Progress Report Continued

4970-EX-MR-1995 Post Grant Documents

U.S. WEST COMMS., INC.

2000-03-21ELS_33635

Atlanta, GA                                                                                                                            JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048



 10 +                                                                                                                                                 —
     8 +                                                                                                                         —

     6 +

     4 4

     24                                       |                                                 |                            {
                    N         _( , fl 1 , TT}H                                                                           11|                      O        M,
                1.0          1.5                      2.0               2.5    3.0                                3.5                4.0        4.5               5.0
                                                                      Uplink MOS
Figure 7.3.1.3 Frequency Distribution of Uplink MOS

Figure 7.3.1.4 compares all MOS scores against one objective measure: average RSS (dBm). Figures
7.3.1.5 and 7.3.1.6 compare MOSs with average WER on the downlink and uplink, respectively.


       5   T                                                                                                  m




       4   T                             ma           a           m   *                                 m a                            ®                           *




                                 "   m            8           *                 »               I.        & ..      l-   *             'I                 ®   "




       3 +                   ~                                        «*                «                                                   ~
 M                                                        a       *        OM       J   *   *       a



 O
 S                       a


       a L          o9




       ]   «I   a




            —100                         —90                                                —75                                      —60                      45
                                                                           Avg. RSS

Figure 7.3.1.4




                                                                                    Page 47


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                                         Atlanta, GA



      5    4




      4    T        sn in      ®                                     m           *




                         :: a =         —                                    _             a         .'
      3    1                       .-   m                                                                 m


 M                                          m A            a             a

 O
 S
      2    <




      ]    «




                0              .                      0.5                            1.0       1.5                  2

                                                               Downlink Aug WER

Figure 7.3.1.5



      5    74       on

                Is L ® -l.         .-




      4    T    m        ®==   m              m        a                              a




      3                                 ®         8              a                             m

 M                                                         3

 O
 S                                                                       a



      2    «




      ‘|   &




                0                                     0.5                            1.0       1.5                  2
                                                               Uplink Avg WER

Figure 7.3.1.6




                                                                             Page 48


Atlanta, GA                                                                        JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048


Figures 7.3.1.5 and 7.3.1.6 indicate that while the uplink samples show a relatively high correlation
between high MOS and low WER, the downlink samples do not.

Further statistical analysis on MOS scores and engineering data from the downlink and uplink runs
illustrates the differences between the two links.

Figure 7.3.1.7 is a Pearson Product—Moment correlation table of downlink data and outlines the
correlation coefficients of MOS vs. RSS and WER. The results reveal that there is a linear correlation
between MOS and EL and between MOS and RSS, but surprisingly little correlation between MOS and
WER or WER and RSS.                                                  |


 Pearson Produci-Momenf Correlation




                     MoS             EL      —_   Avg. RSS      Avg. WER
Mos                1.000
EL                 0.526          1.000
Avg. RSS           0.475          0.140            1.000
Avg. WER          —0.052          0.079           —0.139           1.000
Figure 7.3.1.7 Downlink

A Spearman Rank Correlation was performed to analyze the ranks of MOS vs. the ranks of the various
engineering measures, in order to consider possible non—linear relationships. Figure 7.3.1.8 diagrams the
results.


 Spearman Rank Correlation




                     MoS              EL             Avg. RSS     Avg. WER
 MoS                 1.000
El               — 0.540             1.000
 Avg. RSS           0.549          0.239              1.000
 Avg. wer          —0.246         —0.281             —0.423          1.000
Figure 7.3.1.8 Downlink

The Spearman Rank Correlation does illustrate that the non—linear correlations are stronger that the linear
correlations, but they are still not as high as expected.

Figure 7.3.1.9 is a Pearson Product—Moment correlation table of uplink data and outlines the correlation
coefficients of MOS vs. RSS and WER. The results reveal some correlations between averaged
engineering measures and MOS, the highest being WER at —0.550 (the negative sign denotes higher MOS
corresponds to lower WER, as expected). Therefore, there does appear to be a linear relationship between
 MOS and the engineering measures. Notice that the correlation between MOS and WER isstronger than
 the correlation between WER and RSS.




                                                      Page 49


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                       _    ‘Atlanta, GA

 Pearson Product—Moment Correlation




                    MoS                EL         Avg. RSS          Avg. WER
MoOs                1.000 .
EL                  0.849           1,000
Avg. RSS           0.627          0.564              1.000
Avg. WER          —0.550        .—0.571            —0.397                1.000
Figure 7.3.1.9 Uplink

There is a linear relationship between MOS and the engineering measures, but there may be stronger
relationships that are non—linear, as a Spearman Rank Correlation table might reveal. A Spearman Rank
Correlation was performed to analyze the ranks of MOS vs. the ranks of the various engineering
measures, in order to consider possible non—linear relationships. Figure 7.3.1.10 diagrams the results.
There appear to be strong non—linear relationships between RSS, WER and MOS. Note that the non—
linear relationship between MOS and WER is stronger than the linear relationship between the two.


 Spearman Rank Correlation




                    MoS                EL         Avg. RSS          Avg. WER
Imos                1.000
EL                 0.735           1.000
Avg. RSS           0.647           0.642             1.000
Avg. WER          —0.783          —0.669           —0.737                1.000
Figure 7.3.1.10 Uplink

Note, the engineering values were averaged over the entire voice sample length. By analyzing the
engineering data within the voice sample time frame, further insight may be gained on the behavior of
MOS. By considering the minimum and maximum values for WER and RSS over the 1ength of a given
sample, we might see higher correlations to MOSs.                    —


7.3.2 Expert Listener Data Analysis and Discussion
Recall, the expert listener ratings were performed on a 3 point scale, and were made in an attempt to
emulate listener panels‘ ratings of acceptability (vs. MOS).

Figures 7.3.2.1 and 7.3.2.2 show the relationship between expert listener (EL) ratings and listener
responses to question three, or ZSacceptability [p(A)]. Percent acceptability is the percent of listeners
rating a given sample as acceptable.




                                                   Page 50


Atlanta, GA                                                                           JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048



        1.0


        0.8 +


        06
m
o
o
®

       O
       bo
              .
              t
+d




       00 L
                  1.0   1.5        20    25              3.0
                              EL
Figure 7.3.2.1
        1.0 T


        0.8 f


        0.6 +
m




        0.4 f
0
o




        02 T
0
~+‘s




       —0.0   *




                              EL


Figure 7.3.2.2

Figure 7.3.2.1 shows the %acceptability, or p(A), data in relation to EL categories. Figure 7.3.2.2
summarizes the same data. The boxes represent the middle half of the data (from the 25th percentile to
the 75th percentile). The line intersecting the boxes are the median p(A)s for each of the EL ratings. The
lines extending out of the boxes depict the spread of the data. Our goal was for Expert Listener scores to
accurately predict Listener Panel % acceptability scores, and this goal was met for 95% of the 120 voice
samples.

When we examine the relationship between listener responses to question 1 (MOS) and question 3 [p(A)]
we see that they are strongly correlated as we would expect. The correlation coefficient between MOS and
p(A) is 0.871. The EL ratings are strongly correlated with MOS, with a coefficient of 0.749, and strongly
correlated with percent acceptability, or p(A), with a correlation coefficient of 0.9 (see Figure 7.3.2.3).




                                                   Page 1


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                            Atlanta, GA


Pearson Product—Moment Correlation


 ©                  MoS     % accept          EL
All MOS            1.000
All p (A)          0.871      1.000
All EL             0.749     .0.900          1.000

Figure 7.3.2.3

It is possible that EL ratings, average RSS, and average WER can be predictors of MOS when all are
taken together. A multiple regression analysis was completed in order to determine if MOS is related to a
combination of all the above factors. Interactions among the various factors were not considered in the
analysis.

Since previous statistical analysis revealed statistically significant differences between uplink and
downlink data, separate regression analyseswere performed on each set of data.
The regression analysis of the downlink data is as follows:


Dependent variable is:                  MOS

R squared = 44.1% _R squared (adjusted) = 40.9%
s = 0.2677 with 56 —4=52 degrees of freedom

Source                 Sum of Squares              df      Mean Square             F—ratio
Regression             2.94508                      3          0.981694              13.7
Residual               3.72719                     52          0.071677                 '

[Variable            Coefficient            s.0. of Coelff         t—ratio             prob
Constant             3.51377                0.3152                 11.1             $ 0.0001
EL                   0.328797               0.0734                  4.48            $0.0001
Avg. RSS             0.012801               0.0034                   3.82              0.0004
Avg. BER           — —5.59928e—3             0.0181                —0.310              0.7577
Figure 7.3.2.4 Downlink Regression Analysis Results

The result is an R squared (adjusted) of 40.9%. In other words, 40.9% of the variance in MOSs can be
explained by EL, RSS, and WER. The F—ratio is rather low (13.7), revealing all factors may not reliably
account for the 40.9% of variance. By including all of the factors into the equation, we see some
predictive power over MOS, but it is less than anticipated. (see Figure 7.3.2.4 above).

A second regression analysis was performed on the downlink data, this time with only the Expert Listener
(EL) variable. The result was an R squared (adjusted) of 26.3%. This demonstrates that a relatively large
amount of the variance in MOSs can be explained by EL alone, and the RSS and WER variables are much
less predictive.




                                                     Page 52


Atlanta, GA                                                                         JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048


Dependent variable is:                  MoOS

R squared = 27.6% R squared (adjusted) = 26.3%
s = 0.2990 with 56 — 2 = 54 degrees of freedom

Source                Sum of Squares              df            Mean Square       F—ratio
Regression             1.84318                      1               1.84318 >       20.6
Residual              4.82909                     54              0.089428

[Variable          Coefficient          s.e. of Coefft      _     t—ratio         prob
Constant           2.52298              0.2001                    12.6          $0.0001
EL                 0.366604             0.0808                      4,54        $ 0.0001
Figure 7.3.2.5 Downlink Regression Analysis Results (only EL variable)

The regression analysis of the uplink data is as follows:

Dependent variable is:                  MoOS

R squared = 75.7%    R squared (adjusted)=    _
s= 0.4213 with 64 — 4 = 60 degrees of freedom

Source                Sum of Squares              df            Mean Square       F—ratio
Regression            33.0887                       3              11.0296         62.1
Residual              10.6483                    60               0.177471

Variable           Coefficient           s.o. of Coeff            t—ratio         prob |
Constant           3.57471               0.7903                     4.52        $ 0.0001
EL                 0.808950              0.1019                     7.94        $ 0.0001
Avg. RSS          0.019951               0.0074                     2.69          0.0092
Avg. BER        . —0.036030              0.0384                    —0.939         0.3514
Figure 7.3.2.6 Uplink Regression Analysis Results

The result is an R squared (adjusted) of 74.4%. In other words, 74.4% of the variance in MOSs can be
explained by EL, RSS, and WER. The F—ratio is relatively high (62.1), revealing all factors should
reliably account for the 74.4% of variance. By including all of the factors into the equation, we see some
predictive power over MOS. (see Figure 7.3.2.4 above).

A second regression analysis was performed on the uplink data, this time with only the Expert Listener
(EL) variable. The result was an R squared (adjusted) of 71.6%. This demonstrates that a great deal of the
variance in MOSs can be explained by EL alone, and the RSS and WER variables are much less
predictive.


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                              Atlanta, GA


Dependent variable is:                   MoOS

R squared = 72.1% R squared (adjusted) = 71.6%
s = 0.4437 with 64 —2= 62 degrees of freedom

Source                Sum of Squares               df           Mean Square         F—ratio
Regression             31.5284                       1             31.5284             160
Residual               12.2086                     62             0.196913

Variable      .    Coefficient           s.e. of Coeff      _     t—ratio           prob
Constant            1.36021              0.2093                    6.50          $0.0001
EL                 0.996504              0.0788                   12.7           $0.0001
Figure 7.3.2.7 Downlink Regression Analysis Results (only EL variable)

7.3.3 Other Listener Comments
By gathering listeners‘ comments from post—test questionnaires, more information is available about the
nature of MOSs. Namely, it is evident from questionnaires that there are several types of distortions in
quality possible in the TAG 3 voice samples according to listeners:

         1) "static" (5)
         2) "background noise" {5)
         3) "popping noises" (2)

Note that the words in quotes are the exact words used by listeners, and the number in parentheses
indicates the number of listeners who made that comment.

The nature of these distortions are likely judged differently by different listeners. Intelligibility and
speaker recognition are two main aspects of perceived quality. In the case of most of the voice samples,
intelligibility remained high. As a result, overall MOSs were high.

7.3.4 Handover Voice Quality Results
Two separate sets of handover tests were conducted: one at pedestrian walking speed and one at various
automobile speeds.

The pedestrian tests consisted of 14 runs which were conducted within the same grid which was used for
the Quasi—stationary points. Expert listener ratings were given by Jaye Matthews at four second intervals
over the duration of each run. Voice quality remained acceptable over the length of each uplink run, with
no degradation until the call was dropped. None of the uplink handovers were distinguishable to the
expert listener.   Voice quality was primarily acceptable over the length of each downlink run, however 8
of the 14 runs did have brief (< 3 seconds) periods of marginally acceptable voice quality. These periods
were not associated with handover. None of the downlink handovers were distinguishable to the expert
listener.

The high speed (automobile) test was conducted in a van traveling at the following rates of speed: 20 mph,
30 mph, 40 mph, 50 mph, 60 mph. Two runs were conducted at each rate of speed, for a total of 10 runs.
Expert listener ratings were given by Jaye Matthews at four second intervals over the duration of each run.
On the uplink samples, voice quality remained acceptable over the length of each run, with no degradation
until the call was dropped. Approximately 28% of uplink handovers were distinguishable to the expert



                                                    Page 54


Atlanta, GA                                                                        JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048


listener as a 200 — 400 millisecond period of muting. The remaining uplink handovers were not at all
distinguishable to the expert listener. On the downlink samples, 40% of the runs had voice quality
degradation as the call approached the edge of coverage. Approximately 50% of downlink handovers
were distinguishable to the expert listener as a 200 — 400 millisecond period of muting. The remaining
downlink handovers were not at all distinguishable to the expert listener. Maps 7.3.6.1 through 7.3.6.20
illustrate the high speed handover voice quality for each run, uplink and downlink.

7.3.5 Voice Quality Conclusions
Overall the voice samples were rated favorably, with 88% of the samples being rated between fair (3.0)
and excellent (5.0). The average of all MOSs is 3.68, with a standard deviation of 0.6975.
On the whole, average WERs were between 0.01% and 4%, with three outliers at 6.2, 10.9 and 15.3%,
while MOSs varied from 1.0 to 4.875.

There was a statistically significant difference in MOSs for uplink and downlink whenpaired MOSs were
analyzed. Average uplink MOS was 3.914 and average downlink MOS was 3.413. The median uplink
MOS was 4.25 and the median downlink MOS was 3.43.

Voice quality gemerally remained acceptable during pedestrian and high speed handover runs. None of
the pedestrian speed handovers were distinguishable to the expert listener. Tweny—eight percent of uplink
high speed handovers and 50% of downlink high speed handovers were distinguishable to the expert
listener.

By gathering listeners‘ comments from post—test questionnaires, more information is available about the
nature of MOSs. Namely, it is evident from questionnaires that there are several types of distortions in
quality possible in the TAG 3 voice samples according to listeners:

         1) "static" (5)
         2) "background noise" (5)
         3) "popping noises" (2)




                                                  Page 55


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                             .     Atlanta, GA


Appendix 7.A: Voice Quality Instructions

*          Good afternoon/evening and thank you for coming. My name is Jaye Matthews, your test
       _   administrator.

*<_        Tonight/today you will be listening to a series of recordings and telling us what you think about them.

+          Before we begin, I would like to point out some features of our lab. There are two video cameras set
           up in the room. I will be recording this session. The resulting tapes would be used for research
           purposes only, and will not be distributed for advertising, etc. Is it okay with everyone if I continue
           recording? Also in our lab we have a two—way mirror. There may be other product designers and
           testers observing this session, to see how things are progressing and how the product is performing.
*_         As I already mentioned, you will be listening to a series of recordings and offering your opinions on
           them. For each recording we would like you to compare the sound quality of the recording to the
           service you have on your home phone and then enteryour rating of that sound into the computer in
           front of you. For each, you will rate 3 things:
               1)   What do you think of the QUALITY of the sound? That is, how good is the sound of the
                    voice being captured by the recording? Remember, we‘d like you to compare the samples to
                    what you might hear at home.
               2)   How annoying are any additional sounds you might hear? That is, How much do any
                    additional sounds interfere with your ability to understand what is being said?
               3) Would you find this recording ACCEPTABLE as portable phone service? What we mean by
                    "portable" is that you can take this phone with you as you travel around town and make calls
                    from places like shopping centers, parking lots, and sporting events. Any questions so far?

 *         In front of you is a telephone handset which is connected to my computer here. I would like you to
           hold the handset up to your ear and listen to the sound I will play.
 +         I will announce the number of the sound you are about to hear and that numWER should match the
           number at the top of the screen. You should all have a #1 at the tops of your screens.
 *+_       You can use the mouse or the keypad to enter your ratings. Once you have entered your rating for one
           question the computer will move on to the next question for you. If you need to change an answer,
           you can tab through to go back to the answer you wish to change.
 +         The first few will be for practice, and you will have a chance to practice answering the questions with
           the computer. I will play the first practice sample sound for you now. SOUND.
 *         NOW, for practice, I would like you to rate that sound as Excellent for the overall quality of the
           sound. You can do this by entering a 1 on your keyboard or by pointing to the circle next to the word
           Excellent using the mouse and clicking the button on the mouse.
 *         Was everyone able to do that?
 «_        Now please do the same to say that the additional sounds were Not at all Annoying and that the sound
           was Acceptable.
  +        Was everyone able to do that?
  +        Once you entered an answer for each question, A picture appeared in the bottom of the window which
           says "DONE". You can indicate that you are finished by clicking on "Done" with the mouse OR by
           hitting the return key on your keyboard.
  *        You can use either the mouse or the keyboard, whichever you like best.
  «_       You will be hearing the same sentences in each sound bite. I realize that they are a bit unusual and at
           the end I will explain why we use these sentences. In some of the samples you will hear the male
           voice first, and in some the female voice first.



                                                             Page 56


Atlanta, GA                                                                          JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048


+<_   Now try the next practice sample. SOUND
*<_   Was everyone able to do that? Please rate that one as Bad by selecting #7. Any questions?
+__   If you have any questions as we are working, please feel free to speak—up. Also, If you are having
      difficulty using the computer please tell me.
*     About half way through the voice segments we will take a 15 minute break and then finish up the rest
      of the samples.
*     I would like you to rate the rest of the samples on you own..




                                                      Page 57


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                           ___— Atlanta, GA


       Appéndix 7.B: Computer Response Questions _


       How would you rate the overall QUALITY of the sound?
                        1. Excellent
                        2. Good
                        3. Fair
                        4. Poor
                        7. Bad

       How annoying are any ADDITIONAL sounds you might hear?
                        1. Not at all annoying
                        2. Slightly annoying
                        3. Annoying
                        4. Very annoying
                        7. Extremently Annoying

       Would this be ACCEPTABLE as portable service?
                        1. Acceptable
                        2. Not acceptable




                                                 Page 58


Atlanta, GA                                                                       JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048


Appendix 7.C: Post—Test Questionnaire


1) What is your gender?
              MALE
              FEMALE

2) What is your age?
        L_        Under 20                  ___    35—.44
                 21—24                                45—54
                 25—34        .                      55 or above

3) What is your occupation?

4) How much computer experience do you have?
        (__L   None                                           L       Use once/week
        ___    Used a few times before >             L__      Use every day
               Use once/month

 Did you ever work with a computer on a regular basis in a previous job? If so,
 bhow much?

5) Have you ever used a cordless phone (works on standard phone jack)?
        ___ YES        ____NO                                      .

        Do you OWN a cordless phone?
                 YES and use it more than 50% of the time
                 YES and use it less than 50% of the time
                 NO

IF YES, How does the sound quality of the samples you heard here compare to the sound on a cordless




IF YES, Who made the phone?

6)      Have you ever used a cellular phone?                YES        NO
        If so, how often:
        L___     everyday
                 once or twice per week
        LL_      once or twice per month
                 once or twice per year
                 only once or twice before




                                                  Page 59


JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048                                                                         Atlanta, GA




        Have you ever received a call from someone using a cellular phone?
                (that you know of)                     YES           NO

        If so, how often:
                 everyday _
                 once or twice per week
                 once or twice per month
                 once or twice per year
                 only once or twice before

If you have used a cellular phone or received a call from a person using a cellular phone, how does the
sound quality of the samples you heard tonight compare to the sound of a cellular phone?




7) Would your ratings of the Acceptability of these sounds be different if we told you that this would NOT
be a portable phone?

                YES           NO

IF YES, How would they differ and why?




8) How does the sound from these recordings differ from the sound on your home phone?




9) Any other comments?




                                                  Page 60


Atlanta, GA                                   JTC(AIR)/96.05.02—048




Appendix A. Coverage and Voice Quality Maps




                              Page 61


                                           C
                                           C
                                           ¢
                                           ¢




    +
/       'f;bJ{L‘?I.


             Map 4.2 USGS Map of Boulder


          L [ _/
                  Site 1 by downlink RSS (dBm)
                           ©—101 to —90
                           O —90 to —80




(~>
                              —80 to —70
                           O —70 to 45




              t
      wans!                    0.5 mil




                                                 Map 4.2.1.1


                                                                    _ [
                                                                   Site 1 by downlink WER %
                                                                          ©0 to 0.]
                                                                           0.1 to 1
                 /                                                        ©1 to 3
         /                                                                O3 to 97.5
    /\
    /        7                  20
                                    &
                                        L
                                        2.

L
                                  io
                                  *
                                             dres ce    A
/                               @4 *
                                    |                   at 8
                      &1    B                                  x
                            &                          alput                0.5 mil
             'O(dv'             Q       S&   fcg
                                              j        P                     /


                                              0 \tp
    “    K     °           9l   %



#                          *A                                        /

                                                                                       ~—__



                 D\




                                                               U

                                                                                 p——————      Map 4.2.1.2


                    l _/
                          Site 1 by uplink Rx (dBm)
                                 O—114 to —100
                                 ©—100to —90
                                   —90to —80
                    <~]          O —80to —70




                                        0.5 mil
       e0 «54
”7/L




                                            \y—————| Map 4.2.1.3
                /
                /
                /


      l _/
          Site 1 by uplink WER %
               ©0   to   0.1
                 0.1to   1
      e        ©1 to 3
               O3 to 100




                    0.5 mil
—~I



                                   ~——— Map 4.2.1.4


                                |                       I__|
                                Site 3 by downlink RSS (dBm)
                                         ©—101 to —90
                                         © —90 to —80
                                           —80 to —70
                                         O —70to 45




                                                               4&    /<
                                               &                          _

?i *    W                                                      /

    &                                                          |____——


        TPe‘s                           .9 mile
«g6     > \




\                    w2
[\            l



                  Map 4.2.2.1


     —
                       Site 3 by downlink WER %
                              ©0 to 0.1
                               0.1 to 1
                              O1
                              63
                                   to 3
                                   to97.5
                                                  /


                             .9 mile




Lk
         Map 4.2.2.2


<7                 [       c
              Site 3 by uplink RSS (dBm)
                       ©—112 to —100
                       ©—100 to —20




                                           tC
                          —90 to —80
                       © —80 to —69




                                           \
                              .4   mile




     d
~
 |
Map 4.2.2.3


                       /           |
            <                     Site 3 by uplink WER %
                                       ©0 to     0.
                                        0.1 to   1
                                       O1   to   3
                                       ©3   to 100




09
     4y S




                                            .4 mile




                     //

     _          _   Map 4.2.2.4


                             C                    |——3
                                      [           Site 9 by downlink Rx (dBm) |___—
                                                          ©—101 to —90
                                                          O —90 to —80
                                                             —80 to —70
                                                          O —170 to —45




                                              M   \etQD

                    §>4           es      *   P‘\ 35\
                          '30(“:;\'



              35.o€




BP
     1tn Bt
                     amn 2
              L29




                                                                                      Map 4.2.3.1


               ~—        l
                    [=   Site 9 by downlink BER % |——
                               ©0   to 0.1
                                 0.1 to   1
                               O1   to 3
                               03   to 975




ath S
        an 2




                                              h__       Map 4.2.3.2


           17.
         Site 9 by uplink Rx (dBm)
                 O—113 to —100
   <             ©—100 to —90
                   —90to —80
                 O —80to —67




m p\et n


 pme 2

                 0.




                                     Map 4.2.3.3


                            /


              Site 9 by uplink WER %
                    ©0     to 0.1
                     0.1   to 1
                    O1     to 3
                    O3     to99.8




3
 2



 o*   ‘®%&®




                              ———_____| Map 4.2.3.4


     |               \
Site 11 by downlink Rx (dBm)
         ©—101 to    —20
         © —90 to    —80
            —80 to   —70
         O —70 to    —45




                                             7



                               Map 4.2.4.1


        I               \
Site 11 by downlink WER %
        ©0     to 0.1
         0.1   to 1
        O1     to 3
        03     to97.5




                             *X




                            Map 4.2.4.2


        |            |
Site 11 by uptink WER %
      ©0    to 0.1
       0.1 to 1
      O1 to 3
      O3 to 99.8                               g»©




                          an o

                                 Map 4.2.4.4


              l                              BHST
              High Speed Handoff by Cell Site Number
                       Speed: 40 miles per hour

         %Q                   OSite # 7
                              OSito # 8                oTA
                              OSite # 9




                                   0.25 miles




CK /\2                                                       Map 5.2.2.1


                                                                      |                     Sm     [\
                                                        High Speed Handoff by Cell Site Number
                                                                           speed: 640 mph




                                                                                                          /
                                                                           OSite Number 7
                                                                           ©Site Number 8
O                                                                          OSite Number 9




§&
    2O        &C
     OO            3
         0
          O        o()
         o             03
                            O
                             OO
                                  %
                                      O

                                          0
                   3S                          3C
                            9                       %
                                  &

                                          OO                                                       .
                                           &                      0                          0.25 miles
                                               OO
                                                    <><>
                                                           O
                                                           000

                                                               <><>
                                                                 2
                                                                      $&




                                                                                                              ‘Map 5.2.2.2


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                 Site 1 Uplink Voice Quality
                €#Acceptable              (17)
                Marginally Acceptable       (1)
                ©Unacceptable              (4)




Map 7.3.5.1


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
               Site 1 Uplink Average Rx (dBm)
                     4 —60   to   —45    (0)
                     4 —70   to   —860   (0)
                     4 —80   to   —70    (8)
                     © —90   to   —80    (7)
                     ©—102   to   —90    (7)




Map 7.3.5.2


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                 Site 1 Uplink Average WER
                   ©0      to 0.05   (4)
                   ©0.05   to 0.1    (6)
                   ©0.1    to 1      (9)
                   61      to 3      (1)
                   ©3      to 16     (2)
Map 7.3.5.3


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                Site 1 Downlink Voice Quality
                ©Acceptable               (4)
                Marginally Acceptable    (15)
                ©Unacceptable             (0)




Map 7.3.5.4


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
              Site 1 Downlink Average Rx (dBm)

                     4 —60    to   —45   (5)
                     4% —70   to   —60   (3)
                     4@ —80   to   —70   (9)
                     C —90    to   —80   (2)
                     ©—102    to   —90   (0)




Map 7.3.5.5


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
               _ Site 1 Downlink Average WER
                    ©0      to    0.05 (0)
                    ©0.05   to    0.1   (2)
                    ©0.1    to    1    (10)
                    Q1      to    3     (7)
                    3       to   16     (0)




Map 7.3.5.6


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                 Site 3 Uplink Voice Quality
                ۩Acceptable              (30)
                Marginally Acceptable       (8)
                ©Unacceptable              (4)




Map 7.3.5.7


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
               Site 3 Uplink Average ARx (dBm)
                    4 —60   to   —45 (0)
                    4 —70   to   —60 (0)
                    4 —80   to   —70 (10)
                    & —90   to   —80 (15)
                    #—102   to   —90 (17)




Map 7.3.5.8


              TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                 Site 3 Uplink Average WER
                   4©0     to 0.05    (2)
                   ©0.05   to 0.1     (3)
                   ©0.1    to 1      (31)
                   01      to 3       (4)
                   ©3      to 16      (2)
Map 7.3.5.9


               TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                 Site 3 Downlink Voice Quality
                 ۩Acceptable             (19)
                 Marginally Acceptable    (17)
                 ©Unacceptable             (1)




Map 7.3.5.10


               TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
               Site 3 Downlink Average Rx (dBm)

                     ® —60   to   —45 (8)
                     4 —70   to   —60 (3)
                     % —80   to   —70 (20)
                     C —90   to   —80 (6)
                     ©—102   to   —90 (0)




Map 7.3.5.11


               TAG 3 Quasi—stationary Grid
                — Site 3 Downlink Average WER

                     ©0       to    0.05 (3)
                     ©0.05   to     0.1   (3)
                     ©0.1    to     1    (24)
                     ©1      to     3     (6)
                     @3      to    16     (1)




Map 7.3.5.12


              LZV _1 ___




Map 7.3.6.1




        W——l7
        J gim
    y    |
             &\
                  \x\ hob
                     |   O




              \
              > ‘
         *




         J
N




                  | _4
         4

s







Document Created: 2001-07-31 07:30:40
Document Modified: 2001-07-31 07:30:40

© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC