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 wont 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 (contd) 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, well 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, Were 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, well 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 (contd)
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 (contd) 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.