Notice: Global Information Announces Listing on JASDAQ Standard Market of the Tokyo Stock Exchange

Cover Image
Market Research Report

To Delano and Beyond: A Benchmark Study of HPUE in a Commercial Band 41 LTE-TDD Network

Published by Signals Research Group Product code 769367
Published Content info 68 Pages
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
Price
Back to Top
To Delano and Beyond: A Benchmark Study of HPUE in a Commercial Band 41 LTE-TDD Network
Published: December 17, 2017 Content info: 68 Pages
Description

SRG conducted a benchmark study of HPUE (High Power User Equipment) with a Power Class 2 Power Amplifier (PA), to determine how it performs against an ordinary smartphone with a Power Class 3 PA. A Power Class 2 PA supports a maximum transmit power of 26 dBm (+/- 2 dB) and a Power Class 3 PA supports a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm (+/- 2 dB). We used Sprint's network in rural Minnesota and the Chicago vicinity where Samsung is the infrastructure suppler.

Key Highlights of the Study Include the Following:

  • Our Thanks. We'd like to thank Accuver Americas who provided us with its XCAL-Solo drive test solution and XCAP post processing software. We used these tools to collect and analyze the data presented in this report.
  • Our Methodology. We used FTP downlink/uplink full buffer data transfers to analyze the performance of two smartphones, including data speeds and more important underlying metrics which we used to determine why the two smartphones performed differently, if, in fact, we noticed any measurable differences in the results. We used both time-based and geo-binned data for our analysis.

The Potential Results (read the report to learn what we found). In theory, the benefits of HPUE include the following:

  • Higher uplink data speeds, meaning a better user experience, especially at the edge of cell or in other coverage challenged areas of the network;
  • Higher downlink data rates in situations where the uplink coverage limits the transmission of uplink ACKs and NACKs, thereby indirectly limiting the data speeds in the downlink direction - this situation is more likely with 3CCA (3 component carrier aggregation);
  • Increased uplink spectral efficiency by using higher MCS values, especially at the edge of the cell or in other RF-challenging environments; and
  • Increased Band 41 coverage/more time spent on Band 41, which improves an operator's network efficiency and potentially user data rates.
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1.0. Executive Summary

2.0. Key Observations

3.0. HPUE Background Downtown Analysis

4.0. Uplink Performance

4.1. Rural Minnesota

4.2. O'Hare Airport to Test Area

4.3. Test Area

4.3. To Shoreline Drive

5.0. Downlink Analysis

6.0. Test Methodology

7.0. Final Thoughts

8.0. Appendix

Index of Figures & Tables

  • Figure 1. Uplink RB Allocations - 2x10 MHz FDD
  • Figure 2. Uplink RB Allocations - 1x20 MHz TDD
  • Figure 3. Minnesota Drive Route
  • Figure 4. Band 41 Median Throughput - by power class
  • Figure 5. Band 41 Physical and MAC Layer Throughput CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 6. Band 41 Uplink MCS CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 7. Band 41 Uplink RB CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 8. Band 41 Median PUSCH and PUCCH Transmit Power - by power class
  • Figure 9. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 10. Band 41 RSRP CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 11. Band 41 Uplink MCS Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 12. Band 41 Uplink MCS Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 13. Overall Spectral Efficiency Gains
  • Figure 14. Spectral Efficiency Gains with RSRP Below -105 dBm - same and different EARFCNs
  • Figure 15. Band 41 Uplink 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 16. Band 41 Uplink PUSCH Transmit Power Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 17. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 18. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 19. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Versus RSRP - by power class and EARFCN
  • Figure 20. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class and by EARFCN
  • Figure 21. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 22. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 23. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class and EARFCN
  • Figure 24. Band 25 Median Uplink Physical and MAC Layer Throughput - by smartphone
  • Figure 25. Band 25 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by smartphone
  • Figure 26. Band 25 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by smartphone
  • Figure 27. Band 25 Median Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by smartphone
  • Figure 28. Time on Band 41
  • Figure 29. Band 41 Utilization - Note 8
  • Figure 30. Band 41 Utilization - S7 Edge
  • Figure 31. Band Allocations - by power class
  • Figure 32. Band Allocations for Test #4 (Binned) - by power class
  • Figure 33. Physical Layer Throughput Comparisons for Test #4 (Binned) - by power class
  • Figure 34. Physical Layer Throughput Comparisons for Test #4 (Binned) - by frequency band and power class
  • Figure 35. Median Downlink and Uplink Physical Layer Throughput around SRG HQ - by power class
  • Figure 36. Drive Route
  • Figure 37. Band 41 Median Throughput - by power class
  • Figure 38. Band 41 Physical and MAC Layer Throughput CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 39. Band 41 Uplink RB CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 40. Band 41 Median PUSCH and PUCCH Transmit Power - by power class
  • Figure 41. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 42. Band 41 Uplink MCS Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 43. Band 41 Uplink MCS Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 44. Band 41 Uplink 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 45. Band 41 Uplink PUSCH Transmit Power Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 46. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 47. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 48. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 49. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 50. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP, Grouped by RB Allocations Scatter Plot - S7 Edge
  • Figure 51. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP, Grouped by RB Allocations Scatter Plot - Note 8
  • Figure 52. Band 41 RSRP CDF Plots
  • Figure 53. Energy Efficiency Grouped by RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 54. Weighted Average Energy Efficiency - by power class with and without backlight
  • Figure 55. Chicago Test Area
  • Figure 56. Band 41 Median Transmit Power Levels - by power class
  • Figure 57. Band 41 Uplink PUSCH Transmit Power CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 58. Band 41 Uplink 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 59. Band 41 Uplink PUSCH Transmit Power Grouped by RSRP with Performance
  • Figure 60. Band 41 Uplink RB CDF Plots - by power class
  • Figure 61. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 62. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 63. Band 41 RSRP CDF Plots
  • Figure 64. Energy Efficiency Grouped by RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 65. Weighted Average Energy Efficiency - by power class with and without backlight
  • Figure 66. Energy Efficiency Grouped by RSRP with Different EARFCN Values - by power class
  • Figure 67. Weighted Average Energy Efficiency with Different EARFCN Values - by power class with and without backlight
  • Figure 68. Band 41 Uplink MCS Grouped by RSRP for Shared Radio Channel - by power class
  • Figure 69. Band 41 Uplink MCS Grouped by RSRP for Non-Shared Radio Channel - by power class
  • Figure 70. Overall Spectral Efficiency
  • Figure 71. Spectral Efficiency for RSRP <= -100 dBm
  • Figure 72. Band 41 Uplink 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 73. Band 41 Uplink PUSCH Transmit Power Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 74. Band 41 Uplink MCS Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 75. Band 41 Uplink MCS Grouped by RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 76. Overall Spectral Efficiency
  • Figure 77. Spectral Efficiency for RSRP <= -100 dBm
  • Figure 78. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 79. Band 41 Uplink RB Allocations Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 80. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 81. Band 41 Uplink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 82. Band 41 Median Throughput - by power class
  • Figure 83. Median Throughput Detailed Analysis - by power class
  • Figure 84. Band 41 Downlink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 85. Band 41 Downlink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 86. Band 25 Downlink Physical Layer Throughput Versus RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 87. Band 25 Downlink Physical Layer Throughput Grouped by RSRP with Performance Differences - by power class
  • Figure 88. Estimated Maximum Downlink Data Rates Grouped by RSRP - by power class
  • Figure 89. XCAL-Solo
  • Figure 90. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP, Grouped by MCS Allocations Scatter Plot - S7 Edge
  • Figure 91. Band 41 PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP, Grouped by MCS Allocations Scatter Plot - Note 8
  • Figure 92. Band 41 Uplink MCS Versus RSRP with shared EARFCN - by power class
  • Figure 93. Band 41 Uplink MCS Versus RSRP with different EARFCN - by power class
Back to Top