Erlang software tools...
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

BB Hopping

Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Posts
  • 23rd June 2013 at 19:24 #58217
    Dell
    Guest

    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

    23rd June 2013 at 20:14 #58218
    pix
    Guest

    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

    23rd June 2013 at 20:35 #58219
    Dell
    Guest

    Hi Pix,
    thanks a lot!
    BR,
    Dell

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
1 2
  • The forum ‘Telecom Design’ is closed to new topics and replies.