EXHIBIT D

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 16
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #57 R2-070476 

12 - 16 February 2007 

St Louis, Missouri, USA 

Agenda item: 11.8 

Source: Nokia 

Title: Uplink Scheduling for VoIP 

Document for: Discussion and Decision 

1 Introduction 

Some scheduling alternatives for UL VoIP are described and discussed. 

2 Scheduling schemes for UL VoIP 

2.1 Dynamic scheduling of UL VoIP 

Since LTE is a packet radio system where normally each packet is scheduled by L1/L2 control signalling, it is natural to 

apply this dynamic scheduling also for VoIP packets as much as possible. Dynamic scheduling of each VoIP 

packet/transmission is naturally most flexible from the scheduling and UL resource usage point of view but also 

requires most signalling. The fully dynamic scheduling means that the UE sends a resource request in UL for every 

VoIP packet (UE could tell even the VoIP packet size), Node B allocates UL resource for every VoIP packet separately 

and for every retransmission separately. With dynamic scheduling VoIP users can benefit from time/frequency selective 

scheduling and unused resources due to silent periods as well as due to early termination of HARQ can be easily 

reallocated to other VoIP users, especially if adaptive HARQ is used (retransmissions can be allocated on different 

RUs). 

Figure 1: Dynamic scheduling of UL VoIP 

The amount of downlink signalling can be reduced by not scheduling the retransmissions but instead using the same (or 

other predefined) resource for retransmissions, however, ACK/NAK signalling is needed anyway. If only the first 

transmissions are scheduled, then HARQ has to be synchronous and non-adaptive. The disadvantage is that the 

scheduling flexibility of the retransmissions is lost and that results into ‘holes’ in the time/frequency space when some 

retransmission resources are unused and others cannot be reallocated. 

The amount of uplink signalling can be reduced by sending the resource request only at the beginning of the talk spurt. 

The Node B then allocates the uplink resource dynamically about every 20 ms. Similarly, during the silent periods 

(which the UE indicates explicitly or implicitly), the allocation is given every 160 ms. 

Pros: 

 Flexible scheduling of VoIP and other users, especially if all the transmissions scheduled dynamically 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 16
 Scheduling freedom, no predetermined split in resources between VoIP users and other users 

 Frequency and time selective scheduling possible (may require more channel sounding pilot signalling) 

 Fast and slow link adaptation possible 

 Asynchronous HARQ is possible and retransmission resources can be allocated freely to VoIP or non-VoIP 

users 

 uplink resource request only at the beginning of the talk spurt saves uplink resources 

Cons: 

 Amount of L1/L2 signalling required 

 With synchronous non-adaptive HARQ retransmission resources difficult to allocate to other users 

 Allocation of the TB size has to be done for the maximum VoIP packet size, i.e., there is padding (with SID 

frame unto 30 bytes) 

2.2 Persistent allocation of VoIP 

Some sort of persistent allocation for VoIP users has been proposed by many companies. The main driving force is to 

reduce the amount of L1/L2 control signalling or even get rid of it completely and signal the allocation instead by using 

RRC signalling. 

A fully persistent allocation would mean a CS like allocation for VoIP. RRC signalling would be used to allocate a 

time/frequency resource (localized or distributed) as well as a fixed modulation scheme to a VoIP user. The allocation 

should also include resources required for HARQ retransmissions. The allocation could even be so persistent that 

HARQ ACK/NAKs are not sent but instead each packet is sent a fixed number of times (as proposed in [1]), thus 

resulting in a fixed FEC scheme instead of an adaptive HARQ scheme. 

Figure 2: Persistent allocation of UL VoIP 

Pros: 

 Reduced signalling overhead (no L1/L2 allocation signalling in DL, only ACK/NAKs) 

 simple 

Cons: 

 Wasted resources 

o Unused HARQ retransmission resources not used for other users 

o Unused resources during voice silent periods not allocated to others 

 A DTX detector needed at Node B, otherwise Node B tries to decode and combine the transmissions in preallocated resources, even when nothing is sent 

 Persistent allocation of the TB size has to be done for the maximum VoIP packet size, i.e., there is padding 

(with SID frame unto 30 bytes padding) 

 Max VoIP (and system) capacity limited since unused resources cannot be allocated to other users 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 16
 Requires non-adaptive HARQ 

2.3 Semi-persistent scheduling of UL VoIP 

Since VoIP users are on average half of the time silent, a significant amount of VoIP capacity is wasted if the silence 

periods are not reallocated to other VoIP users. Therefore, even the persistent allocations should be such that silence 

periods can be reallocated to other VoIP users. This is possible if the persistent allocation is done separately for each 

talk spurt. When a talk spurt starts, the UE should send a resource request, then the radio resource is allocated to the UE 

and when the talk spurt ends, the resource is released (explicitly with release signalling or implicitly by noticing that no 

more data is coming). Thus the released resource can be allocated to some other VoIP user. 

SID frames could be allocated dynamically (thus requiring RR for each SID) or another persistent allocation could be 

given for them. 

At the beginning of the talk spurt (UE RLC/MAC notices that there is full rate speech packet coming) UE should send 

an uplink resource request (RR) to the Node B. The RR can be sent either on synchronous RACH, on CQI channel or 

on a dedicated RR channel. 

At the beginning of a talk spurt the UE is allocated a semi-persistent time/frequency resource where the UE can send 

the initial transmissions without receiving UL allocation via the L1/L2 control channel. The semi-persistent allocation is 

sent either on L1/L2 control channel, in a MAC control PDU or as an RRC message. All the retransmissions are 

allocated dynamically using the L1/L2 control channel (NAK is always followed by an UL allocation). The UE 

monitors the L1/L2 control channel in all or in preconfigured TTIs (DRX). If no valid UL allocation is given to the UE, 

the UE is allowed to send an initial data transmission using the pre-assigned resource (using pre-assigned transport 

format). Since the retransmissions are always scheduled, this scheme allows using adaptive HARQ: the retransmissions 

can be freely allocated on any free resources, e.g., on those remaining unused by silent users. 

Figure 3: Semi-persistent allocation of UL VoIP 

Semi-persistent allocation of UL VoIP is illustrated in Figure 3. 

The persistent allocation methods typically assume synchronous non-adaptive HARQ scheme and do not allow 

reallocation of unused HARQ retransmission resources to other VoIP users. By increasing L1/L2 signalling somewhat, 

also the HARQ resources can be reallocated. This allows using adaptive HARQ for VoIP, too. 

Pros: 

 Slow talk spurt based link adaptation possible, even some frequency selective scheduling possible for slowly 

moving users 

 Resources during silent periods released and can be reallocated to other (persistent) VoIP users, even a 

frequency hopping allocation can easily been reallocated 

 Reduced DL L1/L2 control signalling only at the beginning of the talk spurt, SID frames may be scheduled 

dynamically or persistently 

 Resource request (RR) signalling only at the beginning of the talk spurt (and for SID frames?) 

 Allows using adaptive HARQ 

 If the BLER target of the first transmission is in the order of 10-20%, only 10-20% of the transmissions require 

L1/L2 control signalling. 

 Allows reallocating the unused HARQ resources to other VoIP users 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 16
Cons: 

 Some capacity loss due to semi-persistent allocation of the initial transmission 

 Persistent allocation of the TB size has to be done for the maximum VoIP packet size, i.e., some padding is 

needed (with SID frame unto 30 bytes padding unless RR can tell that a SID frame is in the buffer) 

2.4 Discussion 

Due to the benefits of dynamic scheduling we propose to use it as much as possible for VoIP. The scheduler can always 

start with dynamic scheduling. When VoIP signalling load increases, part of the VoIP users can be given a semipersistent allocation for the initial transmissions. The retransmissions would still be scheduled for all users. 

3 Simulation results 

In this section a summary of the initial simulation results for the described schemes are presented. Simulation 

assumptions and further details of the results are presented in Annex A. 

Table 1 summarises the VoIP capacity results for 7.95 kbps AMR codec in Case 4 and Case 1 [2] with 1.25 MHz 

bandwidth. The VoIP capacity for 12.2 kbps AMR codec with 1.25 MHz bandwidth is summarised in Table 2. The 

dynamic allocation is based on a DL control channel limitations of 3 users scheduled per TTI. Persistent allocation for 

both initial and retransmissions gives only about half the capacity provided by dynamic or semi-persistent allocation. It 

should be noted that in the simulated persistent allocation scheme resources are released during silent periods. 

Table 1: VoIP capacity (users/sector), 7.95 kbps AMR codec, 1.25 MHz 

 Case 4, without SID Case 4, with SID Case 1, with SID 

Dynamic allocation 93 86 78 

Semi-persistent with 

sync adaptive HARQ 89 82 77 

Persistent 

sync non-adaptive HARQ (1 retrans) 44 - - 

Table 2: VoIP capacity (users/sector), 12.2 kbps AMR codec, 1.25 MHz 

 Case 4, with SID Case 1, with SID 

Dynamic allocation 73 65 

Semi-persistent with sync adaptive HARQ 71 63 

The VoIP capacity for 12.2 kbps AMR codec on 5 MHz carrier bandwidth is shown in Table 3. The capacity of 

dynamic allocation depends on the number of allowed control channels per TTI. Around 6-7 UEs can be scheduled per 

TTI if the DL control channel uses n=3 OFDM symbols. To be able to schedule 10 UEs per TTI n should be increased 

to 4 or 5. 

Table 3 VoIP capacity (users/sector), 12.2 kbps AMR codec, Case 1, 5 MHz 

 Case 1, with SID 

Dynamic allocation (7 UEs/TTI) 197 

Dynamic allocation (10 UEs/TTI) 240 

Semi-persistent with synchronous adaptive HARQ (10 

UEs/TTI) 

236 

In all cases, rhe baseline provides the largest capacity, but without the drawback related to a semi-persistent kind of 

allocation [3]. 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 16
4 Conclusions 

In this contribution, different scheduling approaches for UL VoIP were described, discussed and compared through 

system level simulations. As shown for the DL [3], the baseline together with a proper setting of the number of control 

symbols provides the largest VoIP capacity. The relation between the number of control symbols, number of scheduled 

users and maximum VoIP capacity should therefore be discussed together with RAN1. 

References 

[1] R2-062164, Uplink Resource Allocation Scheme, NTT DoCoMo 

[2] 3GPP TR 25.814 

[3] R2-070475, Downlink Scheduling for VoIP, Nokia 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 16
Annex A 

A1 Simulation Setup 

The deployment scenarios are listed in Table A1: Deployment Scenarios. 

Table A1: Deployment Scenarios 

Scenario CF 

(GHz) 

ISD 

(m) 

BW 

(MHz)

PLoss 

(dB) 

Speed 

(km/h) 

Propagation Model 

(R in Km) 

Case 1 2 500 1.25/5 20 3 L = 128.1 + 37.6 Log10R 

Case 4 0.9 1000 1.25 10 3 L = 120.9 + 37.6 Log10R 

The overall system configuration is shown in Table A2: System simulation parameters. 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 16
Table A2: System simulation parameters 

Parameter Configuration 

Layout Hexagonal grid, 19 cell sites, 3 sectors per site 

Antenna pattern 70 deg (-3 dB) with 20 dB front-to-back ratio 

Standard deviation of slow 

fading 8 dB 

Shadowing correlation 

between cells / sectors 0.5 / 1.0 

eNodeB/UE antenna gain 14 dBi / 0 dBi 

eNodeB receiver 2 antennas 

Thermal noise density -174 dBm/Hz 

Frequency re-use 1 

Channel model 6-ray Typical Urban 

Traffic model 

AMR 7.95 Kbps and 12.2 Kbps (50%-activity 2-state markov model 

with 3 second average talk-spurt duration); ROHC and other 

overhead added, then 

28 bytes per AMR 7.95 Kbps VoIP speech packet 

40 bytes per AMR 12.2 Kbps VoIP speech packet 

15 bytes per SID packet 

Max UE Tx Power 21 dBm 

Channel update per sub-frame (0.5 ms) 

TTI length 1 ms 

Control overhead per TTI 11 long blocks per TTI for data (21% overhead) 

HARQ 

Max. num of Txs = 4 

Num of HARQ processes = 3 

Synchronous or asynchronous 

The same MCS for retransmissions 

Chase combining, Ack/Nack errors = 0% 

Interference Control Semi-static IC 

Frequency band allocation 

and MCS 

Assignment of 2 resource units (180 kHz per RU) for transmission of 

one packet, then { 

QPSK(ECR=2.1493) for AMR 7.95 Kbps 

QPSK(ECR=1.5824) for AMR 12.2 Kbps 

QPSK(ECR=3.3488) for SID packet }; 

Or 3 RUs for transmission of one packet, then { 

QPSK(ECR= 3.2239) for AMR 7.95 Kbps 

QPSK(ECR= 2.0971) for AMR 12.2 Kbps 

QPSK (ECR= 5.5385) for SID packet } 

L2S AVI assuming practical FDE receiver and realistic channel estimation 

Evaluation method 5% outage based on users having < 98% of its speech frames 

delivered successfully within 40 ms (PER<2%) 

A2 Simulation Result 

From subsection A2.1 to A2.7, we study capacity in 1.25MHz bandwidth (total 6 RUs for data and no RU reserved for 

control) and 2 RUs for transmission of each packet; in A2.8, 5MHz BW is studied and 4 RUs of total 25 RUs are 

reserved for UL control signaling, the restriction of number of scheduled users per TTI is considered in A2.8 as well. 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 16
A2.1 Comparison of different HARQ operating points 

First, different HARQ operating points for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 under semi-persistent scheduling and synchronous 

HARQ are compared. SID packets are modeled and dynamically scheduled. Different BLERs are got by adjusting the 

transmission power of users. The capacity results and distribution of retransmissions for different HARQ operating 

points are shown in Figure A1 and Table A3, respectively. It’s clear that less retransmission implies better capacity. 

From Table 3, it can be seen that only about 10% packets need retransmission for the optimum case. So for semipersistent scheduling, it means only a small part of packets (about 10% in this condition) need DL allocation for 

retransmissions thus the DL control signaling is greatly reduced. Take 80 users and ~10% BLER for example, only 0.21 

average UL “grants” per TTI are needed for semi-persistent scheduling; however, under the same assumption, up to 

2.26 average UL “grants” per TTI are needed for dynamic scheduling, which is about 10 times more than semipersistent scheduling. 

Please note that the results in following sub-sections are all based on the optimum HARQ operating points. 

70 75 80 85 90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

~35% BLER

~20% BLER

~10% BLER

Figure A1 Capacity comparison of different HARQ operating points under semi-persistent scheduling 

Table A3 Distribution of HARQ retransmissions for different BLER 

 BLER 

points 

No. of 

UE/sector 

Pr[succeed 

after 1st trans] 

Pr[succeed 

after 2nd trans] 

Pr[succeed 

after 3rd trans] 

Pr[succeed 

after 4th trans] 

Pr[failed 

packets] 

~35% 70 0.6451 0.2687 0.0467 0.0079 0.0316 

80 0.6450 0.2211 0.0359 0.0057 0.0923 

90 0.6364 0.1408 0.0207 0.0029 0.1993 

~20% 70 0.8172 0.1640 0.0159 0.0016 0.0012 

80 0.7861 0.1744 0.0183 0.0019 0.0193 

90 0.7791 0.1382 0.0132 0.0012 0.0683 

~10% 70 0.9227 0.0728 0.0037 0.0004 0.0003 

80 0.9118 0.0816 0.0047 0.0006 0.0013 

90 0.8951 0.0841 0.0049 0.0005 0.0155 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 16
A2.2 UL VoIP capacity for persistent scheduling and 7.95Kbps AMR 

(without SID) 

In this subsection, the capacity results for persistent scheduling are presented in Figure A2 UL VoIP capacity for 

persistent scheduling and 7.95Kbps AMR (without SID). SID frames are not considered (There are no packets in DTX 

periods). It can be seen that about 41 and 44 users per sector can be supported at 95% outage threshold in Case 1 and 

Case 4, respectively. The reason of such low capacity is that most resources which are reserved for retransmissions (due 

to the characteristic of persistent scheduling) are wasted due to early HARQ termination. This can be regarded as the 

baseline capacity for UL VoIP. The persitent scheduling is no longer evaluated in the following subsections due to its 

proved poor performace. 

30 35 40 45 50

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

Case 1

Case 4

Figure A2 UL VoIP capacity for persistent scheduling and 7.95Kbps AMR (without SID) 

A2.3 UL VoIP capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (without SID) 

The capacity results for semi-persistent scheduling and dynamic scheduling without SID modeling are presented in 

Figure A3 UL VoIP Capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (without SID). It can be seen that about 90 users/sector can 

be supported, which is about 100% higher than pure persistemt scheduling due to more efficient resource use for 

retransmissions. Under light load (<=90 UE per sector), semi-persistent scheduling achieves almost the same 

performance as dynamic scheduling; under heavy load (100 UE per sector), performance of semi-persistent scheduling 

decrease sharply, this is because too many users are connected to eNodeB thus their initial transmissions occupy most 

resources and little resources are remained for retransmissions. The solution is to reserve some resources only for 

retransmissions but not for initial transmissions (control the number of admitted users per sector). From the figure, it 

shows that asynchronous HARQ achieves a bit greater capacity than synchronous HARQ due to more flexible 

retransmission in time at the cost of increased signalling. 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 16
80 85 90 95 100

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A3 UL VoIP Capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (without SID) 

A2.4 UL VoIP capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID) 

In this case, SID packets are modeled and dynamically scheduled. From Figure A4 UL VoIP Capacity for 7.95Kbps 

AMR in Case 4 (with SID), with SID packets modeled, 82-86 users per sector can be supported and there is a capacity 

reduction of nearly 10% compared to 89-94 users in Figure A2 where SID is not modeled. 

70 75 80 85 90

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A4 UL VoIP Capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID) 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 16
The delay distribution for different scheduling methods is shown in Figure A5 Delay CDF for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 

(with SID, 80 UE/sector). It assumes that eNodeB immediately knows it when UE has packets in buffer and when UE 

changes status (from active to DTX or from DTX to active). So the packets delay mainly includes two parts: the waiting 

delay until eNodeB finds free resource for UE due to system overloading and the transmission delay due to possible 

retransmissions. From the figure, dynamic scheduling gets better delay distribution than semi-persistent scheduling 

because retransmission has higher priority. Asynchronous HARQ gets better delay distribution than synchronous 

HARQ because retransmission is more flexible in time. 

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Delay/second

CDF

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A5 Delay CDF for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID, 80 UE/sector) 

A2.5 UL VoIP capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID) 

In this case, SID packets are modeled and dynamically scheduled. From Figure A6 UL VoIP Capacity for 12.2Kbps 

AMR in Case 4 (with SID), 70-73 12.2Kbps users per sector can be supported. There is a capacity reduction of about 

15% compared to 82-86 7.95Kbps users in Figure A3. The related delay distribution for different scheduling methods is 

shown in Figure A7 Delay CDF for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID, 80 UE/sector), which is worse than delay 

distribution for 7.95Kbps AMR (Figure A5). 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 16
60 65 70 75 80

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A6 UL VoIP Capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID) 

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Delay/second

CDF

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A7 Delay CDF for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 4 (with SID, 80 UE/sector) 

A2.6 UL VoIP capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID) 

In Case 1, for 7.95Kbps AMR and with SID modeling, about 78 users/sector can be supported (see Figure A8 UL VoIP 

Capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID)), so there is nearly 10% capacity reduction compared to 82-86 users 

in Case 4. The related delay distribution is shown in Figure A9 Delay CDF for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID, 80 

UE/sector), which is a little worse than delay distribution in Case 4 (Figure A5). 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 16
70 75 80 85 90

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A8 UL VoIP Capacity for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID) 

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Delay/second

CDF

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A9 Delay CDF for 7.95Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID, 80 UE/sector) 

A2.7 UL VoIP capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID) 

In Case 1, for 12.2Kbps AMR and with SID modeling, about 63 users per sector can be supported (see Figure A10), so 

there is nearly 20% capacity reduction compared to 78 users for 7.95Kbps AMR in Figure A8. 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 16
50 55 60 65 70

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A10 UL VoIP Capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID) 

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Delay/second

CDF

dynamic scheduling

semi-persistent + async HARQ

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A11 Delay CDF for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID, 60 UE/sector) 

A2.8 UL VoIP capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID, 5MHz BW) 

Herein, we study the VoIP capacity with control channel reservation and restriction of number of scheduled users per 

TTI in Case 1 and 5MHz BW. There are totally 25 RUs in 5MHz BW and 4 RUs are reserved for control channel, so 21 

RUs are left for data transmission. For dynamic scheduling, we simulate two cases: 1) we get the capacity without 

restriction of number of scheduled users per TTI. 2 RUs are for transmission of one packet, and then with 21 RUs for 

data, maximum 10 packets can be scheduled per TTI (1 RU wasted); 2) we get the capacity with restriction of 

maximum 7 scheduled users per TTI when considering of the DL allocation signaling overhead, and 3 RUs are for 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 16
transmission of one packet, and then with 21 RUs for data, just 7 packets can be scheduled per TTI. For semi-persistent 

scheduling, 2 RUs are for transmission of one packet and there’s no restriction of number of scheduled users per TTI 

due to its greatly reduced signaling compared with dynamic scheduling. 

The results are shown in Figure A12. With the restriction of number of scheduled users per TTI, dynamic scheduling 

can only support 196 users per sector; yet without any restriction of DL control signaling, up to 240 users can be 

supported for both dynamic scheduling and semi-persistent scheduling. However, no restriction of DL control signailing 

is unrealistic for dynamic scheduling. So semi-persistent scheduling seems to be very promising with high capacity and 

reasonable control overhead. 

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of users/sector

Pr[User with PER<2%]

dynamic + max 7 scheduled UE per TTI

dynamic + no restriction of scheduled UE per TTI

semi-persistent + sync HARQ

Figure A12 UL VoIP Capacity for 12.2Kbps AMR in Case 1 (with SID, 5MHz BW) 

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 16