©

©2009 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, the AT&T
logo and all other marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T
Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other
marks contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
3
rd
Carrier + Femto Layer Management
Strategies for Ericsson UMTS

Emerging Technologies, NP&E
Performance, NP&E
A&P
Ericsson


Mar. 18, 2010
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
2
Table of Contents
• Problem Statement
• The Multi-Carrier Guiding Principles
• The 3
rd
Carrier Layer Management Options
• Recommendations
• HSPA+ Readiness and the 4
th
Carrier
• Backup Slides: Detailed Assessment of the LM Options

AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
3
Problem Statement
• Challenge:
UE shall be able to complete both:
1. In the connected mode (cell_DCH), directly fallback to the UMTS coverage layer (SHO)
from the capacity layer (non SHO) to maintain the connection
2. In the non DCH mode, move directly to Femto from macro once in the Femto footprint

• Problem:
3gpp specification states that 2 non-used frequencies shall be measured by
the UEs. When macro network consists of 1x850 + 2x1900, particularly in
the 1 SHO + 2 HHO scenario, meeting both challenges stated above incur
compromises in the macro/Femto performance or capacity efficiency.

• Desired solution:
Provide best method to meet the challenge as much as possible with
minimal negative impact to the overall macro and Femto network traffic


AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
4
The Multi-Carrier LM Principles
• To keep UMTS devices on 3G network and moving to GSM network
when there is no other alternative

• To provide the best possible 3G service to the customers with the
installed capacity.

• UE devices are able to re-select from UMTS Macro to Femto cell in the
Femto footprint




AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
5
3
rd
carrier Layer Management Option Summary
3rd Carrier + Femto Layer
Management Options
3G Devices
on 3G
network UMTS Macro Performance UMTS Macro Capacity Efficiency Femto User Experience
HW
deployment
constrains
Are 3G
devices on
3G?
Impact on Call ACC
and RET
Interference Throughput
Resource
Balancing
Between
Layers
Capacity Efficiency
Femto access within its
footprint and Femto
performance
OBIF
and/or 2
Cabinets
1. Round Robin & Femto co-
channel with GSM
- all Ucell neighbors to Femto cells
Yes
Risk in call drops
During transition
F3->F1 through F2
No impact expected
No degradation
expected
Optimal Optimal Yes
The 1900 60W
RRUW with
OBIF can
reduce the risk
of call drops
2a. Remove F3->Femto & Femto
co-channel with GSM
-- Fallback F3 ->F1
Yes No No impact expected
No degradation
expected
Optimal Optimal
UEs on F3 won’t reselect
to Femto
No
restrictions
2b. Remove F3->Femto, restrict
UEs camping on F1 and F2 only
& Femto co-channel with GSM
- Fallback F3 ->F1
-Push UEs from F3 to F2 in idle mode
using Qoffset
- F3 takes the traffic from F1 via IFLS
Yes
CS & PS call setup
delay (IFLS from
F1 to F3)
No impact expected
Throughput
degradation on
F1
F2 and F3 is
expected to be
much less
loaded than F1
Overall efficiency
degradation .
Yes
OBIF only
before Inter-
RBS IFLS is
available
3a. Remove F3->Femto,
FemtoBandOverlap & “closed”
access to Femto
- Femto band overlaps with F3 , offset
by100-2000khz
- Fall fack F3 -> F1
Yes
Impact on non-White
List users on F3 in
vicinity of femto
Possible increase
for Cell_DCH traffic
on F3 in vicinity of
Femto cells
Possible
degradation for
data traffic on F3
in vicinity of
Femto cells
Optimal
Efficiency degradation
on F3. High IFHO on
F3. It gets severe with
dense Femto
deployment
Throughput degradation
due to interference, but
alternative data access is
likely available at Femto
locations
No
restrictions
3b. Remove F3->Femto,
FemtoBandOverlap & “open”
access to Femto
-- Fallback F3->F1
- Femto band overlaps with F3 band,
offset by100-2000khz
Yes
Potential drops for
calls originated on
macro F3 & then
moving close to
femto
Possible increase
for Cell_DCH traffic
on F3 in vicinity of
Femto cells
Slight
Degradation
Optimal
Efficiency degradation
on F3 can be offset by
the capacity provided
by Femto
Possible degradation for
resource sharing. but
alternative data access is
likely available at Femto
locations
No
restrictions
4a. FEMTO co-channel with
UMTS & "closed" access to
Femto
- fallback F3->F1
Yes
Pot. call drops
when close to
Femto for active
calls on F3.
Non-WL users on
F3; Possible
increase for
Cell_DCH traffic on
F3 in vicinity of
Femto cells
Possible
degradation for
data traffic on F3
in vicinity of
Femto cells
Optimal
Efficiency degradation
on F3. It gets severe
with dense Femto
deployment
Throughput degradation
due to interference, but
alternative data access is
likely available at Femto
locations
No
restrictions
4b. FEMTO co-channel with
UMTS & “open” access to
Femto
-- fallback F3->F1
Yes
Potential for drops for
calls originated on
macro F3 & then
moving close to femto
Possible increase
for Cell_DCH traffic
on F3 in vicinity of
Femto cells
Slight
Degradation
Optimal
Efficiency degradation in
voice and data on F3 can
be offset by the capacity
provided by Femto
Possible degradation for
resource sharing. but
alternative data access is
likely available at Femto
locations
No
restrictions
5. F3->GSM & Femto co-channel
with GSM
- SHO or HHO_IR for F3 cells
More UEs
going to
GSM
Possible on GSM
after IRAT
No impact expected
Customer
experience
degradation
Optimal
More signaling between
GSM and UMTS, and
resources consumed for
registration
Yes
No
restrictions
6. HS Service Separation &
Femto co-channel with GSM
- neighbor to Femto from all three
layers
- Fallback F3->F1
- F1 R99/HS, F2 R99, F3 HS
Yes
Potential
congestion on F1
and F2 for R99
traffic. HS call
setup delay F3
through F2
No impact expected
MultiRAB on F2
is limited to
CS+PSR99
No, layers will
have different
utilization and
balancing will
be difficult
Degradation due to
concentration of R99
traffic on one layer
and HS on another
Yes
No
restrictions
Closed access is the marketing
requirements based on their
customer survey
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
6
3
rd
carrier Layer Management Option Summary (cont’d)
3rd Carrier + Femto Layer
Management Options -- GSM
Network consideration
3G Devices on
3G network GSM Macro Performance GSM Macro Capacity Efficiency
Femto User
Experience
HW deployment
constrains
Are 3G devices
on 3G?
Impact on Call
ACC and RET Interference Throughput
Resource
Balancing
Between Layers
Capacity
Efficiency
Femto access
within its
footprint and
Femto
performance RBS and T1s
7. F3 on 850
- impact to GSM if 2x850 used
for UMTS in mkt with single
850 MHz
Yes
850 MHz GSM
may no longer
possible
C/N impact will
appear as C/I
impact to user
EDGE
degradation N/A
Offered Erlang
reduction due to
reduced
coverage Yes
Massive EDGE
DS0 migration
from 850 to
1900 cabinets
No or negligible impact
Minor impact on the overall traffic of the cell
considerable impact on the overall traffic of the cell
severe impact, can potentially get the option removed off the candidate list
Legend:
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
7
• Option 4a: Femto co-channel with UMTS & “closed” access
– Without Femto as the 4
th
carrier, the LM strategy is essentially the same as the 2
nd
carrier.
• The LM has been tested in both Ericsson (SFL) and ALU (Philly) markets with successful results
– The main concern of this option is the capacity and performance impact on macro due to the Femto
interference
• Preparing the trial in Atlanta to evaluate the impact when the network is loaded up with Femto traffic
 The load should be aligned with the Femto forecast. It is logistically challenging, buy any
workaround will be documented if the desired load can not be achieved in the trial.
– 1.557 million Femto devices by Dec.’11. On average, we’ll have 15 devices/cell
(=1.577 m/(34,664 sites * 3 sectors/site)
– 3.221 million by Dec.’12, which means 30 devices/cell.
 If the impact is concluded to be acceptable, we can immediately roll out option 4a
 Dipesh to provide the operational process (summary) to retune Femto
 As an interim approach, We’re collecting data from San Francisco, one of the co-UMTS markets
 2 Femto cells co-channel with F2 UMTS located inside of a large residence
 Experiencing drop calls on UMTS when approaching Femto cells
— The calls are not dropping when only one Femto is present
— Further tests conducted 3/16, awaiting for results
– Gaps: The incapability of the macro to Femto handover. The function is not on
the technology roadmap for the consumer femto cells.
 This results in potential call drops at F3 (the co-channeled layer) in the vicinity of a Femto.
 In the trial, we will test a workaround solution which forces the call to IFHO from F3 to other layers
by removing the Femto neighbors from SIB 11

Recommended Option
-- Femto Co-Channel with UMTS
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
8
• Option 1: Round Robin & Femto co-channel with GSM
– The concern is the failed IFHOs from F3 to F1 through F2.
• The performance impact is related to the % IFHO attempt. Currently based on the stats of CHI, DFW
and LA, we see 5 – 13% of the 1900 traffic IFHO to 850.
 Most of them take place in the cells with HHO_IF_B designation. The chance is >3 times higher
due to the more aggressive IFHO settings at the carrier border.
• Minimize the IFHO attempts from the 2
nd
1900 carrier by maximizing the SHO cells at F3
 Consider the cluster-wise deployment (~10,000 sites projected to be on air by year end in the Ericsson markets)
 The 1900 60W RRUW coming with the OBIF solution will improve the F3 coverage
 For the cells in F3 core, increase minpwrmax to sustain the ongoing call (until it makes to the neighboring cells)
 By maximizing the SHO cells, we can also mitigate CM and fully leverage the additional capacity from F3
• For the HHO cells, such as those at the F3 border, the relatively aggressive IFHO trigger is expected
to reduce the risk of drop calls.
– This option will be tested in Boston (Ericsson) starting the week of 3/22
– The ALU 3
rd
carrier LM is less challenged as ALU supports separate neighbor lists for
dedicated and idle mode, which is tested and confirmed in the lab.
• Femto neighbors can be defined only in the idle mode list to ensure the Femto reselection
• In the dedicated mode, without the Femto frequency, we can still keep the two way neighbors
between the 3 macro layers.
• The strategy will be validated in Philly starting the week of 3/22

Recommended Option
– Femto Co-Channel with GSM
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
9
• HSPA+ requires Option 6: HS Service Separation
– To provide 15 codes for the HSPA+ traffic, we need a dedicated HS layer
• In Option 6, we use layer 1 for HS/R99, layer 2 for R99 only, and layer 3 HS only.
• HSPA+ speed can be achieved if the HS call is at layer 3
– The main concern about the Service Separation Option is its capacity efficiency
• The R99 congestions in F1 and F2 can not be relieved by the additional F3
• This strategy is more suitable for the cells where the additional carrier is essentially triggered by data
– The option will be tested in Boston (as part of the 3
rd
carrier trial) and SFL (along with the
4
th
carrier deployment)
• 4
th
carrier LM development
– Regardless the Femto spectrum strategy, we’ll face the inter-frequency neighbor limitation
with the 4
th
carrier.
– The LM task force (NP&E, A&P and the vendor) will provide the option assessment and
recommendations by end of March
• Feature Development: separate neighbor lists for the dedicated and the idle mode
– A parity feature for Ericsson
– In contact with A&P and Ericsson
HSPA+ Readiness and 4
th
Carrier
©
©2009 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, the AT&T
logo and all other marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T
Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other
marks contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
Backup Slides
• Detailed Assessment of the LM Options
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
11
Option1: Round Robin with All Ucell neighbors to Femto cells,
Femto band does not overlap with UMTS band
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F4
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers. Reselection to
Femto from all UMTS cells. No IFHO from F3->F1

Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• Access to Femto from all UMTS layers
• Traffic can be moved efficiently between all layers in idle mode to balance
radio resource utilization
• Efficient utilization of spectrum and radio resources
• Simplicity of implementation. LM Strategy can be applied consistently to
all network configurations (band, cell designations and hardware)
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services

 Cons
• No direct relation from F3 to F1 which can impact performance if F3 and
F2 are having the same e2d trigger thresholds (same hho_if_b or c
designation).
• More aggressive e2d and cell selection settings required for F3 cells to
avoid risk of drop calls after IFHO and give enough time to IFHO from F2
to F1 if needed. Settings will need to be tested for 850/1900/1900
configurations
• One way inter-frequency neighbor definitions
• IFLS limited to the direction of the neighbor relation definitions.
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
12
Option1: Round Robin with All Ucell neighbors to Femto cells
(cont’d)

• The IFHO stats from three 2
nd
carrier markets show that
– There overall IFHO attempts from 1900 to 850 is between 5 – 13%. Most of them take place in the cells with
HHO_IF_B designation, where the 2d trigger is much more aggressive than in the HHO_IF_C cells.


Inter Frequency Performance on 1900Mhz cells in 850/1900 Mhz markets
2 Carrier
Band
Configuratio
n
Cell
Designation
s on
1900Mhz
IFHO_CS_S
ucc
from
1900Mhz
IFHO_PS_Succ
from 1900Mhz
# of IFHO_CS
per 100 CS_Rab
Est
from 1900Mhz
# of IFHO_PS
per 100 PS_Rab
Est from
1900Mhz
Chicago 1900/850
HHO_IF_B 98.8% 99.5% 28.20 1.42
HHO_IF_C 98.8% 99.3% 7.21 0.25
Dallas 1900/850
HHO_IF_B 98.8% 99.2% 23.07 0.97
HHO_IF_C 98.5% 99.1% 3.62 0.09
LA 1900/850
HHO_IF_B 99.2% 99.5% 31.71 3.45
HHO_IF_C 98.8% 99.3% 10.68 0.87
Distribution of the cell designations in 850/1900 Mhz markets
Chicago Dallas Los Angeles
1900Mhz 850Mhz 1900Mhz 850Mhz 1900Mhz 850Mhz
HHO_IF_C 78.5% 1.6% 25.6% 0.1% 93.5% 0.8%
HHO_IF_B 4.1% 3.1% 11.1% 0.1% 2.9% 0.0%
SHO 6.6% 92.1% 62.0% 87.5% 2.0% 95.3%
HHO_IR 10.8% 3.2% 1.4% 12.4% 1.8% 4.0%
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
13
Option2a: Remove F3->Femto, Femto Co-channel with GSM
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F4
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers. Reselection
to Femto only from F1 and F2. IFHO from F3 and F2 to F1

Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• Traffic can be moved efficiently between layers in idle mode to
balance radio resource utilization between layers
• Efficient utilization of spectrum and radio resources
• Simplicity of implementation. LM Strategy can be applied consistently
to all network configurations (band, cell designations and hardware)
• No need to change IFHO thresholds for F3 cells. F3 has always
contingency to fall back to F1
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services

 Cons
• UEs can re-select to Femto cells only from F1 and F2. UEs on F3 will
not be able to re-select to Femto even if within the proximity of the
Femto cell
• LM strategy can impact Femto customers as they cannot re-select
from F3 cells to Femto cell

AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
14
Option2b: UE camping on F1 and F2, Remove F3->Femto, Femto
Co-channel with GSM
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F4
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
UE camp on F1 and F2 only and transition to F3 by
triggering Inter Frequency Load Sharing. UEs on F3 re-
selected to F1 or F2 as soon as they get to idle mode
(using qOffset2sn). Reselection to Femto cells only from
F1 or F2

Pros
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• Traffic can be moved between layers in idle mode, but under limited
control.
• No impact on Femto customers. They will be able to camp on Femto
cell from either F1 or F2. UEs will not camp in idle mode on F3

 Cons
• F1 and F3 must be in the same RBS
• Possible large disproportions in TxPwr utilization and traffic between
layers – IFLS to F3 only when F1 has over 50% nonHS power utilization
• no idle model balancing from F1 to F2.
• Risk of congestion on F1 while F3 is lightly loaded.
• Risk of prolonged call establishment time
• Possible poor spectrum efficiency and radio resource utilization. Max
allowed nonHS pwr usage on F3 is reduced to70%
• Increase load on mMp due to additional RRC triggers for IFLS.

AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
15
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers. Reselection to
Femto only from F1 and F2. IFHO from F3 and F2 to F1
If UEs close to Femto it will be pushed off to upper layers due to
degradation in EcIo. Femto access restricted to White List users

Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• No need to change IFHO thresholds for F3 border cells. F3 has relations
to all upper layers.
• Traffic can be moved easily between layers in idle mode to balance
efficiently radio resource utilization between layers
• Simplicity of implementation. LM Strategy can be applied consistently to
all HW RBS configurations.
• No need to define F3->Femto relations.
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services
 Cons
•Possible loss in F3 capacity caused by higher power requirements for
non-WL UEs close to Femto cells – higher power usage and CM triggers.
•Possible loss of spectral efficiency on F3
• Possible performance degradation on F3 cells for non-WL UEs close to
Femto cells, e.g. high BLER, low throughput, hard handover, dropped
calls.
• Possible traffic imbalance and resource usage between layers if Femto
cells are densely deployed.
Option3a: Remove F3->Femto, FemtoBandOverlap & “close” access
to Femto
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F3+Offset
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
16
Option3b: Remove F3->Femto, FemtoBandOverlap & “Open” access
to Femto
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F3+Offset
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers.

Reselection to Femto only from F1 and F2. IFHO
from F3 and F2 to F1.

UE on f3 and close to Femto will be pushed off to
upper layers due to degradation in EcIo.

Femto access open to all users at all locations.

UE in connected mode can directly handover
from f3 to f2 and f1.

AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
17
• Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• No negative impact on macro network capacity, it would actually increase the total network
capacity.
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• No need to change IFHO thresholds for F3 border cells. F3 has relations to all upper layers.
• No need to define F3->Femto relations.
• Traffic can be moved easily between layers in idle mode to balance efficiently radio resource
utilization between layers
• Efficient utilization of spectrum and radio resources
• Simplicity of implementation. LM Strategy can be applied consistently to all HW RBS
configurations
• Users will re-select to Femto at any place providing better spectrum efficiency for F3 band.
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services
• Cons
• Femto users will have to re-select from F3 to F1 or F2 in order to camp on Femto cell.
• Since we don't support macro to femto handover (at least one year away), the users with
active calls on f3 would experience high BLER and then, hard handover to f1 or f2.

Option3b: Remove F3->Femto, FemtoBandOverlap & “Open” access
to Femto
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
18
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers and re-select from all
UMTS cells to Femto cells .
If UE is in dedicated mode and close to Femto it will be pushed
off to upper layers due to degradation in EcIo.
If UE is in idle mode and Femto restricts that UE from camping,
the UE might be forced to re-select to F1 or F2 due to degradation
in radio quality.
Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• No need to change IFHO thresholds for F3 border cells
• All UEs can re-select to Femto cell from any UMTS cell
•Traffic can be moved between layers in idle mode to balance
efficiently radio resource utilization between layers
• All Inter- relations are mutual
• LM Strategy can be applied consistently to all network configurations
(band, cell designations and hardware)
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services
 Cons
• Possible loss in F3 capacity caused by higher power requirements
for non-WL UEs close to Femto cells – higher power usage and CM
triggers.
•Possible loss of spectral efficiency on F3
• Call drops on F3 cells for non-WL UEs close to Femto cells
• Possible traffic imbalance and resource usage between layers if
Femto cells are densely deployed.
Option 4a: FEMTO co-channel with UMTS & “close” access to
Femto
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F3
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
19
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers
and re-select from all UMTS cells to Femto
cells .

If UE is in dedicated mode on f3 and close to
Femto it will be pushed off to upper layers due
to degradation in EcIo.

Femto access open to all users at all locations.

UE in connected mode can directly handover
from f3 to f2 and f1.

Option 4b: FEMTO co-channel with UMTS & “open” access to
Femto
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F3
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
20
• Pros
• 3G UEs stay on 3G network as long as possible
• No negative impact on macro network capacity, it would actually increase the total network capacity.
• F2 and F3 can IFHO directly to F1
• No need to change IFHO thresholds for F3 border cells
• No need to define F3->Femto relations.
• All UEs can re-select to Femto cell from any UMTS cell
• Traffic can be moved between layers in idle mode to balance efficiently radio resource utilization between layers
• Efficient utilization of spectrum and radio resources
• All Inter- relations are mutual
• Users will re-select to Femto at any place providing better spectrum efficiency for F3 band.
• Optional to configure six femto neighbors on f3 (the reselection to femto would occur as the UE camping on f3
would experience interference from femto, do reselection to f1/f2 and then to femto)
• Femto users can directly reselect to femto from any of the three macro carriers so long as the six femto neighbors
are configured on f3 (which is optional in this case)
• Simplicity of implementation. LM Strategy can be applied consistently to all network configurations (band, cell
designations and hardware)
• All layers accessible for Voice and Data services
• Cons
• Since we don't support macro to femto handover, the users with active calls on f3 can experience drop calls if they
are close to Femto cells.

Option 4b: FEMTO co-channel with UMTS & “open” access to
Femto
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
21
Option5: F3->GSM & Femto co-channel with GSM
Layer – F3
Layer– F2
Layer – F1
Femto Layer – F4
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
UE devices can camp on all 3 UMTS Layers. Reselection to Femto
from all UMTS cells. No IFHO from F3->F1. IRAT from F3 to GSM in
order to maintain the call when radio performance degrades on F3.
F3 cells are designated either SHO or HHO_IR
Pros
• All UEs can re-select to Femto cell from any UMTS cell
• Traffic can be moved between layers in idle mode to balance efficiently
radio resource utilization between layers
• LM strategy is not limited by RBS HW configuration. LM strategy
targets only 850/1900/1900 carrier band configurations
• UEs go to GSM layer to maintain call instead of risking drop calls after
IFHO to F2 in poor radio conditions
• Possibility to use this strategy only on cells where calls can drop when
transitioning from F3 to F2 and F2 cannot provide good radio quality to
maintain the call or trigger another successful IFHO from F2 to F1.

 Cons
• LM Strategy not in-line with multicarier LM strategy (“keeping UMTS
devices on 3G network”). Will cause increase traffic of 3G UEs on 2G
system
• Possible negative impact on customer perception – throttling of data
throughput when changing from 3G to 2G
• F3 traffic will go to GSM when fulfilling hho_if thresholds
• No transition in dedicated mode from F3 to F2 or F1. F3 cells will have
HHO_IR or SHO cells designation.
IRAT
GSM
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
22
Option6: HS Service Separation, UEs camping on F1 and F2
Layer – F3
HSDPA
Preferred
Layer - F2
Voice and R99 Data
Layer – F1
Voice and HS Data
FEMTO
1900 F3
1900 F2
850 F1
IFLS
IFHO
Re-Selection
IFHO – optional depending
on cell designation
IFLS if all carriers in the same cabinet
Coverage relation for HSDPA Rabs
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
23
Option 6: HS Service Separation, UEs camping on F1 and F2 (cont’d)
Pros Cons

› Access to FEMTO from all layers.
› HS Performance improvement due to
dedicated HS carriers.
› UMTS 1900 layers have a fallback
UMTS 850 coverage layer. Keep UEs on
3G.
› Additional HS resources can be provided
for Dedicated HS Carrier by creating
additional HS Resource IDs.
› 60W RRUWs on 1900 can be used for
HSPA layer with OBIF solution – Additional
power for HS users.
› Impact of HS on R99 traffic is minimized.

› F3 Layer used exclusively for HS / MultiRAB. May not be utilized if low
HS traffic. We lose the F3 capacity for the R99 traffic.Not able to balance
resource utilization across layers. In-efficient use of spectrum / PA
utilization.
› Use of IFLS for load balancing between F1 (850) and F2 (1900) bands
=> Call setup delays. Also IFLS may fail due to coverage differences
between 850/1900.
› Complicated Implementation. And the Cell_Fach timer may need to be
increased.
› Is not a solution for Non-HS Power depletion.
› MultiRAB UEs on F2 will not utilize HS if Speech call is originated first
followed by the Packet session.
› Potentially increased RRC signaling due to HS Redirection.
› Delays in HSDPA RAB establishment due to blind redirection from F2-
F3.
› 850 UMTS carrier will carry both HS / R99 traffic. Impact on R99
performance due to HS.
› Some HS UEs may be stuck on F2 due to failed blind handovers.
–Need to optimize hspathlossthreshold.
› HS UEs on F3 will have to downswitch to DCH to trigger compressed
mode. (HS CPM available in P7).
› EUL will be supported only on 3x2 sector carriers.
› More RAB establishments in F2 (1900 band) => higher IFHO where
coverage limited.

AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.
24
Option7: Deploy 850/1900/850 instead of 850/1900/1900

As documented in ND-00321, “Spectrum Mangement/Planning-UMTS Carrier Addition”

If we assume that 4.2 MHz spacing is sufficient for the two adjacent 850 UMTS carriers,
this provides 400 kHz on each of the far ends, and utilizes essentially all of the contiguous
spectrum within the B-band. Therefore, only the “expanded spectrum channels” of 240
thru 251 are available for GSM (plus a couple of channels from the 400 kHz that could be
used as GSM hoppers).

The primary 12 Frequencies for GSM 850 band
- Very tight (N=4) BCCH planning
- challenge on Edge and Voice performance
- insufficient C/I for currently acceptable EDGE throughput performance
- Insufficient capacity for many EDGE sites current demand
- To improve EDGE capacity & perf needs, the EDGE would need to be moved
to 1900 which requires massive T1 reconfiguration

Instead of using 850 for BCCH, it would be probably better to use 1900 for BCCH which
ultimately means to make GSM a 1900-Mhz-only network.
AT&T Proprietary (Restricted)
Only for use by authorized individuals or any above-designated team(s) within the AT&T companies and not for general distribution.