Redefining Research December 6, 2012, Vol. 8 Nos.

13 & 14 PREVIEW

THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK BENCHMARK TESTS

LTE BAND 7 VERSUS

LTE BAND 4 – GAME ON Volume 2: Quantifying the user experience
SPECIAL PREVIEW EDITION
YOUR
ATTENTION
PLEASE
This document contains a preview of a separately published 73 page report that analyzes LTE Band 7 and LTE Band 4
performance characteristics. The extensive analysis, which includes in-building and outdoor test results, leveraged one of
the very few networks in the world where LTE is deployed in Band 7 and Band 4 by the same operator in the same market
and at virtually every single cell site with a shared antenna configuration. This report is included as part of a corporate
subscription to Signals Ahead or it can be purchased separately for $1,795.

In addition to a sanitized Executive Summary, we include the complete Table of Contents, List of Figures (72), our Test
Methodology, a list of past reports and a preview of reports that are currently being planned for the upcoming year.
Executive Summary
An operator launching another commercial LTE network is becoming so passé.
According to the Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA), there were 113
commercial networks at the beginning of November, although we strongly
suspect that some of these commercial networks are really nothing more than
token deployments and done solely for marketing purposes. It becomes far more
interesting when an operator launches a dual-band LTE network in the same
market across all morphologies from dense urban to the outer reaches of the
suburbs and with virtually every single cell site supporting both bands using a
common antenna. To the best of our knowledge, there are only a few operators
in the world who have taken such an aggressive stance in the early days of LTE.
Fortunately for us, it was a short flight to a market where we had the opportunity
to test such a dual-band LTE network.

A dual-band strategy
provides a capacity layer
with the higher frequency
and a coverage layer with
the lower frequency.
Rogers has deployed LTE
in Band 7 and in Band 4 in
virtually every single cell
site throughout Vancouver.
The basic philosophy behind a dual-band strategy is straight forward and relatively universal in
nature. The higher frequency band provides the capacity layer thanks to the abundance of available
spectrum and in many cases the ability to support a 2x20 MHz radio channel. The lower frequency
band provides the coverage layer thanks to the more favorable RF propagation characteristics that
exist with lower frequencies. In the network that we tested for this study, the operator had deployed
2x30 MHz of LTE capacity between the two bands or three to six times as much capacity per cell
site compared with the networks in the United States and at least thirty percent more capacity per
cell site than most operators have deployed in Europe or Asia.
In order for a dual-band strategy to be successful it needs to meet several criteria. In addition to
providing a massive amount of capacity and delivering the maximum throughput that LTE supports,
the higher frequency needs to provide at least adequate coverage, and hopefully coverage that is
largely on par with the lower frequency. Otherwise, the capacity layer would resemble Swiss cheese
from a coverage perspective and probably not meet its intended objective. Meanwhile, the coverage
layer must provide a compelling user experience and it must do so in a ubiquitous fashion throughout
the network. Finally, there needs to be interoperability and seamless handovers between the two
bands so that the mobile devices can select the most appropriate network resources depending on
channel conditions and the application requirements – both outdoors and in the more challenging
indoor environment. This report answers whether or not these important criteria are met.
Rogers Wireless has deployed a dual-band LTE network in several markets across Canada, but
Vancouver was closest to home and we know the area quite well from earlier testing that we have
done in the city. In the case of Rogers, the operator has deployed LTE in Band 7 (DL = 2650 MHz,
UL = 2530 MHz) and in Band 4 (DL = 2115 MHz, UL = 1715 MHz). With virtually every single
cell site supporting both bands and using the same infrastructure supplier [Ericsson], it gave us an
incredibly unique opportunity to test the relative performance of the two bands with the only vari-
ables being the frequency and the channel bandwidth. In order to ensure that we observed the best
that the network had to offer, we used two Sierra Wireless 313U dongles. We had the ability to lock
each dongle to a specific frequency band or allow the dongle to roam freely between the two bands.

3  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

 We leveraged Accuver’s suite of network drive test tools, including its in-building mapping solu-
tion, to collect and analyze the data.
Our ability to collect and analyze the network performance data would not have been possible
without the support of Accuver, who allowed us to use its multi-technology XCAL-M drive test
solution as well as its XCAP post-processing software to analyze the results. We have used the
Accuver tools several times in the past for various Signals Ahead reports and we have grown quite
fond of their capabilities and their ease of use.
For this study, and for a forthcoming and more in-depth study, we used the tool’s in-building
mapping capabilities to capture and analyze the relative performance of LTE throughout numerous
public buildings, including hotels, convention centers, shopping malls, and airports – both in
Vancouver and throughout the United States. Given that most mobile data usage occurs indoors,
operators will need to better understand and plan for sufficient coverage and capacity where the data
usage is frequently the highest. Look for this report in the coming year.
We did not receive Consistent with all Signals Ahead reports, we did not receive any compensation or sponsorship for
any compensation or this study. We contacted Rogers Wireless on our own initiative to gauge their interest in supporting
sponsorship for this study. our efforts. We requested, and they provided, two dongles with unlimited access and an FTP server
that resided outside of the operator’s network. We also tapped into two other servers that we have
used in the past. As a courtesy, and in order to get answers to a few nagging questions that we had,
we pre-briefed the operator just prior to publishing the report. A few individuals at Ericsson were
aware that we tested the network after the fact while to the best of our knowledge they are seeing
the results for the first time in this report.
We will be publishing Since the real value of this study is the detailed analysis that we provide which compares and
a more detailed report contrasts the performance of the two bands under very specific circumstances, we have elected to
on in-building coverage share some very high-level results in this report preview. During our four-day visit we transferred
in early 2013.
nearly 550 GB of data and drove more than 180 miles. Figure 1 provides the downlink Application
Layer throughput for Band 7 and Band 4 and Figure 2 provides the uplink Application Layer
throughput of the two bands. Figure 3 provides the measured latency (RTT) and Figure 4 provides
an indication of where we conducted our outdoor drive testing. It excludes the in-building testing,
which included hotels, a convention center, and a shopping mall. We will be publishing a more
detailed report on in-building coverage, that includes additional results from Vancouver and data
that we have collected throughout the United States, in early 2013.

4  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Figure 1. Downlink Application Layer Throughput – Band 7 versus Band 4

Average Application Layer Throughput (2650 MHz) = 46.66 Mbps Average Application Layer Throughput (2115 MHz) = 25.32 Mbps
Total Data Usage = 130.7 GB

Probability of
Higher Throughput (%)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

2115 MHz 2650 MHz

0%
5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Downlink Application Layer Throughput (Mbps)

2650 MHz Downlink Throughput 2115 MHz Downlink Throughput

0 - 5 Mbps 1.8% 0 - 5 Mbps 3.2%
> 100 Mbps 2.1% 50 - MAX Mbps 0.8%
5 - 10 Mbps 2.7%
90 - 100 Mbps 4.1%

80–90 10 - 20 40 - 50 Mbps 5 - 10 Mbps

Mbps Mbps 11.4% 8.1%
70 - 80 4.5% 7.9%
Mbps
7.7%
20 - 30 Mbps 30 - 40 Mbps 10 - 20 Mbps
60 - 70 Mbps 16.2%
8.9% 25.7% 24.1%

50 - 60 Mbps 30 - 40 Mbps
13.1% 16.2%

40 - 50 Mbps 20 - 30 Mbps
14.9% 26.8%

Source: Signals Research Group

5  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Figure 2. Uplink Application Layer Throughput – Band 7 versus Band 4
Probability of
Higher Throughput (%)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%
2530 MHz
1715 MHz
0%
5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50
Uplink Application Layer Throughput (Mbps)

2530 MHz Uplink Throughput 1715 MHz Uplink Throughput

20 - 25 0 - 5
0 - 5 Mbps Mbps Mbps 5 - 10
9.7% 5.6% 6.1% Mbps
5 - 10
Mbps 6.4%
5.5%
40 - 50 Mbps 10 - 15 Mbps 10 - 15 Mbps
31.3% 5.9% 12.4%
15 - 20 Mbps 3.7%
20 - 25 Mbps 3.9%
25 - 30 Mbps
4.3%
15 - 20 Mbps
69.5%
30 - 40 Mbps
35.7%

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 3. Network Latency Results - RTT

Average Latency (RTT) = 38 ms Min Latency = 20 ms Max Latency = 49 ms

20 - 29 ms
2

45 - 50 ms
6

30 - 35 ms
18

41 - 45 ms
23

36 - 40 ms
35
Source: Signals Research Group

6  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Figure 4. Vancouver Area Drive Routes – Close-up of downtown and all routes

Source: Signals Research Group

7  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

 In order to answer the all-important questions pertaining to a dual-band strategy, we analyzed
several underlying downlink and uplink KPIs. We also correlated these KPIs to more basic perfor-
mance characteristics, such as throughput.

The downlink KPIs for both the in-building and outdoor drive testing include the following:

➤➤ RSRP (average and at edge of cell)

➤➤ Downlink Path Loss (average and at edge of cell)

➤➤ SINR

➤➤ 64 QAM Utilization

➤➤ Rank Indicator 2 and Rank Indicator 1 Availability

➤➤ PDSCH Throughput (average and at edge of cell)

➤➤ Number of Assigned Resource Blocks

The uplink KPIs for both the in-building and outdoor drive testing include the following:

➤➤ PUSCH Transmit Power

➤➤ Power Headroom

➤➤ PUSCH Throughput

➤➤ Number of Assigned Resource Blocks

Handover/Interoperability analysis includes the following:

➤➤ IP Layer Handover Latency – Band 7 to Band 4 and Band 4 to Band 7

➤➤ Handover Success/Failure Rate

➤➤ RSRP at Inter-band Handovers

➤➤ Cell Coverage Area

Types of Figures include the following (we also include numerous geo-plots of KPIs using Google
Earth as well as the in-building mapping capabilities of the XCAL-M drive test solution):

➤➤ Probability Plots

♦♦ PDSCH and PUSCH Throughput

♦♦ SINR

♦♦ 64 QAM

♦♦ RSRP

♦♦ Downlink Path Loss

♦♦ PUSCH Transmit Power

♦♦ Power Headroom

♦♦ DL/UL Resource Block Allocation

8  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

 ➤➤ Scatter Plots

♦♦ RSRP versus PDSCH Throughput (average and edge of cell)

♦♦ RSRP versus PUSCH Throughput (average and edge of cell)

♦♦ Power Headroom versus PUSCH Throughput

➤➤ Time Series Plots

♦♦ Uplink Resource Blocks versus PUSCH Throughput during Handovers

♦♦ RSRP versus PDSCH Throughput

♦♦ RSRP versus PUSCH Throughput

♦♦ PDSCH Throughput and Downlink RBs during a Handover

Chapter 2 provides the key conclusions and observations from our testing. Chapter 3 provides more
details on the downlink results and Chapter 4 focuses on the uplink results. Chapter 5 examines
handover and interoperability between the two bands, as well as inter-band handovers. Chapter 6
provides some preliminary in-building test results – look for a more detailed report in 2013. Chapter
7 provides our test methodology and Chapter 8 wraps things up with a very short conclusion. In the
Appendix we include some figures that didn’t make their way into the main report.

9  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

 Test Methodology
For the Vancouver drive tests we once again used the Accuver XCAL-M drive test tool to collect the
underlying performance indicators. For purposes of these tests, we only tested the LTE networks.
We could have just as easily tested the operator’s DC-HSDPA/HSPA+ networks with the solution.
The Accuver data We also used the Accuver XCAP post-processing tool to analyze the data and to help us
collection and post- create the figures which appear in this report. Both the data collection and post-processing tools
processing tools support support in-building testing and these features proved to be invaluable when putting together
in-building testing.
this report and in the preliminary work that we have already done for our dedicated report on
in-building performance.
Figure 63 illustrates a typical display that we used when collecting the data. The information in
the figure stems from one of the drive tests that we did in Vancouver on the Band 4 network. The
figure shows just a few of the KPIs that we collected and analyzed in this study.

Figure 5. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action – DL performance

Source: Accuver XCAL and SRG

For the in-building testing we obtained facility’s maps of the buildings where we wanted to
conduct our tests from the Internet. For logistical reasons, we selected publicly accessible buildings,
including two hotels, a shopping mall, and a convention center. We loaded a JPG image of the area
within the building that we wanted to test (e.g., the first floor of a hotel) into XCAL-M and then
traced out a walking route as an overlay on top of the map. In addition to the route, we marked event
points at various spots along the route that we would later use during the actual data collection and
in the analysis phase.

10  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Figure 6. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action – In-building

Source: Accuver XCAL and SRG

Once we started the in-building test, it was simply a matter of following the planned route and
clicking a button within XCAL-M to mark the timestamp in the log file when we reached a partic-
ular event point that we identified on the map. An event point, for example, could be a stairwell or
elevator, a storefront in a shopping mall (e.g., an Apple store), or a hallway – anything that would be
easily recognizable along the route and identified on the map. It is also possible to insert landmarks
on the map with the XCAL-M solution, but we felt that the maps we had obtained were already
sufficient for our purposes. Once we reached and marked an event point, the previously collected
data since the last event point was spread equally between the two points, thereby negating the need
for GPS, while still allowing us to link each data point in the log file to the location where it was
observed. Figure 64 shows a route that we traced out in the Oakridge Mall – these results are not
included in this report. In addition to the route, the event points are visible as well as the feature
which allows the user to add more icons/landmarks onto the map.
We were able to lock a Rogers Wireless provided us with two dongles and unlimited access to its network. We were able
dongle to a specific band or to configure the dongles so that they could be locked to a specific LTE band or allowed to roam
allow it to roam between between the two bands. Given the focus of our testing, most of the time each dongle was locked
the two LTE bands.
to a different band. Rogers Wireless also provided us with access to an FTP server that resided
outside of the operator’s network. We used this server in addition to other servers that we could
access – one server was located in Chicago and one server was located in far off Europe. We used
all three servers to load the pipe in order to make sure that the server and/or transport delay was
not influencing the results. We felt using three servers was especially important given that we were
concurrently testing a combined 2 x 30 MHz channel bandwidth of LTE. All data transfers used
FTP (File Transfer Protocol).
Historically, we have used either Windows 7 or Windows XP as the operating system in our
notebook computers – XCAL-M supports both operating systems. For the Vancouver testing we
elected to use Windows XP. Although we have used Windows XP when testing 20 MHz LTE

11  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW


Network loading effects
had very little impact on the
results that we obtained.
Like all Signals Ahead
reports, we received no
sponsorship or funding from
the impacted companies
in this report, in order to
maintain our independence.
12  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW
networks in Europe without any difficulty obtaining the top data rates, we had an issue with the
TCP window size in Vancouver that we were not able to resolve and we did not have the logistical
support to move the drive test software to the Windows 7 partition of our notebook computers. As a
result, we are certain that the Band 7 throughput was artificially limited in many cases. We worked
around this limitation by focusing our analysis on those regions of the network where the conditions
were more challenging (e.g., edge of cell and in-building) and in this report we used grey boxes to
highlight those areas where the throughput could have been impacted. Note that the smaller TCP
window size has no impact on many of the KPIs that we measured. In order to illustrate the overall
capabilities of Band 7 versus Band 4 we spent a full day collecting performance data using the Net
Meter application on our Windows 7 notebook computers.
The testing day began early in the morning until the early evening hours. We recognize that
network loading had some impact on the results, but only for some of the KPIs and more promi-
nently on the Band 4 network which supported LTE-enabled smartphones. We strongly suspect
that to the extent network loading impacted the results it was in the noise and inconsequential in
the big scheme of things.
A large percentage of our test data was collected from a moving vehicle. This approach ensured that
we achieved statistically meaningful results since as we have demonstrated in past reports, moving
a few feet or turning 90 degrees can meaningfully impact the achievable throughput. Further, we
based our analysis and conclusions on literally hundreds of Gigabytes of transferred data. This
approach is markedly different from the more commonly used method which involves using popular
web-based “speed testing” sites and transferring tens of Megabytes of data. These methods would
also be completely useless when it came to comparing the performance of the two bands or the
interoperability between the two bands.
Like all Signals Ahead reports, we received no sponsorship or funding from the impacted compa-
nies in this report, in order to maintain our independence. As such, we foot the bill for all of our
travel expenses not to mention an inordinate amount of time and effort collecting the data and
writing these series of reports. On our own initiative, we contacted Rogers to gain access to their
network and as a courtesy we briefed them on the results just days before we published the report. To
the best of our knowledge Ericsson did not see any of the results prior to this report being published
although we did indicate to a couple of people at Ericsson that we had tested their network in
Vancouver – after we had already completed the testing.
We also could not have done this report without the support of Accuver who provided us with its
suite of drive test tools and post-processing software. SRG takes full responsibility for the analysis
and conclusions that are documented in this report.
 Potential Future Topics
The following list includes topics that we are currently considering.

➤➤ M2M Communications

➤➤ TD-LTE network performance benchmark results

➤➤ Analyzing the real-world impacts of frequency on in-building coverage

➤➤ Multi-vendor LTE network benchmark study

➤➤ Self-Optimizing Networks (SON)

➤➤ Smartphone signaling implications across operating systems

➤➤ How network performance (throughput and latency) impacts the user experience

➤➤ Transmission Mode 3 versus Transmission Mode 4 in a Live Network and Test Lab

➤➤ LTE chipset performance benchmark test results

➤➤ The impact of Type 3i receivers on UE performance (includes chipset benchmark tests of leading
solutions)

➤➤ Smartphone signaling implications and LTE

➤➤ HSPA+ (MIMO) network performance benchmark results

➤➤ The challenges of delivering video in a mobile network

➤➤ Cloud RAN and the use of a Distributed Network Architecture

➤➤ Embedded modules/netbooks

➤➤ Going Green – financial implications and challenges

➤➤ Whatever happened to IMS?

➤➤ LTE Americas – key conference takeaways

➤➤ Public Safety Options with 700MHz

➤➤ EV-DO Rev B network performance benchmark results

➤➤ LTE chipset landscape

13  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.0  Key Conclusions and Observations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
3.0  Band 4 and Band 7 Downlink and Uplink Performance Analysis – overall results………………………………………… 18
4.0  Detailed Band 7 and Band 4 Downlink Performance Analysis – including specific test scenarios………………… 22
4.1  0538 Drive Test – Central Vancouver…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
4.2  “Last Day” Drive Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
4.3  Stanley Park Drive Test……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
5.0  Detailed Band 4 and Band 7 Uplink Performance Analysis – specific test scenarios…………………………………… 36
5.1  “Last Day” Drive Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
5.2  Stanley Park Drive Test……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43
5.3  0637 Stationary Test – West Vancouver……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
6.0  Band 7 and Band 4 Interoperability and Handover Analysis………………………………………………………………………… 47
6.1  0800 Drive Test – West Vancouver……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
6.2  0858 Drive Test – West Vancouver……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
7.0  Band 7 and Band 4 In-building Performance Analysis………………………………………………………………………………… 55
7.1  Pan Pacific Hotel – 1st Floor………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
7.2  Pan Pacific Hotel – 2nd Floor……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61
8.0  Test Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
9.0  Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 68
10.0  Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

14  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Index of Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Vancouver Area Drive Routes – Close-up of downtown and all routes………………………………………………………… 12
Figure 2. Downlink Application Layer Throughput Analysis – Band 7 versus Band 4…………………………………………………… 19
Figure 3. Uplink Application Layer Throughput Analysis – Band 7 versus Band 4………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 4. Network Latency Results - RTT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 5. Limited Drive Test RSRP Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………………………… 23
Figure 6. Limited Drive Test SINR Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………………………… 23
Figure 7. Limited Drive Test Downlink Path Loss Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………………………… 24
Figure 8. Limited Drive Test RSRP versus PDSCH Throughput during Handovers – Scatter Plot…………………………………… 25
Figure 9. Limited Drive Test RSRP Values during Handovers – Band 7 Time Series……………………………………………………… 26
Figure 10. Limited Drive Test RSRP Values during Handovers – Band 4 Time Series…………………………………………………… 26
Figure 11. 0538 Drive Test Route – Vehicular Speed………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 12. 0538 Drive Test Downlink Path Loss Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………… 27
Figure 13. 0538 Drive Test 64 QAM Utilization Rate – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………… 28
Figure 14. 0538 Drive Test 64 QAM Utilization Rate – Band 4…………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 15. 0538 Drive Test 64 QAM Utilization Rate – Band 7…………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 16. Last Day Drive Test Route – Vehicular Speed…………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Figure 17. Last Day Drive Test Downlink Path Loss Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots ………………………………… 31
Figure 18. Last Day Drive Test RSRP Values during Handovers – Band 7 and Band 4 Time Series…………………………………… 32
Figure 19. Last Day Drive Test SINR versus RSRP during Handovers – Band 7 and Band 4 Scatter Plots………………………… 33
Figure 20. Last Day Drive Test SINR Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………………… 33
Figure 21. Stanley Park Drive Route ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Figure 22. Stanley Park Drive Test RSRP Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………… 35
Figure 23. Limited Drive Test Uplink Transmit Power – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………… 37
Figure 24. Limited Drive Test Power Headroom – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………… 37
Figure 25. Last Day Drive Test Power Headroom – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………… 38
Figure 26. Last Day Drive Test Power Headroom – Band 4………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Figure 27. Last Day Drive Test Power Headroom – Band 7………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Figure 28. Last Day Drive Test Power Headroom versus PUSCH Throughput – Band 7 and Band 4 Scatter Plots……………40
Figure 29. Last Day Drive Test Uplink Transmit Power –Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………… 41
Figure 30. Last Day Drive Test Uplink Resource Blocks Utilization – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………… 41
Figure 31. Last Day Drive Test Number of Uplink Resource Blocks versus PUSCH Throughput During Handovers ………… 42
Figure 32. Stanley Drive Test Uplink Transmit Power –Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………… 43
Figure 33. Stanley Drive Test PUSCH Throughput –Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………… 44
Figure 34. 0637 Stationary Test Location………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Figure 35. 0637 Stationary Test RSRP and PUSCH Throughput – Band 7 and Band 4 Time Series………………………………… 46
Figure 36. 0637 Stationary Test Number of Assigned Uplink Resource Blocks and PUSCH Throughput –
Band 7 and Band 4 Time Series………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Figure 37. 0800 Drive Test Frequency Selection – Band ALL or Band 4……………………………………………………………………… 47
Figure 38. 0800 Drive Test RSRP and Frequency Band – Band ALL and Band 4 Time Series………………………………………… 48

15  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

Figure 39. 0800 Drive Test RSRP and Frequency Band – Band ALL and Band 4 Time Series (close-up view)…………………… 48
Figure 40. 0800 Drive Test Number of Uplink Resource Blocks – Band ALL and Band 4 Time Series…………………………… 49
Figure 41. 0858 Drive Test Frequency Selection – Band ALL or Band 4……………………………………………………………………… 50
Figure 42. 0858 Drive Test RSRP and PDSCH Throughput – Band ALL and Band 4 Time Series……………………………………… 51
Table 1. Handover Instances and Corresponding RSRP Values…………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Figure 43. 0858 Drive Test PDSCH Throughput and Assigned Resource Blocks during a Handover – Band 7 to Band 4…… 52
Figure 44. 0858 Drive Test PDSCH Throughput and Assigned Resource Blocks during a Handover – Band 7 to Band 4… 53
Figure 45. Handover Succcess and (two) Failures……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Figure 46. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor RSRP Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………………………………… 55
Figure 47. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor PUSCH Throughput Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………… 56
Figure 48. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor RSRP versus PUSCH Throughput – Band 7 and Band 4 Scatter Plots…………………… 57
Figure 49. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor Power Headroom Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………… 57
Figure 50. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor PUSCH Throughput – 1715 MHz geo plot…………………………………………………………… 58
Figure 51. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor PUSCH Throughput – 2530 MHz geo plot………………………………………………………… 59
Figure 52. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor Power Headroom – 1715 MHz geo plot……………………………………………………………… 59
Figure 53. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor Power Headroom – 2530 MHz geo plot……………………………………………………………60
Figure 54. Pan Pacific Hotel 1st Floor Power Headroom versus PUSCH Throughput –
Band 7 and Band 4 Scatter Plots………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60
Figure 55. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor RSRP Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots………………………………………… 61
Figure 56. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor PUSCH Throughput Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………… 61
Figure 57. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor RSRP versus PUSCH Throughput – Band 7 and Band 4 Scatter Plots…………………… 62
Figure 58. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor Power Headroom Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………… 62
Figure 59. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor PUSCH Throughput – 1715 MHz geo plot………………………………………………………… 63
Figure 60. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor PUSCH Throughput – 2530 MHz geo plot……………………………………………………… 63
Figure 61. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor Power Headroom – 1715 MHz geo plot…………………………………………………………… 64
Figure 62. Pan Pacific Hotel 2nd Floor Power Headroom – 2530 MHz geo plot…………………………………………………………… 64
Figure 63. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action – DL performance………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Figure 64. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action – In-building……………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Figure 65. RSRP Values during Handovers (Band 7) – Time Series……………………………………………………………………………… 69
Figure 66. RSRP Values during Handovers (Band 4) – Time Series……………………………………………………………………………… 69
Figure 67. Last Day Drive Test RSRP Values during Handovers – Time Series……………………………………………………………… 70
Figure 68. 0858 Drive Test PDSCH Throughput and Assigned Resource Blocks during a Handover –
Band 4 to Band 7…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70
Figure 69. Inclusive Drive Test RSRP Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………………………………………… 71
Figure 70. Inclusive Drive Test SINR Results – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots…………………………………………………… 71
Figure 71. Inclusive Drive Test Uplink Transmit Power – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………… 72
Figure 72. Inclusive Drive Test Power Headroom – Band 7 and Band 4 Probability Plots……………………………………………… 72

16  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW

 In Case You Missed It
➤ 11/6/12 “M2M – toward the Internet of things” We
analyze the M2M landscape and some of the key players
involved in realizing this vision.   The business models for
M2M are still in flux and eventually multiple business models
will have to be implemented. We look at the new business
models being explored by mobile operators and MVNOs.  The
global connectivity requirements of M2M services make
it natural fit for cloud services so there will need to be new
cloud platforms in both the operator networks and enterprises
to support M2M services.  We also analyze the requirements
and vendors for such platforms.  More importantly, the radio
and core networks will require enhancements to support the
deluge of new M2M connections.  We discuss some of the
major issues and how the 3GPP standards body and operators
are planning to address these issues.
➤ 10/15/12 “Lost and Found” As a follow-on report to
Chips and Salsa XV, we examine the real world A-GNSS
performance capabilities of leading smartphones. We also
evaluate the performance attributes of the most popular
navigation applications, including the amount of data traffic
they generate, the length of time the smartphones remain
connected to the network, and the amount of signaling traffic
that they generate. Ultimately, we conclude that there are
fairly dramatic performance differences for both the A-GNSS
platforms and the navigation applications that have user expe-
rience and network implications.
➤ 9/13/12 “Chips and Salsa XV - Disparately Seeking
Satellites” In collaboration with Spirent Communications,
we provide the industry’s first independent analysis of A-GNSS
platforms. The study includes conducted tests of vendor
supplied A-GPS and A-GNSS (A-GPS + GLONASS) solu-
tions and over-the-air testing of several leading smartphones.
We demonstrate that while the performance across the plat-
forms is largely comparable, there are significant differences in
the performance of the solutions once they are implemented in
the smartphone.
➤ 8/20/12 “The B Side of LTE - when your ‘A Game’ just
isn’t good enough” We take a look at many of the proposed
features being considered for 3GPP Release 12 and beyond,
including advancements in the use of small cells, higher order
MIMO and modulation schemes, 3D beamforming, network
optimization, machine type communication, and device to
device discovery and communication.
➤ 7/2/12 “Mobile Core Network 2.0 - the new reality
or a fly-by-night catch phrase?” Moving to an all-IP
core network presents fresh challenges for operators. The EPC
provides operators with the platform for the delivery of basic
data services. However, operators need to prepare the EPC to
deliver enhanced services beyond basic data services. Areas
addressed include the centralized or decentralized approach,
the Diameter protocol, network offload and optimization, the
Content Delivery Network (CDN), and policy control. but more importantly, the report identifies important vendor
17  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW
➤ 6/8/12 “Debbie Downer Does Barcelona” We provide
highlights from this year’s LTE World Summit, which was
held in Barcelona, Spain. Unlike years past where the issue
was on technical issues and challenges, the focus of this
year’s event was on the business case for LTE. To the extent
technology issues were discussed, they were more futuristic,
including network optimization, Cloud RAN, and small cells.
➤ 5/23/12 “Improve your [RF] Front-End in Seven Easy
Steps!” LTE, either directly or indirectly, poses several chal-
lenges for mobile devices, in particular for the RF front end.
In addition to band fragmentation, LTE introduces MIMO
and carrier aggregation, while its characteristics, such as a
higher PAPR, can be problematic to support. In addition to
exploring these technical challenges in detail, we examine
seven potential solutions, all involving the RF front-end
design, that should be considered.
➤ 4/16/12 “LTE Advanced and CoMP: what goes
around, comes around” CoMP is a Release 11 feature
that leverages the simultaneous support of multiple transmis-
sion points to serve mobile devices in the high interference
areas that occur between cells (inter-cell) and between sectors
within a given cell (intra-cell). In theory it can provide stellar
gains on the order of high double-digit percentages for edge of
cell user throughput while also providing at least some increase
in overall network efficiency. In practical terms, the benefits of
CoMP are less clear and there is at least some justified reserva-
tions regarding its potential impact on an operator’s network.
In addition to explaining the technical details of the various
CoMP implementations, we examine the potential benefits,
key challenges, potential alternatives, and the likely rollout
strategies.
➤ 3/28/12 “Cellular and Wi-Fi: A match made in
Heaven?” Based on interviews with leading stakeholders
and a thorough analysis of the standardization processes,
we discuss how and why Wi-Fi networks will become more
closely integrated with cellular networks.
➤ 2/23/12 “It’s a Small World After All - and other
key trends for MWC and 2012” In advance of this
year’s MWC, we discuss many of the key trends that we see
emerging for 2012. These trends include the return of Nokia, a
renewed focus on Evolved HSPA+ and LTE-Advanced, small
cells and TD-LTE.
➤ 1/30/12 "The Mother of all Network Benchmark
Tests - Volume 4 (The HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA Edition)”
In Volume 4 we provide a deep-dive analysis of HSPA+ and
DC-HSDPA network performance, as exemplified by operator
deployments in North America. This report focuses largely on
Ericsson and NSN infrastructure, but we include some ALU.
The report focuses on important differences between AT&T
and T-Mobile's implementations of their chosen technologies,
differentiators and deficiencies that impact network perfor-
mance and the user experience.
RTT TCP dBm dB Mbps ms MOS LTE HSPA+
TD-LTE EV-DO Rev A/B Mobile WiMAX MCS
70%
5,000
60%
Total DC-HSDPA PHY Layer Throughput (Kbps) 35.7%
4,000

MO RI BLER 64QAM 16QAM QPSK CQI L1 DL

52.9%
50%

NOW
3,000
40%

RSCP CINR ACK NACK 2,000

PDSCH HS-PDSCH HS-S
AVAILABLE!
30%
HSPA Demo
18.5%

S E-DPCH FTP UDP HTTP RTT TCP dBm dB Mbp

Phone - Cat 8 (1Rx)
1,000 PHY Layer Primary Throughput (Kbps) 20%

PHY Layer Secondary 10%

0

TE HSPA+ DC-HSDPA TD-LTE EV-DO Rev A/B M

Throughput (Kbps)
0%

17:29.0
17:37.0
17:45.0
17:53.0
18:01.0
18:09.0
18:17.0
18:25.0
18:33.0
18:41.0
18:49.0
18:57.0
19:05.0
19:13.0
19:21.0
19:29.0
19:37.0
19:45.0
19:53.0
20:01.0
20:09.0
20:17.0
20:25.0
20:33.0
20:41.0
20:49.0
20:57.0
21:05.0
21:13.0
21:20.0
21:27.0
21:35.0
21:43.0
35:33.0
35:45.0
35:57.0
36:09.0
36:21.0
36:33.0
36:45.0
36:57.0
37:09.0
37:21.0
37:33.0
37:45.0
37:57.0
38:09.0
38:21.0
-50 -40 -30 -20

X MCS MCS SNR MIMO RI BLER 64QAM 16Q

QI L1 DL RSSI RSRQ RSCP CINR ACK NACK PD
CH HS-SCCH MAC-HS E-DPCH FTP UDP HTTP
m dB Mbps ms MOS LTE HSPA+ DC-HSDPA TD
Rev A/B Mobile WiMAX MCS MCS SNR MIM
4QAM 16QAM QPSK CQI L1 DL RSSI RSRQ R
ACK NACK PDSCH HS-PDSCH HS-SCCH MA
FTP UDP HTTP RTT TCP dBm dB Mbps ms MO
DC-HSDPA TD-LTE EV-DO Rev A/B Mobile Wi
CS SNR MIMO RI BLER 64QAM 16QAM QPSK C
I RSRQ RSCP CINR ACK NACK PDSCH HS-PD
H MAC-HS E-DPCH FTP UDP HTTP RTT TCP dB
ms MOS LTE HSPA+ DC-HSDPA TD-LTE EV-DO
obileorder
WiMAX MCS MCS SNR MIMO RI BLER 64Q
your report license now (included as part of a Signals Ahead subscription)
QPSK CQI L1 DL RSSI RSRQ RSCP CINR ACK N
License Costs Contact Information

HS-PDSCH HS-SCCH MAC-HS E-DPCH FTP

You may call us at +1 (510) 273-2439 or email us at information@signal-
Volume 1 – Network and Technology Performance: $1,995 sresearch.com and we will contact you for your billing information or
AVAILABLE NOW! respond to any further inquiries that you may have. Subscription infor-

RTT TCP dBm dB Mbps ms MOS LTE HSPA+

mation for our Signals Ahead research product, which includes these
Volume 2 – Quantifying the User Experience: $1,495
reports, can be found on the last page of this report. You can also visit
AVAILABLE NOW! our website at www.signalsresearch.com or write us at

TD-LTE EV-DO Rev A/B Mobile WiMAX MCS

Volumes 3 & 4 – Detailed Performance Analysis: $1,495
AVAILABLE NOW! Signals Research Group, LLC
10 Ormindale Court
Full Report – All 4 volumes: $3,995
MO RI BLER 64QAM 16QAM QPSK CQI L1 DL
18  DecemberOakland,

6, 2012CA 94611
| Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW
 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 – ATTN: Sales
10 Ormindale Court
Oakland, CA 94611

Our fax number is (510) 338-1284.

Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your bill-
ing 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 and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless
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 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 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. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the top-
ics 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
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 inconsistent with
the analysis provided in this report. Signals Research Group seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals
Research Group 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 (copyright ©2012, all rights reserved by Signals Research
Group).

19  December 6, 2012 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 8, Numbers 13 & 14 PREVIEW