- This topic has 9 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Who can help me to know that why we have had significant KPI gain (CSSR,UL Quality, DL Quality ,. . . )after increasing the half rate percentage from 10% to 95% in our network, while the result should be vis versa.
Please help to know that.hi,
The usage of your frequencies is much reduced, which means that there is much less interference in your network.
This is a very very visible behaviour in case of GSM 900MHz and overshooting sectors.
Regards
pixHi Pix,
you are righ, the interference level is low in our network, but i want to know techncially that how i can relate the increment of Half rate traffic with improvemnt of quality and KPI? normally the result should be inversly effective.From other side,we are having both GSM900 and DCS cells in our network almost equal number. and the quality is improved for both 900MHZ cells and DCS cells equally.
hi,
i thought i answered your question :
HalfRate = less frequency load = less interference = better QOS.
It applies to all frequencies, all sites. Effects are visible anywhere.
They are spectacular on areas with high traffic and poor C/I.
Regards
Just to take it a little further. I have noticed the MOS is directly proportional to full rate proportion. I used a statistical software to extract correlation between MOS and various other network parameters extracted from the drive. The correlation with full rate came out to be .4 which is huge. I have not taken care of pre conditions for the statistical test so it may be inaccurate.
So:
Half rate increase -> Poor RxQual
Half rate increase -> Better MOSBut RxQual should be directly proportional to MOS!
I think it is due to subjective nature of MOS; it depends on so many factors. It may be that at the time of MOS drive the utilization was low. Des anyone has a better insight?
Sorry it should have been:
So:
Full rate increase -> Poor RxQual
Full rate increase -> Better MOSCan anyone please comment on relation between full rate and MOS?
hi prof,
i wrote a long reply, but it diodn’t get posted properly 🙁
When you say FR, you mean 12.2 ? As opposed to … lower AMR codecs ?
Basically it makes sense.
12.2 FR can be used up to RXQUAL 4.5
When RxQual is better than 4.5, the FR is better than lower AMR codecs.
When RxQual is worse than 4.5, the FR is suffering from interference, so the speech frames are getting deleted once in a while. That impacts the MOS very negatively, as you can guess. At his point, it is better to switch to a “lower” AMR codec, but still within the AMR FR set.Pushing the usage of 12.2FR means that you tend to globally decrease the RxQual. If you decide to switch to lower AMR FR codecs earlier than 4.5, then the MOS will be degraded because the speech encoding won’t be as good. However, the Rxqual *should* remain stable (rxqual is not theoretically linked to the codec used, as it is measured at the physical layer – but i’m not sure how this theory would fair in the real world.)
Now, if you are opposing FR with HR, then I can’t understand it. The HR is way more sensitive to interference than FR.
Regards
pixI was actually talking about HR and FR for GSM.
As you already mention in this thread that increased HR penetration result in better quality due to lower frequency load. This is what I observed too. But I also observed that MOS degraded with increased HR penetration.My question is that shouldn’t better quality translate to better MOS? Why is it the other way around in this particular case?
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
- The forum ‘Telecom Design’ is closed to new topics and replies.
