit, Nextel has boosted the performance of its wireless network by deploying a new
network architecture. The architecture centralizes the network's Enhanced Base Transceiver
System (EBTS) equipment and uses all-digital RF transport technology to transport and reproduce
the RF spectrum where it is needed. By operating the network in simulcast mode, Nextel has
increased trunking efficiencies, increased minutes of use (MOU) per radio channel, reduced co-
channel interference, reduced required number of hand-offs and improved overall network
traffic loading GOS and call quality.

That performance gain has enabled Nextel to deliver greater grade of service (GOS) while
reducing the number of RF channels. To achieve greater capacity with fewer RF channels,
network designers used two or more Digivance digital RF transport systems operating in
“simulcast” mode at radiating points throughout the network. This white paper describes that
simulcast network architecture, network traffic loading improvements and how the team
determined the number of RF channels needed to achieve the desired GOS.

What is "Simulcast"?

A wireless simulcast communications system is defined as a signal (or group of signals) that is
transmitted from a central transceiver and identically reproduced to several radiating points, with
all received signals from these radiating points sent for recovery at the central transceiver’s
receive circuitry.

In the case of Digivance technology, the “central transceiver” is the EBTS/Digivance host
location, and the “several radiating points” are multiple Digivance remote units, as shown in
this example of a LRCS simulcast deployment diagram:

Remote
1
Host 1
BTS Interface FP 3:1
Host 2 Remote
Sector Panel RP 3:1 2
1
Host 3
BTS Remote
Site 3
Controller
Remote
BTS Interface FP 2:1 Host 4 4
Sector Panel RP 2:1 Host 5
2 Remote
5
ADC’s patented Digivance digital RF spectrum transport solution is uniquely suited as the
infrastructure of a simulcast network due to the inherent qualities of a digital fiber system - these
benefits include:

• Highest optical budget in the transport industry

• Pristine RF performance throughout the entire optical budget
• Reverse path cascaded noise figure is the RF spectrum transport industry standard
• Digivance digital spectrum transport enables Wave Division Multiplexing (WDM) and Coarse
Wave Division Multiplexing (CWDM) capability, greatly reducing fiber count requirements within
the network, and allows for much greater flexibility in fiber network architectures

By splitting the signal from the EBTS, the same RF signals can be directed to multiple fiber repeater
nodes for purposes of simulcast. The figure below shows the typical cabling between the EBTS and
a fiber host unit. By carefully selecting the nodes to be simulcast together, traffic can be distributed
optimally among EBTS sectors. The result is consistent and accurate distribution of RF resources.

Remote
1
Host 1
BTS Remote
RF Splitters/ Host 2
Sector 2
Combiners
Host 3
Remote
3

2
How Does a Digivance Simulcast System Create a Network Traffic
Loading Improvement?

The benefits of simulcast coverage in the Nextel network are due to a reduction in the number of
EBTS sectors and an increase in channel loading per sector. This creates an improvement in trunking
efficiency (remember: calls cannot trunk between sectors) as well as an improvement in call quality
due to fewer handoffs and potentially fewer co-channel interference issues. In the Detroit Long
Range Coverage Solution (LRCS) network, Nextel consistently reduced the total number of actual RF
channels required on a multiple link transport system by 30 percent or more depending on the
number of radiating points and trunks required.

In all communications systems that carry more than one user at a time – several communication links
(i.e. voice “trunks”) must be provisioned to allow for all anticipated users to gain reasonable access
to the network. What determines “reasonable access” is the system's designated “grade of service”
(GOS), which is the acceptable amount of network blocking of incoming call attempts. Typical
wireless network designs in the United States provision channels to provide voice services at a GOS
of approximately 2 percent, with data services typically provisioned at a GOS of 4 to 5 percent.

To determine the number of RF channels (voice trunks) required, the GOS and anticipated traffic
intensity (Erlangs) must be known. Conversely, if you know the number of voice trunks available and
the GOS, you can calculate traffic intensity supported.

“Trunking efficiency” is simply the observation that the more voice trunks available - the less chance
of blocking, and is best explained by the Erlang B (non-queuing requests) formula:
Where:
B = Blocking% (GOS)
A = Offered Traffic Load (Erlangs)
N = Number of Available Trunks

AN
N!
B=
N Ai
∑ i!
i=0

3
Recap: Reviewing the Nextel Network Changes

Here is a before and after look at Nextel's application of LRCS in two separate 2:1 simulcast
configurations. In the service provider’s original metro “RF hotel” configuration of five radiating
points (a traditional EBTS deployment of one radiating point per sector) five EBTS sectors were
dedicated to five separate radiating points in strategic locations, as shown in the diagram below, to
obtain desired capacity and coverage in the metro core. Performance and traffic stats were profiled.

Sector 1 BTS
Host 1 Remote 1
(6RFc) Interface
BTS
Site A Sector 2 BTS
Host 2 Remote 2
Controller (6RFc) Interface

Sector 3 BTS
Host 3 Remote 3
(6RFc) Interface

Sector 4 BTS
BTS Host 4 Remote 4
(6RFc) Interface
Site B
Controller
Sector 5 BTS
Host 5 Remote 5
(6RFc) Interface

With average base radio (BR) provisioning for this configuration of six BRs (a maximum of 17
interconnect voice trunks) per sector, the acceptable offered interconnect load (GOS = <2%) was
10.6 Erlangs per sector.

Given an interconnect traffic intensity total in Erlangs = (10.6E * (# of sectors)), any two sectors
within this EBTS would support 21.2 Erlangs at 2% GOS.

After the five LRCS sectors were optimized and confirmed to be operating with excellent statistics,
the Detroit market began to test the ADC recommended simulcast strategies.

This is a diagram detailing the customer conversion to one sector of simulcast:

BTS
Sector 1 Host 1 Remote 1
Interface
BTS
Site A BTS Interface FP 2:1
Sector 2 Panel Host 2 Remote 2
Controller Interface RP 2:1

BTS
Sector 3 Host 3 Remote 3
Interface

4
By combining two of these radiating points into a single EBTS sector and increasing the base radio count
of that sector to 10 BRs (26-29 interconnect voice trunks maximum), trunking efficiencies are increased to
21.1 Erlangs at 2% GOS traffic support on a single simulcast sector.

Capacity comparison:

(21.1E)/(21.2E) = 0.995%

Required Base Radios:

10BR (simulcast)/12BR (BR S 2 sectors) = 0.833%

An initial conclusion can be drawn that this configuration allows for virtually identical capacity (at
0.995%) with 17 percent fewer EBTS radio channels required - an impressive number in itself (as BR, and
associated support circuitry cost more than $5,000 each). But in this case it gets even better as the Nextel
direct connect and data services also require iDEN timeslots held in reserve. Therefore, actual allocation of
3:1 timeslots (i.e.: voice trunks) to interconnect services is somewhat less than the total trunk calculation,
further reducing available interconnect voice trunks and offering more opportunity for interconnect, direct
connect and data services to realize the benefits of increased trunking efficiencies of a Digivance digital
simulcast network.

The direct connect and packet data services queuing calculation using Erlang C provisioning is:

ANN
N! (N-A)
P(>0)=
N-1 i
A + ANN
∑ i! N! (N-A)
i=0

In this network deployment, the Detroit market realized significant cost savings and found that they could
actually reduce from two sectors averaging 13 BRs (2 sectors of 6BR + 7 BR), to one sector with nine BRs,
an EBTS radio reduction of 33 percent.

In addition, it was also observed that low cost/low power splitters and combiners could be used for
forward and reverse paths to couple signals between a single host interface and two host units. This
reduction in interface circuitry is another cost savings of a simulcast system. After realizing this savings
(and being assured by continued excellent system performance statistics and RF measurements), the
customer repeated this simulcast process again with the same results.

5
Final Configuration:

Sector 1 BTS
Host 1 Remote 1
(6RFc) Interface
BTS
Site A Sector 2 BTS Interface FP 2:1
Panel Host 2 Remote 2
Controller (9RFc) Interface RP 2:1

BTS
Sector 3 Host 3 Remote 3
Interface

Sector 4 BTS Interface FP 2:1

BTS Host 4 Remote 4
(9RFc) Interface Panel RP 2:1
Site B
Controller
BTS
Sector 5 Host 5 Remote 5
Interface

The estimated equipment savings realized for the Nextel Detroit market three sector simulcast application
vs. a five sector application were as follows:

Estimated savings in required EBTS and LRCS equipment:

• 7 fewer base radios required (est. as provided by customer) 7* $5,000 = $35,000

• 50% fewer LRCS SMR Interfaces required (list, 2 primary panels) 2* $2,900 = $5,800

• 30% fewer high power TX combiners required 2* $3,000 = $6,000

• 30% less Rx Multi-coupling 2* $2,000 = $4,000

Estimated expense in required simulcast equipment:

• 4 Low power splitters and combiners and coaxial leads 4* $400 = $1,600

Savings realized by converting four sectors to two simulcasts: Total Equipment Savings = $49,200
(less expenses)

Additional operational savings:

• Reduced EBTS space and power requirement, less equipment and lower current draw
(EBTS programmed to 5w per channel)

• EBTS Ops/Field/Perf/Design Engineering support, fewer RF channels and centralized EBTS reducing
required field operations, travel and access time

6
 Theory of Operation

If nodes are adjacent to each other, there is no handoff between the nodes that are simulcast.
The iDEN phone will treat the signal from the neighboring node just as it would a multipath signal,
thereby reducing overhead messaging for handover and updates at the MSO. At the mobile unit,
the signals that are simultaneously received from other nodes are treated as multipath signals.
However, long signal delays may cause SQE to degrade in areas where simultaneous signal are equal
in level and are seperated in time by more than 12 microseconds. This can be managed by adjusting
for delay at the host unit for each simulcast node so that the signals from each node are in sync.

The reverse path can help with uplink system gain by adding spatial diversity in coverage overlap
areas of the simulcast nodes. This provides a whole new dimension to the link budget and may help
with non-diversity systems. Of course, this is limited to specific areas of overlap and cannot be used
in the overall link budget of a properly designed system.

Trunking Efficiency
The key advantage of simulcast is trunking efficiency of RF resources. Each sector can achieve
maximum efficiency through higher BR stack sizes. Also, by strategically simulcasting a node in an
entertainment area with another in a business district, the network can take advantage of shifting
busy hours to achieve a more consistent traffic pattern. The chart below demonstrates how a
simulcast network can successfully reduce the number of BR resources by 33%.

BR Stack vs. i3 BH Erlangs

7 16

6 14

12
5
10
BR Stack

Erlangs
4
8
3
6
2
4

1 2

0 0
8:00 AM

8:30 AM

9:00 AM

9:30 AM

10:00 AM

10:30 AM

11:00 AM

11:30 AM

12:00 PM

12:30 PM

1:00 PM

1:30 PM

2:00 PM

2:30 PM

3:00 PM

3:30 PM

4:00 PM

4:30 PM

5:00 PM

Hour

BRs Required to Support Node 1 BRs Required to Support Node 2 BRs Required to Support Simulcast
Node 1 BH Erl Node 2 BH Erl Simulcast BH Erlangs

7
Delay Limitations

When employing simulcast in a fiber system, delay needs to be considered between the nodes that
are sharing the same signals. According to Motorola’s “iDEN RF Planning Guide,” the iDEN system is
designed to operate reliably with up to 12 microseconds of delay spread. When signals are
encountered at the same signal strength, and separated in time by more than 12 microseconds,
SQE may be degraded. Figure 3.4a is a chart from the “iDEN RF Planning Guide” shows the signal
amplitude difference required to avoid any negative impact from signal delay.

Effective Delay Spread for Different Relative Amplitudes

50

45
Effective Delay Spread (usec)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20

Amplitude Difference (dB)

10 microseconds 20 microseconds 50 microseconds

8
For example, a repeated signal with a 20-microsecond delay will require a 10 dB difference in signal
amplitude between the donor and repeater to have an effective 12-microsecond delay.

Delay can be adjusted at the Host Unit, so that there is minimal delay difference where signals
between nodes are equal in amplitude to avoid potential problems with delay spread. Light travels
over fiber optic cable at a speed of about 200,000 km per second compared to 300,000 km per
second over air.

In the example below, Nodes 1 and 2 are simulcast. The signal delay at Node 1 is calculated to be
0.5 µseconds while the signal delay out of Node 2 is 15 µseconds, a difference of 14.5 µseconds
between the nodes. Assuming that the signal levels will be the same in an area approximately
halfway between the nodes, there will be degradation of SQE. To avoid this degradation of signal,
delay of 14-15 µseconds can be added to the optical signal of Node 1 to match Node 2.

Node 1 Node 2

EBTS
Sector 1

0.1km
Overlap
area
3km

9
Additional Benefits of Simulcast

Simulcast networks can substantially reduce required switch and handoff processing and further
improve trunking efficiencies within a given coverage area. In addition, assigning simulcasts where
there are sequential busy hours between radiating points (i.e.: a sports stadium, a mega mall, and a
business area may all have differing busy hours) can also greatly enhance revenue per BR due to
increase in duration of peak minutes of use (MOU).

Nextel simulcasts will require less EBTS infrastructure, not only reducing BR and RF interfacing
equipment, but also potentially reducing required base site controllers and T1 lines to the switching
office. EBTS can consolidate to central locations. Nextel can virtually eliminate dropped and poor
quality calls associated with “ping pong” handoffs using simulcast strategies in metro core
applications.

Another crucial aspect of the Nextel frequency plan that can reap benefits throughout the entire
network is the substantial opportunity to greatly reduce co-channel interference issues and optimize
reuse by the judicious use of simulcast. This is particularly true in the network core, where it enables
the service provider to achieve the desired metro core in-building signal penetration while virtually
eliminating under-utilized urban channel sets. This has a tremendous impact for Nextel by reducing
the number of channel sets required in a given area, thereby improving call quality with lower co-
channel interference throughout the entire network. The frequency spectrum re-allocated by this
process can be redeployed for additional capacity or services.

10
Conclusions

Digivance networks configured in simulcast give service providers a greater and earlier return on
investment by creating the optimal traffic management scenario of improved base radio utilization (i.e.
more Erlangs per base radio) and delivering increased MOU income per base radio.

As service provider channel capacity and node coverage requirements dictate, larger simulcasts of four to
eight or even more Digivance links can provide still greater network savings while delivering
unprecedented network coverage and quality.

In conclusion, the Nextel Detroit market application of a Digivance digital simulcast network significantly
enhanced network coverage and capacity in an urban core environment. With better utilization of RF
frequency resources, Nextel is able to support future growth in services while reducing the need for an
expensive and intrusive network allocation of additional RF bandwidth.

Authors: Tom Bugg, Sr. RF Engineer, Nextel and Keith P. Schwartz, Principal Engineer, ADC Wireless

11
Web Site: www.adc.com
From North America, Call Toll Free: 1-800-366-3891 • Outside of North America: +1-952-938-8080 Fax: +1-952-917-3237
For a listing of ADC’s global sales office locations, please refer to our web site.
ADC Telecommunications, Inc., P.O. Box 1101, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 55440-1101
Specifications published here are current as of the date of publication of this document. Because we are continuously improving our products, ADC
reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice. At any time, you may verify product specifications by contacting our headquarters
office in Minneapolis. ADC Telecommunications, Inc. views its patent portfolio as an important corporate asset and vigorously enforces its patents.
Products or features contained herein may be covered by one or more U.S. or foreign patents. An Equal Opportunity Employer

1289644 7/04 Original © 2004 ADC Telecommunications, Inc. All Rights Reserved