APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT

APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page1

MARCHandAPRIL2012GSMOPERATORSQoSKPISUMMARYSHEET
S/N OPERATORS CSSR CDR HoSR SDCCH CCR TCHCoNG.

MAR
12
APR
12
MAR
12
APR
12
MAR
12
APR
12
MAR
12
APR
12
MAR
12
APR
12
MAR
12
APR
12
1 MTN 97.07 96.42 1.33 1.41 95.14 94.67 0.58 0.61 95.78 95.20 1.33 0.89
2 GLO 98.33 98.02 1.13 1.17 97.73 97.67 0.39 0.39 97.44 97.45 1.09 1.09
3 EMTS 94.38 96.88 0.86 1.22 89.67 91.28 1.64 1.36 93.05 95.81 1.40 1.95
4 AIRTEL 97.39 97.48 0.86 0.92 96.64 96.33 0.58 0.47 96.56 96.59 0.54 0.55
5 NCCTARGET 98% 2% 98% 0.2% 96% 2%

APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page2

1.
NCCCSSRTarget98%:
GLOdatacaptureforMarch2012andApril2012lackedintegrityandthereforeisnotacceptabletotheCommission.
Anaverageof15%ofGlodatawerenotavailable(N/A)intheperiodunderreview
MTN,AIRTELandETISALATfailedtomeettheCommissionstarget.
AIRTELrecordedanimpressiveperformancewhencomparedwiththeCommissiontargetof98%withintheperiodunderreview.
ETISALATandMTNrecordedpoorperformanceswhencomparedwithCommissionminimumthresholdintheperiodunderreview.
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page3

2.
NCCCCRTarget96%:
AIRTELmetandslightlysupersecededtheCommissionstargetof96%withintheperiodunderreview.
GLOrecordof97.45%whichmetandsupersededthetargetof96%asshownisdoubtableandthereforenotacceptable
Anaverageof15%ofGLOdatawerenotavailable(N/A)intheperiodunderreview
MTNandETISALATdidnotmeettheCommissionsminimumthresholdintheperiodunderreview.
HoweverAIRTELrecordedanimpressiveperformancewhencomparedwiththeCommissionsminimumthreshold
ETISALATrecordedalowerperformancewhencomparedwithCommissionminimumtargetwithintheperiodunderreview
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page4

3.
NCCDCRTarget 2%:
MTN,ETISALATandAIRTELmetandsupersededtheCommissionminimumthresholdintheperiodunderreview..
GLOdataevaluatedisnottransparentandisthereforedisregarded.
Anaverageof15%ofGlodatawerenotavailable(N/A)intheperiodunderreview
AIRTELrecordedthebestperformanceintheperiodunderreview.
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page5

4.

NCCTCHCongTarget2%:
MTN,ETISALATandAIRTELmetandsupersededtheCommissionstargetof2%withintheperiodunderreview.
AIRTELrecordedthebestperformancewhencomparedwithothersintheperiodunderreview.
ETISALAT recorded value in the period under review shows evidence of gradual congestions on the TCH; however ETISALAT met the
Commissionstargetof2%.
GLO,seeearliercommentsonaboveKPI.GLOvaluedoesnotreflectactualnetworkperformanceintheperiodunderreview.
Anaverageof15%ofGLOdatawerenotavailable(N/A)intheperiodunderreview

APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page6

5.
NCCSDCCHCongTarget0.2%:
AlltheOperatorsfailedtomeettheCommissiontargetwithintheperiodunderreview.
GLOvaluecannotbevalidatedanddoesnotreflectactualnetworkperformanceintheperiodunderreview.
Anaverageof15%ofGLOdatawerenotavailable(N/A)
ETISALAThasconsistentlyrecordedworstperformancewhencomparedwithotheroperatorsperformanceandtheCommissionstarget
of0.2%.
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page7

6.
NCCHoSRTarget98%:
MTN,ETISALATandAIRTELfailedtomeettheCommissionstargetintheperiodunderreview.
GLOrecordedvaluecannotbevalidatedinviewofearliercommentsabove.
GeneralperformancebytheOperatorswaspooronthisKPIintheperiodunderreview.
EtisalatrecordedtheworstperformancewhencomparedwithothersandCommissionsminimumthresholdintheperiodunderreview.

APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page8

Comments APRIL 2012 QoS Report:

General:
It was observed that Huawei BSC network evaluations of QoS KPIs are very much at variance
with actual Quality of Consumers Experience (QoE).
An example was noted on one of the network KPI performance values, where a Non HUAWEI
BSC and HUAWEI BSC were deployed in the same MSC areas. While the Non - Huawei did
record values reflecting actual consumers experience, the HUAWEI BSC recorded
performance values with wide deviations from the Non -HUAWEI BSC. This may as well translate
to the fact Huawei BSCs may have capacity, but also lack in quality of service of Experience of
the end users. See below comparison for ease of reference.
TYPICAL BSC AREA: NON HUAWEI NETWORK AVERAGE (APRIL 2012) THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW
CCR CSSR DCR HOSR SDCCH_CONG TCH_CONG
95 96 1 96 1 1

TYPICAL BSC AREA: HUAWEI NETWORK AVERAGE (APRIL 2012) THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW
CCR CSSR DCR HOSR SDCCH_CONG TCH_CONG
98 99 1 98 0 1

Huawei needs to understand that its counters has to be pegged to compute network events
accurately, this will enable clear correlation with end users experience.
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page9

GLO:
GLO submitted that it carried out upgrade on all Huawei BSC (according to GLO work is
on-going) and swapping of some ALCATEL BSCs with HUAWEI BSCs in period under review.
However, investigations reveal that some of the BSCs reported to have been swapped
and decommissioned carried traffic within the period under review; this calls for further
investigations of GLO network performance.

Reviewing GLO QoS KPI capture and evaluation in the period under review, it can be
conveniently stated here without prejudice that GLO QoS data for March 2012 and April
2012 cannot be validated taking for instance the disparity observed in the values
recorded for RTCH Assignment Congestion and RTCH Assignment Success Rate in the
period under review.

Also comparison of related KPIs in some BSCs within the GLO network did not make any
technical sense, hence indicating that some substantial portion of the data were
manipulated or adjusted to make the network indices look good and meet the
Commissions target

APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page10

WHAT DO THESE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS MEAN?

CALLSETUPSUCCESSRATE

Thisindicatormeasurestheeaseinwhichcallsareestablishedorsetup,thehigherthevaluetheeasieritistosetup
acall.HighCallSetupsuccessRateisachievedwhenSDCCH(signalingchannel)seizuresandRadioResource(TCH)
channelallocationiseasilyachievedtosetupacall.Avalueof83%meansthatoutofevery100callattemptsonly83
issuccessful.

DROPCALLRATE

Thisindicatormeasuresthenetworkabilitytoretaincallconversationwhenithasbeenestablishedorsetup.Drop
calls can be caused by degraded signal quality around the vicinity of a mobile phone, interference, unsuccessful
handoverattempttoneighborcells,hardwarefaultsandcoverageissues.Avalueof3%meansthatoutofevery100
callsestablishedonly3willdropbeforeanyofthecallingpartiesvoluntarilyterminatethecall.

SDCCHCONGESTIONRATE

Thisindicatormeasurestheavailabilityofsignalingcapacitytosetupacall,itsvalueissupposedtobeverylowas
0.2 or less. This congestion is experienced when the network is burdened with high number of location update
requests,highnumberofshortmessage(SMS)trafficorinscenarioswheresomanysubscribersaretryingtosetup
APRIL2012QoSAUDITREPORT
APRIL2012QoSREPORT Page11

callsatthesametimewithoutenoughSDCCHresourcestosupporttheserequests.Thisindicatormeasurestheease
inwhichacallcanbesetup,theeaseinwhichwecanrechargeouraccount,sendSMS,locationupdate,pagingetc.

TCH(Assignment)CONGESTIONRATE

This indicator measures the relative ease in which we can seize a traffic channel to set up a call after a signaling
seizurehasbeensuccessful,thehigherthisvalue,therelativedifficultyinmakingacall.TCHCongestioniscausedby
unavailability of Radio Resource (TCH) channels, TCH time slot occasionally gone to sleep (Permanently idle. This
congestionisthefirstlevelofcongestionexperiencedbytheconsumer.Inaproperlyengineerednetworkthevalue
ofthismetricshouldnotbemorethan2%percell.

TCHCONGESTION(WithHandover)RATE

This indicator measures the relative ease in which we can seize a traffic channel to set up a call after a signaling
seizure has been successful, because of the mobile nature of the wireless network there might be reasons to
handover already established calls to serve the consumer properly this instigates the request for traffic channel
assignmentfromneighboringcells.Ifanassignmentrequestisnotobligedthesystemwillkeeptryinguntilitfinally
succeeds or might drop the call. In the latter scenario the consumer experiences a drop call while the system
congestion counter is incremented. In a properly engineered network the value of this metric should not be more
than4%.