FortSmithAR 1105 ATT Report Voice

8/10/2019 FortSmithAR 1105 ATT Report Voice

1/171

2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential

Voice Benchmarking Report

Fort Smith, AR (1105)

Drive Dates:May 9, 2011 - May 12, 2011

Performed by:

Global Wireless Solutions, Inc. 23475 Rock Haven WaySuite 165Dulles, Virginia20166703-661-7000


2/171

Voice Benchmarking Report Fort Smith, AR (1105)

2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential i May 26, 2011

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Report summarizes the competitive benchmarking analysis performed on theFort Smith, AR (1105) region for AT&T Mobility (AT&T). Global Wireless Solutions (GWS)performed the benchmarking using one SwissQual Diversity chassis.

GWS completed the data collection between May 9, 2011 and May 12, 2011, between 7:00 amand 9:00 pm. The mobile-originated call cycle consisted of a 120-second call followed by a 30-second idle period. The actual route driven, determined in concert with AT&T, included a totalof 708 miles of primary thoroughfares and secondary roads throughout the Fort Smith, AR(1105) region. The drive route is detailed on Map 1a in Appendix A. Figure 1 and Table 1below summarizes each mobiles performance in the market. The metrics used are describedon the following page.

Voice Reliabili ty Signif Operator Accessibil i ty Retainabili ty Quality Score RankVerizon 98.55% 96.58% 98.78% 95.18% 1

AT&T (2G) 96.63% 98.01% 93.24% 94.71% 1 AT&T (2G/3G) 95.91% 96.49% 96.35% 92.55% 1Sprint 97.11% 94.54% 97.89% 91.81% 4

AT&T (MRAB) 96.16% 94.76% 95.54% 91.13% 4T-Mobile 81.36% 93.75% 94.68% 76.27% 6Cricket 68.82% 94.43% 83.57% 64.99% 7

(excluded from analysis)

95.18% 94.71%92.55% 91.81%

91.13%

76.27%

64.99%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Verizon AT&T (2G) AT&T (2G/3G) Sprint AT&T (MRAB) T-Mobile Cricket

P e r c e n

t a g e

Figure 1. Reliability Sco re by Rank( = Accessibi lity x Retainability )

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB) Cricket Sprint T-Mobile Verizon

Technology UMTS GSM UMTS CDMA CDMA GSM CDMA Acce ssibi li ty 95.91% 96.63% 96.16% 68.82% 97.11% 81.36% 98.55%

RankRetainability 96.49% 98.01% 94.76% 94.43% 94.54% 93.75% 96.58%

RankReliabil ity ( = A * R ) 92.55% 94.71% 91.13% 64.99% 91.81% 76.27% 95.18%

Rank* Per AT&T Request, Significanc e ranking to be provided by AT&T HQ

Table 1. Executive Summary of Network PerformanceFort Smith, AR (1105)


3/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential ii May 26, 2011

1.1 Network Summary Charts

Included on the following pages are bar charts providing a brief overview of the market drive test. Although not entirely conclusive, these charts do provide general insight into the performance ofeach tested mobile in the region. Below is a brief description of each metric.

Reliability ScoreCharted on the previous page, this is a quantitative overall quality of service score, based on the

Accessibility of the system and the Retainability of the system. The reliability score has beenestablished as the Accessibility x Retainability. Alternatively, it can also be thought of as thepercentage of call attempts that resulted in a normal call termination.

AccessibilityThe accessibility of the system is the percentage of call attempts that resulted in a successful callinitiation. Note that a high accessibility is desirable.

RetainabilityThe retainability of the system is simply the percentage of calls (successful initiations) that didNOT drop. Note that a high retainability is desirable.

Voice Quality RateThe overall voice quality rate is equal to the average voice quality on the downlink and uplink.Each link voice quality is equal to the percentage of good MOS scores. Note that a high VoiceQuality Rate is desirable. Based upon the definition of the MOS scale (duplicated in thedefinitions section), a 2.8 score has been set as the MOS threshold. Those scores occurringbelow this threshold would result in an amount of dissatisfaction from a user; whereas any scoreabove this threshold (even a score of 4.9) will simply reflect what the user expects of a carrier.For this reason GWS does not use the average MOS as a metric, since averages can be skewedupwards with very high MOS scores (greater than 3.8), which most users could not differentiatefrom satisfactory performance (such as 3.3).

Average System Access TimeThe System Access Time is the time elapsed between pressing the SEND button on themobile and getting the connect acknowledgment at the mobile. This metric, from a userperspective, is the least important factor. The average time is compared.


4/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential iii May 26, 2011

No Servi ce Acc Fai lure Good Ini t Total Signif

Operator Count Count Count Attempts Accessibi l i ty RankVerizon 3 3 409 415 98.55% 1Sprint 7 5 403 415 97.11% 1

AT&T (2G) 7 7 402 416 96.63% 3 AT&T (MRAB) 8 8 401 417 96.16% 3 AT&T (2G/3G) 7 10 399 416 95.91% 3T-Mobile 67 10 336 413 81.36% 6Cricket 80 50 287 417 68.82% 7

98.55%97.11% 96.63% 96.16% 95.91%

81.36%

68.82%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Ver izon Spr int AT&T (2G) AT&T (MRAB)AT&T (2G/3G) T-Mobile Cricke t

P e r c e n

t a g e

Figure 2. Acces sibili ty by Rank( = Number of Good Initiations / Number of Call Attempts )

Dropped Normal- Good Ini t Signif Operator Count Term Count Count Retainabil i ty Rank

AT&T (2G) 8 394 402 98.01% 1Verizon 14 395 409 96.58% 1

AT&T (2G/3G) 14 385 399 96.49% 1 AT&T (MRAB) 21 380 401 94.76% 4Sprint 22 381 403 94.54% 4Cricket 16 271 287 94.43% 4T-Mobile 21 315 336 93.75% 4

98.01%

96.58% 96.49%94.76% 94.54% 94.43%

93.75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

AT&T (2G) Verizon AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (MRAB) Sprint Cricket T-Mobile

P e r c e n

t a g e

Figure 3. Retainability by Rank( = Number of Normal Terminations / Number of Good Initiations )


5/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential iv May 26, 2011

DL Voice UL Voice Voice Rank

Operator Quali ty Quali ty Quali ty (out of 7)Verizon 98.36% 99.21% 98.78% 1Sprint 97.83% 97.96% 97.89% 2

AT&T (2G/3G) 95.21% 97.49% 96.35% 3 AT&T (MRAB) 95.64% 95.45% 95.54% 4T-Mobile 93.78% 95.58% 94.68% 5

AT&T (2G) 92.38% 94.11% 93.24% 6Cricket 81.53% 85.61% 83.57% 7

98.78%97.89%

96.35%95.54%

94.68%93.24%

83.57%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Verizon Sprint AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (MRAB) T-Mobile AT&T (2G) Cricket

P e r c e n

t a g e

Figure 4. Voice Quality by Rank( = Number of MOS samples >= 2.8 / Total Number of MOS samples )

Acce ss Acce ss Acce ss Acce ss RankOperator Max Min StDev Mean (out of 7)Verizon 29.3 4.0 2.0 5.0 1Sprint 21.0 4.0 1.9 5.1 2

AT&T (MRAB) 25.4 4.7 2.0 5.9 3 AT&T (2G) 26.5 5.0 1.2 5.9 4 AT&T (2G/3G) 24.4 4.9 1.9 6.2 5T-Mobile 22.7 5.1 2.5 6.8 6Cricket 25.5 4.9 3.3 6.8 7

5.0 5.1

5.9 5.96.2

6.8 6.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Verizon Sprint AT&T (MRAB) AT&T (2G) AT&T (2G/3G) T-Mobile Cricket

S e c o n

d s

Figure 5. System Access Time by Rank


6/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential v May 26, 2011

1.2 Network Call Result Flowcharts

Flowcharts provide a quick visual explanation of the overall call processes throughout the testdrive. First, each chart breaks down the call results of each call attempt. For mobiles capableof dual-mode,the number of attempts and failures on each mode is displayed. For single-modemobiles, a call can only initiate on a digital control channel, so only a single branch is displayed.

Once a call is successfully established, the appropriate Good Inits mode category isincremented: either in the GSM Setup branch or in the UMTS Setup branch. Eachsuccessfully-established call can either remain in its setup mode throughout the duration of thecall (Good Inits / GSM or Good Inits / UMTS) or can switch modes at some point in the call(Good Inits / Mixed). The flowchart also details, for each call mode, both the count andpercentage of dropped calls (Dropped) and calls that terminated upon request (NormalTerm).

Finally, Bad VQ and Good VQ details the voice quality of all the calls within each call mode.Good VQ is calculated the same way as the Voice Quality metric in Section 1.1, except onlythose MOS samples occurring within each respective call mode are used in the flowchartanalysis.

If a call attempt does not successfully establish a traffic channel, the Failed Inits counter isincremented. All failed initiations are broken down into generalized categories describing thetype of failure. Each of these categories is defined and detailed in Section 7.

Each non-zero call event (except Call Attempts) displays the format [ X / Y% ] where:X = number of calls that the event occurred during the drive test, andY% = percentage that X occurred.

Each non-zero Voice Quality (Bad VQ and Good VQ) displays the format [ X / Y% ] where:X = number of samples measured below or above a Voice Quality threshold of 2.8, andY% = percentage that X occurred.

A flowchart for each carrier is included on the following pages:

Figure 6a. AT&T (2G/3G)Figure 6b. AT&T (2G)Figure 6c. AT&T (MRAB)Figure 6d. CricketFigure 6e. SprintFigure 6f. T-MobileFigure 6g. Verizon


7/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential vi May 26, 2011

Figure 6a. Call Performance Flowchart of AT&T (2G/3G) UMTS, Dual -850/1900

6 / 40% 0 0 0

7 / 46.67% 2 / 13.33% 0 0Failed Inits15 / 3.61%

Poor Signal Congestion Call Failure No Comm

126 / 93.33% 1401 / 90.74%

No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure

9 / 6.67% 143 / 9.26%GSM

135 / 100%Normal Term Good Quality

N/A N/AGood Inits

135 / 32.45% DROPPED BAD Quality

N/A N/AGSM->UMTS

GSM0

Setup Normal Term Good Quality

15 / 100% 164 / 91.11%Call Attempts

416DROPPED BAD Quality

249 / 94.32%Normal Term Good Quality

2 / 100% 0 0

UMTS 0 16 / 8.89%UMTS->GSM

Setup15 / 5.68%

Normal Term Good Quality

Good Inits 244 / 97.99% 2875 / 99.69%264 / 63.46%

DROPPED BAD Quality

DROPPED BAD Quality

Failed Inits2 / 0.48%


5 / 2.01% 9 / 0.31%UMTS

No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure0 0 0 0

0

Figure 6b. Call Performance Flowchart of AT&T (2G) GSM, Dual-850/1900

Good Inits402 / 96.63%

Normal Term Good Quality394 / 98.01% 4321 / 93.25%

DigitalDROPPED BAD Quality

Setup8 / 1.99% 313 / 6.75%

4 / 28.57% 0 0 0Call Attempts

416

7 / 50% 1 / 7.14% 0 2 / 14.29%Failed Inits14 / 3.37%




8/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential vii May 26, 2011

Figure 6c. Call Performance Flowchart of AT&T (MRAB) UMTS, Dual -850/1900

3 / 21.43% 0 1 / 7.14% 0

8 / 57.14% 1 / 7.14% 0 1 / 7.14%Failed Inits14 / 3.36%


134 / 92.41% 1501 / 92.26%


11 / 7.59% 126 / 7.74%GSM

145 / 100%Normal Term Good Quality

N/A N/AGood Inits

145 / 34.77% DROPPED BAD Quality

N/A N/AGSM->UMTS

GSM0

Setup Normal Term Good Quality

9 / 100% 97 / 90.65%Call Attempts

417DROPPED BAD Quality

UMTS 0 10 / 9.35%UMTS->GSM

Setup9 / 3.52%

Normal Term Good Quality

Good Inits 237 / 95.95% 2755 / 97.63%256 / 61.39%

DROPPED BAD Quality

10 / 4.05% 67 / 2.37%UMTS

247 / 96.48%Normal Term Good Quality

2 / 100% 0 0 0

DROPPED BAD Quality



No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure0 0 0 0

Figure 6d. Call Performance Flowchart of Cricket CDMA, PCS-1900




Setup16 / 5.57% 520 / 16.43%

30 / 23.08% 0 0 5 / 3.85%Call Attempts

417

80 / 61.54% 15 / 11.54% 0 0Failed Inits

130 / 31.18%Poor Signal Congestion Call Failure No Comm



9/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential viii May 26, 2011

Figure 6e. Call Performance Flowchart of Spri nt CDMA, PCS-1900




Setup22 / 5.46% 97 / 2.11%

5 / 41.67% 0 0 0Call Attempts

415



No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure7 / 58.33% 0 0 0

Figure 6f. Call Performance Flowchart of

T-Mobile GSM, PCS-1900




Setup21 / 6.25% 199 / 5.34%

4 / 5.19% 2 / 2.6% 0 1 / 1.3%Call Attempts

413



No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure67 / 87.01% 0 0 3 / 3.9%


10/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential ix May 26, 2011

Figure 6g. Call Performance Flowchart of Veri zon CDMA, Cell -850




Setup14 / 3.42% 55 / 1.23%

3 / 50% 0 0 0Call Attempts

415



No Service Access TO Assign Failure Network Failure3 / 50% 0 0 0


11/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential x May 26, 2011

1.3 Network Performance Commentary

Accessibility: AT&T (2G/3G) provided 95.91% accessibility with 7 no services, 8 poor signals and 2access timeouts. A cluster of no services and poor signals took place in the southernregion of the market; there was a group of no services along State Hwy 59 in the northernregion.

AT&T (2G) provided 96.63% accessibility with 7 no services, 4 poor signals, 1 accesstimeout and 2 network failures. Both network failures were present in the northwestern

region of the market; there was a group of no services and poor signals in the southernregion of the market on US Hwy 270 and US Hwy 259. AT&T (MRAB) provided 96.16% accessibility with 8 no services, 5 poor signals, 1 accesstimeout, 1 call failure and 1 network failure. There were failures present around themarket in various small clusters; a group of two poor signals and a no service took placeon State Hwy 82 in the northwestern region of the market.Cricket provided 68.82% accessibility with 80 no services, 30 poor signals, 15 accesstimeouts and 5 no communications. Failures took place throughout the entire market; acluster of access timeouts took place near Fort Smith, and the no communications tookplace along US Hwy 64 west of Fort Smith.Sprint provided 97.11% accessibility with 7 no services and 5 poor signals. The poorsignals were scattered around the market; there was a group of no services along StateHwy 59 in the northern region of the market.

T-Mobile provided 81.36% accessibility with 67 no services, 4 poor signals, 2congestions, 3 network failures and 1 no communication. There was a notable line of noservices along State Hwy 59 in the northern region of the market; the no communicationwas located near Fort Smith, and the congestions, network failures and two poor signalstook place in the southern region of the market.Verizon provided 98.55% accessibility with 3 no services and 3 poor signals, which werescattered around the market.

Retainability: AT&T (2G/3G) provided 96.49% retainability with 14 dropped calls. There were droppedcalls throughout the market, including several small groups. Two dropped calls took placenear Fort Smith.

AT&T (2G) provided 98.01% retainability with 8 dropped calls. A group of three droppedcalls occurred along US Hwy 59 in the northwestern region of the market.

AT&T (MRAB) provided 94.76% retainability with 21 dropped calls. Several dropped callsoccurred in a cluster near Fort Smith.Cricket provided 94.43% retainability with 16 dropped calls. Most of the dropped callswere present in the northern half of the market.Sprint provided 94.54% retainability with 22 dropped calls, which took place throughoutthe market.T-Mobile provided 93.75% retainability with 21 dropped calls, mostly present around thenorthern region of the market. A group of three dropped calls took place along State Hwy22 and State Hwy 96 east of Fort Smith.Verizon provided 96.58% retainability with 14 dropped calls. Dropped calls took placearound the market, including a cluster in the northwestern region on State Hwy 82 and I40.

1.4 Drive Route Summary

Data was collected along the Drive Route as detailed on Map 1 in Appendix A. All significantdifferences between the actual route driven by GWS and the proposed route pre-approved by

AT&T are noted below. Also noted below are regions that were driven, but where certain typesof data (i.e. certain scanners) did not meet quality assurance standards and are thus excluded.

Also included are general comments regarding the drive test.

Data could not be collected/reported partially on US Hwy 20.


12/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential xi May 26, 2011

Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. I

1.1 NETWORK SUMMARY CHARTS ....................................................................................................................... II 1.2 NETWORK CALL R ESULT FLOWCHARTS ........................................................................................................ V 1.3 NETWORK PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY ..................................................................................................... X 1.4 DRIVE R OUTE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. X

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... XI 2 NETWORK COMPARISON RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 1

2.1 HOME -NETWORK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 FAILED I NITIATION BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 AUDIO QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Audio Quality Distributions .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... 6 2.3.2 Composite RSSI versus MOS Analysis ................................................................................................. 10

2.4 R ECEIVED -S IGNAL STRENGTH ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 MOBILE TRANSMIT -S IGNAL STRENGTH ........................................................................................................ 16 2.6 MULTI -RAB TASK R ESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 17

3 AT&T NETWORK RESULTS: SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 20

3.1

CALL

QUALITY

R ESULTS

.............................................................................................................................. 20

3.2 CODEC USAGE A NALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.3 HANDOVER R ESULTS (GSM MODE ) ............................................................................................................. 26 3.4 HANDOFF R ESULTS (CDMA-M ODE ) ............................................................................................................ 31

4 AT&T (2G/3G) NETWORK RESULTS: DETAILED ................................................................................. 32

4.1 COVERAGE QUALITY A NALYSIS (UMTS MODE ) ......................................................................................... 32 4.2 PILOT POLLUTION ......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.3 FAILED I NITIATIONS DETAILS ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.4 DROPPED -CALL DETAILS ............................................................................................................................. 38

5 AT&T (2G) NETWORK RESULTS: DETAILED .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .... 41

5.1 COVERAGE QUALITY A NALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 41 5.2 HANDOVER IMPROVEMENT QUALITY A NALYSIS .......................................................................................... 43 5.3 FAILED I NITIATIONS DETAILS ....................................................................................................................... 45 5.4 DROPPED -CALL DETAILS ............................................................................................................................. 47

6 AT&T (MRAB) NETWORK RESULTS: DETAILED...... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... . 50

6.1 COVERAGE QUALITY A NALYSIS (UMTS MODE ) ......................................................................................... 50 6.2 FAILED I NITIATIONS DETAILS ....................................................................................................................... 52 6.3 DROPPED -CALL DETAILS ............................................................................................................................. 54

7 BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 57

7.1 BENCHMARKING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 57 7.1.1 SwissQual Diversity System ................................................................................................................. 58 7.1.2 Landline Unit .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... ......... 58 7.1.3 Scanning Receiver Modules ................................................................................................................. 59 7.1.4 GWS Post-processing .......................................................................................................................... 59

7.2 BENCHMARKING CALL SCENARIO ................................................................................................................ 60 7.3 TEST SETUP .................................................................................................................................................. 61

7.3.1 Vehicle Setup ....................................................................................................................................... 61 7.3.2 Testing Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 61 7.3.3 Vehicle Attenuator-Level Testing ......................................................................................................... 62

8 DESCRIPTION OF NETWORK PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ 63

8.1 AUDIO QUALITY MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................................... 63 8.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................. 64


13/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential xii May 26, 2011

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDICES

A MAP PLOTS ................................................................................................................................................ A-1


14/171


2011 GWS , Inc., Client Confidential 1 May 26, 2011

2 NETWORK COMPARISON RESULTS

Included in Table 2 below is a summary of the measured network performance parameters forthe market boundary drive test.

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)


Mean Rx Power -82.2 -78.0 -81.6 -87.8 -83.3 -85.0 -72.1% Rx Power >= -98 dBm 89.52% 94.94% 89.95% 70.64% 85.88% 84.71% 96.03%

Rx Power Type Rx Power RxLev Rx Power Rx Power Rx Power RxLev Rx Power Mean Quality 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.4

% Quality


15/171



Included in Table 3 below is a summary of the measured network performance parameters forthe AT&T (2G/3G) phone differentiating the failures that occurred on the GSM and UMTSnetworks.

UMTSNetwork

GSMNetwork

Mean DL MOS 3.5 3.4Mean UL MOS 3.6 3.6

Mean Combined MOS 3.5 3.5

Mean Access Time 6.3 6.1

Call Attempts 266 150

No Service 0 7% No Servi ce 0.00% 4.67%

Poor Signal 2 6% Poor Signal 0.75% 4.00%

Access Timeout 0 2% Access Tim eou t 0.00% 1.33%

Congestion 0 0% Congestio n 0.00% 0.00%

Assignm en t Fa i lure 0 0% Assignment Failure 0.00% 0.00%

Call Failure 0 0% Call Fail ure 0.00% 0.00%

Network Failure 0 0% Network Fai lure 0.00% 0.00%

No Communication (Muted) 0 0% No Communi cation (Muted) 0.00% 0.00%

Good Initiations 264 135 Accessib i l i ty 99.25% 90.00%

Significance Rank ing* 1 2

Dropped 5 9% Dropped 1.89% 6.67%

Normal Terminations 244 141Retai nab il ity 97.99% 94.00%

Significance Rank ing* 1 2

Voice Qual ity (DL) 99.22% 87.22%Voice Qual ity (UL) 99.15% 94.21%

Voi ce Qual ity 99.18% 90.72%

Rel i ab il i ty ( = A * R ) 97.26% 84.60%Significance Rank ing* 1 2

* Significance based upon Binomial Confidence Interval of 90%

NOTE: Inits identified as UMTS or GSM at Init location, and Ends at End location.

Therefore, the number of Ends may not equal the number of Good Inits.

Table 3. Network Performance Breakout for AT&T (2G/3G)Fort Smith, AR (1105)


16/171



2.1 Home-Network Performance Parameters

Included in Table 4 below is a summary of the amount that each mobile was on its homenetwork. Please refer to each phones System Identification maps in Appendix A for location-specific information.

Figure 7 below details the band and sub-band each phone utilized. The usage patterns will beaffected by any roaming that occurred.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

850A 850B 1900A 1900B 1900C 1900D 1900E 1900F 2100A 2100E 2100F

P D F P e r c e n t a g e

Band/Sub-Band

Figure 7. Band/Sub-Band Us age PDF

AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (2G) AT&T (MRAB) Cricket Sprint T-Mobile Verizon

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)


Home 99.62% 99.73% 99.42% 100.00% 87.37% 71.48% 98.42%Pine Cellular OK Western Pine Cellular 21605 Verizon AT&T US Cellular

0.38% 0.16% 0.30% 0.00% 12.63% 23.04% 1.58%T-Mobile T-Mobile US Cellular Pine Cellular 0.09% 0.27% 0.01% 5.32%

Pine Cellular OK Western0.02% 0.14%

Sprocket0.02%

Roam

Table 4. Summary of Network Usage

Fort Smith, AR (1105)


17/171



Table 5 below details the measured network performance parameters of each phone. Phonesnot providing valid SID information are shown assuming the entire drive was on the homenetwork.

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)


Mean DL MOS 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.9 3.7Mean UL MOS 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.0 3.6 4.0 3.7

Mean Combined MOS 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.9 3.7

Mean Access Time 6.2 5.9 5.9 6.8 5.0 6.0 4.9

Call Attempts 414 413 414 400 360 280 410

No Service 7 6 7 63 0 8 3% No Service 1.69% 1.45% 1.69% 15.75% 0.00% 2.86% 0.73%

Poor Signal 7 4 4 30 5 2 2% Poor Signa l 1.69% 0.97% 0.97% 7.50% 1.39% 0.71% 0.49%

Acce ss Tim eou t 2 1 1 15 0 0 0% Access Timeout 0.48% 0.24% 0.24% 3.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Congestion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Congestion 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Assign me nt Fa il ur e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Assignm ent Fail ure 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Call Failure 0 0 1 0 0 0 0% Call Failu re 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Network Failure 0 1 1 0 0 0 0% Network Failu re 0.00% 0.24% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

No Communication (Muted) 0 0 0 5 0 1 0% No Commun ication (Muted) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00%

Good Initiations 398 401 400 287 355 269 405 Accessibi li ty 96.14% 97.09% 96.62% 71.75% 98.61% 96.07% 98.78%

Significance Ranking*

Dropped 14 8 21 16 11 18 13% Dropped 3.52% 1.99% 5.25% 5.57% 3.11% 6.69% 3.20%

Normal Terminations 384 394 379 271 343 251 393Retainabil i ty 96.48% 98.01% 94.75% 94.43% 96.89% 93.31% 96.80%

Significance Ranking*

Voice Quali ty (DL) 95.20% 92.38% 95.63% 81.53% 98.98% 96.03% 98.43%Voice Quali ty (UL) 97.48% 94.11% 95.44% 85.61% 98.49% 97.65% 99.29%

Voice Quali ty 96.34% 93.24% 95.53% 83.57% 98.74% 96.84% 98.86%

Reliabil i ty ( = A * R ) 92.75% 95.16% 91.55% 67.75% 95.55% 89.64% 95.62%Significance Ranking*

* Per AT&T Request, Significan ce ranking to be provided by A T&T HQ

NOTE: Inits identified as Home/Roam at Init location, and Ends at End location.

Theref ore, the number of Ends may not equal the number of Good Inits.

Table 5. Summary of Network Performance (Home-Network Only)Fort Smith, A R (1105)


18/171



2.2 Failed Initiation Breakdown

A breakdown of each phones failed initiations within the market are displayed in Appendix A.The bar charts below compare the different reasons for the Failed Initiations between eachmobiles system. The call results displayed in Figure 8 are based upon the number of Total Call

Attempts, whereas those detailed in Figure 9 are normalized to the total number of FailedInitiations.

Poor Access Assignment Cal l Netw ork No CommOperator No Service Signal Timeout Congestion Failure Failure Fai lure (Muted Audio)

AT&T (2G/3G) 1.7% 1.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AT&T (2G) 1.7% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% AT&T (MRAB) 1.9% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%Cricket 19.2% 7.2% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%Sprint 1.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%T-Mobile 16.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2%Verizon 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%


P e r c e n t a g e o f C a l l A t t e m p t s

Figure 8. Unsuccessfu l Call Initiations versus Call Attempts

No Comm (Muted)

Network Failure

Call Failure

Assignment Fa ilure

Congestion

Access Timeout

Poor Signal

No Service

Poor Access Assignment Cal l Network No CommOperator No Service Signal Timeout Congestion Failure Failure Failure (Muted Audio)

AT&T (2G/3G) 41.2% 47.1% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AT&T (2G) 50.0% 28.6% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% AT&T (MRAB) 50.0% 31.3% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 6.3% 0.0%Cricket 61.5% 23.1% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%Sprint 58.3% 41.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%T-Mobile 87.0% 5.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%Verizon 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


P e r c e n t a g e o f F a i l e d I n i t i a t i o n s

Figure 9. Unsuccessful Call Initiations versus Failed Initiations

No Comm (Muted)

Network Failure

Call Failure

Assignment Failure

Congestion

Access Tim eout

Poor Signal

No Service


19/171



2.3 Audio Quality

2.3.1 Audio Quality Distributions

The following PDF and CDF charts compare each phones audio voice quality in the Fort Smith, AR (1105) area. The floating bar charts display the mean, standard deviation, minimum, andmaximum values of the downlink, uplink, and combined MOS. The combined MOS is defined

as the total number of MOS samples, regardless of whether the measurement was made on thedownlink or uplink.

The Composite charts are included on the following pages:

Figure 10. Composite MOS (DL) and MOS (UL) PDFFigure 11. Composite MOS (DL) and MOS (UL) CDFFigure 12. Composite MOS (DL) Mean by RankFigure 13. Composite MOS (UL) Mean by RankFigure 14. Composite MOS (Combined) PDF/CDFFigure 15. Composite MOS (Combined) Mean by Rank


20/171



MOS (UL)

MOS (DL)

-65%

-60%

-55%

-50%

-45%

-40%-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%35%

40%

45%

50%1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

MOS

Figure 10. Composite MOS (DL) and MOS (UL) PDF

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon

MOS (UL)

MOS (DL)

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

MOS

Figure 11. Composite MOS (DL) and MOS (UL) CDF

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon


21/171



DL DL DL DL Rank ** Mean: Located at black vertical line at the center of white gradient region.Operator Max Min StDev Mean (out of 7) Standard Deviation: Shown as 2 vertical lines centered about the Mean.T-Mobile 4.1 1.0 0.6 3.8 1 Bar: Drawn from Minimum MOS value to Maximum MOS value.Sprint 4.0 1.0 0.4 3.7 2Verizon 4.0 1.0 0.3 3.7 3

AT&T (MRAB) 4.0 1.0 0.4 3.6 4 AT&T (2G) 4.0 1.0 0.4 3.5 5 AT&T (2G/3G) 4.0 1.0 0.4 3.5 6Cricket 3.6 1.0 0.4 3.0 7

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cricket

AT&T (2G/3G )

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Verizon

Sprint

T-Mobile

MOS (DL)

Figure 12. MOS (DL) Mean by Ran k

UL UL UL UL Rank ** Mean: Located at black vertical line at the center of white gradient region.Operator Max Min StDev Mean (out of 7) Standard Deviation: Shown as 2 vertical lines centered about the Mean.T-Mobile 4.2 1.2 0.5 3.9 1 Bar: Drawn from Minimum MOS value to Maximum MOS value.Verizon 4.0 1.2 0.3 3.7 2

AT&T (2G) 4.0 1.5 0.4 3.7 3 AT&T (MRAB) 4.1 1.4 0.4 3.6 4Sprint 4.0 1.2 0.3 3.6 5

AT&T (2G/3G) 4.1 1.2 0.3 3.6 6Cricket 3.5 1.2 0.3 3.0 7

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cricket

AT&T (2G/3G )

Sprint

AT&T (MRAB)

AT&T (2G)

Verizon

T-Mobile

MOS (UL)

Figure 13. MOS (UL) Mean by Ran k


22/171



MOS CDF

MOS PDF

Percentage RangeOperator 1.0 - 2.4 2.5 - 2.9 3.0 - 3.4 3.5 - 5.0

AT&T (2G/3G) 2.5% 2.5% 16.9% 78.2% AT&T (2G) 3.5% 5.4% 7.7% 83.5% AT&T (MRAB) 2.2% 4.0% 9.7% 84.1%Cricket 8.0% 22.6% 67.2% 2.2%Sprint 1.7% 1.2% 12.4% 84.8%T-Mobile 3.9% 2.8% 7.6% 85.6%Verizon 0.9% 0.8% 11.4% 86.9%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

P e r c e n

t a g e

MOS

Figure 14. Composite MOS (Combined) PDF/CDF

AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon

MOS MOS MOS MOS Rank ** Mean: Located at black vertical line at the center of white gradient region.Operator Max Min StDev Mean (out of 7) Standard Deviation: Shown as 2 vertical lines centered about the Mean.T-Mobile 4.2 1.0 0.5 3.8 1 Bar: Drawn from Minimum MOS value to Maximum MOS value.Verizon 4.0 1.0 0.3 3.7 2

AT&T (MRAB) 4.1 1.0 0.4 3.6 3Sprint 4.0 1.0 0.3 3.6 4

AT&T (2G) 4.0 1.0 0.4 3.6 5 AT&T (2G/3G) 4.1 1.0 0.3 3.5 6Cricket 3.6 1.0 0.4 3.0 7

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cricket

AT&T (2G/3G )

AT&T (2G)

Sprint

AT&T (MRAB)

Verizon

T-Mobile

MOS (Combine d)

Figure 15. MOS (Combined) Mean by Rank


23/171



2.3.2 Composite RSSI versus MOS Analysis

During testing, one MOS score is essentially a determination of the audio quality over the next7.5 seconds. As such, for each MOS score, a corresponding RSSI value is determined byaveraging all the RSSI measurements that occurred during the next 7.5 seconds. Figure 16below graphs each RSSI value versus the average of all its corresponding MOS scores. Eachtested mobile is shown so as to compare the type of audio quality each can expect to obtain for

a given RSSI. In order to maintain data integrity, as-collected, in-vehicle RSSI is used tocompare to the averaged MOS score.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40

M O S

RSSI (dBm)

Figure 16. Compos ite RSSI vs Averaged MOS (DL)

AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon


24/171


25/171



Figures 19 and 20 display respectively the follow-phone composite RSSI as a PDF chart andCDF chart. Note that the charts include RSSI samples from all modes of operation (e.g., GSMand UMTS modes for UMTS-capable mobiles).

Percentage RangeOperator -120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30

AT&T (2G/3G) 15.2% 27.3% 27.4% 30.1% AT&T (2G) 7.1% 17.2% 35.0% 40.7% AT&T (MRAB) 14.8% 25.7% 27.5% 32.0%Cricket 35.3% 19.7% 24.4% 20.6%Sprint 18.7% 23.1% 30.2% 28.0%T-Mobile 19.9% 24.9% 34.0% 21.2%Verizon 5.2% 7.7% 22.4% 64.6%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30


RSSI (dBm)

Figure 19. Phone Comp osite RSSI PDF Chart

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

RSSI (dBm)

Figure 20. Phon e Compo site RSSI CDF Chart

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

T-Mobile

Verizon


26/171



Figures 21 and 22 display respectively the each scanners as-collected percentile RSSI valuesand the binned RSSI distribution. All scanners results shown display only the commercial in-service network, so large regions of roaming or no-service will negatively affect the RSSI resultsshown.

Percentile RangeOperator 80th %i le 85th %i le 90th %ile 95th %ile 98th %ileScnr AT&T (GSM) -74 -77 -80 -85 -90Scnr AT&T (UMTS) -116 -116 -116 -116 -116Scnr Sprint CDMA -96 -99 -103 -110 -114Scnr T-Mobile -116 -116 -116 -116 -116Scnr Verizon -79 -81 -85 -92 -98

-74

-116

-96

-116

-79-77

-116

-99

-116

-81-80

-116

-103

-116

-85-85

-116

-110

-116

-92-90

-116-114

-116

-98

-125

-120

-115

-110

-105

-100

-95

-90

-85

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

Scnr AT&T (GSM) Scnr AT&T (UMTS) Scnr Sprint CDMA Scnr T-Mobile Scnr Verizon

R S S I ( d B m

)

Figure 21. Scanner Percent ile RSSI Distri butio n

80th %ile

85th %ile

90th %ile

95th %ile

98th %ile

Percentage RangeOperator -120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30Scnr AT&T (GSM) 1.1% 4.1% 11.1% 83.6%Scnr AT&T (UMTS) 32.7% 6.3% 10.9% 50.1%Scnr Sprint CDMA 20.7% 25.7% 30.0% 23.6%Scnr T-Mobile 41.9% 12.4% 20.0% 25.6%Scnr Verizon 4.1% 6.5% 17.8% 71.6%

1.1%

32.7%

20.7%

41.9%

4.1%4.1%

6.3%25.7%

12.4%

6.5%11.1%

10.9%

30.0%20.0%

17.8%

83.6%

50.1%

23.6% 25.6%

71.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Scnr AT&T (GSM) Scnr AT&T (UMTS) Scnr Sprint CDMA Scnr T-Mobile Scnr Verizon

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Figure 22. Scanner Binned RSSI Distribution

>= -75 dBm

-85 to -76 dBm

-95 to -86 dBm

< -95 dBm


27/171



Figures 23 and 24 display respectively the as-collected scanner composite RSSI as a PDF chartand CDF chart. Again, note that all scanners results shown display only the commercial in-service network, so large regions of roaming or no-service will negatively affect the resultsshown.

Percentage RangeOpera tor -120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30Scnr AT&T (GSM) 1.1% 4.1% 11.1% 83.6%Scnr AT&T (UMTS) 32.7% 6.3% 10.9% 50.1%Scnr Sprint CDMA 20.7% 25.7% 30.0% 23.6%Scnr T-Mobile 41.9% 12.4% 20.0% 25.6%Scnr Verizon 4.1% 6.5% 17.8% 71.6%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30


RSSI (dBm)

Figure 23. Scanner Co mpos ite RSSI PDF Chart

Scnr AT&T (GSM)

Scnr AT&T (UMTS)

Scnr Sprint CDMA

Scnr T-Mobile

Scnr Verizon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

RSSI (dBm)

Figure 24. Scanner Com pos ite RSSI CDF Chart

Scnr AT&T (GSM)

Scnr AT&T (UMTS)

Scnr Sprint CDMA

Scnr T-Mobile

Scnr Verizon


28/171



The following charts compare the CDMA-based mobiles combined chip energy versus totalnoise energy (E c/Io) in the Fort Smith, AR (1105) area. Figures 25 and 26 display respectivelythe Composite E c/Io as a PDF chart and CDF chart.

Percentage RangeOp er ato r -32.0 - -15.5 -15.0 - -12.5 -12.0 - -9.5 -9.0 - -6.5 -6.0 - -3.5 -3.0 - -0.5

AT& T (2G/3G) 1.6% 3.5% 19.9% 27.8% 45.6% 1.6% AT& T (MRA B) 1.3% 3.2% 20.8% 27.8% 45.2% 1.7%Cricket 21.4% 2.6% 4.6% 6.4% 62.3% 2.7%Sprint 4.8% 1.6% 3.3% 6.2% 80.4% 3.7%Verizon 2.0% 0.9% 2.5% 6.4% 85.2% 3.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

-24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0


Ec/Io (dB)

Figure 25. Compo site Ec/Io PDF Chart

AT &T (2G/3G)

AT &T (MRA B)

Cricket

Sprint

Verizon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Ec/Io (dB)

Figure 26. Compo site Ec/Io CDF Chart

AT& T (2G/3G)

AT& T (MRAB)

Cricket

Sprint

Verizon


29/171



2.5 Mobile Transmit-Signal Strength

The following charts compare each GSM and CDMA-based mobiles transmit power (Tx Power)within the market. Due to the inherent differences between the two air-interfaces and theirusage and range of Tx Power, each is displayed on separate figures. Figure 27 displays thePDF/CDF of the GSM Tx Powers, while Figure 28 displays the CDMA Tx Powers.

RangeOperator 0 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 21 22 to 33

AT&T (2G) 1.0% 5.0% 27.8% 66.3%T-Mobile 0.9% 2.5% 12.2% 84.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

C D F P e r c e n t a g e

P D

F P e r c e n t a g e

MS Tx Power (dBm)

Figure 27. GSM MS Tx Pow er PDF/CDF Chart

AT&T (2G ) PDF T-Mobile PD F AT&T (2G ) CDF T-Mobile CDF

RangeOperator -50 - -16 -15 - -6 -5 - 4 +5 - +35

AT&T (2G/3G) 42.4% 24.0% 20.8% 12.8% AT&T (MRAB) 38.7% 25.4% 21.6% 14.4%Cricket 29.9% 24.6% 18.8% 26.7%Sprint 40.4% 28.1% 18.0% 13.5%Verizon 75.6% 15.1% 5 .4% 4.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

C D F P

e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P

e r c e n

t a g e

MS Tx Powe r (dBm)

Figure 28. CDMA MS Tx Pow er PDF/CDF Chart

AT&T (2 G/3G) PD F AT&T (MR AB) PDF Cricket PDF Sprint PDFVerizon PDF AT &T (2G/ 3G ) CDF AT &T (MRAB) CDF Cricket CDFSprint CDF Verizon CDF


30/171



2.6 Multi-RAB Task Results

An AT&T multi-RAB device scenario was tested that performed data tasks (such as webbrowsing) while simultaneously on a voice call. Multi-RAB capability is only possible in 3Gmode. However, since the multi-RAB device is dual-mode, the device is capable of placing callsin 2G mode. If these 2G calls are successful, then the connection request to setup a PDP willfail. On the other hand, if a 2G call is blocked, the device will then still attempt to connect and

may in this case succeed on the 2G network, because the device failed the call and is not in amulti-RAB state. For these reasons, task failures are separated between the different modes.

Event: Accessibil ity Retainabil ityConnection 100.00% 96.88%yahoo.com 100.00% 98.44%facebook.com 100.00% 99.18%twitter.com 98.73% 99.57%youtube.com 100.00% 100.00%

100.00%96.88%

100.00% 98.44%100.00% 99.18%98.73% 99.57%100.00% 100.00%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Accessibility Retainability

Figure 29. Multi-RAB KPIs (3G-only)

Co nne ct io n yah oo. com fa ce bo ok.co m twi tt er.co m yo utu be .co m

2G Network*

3G Netwo rk

Connectio n Accessibi li ty 1.94% 100.00%Connection Retainability 100.00% 96.88%

Overall Task Accessibility 100.00% 99.63%Overall Task Retaina bil ity 100.00% 99.13%

User-Percei ved (From Request)

yahoo.com : Mean Thpt (kbps) 32 199 faceboo k.com: Mean Thpt (kbps) 75 208

twi tter.com: Mean Thpt (kbps) 71 226 youtube.com : Mean Thpt (kbps) --- 42

yahoo .com: Mean Duration (sec) 44.0 23.9 facebook.com: Mean Duration (sec) 22.2 10.8

tw itter.com: Mean Duration (sec) 17.0 27.1 youtube .com: Mean Duration (sec) --- 3.7

Table 6. Overview of Multi-RAB Network Performance -- AT&T (MRAB)Fort Smith, AR (1105)

* Blocked calls initiated on 2G netw ork may subsequently set up PDP connection in 2G modeand have success ful tasks (not in Multi-RAB state)


31/171



2G Network*

3G Network

Voice Summary:Call Attempts 159 258

Failed Initiations 14 2% Failed Initi ations 8.81% 0.78%

Good Initiations 145 256Voice A ccessiblity 91. 19% 99. 22%

Dropped Calls 11 10Voice Retainability 92. 41% 96. 09%

Voice Reliability 84. 28% 95. 35%

PDP Connection Sum mary:Connection Attempts 155 256

No Service 10 0% No Service 6.45% 0.00%

RF Setup Failures 142 0% RF Setup Failures 91.61% 0.00%

Successful Connections 3 256Connection Accessibil ity 1. 94% 100. 00%

RF Channel Drop 0 8% RF Channel Drop 0.00% 3.13%

Successful Connection Termi nations 3 248Connection Retainabilty 100. 00% 96. 88%

HTTP Browser (yahoo.com):Task Attempts 3 256

Task Setup Failure 0 0% Task Setup Failure 0.00% 0.00%Good Task Initiatio ns 3 256

% Task Accessibil ty 100.00% 100.00%Task Transfer Fail ure 0 4

% Task Transfer Failure 0.00% 1.56%Normal Task Terminations 3 252

% Normal Task Terminations 100. 00% 98. 44%

HTTP Browser (facebook.com):Task Attempts 5 244


% Task Accessibil ty 100.00% 100.00%Task Transfer Fail ure 0 2



HTTP Brow ser (twitter.com):Task Attempts 2 236


% Task Accessibil ty 100. 00% 98. 73%Task Transfer Fail ure 0 1



HTTP Brow ser (youtube.com):Task Attempts 0 69

Task Setup Failure 0 0% Task Setup Failure --- 0.00%Good Task Initiatio ns 0 69

% Task Accessibil ty --- 100.00%Task Transfer Fail ure 0 0

% Task Transfer Failure --- 0.00%Normal Task Terminations 0 69

% Normal Task Terminations --- 100.00%

Table 7. Summary of Multi-RAB Network Performance -- AT&T (MRAB)Fort Smith, AR (1105)

* Blocked calls initiated on 2G networ k may subsequently s et up PDP connection in 2Gmode and have successful tasks (not in Multi-RAB state)


32/171


33/171



3 AT&T NETWORK RESULTS: SUMMARY

For a geographical interpretation of the information contained in this section, refer to Appendix A.

3.1 Call Quality Results

Statistical Distribution Charts of AT&Ts RSSI measurements, RxQualSub calculations, andDownlink and Uplink MOS ratings are provided below. One MOS score is essentially adetermination of the audio quality over the next 7.5 seconds. As such, for each MOS score, acorresponding RxQualSub value is determined by averaging all the RxQualSub measurementsthat occurred during those 7.5 seconds. Figures 32 and 33 below display a chart of AT&TsBLER versus MOS for the BLER phone, and AT&Ts RxQual versus MOS for the RxQualphone. Note that one point displayed may represent many hundreds of data points or very fewdata points, as detailed in the legend. The data line displays the average MOS value for eachRxQualSub.

Figure 32 below shows that throughout the drive-test region for the AT&T (2G/3G) phone, anBLER less than or equal to 4 averages to a MOS value greater than or equal to 3.2; while forthe AT&T (2G) phone, an RxQual less than or equal to 4 averages to a MOS value greater thanor equal to 3.2.


34/171



Number of Occurrences

113 to 434

32 to 112

11 to 31

5 to 10

2 to 4

1 to 1

Trendline of Avg MOS

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

M O S

BLER

Figure 32. AT&T (2G/3G) BL ER vs MOS

Number of Occurrences

25 to 288

12 to 24

6 to 11

4 to 5

2 to 3

1 to 1

Avg MOS

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

M O S

RxQual

Figure 33. AT&T (2G) RxQual vs MOS


35/171



The following Statistical Distribution charts are included below:Figure 34. RSSI PDF/CDF ChartFigure 35. BLER/RxQual PDF/CDF ChartFigure 36. MOS (DL) PDF/CDF ChartFigure 37. MOS (UL) PDF/CDF ChartFigure 38. MOS (Combined) PDF/CDF Chart

Percentage RangeOperator -120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30

AT&T (2G/3G) 15.2% 27.3% 27.4% 30.1% AT&T (2G) 7.1% 17.2% 35.0% 40.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

-120 -115 -110 -105 -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30



RSSI (dBm)

Figure 34. AT&T RSSI PDF/CDF Chart AT&T (2G/3G) PDF AT&T (2G) PDF AT&T (2G/3G) CDF AT&T (2G) CDF

Percentage RangeOperator 0 - 0 1 - 5 6 - 15 16 - 100

AT&T (2G/3G) 50.2% 46.5% 2.6% 0.7% AT&T (2G) 56.6% 40.7% 2.7% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



BLER/RxQual

Figure 35. AT&T BL ER/RxQu al PDF/CDF Char t

AT&T (2G/3G) PDF AT&T (2G) PDF AT&T (2G/3G) CDF AT&T (2G) CDF


36/171




AT&T (2G/3G) 3.4% 2.8% 22.0% 71.8% AT&T (2G) 4.1% 6.0% 12.2% 77.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



MOS (DL)

Figure 36. AT&T MOS (DL) PDF/CDF Chart

AT&T (2G/3G ) PDF AT&T (2G) PD F AT&T (2G/3G ) CDF AT&T (2G) CDF


AT&T (2G/3G) 1.5% 2.1% 11.8% 84.6% AT&T (2G) 2.8% 4.7% 3.1% 89.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



MOS (UL)

Figure 37. AT&T MOS (UL) PDF/CDF Chart



37/171




AT&T (2G/3G) 2.5% 2.5% 16.9% 78.2% AT&T (2G) 3.5% 5.4% 7.7% 83.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0



MOS (Combined)

Figure 38. AT&T MOS (Combined ) PDF/CDF Char t



38/171



3.2 Codec Usage Analysis

Figures 39 and 40 below summarize each phones codec usage throughout the market. Forcomparison, usage is shown for all mobiles tested in the market on either a UMTS or GSMnetwork. If any GSM mobile is displayed but only has data shown for EFR or HR, it is likely thatthat particular GSM carrier has not implemented AMR in this market. Also shown on the figuresis the average MOS obtained by each codec.

GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM UMTS UMTS GSM GSM AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR

Oper ator 12.2 5.90 EFR 12.2 HR 5.60 FR 10.2 FR 7.95 FR 7.40 FR 6.70 FR 5.90 FR 5.15 FR 4.75 HR 7.95 HR 7.40 HR 6.70 HR 5.90 HR 5.15 HR 4.75 AT&T (2G/3G) 62.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 25.5% 0.2% 5.1% 0.0% 3.7% AT&T (2G) 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.9% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 61.8% 1.0% 12.9% 0.0% 13.1% AT&T (MRAB) 68.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 17.4% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 5.2%T-Mobile 0.0% 0.0% 21.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 39.4% 0.8% 8.3% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 11.5% 0.1% 3.7% 0.0% 2.7%

* Test equipment currently does not output UMTS codec details . Codec 12.2 assumed for UMTS.

3.5

3.1

3.5

3.1

3.5

3.7

3.53.3

3.4 3.53.5

3.9

3.6

3.8 3.73.8

3.5 3.5 3.53.5

3.7

2.7

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.63.5

3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9

3.3

3.8

3.43.3

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UMT

S 1 2 .2

UMT

S 5 . 9

0

G S M E F R1 2 .2

G S M HR

5 . 6

0

G S M A MR

F R1

0 .2

G S M A MR

F R7 . 9

5

G S M A MR

F R7 .4

0

G S M A MR

F R

6 .7

0

G S M A MR

F R

5 . 9

0

G S M A MR

F R

5 .1

5

G S M A MR

F R4 .7

5

G S M A MR

HR7 . 9 5

G S M A MR

HR7 .4 0

G S M A MR

HR

6 .7 0

G S M A MR

HR

5 . 9 0

G S M A MR

HR

5 .1 5

G S M A MR

HR4 .7 5

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Codec

Figure 39. GSM/UMTS Cod ec Usag e PDF (DL)with mean MOS per Codec

AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (2G) AT&T (MRAB) T-Mobile

GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM UMTS UMTS GSM GSM AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR

Operator 12.2 5.90 EFR 12.2 HR 5.60 FR 10.2 FR 7.95 FR 7.40 FR 6.70 FR 5.90 FR 5.15 FR 4.75 HR 7.95 HR 7.40 HR 6.70 HR 5.90 HR 5.15 HR 4.75 AT&T (2G/3G) 63.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 20.6% 0.2% 4.2% 0.0% 8.9% AT&T (2G) 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.3% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 49.8% 1.4% 11.3% 0.0% 26.2% AT&T (MRAB) 69.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 8.0%T-Mobile 0.0% 0.0% 21.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 31.3% 1.0% 6.8% 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 10.2% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 5.6%

* Test equipment currently does not output UMTS codec details . Codec 12.2 assumed for UMTS.

3.5

3.1

3.5

3.23.1

2.9

3.4 3.43.5 3.53.5

3.93.7

3.83.7

3.63.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

3.7

2.7

3.43.5

3.4 3.4

3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9

3.3

3.9

3.33.4

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UMT

S 1 2 .2

UMT

S 5 . 9

0

G S M E F R1 2 .2

G S M HR

5 . 6

0

G S M A MR

F R1

0 .2

G S M A MR

F R7 . 9

5

G S M A MR

F R7 .4

0

G S M A MR

F R

6 .7

0

G S M A MR

F R

5 . 9

0

G S M A MR

F R

5 .1

5

G S M A MR

F R4 .7

5

G S M A MR

HR7 . 9 5

G S M A MR

HR7 .4 0

G S M A MR

HR

6 .7 0

G S M A MR

HR

5 . 9 0

G S M A MR

HR

5 .1 5

G S M A MR

HR4 .7 5

M O S

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Codec

Figure 40. GSM/UMTS Cod ec Usag e PDF (UL)with mean MOS per Codec

AT&T (2G/3G) AT&T (2G) AT&T (MRAB) T-Mobile


39/171



3.3 Handover Results (GSM Mode)

Table 8 below summarizes AT&Ts Handover parameters versus the other tested mobilesinGSM-mode in the market. On the following pages are Statistical Distribution Charts detailingeach category further. Figure 41 charts the number of Neighbors having an RSSI greater thanor equal to -85 dBm. The charts display the number of neighbors monitored just before eachhandover that occurred during the drive test.

Statistical Distribution charts are included on the following pages:

Figure 42. AT&T (2G/3G) RSSI Before and After HandoverFigure 43. AT&T (2G) RSSI Before and After HandoverFigure 44. AT&T (2G/3G) Signal Quality Before and After HandoverFigure 45. AT&T (2G) Signal Quality Before and After HandoverFigure 46. RSSI Improvement After HandoverFigure 47. Signal Quality Improvement After Handover

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (2G)

AT&T (MRAB) T-Mobile

Network Mode GSM GSM GSM GSMSuccessful Handovers 243 744 233 411

Failed Handovers 33 15 14 22Failed Handovers % 11.96% 1.98% 5.67% 5.08%

Mean Values:Handovers / call 1.62 1.85 1.51 1.22

Handovers / minute 0.81 0.93 0.76 0.61

Visible Neighbors --- --- --- ---Neighbors with RSSI >= -85 dBm 1.5 3.4 1.9 1.2

RSSI Before Handover -89.5 -81.6 -87.7 -90.1RSSI After Handover -82.2 -72.4 -80.4 -82.6

RSSI Improvement 7.3 9.3 7.3 7.4

Quality Type RxQual RxQual RxQual RxQualQuality Before Handover 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.7

Quality After Handover 1.7 1.0 1.4 2.1Quality Improvement 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.5

Table 8. Summary of Hard Handover Parameters(based on values occurring just before each Handover)


40/171



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Number of Neighbors

Figure 41. AT&T Densi ty C hart o f Neig hb ors w ith RSSI >= -85 dB m (GSM Mod e) AT&T (2G/3G) Neighbors Mean = 1.6

AT&T (2G) Neighbors Mean = 3 .5

AT&T (2 G/3G) PDF AT&T (2 G) PDF AT&T (2 G/3G) CDF AT&T (2G) CDF


41/171



Percentage Range-120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30

Before Handover 30.9% 40.3% 18.1% 10.7% Afte r Hando ver 12.8% 19.8% 36.6% 30.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

-110 -105 -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

RSSI (dBm)

Figure 42. AT&T (2G/3G) RSSI B efo re an d After Han do ver (GSM Mod e)Mean RSSI Before Handover = -90.2 dBMean RSSI After Handover = -80.5 dB

Before HO PDF After HO PDF Before HO CDF After HO CDF

Percentage Range-120 - -96 -95 - -86 -85 - -76 -75 - -30

Before Handover 8.2% 26.6% 37.6% 27.6% Afte r Han dov er 3.4% 8.3% 25.9% 62.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

-110 -105 -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

RSSI (dBm)

Figure 43. AT&T (2G) RSSI Befo re an d After Han do ver Mean RSSI Before Handover = -81.3 dBMean RSSI After Handover = -71.8 dB

Before HO PDF After HO PDF Before HO CDF After HO CDF


42/171


43/171



Percentage RangeOperator -45 - -6 -5 - -1 0 - 4 5 - 45

AT&T (2G/3G) 9.5% 6.6% 16.9% 66.9% AT&T (2G) 6.3% 6.6% 14.0% 73.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45



dB Improvement

Figure 46. AT&T RSSI Impr ov ement after Hand ov er (GSM Mode) AT&T (2G/3G) Mean RSSI Improvement = 9.5 dB

AT&T (2G) Mean RSSI Improvement = 9.5 dB


Percentage RangeOperator -7 - -3 -2 - -1 0 - 1 2 - 7

AT&T (2G/3G) 5.5% 9.7% 38.0% 46.8% AT&T (2G) 3.0% 7.2% 38.3% 51.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



BLER/RxQual Improvem ent

Figure 47. AT&T Sign al Quality Impro vemen t after Han do ver (GSM Mod e) AT&T (2G/3G) Mean RxQual Improvement = 1.5

AT&T (2G) Mean RxQual Improvement = 1.6



44/171



3.4 Handoff Results (CDMA-Mode)

Table 9 below summarizes each CDMA-based carriers active-set handoff parameters in themarket.

AT&T (2G/3G)

AT&T (MRAB) Cricket Sprint Verizon

Mean Values: Active Set Count 1.54 1.53 1.32 1.58 1.40

Percent of Call Time:Soft 1 way 62.3% 62.8% 75.9% 59.7% 68.1%Soft 2 way 25.1% 25.4% 17.5% 27.1% 24.2%Soft 3 way 8.6% 7.8% 5.6% 9.7% 7.3%Soft 4 way 4.0% 4.0% 0.8% 2.8% 0.4%Soft 5 way 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%Soft 6 way 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

Table 9. Summary of Soft Handover Parameters


45/171



4 AT&T (2G/3G) NETWORK RESULTS: DETAILED

This section attempts to provide AT&T information upon which to act to improve regionstargeted to cause AT&T the most competitive disadvantages within the market region driven forthe AT&T (2G/3G) phone.

4.1 Coverage Quality Analysis (UMTS Mode)

In this section, we define the Coverage-Quality Type as detailed below while the device is inUMTS mode.

Figure 48. Coverage-Quality Type definitio n quadrants

RSCP


46/171



The chart in Figure 50 summarizes the Coverage Quality of the tested drive route while inUMTS mode with respect to the definitions set forth above.

85.17%

9.75%

4.12%0.95%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Good Noise-Limited Coverage-Limited Interference

P e r c e n

t a g e

Coverage-Quali ty Type

Figure 50. AT&T (2G/3G) Co verage-Quality Type th roug ho ut market

Good

Noise-Limited

Coverage-Limited

Interference


47/171



4.2 Pilot Pollution

WCDMA Scanners are critical in detecting pilot pollution in a system. In areas with multiplepilots at similar strengths and no dominant pilot, it can be difficult for a mobile to decipher thedesired signal. In such cases with no significant pilot, a decreased E c/Io results. While asubscriber phone-based analysis will exhibit the telltale signs of decreasing E c/Io and increasingerror rates, scanners can be used to determine any missing neighbors which may help alleviate

the problem if this is the cause. In other areas that simply have no dominant server, physicalmodifications may be necessary such as antenna downtilts, antenna change-outs, antenna re-orientations, or even a cell-site addition to provide a dominant server to the region. Note,however, that any one of these modifications complicates the analysis of the area underquestion and could cause new problems.

For a geographical analysis of pilot issues within the market, refer to Map Section 2 which plotsthe delta between the best-serving and second-best-serving E c/No and plots areas of pilotpollution showing the number of pilots within 3 dB of the best server. Figures 51 and 52 belowchart each of the categories just listed. All of these figures are based on WCMDA Scannerdata.

All scanner statistics only analyze regions where there is reasonable belief that a UMTSnetwork exists (where the Best- Serving Ec -105 dBm).


48/171



Percentage Range0 - 2.9 3.0 - 4.9 5.0 - 7.9 8.0 - 20

AT&T (UMTS) 27.6% 19.1% 26.7% 26.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Ec/No Delta (dB)

Figure 51. Scanner Best /Secon dary Pilot Ec/No Delta PDF/CDF Chart

PDF

CDF

Percentage Range0 - 0 1 - 1 2 - 2 3 - 8

AT&T (UMTS) 73.1% 20.1% 4.6% 2.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5

C D F P e r c e n

t a g e

P D F P e r c e n

t a g e

Number of Polluting Pilots

Figure 52. Scanner Pilot Pollution PDF/CDF Chart(showing the Number of Pilots within 3 dB of Best-Serving Ec/No)

PDF

CDF


49/171



4.3 Failed Initiations Details

This section details each Failed Initiation that occurred on AT&Ts system throughout the drivetest on the AT&T (2G/3G) phone. Map 3a plots all AT&T (2G/3G)s failed initiation typesthroughout the market.

Table 10 below lists all the Failed Initiations in the order of their occurrence. Table 11 lists all

the Failed Initiations sorted by the Server name. Each table heading is described below.

Server Regions:Server The cell sector serving the mobile station (MS) at the time of failure.CH The current channel and color code serving the MS.Category The type of failed initiation that occurred (See Section 8.2 for definitions).

Failed Initiation Parameters:Dist (mi) Distance (in miles) from the Server to the MS during the failed initiation.Bearing Bearing (in degrees) from the Server to the MS during the failed initiation.RSSI In-vehicle RSSI of the CH during the failed initiation.Quality Quality of the CH during the failed initiation (RxQual in GSM mode, BLER in UMTS).

Lat, Lon Coordinates of the MS during the failed initiation.Timestamp Lists the date and time of the failed initiation.


50/171



SERVER REGIONS: Failed Initiation ParametersCell ID CH Mode Category Dist (mi) Bearing RSSI Quali ty Ec/No Lat Lon Timestamp20893 141/25 GSM Access Timeout -69 0 35.29266 -94.12967 05-09-11, 16:57:4920182 4384/496 UMTS Poor Signal Level -102 64 -18 35.07513 -94.64198 05-10-11, 08:54:2820212 159/11 GSM No Service -105 34.73395 -94.59489 05-10-11, 11:03:5420062 142/63 GSM No Service -106 6 34.71297 -94.55302 05-10-11, 11:06:3520212 159/11 GSM No Service -110 34.70504 -94.50571 05-10-11, 11:09:1620212 159/11 GSM Poor Signal Level -104 6 34.73414 -94.59255 05-10-11, 11:25:2324102 165/10 GSM Poor Signal Level -98 34.61620 -94.63577 05-10-11, 11:44:1072 222/54 GSM Poor Signal Level -87 6 34.61076 -94.66446 05-10-11, 11:46:5120282 150/45 GSM Poor Signal Level -104 6 34.54226 -94.69024 05-10-11, 11:54:5420303 144/2 GSM Poor Signal Qual -69 7 35.46337 -94.77044 05-11-11, 13:33:3320013 142/73 GSM Access Timeout -83 35.58916 -94.70754 05-12-11, 09:17:3422928 549/1 GSM Poor Signal Level -101 35.60727 -94.97623 05-12-11, 10:28:4022928 549/1 GSM No Service 35.61947 -94.96217 05-12-11, 10:32:2820111 143/1 GSM No Service -107 35.68190 -94.45858 05-12-11, 12:31:2120111 143/1 GSM No Service -110 35.70583 -94.48232 05-12-11, 12:34:0220111 143/1 GSM No Service -110 35.73913 -94.47338 05-12-11, 12:36:4320194 437/96 UMTS Poor Signal Level -109 95 -12 35.59650 -94.17972 05-12-11, 14:55:43

Table 10. AT&T (2G/3G) Detailed list of all Failed Initiat ions (sorted by time of occurrence)

SERVER REGIONS: Failed Initiation ParametersCell ID CH Mode Category Dist (mi) Bearing RSSI Quali ty Ec/No Lat Lon Timestamp72 222/54 GSM Poor Signal Level -87 6 34.61076 -94.66446 05-10-11, 11:46:5120013 142/73 GSM Access Timeout -83 35.58916 -94.70754 05-12-11, 09:17:3420062 142/63 GSM No Service -106 6 34.71297 -94.55302 05-10-11, 11:06:3520111 143/1 GSM No Service -107 35.68190 -94.45858 05-12-11, 12:31:2120111 143/1 GSM No Service -110 35.70583 -94.48232 05-12-11, 12:34:0220111 143/1 GSM No Service -110 35.73913 -94.47338 05-12-11, 12:36:4320182 4384/496 UMTS Poor Signal Level -102 64 -18 35.07513 -94.64198 05-10-11, 08:54:2820194 437/96 UMTS Poor Signal Level -109 95 -12 35.59650 -94.17972 05-12-11, 14:55:4320212 159/11 GSM No Service -105 34.73395 -94.59489 05-10-11, 11:03:5420212 159/11 GSM No Service -110 34.70504 -94.50571 05-10-11, 11:09:1620212 159/11 GSM Poor Signal Level -104 6 34.73414 -94.59255 05-10-11, 11:25:2320282 150/45 GSM Poor Signal Level -104 6 34.54226 -94.69024 05-10-11, 11:54:5420303 144/2 GSM Poor Signal Qual -69 7 35.46337 -94.77044 05-11-11, 13:33:3320893 141/25 GSM Access Timeout -69 0 35.29266 -94.12967 05-09-11, 16:57:49

22928 549/1 GSM Poor Signal Level -101 35.60727 -94.97623 05-12-11, 10:28:4022928 549/1 GSM No Service 35.61947 -94.96217 05-12-11, 10:32:2824102 165/10 GSM Poor Signal Level -98 34.61620 -94.63577 05-10-11, 11:44:10

Table 11. AT&T (2G/3G) Detailed lis t of all Failed Initiat ions (sorted by Server Name)


51/171



4.4 Dropped-Call Details

This section details each Server that dropped a call on AT&Ts system throughout the drive test.Each drop is categorized to define more accurately what occurred to cause the dropped call.Figure 53 below details how each drop is analyzed and classified into one of the five categories.

Figure 53. Drop-call Category classification

FailedHO?

Handover Failure Note: most often occurs in areas ofPoor Coverage.

Inconclusive Note: may be due uplink interferencein GSM mode, system malfunction notdetectable at MS, etc.

Yes

No

Yes

No

Nbrs existwith RSSI -75 dBm,

or with RSSI more than15 dB hotter than

current Server

Nbr Issue/CongestionA Nbr had much better signal quality.

The MS did not handover (e.g. the Nbrwas not in the candidate list, Nbr wascongested, etc.)

Yes

No

RSSI -90 dBmat Drop-point?

InterferenceThe MS exhibited Interferencecoverage-quality and no good Nbrsexisted to handover. Also could bedue to uplink interference in UMTSmode

Yes

No

Poor CoverageThe MS exhibited Coverage-Limitedcoverage-quality and no good Nbrsexisted to handover.

RxQual 4and RSSI -100 dBm

at Drop-point?

GSM Mode:UMTS Mode:

FailedHO?

No

No

RSCP -90 dBmand (TxPwr 10 orAggr Ec/No < -12

or BLER 20) at Drop-point?

RSCP -100 dBmand Aggr Ec/No -12 dB

and TxPwr < 10 dBand BLER < 20at Drop-point?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No


52/171



The chart in Figure 54 summarizes the occurrence of each Drop type of the tested drive routewith respect to the classifications set forth above. For a geographical analysis, Map 3a plotseach dropped-call type throughout the market.

Table 12 below lists all the Drops in the order of their occurrence. Table 13 lists all the Drops

sorted by the Server name. Each table heading is described below.Server Regions:Server The cell sector serving the mobile station (MS) before the drop.TCH The current channel and color code serving the MS.Entry The MS entered the current TCH either by:

HD handover onto this digital TCH, orI call initiation.

Category The type of dropped call that occurred.Serving Time (s) Details the time (in seconds) that the MS was served by the current TCH.

Drop-Point Parameters:Dist (mi) Distance (in miles) from the Server to the MS at the drop location.Bearing Bearing (in degrees) from the Server to the MS at the drop location.RSSI In-vehicle RSSI of the TCH at the drop location.Quality Quality of the CH at the drop location (RxQual in GSM mode, BLER in UMTS).Lat, Lon Coordinates of the MS at the drop location.Timestamp Lists the date and time of the drop.

0.00%

7.14% 7.14%

0.00%

85.71%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Handover F ailure Inconclusive Nbr Issue/Congestion Interference Poor Coverage

P e r c e n

t a g e

Type of Dropped-Call

Figure 54. AT&T (2G/3G) Drop ped -Call summary

Handover Failure

Inconclusive

Nbr Issue/Congestion

Interference

Poor Cove

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	muhammad-bilal-junaid
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

FortSmithAR 1105 ATT Report Voice

Documents