[Dell]

Hi Pix,
Thanks. If for 4 or more TRXs BBH is performing better and for the same conf SFH is also better, then why we have to use BBH at all? Or, for what BBH is invented indeed if we have SFH? For the same conf one has to be better than the other. Maybe, in cases where we don’t know that orientation and downtilting is different from that in RNP database, BBH performs better than SFH. To be honest, I was sure that BBH is better in terms of UL level indoors. Checking RMS indicators I saw that voice quality was improved in UL in terms of coverage and interference in DCS 1800 (yet to be proofed with Drive-Test measurement)
BR,
Dell

[pix]

hi dell,

the main difference between bbh & sfh :

sfh
– requires strict & narrow overlaps between cell.
– limits the trx capacity per cell depending on the number of hopping frequencies available in the MA list.
– prevents hopping of BCCH trx

bbh
– requires heavy frequency planning (as much effort as a non hopping planning)
– allows hopping of bcch trx
– adapts to poorly designed network (irregular tilt, azimuth, environments)

In terms of frequency diversity (= coverage), it’s not the method (BBH vs SFH) but the number of freq (>4) that matters.

In terms of RxQual, the differences are related to the pros/cons above. I assume your network design is not adapted to “dumb” SFH but instead requires “smartly planned” BBH.

Regards,

Pix

[Dell]

Hi Pix,
thanks a lot!
BR,
Dell

[Author]

Posts