Why Optimize End-to-End?

Customer Case Study
Issue 1.0 – January 12th 2011

Agenda
End-to-End Case Study:
• Value Delivered: • Reduced CAPEX & OPEX • Improved Network Quality • Why Optimize End-to-End? • Optimization Case Study Details: • Objectives • Network Challenges • Solution Approach • Root Cause Analysis • Impact Summary • Results – Before & After • Conclusion

Value Delivered
• Tangible Financial Value:
• $10M CAPEX Savings • $1.5M / Annum OPEX Savings

• Better End-to-End Network Quality:
• 10% Improvement in Accessibility
= Call Blocking

• 10% Improvement in Retainability
= Dropped Calls

KPI Metrics and Business Impacts
Parameter / KPI Inter-MSC HO HO Success Rate Paging Success Rate C7 Signaling Bytes Inter-SGSN RAU MSC/SGSN Capacity SDCCH Blocking SDCCH Drop Rate TCH Blocking TCH Drop Rate IRAT Success Rate Improvement 40% 5% 2% 20% 30% 10% 0.20% 0.10% 0.50% 0.10% 2%
Less Touching Network & Rework Reduced CAPEX & OPEX Spend KPI Based Revenue Improvement

10% Improvement

15% Improvement

25% Improvement

Why Optimize End-to-End?
• With increasing use of Mobile Devices and Applications, Networks are experiencing unprecedented Capacity Demands. • Mobile Operators must change their Business Models to ensure that they drive profits from the Mobile Internet and are under tremendous pressure to Cut Costs • To keep costs lean while maximizing Network Capacity and Quality of Service, it is critical to Optimize the Network from Endto-End • Cerion is the world leader in Mobile Broadband Network Optimization. Our solutions reduce Network Costs, Improve Network Performance and balance the tradeoffs between Network Capacity, Cost and Quality of Service.

Case Study – Details
Ericsson GSM Network – 17 MSC, 35 BSC, 40,000 TRX

Objectives
• Deliver End-to-End Optimized Network Design • Improve End-to-End Network KPI’s
• Increase Network Capacity • Improve Network Quality • Increase Handover Success Rate • Reduce TCH and SDCCH Blocking • Increase Paging Success Rate • Reduce SDCCH/TCH Drops

• Deliver an Engineering Process that improves Network Performance and Quality on an ongoing basis

Network Challenges
Excessive MSC Load

• Core & RAN Performance Issues
Daily CPU BH

Imbalanced MSC Load

• Core & RAN Capacity Issues • Reactive Capacity Planning Process

Imbalanced Radio Control Load

• Massive Growth – 10K Site adds/Month

End-to-End Solution
Polygon Planning

Network Design
(What-If Scenarios)

DESIGN

CSVR

Implementation
(Sequence Re-parenting)

Re-Parenting Plans

CS/MGW MSC SGSN Unified Network Model BSC RNC

PLAN

IMPLEMENT
BTS Node B

Capacity Demands & Requirements

Capacity Planning
(Predictive Capacity & Demand Modeling)

OPERATE FORECAST

Measurement & Assessment
(Actual Performance)

CS, PS, Subs & Transaction Forecasting

Leverage Cerion Optimiser™ To Deliver A Fully Integrated Predictive Planning Process

Cerion Optimiser™ – System View
Accurate Growth Modeling Network Measurements

Cerion Intelligence Builder™

KPI Performance Optimization

E2E Capacity Planning

Site-Level Engineering Server & Border Optimization Implementation Planning

10

Optimiser™ Root Cause Analysis
• Non Optimized Core Borders
• 7000 Inter-MSC Handovers generated by by non-optimized border.

• Non-Optimized RAN Capacity
• Poor Borders with high imbalance in utilization

Cell 8513 8514 8516

TRX SDCCH SDCCH Blocking SDCCH Drop 4 4 4 2 2 2 69 82 26 2 3 2

• Non Optimized Cell Capacity
• Traffic and Signalling Congestion

MSC Impacts
MSCA MSCQ MSCB MSCE MSCK MSCC MSCF MSCG MSCN MSCI MSCL MSCP

MSCD

MSCH

MSCJ

MSCO

Before: • Non Contiguous Serving Areas • Elevated Signalling Levels • Core Processing Exhaust • Excessive Inter-Office Trunk Requirements

MSCA MSC B

MSCQ

MSCJ MSCE MSCP

MSCC

MSCF

MSCR

MSCG

MSCI

MSCN

MSC14

After: • Optimized Serving Areas • Reduced Signalling levels • More Processing Capacity • Lower Inter-Office Trunk Requirements

MSCD

MSCH

MSCQ

Radio Controller Impacts
Before: • High imbalance in utilization with service blocking • Increase in complex signalling transactions • Limited knowledge about target sites for handoff gives performance issues After: • Improved balance with increased network headroom • Less network signalling and lower processor loading • Improved Accessibility, Retainability and hand-off performance,

Benchmarked Performance Gains

MSC Handover Reduction
BEFORE: BSC2 was island between 3 MSC’s MSCD AFTER: Reduced Inter MSC Handovers 40% MSCD MSCE MSCE

MSCA
BSC2

BSC2

MSCB

MSCA MSCB

40% Reduction In MSC Handovers

MSC Capacity Improvement

Holiday Weekend 984K

Before After
12000K

MSC A Capacity Improvement

MSC B Capacity Improvement
Page 1

15% Improvement In MSC Capacity

Handover Success Improvement
Reward Reward

No Reward

No Reward

MSC A Handover Success Improvement

MSC B Handover Success Improvement

6% Improvement In Handover Success

SDCCH Drop Rate Improvement

Before After SD Drop= 0.55% SD Drop= 0.45%
Improvement at Border Cells

10% Improvement In SDCCH Drop Rate

KPI Performance Improvement
Penalty No Penalty Penalty No Penalty Reward Reward

10% KPI Improvement Moved Related Payments From Penalty to Reward Zone

Conclusions
• Delivered End-to-End Optimized Network Design
• 15% Reduction in CAPEX & OPEX

• Improved End-to-End Network KPI’s
• 10% Quality Improvement in Accessibility & Retainability • Increased Handover Success Rate • Reduced TCH and SDCCH Blocking • Increased Paging Success Rate • Reduced SDCCH/TCH Drops

• Provided an Engineering Process that improved Network Performance and Quality on an ongoing basis End-to-End Optimization Improves Your Competitive Edge

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful