Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VOICE
Chennai Cluster 21
4th November & 6th November
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2 COVERAGE STATISTICS (IDLE MODE) ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1
6 HANDOVER PERFORMANCE........................................................................................................................20
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................21
8 ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................22
8.1
9 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................24
Index of Figures
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 6.
FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 8.
FIGURE 9.
FIGURE 10.
FIGURE 11.
FIGURE 12.
FIGURE 13.
FIGURE 14.
FIGURE 15.
FIGURE 16.
FIGURE 17.
FIGURE 18.
FIGURE 19.
FIGURE 20.
FIGURE 21.
FIGURE 22.
FIGURE 23.
FIGURE 24.
FIGURE 25.
FIGURE 26.
FIGURE 27.
FIGURE 28.
Index of Tables
T ABLE 1.
T ABLE 2.
T ABLE 3.
T ABLE 4.
T ABLE 5.
T ABLE 6.
INTRODUCTION
A comparative analysis of wireless network performance was conducted on 4th and 6th November 2010.
The goal was to develop an objective view of competitive advantage or disadvantage of competing wireless
operators in the area.
TEMS wireless network drive test system was used in the execution of this benchmarking survey. The version used
here is 9.1.3. TEMS allows wireless network operators to view their service KPI performance. It provides the
objective means for network operators to assess and improve service levels and utilization of key resources.
The following figures illustrate the coverage performance comparison between the wireless operators.
Cluster 21 - Coverage Distribution
100.0%
11.3%
0.8%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
10.0%
2.2%
2.2%
3.3%
13.2%
9.8%
8.7%
6.9%
28.1%
24.0%
15.6%
20.0%
25.5%
15.4%
11.8%
15.1%
29.2%
50.7%
26.2%
30.0%
32.4%
40.0%
30.3%
23.3%
33.7%
29.1%
35.7%
33.5%
50.0%
27.9%
26.0%
33.6%
60.0%
62.1%
52.1%
70.0%
47.5%
80.0%
30.1%
% of Data Samples
90.0%
0.0%
0 to -65 dBm
IDEA
AIRTEL
Figure 1.
RTL
UNINOR
VODAFONE
Coverage Distribution
2.1
Coverage Plots
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
100.0%
80.0%
83.9%
78.3%
75.4%
74.1%
40.0%
84.9%
50.0%
88.8%
60.0%
86.5%
70.0%
75.9%
% of Data Samples
90.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
IDEA
AIRTEL
RTL
VIDEOCON
Note: Coverage performance has been calculated as per the formula mentioned in the glossary section.
10
92.3%
94.3%
92.7%
87.6%
87.9%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
0.0%
RxQual_Sub: <5
IDEA
>= 5 to <6
AIRCEL
AIRTEL
DOCOMO
>=6 to <7
RTL
UNINOR
VIDEOCON
>=7
VODAFONE
11
1.3%
2.6%
0.8%
1.4%
2.8%
2.0%
3.1%
1.8%
2.8%
2.3%
1.8%
3.7%
4.4%
4.8%
4.0%
4.6%
4.1%
3.1%
3.1%
10.0%
6.6%
20.0%
5.1%
6.4%
30.0%
4.4%
6.5%
% of Data Samples
90.0%
89.8%
86.1%
100.0%
85.6%
The following figures illustrate the Rx Quality (Sub) performance comparison between the wireless operators.
3.1
12
The following figures illustrate the Rx Quality (Sub) performance comparison between the wireless operators.
Cluster 21 - RxQual_Sub Performance
100.0%
80.0%
92.3%
92.7%
94.3%
AIRTEL
87.9%
AIRCEL
87.6%
50.0%
86.1%
60.0%
89.8%
70.0%
85.6%
% of Data Samples
90.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
IDEA
DOCOMO
RTL
UNINOR
VIDEOCON VODAFONE
16
The following chart and table summarizes the Call Setup Time of the wireless operators.
2.00
2.81
2.78
2.83
2.50
3.17
3.12
3.00
2.85
3.50
3.32
5.09
4.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
IDEA
AIRTEL
RTL
VIDEOCON
17
Retainability Performance
The following chart depicts the Retainability performance and dropped call rating of the wireless operators.
No.of Calls
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
597
668
587
664
10
IDEA
654
579 577
4
AIRCEL
AIRTEL
647
677
672
582 582
DOCOMO
RTL
623 622
646 642
Cluster 21 - Retainability
100.0%
1.5%
0.6%
98.5%
99.4%
0.8%
99.2%
98.9%
IDEA
AIRCEL
AIRTEL
DOCOMO
1.1%
0.4%
99.6%
0.0%
100.0%
RTL
UNINOR
0.2%
99.8%
99.4%
VIDEOCON
VODAFONE
0.6%
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
80.0%
18
Area
Cluster 21
Wireless
Operator
No. of Calls
Setup
No. of Calls
Completed
No. of Dropped
Calls
Call
Completion
Success Rate
IDEA
596
587
98.5%
1.5%
AIRCEL
668
664
99.4%
0.6%
AIRTEL
631
626
99.2%
0.8%
DOCOMO
654
647
98.9%
1.1%
RTL
675
672
99.6%
0.4%
UNINOR
640
640
100.0%
0.0%
VIDEOCON
623
622
99.8%
0.2%
VODAFONE
647
643
99.4%
0.6%
5.1
This section shows the location of the dropped calls during the mobile originated voice call drive.
19
Handover Performance
100.0%
3.9%
0.4%
2.1%
99.7%
6.3%
97.9%
95.0%
99.6%
1.2%
1.2%
98.8%
98.8%
15.3%
96.1%
93.7%
90.0%
85.0%
84.7%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0%
IDEA
AIRCEL
AIRTEL
DOCOMO
RTL
UNINOR
Success Rate
VIDEOCON VODAFONE
Failure Rate
No. of Calls
1500
1027 1024
1000
758
488
570
469
710
558
439
500
19
12
551
549
372
339
67
48
335
344
340
4
IDEA
AIRCEL
AIRTEL
Handover Command
DOCOMO
RTL
Handover Complete
Handover Failures
20
Executive summary
21
8.1
Below provided plot shows the poor RxQual areas of IDEA. These areas need to be optimized to confirm the
hypothesis and address the issue. Optimization is recommended to improve the quality and other KPI in the market.
Figure 27. RxQual plot - Areas for scope of improvement for IDEA
22
Figure 28. Sample zoomed view of the RxQual plot area with poor RF condition
23
Glossary
This section provides the formulas to calculate the scores for various KPIs presented in the report.
a. Coverage
Coverage is categorized according to the list below
Coverage Category
Dense Urban (A)
Urban (B)
Sub Urban ( C )
Rural (D)
Outdoor (E)
Ranges in dB
Better than -65
-65 to -75
-75 to -85
-85 to -95
Less than -95
Weightage
10
8
6
4
2
b. Voice Quality
Through Rx Qual (Received DL Quality). The samples collected of Rx Qual are compared based on below
mentioned values:
i.
ii.
0 to 5
6 to 7
24