- This topic has 117 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by Babar.
8th August 2006 at 17:47 #41357PixGuest
I’d see this trick as being cleaner than 1×1 (>16%) and messier than 1×3 (9th August 2006 at 06:03 #41358VanderleyGuest
Do you think that the same HSN is used for all three sectors in the site?9th August 2006 at 10:51 #41359Wilibrordus HerbowoGuest
HSN could be same and could be not same, but mostly all sectors are same HSN, the different is MAIO.
MAIO = 1st freq when a call start hopping9th August 2006 at 11:21 #41360VanderleyGuest
Thank you very much
What about the load in that case?9th August 2006 at 20:36 #41361PixGuest
Finally, the famous Wilibrordus Herbowo 🙂
Vanderley, yes, I would use the same HSN between all sectors but study carefully the MAIO, in order to find the right “pattern” and avoid TS collisions. I didn’t do it though.
Regarding the load, it should be between 16% and 50%… But I’m still curious abous the actual benefit of this 1×3 enhanced.
Question : would you guys recommend SFH on rural sites, in order to maximize coverage ? (sites with almost no neighbors). I’m thinking about the gain induced by “frequency diversity” effect, would that increase the coverage ?14th August 2006 at 04:13 #41362Wilibrordus HerbowoGuest
SFH 1×3 Enhanced is OK than SFH 1×1. The occupancy of SFH 1×3 Enh is OK than SFH 1×1. (there are back to back and face to face)
For rural site where no neighbor, it is better to propose non-hopping system rather than hopping system(BBH or SFH).
And for coverage impact, I think it should be no problem, the coverage will be same (same EIRP)
Correct me if I am wrong.23rd October 2006 at 07:56 #41363NishantGuest
Please explain FACCH call setup.and also why we dont use FACCH always for call setups.If we can do this we can save sd usage23rd October 2006 at 23:51 #41364PixGuest
thanks for the answer, i missed it out last time.
the EIRP is identical but there is a theoretical gain induced by “frequency diversity”. By using more frequencies, there is less fading… well, that’s the theory.
any experience on this ?
this feature is vendor-dependant… i guess the standards defined the call setup on SDCCH, so the vendors had to comply with it. Then they thought about something smarter to do. I don’t know the drawbacks… higher risk of collision ? congestion ?31st October 2006 at 15:59 #41365SutharsanGuest
In mobile phone, how it shows the number of signal bars. Whether it is using only C1, or some other parameters to calculate the number of signal bars.31st October 2006 at 18:01 #41366pixGuest
the number of bars only depends on the rxlev (or C1 perhaps ?). that’s all the MS is using.1st November 2006 at 06:13 #41367Ramajayam_cyrGuest
hi any one tell me what is hoping , or hop length1st November 2006 at 14:39 #41368yogesh_rfGuest
are u asking frequency hopping or u r tlking about hop length(that is in transmission i think)????????? pls mention clearly and if it is frequency hopping u can get that from any optimization person with you.
Yogesh_rf3rd November 2006 at 13:53 #41369SutharsanGuest
no i think u are wrong. because i have checked with changing the minimum receving level( which means the C1 value). with that the no of signal bars have been changed.
I suspect not only the c1 decides, but also some other parameters.4th November 2006 at 21:36 #41370PixGuest
Ok, that’s interesting. I’ll do some testings on my own with different phone brands when I have time.
Have you tried changing the following parameters :
rxlev access min
cell reselect offset
bts max power (or something equivalent, used in the C1/C2 criterion)
Since CRO is only used in C2, by modifying it and looking if it changes the No of bars, we might be able to guess if the phone is using the C2 or C1…
Let us know…
Pix5th November 2006 at 08:44 #41371R.DINESHGuest
I want microwave properties and all detail of microwave in mobile communication.