Post on 05-Apr-2018
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
1/24
October 3, 2011, Vol. 7 No. 1112 PREVIEW
PREVIEW EDITION
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
2/24
InIIal fdbak rIvd In hfIrs fw hors afr rlasInghIs rpor Inldd hfollowIng ommns:
This is a real differentiator well worth it.
Marketing Director, inrastructure supplier
Very detailed and above and beyond my expectations.CTO, tier two operator
Great report as alwaysCTO, leading mobile operator
High impact stuff Nobody even comes close to delivering this kind ofdata. Nice, nice move
Marketing Director, inrastructure supplier
YOU kick $@tt This is great stuffManaging Director, fnancial institution
Great report again.Senior Technical Fellow, inrastructure supplier
Great stuffwell thought out and most of all fair.
Network Services, leading mobile operator
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
3/24
3 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
1.0 xecutie suy
Tis document contains a highly redacted executive summary a complete
table o contents, and our complete test methodology (Chapter 8 rom the
main report) or a Signals Ahead research product that we published on
September 28th. Additionally, it provides a summary o past topics that we
have covered in Signals Ahead and a list o likely topics that we plan to
tackle in the coming months. Te 155-page report contains 125 gures and
tables, with many o the gures and tables consisting o multiple parts. Tis
report can be purchased separately or $1,995 or it is included with any paid
corporate subscription to Signals Ahead.
For reasons that escape us, and which call into question our sanity, we took it upon ourselves
to drive test al l o the next-generation broadband wireless technologies in order to determine the
relative perormance dierences o each technology in a side-by-side comparison. o make matters
worse, but nonetheless more interest ing, we decided to include as many vendor + technology
permutations as possible. We have visited numerous markets to conduct these tests, including
Phoenix, Dallas, Kansas City, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Myrtle Beach, SC, Charleston
SC, and Houston. As we wind down the data collection phase o this study we have transerred
well more than 500GB o data on the various networks that we have tested and driven literally
hundreds o miles.Operators in this study include A& (HSPA+ and LE), Clearwire (LE 2x20MHz and
Mobile WiMAX), -Mobile USA (DC-HSDPA and HSPA+), and Verizon Wireless (EV-DO
Rev A and LE). Inrastructure suppliers in this study include Alcatel Lucent (EV-DO Rev A
HSPA+ and LE), Ericsson (DC-HSDPA, EV-DO, HSPA+ and LE), Huawei (LE and Mobile
WiMAX), Nokia Siemens Networks (DC-HSDPA, HSPA+ and Mobile WiMAX), and Samsung
(Mobile WiMAX). With the exception o mobile operators who provided us with ree and unlim
ited access to their networks, this study was entirely unded by Signals Research Group without any
involvement rom the aorementioned companies.
In the rst volume o a special three-part series we oer high-level results about how each tech
nology perorms. In the second volume we will analyze results rom separately collected user experi
ence test scenarios and in the third volume we will take a deep dive into the results in order toanalyze important technology enablers, such as 64QAM and MIMO, and to identiy inrastructure
supplier dierentiators that currently exist.
Our ability to collect and analyze the network perormance data would not have been possible
without the support o Accuver, who allowed us to use its suite o network drive test tools, including
its recently released XCAL-MO network benchmarking tool and XCAL-M drive test solution, as
well as its XCAP post-processing sotware to analyze the results. We have used the Accuver tools
several times in the past or various Signals Ahead reports and we have grown quite ond o their
capabilities and their ease o use. In particular, or the most recent round o network benchmark
we e tee ee t 500gb t
te iu et tte e tete ie
itey ue ie.
we eee accueuite et ietet t it t-cei te t
yze te eut.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
4/24
4 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
testing, the companys XCAL-MO tool proved to be an invaluable asset and without it, we would
have ound it next to impossible to accomplish our objectives.
For the rst time, we are now able to oer their tools with our services or commissioned-based
projects on behal o operators, government regulators, vendors, trade associations or other inter-
ested parties on a global basis. We look orward to discussing such opportunities with anyone that
is interested.
Although the actual report provides very comprehensive and in-depth analysis o each network/
technology conguration in a ourteen page executive summary, we can oer some very high-level
takeaways in this report preview.
key hi-lee ey ( y) icue te i:
1) By and large, all technologies perormed as expected and as advertised by the operators. However,
none o them qualiy as IM- Advanced technologies.
2) Operators control their own destiny and the decisions that they make can greatly alter the peror-
mance capabilities o their chosen network technology. We identied several key shortcomings
in certain operator deployments which had a meaningul impact on perormance relative to the
capabilities o the technology.
3) Latency is an area where all technologies/networks could show meaningul improvement amere 40ms o latency separates the best perorming technology rom the worst perorming tech-
nology. Interestingly, we observed the lowest latency (27ms) on -Mobiles DC-HSDPA network
during early morning rush hour trac.
4) Te perormance o the network depends on the capabilities o the chipset/device, which in some
cases we ound to be lacking.
5) Once normalized or channel bandwidth and MIMO, not to mention taking into consideration
network loading, the perormance dierences across all technologies were relatively modest in
the downlink. In a ew cases, DC-HSDPA outperormed LE, even without making these
adjustments and EV-DO Rev A outperormed HSPA+. Uplink throughput is an area where LE
generally has a big advantage over its peers.
6) A&s LE network, as exemplied by its perormance in Houston, was markedly better than
the Verizon Wireless network. HOWEVER, much o this advantage can be readily explained
and it will not as evident in at least some other markets, while in some markets certain KPIs will
avor Verizon Wireless. FURHER, we disagree with the notion that network loading is an issue
at this time on the Verizon Wireless network at least when it came to our test methodology and
results. In act, we argue that the overall perormance on both LE networks could be markedly
better in the uture than it is today, even i LE network trac increases as expected. Much has
to do with the hoped-or maturity o the LE ecosystem and operator initiatives to improve the
perormance o their networks.
e e ece t l et cu
e ey ette i teutue t it i ty,
ee i l et tcicee execte.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
5/24
5 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Te ul l report contains graphs and graphica l maps which show network perormance and cel
site density, among other metrics. We have included a couple o gures in this report preview
Without going into too much detai l, Figure 1 helps justi y our conclusion that tremendous
perormance dierences exist between dierent combinations o devices + chipsets, especially
with respect to LE.
Figure 2 on the ollowing page shows the drive route that we used on a single day o testing
in the Bay Area. Although our objective wasnt too map out the network perormance coverage
maps or each operator/technology, we wanted to collect enough data in order to reach denitive
and largely indisputable conclusions on how the various technologies perorm in a commerciallydeployed network.
Source: The Mother of all Network Benchmark Tests Figure 16
Verizon Wireless LTE Device 1 Average APP Layer Throughput = 19.1MbpsVerizon Wireless LTE Device 2 Average APP Layer Throughput = 9.9Mbps
Combined LTE Device 1 and Device 2 Median APP Layer Throughput = 29.0Mbps
Time
Mbps
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 50 100 150 200 250
Verizon Wireless Device 2 APP LayerDownlink Throughput (Mbps)
Combined APP Layer Downlink Throughput (Mbps)
Verizon WirelessDevice 1 APP Layer
Downlink Throughput (Mbps)
fiue 1. l l app lye di uut eu ie (et scei 161)
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
6/24
6 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Source: The Mother of all Network Benchmark Tests Figure 22
fiue 2. die rute by ae (o, s Je, s fcic, it i etee)
50
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
7/24
7 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
lIns oss(pre-publishing and post-publishing prices)Volume 1 AVAILABLE NOW!Network and Technology Performance ($1,995)Volume 2 Quantifying the User Experience ($1,295, $1,495)Volume 3 Detailed Performance Analysis ($1,295, $1,495)fu ret 3 ue ($3,300, $3,995)
ona InformaIonYou may call us at +1 (510) 273-2439 or email us at information@sig-nalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your billing informationor respond to any further inquiries that you may have. Subscriptioninformation for our Signals Ahead research product, which includesthese reports, can be found on the last page of this report. You canalso visit our website at www.signalsresearch.com or write us at
Signals Research Group, LLC10 Ormindale Court
Oakland, CA 94611
pr-ordr or rpor lIns now (icue t Signals Aheaduciti)
Coming Soon!
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
8/24
8 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Our three-part series o reports is included with a subscription to Signals Ahead or it can be
purchased on an individual basis the ormer option is ar more economical since it includes at least
14 additional Signals Ahead reports. A summary o each report, including the report associated with
this report preview, ollows in the subsequent paragraphs.
vue 1 (net ecy pece)Next-generation network technologies are not created equal. On paper, there exist meaningul
perormance dierences, some o which are due to channel bandwidth considerations, but also to
the underlying technology itsel. Further, operator deployment philosophies and the maturity o the
solutions can have an over-arching impact on the results.
As operators around the globe struggle to make crucial strategic decisions regarding their network
technology evolution, it is imperative that they ully understand and appreciate the potential o
these technologies as well as their limitations. While this report is intended to address the needs o
operators worldwide by ocusing on the perormance o the technologies, as a secondary eature it
also provides va luable insight into the perormance o each major network deployment in the United
States. Everyone claims that they have the best network, but only one operator can be right.
Specic topics addressed in Volume 1 include, but are not limited to, the ollowing:
Application and/or Physical Layer Troughput
Mean, median and CDF plots
Geo plots o throughput or all test scenarios using Google Earth
echnology comparisons, including
DC-HSDPA versus LE (2x10MHz) with 2x2 MIMO
LE (2x20MHz) versus LE (2x10MHz)
Mobile WiMA X versus HSPA+, LE and DC-HSDPA
DC-HSDPA versus HSPA+
EV-DO versus LE, HSPA+, etc
Single User Spectral Eciency Results
Troughput normalized or channel bandwidth and duplex scheme
Does LE with MIMO really outperorm narrow bandwidth solutions
LE network perormance with multiple devices
DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ devices in the same 10MHz channel allocations
Side-by-Side operator network coverage maps or drive routes used in each market
Downlink throughput Uplink throughput
Network Latency
Variance based on time o day and network loading
LE network deployment philosophies (LE cell site density relative to the legacy network) and
their implications or coverage and capacity
A& HSPA+ versus A& LE
vue 1 i citic et u te
e e cuetyi tteic ecii
ei tei ettecy euti.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
9/24
9 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Verizon Wireless EV-DO versus Verizon Wireless LE
A& LE versus Verizon Wireless LE
Mobile WiMAX (2500MHz) versus LE (700MHz)
vue 2 (Qutiyi te e xeiece)Although mobile operators, industry pundits and most well-inormed consumers understand the
notion that a higher megabit-per-second throughput is preerable, the typical consumer is generally
clueless when it comes to understanding what these obscure marketing messages really mean or the
mobile Internet experience. Most operators recognize that they need to move away rom the my
pipe is bigger than your pipe marketing mentality, but it is easier said than done.
Further, it is readily apparent that the capabilities o these next-generation networks requently
exceed the requirements o the application and/or the capabilities o the Internet itsel. Very ew
applications and/or web site servers support high double-digit megabit-per-second throughput
Instead, it may actually be the combination o relatively high throughput and low network latency
oset by transport latency that really denes the user experience. But to what degree do these
relationships provide the most benet to the user?
Mobile video, be it Youube or Netix, is driving mobile data growth and the capabilities o next
generation networks will only serve as an impetus to even higher data usage. Te perceived quality
o the video playback also matters, not only or consumers, but also or mobile operators, content
owners, and video hosting services. As higher resolution video ormats with higher encoding rates
become more mainstream, this issue becomes even more important, especially i the perormance o
next-generation networks ails to keep up with the requirements o the video content.
Tis report is cr itical or operators trying to understand how to market their broadband wireless
service oering as well as how they should prioritize their network optimization activities in order
to achieve the best possible user experience or their subscribers. In addition to mobile operators
this report provides invaluable insight to application developers and content providers who require a
greater appreciation or how network perormance characteristics impact the user experience.
Specic topics addressed in Volume 2 may include, but are not limited to, the ollowing:
Quantiying the user experience based on HP web page download times
Popular websites, including Yahoo, CNN, iunes, Amazon, Youube, etc.
Results down to the millisecond, based on device/chipset signaling messages
Network/technology comparisons
Comparisons based on network loading same location over a 12-15 hour period o time
Determining i perceived dierences in network/technology perormance have more to do with
network loading than the actual capabilities o the network/technology itsel
Determining how the combination o throughput and latency impact the HP web page
download time results
3 axis plot, showing maximum achievable throughput and network latency versus webpage load
time and required throughput
Which matters most latency or throughput
Does DC-HSDPA really oer a quantiable benet over HSPA+
Determining the crossover point when higher throughput become irrelevant
vue 2 i citic et tyi
t uet tet tei iee eice ei
e tey uiitize tei et
tiizti ctiitie.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
10/24
10 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Quantiying the user experience based on downloading Google email attachments
Quantiying the user experience based on downloading video and audio content rom iunes
Determining the crossover point when higher throughput become irrelevant
Netix video streaming requirements
Determining the chokepoints in the network (rom end user to the original source o the content)
how they vary as a unction o loading, and their impact on the user experience
vue 3 (detie pece ayi)In our third and nal installment we delve much deeper into the KPIs that we captured with the
Accuver suite o drive test tools. As we have witnessed in the past there are discernible dierences
in how each vendor implements a technology. Frankly, some vendors do a much better job than
their peers.
Given that we collected network perormance data in a number o key markets and that we know
ingly included virtually every single vendor + technology combination that exists in North America
this report provides invaluable competitive intelligence or vendors, subsystem suppliers and mobile
operators.
Further, by peeling back the layers o the proverbial technology onion it becomes possible to gain
a greater appreciation or how each technology delivers its results.
Specic topics addressed in Volume 3 may include, but are not limited to, the ollowing:
Modulation Utilization (QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM) by primary and/or secondary carriers
as appropriate
MIMO RI 1 and RI 2 how MIMO perorms at 700MHz
CQI (average and median) by primary and secondary carriers
HS-PDSCH Codes (average, % > 10, distribution) by primary and secondary carriers
HS-SCCH Scheduling Success Rate by primary and secondary carriers
Average PHY Layer Served Rate by primary and secondary carriers
Maximum PHY Layer Scheduled/Served Rate DC-HSDPA only
UL ransmit Power (average and median)
We will also leverage the capabilities o the XCAP-M tool to analyze these KPIs by severa
dierent means, potentially including, but not limited to the ollowing:
MAC-HS Troughput versus RSCP scatter plot
MAC-HS Troughput versus Reported CQI Values scatter plot
Reported CQI Values versus 64QAM Availability scatter plot
MAC-HS Troughput versus Cell ID (real time)
MAC-HS Troughput versus # o Assigned HS-PDSCH Codes (real time)
MAC-HS Troughput (primary, secondary, and combined)
HSPA+ MAC-HS Troughput versus DC-HSDPA MAC-HS Troughput (primary, secondary
and combined)
vue 3 ieiue cetitieiteiece ie
i ee t ti ete eciti
ec tecyeie it eut.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
11/24
11 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
CINR versus RSSI (scatter plot and real-time)
Troughput versus CINR (scatter plot and real-time)
Troughput versus Cell ID (e.g., handover perormance)
CINR versus RSSI (scatter plot and real-time)
CINR versus Modulation Scheme and/or MCS
UL ransmit Power versus Cell ID
UL Troughput versus ransmit Power
Modulation Scheme (antenna 1 and antenna 2)
pteti tic te ci ye icue:
Te Mother o all Network Drive ests (LE, DC-HSDPA, HSPA+, Rev A and Mobile
WiMAX)
Te challenges o delivering video in a mobile network
How network perormance (throughput and latency) impacts the user experience
Embedded modules/netbooks
D-LE network perormance benchmark results
CoMP and LE Advanced
Going Green nancial implications and challenges
Smartphone signaling implications and LE
LE chipset perormance benchmark test results
Te impact o ype 3i receivers on UE perormance (includes chipset benchmark tests o leadingsolutions)
Whatever happened to IMS?
LE Americas
4G World and GSMA MAC
HSPA+ (MIMO) network perormance benchmark results
Te impact o latency
Public Saety Options with 700MHz
EV-DO Rev B network perormance benchmark results
LE chipset landscape
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
12/24
12 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
7/6/11 Mobile Platforms the center of mobilenetworks In this report we discuss the recent trendsimpacting the various mobile platorms that exist and what hastranspired since our piece rom three years ago on Web 2.0.
We address the state o the mobile platorms that exist, provide
our thoughts on the current and uture prospects and look atthe various trends that are driving the industry.
6/8/2011 United we stand, fragmented we fail Weprovide the key takeaways rom the LE World Summit, heldin Amsterdam. Spectrum ragmentation tops the list o keyLE topics, although a growing ocus on the use o 1800MHzor those operators that have access to it is encouraging.VoLE, or the lack thereo, is still on everyones minds, butin the interim CSFB isnt even working as promised. Finally,there was a lot o talk about Mobile WiMAX, but the emphasisseemed to be on how to best move away rom the technologyand adopt D-LE.
5/16/2011 HetNet: When big cells and small cellscollide In addition to covering the basics o heterogeneousnetworks (HetNet), a key LE-Advanced (R10) eature, wepresent a compelling series o analyt ical studies which demon-strate the need or macro network ofoad, starting as early as2015. We also get into the technical details o how HetNet
works, including discussions on eICIC, ABS and the impor-tance o intererence cancellation in the handset. Finally, welook at what is being done with legacy 3G emtocells to limitintererence-related problems that they introduce, both withthe macro network and between each other.
4/26/2011 Chips and Salsa XIII: Now Seasoned with
Soy Sauce In collaboration with Spirent Communicationswe provide results rom the industrys only independentperormance benchmark tests o HSPA+/HSPA chipsets.In the most recent benchmark study we tested 16 dierentdevice congurations, representing chipsets rom 9 dierentsuppliers, including new entrants, such as Samsung (HSPA+),Intel (HSPA+), Mediaek and HiSilicon. We provide theresults, based on a total o 42 HSPA+ test scenarios and 26HSPA test scenarios.
3/15/2011 Looking beyond HSPA+: keeping up withthe Joneses Based on interviews with 3GPP membercompanies and a thorough review o 3GPP submissions, we
oer an in-depth look at the uture o HSPA+ (Release 11 andbeyond). Ultimately, we conclude that many o the eaturesthat are being incorporated into LE will nd their way intoHSPA+, thus blurring the perormance dierences betweenthe two technologies. Latency and the impact o new eatureson legacy devices are two areas o prime importance whereHSPA+ could ace challenges relative to LE.
1/12/2011 DC-HSDPA: Double the Bandwidth, Doublethe Pleasure, Part II In collaboration with Accuver, whoprovided us with its XCAL-W drive test tool and XCAP-Wpost-processing sotware, we provide results and analysis roman extensive drive test o elstras DC-HSDPA network. We
compare DC-HSDPA with HSPA+ perormance in a numbero side-by-side tests.
1/12/2011 DC-HSDPA: Double the Bandwidth, Doublethe Pleasure, Part I In collaboration with Accuver, whoprovided us with its XCAL-W drive test tool and XCAP-Wpost-processing sotware, we provide results and analysis roman extensive drive test o elstras DC-HSDPA network. Wecompare DC-HSDPA with HSPA+ perormance in a numbero side-by-side tests.
12/10/2010Can you schedule me now? In collabora-tion with Sanjole we examine how some o todays commer-cial LE eNodeBs allocate network resources when servingmultiple devices. We determine that while LE may delivera compelling user experience, it is largely due to an emptynetwork and the large channel bandwidths, and that urtherimprovements are necessary i LE is going to supportmultiple users in an ecient manner.
12/3/2010 A Perspective from LTE Americas and theGSMA Mobile Asia Congress We provide and discuss
various data points which stem rom our part icipation at theLE Americas event in Dallas and the GSMA MAC eventin Hong Kong. We provide an LE market update, including
D-LE, discuss the debate about a smart or dumb pipestrategy, and the impact o smartphones and social networking
services, including the use o cloud computing, intelligentnetworks, network ofoading and data caching.
11/4/2010 A G-Wiz World We provide drive test resultsor eliaSoneras HSPA+ network in Sweden and provide datapoints rom this years 4G World event in Chicago. We alsodiscuss the growing trend o operators who are intelligentlyadding more capacity to their networks through the use ohigher perorming devices/chipsets and upgrades to theirnetwork inrastructure.
10/7/2010 2x20MHz of LTE and the HeisenbergUncertainty Principle We provide an update on
LE network perormance based on extensive testing oeliaSoneras LE networks in Stockholm and Gothenburg,Sweden. Te 60+ page report provides detailed results andanalysis based on more than 600GB o transerred data.
In Case You Missed It
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
13/24
13 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
e tet
Volume 1: Network and Technology Performance 1
1.0 Executive Summary 3
2.0 Introduction 14
3.0 Key Conclusions and Observations 16
4.0 Detailed Test Results and Analysis Downlink Throughput 30
4.1 Clearwire 2x20MHz LTE Phoenix demonstration network 30
4.2 d-hsdpa eu l 32
4.2.1 DC-HSDPA versus LTE (Dallas, June 16, 2011 0650) 32
4.3 d-hsdpa hspa+ reut 37
4.3.1 DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ Results (Houston, September 6, 0638) 37
4.3.2 DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ Results (Oakland, July 8, 0540 39
4.3.3 DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ (San Francisco, June 29, 1245 40
4.4 LTE and LTE Results 42
4.4.1 LTE and LTE Results (Oakland, July 8, 0652) 424.4.2 Verizon Wireless LTE and Verizon Wireless LTE Results(Houston, September 6, 0910) 43
4.4.3 Verizon Wireless LTE and Verizon Wireless LTE Results(Houston, September 6, 0957) 44
4.5 a ecie 45
4.5.1 All Technologies (Dallas, June 14, 1450) 45
4.5.2 All Technologies (Dallas, June 14, 1515) 46
4.5.3 All Technologies (San Francisco) 47
4.6 veiz wiee l eu a& l 59
4.6.1 Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T LTE (Houston, September 5, 1501) 61
4.6.2 Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T LTE (Houston, September 5, 0634) 63
4.7 hspa+ eu mie wimaX (k ity, Jue 17, 0540) 65
4.8 hspa+ eu hspa+ (k ity, Jue 17, 1300) 67
4.9 d-hsdpa eu mie wimaX (hut, setee 6, 0722) 68
4.10 LTE versus HSPA+ (Houston, September 5, 1622) 69
5.0 Detailed Test Results and Analysis Uplink Throughput 72
5.1 eie 2x20mhz l peix etti et 72
5.2 All Technologies 735.2.1 DC-HSDPA versus LTE (Dallas, June 16, 0815) 73
5.2.2 All Technologies (San Jose, July 1, 1425) 75
5.3 l fcu utie eice et ci 77
5.3.1 Verizon Wireless (San Francisco, July 17, 0805) 77
5.3.2 AT&T (Houston, September 7, 1212) 78
5.3.3 Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T LTE (Houston, September 5-7) 80
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
14/24
14 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
6.0 Detailed Test Results and Analysis Latency 81
6.1 eie veiz wiee l net (peix, Jue 10) 81
6.2 nueu ecie (d) 83
6.2.1 Numerous Technologies (Dallas, June 14, 0930) 83
6.2.2 All Technologies (Dallas, June 14, 1600) 84
6.3 nueu ecie (k ity) 85
6.3.1 Numerous Technologies (Kansas City, June 17, 1340) 85
6.3.2 Numerous Technologies (Kansas City, June 17, 1450) 86
6.3.3 LTE and EV-DO Rev A (Kansas City Airport, June 17, 1815) 87
6.4 a ecie 88
6.4.1 All Technologies (Oakland Hills, June 29, 1700) 88
6.4.2 All Technologies (San Francisco, July 29) 89
6.4.3 All Technologies (Houston) 90
7.0 Network Design Criteria 91
7.1 mutie ecie 927.1.1 Downtown San Francisco all technologies 92
7.1.2 Dallas 96
7.1.3 Peninsula 99
7.2 veiz wiee v-do eu veiz wiee l utie cei 103
7.3 a& hspa+ eu a& l utie cei 105
7.4 a& l eu veiz wiee l utie cei 109
8.0 Test Methodology 114
9.0 Conclusions 117
10.0 Appendix 1 118
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
15/24
15 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Iex fiuefiue 1. Clearwire 2x20MHz LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution 30
fiue 2. Clearwire 2x20MHz Vehicular Mode Geo Plot of Downlink APP Layer Data Rates 31
fiue 3. DC-HSDPA versus LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 2) 32
fiue 4. DC-HSDPA versus LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput CDF (Test Scenario 2) 33
fiue 5. DC-HSDPA Performance in Dallas during early Morning Hours Geo Plot of App Layer Throughput 34
fiue 6. DC-HSDPA APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results for all Dallas Test Scenarios - CDF and Pie Chart 35
fiue 7. LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results for all Dallas Test Scenarios - CDF and Pie Chart 36
fiue 8. Drive Route (Test Scenario 157) 37
fiue 9. DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results for all Dallas Test Scenarios CDF (Test Scenario 157) 38
fiue 10. DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 114) 39
fiue 11. DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 103) 40
fiue 12. Drive Route (Test Scenarios 102-103) 41
fiue 13. LTE and LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 115) 42
fiue 14. LTE and LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 152) 43
fiue 15. Drive Route (Test Scenario 152) 43
fiue 16. LTE and LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 161) 44
fiue 17. All Technologies APP Layer Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 12) 45
fiue 18. Drive Route Test Scenarios 12-13 46
fiue 19. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 13) 47
fiue 20. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Bay Area, July 1) 48
fiue 21. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results
CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Oakland, July 8) 49
fiue 22. Drive Route Bay Area (Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, and all points in between) 50
fiue 23. Drive Route Test Scenario 73 51
fiue 24. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 73) 52
fiue 25. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 73) 52
fiue 26. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results with Bandwidth and MIMO Adjustments CDF (Test Scenario 33) 53
fiue 27. Drive Route Test Scenarios 83 and 88 53
fiue 28. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 83) 54
fiue 29. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 83) 54fiue 30. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results with Bandwidth and MIMO Adjustments CDF (Test Scenario 83) 55
fiue 31. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 88) 55
fiue 32. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 88) 56
fiue 33. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results with Bandwidth and MIMO Adjustments CDF (Test Scenario 88) 56
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
16/24
16 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
fiue 34. Drive Route Test Scenario 104 57
fiue 35. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 104) 58
fiue 36. All Technologies APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 104)58
fiue 37. AT&T LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Houston) 59
fiue 38. Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T Wireless LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (ALL COMPARATIVE RESULTS) 60
fiue 39. Drive Route Test Scenario 137 61fiue 40. Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T Wireless PHY Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time(Test Scenario 137) 62
fiue 41. Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T Wireless LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 137) 62
fiue 42. Drive Route Test Scenario 124 63
fiue 43. Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T Wireless PHY Layer Downlink Throughput versus Time(Test Scenario 124) 64
fiue 44. Verizon Wireless LTE versus AT&T Wireless LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 124) 64
fiue 45. Drive Route Test Scenario 3665fiue 46. HSPA+ versus Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Results CDF (Test Scenario 36)66
fiue 47. Drive Route Test Scenario 4367
fiue 48. T-Mobile HSPA+ and AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Results CDF (Test Scenario 43) 67
fiue 49. T-Mobile DC-HSDPA and Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Results CDF (Test Scenario 158-159) 68
fiue 50. AT&T LTE and AT&T HSPA+ PHY/MAC Layer Downlink Results CDF (Test Scenario 140) 69
fiue 51. Drive Route Test Scenario 140 70
fiue 52.Inter-RAT Handover 70
fiue 53. Clearwire 2x20MHz LTE Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Test Scenario 57) 72
fiue 54. Drive Route Test Scenario 4 73
fiue 55. DC-HSDPA versus LTE APP Layer Uplink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 4) 74
fiue 56. DC-HSDPA versus LTE APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 4) 74
fiue 57. All Technologies APP Layer Uplink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 97) 75
fiue 58. All Technologies APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF (Test Scenario 97) 75
fiue 59. All Technologies APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results with Bandwidth Adjustments CDF (Test Scenario 97) 76
fiue 60. LTE APP Layer Uplink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 119) 77
fiue 61. LTE PHY Layer Uplink Throughput versus Time (Test Scenario 150)78
fiue 62. AT&T LTE PHY Layer Uplink Throughput Results geo plot (Houston)79
fiue 63. Verizon Wireless LTE and AT&T LTE APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF (ALL RESULTS) 80
fiue 64. Clearwire Demo LTE and Verizon Wireless LTE Latency Results (Test Scenario 2, 4) 81
fiue 65. LTE, DC-HSDPA and HSPA+ Latency Results (Test Scenario 5) 83
fiue 66. All Technologies Latency Results (Test Scenario 13) 84
fiue 67. AT&T HSPA+, Mobile WiMAX and Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A Latency Results (Test Scenario 17) 85
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
17/24
17 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
fiue 68. AT&T HSPA+, T-Mobile HSPA+ and Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A Latency Results (Test Scenario 18) 86
fiue 69. Verizon Wireless LTE and EV-DO Rev A Latency Results (Test Scenario 20) 87
fiue 70. All Technologies Latency Results (Test Scenario 21) 88
fiue 71. All Technologies Latency Results 89
fiue 72. All Technologies Latency Results 90
fiue 73. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco (by network)Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A 850/1900MHz 92
fiue 73a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco (by network)Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 93
fiue 73b. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco (by network)AT&T HSPA+ 1900MHz 93
fiue 73. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco (by network)T-Mobile DC-HSDPA 1700MHz94
fiue 74. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time San Francisco (by network) 95
fiue 75. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Dallas (by network)Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 96
fiue 75a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Dallas (by network)Clearwire Mobile WiMAX 2500MHz 96
fiue 75b. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Dallas (by network)T-Mobile DC-HSDPA 1700MHz97
fiue 75. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Dallas (by network)AT&T HSPA+ Coverage 850MHz 97
fiue 76. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Dallas (by network) 98
fiue 77. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Peninsula (by network)AT&T HSPA+ 850/1900MHz 99
fiue 77. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Peninsula (by network)Clearwire Mobile WiMAX 2500MHz 100
fiue 77a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Peninsula (by network)T-Mobile DC-HSDPA 1700MHz 100
fiue 77b. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Peninsula (by network)Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A 850MHz 101
fiue 77. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Peninsula (by network)Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 101
fiue 78. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Peninsula (HSPA+ and Mobile WiMAX) 102
fiue 79. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco and Oakland (EV-DO Rev A and LTE) Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A 850/1900MHz 103
fiue 79a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information San Francisco and Oakland (EV-DO Rev A and LTE) Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 104
fiue 80. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Peninsula (EV-DO Rev A and LTE) 104
fiue 81. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (HSPA+ and LTE)AT&T HSPA+ 1900MHz 105
fiue 81a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (HSPA+ and LTE)AT&T LTE 700MHz 106
fiue 82. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Houston (HSPA+ 1900MHz and LTE) 106
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
18/24
18 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
fiue 83. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (HSPA+ and LTE)AT&T HSPA+ 850MHz/1900MHz 107
fiue 83a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (HSPA+ and LTE)AT&T LTE 700MHz 108
fiue 84. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (LTE and LTE)AT&T LTE 700MHz 109
fiue 84a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (LTE and LTE)
Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 110fiue 85. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Houston (LTE and LTE) 110
fiue 86. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (LTE and LTE)AT&T LTE 700MHz 111
fiue 86a. Drive Route with Serving Cell ID Sector Information Houston (LTE and LTE)Verizon Wireless LTE 700MHz 112
fiue 87. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Houston (LTE and LTE) 112
fiue 88. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action DL performance 114
fiue 89. XCAL-M Drive Test Tool in Action UL performance 115
fiue 90. Verizon Wireless APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Phoenix) 118
fiue 91. Verizon Wireless APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Phoenix) 118
fiue 92. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 119
fiue 93. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Dallas) 119
fiue 94. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 120
fiue 95. Verizon Wireless LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 120
fiue 96. Verizon Wireless LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Dallas) 121
fiue 97. Verizon Wireless LTE APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 121
fiue 98. T-Mobile DC-HSDPA APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 122
fiue 99. T-Mobile DC-HSDPA APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Dallas) 122
fiue 100. T-Mobile DC-HSDPA APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 123
fiue 101. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 123
fiue 102. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Dallas) 124
fiue 103. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Dallas) 124
fiue 104. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results - CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 125
fiue 105. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Kansas City) 125
fiue 106. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 126
fiue 107. T-Mobile HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 126
fiue 108. T-Mobile HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Kansas City) 127
fiue 109. T-Mobile HSPA+ APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 127
fiue 110. Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 128
fiue 111. Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 128
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
19/24
19 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
fiue 112. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 129
fiue 113. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Kansas City) 129
fiue 114. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Uplink Throughput Results CDF and Pie Chart Distribution (Kansas City) 130
fiue 115. Verizon Wireless LTE APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Bay Area) 131
fiue 116. Verizon Wireless EV-DO Rev A APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Bay Area) 132
fiue 117. T-Mobile DC-HSDPA APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Bay Area) 133
fiue 118. AT&T HSPA+ APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Bay Area) 134
fiue 119. Clearwire Mobile WiMAX APP Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Bay Area) 135
fiue 120. Cell Sector Handoffs versus Time Oakland (by network) 135
fiue 121. Oakland Drive Route for Cell Handover Study 136
fiue 122. Verizon Wireless LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Houston) 136
fiue 123. Verizon Wireless LTE PHY Layer Downlink Throughput Results geo plot (Houston) 137
Iex ee a. Summary of Downlink and Uplink Throughput Test Scenarios 138
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
20/24
20 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
8.0 et metyFor the drive tests that we have been conducting this summer we primarily used the Accuver
XCAL-MO network benchmarking tool along with the Accuver XCAL drive test tool to collect the
underlying perormance indicators and to conduct the user experience tests. For purposes o our tests
we limited the XCAL-MO to only our dongles one dongle or each network/technology that
we wanted to test. In theory we could have installed multiple dongles or each network/technology
We used the Accuver XCAP post-processing tool to analyze the data and to help us create the
gures which appear in this summary report. Tanks to a combination o the powerul tool andcountless hours spent on the road, we are convinced that we have witnessed network perormance
both good and bad that would have otherwise not been observed.
Figure 88 and Figure 89 illustrate a typical user display that we used when collecting the data. We
have included two gures since they also help prove that we observed downlink data rates greater
than 61Mbps (Figure 88) and uplink data rates in excess o 23Mbps (Figure 89).
we ue te accue
Xal-mo Xal-m tt cect te ueyi
ece iict te accue Xap-m
t-cei t t te yi te
t tt e cecte.
fiue 88. Xal-m die et i acti dl ece
Source: Accuver XCAL and SRG
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
21/24
21 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Each operator provided us with at least two dongles, although in the case o operators, such as
Clearwire, with multiple network/technology deployments (e.g., 2x20MHz LE and 1x10MHz
Mobile WiMAX), we received multiple dongles.
In order to ensure that we ully loaded the air link channel or the networks/technologies that
we were testing, we leveraged multiple high-bandwidth servers, including servers in Phoenix
(>100Mbps), Dallas (300Mbps) and Chicago (150Mbps). Further, we established multiple sessions inorder to oset some o eects o transport latency and the CP ACK window associated with FP.
Although everyone that we spoke to agreed with our approach, it did result in unintentional
consequences. Specically, we observed that the individual FP sessions would periodically
stop sending data with the requency and the length o the stop period increasing during times
when we believed the wireless networks were experiencing higher network loading. Reducing the
number o FP sessions to a single session resolved the issue and we were generally able to use at
least two FP sessions, thus solving the problem that we were originally trying to address. We
cant explain what was causing the perormance issue but it was evident in all networks that we
tested and across all vendors, albeit to varying degrees. Weve ruled out RF-related issues as being
the source o the problem.
For purposes o these tests, we used the Windows 7 operating system, which uses a dynamicwindow allocation methodology to theoretical ly deliver the best possible throughput or the given
combination o latency and channel conditions. As we have documented in the past, we believe
Windows 7 leaves something on the table, meaning that the super-high data rates associated with
LE, in particular with a 20MHz channel, are not always achieved. We believe our approach
is still appropriate given that it is logistically impossible to purchase a notebook computer with
the Windows XP operating system. We also note that the connection manager associated with at
least one operators technology/network does not change the CP window size when it is installed
meaning that the data rates could already be limited, even with the legacy operating system.
we ue te wi 7eti yte, icue yic i
cti ety tteeticy eie te et
ie tuut teie citi tecy
ce citi.
fiue 89. Xal-m die et i acti l ece
Source: Accuver XCAL and SRG
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
22/24
22 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
Network latency tests were done to servers located in the vicinity o the market in which we were
doing the tests. Since we cant rule out the eect o transport latency, readers should ocus their
attention on the relative perormance dierences versus the absolute results.
esting in each market took place rom as early as 4AM local time until the early evening
hours. We also did a lot o user experience testing during the dead o the night when we suspect
the networks were wide open. Since we were using test equipment we had the ability to deter
mine whether or not network loading was impacting the results. Suce it to say that in the early
morning hours network loading was not a concern or any o the networks. Later in the day
network loading impacted the perormance o certain networks/technologies while it was not even
a consideration with other networks/technologies. We take this phenomenon into consideration
when doing our analysis.
A large percentage o our test data was collected rom a moving vehicle. Tis approach ensured that
we achieved statistically meaningul results since as we have demonstrated in past reports, moving
a ew eet or turning 90 degrees can meaningully impact the achievable throughput. Further, we
based our analysis and conclusions on literally hundreds o Gigabytes o transerred data. Tis
approach is markedly dierent rom the more commonly used method which involves using popular
web-based speed testing sites and transerring tens o Megabytes o data. From our perspective
this latter approach achieves anecdotal results which are statistically meaningless and not neces
sarily reective o the overall network perormance. Tis sampling o the network perormance
also provides no insight whatsoever into how/why the throughput was achieved since the KPIs
are limited to throughput and latency, versus KPIs, such as modulation type, number o assigned
resource blocks, MIMO availability, scheduling requency, etc.
One drawback o our approach is that it does tend to understate the perormance o the network
since the ading conditions rom a moving vehicle are more challenging than rom a stationary
position or someone walking down the street. Given the emergence o next-generation smartphones
(LE, HSPA+, Mobile WiMAX, etc.), accessing the broadband wireless network rom a moving
vehicle will be more commonplace now than in the past. Ideally, we would include stationary tests
rom hundreds o locations in a given market and all times o day, but this approach goes well
beyond something that we can reasonably do or these studies.
Although we do not include results rom our user experience tests in this summary report, we usedpopular websites or our HP web page download tests and Google Mail or the email application
We also used popular video content delivery services, such as Netix and Youube, not to mention
Skype Video and iunes where we downloaded numerous large les o video content.
Like all Signals Ahead reports, we received no sponsorship or unding rom the participating
companies, in order to maintain our independence. As such, we oot the bill or all o our travel
expenses not to mention an inordinate amount o time and eort collecting the data and writing
these series o reports.
We also could not have done this report without the support o Accuver who provided us with its
suite o drive test tools and post-processing sotware. SRG takes ull responsibility or the analysis
and conclusions that are documented in this report and in our orthcoming series o reports.
by teti ieice y teiue giyte
t, e eiee ttu ccui e
ttiticy iict,ee i te eut y
ity uette te tueciitie te et.
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
23/24
23 October 3, 2011 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 7, Number 1112 PREVIEW
mice eeMichael Telander is the CEO and Founder o Signals Research Group. In his current
endeavor he leads a team o industry experts providing technica l and operator economics anal-
ysis or clients on a global basis. Mr. Telander is also responsible or the consultancys Signals
Aheadresearch product, including its widely acclaimed Chips and Salsa series o reports that
ocus on the wireless IC industr y.
Previously, Mr. Telander was an analyst with Deutsche Bank Equity Research. Prior to joiningDeutsche Bank, Mr. Telander was a consultant with KPMG (now known as BearingPoint)
and a communications ocer with the United States Army. Mr. Telander has also published
numerous articles or leading trade publications and engineering journals throughout his career.
He has been an invited speaker at industry conerences around the world and he is requently
quoted by major news sources and industry newsletters, including he Economist, Te Wall Street
Journal, Investors Business Daily, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and Te China Daily. Mr. Telander
earned a Masters o Science in Solid State Physics rom North Carolina State University and a
Masters o Business Administration rom the University o Chicago, Graduate School o Business.
4g w, Chicago, ILOct. 24-27
l aeic, Dallas, TXNov. 8-9Invited speaker
rr wiee o et, Orange County, CANov. 10
Invited Speaker
ue ectic s, Las Vegas, NVJan. 10-13
mie w e, Barcelona, SpainFeb. 20-23
7/31/2019 SA 092711 Network Benchmark Study - Report Preview
24/24
please note disclaimer:Te view s expre ssed in this newslet ter reect those o Signal s Resea rch Group, LLC and are bas ed on ou r understa nding o past and current e vents shaping the w irelessindustry. Tis report is provided or inormational purposes only and on the condition that it will not orm a basis or any investment decision. Te inormation has been obtained rom sources believedto be reliable, but Signals Research Group, LLC makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness o such inormation. Opinions, estimates, projections or orecasts in this report constitutethe current judgment o the author(s) as o the date o this report. Signals Research Group, LLC has no obligation to update, modiy or amend this report or to otherwise notiy a reader thereo in theevent that any matter stated herein, or any opinion, projection, orecast or estimate set orth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.
I you eel our opinions, analysis or interpretations o events are inaccurate, please ell ree to contact Signals Research Group, LLC. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding o thetopics that inuence the wireless industry. Reerence in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares o such company. Signals Research Group,LLC and/or its aliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may requently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent withthe analysis provided in this report. Signals Research Group, LLC seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that SignalsResearch Group, LLC might have a conict o interest that could aect the objectivity o this report. Additional inormation and disclosures can be ound at our website at www.signalsresearch.comTis repor t may not be reproduced , copied, d istributed or publishe d without the pr ior written aut horization o Signal s Research Group, LLC (copy right 2011, al l rights rese rved by Signals ResearchGroup, LLC).
Signals Ahead SubscriptionThe Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer four distinct packages that have been tai-lored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to ve users from the same company. TheGlobal License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an unlimitednumber of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Platinum package includes the Global License, plus up to vehours of analyst time. Other packages are available.
Corporate Rates (18 issues)Group License ($3,995) Global License ($7,995) Platinum ($9,495)
Payment Terms
American Express Visa MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date / /
Check Check Number
Purchase Order PO Number
Name: Title:
Afliation: Phone: ( )
Mailing Address:
Mailing AddressSignals Research Group, LLC ATTN: Sales10 Ormindale CourtOakland, CA 94611
Our fax number is (510) 338-1284.
Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your bill-ing 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 unauthorizedsharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.