5G: The Greatest Show on Earth!

PART OF “THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK
BENCHMARK TESTS” SERIES OF REPORTS
5G:The Greatest
Show on
Earth!
February 20, 2018 Vol. 14 No. 3 PREVIEWRedefining Research
Volume 1:
Bending
Light

YOUR
ATTENTION
PLEASE
This document includes a report preview for our most recent benchmark study. We conducted what we
believe is the first independent study of an operator-deployed 5G test system that uses 28 GHz millimeter wave spectrum.
We did this study in collaboration with Rohde & Schwarz, who provided us with its TSMA autonomous drive test scanner to
collect the data. SRG takes full responsibility for the data collection and the analysis of the data provided in this report.
In addition to the Executive Summary and Test Methodology chapters, we include the Table of Contents and List of Figures
(89) for the 69-page report. Additionally, we include subscription information, a summary of past topics, and a list of likely
topics that we will be pursuing in the coming year. This report is included as part of a subscription to Signals Ahead or it can
be purchased separately for $1,595.

3 February 20, 2018 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 14, Number 3 PREVIEW
1.0 Executive Summary
Key Highlights from this Study
Signals Research Group (SRG) conducted what we believe is the industry’s first inde-
pendent benchmark study of a 5G commercial test network. We conducted tests in
Houston, Texas where Verizon Wireless has a 28 GHz trial network that we believe is
now supporting commercial traffic. Samsung is the infrastructure supplier in this market.
For this study, we used the Rohde & Schwarz TSMA autonomous drive test scanner to
collect downlink performance metrics for the Beam Reference Signals (BRS), including
RSRP, CINR, RSRQ, PCI, etc., of the 28 GHz millimeter wave radio signals. With this infor-
mation, we could also estimate likely end-user data rates for the areas and locations
we tested. Although Verizon is currently using the 5GTF specification, we believe the
data we collected and the results we conclude from the analysis of the data are equally
applicable to the 5G NR specifications, not to mention limited mobility use cases.
Based on numerous walk tests and stationary tests involving line-of-site (LOS), non-line-
of-site (NLOS) and near-line-of-site conditions, we have a great appreciation for the
promises of millimeter wave spectrum. To summarize, millimeter wave signals are far
more resilient than we expected, even at distances exceeding several thousand feet. Tree
foliage, passing school buses, buildings, parked cars, balding heads, and glass impacted
the received signal, but the resultant signals were still capable of delivering meaningful
data rates – thanks in part to the 400 MHz radio channel. Verizon can deploy 800 MHz
channels in some markets. Who would have thought a millimeter wave signal in an area
100% blocked from the serving cell tower by the surroundings would still be capable of
supporting good data speeds?
Verizonmanagementisonrecordfor“promising”Gigabitspeedstoitsservicedcustomers.
We don’t yet share this view with near-term deployments unless Verizon aggressively
deploys 5GTF small cells (i.e., brings the consumer and the 5G access point closer
together), and/or mounts CPEs in ideal exterior locations, and/or limits its customers to
only those customers that it knows live in a location with suitable radio conditions that
can support Gigabit speeds.
Signals Research Group (SRG) conducted a benchmark study of a 5G network deployment using
a 28 GHz millimeter wave system. We conducted the tests in Houston, Texas during the last week
of January. We used two Verizon 5GTF cell sites with each cell site supporting two sectors (two
radios per sector). These 5G cell sites, located approximately 1,400 feet from each other, were macro
cell sites, which we found a bit surprising since we typically associate small cells with 5G millimeter
wave deployments. We assume Verizon selected these two towers, which also supported 3G and
4G systems, for the 5G commercial trial since they met certain criteria the operator wanted to test
and because it was logistically and economically feasible without breaking the bank. We note the
operator has multiple trial deployments across the country and that each trial involves different
elements, including morphologies (urban, suburban, etc.), vendors, and infrastructure (macro cells,
small cells, repeaters, combinations of the various cell types, etc.).
As we’ve noted in earlier reports, 5GTF <> 5G NR since there are obvious incompatibilities
between the two sets of specifications. However, given the focus of this study and the emphasis on
millimeter wave radiation, we believe our findings are equally applicable to the industry-defined
3GPP standard.

For this study, we used the R&S TSMA autonomous drive test scanner to collect downlink
performance characteristics, which we then used to help us characterize the likely radio conditions
that a fixed CPE would experience. With this information, we could also estimate a likely maximum
data rate, based on various assumptions, which we explain in the Test Methodology chapter. SRG
takes full responsibility for identifying the test scenarios used in this study as well as the analysis and
commentary provided in this report.
Our study involved a combination of walk tests with an omni-directional antenna and stationary
tests with a horn antenna. We used the walk tests to help us capture a quick snapshot of the coverage
area, which we then used when we went back to conduct more detailed tests from multiple fixed
locations. At this point, we sometimes took things to the extreme, even if the resultant test scenario
wasn’t practical or a bit “silly.” Examples include pointing a directional antenna in the opposite
direction from the cell tower to see how much signal diffraction came off glass windows, buildings,
parked cars, and even a balding head. These tests, however, provided useful information regarding
the performance attributes of 28 GHz. We also included very practical scenarios, including the
impact of tree foliage, varying distances with near-/LOS conditions, and passing vehicles – in this
case a couple of school buses that drove immediately in front of our horn antenna.
Since the antennas we used had different performance characteristics than a CPE with an active
array, we adjusted all captured metrics to reflect what a commercial CPE would likely observe. All
metrics shown in this report reflect these adjustments, which we explain in the Test Methodology
chapter. Engineering metrics are interesting to some readers, but everyone cares about data rates.
Therefore, we used sound engineering principles, which we vetted with a few trusted experts, to
calculate estimated peak data speeds for a given BRS CINR value. We explain these assumptions
in the Test Methodology chapter. You can also check out our video (www.signalsresearch.com/5gtf-
video), if you haven’t done so already, to get a greater sense of what we did.
Without giving away too much detail in the Executive Summary, we walked away pretty stoked
about the prospects for 5G millimeter wave systems. You can skip to Chapter 2 for the detailed
commentary and the remaining chapters in the report for the gory details of the test results.
Millimeter wave and beam forming are not panaceas that can solve the world’s fixed and mobile
broadband needs. To varying degrees, anything and everything can influence a millimeter wave
signal. However, the impact isn’t always material and sometimes the outcome is actually very
favorable. If the goal is to deliver downlink/uplink broadband speeds that exceed what most US
consumers can get today from their fixed line service provider, then it is a slam dunk – especially
when limited to regions that Verizon is likely targeting with its forthcoming offering. However, if
consumer expectations are for reliable Gigabit-per-second speeds then someone(s) is going to walk
away disappointed.
Analysis in this report includes the following:
➤➤ BRS CINR distribution plots – top beam, average of top 4 beams, average of top 8 beams
➤➤ BRS RSRP distribution plots – top beam, average of top 4 beams, average of top 8 beams
➤➤ BRS CINR geo plots
➤➤ BRS RSRP geo plots
➤➤ Estimated data speeds for stationary tests
➤➤ Estimated data speed geo plots for walk tests
➤➤ Distribution of beams between the four 100 MHz radio channels
➤➤ Plenty of pictures to show the test locations and to illustrate the test conditions
We used the R&S TSMA
autonomous drive
test scanner to collect
downlink performance
characteristics of the 5G
28 GHz millimeter wave
commercial test network.
Check out our video at
www.signalsresearch.
com/5gtf-video.

PART OF “THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK BENCHMARK TESTS”
SERIES OF REPORTS
Price: $1,595 or included with a subscription to Signals Ahead
5G:The Greatest
Show on
Earth!
Now
Available!

Chapter 2 provides the key observations from this study. Chapter 3 provides results from our
walk tests. Chapter 4 includes the results from several stationary test locations, including sensitivity
studies involving the impact of tree foliage, passing school buses, and other near- and non-LOS
scenarios, etc. We include the test methodology in Chapter 5, some Final Thoughts in Chapter 6,
and some additional figures in the Appendix.
COME JOIN US
MOBILE WORLD CONGRESS
If you are reading this sentence, attending Mobile World Congress, and would like to meet
with us, then please drop us a line. We’ll be there for the entire week.

PART 2
AT&T’s 5G
Evolution:
On the Cusp of...
NOW AVAILABLE!
SRG’S TRAVELSIT’S A SMALL CELL WORLD AFTER ALL!
PURCHASE A COMPANY-WIDE LICENSE AND
RECEIVE ALL 3 REPORTS FOR ONLY $1,500.
PART 1
Oh, Oh, Oh, It’s
Magic (SINR),
You Know
PART 3
The
Indianapolis
795.1

Table of Contents for the Full Report
1.0 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.0 Key Observations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
3.0 Walk Test with Omni Antenna Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
3.1 Base of Tower Walk Test……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
3.2 Church Parking Lot Walk Test… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
3.3 Cul-de-sac Walk Test……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
3.4 Wildwood Park Lane Walk Test – Tower #2 … …………………………………………………………………………………………………………27
4.0 Stationary Tests and Millimeter Wave Trick Shots…………………………………………………………………………………………30
4.1 Church Parking Lot… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30
4.2 Between Doughnut Shop and Motel………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
4.3 Motel Alcove…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
4.4 Cul-de-sac #1… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
4.5 Cul-de-sac #2 – LOS and NLOS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45
4.6 Cypress Creek Plaza – LOS and NLOS… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
4.7 Inside Taco Bar………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………52
4.8 Cypress Creek High School… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………55
4.9 Elementary School… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………58
5.0 Test Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61
6.0 Final Thoughts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………63
7.0 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Index of Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Test Locations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Figure 2. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot…………………………………………………………………………………………………16
Figure 3. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot…………………………………………………………………………………………………16
Figure 4. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – CINR Distribution with RSRP Weighting……………………………………………………………17
Figure 5. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – RSRP Distribution with RSRP Weighting……………………………………………………………17
Figure 6. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – CINR Distribution with RSRQ Weighting……………………………………………………………18
Figure 7. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – RSRP Distribution with RSRQ Weighting……………………………………………………………18
Figure 8. Estimated CPE Peak Data Rate – Base of Tower #1 Walk Test…………………………………………………………………………19
Figure 9. Church Parking Lot #1 Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot……………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 10. Church Parking Lot Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 11. Church Parking Lot Walk Test – CINR Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………………21
Figure 12. Church Parking Lot Walk Test – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………21
Figure 13. Estimated CPE Peak Data Rate – Church Parking Lot Walk Test…………………………………………………………………… 22
Figure 14. Cul-de-sac Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Figure 15. Cul-de-sac Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23

EXPLORE THE
WORLD OF
5G WIRELESS
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
J F M A M J J A O N D J F M A M J J A S O NS
December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10
EXPLORING THE WORLD OF WIRELESS
GET SMART[ER]
UNDERSTANDING THE INS AND OUTS OF THE 5G USE CASES
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2 January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 NRedefining Research
J F M A M J J A O N D J F M A MS
December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10
MORE 5G
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
September 30, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 8
LOOKING FURTHER
AHEAD TO 5.5G1
UPDATES ON THE 3GPP 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS
1
Feel free to note the sarcasm
New subscribers to SIGNALS AHEAD will receive up to four
5G-related back issues FOR FREE with a paid subscription.
...with more
to come!
FOLLOW THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORT AS IT HAPPENS
January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2December 8, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 10 PREVIEWJanuary 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2January 31, 2012, Vol. 8 No. 2Redefining Research
December 22, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 11 PREVIEW
ALL QUIET ON THE 5G FRONT
AN UPDATE ON THE 5G STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS
AND OTHER 3G-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Figure 16. Cul-de-sac Walk Test – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Figure 17. Base of Tower #1 Walk Test – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Figure 18. CINR Geo Plot – Top 4 CINR versus Top 1 CINR………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Figure 19. Estimated CPE Peak Data Rate Geo Plot – Cul-de-sac Walk………………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 20. Wildwood Park Lane Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot……………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 21. Wildwood Park Lane Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot……………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 22. Wildwood Park Lane Walk Test – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 23. Wildwood Park Lane Walk Test – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 24. Estimated CPE Peak Data Rate Geo Plot – Wildwood Park Walk………………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 25. Church Parking Lot with Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………… 30
Figure 26. Church Parking Lot with Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution…………………………………………………………………………… 31
Figure 27. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario……………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Figure 28. Church Parking Lot with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………32
Figure 29. Church Parking Lot with Non-Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………………………32
Figure 30. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario………………………………………………………………………………………………33
Figure 31. Test Location #1 with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 34
Figure 32. Test Location #1 with Non-Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 34
Figure 33. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario………………………………………………………………………………………………35
Figure 34. Test Location #2 with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 36
Figure 36. Test Location #2 with Non-Line-of-Site Facing Motel – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………37
Figure 37. Test Location #2 with Non-Line-of-Site Facing Motel – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………37
Figure 38. 2nd Floor Motel Walk Test Location………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Figure 39. Exterior Motel Alcove First Floor Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot…………………………………………………………………… 38
Figure 40. Exterior Motel Alcove First Floor Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot …………………………………………………………………… 39
Figure 41. Exterior Motel Alcove Second Floor Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot………………………………………………………………… 39
Figure 42. Exterior Motel Alcove Second Floor Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot ……………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 43. Estimated CPE Peak Data Rate Geo Plot – 2nd Floor Motel Walk……………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 44. Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario……………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Figure 45. Cul-de-sac #1 with Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………………………41
Figure 46. Cul-de-sac #1 with Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Figure 47. Cul-de-sac #1 with Line-of-Site – Beam Count Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 42
Figure 48. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario………………………………………………………………………………………… 43
Figure 49. Cul-de-sac #1 with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………… 43
Figure 51. Cul-de-sac #1 with Non-Line-of-Site – Beam Count Distribution………………………………………………………………… 44
Figure 52. Line-of-Site and Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario………………………………………………………………… 45
Figure 53. Cul-de-sac #2 with Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Figure 54. Cul-de-sac #2 with Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Figure 55. Cul-de-sac #2 with Foliage – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………… 46

Figure 56. Cul-de-sac #2 with Foliage – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Figure 57. Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario – Cypress Creek Plaza………………………………………………………………… 48
Figure 58. Cypress Creek with Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Figure 59. Cypress Creek with Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Figure 60. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario – Cypress Creek Plaza………………………………………………………… 50
Figure 61. Cypress Creek with Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Figure 62. Cypress Creek with Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Figure 63. Non-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenarios……………………………………………………………………………………………52
Figure 64. Inside Taco Bar Test Location #1 – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………………………52
Figure 65. Inside Taco Bar Test Location #1 – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………………………………………53
Figure 66. Inside Taco Bar Test Location #2 – CINR Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………53
Figure 67. Inside Taco Bar Test Location #2 – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Figure 68. Near-Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario……………………………………………………………………………………………55
Figure 69. Cypress Creek High School with Omni Antenna – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………55
Figure 70. Cypress Creek High School with Omni Antenna – RSRP Distribution………………………………………………………… 56
Figure 71. The Impact of Two School Buses with a Horn Antenna – CINR Time Series ……………………………………………… 56
Figure 72. The Impact of Two School Buses with a Horn Antenna – RSRP Time Series………………………………………………… 57
Figure 73. Line-of-Site Illustration of Test Scenario………………………………………………………………………………………………… 58
Figure 74. Elementary School with Omni Antenna – CINR Distribution…………………………………………………………………… 59
Figure 75. Elementary School with Omni Antenna – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 59
Figure 76. Elementary School with Horn Antenna – CINR Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 60
Figure 77. Elementary School with Horn Antenna – RSRP Distribution……………………………………………………………………… 60
Figure 78. Real-time Scanner Screen Shot…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………61
Figure 79. SRG Walk Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 62
Figure 80. Bowling Alley Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Figure 81. Bowling Alley Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Figure 82. Cypress Creek Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot……………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Figure 83. Cypress Creek Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Figure 84. Elementary School Walk Test – CINR Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Figure 85. Elementary School Walk Test – RSRP Geo Plot………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Figure 86. Inside Doughnut Shop Test Location #3 Straight with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution……………………… 67
Figure 87. Inside Doughnut Shop Test Location #3 Straight with Non-Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution……………………… 67
Figure 88. Inside Doughnut Shop Test Location #3 Angled with Non-Line-of-Site – CINR Distribution………………………… 68
Figure 89. Inside Doughnut Shop Test Location #3 Angled with Non-Line-of-Site – RSRP Distribution………………………… 68

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES
➤ 1/24/18 “It’s a Small Cell World after all!: The
Indianapolis 795.1” SRG conducted its third benchmark
study of small cells. For this round, we turned our attention
to LAA (Licensed Assisted Access) and the AT&T network
in Indianapolis, Indiana where Ericsson is the infrastructure
supplier.
Highlights of the Report Include the Following:
The Numbers:
• 450 GB (at least) of transferred data in the downlink direction
• 795.1 Mbps peak data rate
• 230 Mbps average data rate (overall, including non-small cell
usage)
• More than 60% of data transferred on unlicensed spectrum
• Nine different UNII-1 and UNII-3 channels, including Channel
165, used at some point during the tests
• Less than 5 hours required to transfer the data (user experi-
ence tests only)
• 1 square kilometer (approximate) test area
Just Some of the Analysis:
• PHY layer and RB normalized PHY layer throughput - macro,
small cells,unlicensed versus licensed - distributions and geo
plots
• Throughput versus SINR and RSRP - by licensed and unli-
censed radio carrier; mobility versus walking
• Implied Spectral Efficiency - macro versus small cells
• Relationships between licensed primary carrier and Band 46(5
GHz) for many key metrics (e.g., RSRP, SINR, etc.)
• Comparisons of MIMO Rank, modulation schemes, and MCS
by radio carrier
• Impact of vehicular speed on SINR and data speeds - small
cells and macro
• Indoor Coverage Comparison - licensed versus Band 46
• User Experience
➤ 1/3/18 “RAN #78 5G Standardization Update: NEW
RELEASE HANGOVER!” SRG recently attended the RAN#78
Plenary, held in Lisbon, Portugal. In addition to approving the
set of specifications, which comprise the early drop of Release
15 (NSA Option 3 and eMBB only), the Plenary made several
decisions or delayed making decisions which have a profound
impact on Release 15 functionality and the potential Release 16
functionality which remains undefined.
Next Steps and Implications. Although the Plenary approved
the initial set of Release 15 specifications to support eMBB and
Option 3, significant work remains to finalize the specifications.
Q1/2018 is nearly reserved for these activities, at the expense of
other important activities. In particular, new 5G NR study items
remain on hold, which impacts potential Release 16 functionality
and/or the schedule.
The Real Motivation for NSA. Although, LTE + 5G NR via dual
connectivity is important for seamless coverage and connectivity
with millimeter wave deployments, it is equally important for
sub 6 GHz (FR1) deployments, albeit for completely different
reasons. We explain.
Some New Study and Work Items. There were a few exceptions
to the “no new study and work items” policy, largely involving
absolutely critical study/work items and pre-existing study items
that are now work items. We break them down and provide our
thoughts.
New UE (User Equipment) Requirements. 3GPP approved or is
strongly considering several new requirements which impact UE
performance - both for LTE and 5G NR. We discuss.
➤ 12/18/17 “To Delano and Beyond! A Benchmark
Study of High Power User Equipment (HPUE) in a
Commercial Band 41 LTE TDD Network” 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. We used Sprint’s network in rural Minnesota and the
Chicago vicinity where Samsung is the infrastructure suppler.
Our Thanks. This study could not have been done without the
support of Accuver Americas, who provided us with its XCAL-
Solo drive test tool and XCAP post-processing software.
Our Methodology. We used FTP downlink/uplink full buffer
data transfers to analyze the performance of two smartphones, the
Note 8 (Class 2) and the S7 Edge (Class 3), including data speeds
and more important underlying metrics. We used both time-based
and geo-binned data for our analysis.
A Must Read. This report is a “”must read”” for any organization
interested in how operators can impact the performance of their
LTE-TDD network, not to mention organizations that want to
know how advancements in LTE continue despite the ongoing
work on the new 5G/NR standard.
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;
• Higher downlink data rates in situations where the uplink coverage
limits the transmission of uplink ACKs and NACKs;
• Increased uplink spectral efficiency by using higher MCS values;
and
• Increased Band 41 coverage/more time spent on Band 41.

5.0 Test Methodology
For our benchmark study of the Verizon 5GTF commercial trial network, we used the Rohde &
Schwarz TSMA scanner. R&S designed the prototype measurement system, featuring the R&S
TSMA autonomous drive test scanner, which contains the TSME ultra-compact drive test scanner
and an integrated PC, to meet the aggressive timeline of early 5G adopters. To enable measure-
ments at 28 GHz, the scanner’s frequency range is extended by using a down-conversion approach.
Utilizing fast frequency tuning algorithms, a special version of R&S ROMES drive test software
allows Rohde & Schwarz to down-convert up to eight 100 MHz wide component carriers trans-
mitted at 28 GHz into an intermediate frequency range that can be processed and displayed. In the
Houston market we identified four 100 MHz wide component carriers within each cell sector.
The overall intended use case for this solution is to help determine the best physical location for
customer premise equipment (CPE) in a home or office setting. The entire solution is integrated into
a battery-powered backpack that lasts approximately eight hours, thus enabling coverage measure-
ments in the field. We collected all log files for our tests with a single charge, so we never had to
stop testing to swap out batteries. The backpack can be controlled by an external PC or tablet, and
the drive test software displays several coverage-related parameters for 5GTF such as BRS RSRP,
BRS RSRQ , BRS CINR, PCI, and more. In this report we frequently dropped “BRS” for brevity.
Users can easily determine the strongest beam index in a given area. They can also detect potential
Source: Rohde & Schwarz
Figure 1. Real-time Scanner Screen Shot

multi-path issues via channel impulse response measurements. Finally, the collected data can be
exported to ASCII, KML, KMZ etc. among several other formats. We used ASCII formatting and
then did all the analysis with Excel.
For our testing in Houston, we used a combination of walk tests with an omni-directional antenna
mounted to the backpack containing the scanner, and stationary tests with a horn antenna, which
was mounted to a tripod, complete with a rifle scope on top. After all, we were testing in Texas. The
omni antenna gain was 0 dB and the horn antenna gain was 20 dB. Based on our understanding
of the likely CPE performance characteristics, the horn antenna had slightly higher gain and the
omni antenna had considerably lower gain. We adjusted all results shown in this report accordingly.
Specifically, we subtracted 2 dB in the CINR and RSRP values measured with the horn antenna
to arrive at the performance characteristics of a CPE. For the omni antenna, we added 18 dB to
the RSRP and we added 10 dB to the CINR. These adjustments resulted in very similar adjusted
CINR/RSRP values between the two antenna solutions – something we documented in Section 4.9
of this report.
Although CINR and RSRP metrics are interesting, most readers are interested data rates.
Therefore, we used the adjusted CINR results to calculate an estimated peak data. For this calcula-
tion, we used the Shannon-Hartley theorem, with a channel bandwidth of 400 MHz. We assumed
the CPE used MIMO (2x2) if the adjusted CINR was greater than 8 dB. To account for two
spatial data streams, we subtracted 3 dB from the adjusted CINR value before plugging it into the
equation. For adjusted CINR below 8 dB, we assumed the CPE didn’t use MIMO (2x2) so we left
the adjusted CINR value unchanged when plugging it into the equation. Lastly, we assumed a 7/8
slot ratio between the downlink and uplink transmissions and 90% efficiency with channel coding.
Since our tests involved a scanner, all captured metrics were downlink focused. We had no
visibility into the likely uplink performance, including whether or not a CPE could “close the loop”
and establish communications with the 5GTF radios. At some point, the network becomes uplink
limited, but since we didn’t know when the transition point occurs, we assumed the uplink connec-
tion could always be completed. Readers can make their own assumptions regarding the ability to
make an uplink connection, based on the information we provide in the report. Figure 79 provides a
picture of the R&S solution during a leisurely stroll in a Houston neighborhood.
For our testing in Houston,
we used a combination
of walk tests with an
omni-directional antenna
and stationary tests
with a horn antenna.
We used the Shannon-
Hartley theorem, along
with various assumptions,
to estimate potential peak
data rates for the adjusted
CINR values that we
logged during our tests.
Source: Signals Research Group
Figure 2. SRG Walk Test

ON THE HORIZON: POTENTIAL SIGNALS AHEAD/SIGNALS FLASH! TOPICS
We have identified a list of pending research topics that we are currently considering or presently working on completing.
The topics at the top of the list are definitive with many of them already in the works. The topics toward the bottom of
the page are a bit more speculative. Obviously, this list is subject to change based on various factors and market trends.
As always, we welcome suggestions from our readers.
5G Standardization
➤➤ 5G from a 3GPP Perspective (ongoing series of reports – published quarterly or as warranted)
Thematic Reports
➤➤ Mobile Edge Computing and the impact of data caching at the cell edge
➤➤ LTE and the Connected Car
➤➤ Cloud RAN
➤➤ LTE-Advanced Pro features, opportunities and challenges
Benchmark Studies
➤➤ Multiple 5G Benchmark studies
➤➤ OTA Benchmark Study of smartphones, part II (TM2, etc.)
➤➤ VoLTE Part Seven – VoLTE voice quality update study
➤➤ Network impacts (to include signaling) of using various smartphone OS platforms and/or applications (video, VoLTE,
social networking, etc.)
➤➤ Uplink CoMP network benchmark study
➤➤ MU-MIMO
➤➤ Massive MIMO
➤➤ IoT-Benchmark Study (Lab)
➤➤ IoT-Benchmark Study (Field)

please note disclaimer: The views expressed in this newsletter reflect those of Signals Research Group and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless industry.
This report is provided for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a basis for any investment decision. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but Signals Research Group makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Opinions, estimates, projections or forecasts in this report constitute the current
judgment of the author(s) as of the date of this report. Signals Research Group has no obligation to update, modify or amend this report or to otherwise notify a reader thereof in the event that any matter
stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.
If you feel our opinions, analysis or interpretations of events are inaccurate, please fell free to contact Signals Research Group. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the topics
that influence the wireless industry. Reference in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares of such company. Signals Research Group and/or
its affiliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may frequently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent with the analysis
provided in this report. Signals Research Group seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals Research Group
might have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Additional information and disclosures can be found at our website at www.signalsresearch.com. This report may not be
reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group (copyright ©2018, all rights reserved by Signals Research Group).
Signals Ahead Subscription
The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer three distinct packages that have been tai-
lored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to five users from the same company. The
Global License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an unlimited
number of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Platinum package includes the Global License, plus up to five
hours of analyst time. Other packages are available.
Corporate Rates (12 issues)
❒ Group License ($3,995)
❒ Global License (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Platinum (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Gold Pass (Price Available upon Request)
Payment Terms
❒ American Express ❒ Visa ❒ MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date / /
❒ Check Check Number
❒ Purchase Order PO Number
Name: Title:
Affiliation: Phone: ( )
Mailing Address:
Mailing Address
Signals Research Group – ATTN: Sales
5300 Painter Creek Green
Independence, MN 55359
Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for
your billing information. We will not process your payment until after the trial subscription period is completed.
Terms and Conditions: Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized
sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.

5G: The Greatest Show on Earth!

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to 5G: The Greatest Show on Earth!

Similar to 5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

5G: The Greatest Show on Earth!