Good day, dear Pix and Ali!
Thanks a lot that you are still in this question 🙂 I appreciate it very much and absolutely agree with Ali 🙂
All in order 🙂
Dear Pix, in previous post you asked about DL HO in cell. – No, I would say that HO distribution in these cell is normal – HO cause 12 (PBGT) dominates as usual 🙂
I think it’s ok – if DTX is OFF than only Full values are used to calculate AV_RXLEV_DL_HO, so no HOs due to low level. Correct me please, if I’m mistaken.
PWRC is set to 1, i.e. BCCH is not included in measurements.
The question about RSM is even more interesting than the first one …
The pictures from NPO before and after HSN change are really visual, I mean the difference is really signi-i-i-ficant. I can share some examples 🙂
As far as positive results from HSN change was confirmed both by drive test and by changes in RMS data we can assert that before we saw (somehow) in RMS reports those RxLevSub values (which were bad, i.e. = -126 dBm). Correct me, please, if this conclusion isn’t correct. But it’s BCCH-trx and DTX should be OFF, so no sub-values mustn’t been taken into account. Being sure about it, I checked indicator RMS_meas_with_DTX_DL_total (by trxs), expecting to see a zero value for BCCH-trx.
It doesn’t equal to 0… The average percentage of measurement with DTX in DL on BCCH-trx was ~ 4-5% (for other similar cells it is even higher). Hm-m-m….
So there is a question: Is DTX feature off on BCCH-trx or only on BCCH carrier?
But at once – another inconsistency: in our network DOWNLINK_DTX_HR = 0 and DOWNLINK_DTX_HR_AMR= 0 and it’s mandatory rule.
So in any case, our bad RxLevSub values in HR shouldn’t be counted.
Hm-m-m…
So, there are even more questions here (at least for me) 🙂 I’ve collect more than 50 logs with such problem and going to check them – maybe I haven’t noticed something … maybe – even important 🙂
Once more – thank you, Pix and Ali!
Best regards,
Lily
P.S. About DTM – 🙂 We have some problems with Gs on Alcatel MSC now… it doesn’t want to work correctly …to work at all 🙂
Siemens MSC turned out to be much more pliable 🙂 Thread #4984 was also very useful.