SA Vol 14 DSS

Redefining Research December 1, 2020 Vol. 16 No.
10
5G:
The Greatest Show on Earth!
Volume 14: Pick Your Poison
PART OF “THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK BENCHMARK TESTS” SERIES OF REPORTS

YOUR
ATTENTION
PLEASE
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF OUR RESEARCH MATERIAL WILL RESULT IN THE NON-REFUND-
ABLE CANCELLATION OF YOUR SUBSCRIPTION. We also reserve the right to post your company’s name, with logo, to the
“SRG Wall of Shame.” If you received this issue from someone outside of your organization and it did not come directly from
SRG then the licensing terms for our research are being violated. If you forward this research to external organizations, either
in whole or in part, or if you share the contents of the report beyond the authorized allocation within your organization then
the licensing terms for our research are being violated.
If you value the information and insight that we provide then I strongly urge you to respect our hard work and livelihood and
subscribe to our research. If you do not have a platinum license or a global license, you may want to upgrade your license so
that you can share this issue across your entire organization with our blessing.
If you or your organization is interested in distributing this report to outside organizations, please feel free to contact us to
discuss licensing terms and fees.
If you would like to leverage a quote from this report and you have at least a global license, please contact us for permission
and we will be happy to provide it.
1.0 Executive Summary
Key Highlights from this Study

Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) is a potentially compelling feature of 5G NR since
it allows a mobile operator to relatively quickly deploy 5G NR across its existing LTE
coverage footprint without the operator needing to acquire new spectrum or make a
hard cutover between spectrum that is being used for LTE to spectrum that can be used
for 5G NR. With all previous G technologies, operators had to wait for spectrum auctions
or they had to play a careful dance between maintaining network capacity require-
ments with their legacy technology/spectrum versus deploying what could be a more
spectral efficient technology, if only their existing base of mobile devices supported the
new technology. Migrating an installed base of subscribers to a next generation handset
doesn’t happen overnight.
Although operators are presently leveraging DSS to rapidly roll out 5G NR coverage,
they are paying a steep penalty when it comes to overall spectral efficiency. In parallel,
consumers suffer from lower data speeds than would be possible in a pre-DSS world.
“Fortunately,” narrow 5G NR channel bandwidths, combined with a relative abundance
of LTE bandwidth and the deployment of LTE in new spectrum helps mask the problem.
In fact, consumers with a shiny new 5G-capable iPhone may experience much higher data
speeds today with a 5G icon lighting up on their phone’s display than they had with their
old iPhone, even though the overall throughput gains they are seeing occur alongside the
negative gains they are getting from 5G NR, deployed as part of an operator’s DSS strategy.
SRG conducted an extensive benchmark study of DSS using the Verizon markets in
Minneapolis, MN, and Oklahoma City, OK, as well as the AT&T market in Plano, TX. As part
of this study, we tested two different implementations of DSS, namely CRS rate matching
and MBSFN. As discussed later in this section, CRS rate matching can, in theory, achieve
performance parity between 5G NR and LTE. However, we found that in seemingly all
network conditions, 5G NR data speeds, and most importantly spectral efficiency, lagged
that of LTE. DSS, using MBSFN subframes to carry the 5G NR data traffic, shouldn’t face
the same issues associated with comminglingly 5G NR and LTE data traffic in time and
space within the same radio channel. However, it introduces a significant inefficiency to
both technologies that is hidden in plain sight. Mixing 5G NR and LTE data traffic using
MBSFN only achieves performance parity with a dedicated LTE channel if the mix of 5G
NR and LTE data traffic exactly matches the number of subframes dedicated to the two
air interfaces. This outcome is impossible in a commercial network where the mix of 5G
NR and LTE data traffic is never uniformly distributed across the network.
Thanks to Accuver Americas, Rohde & Schwarz, and Spirent Communications for the use
of their respective test equipment and platforms. SRG was solely responsible for the data
collection, analysis and commentary provided in this report.
Signals Research Group (SRG) conducted an extensive benchmark study of DSS (Dynamic
Spectrum Sharing) and we are publishing the first set of results in this special Signals Ahead report
– every report is special to us but we think this report is especially special to the industry. Given
the amount of time and effort that went into this study, we thank our subscribers in advance for
not sharing this report beyond the terms of their subscription. If you are receiving the executive
summary as part of a special report preview, then you are free to forward the document as you see
3 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

fit. We should have a second report on DSS in early 2021 that looks at DSS implementations from
a slightly different angle.
We tested DSS in two Verizon markets using two Galaxy S20 Ultra smartphones that the operator
provided us along with a few SRG-owned smartphones that we have for the Verizon network. The
testing occurred after Verizon had announced the official launch of its nationwide 5G NR network
(aka DSS in Band n5) but prior to the operator pushing out the DSS functionality to the installed
base of smartphones which support it. Specifically, we tested DSS in Minneapolis on October
21st through October 23rd and we tested in Oklahoma City on October 25th through October
27th. Testing in the two markets allowed us to evaluate two different implementations of DSS. In
Minneapolis, we tested 5G NR DSS with CRS rate matching (Ericsson) and in Oklahoma City,
we tested 5G NR DSS with MBSFN subframes (Nokia). We also briefly tested DSS with CRS rate
matching in Plano, Texas on October 29th and October 30th using the AT&T network (Ericsson)
and AT&T smartphones.
We’ll get into the mechanics of DSS in our second report, but to summarize there are at least
two means of deploying DSS, thereby allowing 5G NR and LTE data traffic to share the same Cell Reference Signal
radio channel. This capability is possible due to the similarities between the 5G NR and LTE radio (CRS) with rate matching
and Multicast Broadcast
channel, including their subframes and sub-carrier spacing (aka numerology). With Cell Reference
Single Frequency Network
Signal (CRS) rate matching, the network scheduler can dynamically allocate network resources (MBSFN) are two means
(PRBs, or PDSCH Resource Blocks) between 5G NR and LTE in both time and frequency as the of enabling DSS.
mix of traffic between the two air interfaces changes. The somewhat well-known claimed limitation
with DSS rate matching is that the 5G NR receiver in the smartphone is prone to interference from
LTE transmissions in adjacent cells and the inability to mitigate interference degrades its perfor-
mance. The LTE receiver has the necessary interference cancellation mechanisms so the interference
from the LTE network isn’t a problem.
Implementing 5G NR DSS with MBSFN (Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network) Operators can also use
leverages an unused LTE feature that was originally designed to broadcast the same data content leverage components
from an abandoned LTE
(e.g., videos or live events) across the network to multiple consumers via a feature called enhanced
feature, called eMBMS or
MBMS (eMBMS). The efficiencies of MBSFN for this feature are huge, as we’ve documented in LTE-Broadcast, to schedule
previous Signals Ahead reports, but so far, the industry hasn’t warmed up to the technology. Since 5G NR traffic with a semi-
LTE smartphones can recognize an MBSFN subframe, even if they don’t support eMBMS, the static allocation between
network can tell the smartphones when they can’t use them. Put simply, an operator can leverage the two technologies.
the MBSFN subframes for 5G NR data traffic for those smartphones that support 5G NR DSS
while LTE-only smartphones will simply ignore the subframes. In theory, DSS with the MBSFN
implementation avoids the pitfalls of DSS with CRS rate matching, but it comes with a significant
limitation that we believe most operators are trying to avoid. Verizon has launched 5G NR DSS
using MBSFN, but we believe its long-term strategy is to use CRS rate matching. To the best of our
knowledge, AT&T has not launched 5G NR DSS using MBSFN although it is testing DSS with
CRS rate matching with all its infrastructure vendors, including those AT&T vendors which have
not currently launched DSS with the operator.
To summarize, 5G NR DSS with CRS rate matching will likely become the long-term DSS solu-
tion of choice for most operators, or at least this statement is true for AT&T and Verizon. However,
the performance issues we observed in our testing will need to be resolved, especially when operators
deploy 5G NR DSS in their mid-band spectrum which carries the bulk of the data traffic. 5G NR
DSS with MBSFN shouldn’t have interference-related issues, but there are inherent inefficiencies
associated with using a semi-static solution to handle the dynamic mix of 5G NR and LTE traffic. Analyzing DSS performance
Pick your Poison! requires analyzing
the physical layer and
Testing DSS isn’t straight forward. It is also imperative that the analysis of the data focuses
focusing exclusively on
exclusively on the radio channel supporting DSS, plus perhaps the LTE channel serving as the the radio channel which
anchor band. Analyzing performance at the application layer, such as with an app-based throughput supports 5G NR DSS.

measurement tool, inherently results in the inclusion of data throughput from all LTE frequency
bands used by the smartphone. As we document in this report, in the best of circumstances low
band 5G NR throughput still only accounts for a small percentage of the total user throughput. This
statement is especially true for those operators who are currently leveraging their CBRS spectrum
for additional LTE capacity. We’ve stumbled into CBRS coverage areas in Verizon networks in
Chicago and Minneapolis, and when we do encounter it, the subsequent throughput it delivers
dwarfs the simultaneous throughput from 5G NR DSS. Yes, the smartphones we tested supported
CBRS and 5G NR DSS at the same time, along with the necessary LTE band used as the anchor
cell. This situation won’t stop consumers from seeing the 5G icon, witnessing the high data speeds,
and attributing everything to 5G NR. No harm, no foul, but it doesn’t mean that 5G NR DSS,
based on its current performance, is a long-term winning strategy for operators.
In fact, AT&T, and we assume other operators, views DSS as a tool in the toolbox. It only uses Operators won’t use 5G
DSS when it needs to use DSS (i.e., in areas where it needs the spectrum for LTE) while if it has NR DSS if they don’t need
to use it, plus deploying
sufficient LTE capacity it simply moves the entire radio channel to 5G NR. We tested this scenario
DSS today doesn’t mean
in Indianapolis while we tested 5G NR DSS in Plano, Texas, where the operator presumably doesn’t they will need to keep it
have the luxury to dedicate the entire radio channel to 5G NR. We also surmise from our conversa- turned on tomorrow.
tions with the operator that there are other parts of the greater Dallas market where the operator has
deployed 5G NR without using DSS since its LTE capacity needs are not as great. Obviously, the
operator must be careful to minimize the areas where 5G NR DSS and dedicated 5G NR spectrum
intersect. In the case of Verizon, a large percentage of its installed base of smartphones support LTE
in Band 5, so it doesn’t want to rob them of the available capacity, especially when the installed base
of 5G NR smartphones supporting Band n5 is relatively modest at the moment. DSS is also not
limited to low-band spectrum and Band 5/Band n5, since AT&T has already deployed 5G NR DSS
in some mid-band LTE spectrum in select markets in the United States.
T-Mobile has been very vocal about the challenges of DSS and the results of our study largely A low band 5G NR
support their view. We’re not convinced, however, that using 5G NR DSS in a single 10 MHz deployment, with or without
DSS, can’t deliver data
channel will have that much impact [good or bad] on the overall network performance since the
speeds that most consumers
5G NR bandwidth is relatively insignificant when balanced against Verizon’s and AT&T’s total associate with 5G.
spectrum assets. T-Mobile has been able to dedicate spectrum to 5G NR (Band n71) so it hasn’t
needed to use 5G NR DSS. We also believe it hopes to avoid, or at least minimize, using 5G NR
DSS, instead relying on 5G NR carrier aggregation and its Band 41/Band n41 spectrum to migrate
spectrum from LTE to 5G NR. We also believe that low band 5G NR performance is far less
important to overall network capacity for AT&T and Verizon than it is for T-Mobile. All operators
need low-band spectrum for basic coverage purposes.
Although our testing of the three networks has been somewhat limited to a few markets, we have
been more impressed with the overall performance of the AT&T and Verizon networks (pre Sprint
network integration), even though 5G NR performance on the T-Mobile network has been much
better than the other two networks (excluding 5G NR FR2 where Verizon has the clear advantage).
In any event, 5G NR in Band n71 (600 MHz) can’t deliver the user throughput that most consumers
expect with 5G NR, especially when Band n71 is the only radio channel contributing to throughput,
such as is the case with a Standalone (SA) network architecture. T-Mobile has the spectrum, thanks
also to Sprint, so as these two networks come together and as the operator takes full advantage of
its 2.5 GHz spectrum it has the clear ability to change the landscape. And then comes the C-Band
spectrum and the circle of life starts over.
As a tease for the full report, we’ve included two figures in the executive summary. Figure 1 shows
the 5G NR signal strength (RSRP) for Band n5 (Verizon) along one drive test route in Minneapolis
and Figure 2 shows the 5G NR signal strength for Band n71 (T-Mobile). We captured this data
using the Rohde & Schwarz TSME scanner with the omnidirectional antenna placed on the roof of
the car. Although the figures show the strength of the 5G NR signal, this information says very little

about the quality (SINR) of the 5G NR signal, the performance of the smartphones on 5G NR,
or even if the smartphones were using 5G NR instead of going off on their own and using various
combinations of LTE frequency bands without using 5G NR. We’ll save that analysis for the main
body of the report.
Figure 1. 5G NR Band n5 RSRP – DSS Test 25
RSRP (dBm)
X <= -110
-110 < X <= -100
-100 < X <= -90
-90 < X <=-80
X > -80
Source: Signals Research Group
Figure 2. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP – DSS Test 25
RSRP (dBm)
X <= -110
-110 < X <= -100
-100 < X <= -90
-90 < X <=-80
X > -80

Scanner data, along with smartphone cell measurement reports, was also useful to help us under- We identified huge
stand basic smartphone behavior. Based on our testing, we identified huge differences in the Verizon differences in the Verizon
network performance
network performance between Oklahoma City and Minneapolis that were seemingly unrelated to
between Oklahoma City
the 5G NR DSS implementation. Matching scanner data with the smartphones’ performance and and Minneapolis that were
log files was also useful when determining why a smartphone wasn’t using 5G NR or even if it could seemingly unrelated to the
be using 5G NR. 5G NR DSS implementation.
To summarize our findings, although we are fans of DSS due to the flexibility it provides
operators when migrating their network from LTE to 5G NR, we can’t help but be disappointed
by the subsequent performance it currently delivers. We know from briefing the two operators
that they are working with their vendor community to improve performance, including various
interference mitigation techniques, so the performance issues we observed today may not exist
at some point in the future. For that matter, readers shouldn’t view 5G NR DSS as a permanent
solution although given the expected lifespan of LTE, 5G NR DSS, or a dedicated LTE radio
carrier(s), will need to remain at least a small part of an operator’s long-term network strategy for
most of the current decade.
We also note that in many markets, including the two markets we tested, Verizon has EV-DO For Verizon, its EV-DO
deployed in spectrum that sits adjacent to LTE Band 5. Therefore, the operator has used Resource radio assets, which can
reside alongside LTE Band
Block (RB) blanking – essentially only using 40 RBs out of a potential 50 RBs that are available
5, limit the throughput
in 10 MHz of spectrum for LTE, and now 5G NR DSS, to avoid interference between the two potential of LTE, and now
technologies. The only other option would have been to deploy a 5 MHz LTE channel, but this 5G NR, but this situation is
approach would have made less efficient use of the available spectrum. The use of RB blanking, unrelated to 5G NR DSS.
which is unrelated to 5G NR DSS, does limit the performance of LTE and 5G NR in this band
relative to what it could have achieved in another frequency band, such as LTE Band 13. We suspect
AT&T and Verizon both initially deployed 5G NR DSS in Band 5 to minimize IODT require-
ments. Now that 5G NR DSS is commercial and the sense of urgency (meeting the launch date for
the iPhone) no longer exists, we will see them push 5G NR DSS to new frequency bands. In the
Test Methodology chapter, we include a screen shot of scanner data, showing EV-DO residing close
to, but not adjacent to, Verizon’s LTE/5G NR DSS channel, as well as AT&T’s 5G NR channel.
We took this log file near Boulder, CO where Verizon was seemingly able to use the full 10 MHz of
spectrum, so it didn’t need to use RB blanking in this market
We collaborated with Accuver Americas, Rohde & Schwarz, and Spirent Communications for this
benchmark study. We leveraged Accuver’s XCAL-M and XCAL-Solo drive test solutions to collect
the drive test data (Qualcomm chipset diagnostic messages) and we used the company’s XCAP
post-processing software to analyze the data. Rohde & Schwarz provided its TSME6 and TSMA6
scanners. We captured TSME6 logs through XCAL-M to closely align scanner and phone data on
the networks we tested, focusing exclusively on the frequency bands where we knew the three opera-
tors had deployed 5G NR. We used the TSMA6 scanner to scan virtually all possible combinations
of frequency bands and technologies, including EV-DO. We integrated the TSME6 scanner results
with the smartphone logs to help us identify anomalies between what the smartphones were doing
and what the network suggested they could be doing. We used Spirent’s Umetrix Data to generate
We’ve collaborated with
high-bandwidth, reliable downlink data transfers, using HTTP and UDP data transfers from a
Accuver Americas, Rohde
server located in California or Virginia. & Schwarz and Spirent
We’ve worked extensively with Accuver since our very first LTE benchmark study back in 2010 Communications on
and we’ve worked with R&S on multiple 5G benchmark studies going back to our very first study of multiple occasions for
the Verizon 5GTF deployment. Finally, we’ve collaborated with Spirent on a wide range of field- and earlier benchmark studies.
lab-based benchmark studies since 2006 when we did the industry’s first independent benchmark
study of 3G chipsets. We provide additional information about the test equipment we used and how
we used it in the Test Methodology chapter.

This report includes the following analysis and figures:
➤ Overall RB efficiency (Mbps/RB) for LTE Band 5 and 5G NR DSS – filtered to ensure same
PCI usage
➤ Overall RB normalized and actual throughput for LTE Band 5 and 5G NR DSS – filtered to
ensure same PCI usage
➤ Distribution plots of RB efficiency and RB normalized throughput for LTE Band 5 and 5G NR
DSS – filtered to ensure same PCI usage
➤ 5G NR DSS contributions to total throughput across all used frequency bands
➤ 5G NR DSS usage versus availability (based on independent scanner logs)
➤ 5G NR DSS versus LTE throughput as a function of various 5G NR and LTE RSRP/SINR

measurements, including from the serving and the strongest interfering cell
➤ Dozens of figures showing geo plots, including the signal strength and quality of the 5G NR
radio channel, LTE/5G NR PCIs, CBRS, 5G NR FR2, 5G NR usage versus availability, RB
normalized throughput, etc.
Chapter 2 provides the key observations from this study. Chapter 3 provides the results from
testing 5G NR DSS with rate matching in Minneapolis and Plano. Chapter 4 provides the results
from testing 5G NR DSS with MBSFN in Oklahoma City. Chapter 5 includes the test method-
ology. Following a short Final Thoughts chapter, we include an appendix with additional figures that
didn’t find their way into the main body of the report.

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.0 Key Observations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
3.0 DSS with CRS Rate Matching ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.1 Greater Minneapolis Area – Verizon Wireless ………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.1.1 DSS Test 3-4 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
3.1.2 DSS Test 25 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

3.1.3 DSS Test 39 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
3.1.4 DSS Test 15-16 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
3.1.5 DSS Test 21 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34

3.1.6 DSS Test 34 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.2 Greater Plano Area – AT&T ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
4.0 DSS with MBSFN ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
4.1 DSS 200 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45
4.2 DSS 212 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
4.3 DSS 210 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50
4.4 DSS 213…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 52

5.0 Test Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
6.0 Final Thoughts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………58
7.0 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………59

Index of Figures & Tables
Figure 1. 5G NR Band n5 RSRP – DSS Test 25 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 2. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP – DSS Test 25 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 3. Minneapolis Test Area ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Figure 4. Drive Test Route – DSS Test 3-4 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Figure 5. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency …………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Figure 6. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput ……………………………………………………………… 19
Figure 7. Mobile Device Band/Technology Utilization …………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

Figure 8. Mobile Device Aggregate Total Throughput and CBRS Contributions …………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 9. Geo Plot of 5G NR and CBRS Utilization – Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 2 ……………………………………… 22
Figure 10. Mobile Device Throughput with 5G NR DSS and CBRS Active ………………………………………………………………… 23
Figure 11. Mobile Device 1 5G NR FR2 and CBRS Throughput Time Series ………………………………………………………………… 23
Figure 12. Mobile Device 2 5G NR DSS Band n5 and CBRS Throughput Time Series…………………………………………………… 24
Figure 13. 5G NR DSS Band n5 SINR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Figure 14. 5G NR Band n71 SINR …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Figure 15. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 16. Mobile Device 1 Technology and Band Utilization …………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 17. Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 2 Technology and Band Utilization – geo plot …………………………………… 27
Figure 18. DSS Test 39 Drive Route ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 19. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput Distribution …………………………………………… 28
Figure 20. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput …………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 21. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RSRP Distribution …………………………………………………………………………… 30
Figure 22. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput and LTE RSRP Delta Time Series ……………… 30
Figure 23. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and RSRP Time Series ………………………………………………………………… 31
Figure 24. DSS Test 15-16 Drive Route ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
Figure 25. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ……………………………………………………………………………………… 33

Figure 26. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency versus LTE RSRP Time Series Plot …………………………………… 33
Figure 27. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput and RB Normalized Throughput Time Series Plot …………… 34
Figure 28. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Network Conditions ………………………………………………………………………… 35
Figure 29. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency and Spectral Efficiency ………………………………………………… 35
Figure 30. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput Time Series Plot …………………………………………………………… 36
Figure 31. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput Time Series Plot ……………………………………… 36
Figure 32. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput …………………………………………………………………37
Figure 33. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency …………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Figure 34. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency versus RSRP ………………………………………………………………… 38
Figure 35. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RSRP Distribution …………………………………………………………………………… 39

Figure 36. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 SINR Distribution …………………………………………………………………………… 39
Figure 37. Oklahoma Test Area ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 38. 5G NR Band n5 RSRP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Figure 39. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

Figure 42. RSRP versus SINR in Minneapolis and Oklahoma City …………………………………………………………………………… 43
Figure 43. Spectral Efficiency Relative to LTE Band 5 (No DSS) ……………………………………………………………………………… 44
Figure 45. 5G NR Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Figure 46. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Allocation Time Series Plot ………………………………………………………… 46
Figure 47. 5G NR Band n5 DSS and LTE Band 5 PCI Map ………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Figure 48. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………………… 48
Figure 49. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Allocation Time Series Plot ………………………………………………………… 48
Figure 50. Test 212 5G NR Radio Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Figure 51. 5G NR Band n5 DSS RSRP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
Figure 53. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ……………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Figure 54. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE PCI Map ………………………………………………………………………………………………………52
Figure 55. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………………………53

Figure 56. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Time Series Plot ……………………………………………………………………………53
Figure 57. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus 5G NR RSRP Time Series Plot ……………………………… 54
Figure 58. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus 5G NR SINR Time Series Plot ……………………………… 54
Figure 59. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus PDCP Combining Losses Time Series Plot ……………… 54
Figure 60. XCAL-M with Smartphone Diagnostics ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
Figure 61. XCAL-M with Scanner Information ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Figure 62. TSME6 Scanner …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Figure 63. TSMA6 Scanner Screenshot ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57
Figure 64. Umetrix Data Architecture ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57

Figure 65. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and SINR Time Series ……………………………………………………………… 59
Figure 66. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and RSRP Time Series ……………………………………………………………… 60

IN
INCASE
CASEYOU
YOU MISSED IT:
MISSED IT:
SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES
➤ 10/7/20 “5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 13: A the report. SRG did all the testing and analysis of the data and we
Needle in a Haystack” SRG just completed its thirteenth 5G are solely responsible for the commentary in the report.
benchmark study, this time with a focus on the T-Mobile Band Simple Math. PDCP split bearer functionality can have a much
n71 5G NR Standalone (SA) network and how it compares with greater impact on total end user data speeds in the uplink than in
the operator's 5G NR Non-Standalone (NSA) network. We the downlink direction. The primary reason is that in the down-
tested in the Dallas area, as well as rural areas in Minnesota and link 3CCA to 5CCA LTE accounts for the majority of the total
Wisconsin. throughput. In the uplink, total data speeds can double, especially
Highlights of the Report include the following: if uplink LTE carrier aggregation isn't present.
Our Thanks. We did this study in collaboration with Accuver The Tradeoff. As is the case with downlink PDCP combining,
Americas, Rohde & Schwarz, and Spirent Communications who leveraging a low-band 5G NR carrier means the smartphone can't
provided us with their respective test equipment and platforms, use a low-band LTE carrier. This tradeoff can negate the benefits of
which we identify in the report. SRG did all the testing and analysis uplink combining and even result in a net negative gain in speeds
of the data and we are solely responsible for the commentary in the when uplink carrier aggregation is available and the low-band LTE
report. channel has greater bandwidth than 5G NR.
Our Methodology. We did most of our testing with two smart- Split Bearer in Band n260 improves performance, but the results
phones operating in parallel. One smartphone (S20 Ultra) could be better. Results were protocol specific but in all cases
supported SA and the other smartphone (McLaren OnePlus or greater use of 5G NR and LTE radio assets should be possible.
Note 10 Plus) only supported NSA. In some tests we forced the Darn that Thermal. Thermal RLFs (Radio Link Failures) reared
S20 Ultra to remain in SA mode even though NSA was available. their ugly head in our tests. This outcome is understandable in
We logged chipset diagnostic messages and captured scanner data Dallas in mid-August but hard to rationalize when the phone is
to independently determine LTE and 5G NR RF characteristics. in an air conditioned car in Indianapolis on a rainy day and only
Improved Coverage and Performance. Although it wasn't easy to transmitting modest uplink data speeds. We put things into context
find locations where the smartphone used [needed] SA, in those by looking at how much data a phone can receive/send for a given
regions, we observed 5G NR coverage which didn't exist with increase in temperature.
the NSA-capable smartphone. We also documented meaningful
increases in end user data speeds, even in cases when the NSA ➤ 7/8/20 “RAN#88e: 5G Standardization Update - Got
smartphone was using both LTE and 5G NR. Mail” SRG just finished participating in RAN#88e from the
Latency Results were Mixed. We measured handover times, acqui- comforts of our home office. As it stands now, all 3GPP activities
sition times, RTT and web page load times. The results were mixed, through at least the end of the year will be done electronically.
at best. instead of face-to-face.
Related Challenges. PDCP packet losses, especially with poor Highlights of the Report include the following:
LTE coverage remain a big problem that isn't specific to any Release 16 “sort of” in the books. 3GPP formally completed work
operator or vendor. Furthermore, we continue to observe smart- on Release 16 with the ASN.1 freeze during the plenary. It was
phones camping on a low-band LTE frequency (i.e., Band 12) really a formality since much of the work was previously completed
instead of leveraging 5G NR in another low-band frequency. We at the various working group meetings. However, we anticipate
are very familiar with the airplane mode feature which can trigger non-backwards compatible change requests (similar to what
a different response and the desired outcome. happened with Release 15), RAN4 work continues on Release 16,
Sidebar Study. Because we could, we drove across much of and there were a few critical work items that required an exception
Wisconsin while testing the top three operator networks. AT&T sheet, meaning additional work remains. NR-U, enhanced MIMO
had the fastest network (by far) while the T-Mobile network had and IAB are items where work remains.
the greatest use of 5G NR. We also captured scanner data to look Additional Release 17 Delays Inevitable. Although no decision
at operator low-/mid-band LTE coverage and 5G NR coverage. " was made, it is a certainty the Release 17 completion date will
slip by at least six months, with or without a reduction to existing
➤ 8/31/20 "5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 12: Simple functionality. No 3GPP face-to-face meetings will occur until at
Math” SRG just completed its twelfth 5G benchmark study, least Q1/2021.
this time with a focus on the AT&T Band n5 and Band n260 Changes in the Wind. 3GPP last dealt with Release 17 function-
networks which support downlink and uplink PDCP split bearer ality at RAN#86, last December. At the RAN#88e plenary, there
combining. AT&T has 2x5 MHz of Band n5 in Indianapolis and was the opportunity to introduce new Release study/work items,
2x10 MHz in Dallas, thanks to DSS. Additionally, AT&T has including 5G NR in new spectrum bands, as well as make changes
400 MHz of 39 GHz spectrum in Dallas. to objectives for existing study/work items. We go through most
Highlights of the Report include the following: of the new items and explain changes that were made to existing
Our Thanks. We did this study in collaboration with Accuver items.
Americas and Spirent Communications who provided us with Back in the Saddle. We are looking forward to doing more bench-
their respective test equipment and platforms, which we identify in mark studies throughout the remainder of the year. Vendors/opera-
tors are getting set to introduce new functionality and we are just
waiting for this action to happen.

2.0 Key Observations
We offer the following key observations based on our analysis of the data. We back up these observa-
tions with detailed results and analysis in the subsequent chapters of this report.
Although 5G NR DSS provides operators with flexibility, it comes with mean-

ingful inefficiencies that degrade both 5G NR and LTE performance. We tested two
different implementations of DSS – CRS rate matching (Ericsson) and MBSFN (Nokia). With
CRS rate matching we observed meaningful inefficiencies relative to LTE B5 performance in side-
by-side comparisons with the two smartphones both actively receiving data and sharing the same
PCI. Going into the study, we thought we might observe 5G NR performance issues with certain
cell geometries due to LTE interference from adjacent cells. However, our analysis suggests the
problem was more systemic, or at least we never observed instances when 5G NR performance was
on par with LTE. For this analysis, we looked at RB normalized results, including throughput per
RB (Mbps/RB) and RB normalized throughput. Interference from LTE can be an issue since the
same time/frequency allocation of LTE resources in an adjacent cell could appear as interference at
the 5G NR receiver in the serving cell. The interference exists with LTE, but LTE receivers have
interference cancellation mechanisms which presently do not exist with 5G NR. Operators agree
there are issues today with DSS and they are working with their vendors in unspecified ways to
address these issues.
To be more specific, LTE spectral efficiency (RB efficiency) was always at least a double-digit
percentage higher than 5G NR DSS with CRS rate matching. The results varied by test – we did
a lot of drive testing as well as stationary testing – but a difference of at least 50% wasn’t abnormal
and there were instances when the performance differences exceeded 100%. 5G NR DSS is always
a secondary carrier with NSA, while in our tests, LTE B5 could have been the primary carrier with
the LTE smartphone. When we compared results between smartphones when the LTE smart-
phone was using LTE B5 as a secondary carrier, the results were largely the same compared with
when LTE B5 was the primary carrier. Therefore, carrier aggregation scheduling inefficiencies do
not account for the performance degradation we observed. LTE inefficiency occurs with CRS rate
matching because if 5G NR DSS wasn’t deployed, LTE could have used the spectrum more effi-
ciently. Net-net: LTE and 5G NR smartphones suffer the consequences.
MBSFN shouldn’t create interference, meaning RB efficiency between 5G NR DSS and LTE
should have been comparable. It wasn’t, for reasons discussed in the next observation. However,
MBSFN creates a potentially significant inefficiency since MBSFN requires dedicated network
resources for LTE and 5G NR that must be uniformly applied across the network. Depending on
the mix of LTE and 5G NR traffic, we calculated that MBSFN efficiency could be as low as 38%
efficient relative to a dedicated LTE channel. This calculation is based on the MBSFN configuration
we observed in our testing along with the assumption that the radio channel had more than enough
5G NR traffic to fill the dedicated 5G NR subframes and no LTE traffic at the time. We explain
this analysis in more detail in the beginning part of Chapter 4. We believe that Verizon will move
away from MBSFN when possible and that AT&T has not deployed it commercially in its network.
5G NR coverage does not equate to a good 5G NR user experience. Low band frequen-
cies are great because they propagate long distances. Low band frequencies are bad because they
propagate long distances. We used smartphone data and independent scanner data to look at signal
strength (RSRP) and signal quality (SINR) in the two Verizon markets we tested DSS, as well as
between T-Mobile (Band n71) and Verizon (Band n5). As we’ve observed in earlier test campaigns
when we’ve tested low band 5G NR, including T-Mobile and AT&T 5G NR deployments, operators
tend to initially deploy a light layer of 5G NR and then rely on favorable propagation characteristics
of a low band signal to provide coverage.

Results from Oklahoma City suggest Verizon took this strategy to the extreme, meaning it
appeared to us as if the operator was primarily focused on getting 5G NR coverage to look good
on a map versus providing a good 5G NR experience. Looking at the signal strength (RSRP) we
observed most areas had usable signal strength, although we also drove through areas of the city
where the scanner didn’t detect a 5G NR signal, even though the map indicated the area was covered.
The scanner also showed there were multiple 5G NR radios (PCIs) in most areas of the network we
tested providing coverage with a similar signal strength. Unless there is a dominant signal there will
be high interference and that situation is what we observed with two different scanners as well as
with 3 different phones.
Case in point, the 5G NR DSS median SINR in Minneapolis was 10.1 dB while in Oklahoma
City it was 1 dB. Further, SINR as a function of RSRP greatly favored Minneapolis. We docu-
mented close to a 10 dB difference in SINR at each point along the RSRP curve between the two
markets. Given the unfavorable SINR, the data speeds we observed in Oklahoma City for both
5G NR DSS and LTE B5 were abnormally low, or on par with HSDPA or even a good EV-DO
network. Furthermore, we encountered LTE PCIs in Oklahoma City which did not support 5G NR
DSS, based on both the smartphone’s performance and information from the scanner. These two
factors likely explain why we found LTE B5 significantly outperformed 5G NR DSS on a per RB
basis in most tests, even though we should have seen something close to performance parity between
the two air interfaces. We point out we tested after Verizon had officially launched its nationwide
5G network but prior to the operator pushing out the functionality to smartphones and the launch/
availability of the 5G iPhone. It is quite possible that network performance has improved since we
collected the data.
Getting phones to use low band 5G NR is more art than science. We continue to face
issues getting smartphones to use low band 5G NR. The problem isn’t unique to DSS since we
faced it when testing Band n71 and when testing AT&T’s Band n5 deployment in Indianapolis.
As highlighted several times in the past, the issue is that today’s smartphones can only use a single
low band frequency, be it LTE or 5G NR. Some smartphones can use LTE Band 71 and 5G NR
Band n71 since the radio channels are adjacent to each other, but it requires the Band 71/Band n71
radio to be collocated with the LTE anchor cell and this situation does not always occur, as we’ve
demonstrated in an earlier report.
If a smartphone camps on LTE B13, for example, then it won’t/can’t use 5G NR in Band n5.
In our testing of the Verizon network, we faced these same issues when we didn’t disable other
low band frequencies in the smartphone. For this reason, we frequently disabled B13 in at least
one smartphone since the whole point of our testing was to evaluate 5G NR DSS in Band n5.
Interestingly, we encountered several instances when a 5G NR DSS capable smartphone would
use LTE B5 when 5G NR DSS in Band n5 was available, based on scanner logs and an adjacent
smartphone, which used 5G NR DSS.
We don’t have an explanation for why this happened, but it wasn’t something Verizon had encoun-
tered in its precommercial testing. In Oklahoma City, we know there were PCIs which supported
LTE Band 5, and which didn’t support 5G NR DSS, based on scanner logs, but we experienced the
same problem in Minneapolis. We acknowledge that our test methodology, which involves lengthy
data sessions exacerbates the problem since a smartphone is unlikely to self-correct and move from
LTE B5/B13 to 5G NR DSS during an active data session. However, we also identified instances
when the smartphone didn’t self-correct during a handover, even though this activity should have
resulted in the smartphone switching to 5G NR.
5G NR DSS isn’t a long-term solution, but aspects of it will remain in all opera-
tors’ networks through the current decade. Operators don’t need DSS to deploy 5G NR
if they have unused spectrum, which they can dedicate to 5G NR. They also don’t need DSS if they

can flip a switch and convert 100% of an LTE radio channel to 5G NR. However, DSS remains
useful if they want to migrate their LTE network to 5G NR in parallel with the transition of their
data traffic from LTE to 5G NR. Along the same lines, even if an operator had deployed DSS in
a particular band today, it doesn’t mean that they will keep DSS turned on in that band tomorrow.
Much depends on consumer adoption of 5G NR and the mix of 5G NR and LTE data traffic in
their network.
In the United States, T-Mobile has been very focal about not using DSS and it may not need to
use DSS in the near-term. However, unless it wants to dedicate a radio channel to LTE for the next
decade, it will have to consider DSS at some point – presumably after the industry addresses current
DSS performance issues. Likewise, we know that AT&T has deployed 5G NR in some markets
without using DSS while in other markets it has had to use DSS due to LTE traffic loads which
prevent it from completely switching off an LTE radio channel. We surmise Verizon faces similar
challenges and that it will deploy dedicated 5G NR radio channels when and where it is possible.
Starting in 2021, operators will get more aggressive with deploying a 5G NR standalone (SA)
network and 5G NR carrier aggregation capabilities will transition from demonstrations to
become a commercial reality. As these two events unfold, we expect operators will become more
aggressive with how they roll out DSS functionality. In fact, the two events create some synergy
whereby standalone 5G NR performance becomes more compelling when there isn’t a single 5G
NR radio channel involved. 20 MHz of 5G NR can’t deliver a compelling experience, but when
aggregating several 5G NR radio channels, including 5G NR millimeter wave channels, things
starts to get interesting.
Low band 5G NR will never deliver 5G-like speeds for eMBB use cases. Although
we may sound like a broken record, operator positioning on their 5G NR strategy with their low
band spectrum is meaningless since low band 5G NR performance for enhanced Mobile Broadband
(eMBB) is no better than low band LTE performance, and arguably inferior to mid-band LTE
performance. Low band 5G NR with MEC (Mobile Edge Computing) and SA should be compel-
ling, but operators are currently promoting their low band 5G NR networks for speed so that is how
they should be judged.
There are some 5G NR attributes that could give 5G NR a slight performance advantage over
LTE, but we’ve never observed this outcome, plus from a marketing perspective, if the advantage
takes sophisticated test equipment and tons of data samples to find the advantage then the advantage
won’t transcend into a better user experience. In a perfect world, or one in which DSS worked,
5G NR DSS in Band n5 still wouldn’t deliver better network performance than a dedicated LTE
channel in B5 or B13. More importantly, any incremental benefits associated with 5G NR over LTE
get masked when the 5G NR radio channel gets aggregated with higher frequency/wider channel
LTE radio channels.
One significant bright spot in the test results was Verizon’s use of CBRS spectrum to add more
LTE capacity to its network. We encountered CBRS in Chicago and more recently in Minneapolis.
Although the CBRS coverage isn’t extensive, CBRS is going where the operator needs capacity
today or envisions needing it tomorrow. Its contribution to total throughput also greatly surpasses
what is possible with 2x10 MHz of 5G NR DSS. In part, this outcome is due to the spectrum being
largely empty today, unlike the 5G NR spectrum which also carries LTE traffic. Equally important,
there is a relative abundance of CBRS spectrum – we observed three 10 MHz TDD channels,
which is largely comparable with >20 MHz of FDD spectrum for downlink data traffic. As shown
in Chapter 3, when the 5G NR capable smartphones were using both 5G NR DSS and CBRS,
CBRS accounted for 63% to 73% of total throughput while 5G NR DSS only accounted for less
than 10% of total data throughput – the results were slightly different between the two smartphones
we were using.

5G NR carrier aggregation will help improve 5G NR data speeds, but again the throughput will
be comparable to what is possible with LTE carrier aggregation today. It gets far more interesting
when 5G NR carrier aggregation gets used with Band n41 and Band n71, or even more so between
FR1 and FR2 spectrum. Operators around the world also have, or will soon have, C Band spectrum
(~3.5 GHz) so combining this spectrum with low band frequencies will provide a one-two punch
that takes the capacity benefits of wider channel/higher frequency 5G NR and combines it with the
coverage benefits of narrower channel/lower frequency 5G NR. We look forward to this benchmark
study in the coming year.

3.0 DSS with CRS Rate Matching
We tested DSS with CRS rate matching in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Verizon - Ericsson) and
around Plano, Texas (AT&T – Ericsson). Given our proximity to the Minnesota network, much
of our analysis is based on this market. However, the results are directionally similar between the
two cities. Section 3.1 has the results from Minneapolis and Section 3.2 has the results from Plano.
3.1 Greater Minneapolis Area – Verizon Wireless

Our testing in Minneapolis occurred primarily over a three-day period (October 21 through October
23), or after Verizon had announced the commercial launch of its nationwide 5G network (aka
Band n5), but prior to the operator pushing out the necessary software to smartphones which could
support the feature. Verizon provided us with two Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra smartphones, which
supported 5G NR DSS. We augmented these two smartphones with SRG-owned smartphones and
SIMs. We used these smartphones for comparative purposes.
Figure 3 shows the area where we tested in Minneapolis. As implied by the figure, we may have
briefly encroached into an area where there were some 5G NR DSS coverage gaps, but by and large
we remained in areas where the coverage map shows 5G NR should have been present.
Figure 3. Minneapolis Test Area

3.1.1 DSS Test 3-4
DSS Test 3-4 involved a lengthy 43.7-kilometer drive test (two logs) that included a little bit of
everything – 5G NR DSS, CBRS, 5G NR millimeter wave, suburban, urban, and dense urban
morphologies, etc. We used three smartphones in this drive test as well as the R&S scanner to
independently log RF parameters. For the initial tests, we didn’t know the trick to disable LTE B66
so Device #3 could use both LTE B66 and LTE B5. In later tests, we were able to lock the phone
used for comparative purposes to Band 5.
➤ Device #1: 5G NR DSS and 5G NR FR2 capable, all LTE bands enabled
➤ Device #2: 5G NR DSS and 5G NR FR2 capable, all LTE bands, except B13, enabled
➤ Device #3: 5G NR FR2 capable, LTE B66 and B5 only
Figure 4 shows the drive route that we used.
Figure 4. Drive Test Route – DSS Test 3-4
The results in Figure 5 provide insight into the efficiency of 5G NR DSS and LTE Band 5.
Specifically, the figure shows the average throughput (Mbps) for each allocated PDSCH Resource
Block (PRB). The figure shows two pairs of results: Mobile Device 1 versus Mobile Device 2 and
Mobile Device 2 versus Mobile Device 3. To obtain an apples-apples comparison, we only included
data points when both smartphones used the respective technology. We also only included results
when both smartphones used at least two PRBs and shared the same PCI. The results are markedly
different between the two pairs of data because the time periods and locations used in the compara-
tive analysis were different. Interestingly, although Mobile Device 2 supported 5G NR DSS in Band
n5, it used LTE Band 5 in many cases. Therefore, we were able to compare its performance with
Mobile Device 1 when it was using 5G NR DSS.
Looking at the two sets of results, it is evident that LTE Band 5 was more efficient than 5G NR LTE was 112% to 150% more
DSS Band n5. In the one case, the performance advantage was 112% and in the second case, LTE efficient (Mbps/RB) than
5G NR in this drive test.
was 150% more efficient (higher Mbps per RB). We note that in many cases LTE Band 5 was the
primary carrier while in all cases 5G NR DSS was a secondary carrier with LTE serving as the
anchor band. Although we don’t include the analysis in this report, we looked at those instances
when LTE Band 5 was a secondary carrier and compared the side-by-side performance with the 5G
NR smartphone. The results were very comparable to the results shown in the figure, although the
data set was smaller.

1.5 Figure 5. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency
1.25
1.2
0.9
0.6 0.53 0.50
0.25
0.3
0.0
5G NR (DSS) - M1 LTE Band 5 - M2 5G NR (DSS) - M2 LTE Band 5 - M3
Mbps/RB
Figure 6 shows the results in a slightly different manner. Specifically, we grossed up the throughput
to reflect the maximum allocation of RBs, based on information contained in the log fi les. Grossing
up the throughput to reflect the use of all RBs accounts for other smartphones in the network, which
were also using RBs. We limited this analysis to Mobile Device 1 (5G NR DSS) and Mobile Device
2 (LTE Band 5) since this comparison produced the most data points. Consistent with the Mbps/
RB analysis, LTE Band 5 was more efficient than 5G NR DSS. Using this approach, and a slightly
different data set due to the fi ltering we applied, LTE was 155% more efficient than 5G NR DSS.
Figure 6. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput

Cumulative Probability Distribution (%)
100%
25
5G NR Band n5 (DSS) RB Norm - M1
80% 20.1
20
60% LTE Band 5 RB Norm - M2

15
40% 10
7.9
20% 5
0% 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5G NR Band n5 LTE Band 5 RB
(DSS) RB Norm - M1 Norm - M2
Mbps Median (Mbps)

As suggested in the last two figures, the two S20 Ultra smartphones didn’t always use the frequency
bands/technologies that we thought they should have used. For example, it is evident in the previous
figure that when two smartphones which supported 5G NR DSS in Band n5 were in some areas
of the network with 5G NR DSS, only Mobile Device 1 used 5G NR DSS. With good 5G NR
coverage, we would have expected both smartphones to use 5G NR. Furthermore, and consistent
with findings from earlier benchmark campaigns, if a smartphone camps on another low band LTE
channel (e.g., Band 13) then it will not/cannot use 5G NR DSS in Band 5. Most of today’s smart-
phones cannot support two low-band channels (LTE and/or 5G NR) unless the two channels are
adjacent to each other. In T-Mobile’s network we have observed a smartphone simultaneously use
LTE Band n71 and 5G NR Band n71, but it requires the two radio channels to be collocated with
the LTE anchor band since PDCP functionality only works between LTE and 5G NR (e.g., LTE
Band 71 needs to be at the cell site as the LTE anchor band).
In Figure 7 we show the percentage of time the two smartphones which supported 5G NR DSS Mobile Device 1 only used 5G
actually used 5G NR versus low band LTE. Most importantly, in this analysis we required the 5G NR DSS for 41.1% of the time
while Mobile Device 2 used
NR coverage at the time to be good enough for the smartphones to be able to use 5G NR. We used
5G NR for 51.6% of the time
the R&S scanner data to independently determine whether 5G NR coverage was present (i.e., RSRP – both percentages should
> -90 dBm with the outside scanner antenna which corresponded with an in-car RSRP of ~-105 have been close to 100%.
dBm). Looking at the results, Mobile Device 1, which had LTE B13 enabled, used this low band
channel for nearly 50% of the time with an additional 13.2% of the time on LTE Band 5. Conversely,
Mobile Device 2, which did not support LTE B13, used LTE B5 for 46.2% of the time. In theory,
both smartphones should have used 5G NR for close to 100% of the time, based on scanner data,
and to a much lesser extent the Verizon 5G coverage map. In all cases, these two smartphones were
using at least one mid band LTE frequency, specifically LTE B66 and/or LTE B2. We don’t include
this information in the figure.
Figure 7. Mobile Device Band/Technology Utilization
Band 5 LTE 13.2%
Band 5 LTE
51.6%
Band 13
49.7%
5G NR 5G NR
41.1% 46.2%
Device 1 (All LTE low bands) Device 2 (LTE Band 5 Only)

Band/Technology Utilization

CBRS is a hidden asset that should become more apparent in the coming weeks and months. CBRS is a hidden asset
Unfortunately, most consumers will incorrectly attribute the higher speeds they observe on their that should become more
apparent in the coming
smartphone to 5G NR DSS (aka 5G) and not LTE since they’ll see the 5G icon on their shiny new
weeks and months.
iPhone. Figure 8 illustrates the individual contribution to total throughput for 5G NR, mid-band
LTE (B66 and B2), and CBRS. For this analysis we required that the smartphones used 5G NR
DSS. Since the times/places in the network where the two smartphones used 5G NR did not always
coincide, comparing the two bars is not meaningful. Mobile Device 2 did, however, use CBRS more
frequently than Mobile Device 1. The bar chart on the right shows the total throughput observed
by the two smartphones throughout the drive test when the relevant smartphone was using 5G
NR. To summarize, 5G NR DSS accounted for less than 10% of the total throughput with CBRS
contributing more to the total throughput, despite its more limited availability along the route.
Figure 8. Mobile Device Aggregate Total Throughput and CBRS Contributions
LTE (CBRS)
13% 51.5
LTE (CBRS)
30%
40.8
LTE (mid-band)
77% LTE (mid-band)
61%
5G NR – M1 10% 5G NR – M1 9%
Mobile Device 1 Mobile Device 2 Total - M1 Total - M2
Contribution to Total Throughput Mbps

Figure 9 shows a technology geo plot for the two smartphones, highlighting at least some areas
where the two smartphones used CBRS. In the case of Mobile Device 1, the red circles represent
areas where the smartphone used 5G NR FR2 (no CBRS). For Mobile Device 2, the red circles
show areas where the smartphone used 5G NR DSS and CBRS. We point out Verizon had three 10
MHz CBRS bands (TDD) deployed in Minneapolis. The data shown in the figure includes those
times when the smartphones were using at least 10 MHz of CBRS, but not necessarily all 30 MHz.
Figure 9. Geo Plot of 5G NR and CBRS Utilization – Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 2
5G NR FR2
CBRS
No Data Point
5G NR DSS Band n5;

CBRS + 5G NR DSS Band n5
No data point

Figure 10. Mobile Device Throughput with 5G NR DSS and CBRS Active
120
104.0
100
80
LTE (CBRS)
63% LTE (CBRS)
73%
60 52.2
40
LTE (mid-band)
28% LTE (mid-band)
22% 20
5G NR Band n5 (DSS) 9% 5G NR Band n5 (DSS) 6%

0
M1 Device M2 Device Total - M1 Total - M2
Contribution to Total Throughput Mbps
The results start to get more interesting and compelling for CBRS if we isolate the analysis to those When CBRS was used,
times when each smartphone was using 5G NR DSS and CBRS. This information is provided in it accounted for 63%
(Mobile Device 1) and 73%
Figure 10. When CBRS was used, it accounted for 63% (Mobile Device 1) and 73% (Mobile Device
(Mobile Device 12) of total
12) of total throughput while 5G NR DSS only accounted for 9% and 6%, respectively. throughput while 5G NR
Figure 11 provides a time series plot for Mobile Device 1, showing the total throughput as the DSS only accounted for
smartphone moved between 5G NR millimeter wave and CBRS coverage. Figure 12 shows similar 9% and 6%, respectively.
results for Mobile Device 2, but in this case the smartphone was using 5G NR DSS and CBRS. In
both figures, the total throughput includes the contribution from mid-band LTE (B66 and B2). We
did not separately show this information in the figure.
Figure 11. Mobile Device 1 5G NR FR2 and CBRS Throughput Time Series
Mbps
1400
Total - M1
1200
5G NR FR2 - M1
1000
800
600
400
200 CBRS contributes to total throughput LTE (CBRS) - M1 CBRS contributes to total throughput
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (sec)
Mbps
400
Total - M2
300

200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (sec)
Figure 12. Mobile Device 2 5G NR DSS Band n5 and CBRS Throughput Time Series
Mbps
400
Total - M2
300
200
LTE (CBRS) - M2
100
5G NR Band n5 (DSS) - M2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (sec)

3.1.2 DSS Test 25
For completeness sake, and to complement the RSRP plots provided in the executive summary,
we are including geo plots of the Band n5 and Band n71 SINR. Like the first two figures, these
results are based on scanner data. If one compares the four figures, it is evident that a strong 5G NR
signal does not mean a good 5G NR signal. Although we didn’t do any device testing in T-Mobile’s
network, it is evident that in this case the 5G NR signal was stronger/better with the Verizon 5G
NR network, although we are far from certain that a comparison of the 5G NR throughput would
have favored Verizon.
Figure 13. 5G NR DSS Band n5 SINR
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20
Figure 14. 5G NR Band n71 SINR
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20

Figure 15 provides the RB efficiency (Mbps/RB) between Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device
3, as well as between Mobile Device 2 and Mobile Device 3. Consistent with the previous section,
we limited the comparisons to those times when both smartphones were using their respective tech-
nologies/bands. In both comparative results, LTE was meaningfully more efficient than 5G NR
DSS. On an absolute basis, the results for Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 3 were much higher
than the other set of data. This outcome is due to the different areas along the drive test where we
were able to make the comparative analysis.
2.0 Figure 15. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency
47% Higher 1.52

1.5 Spectral Efficiency
1.07
1.0
52% Higher
Spectral Efficiency 0.43
0.5
0.29
0.0 5G NR (DSS) - Device 1 LTE Band 5 - Device 3 5G NR (DSS) - Device 1 LTE Band 5 - Device 3
Mbps/RB
During this test, Mobile Device 1 frequently used LTE B13 and even LTE Band 5, despite the
Verizon coverage map and the R&S scanner indicating a usable 5G NR signal was present. Likewise,
Mobile Device 2 (LTE B13 disabled) used LTE Band 5 for a high percentage of the time (57.3%)
when it could have been using 5G NR Band n5. This information helps explain why Mobile Device
1 and Mobile Device 2 had much different Mbps/RB results, as illustrated in the previous figure.
Figure 16. Mobile Device 1 Technology and Band Utilization
Band 5 LTE 11.4%
Band 5 LTE
57.3%
Band 13
52.6%
5G NR 5G NR
34.4% 43.1%
Device 1 (All LTE low bands) Device 2 (LTE Band 5 Only)

Band/Technology Utilization

Finally, Figure 17 provides a geo plot of where Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 2 used 5G
NR DSS versus LTE Band 13 or LTE Band 5. While not shown in the figure, the two smartphones
used a mid-band LTE channel throughout the entire drive route. Readers should compare these two
images with Figure 13, which shows the 5G NR DSS signal quality along the drive route.
Figure 17. Mobile Device 1 and Mobile Device 2 Technology and Band Utilization – geo plot
5G NR
LTE Band 13
LTE Band 5
No Data Point
5G NR
LTE Band 13
LTE Band 5
No Data Point

3.1.3 DSS Test 39
Drive Test 39, affectionately referred to as the “Menards Drive Test” involved two smartphones
and the R&S scanner. In this test, one smartphone supported 5G NR DSS Band n5 and the other
smartphone was locked to LTE Band 5 only. Figure 18 shows the 6.5-kilometer drive route.
Figure 18. DSS Test 39 Drive Route
As shown in Figure 19, LTE Band 5 was 47% more spectrally efficient than 5G NR DSS,
based on RB normalized throughput. For this analysis, we only included those data points when
one smartphone was using 5G NR DSS and the other smartphone was using LTE Band 5. Th is
fi ltering criteria is important because we encountered areas within the drive route when the LTE
Band 5 smartphone didn’t connect to LTE Band 5, but the other smartphone was using 5G NR
DSS Band n5.
Figure 19. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput Distribution
100%
30
5G NR (DSS) RB Norm PDSCH
25.8
80% 25 47%
Higher
LTE Band 5 RB Norm PDSCH
60% 20 17.6
15
40%
10
20%
5
0%
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5
RB Norm PDSCH RB Norm PDSCH
Mbps
Mbps

Figure 20 shows a geo plot for the RB normalized throughput for the two smartphones. Comparing
the two images, it is apparent where one smartphone was using 5G NR DSS in Band n5 and the
other smartphone didn’t use LTE Band 5. We excluded these data points in our overall analysis.
Figure 20. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput
Mbps
No Data
X <= 5
5 < X <=10
10 < X <= 20
20 < X <=30
30 < X <= 40
40 < X <= 50
X > 50
Mbps
No Data
X <= 5
5 < X <=10
10 < X <= 20
20 < X <=30
30 < X <= 40
40 < X <= 50
X > 50

Figure 21 shows the RSRP distribution for 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5.
Figure 21. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RSRP Distribution

100% 5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5
0
5G NR (DSS)
80%
-20
LTE Band 5
60%
-40
40%
-60
20%
-80
0% -88.0
-100 -94.8
-110 -105 -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60
RSRP (dBm) dBm
In our analysis of DSS with CRS rate matching we analyzed relative results between 5G NR
DSS and LTE Band 5, based on the geometry of the LTE cell. Specifically, we analyzed 5G NR
DSS results based on the RSRP delta between the serving LTE cell and the strongest neighboring
LTE cell. The primary criticism for DSS with CRS rate matching is that LTE interference from an
adjacent cell will have a much bigger impact on 5G NR performance than LTE performance since
the former does not support interference cancellation in the smartphone/chipset. LTE does support
CRS interference mitigation. Based on our analysis involving multiple tests, including results not
shown in this report, we couldn’t clearly identify obvious trends. Instead, it seemed to us that 5G NR
DSS delivered inferior performance in virtually all circumstances. Figure 22 and Figure 23 show
results from this type of analysis.
In Figure 22, we’ve plotted the RB normalized throughput for 5G NR DSS and LTE Band 5 as a
function of the RSRP delta between the serving LTE cell and the strongest interfering LTE cell. In
Figure 22. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput and LTE RSRP Delta Time Series
Mbps LTE RSRP Delta (dB)

80 20
LTE RB Norm
LTE RSRP Delta
15
60
10
40
5
20
0
5G NR (DSS) Norm
0 −5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (sec)

Figure 23, we’ve plotted the MCS values for 5G NR DSS and LTE Band 5 versus their respective
RSRP values. The appendix includes a few more figures with similar types of analysis. In Figure
22, the absence of an LTE RSRP Delta value means there wasn’t an interfering LTE cell with a
meaningful RSRP value relative to the serving cell. As the LTE RSRP delta approached 0 dB there
should have been a bigger impact on 5G NR DSS throughput versus LTE Band 5 throughput.
Although the 5G NR DSS throughput declined when the LTE RSRP delta approached 0 dB, its
decline was no greater than LTE Band 5. Furthermore, in those cases where the LTE RSRP delta
was significant, meaning little to no interference – such as during the first sixty seconds of the test
– LTE Band 5 still meaningfully outperformed 5G NR DSS.
Figure 23. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and RSRP Time Series
MCS RSRP (dBm)

30 − 50
5G NR RSRP
25 − 60
20 LTE MCS − 70
15 − 80
10 − 90
5 −100
LTE RSRP
0 5G NR MCS − 110
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (sec)

3.1.4 DSS Test 15-16
DSS Test 15 and DSS Test 16 involved the same drive loop that we repeated twice. In both tests, one
smartphone supported LTE Band 5 (as well as LTE Band 66) and the other smartphone supported
5G NR DSS in Band n5 (as well as LTE mid-band frequencies to provide the anchor cell). Figure
24 shows the 6.1-kilometer drive route.
Figure 24. DSS Test 15-16 Drive Route
This loop occurred in an area where the Verizon coverage map may have showed some coverage
gaps. Furthermore, since we hadn’t successfully disabled LTE Band 66 when we did these tests, we
encountered areas along the drive route when the one smartphone switched to an LTE PCI with
Band 66 that didn’t include LTE Band 5. We excluded these data points in our analysis, but it did
limit the amount of data we could include in the analysis. For this reason, we repeated the drive route
and then compared results between the two loops.
The results between the two drive loops were largely identical with LTE Band 5 exhibiting 47-48% The differences in Mbps/
higher RB efficiency than 5G NR DSS (reference Figure 25). In Figure 26 we’ve plotted the rela- RB between the two
smartphones don’t
tionship between 5G NR and LTE RB efficiency (Mbps/RB) and the LTE RSRP from the serving
show any obvious trends
cell and the strongest interfering cell. We captured the RSRP values with the R&S scanner. In the when analyzed relative
figure, we’ve also identified the region where the smartphone didn’t use LTE Band 5. We excluded to the cell geometry.
this region of the drive test in our analysis of the data. In this case, times when the LTE RSRP for
the serving cell and the interfering cell (LTE Top 2) were largely the same identify regions on the
edge of the cell. For those times when the two RSRP values were much different and the serving
cell RSRP (LTE Top 1) was much higher, the two smartphones were close to the serving cell with
high geometry. To our eye, the differences in Mbps/RB between the two smartphones don’t show
any obvious trends, although at the start of the test (virtually no LTE interference), the LTE Mbps/
RB was much higher than the 5G NR Mbps/RB. At other points within the plot, when the LTE
RSRP lines came closer together, signifying similar RSRP values and higher interference, both the
LTE and 5G NR Mbps/RB values dropped in a similar fashion.

Figure 25. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency
1.5
1.29
1.2 1.1 48% Higher
47% Higher
0.87
0.9
0.75
0.6
0.3
0.0 5G NR Band n5 (DSS) 5G NR Band n5 (DSS)

LTE Band 5 LTE Band 5
DSS Test 15 DSS Test 16
Mbps/RB
Figure 26. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency versus LTE RSRP Time Series Plot
Mbps/RB RSRP (dBm)

LTE Top 1 RSRP
2.0 −50
LTE Mbps/RB
−60
1.5 LTE Top 2 RSRP −70
5G NR Mbps/RB
−80
1.0
−90
No LTE Band 5 (region excluded from analysis)
−100
0.5
−110
0 −120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (sec)

3.1.5 DSS Test 21
For DSS Test 21, we had the two smartphones located in two different locations in the network,
albeit in adjacent cells, or separated by roughly 0.5 miles. The objective of this test was to determine
if an LTE smartphone (Band 5) in an adjacent cell could create interference in an adjacent cell that
would negatively impact the throughput on a 5G NR smartphone (Band n5). Although we don’t
include the results in this report, we tested at several locations with both smartphones as well as
testing with one smartphone stationary and the other smartphone moving throughout the cell in
a vehicle. Figure 27 shows the results from this test. It includes the PDSCH throughput as well
as the RB-normalized throughput. We stopped the LTE data session at ~2 minutes into the test
while keeping the 5G NR DSS data session active, thus explaining when the LTE lines stop at ~130
seconds and the 5G NR DSS lines continue.
Interestingly, the 5G NR throughput jumped immediately after the LTE session ended, but the
median throughput during the last 60 seconds of the test was only 3% higher than the first 120
seconds of the test. It is also interesting the 5G NR throughput also increased near the beginning
of the test when the LTE data session began. Since the two smartphones were at different locations
in the network and with different radio conditions, it is not meaningful to compare results between
the two smartphones.
Figure 27. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput and RB Normalized Throughput Time Series Plot
Mbps
60
5G NR Band n5 (DSS) RB Norm (PCI 156)
50
5G NR Band n5 (PCI 156)

40
30
LTE Band 5 RB
Norm (PCI 144)
20
10
LTE Band 5 (PCI 144)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (sec)

3.1.6 DSS Test 34
DSS Test 34 occurred across the street from the serving cell with excellent RF conditions. Figure 28
illustrates the LTE Band 5 and 5G NR DSS network conditions for this stationary test.
Figure 28. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Network Conditions

20
Serving RSRP Top Interfering RSRP
LTE 5G NR (DSS) LTE 5G NR (DSS) 16.1
0
15
-20
10 8.3
-40
5
-60
-80 -77.7 -78.7 0

LTE 5G NR (DSS)
-84.7 -85.9
dBm Serving SINR (dB)
-100
Figure 29 provides the RB efficiency and the spectral efficiency for LTE Band 5 and 5G NR
DSS. The results are slightly different due to how we made the calculations, plus the RB normalized
results involve slightly different maximum RB values for the two technologies. Nonetheless, in both
cases, LTE performance was slightly higher.
Figure 29. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency and Spectral Efficiency
1.2 13.6% Higher

20% 4.7
1.2 Better 5 Spectral Efficiency
1.0 4.2
1.0
4
0.8
3
0.6
2
0.4
1
0.2
0.0 5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5 0 5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5

Mbps/RB bps/Hz

The last two figures in this section provide a time series plot of the throughput – actual throughput
in Figure 30 and RB normalized throughput in Figure 31. Although the actual throughput clearly
favored 5G NR in this test, from a spectral efficiency perspective, including RB normalized
throughput, LTE performance was slightly better. We also point out that in this test we placed the
LTE phone into and out of airplane mode, thus explaining the absence of data points in the two time
series plots. For purposes of doing the spectral efficiency calculations, we filtered out those times
when the LTE smartphone wasn’t receiving data.
Figure 30. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput Time Series Plot
Mbps
50
40
5G NR (DSS) PDSCH
30
20
10 LTE Band 5 PDSCH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time (sec)
Figure 31. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput Time Series Plot
Mbps
70
LTE Band 5 RB Norm
60
50
40
30
5G NR (DSS)
20 RB Norm
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time (sec)

3.2 Greater Plano Area – AT&T
The bulk of our DSS testing involved the two Verizon markets, but since we were in the Dallas area,
we took the time to capture a few logs using the AT&T network and Ericsson infrastructure. Figure
32 shows the drive route we used – the 5G NR DSS RB normalized throughput is shown in the left
image and the LTE Band 5 RB normalized throughput is shown in the right image. AT&T doesn’t
have to deal with EV-DO in adjacent bands, so it allocated all RBs to 5G NR and LTE. Instances
in both figures where there isn’t a data point represent either a location where the smartphone didn’t
report a value (no 5G NR or LTE) or more likely a data point where we didn’t have an area-binned
data point from both tests. We point out for this test we repeated the loop twice – once with the
smartphone supporting LTE Band 5 and once with the smartphone supporting 5G NR DSS. We
Figure 32. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput
Mbps
No Data
X <= 5
5 < X <=10
10 < X <= 20
20 < X <=30
30 < X <= 40
40 < X <= 50
X > 50
Mbps
No Data
X <= 5
5 < X <=10
10 < X <= 20
20 < X <=30
30 < X <= 40
40 < X <= 50
X > 50

then used area binning with the XCAP post-processing software to compare the two drive test
results.
The results in the AT&T network closely mirrored what we observed in the Verizon network. As
shown in Figure 33, the LTE Band 5 RB efficiency was 75% higher than with 5G NR. In Figure 34
we show the same results but grouped into RSRP buckets for both LTE and 5G NR DSS. In this
figure, the secondary Y axis shows the probability of the 5G NR DSS or LTE RSRP value occurring
along the route. Our analysis of this figure doesn’t reveal any obvious trends in the results relative
to RSRP.
0.6 0.56
0.5 75% Higher

Spectral Efficiency
0.4
0.32
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5
Mbps/RB
Figure 34. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency versus RSRP
Mbps/RB Probability (%)
2.0 40%
38%
34% 37%
1.64
1.5 30%
22% 1.14
1.0 0.94 19% 18% 20%
14% 0.69 0.74
10%
0.5 0.44 0.4 10%
5%
0.22 0.17
0.11
3%
0 0%
LTE 5G NR (DSS) LTE 5G NR (DSS) LTE 5G NR (DSS) LTE 5G NR (DSS) LTE 5G NR (DSS)
-100 < X <= -90 -90 < X <= -80 -80 < X <= -70 -70 < X <= -60 X > -60
RSRP (dBm)

Finally, Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the distribution of RSRP and SINR for the two technolo-
gies in this drive test.
Figure 35. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RSRP Distribution

100% LTE Band 5 5G NR (DSS)
0
LTE Band 5
80%
-20
5G NR (DSS)
60% -40
40% -60
20% -80
-87.5 -84.7
0% -100
Median (dBm)
-110 -105 -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50
dBm
Figure 36. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 SINR Distribution

SINR (dB)
100%
5.0
5G NR (DSS) 5
80% LTE 4.1

4
60%
3
40%
2
20%
1
0%
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LTE 5G NR (DSS)
SINR (dB) Median (dB)

4.0 DSS with MBSFN
We tested the Verizon 5G NR DSS network in Oklahoma City on October 25th through the
27th to determine how the MBSFN implementation of DSS compared with LTE Band 5. Figure
37 shows the test area we used, which according to the Verizon coverage map supported 5G NR
at virtually all locations. We may have inadvertently gone into a small region momentarily which
the map showed didn’t support 5G NR, but by and large we remained within the advertised 5G
NR coverage.
Figure 37. Oklahoma Test Area

Unfortunately, we found the coverage map was a bit optimistic in identifying where there was 5G The Verizon coverage map
NR coverage compared with where our two smartphones and two different R&S scanners indicated was a bit optimistic in
identifying where there
there was 5G NR DSS coverage. Figure 38 shows the 5G NR coverage for Band n5 based on
was 5G NR coverage
RSRP values and Figure 39 shows 5G NR coverage for Band n71, along the random routes that we compared with where
followed in the city. In both figures, we used the R&S scanner to collect the data. Areas along the we identified there was
drive route where there isn’t a colored circle indicate areas where there likely wasn’t 5G NR coverage 5G NR DSS coverage.
since the scanner wasn’t able to demodulate a 5G NR signal.
Figure 38. 5G NR Band n5 RSRP

RSRP (dBm)
X <= -110
-110 < X <= -100
-100 < X <= -90
-90 < X <=-80
X > -80
Figure 39. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP

RSRP (dBm)
X <= -110
-110 < X <= -100
-100 < X <= -90
-90 < X <=-80
X > -80

Although showing coverage based on RSRP values is a valid approach, it completely misses out on a
critical attribute, namely the quality of the coverage. Having a 5G NR signal at a given location with
a usable signal strength doesn’t benefit the consumer if there are multiple 5G NR signals reaching
that location with comparable signal strength (i.e., high interference). This situation occurred in
Oklahoma City and it made it difficult to collect useful data. We believe the operator had deployed a
light layer of Band n5 coverage to show a large coverage area with the tradeoff being a poor 5G NR
network that wasn’t optimized. Based on scanner and smartphone logs, we also encountered more
than a few Band 5 LTE PCIs that didn’t support 5G NR, suggesting [we hope] that the operator was
still rolling out its 5G NR coverage. We reiterate we did our 5G NR DSS testing after the operator
had announced the commercial availability of nationwide 5G NR DSS and published the coverage
maps online.
Figure 40 shows the SINR for 5G NR Band n5 and Figure 41 shows the SINR for 5G NR Band
n71. A black circle (SINR < 0 dB) indicates a location where a smartphone might attach to the 5G
NR radio bearer for all practical purposes the signal would be too poor to transmit more than a token
data rate.
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20

The information in Figure 42 helps quantify the differences in network performance between
Minneapolis and Oklahoma City, not to mention between Verizon and T-Mobile. In addition to
there being a 9 dB difference in the median SINR between Band n5 in Minneapolis and Oklahoma
City, there were big differences in the SINR at any given point in the RSRP curve. For example,
in Minneapolis, the median SINR for an RSRP value of -80 dBm was approximately 9 dB. In
Oklahoma City, the median SINR for an RSRP value of -80 dBm was closer to 1 dB.
Figure 42. RSRP versus SINR in Minneapolis and Oklahoma City

RSRP (dBm)
−40
Band n71 - OKC
−50
−60
Band n5 - OKC
−70 Band n71 - MSP
−80
−90
−100 Band n5 - MSP
−110
−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SINR (dB)
12
10.1
Band n5 MSP Band n71 MSP Band n5 OKC Band n71 OKC
10
0
8
-20
6
-40
4
2.0 2.3
-60
2 1.0
-80 -73.3 0
-79.6 -81 Band n5 MSP Band n71 MSP Band n5 OKC Band n71 OKC
-86.7
SINR (dB)
-100 RSRP (dBm)

With poor overall radio conditions in Oklahoma City, it made it difficult to compare 5G NR DSS
with MBSFN to LTE Band 5. Therefore, the results shown in the next few sections may have less
to do with 5G NR DSS with MBSFN and more to do with the overall network. Nonetheless, the
results we obtained are accurate and the figures we show are accurate since we compared data on a
like-for-like basis between LTE Band 5 and 5G NR DSS.
In theory, 5G NR DSS using MBSFN isn’t susceptible to interference from LTE so the inefficien- MBSFN requires a semi-
cies we observed with CRS rate matching shouldn’t exist with MBSFN. However, there is another static allocation of network
resources between LTE
inefficiency with MBSFN that is hidden in plain sight. Specifically, MBSFN requires a semi-static
and 5G NR that must
allocation of network resources between LTE and 5G NR that must remain the same across the remain the same across
entire network, irrespective of the relative amounts of 5G NR and LTE data traffic. In the case of the entire network.
the Oklahoma City network, the network allocated approximately 15 PRBs to 5G NR and 25 PRBs
to LTE traffic. If the ratio of LTE to 5G NR data traffic matched the PRB ratio then the network
would be operating efficiently. Any deviation from the fi xed PRB ratio would result in inefficiencies,
either to LTE or to 5G NR. Operators can change the allocation of subframes between 5G NR
DSS and LTE as 5G NR data traffic increases, but the allocation needs to be the same across the
network. These changes will also likely happen periodically, for example every few weeks, and not
on an hourly or even daily basis.
Figure 43 visualizes the range of inefficiencies. The percentages are based on how the network was
configured and not on the results we obtained. In a best-case scenario with the ratio of LTE and 5G
NR data traffic consistent with the PRB allocations between the two technologies, the network is
operating at 100% efficiency. At the other extreme, if a cell PCI which supports 5G NR DSS has
no LTE data traffic but it has more than enough 5G NR data traffic to fi ll the MBSFN sub-frames
reserved for 5G NR then the 25 LTE PRBs go unused, resulting in 38% efficiency since the 25
PRBs dedicated to LTE could have been used to support 5G NR data traffic (15 used RBs /40 total
RBs = 38%). Similarly, if the cell PCI is loaded with LTE data traffic but no 5G NR data traffic then
there is 63% efficiency (25/40 = 63%) of available B5 spectrum. In theory, an operator can change
the MBSFN ratios – up to 60% allocation of the PRBs for 5G NR – as the amount of 5G NR data
traffic increases. However, the ratio of LTE and 5G NR data traffic will never be consistent across
the network so inefficiencies will always exist. To be fair, if all of Band 5 was dedicated to 5G NR
and if there wasn’t any 5G NR data traffic in the band at a particular cell site along with more than
enough LTE data traffic relative to the potential LTE capacity then this analysis would imply 0%
efficiency since the dedicated 5G NR radio channel would be unused.
Figure 43. Spectral Efficiency Relative to LTE Band 5 (No DSS)

100% 100%
100
80
63%
60
38%
40
20
0
Worst Case Worst Case Best Case LTE
(no 5G NR DSS Traffic (no LTE Band 5 Traffic (100 DSS and LTE Utilization) (pre-DSS)
and full LTE Utilization) and full 5G NR DSS Utilization)

4.1 DSS 200
DSS 200 involved three smartphones and a scanner over a 7-kilometer drive route that started
near our downtown hotel and then proceeded north. We used three smartphones during this test
– two smartphones supported 5G NR DSS and we locked the third smartphone to LTE Band 5.
Although not shown in this report, we encountered 5G NR FR2 several times in the downtown
area, including right outside of our hotel. The network supported 8x100 MHz in the downlink and
2x100 MHz in the uplink.
Figure 44 shows the Band n5 SINR based on scanner data along the drive route. As implied in Both 5G NR capable
the figure, the 5G NR signal quality (SINR) was below 5 dB for much of the route and the observed smartphones also had a
median 5G NR DSS Band
data speeds were extremely low, harkening back to the days of HSDPA or even EV-DO. The median
n5 PDSCH throughput
5G NR SINR for Mobile Device 1 was 0.89 dB and it was 1.04 dB for Mobile Device 3. Both that just crossed over 1
smartphones also had a median 5G NR DSS Band n5 PDSCH throughput that just crossed over 1 Mbps, or an aggregate
Mbps, or an aggregate throughput of ~2 Mbps. throughput of ~2 Mbps.
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20
Figure 45 shows the RB efficiency (Mbps/RB) for the two smartphones which supported 5G
NR DSS compared with the smartphone that was locked to LTE Band 5. Since the two 5G NR
smartphones did not consistently use 5G NR at all locations along the drive route the results are
Figure 45. 5G NR Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency
0.6 0.56 0.57
0.5 75% Higher 68% Higher
0.4
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
5G NR (DSS) - Device 1 LTE Band 5 - Device 2 5G NR (DSS) - Device 3 LTE Band 5 -Device 2
Mbps/RB

slightly different for the LTE Band 5 smartphone in the two pairings of results. Most importantly,
although the results suggest LTE Band 5 was approximately 70% more efficient than 5G NR DSS,
we attribute the outcome to the overall radio conditions and not necessarily to the implementation
of MBSFN for 5G NR DSS purposes.
Figure 46 provides a time series plot of the RB allocations for the three smartphones during this We encountered some
drive test. Throughout much of the test, the 5G NR DSS smartphones and LTE Band 5 smartphone cell sites that supported
LTE Band 5, but which did
shared the same PCI values. However, there was a period between 625 seconds and 925 seconds
not support 5G NR DSS.
where the LTE Band 5 smartphone was still using LTE Band 5 but the two 5G NR smartphones
were not using 5G NR. Since the number of allocated LTE RBs jumped during this period, indi-
cating there were not any dedicated 5G NR subframes, we assume the pertinent LTE PCIs were not
yet configured to support DSS. Scanner data also confirmed this assumption. During the last 200
seconds of the test the figure shows the LTE Band 5 smartphone stopped using Band 5 – it actually
switched to EV-DO since the phone wasn’t configured to support any other LTE bands – but the 5G
NR DSS smartphones were able to use Band n5. Their 5G NR RB allocations remained unchanged,
signifying an inherent inefficiency with the MBSFN implementation.
Figure 46. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Allocation Time Series Plot
RBs PCI
40 LTE PCIs don't support DSS 600
5G NR (DSS) PCI
LTE RBs - Device 3 500

30
400
5G NR (DSS) RBs - Device 2
20 300
200
10
LTE PCI 100
5G NR (DSS) RBs - Device 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (sec)

4.2 DSS 212
For this drive test we used two smartphones – one supported 5G NR DSS and the second smart-
phone was locked to LTE Band 5. In addition to showing the drive route, Figure 47 shows the
unique LTE and 5G NR PCIs used by the two smartphones. We’ve included both images to help
facilitate a side-by-side comparison of the LTE Band 5 and 5G NR Band n5 coverage from each
serving PCI, represented by a unique color in the two images.
Comparing the two images, it is evident the LTE Band 5 smartphone leveraged three different
LTE PCIs during this drive route while the 5G NR DSS smartphone only leveraged two unique
PCIs. Although the image suggests the coverage was comparable for the two technologies, the
reality is that the 5G NR radio conditions were much worse than the LTE radio conditions, with
lower RSRP and SINR.
Figure 47. 5G NR Band n5 DSS and LTE Band 5 PCI Map
5G NR DSS PCI
LTE Band 5 PCIs

Figure 48 shows the RB efficiency for 5G NR and LTE during this test. Although the results,
which show LTE being 44% more efficient than 5G NR, are comparable with CRS rate matching
we do not attribute the results to MBSFN. Instead, we attribute the outcome primarily to the subpar
5G NR radio conditions relative to LTE. We note that for this analysis we only included those data
points when the two smartphones shared the same PCI. However, this fi ltering didn’t fully alleviate
the poor 5G NR performance.

100%
5G NR (DSS) 0.6 0.58
LTE B5 44% Higher

80% 0.5
0.40
60% 0.4
0.3
40%
0.2
20%
0.1
0% 0.0
5G NR (DSS) LTE B5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25
Time (sec) Mbps/RB
Figure 49 provides a time series plot of the RB allocations. We’ve highlighted those instances when
the LTE phone was using PCI 290, which didn’t support 5G NR DSS (confirmed with a scanner).
Since DSS wasn’t enabled in the PCI, the smartphone was able to use all 40 PRBs for LTE. Note
also that when the 5G NR smartphone was using a different PCI, its RB allocation remained capped
at about 15 RBs. Both outcomes highlight the inefficiencies of using MBSFN for deploying DSS.
Figure 49. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Allocation Time Series Plot
RBs PCI
40 300
PCI 290 doesn't support DSS - LTE RB allocations increase
LTE PCI 290
30
280
LTE RBs 270

20
260
5G NR PCI
250
10
240
0 5G NR RBs 230
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)

Finally, Figure 50 shows the 5G NR radio conditions observed by the 5G NR DSS smartphone.
In this figure we’ve fi ltered the results into two categories: 5G NR radio conditions when the other
smartphone was using LTE PCI 290 and 5G NR radio conditions when the other smartphone
wasn’t using LTE PCI 290. The 5G NR radio conditions were much poorer when the LTE smart-
phone was using PCI 290 because the 5G NR DSS smartphone was being served by a distant 5G
NR radio. The poor 5G NR radio conditions also explain why the average 5G NR data speed during
this test was only 4.3 Mbps when the two smartphones shared the same PCI and 3.4 Mbps for the
entire test, including those times when the two phones were using different PCIs. The average LTE
Band 5 data speeds were 7.3 Mbps (shared PCIs) and 7.6 Mbps (all data points).
Figure 50. Test 212 5G NR Radio Conditions

LTE Phone Uses PCI 290 LTE Phone Doesn't Use PCI 290
0 12
10.42
10
-20
8
-40
6
-60
4
-80
-78.88 2 0.96
-100 -96.8 0
LTE Phone Uses PCI 290 LTE Phone Doesn't Use PCI 290
RSRP (dBm)
SINR (dB)

4.3 DSS 210
We are using Figure 51 (RSRP) and Figure 52 (SINR) to show the DSS 210 drive route and to
highlight the discrepancies between a strong 5G NR signal and a good 5G NR signal.
Figure 51. 5G NR Band n5 DSS RSRP
RSRP (dBm)
X <= -110
-110 < X <= -100
-100 < X <= -90
-90 < X <=-80
X > -80
SINR (dB)
X <= 0
0 < X <= 5
5 < X <= 10
10 < X <= 15
15 < X <= 20
X > 20
Figure 53 provides the RB efficiency results for 5G NR DSS and LTE. In this case, the results
were more comparable between the two technologies, but the inefficiencies associated with dedi-
cated MBSFN subframes remain even though they are not obvious in the results.

10% Higher 0.40 0.39
0.40 14% Higher
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
5G NR (DSS) - Device 1 LTE Band 5 - Device 3 5G NR (DSS) - Device 2 LTE Band 5 - Device 3
Mbps/RB

4.4 DSS 213
Finally, DSS 213 involved a drive test which closely followed the route used in DSS 212. Since
the LTE Band 5 coverage was different/better than that of 5G NR DSS and since the smartphone
using LTE Band 5 attached to several PCIs that were not available, or at least not used by the
smartphone which supported 5G NR DSS, we limited the analysis to those PCIs which the two
smartphones shared.
Figure 54. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE PCI Map
LTE PCIs 5G NR PCIs

Figure 55 shows the RB efficiency for the two smartphones. The results slightly favored
LTE Band 5, but this outcome could have more to do with overall radio conditions than with
MBSFN performance.

0.98
1.0
18% Higher
0.83
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
5G NR (DSS) LTE Band 5
Mbps/RB
Figure 56 provides a time series plot of RB allocations for the two smartphones. We’ve high-
lighted those times when the two smartphones used different PCIs, including the LTE PCI which
didn’t support 5G NR DSS. We’ve also highlighted the fi rst 200 seconds of the test to show that
the 5G NR DSS RBs remained artificially capped at approximately 15 RBs, irrespective of the
LTE RB allocations going to the other smartphone. Th is situation also highlights the inefficiencies
of MBSFN.
Figure 56. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Time Series Plot
RBs PCI
40 350
LTE PCIs do not support DSS
300
LTE PCI
30 5G NR PCI
250
LTE RBs 200

20 5G NR RB allocations remain capped
150
100
10
50
5G NR RBs
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (sec)
The last three figures in this chapter show the LTE and 5G NR throughput as a function of 5G
NR RSRP (Figure 57), 5G NR SINR (Figure 58), and PDCP combining losses (Figure 59). As
expected, the 5G NR throughput dropped with corresponding drops in the RSRP and SINR.
However, when the RSRP and SINR values start to improve at various points along the plot, the
5G NR throughput doesn’t improve. We attribute this outcome to the PDCP combining losses,
which we’ve seen from earlier tests can magnify and extend a problem, even after the radio condi-
tions improve.
PCI

Figure 57. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus 5G NR RSRP Time Series Plot
Mbps dBm
40 −60
LTE B5 PDSCH
Top 5G NR RSRP
30 −80
5G NR (DSS) PDSCH
20 −100
10 −120
0 −140
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (sec) Source: Signals Research Group
Figure 58. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus 5G NR SINR Time Series Plot
Mbps dB
40 30
LTE B5 PDSCH
30 20
Top 5G NR SINR
20 10
10 0
5G NR (DSS)
PDSCH
0 −10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (sec) Source: Signals Research Group
Figure 59. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 Throughput versus PDCP Combining Losses Time Series Plot
Mbps Loss (%)
40 100%
LTE B5 PDSCH
PDCP Combining Loss
80%
30
60%
5G NR (DSS) PDSCH
20
40%
10
20%
0 0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (sec)

5.0 Test Methodology
SRG collaborated Accuver Americas, Rohde & Schwarz, and Spirent Communications to conduct
this study. We have been collaborating with Accuver and Spirent in all our 5G tests and with Rohde
& Schwarz in this study, in our very first 5G benchmark study, and in several of the 5G studies that
we have done over the last couple of years.
We collected 5G NR DSS performance data in Minneapolis (CRS rate matching), Oklahoma
City (MBSFN), and Plano (CRS rate matching). During the data collection process, we tested with
up to three phones simultaneously, as well as the scanner with the omnidirectional antenna mounted
on the roof to obtain independent data on the underlying radio conditions. We did drive testing and
stationary testing, including from two different vehicles to analyze the impact of interference from
adjacent LTE cells on the 5G NR DSS performance.
By using three smartphones we were able to evaluate different aspects of network and device
performance. For example, we disabled LTE B13 in one 5G NR DSS smartphone to determine
what impact it had on 5G NR usage – today’s smartphones can only use a single low-band LTE or
5G frequency. We also locked one smartphone to LTE B5 to obtain an apples-apples comparison
between 5G NR DSS and LTE B5.
As implied in the previous paragraph, analyzing 5G NR DSS performance is not straight forward.
For our analysis, we limited the data to those times when the 5G NR DSS smartphone and the
LTE B5 smartphone were both receiving data (minimum 2 RBs) on their respective technologies
and attached to the same PCI. Although we did some analysis involving all frequency bands to
gauge the overall impact of 5G NR DSS on user throughput, we frequently limited our analysis to
Band 5. From our analysis of the data, the mid-band LTE frequencies used to provide the anchor
band for 5G NR Band n5 were almost always more than adequate in terms of signal strength and
signal quality.
Although comparing throughput between 5G NR DSS and LTE Band 5 is interesting, it doesn’t
address spectral efficiency and it can’t account for loading on the network. Therefore, we primarily
focused on RB-based performance, including the measured throughput per RB (Mbps/RB) and
the RB-normalized throughput in which we grossed up the measured throughput to reflect the full
allocation of all available PRBs.
Figure 60. XCAL-M with Smartphone Diagnostics

Figure 61. XCAL-M with Scanner Information
Source: Accuver Americas
We used Accuver’s XCAL-M and XCAL-Solo platforms to collect the performance data from
the smartphones under test. Both platforms integrate with the R&S TSME6 scanner, making
it relatively easy for us to collect data. With XCAL-M/XCAL-Solo we can understand how the
smartphone interacted with the 5G NR and LTE networks, based on diagnostic messages coming
from the Qualcomm chipset. These messages provide a wealth of information and they are essential
to understanding the interdependencies between 5G NR and LTE as well as between the network
infrastructure and the mobile device. However, these messages provide an incomplete picture since
we don’t always receive information about the network (e.g., signal quality and signal strength) since
network-driven messages require ongoing communications between the network infrastructure and
the mobile device. No communications, no messages. The use of a separate scanner fills this critical
void, even though it doesn’t help us analyze the performance of the mobile device with the network.
Once we had finished collecting the data, we used Accuver’s XCAP post-processing software
to analyze the chipset diagnostic messages and the scanner data. Figure 60 shows a picture of the
XCAL-M GUI showing smartphone diagnostic information for 5G NR DSS and Figure 61 shows
a picture of the XCAL-M GUI showing R&S scanner data for 5G NR Band n5 (Verizon) and Band
n71 (T-Mobile).
We used the Rohde & Schwarz TSME6
Figure 62. TSME6 Scanner
scanner to simultaneously log 5G NR
and LTE network parameters on both
the Verizon and T-Mobile networks. This
capability made it a one-shot effort to test
the two networks, and it provided indepen-
dent information on the 5G NR coverage,
including the signal strength and signal
quality of the adjacent 5G NR and LTE
cells. We also used the Rohde & Schwarz
TSMA6 scanner to monitor other radio
channels and technologies, including
EV-DO. Source: Rohde & Schwarz

Figure 63. TSMA6 Scanner Screenshot
Source: Rohde & Schwarz
Figure 62 shows a picture of the lightweight scanner – we carried it in our carry-on luggage along
with some necessary accessories, and Figure 63 shows a screenshot, highlighting the presence of
AT&T’s 5G NR channel, Verizon’s 5G NR DSS/LTE channel, and EV-DO.
Our collaboration with Spirent Communications goes back to 2006 when we did the industry’s
first independent benchmark studies of 3G chipsets. For this study, we used the company’s Umetrix
Data platform to generate high bandwidth data transfers during our tests. Although we didn’t
include the functionality in these tests, we’ve also used the Umetrix platform in the past to test audio
quality (MOS) and video delivery/video quality with various video delivery platforms and video chat
applications. Using the Umetrix platform also allowed us in previous 5G NR benchmark studies to
analyze energy efficiency/current consumption with various data streams, including full buffer data
transfers and low bit rate data transfers. Figure 64 illustrates the Umetrix data architecture.
Figure 64. Umetrix Data Architecture
Source: Spirent Communications

6.0 Final Thoughts
We’ve already tested Verizon’s 5G NR FR2 (millimeter wave) deployment in the Twin Cities with
a high-power FWA (fixed wireless access) CPE so we will hopefully be able to crank out the next
Signals Ahead report in a couple of weeks. Until next time, be on the lookout for the next Signals
Ahead….
Michael Thelander
Michael Thelander is the President and Founder of Signals Research Group (SRG), a US-based
research consultancy that offers thought-leading field research and consulting services on the
wireless telecommunications industry.
Its flagship research product is a research product entitled Signals Ahead, which has attracted
a strong following across the entire wireless ecosystem with corporate subscribers on five conti-
nents. SRG’s Signals Ahead research product and its consulting services are technology-focused
with a strong emphasis on next-generation networks and performance benchmarking.
In his current endeavor, Mr. Thelander is the lead analyst for Signals Ahead and he guides a
team of industry experts that provide consulting services for the wireless industry, including
some of the largest mobile operators, the top equipment OEMs, trade associations, and financial
institutions. He has also served as a member of an industry advisory board for one of the world’s
largest wireless infrastructure suppliers.
Mr. Thelander earned a Masters of Science in Solid State Physics from North Carolina
State University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Chicago,
Graduate School of Business.
Emil Olbrich
Emil Olbrich is currently VP of Networks with Signals Research Group. Prior to this he was
head of LTE research, development, test and evaluation for the Public Safety Communications
Research Program where he deployed the first and most diverse Public Safety 700 MHz
LTE test lab in the world with over 70 participating vendors and commercial carriers. He
was responsible for the specifying, deploying and maintaining the entire ecosystem of LTE
which included devices, air interface, transport, radio access network, evolved packet core,
IP networking, IMS core and application servers. He also led the team efforts, which include
standards work, test case development and test case execution.
Mr. Olbrich has over 20 years of experience in the field of wireless telecommunications. He
has worked primarily in R&D at some of the largest telecommunication companies in the world
- such as Motorola, Qualcomm and Ericsson. His scope of work includes deploying and oper-
ating LTE infrastructure (RAN, EPC and IMS) from numerous Tier 1 vendors; testing new
LTE mobile devices from multiple suppliers; testing, deploying and operating some of the first
commercial CDMA networks; serving as Lead Project engineer for the 2002 Salt Lake City
Winter Olympics and as the Project Manager for the China Ministry of Information Industry 3G
testing in China; and supporting the early development of HDR (EV-DO and EV-DO Rev A).
He has been a speaker at events such as the GSMA Mobile World Congress, LTE North
America, 4G World, International Wireless Communications Expo and LTE World Summit.
Mr. Olbrich has a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering Technology from Southern Illinois
University.

7.0 Appendix
Figure 65. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and SINR Time Series
MCS LTE RSRP Delta (dB)
30 20
LTE MCS
25
LTE RSRP Delta 15
20
10
15
5
10
5G NR MCS
0
5
0 −5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (sec)
MCS SINR (dB)

30 30
LTE MCS LTE SINR
25 25
5G NR SINR
20
20
15
15
10
5G NR MCS
10
5
5 0
0 −5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (sec)

Figure 66. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 MCS and RSRP Time Series
MCS RSRP (dBm)

30 5G RSRP −50
25 −60
LTE MCS
20 −70
15 −80
10 −90
5 −100
5G MCS LTE RSRP
0 −110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time (sec)

ON THE HORIZON: POTENTIAL SIGNALS AHEAD/SIGNALS FLASH! TOPICS
We have identified a list of pending research topics that we are currently considering or presently working on completing.
The topics at the top of the list are definitive with many of them already in the works. The topics toward the bottom of
the page are a bit more speculative. Obviously, this list is subject to change based on various factors and market trends.
As always, we welcome suggestions from our readers.
5G Standardization
➤ 5G from a 3GPP Perspective (ongoing series of reports – published quarterly or as warranted)
Thematic Reports
➤ Mobile Edge Computing and the impact of data caching at the cell edge
Benchmark Studies
➤ 5G NR mmWave Fixed Wireless Access
➤ DSS Part II
➤ 5G NR mmWave Fixed Wireless Access with IAB
➤ Over-the-Air 5G NR smartphone performance benchmark study (FR1)
➤ Over-the-Air 5G NR smartphone performance benchmark study (FR2)
➤ 5G NR Carrier Aggregation
➤ Mobile Edge Computing
➤ Open RAN network performance benchmark study
➤ Multi-operator network benchmark study, based on ETSI TR 103.559

Signals Ahead Subscription
The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer three 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 (12 issues)

❒ Group License ($3,995)
❒ Global License (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Platinum (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Gold Pass (Price Available upon Request)
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
5300 Painter Creek Green
Independence, MN 55359
Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your
billing information.
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 topics
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
62
reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group (copyright December 1, reserved
©2020, all rights 2020 |bySignals Ahead,Group).
Signals Research Vol. 16, Number 10

SA Vol 14 DSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SA Vol 14 DSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redefining Research December 1, 2020 Vol. 16 No.

PART OF “THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK BENCHMARK TESTS” SERIES OF REPORTS

Key Highlights from this Study

3 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

4 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

5 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Figure 1. 5G NR Band n5 RSRP – DSS Test 25

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 2. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP – DSS Test 25

Source: Signals Research Group

6 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

7 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

➤ 5G NR DSS contributions to total throughput across all used frequency bands

➤ 5G NR DSS usage versus availability (based on independent scanner logs)

➤ 5G NR DSS versus LTE throughput as a function of various 5G NR and LTE RSRP/SINR

8 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

3.1.2 DSS Test 25 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

3.1.5 DSS Test 21 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34

4.2 DSS 212 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

4.3 DSS 210 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50

4.4 DSS 213…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 52

9 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Figure 4. Drive Test Route – DSS Test 3-4 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Figure 5. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency …………………………………………………………………………………… 19

Figure 6. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput ……………………………………………………………… 19

Figure 7. Mobile Device Band/Technology Utilization …………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

Figure 24. DSS Test 15-16 Drive Route ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32

Figure 25. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ……………………………………………………………………………………… 33

10 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Figure 39. 5G NR Band n71 RSRP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

Figure 40. 5G NR DSS Band n5 SINR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

Figure 54. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE PCI Map ………………………………………………………………………………………………………52

Figure 55. 5G NR DSS Band n5 and LTE Band 5 RB Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………………………53

Figure 64. Umetrix Data Architecture ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57

11 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

12 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Although 5G NR DSS provides operators with flexibility, it comes with mean-

13 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

14 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

15 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

16 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

3.1 Greater Minneapolis Area – Verizon Wireless

Figure 3. Minneapolis Test Area

Source: Signals Research Group

17 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

➤ Device #3: 5G NR FR2 capable, LTE B66 and B5 only

Figure 4 shows the drive route that we used.

Figure 4. Drive Test Route – DSS Test 3-4

Source: Signals Research Group

18 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

0.6 0.53 0.50

Figure 6. 5G NR DSS Band n5 versus LTE Band 5 RB Normalized Throughput

60% LTE Band 5 RB Norm - M2

19 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Figure 7. Mobile Device Band/Technology Utilization

Band 5 LTE 13.2%

Device 1 (All LTE low bands) Device 2 (LTE Band 5 Only)

20 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

Figure 8. Mobile Device Aggregate Total Throughput and CBRS Contributions

21 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10

5G NR DSS Band n5;

Source: Signals Research Group

22 December 1, 2020 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 16, Number 10