Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

Reply To: 1×1 SFH Hopping Vs Ad-HOC SFH Vs BBHOP

#69345
Irfan Khan
Guest

Dear Pix,

Thanks for your prompt response…

Below are the required details, This is all about G900 layer. The network is both DCS1800 & G900, While in both layers we did the retune/refarming but the damage is only in the G900 layer. There is no underlay-overlay implemented and all sites are stand alone. Another thing is most of G900 sites are using power sharing with U900 (40 Watts – G900 / 20 Watts – U900).

1. BBHOP – Base-band hopping was in the network since beginning, it was using 29 Frequencies. Most of the frequencies were planned manually by the operator.
2. 1×1 SFH – We turned the network into SFH post refarming, with 23 Frequencies in single MA list implemented across the network using MAIO 0-6-12 & MAIO Step 2, All sites using different HSNs (same HSN used in all three cells of a site). DL Qual and TCH Drop both degraded in this case.
3. AdHoc SFH – Planned the MA lists through MR based tool (NetAct Optimizer), based on site configurations the tool planned the MA lists, Fractional load target was given to the tools was 0.75. The planned looked very good from the Delta values (cost) and also while analyzing from MapInfo. No Adjacent frequencies in same cell, even in the same site. Still using the same 23 frequencies. Now the DL QUAL improved by 25% but the TCH drops still remain degraded. Tried Antenna Hopping also, after enabling the DL QUAL also degraded significantly.
4. BBHOP with more frequencies – Now we planned baseband frequency plan again and included 10 EGSM frequencies (total 23+10 = 33 ARFCNs), both DL QUAL and TCH drop improved, even better than before refarming scenario.

The network is using Packet Abis 100%, average TRX configuration is 4+4+3.

Thanks again for your time and efforts.