Cheytec Telecommunications Brings Better Indoor Coverage to the Enterprise using iBwave

Given our ever-growing need for data in today’s world of smart cities, smart buildings and the Internet of Things, the need for fast, reliable connectivity indoors has never been greater. Especially when it comes to the Enterprise.

Traditionally, wireless operators have been the main drivers for deploying indoor wireless networks to Enterprise venues and real estate properties. But with tenant and user demand out-pacing the carrier’s ability to -fund systems, building owners and Enterprise customers are now seeing the value of making capital investments in their properties and meet the demands of their network users.

Meet Cheytec Telecommunications, an iBwave customer whodelivers multi-operator turnkey in-buildng LTE solutions. Cheytec is helping to make an economic shift away from the carrier by expanding the addressable market to include building owners and enterprises. Cheytec does this by working with the wireless operators to bring their spectrum into buildings and leverage a highly developed partner network for both technology and service delivery. Capital investments in LTE coverage made by the building owner enables not just great indoor wireless service, but the opportunity for increased cash flows, higher valuations for property portfolios and new revenue sources. For wireless operators, the in-building system helps extend indoor coverage, densify networks, offer new services to current customers and gain net-new subscribers.

How has iBwave helped?

Designing a multi-carrier indoor wireless networks certainly comes with its fair share of challenges, especially when you are designing for multiple technologies – Small Cells, DAS, and Neutral Host D-RAN(C-RAN), and multiple different venue types.

Previously, Cheytec typically used iBwave to design sports stadiums and transportation hubs – but now they are focusing more on the Enterprise verticals, and with that comes different challenges to overcome. For example, the image on the right shows a heatmap generated in iBwave Design for a 4 story office building which Cheytec used to help select the right solution for this particular venue, accurately assess coverage and capacity requirements and estimate the cost of the entire system.

When using iBwave Design Enterprise, our multi-technology indoor wireless network planning and design platform, Cheytec’s engineers work more productively and can focus simultaneously on multiple projects. The result? Cheytec has reduced their network design process time by an estimated 30%.

Additionally, iBwave expedites the customer approval process significantly as customers recognize that they only use top quality tools and technologies within their designs – and that they have the ability to offer a wide range of in-building technology solutions with multiple design options.

These benefits also lead to reduced time spent on project coordination internally. Because of the speed and flexibility of iBwave Design, it allows Cheytec to accomodate design changes without necessarily altering the project timeline.

“By using iBwave we shorten our response time in terms of delivering a proposal enabling our team to close more deals and generate more revenue.”

José Sangiuliano – Chief Technology Officer, Cheytec Telecommunications

Cheytec’s Favorite iBwave Features

When asked what their favorite features are in iBwave Design, here is what Cheytec said (and why):

Automation of Design Enterprise Networks

With the powerful and intelligent design automation that iBwave provides, design errors are reduced and the time to produce and change designs is accelerated – iBwave also provides them with an efficient way to provide alternative design options for comparative purposes.

3D Predictive Modeling

3D predictive modeling has also been very helpful to Cheytecby providing their customers with a powerful way to visually show the benefits of the proposed solutions and the network performance prediction results, similar to the image on the right showing the 3D model for 40+ story hotel DAS project.

Design and Simulation of Most Cost-Efficient Designs

Also, with the capability to design the entire network using the iBwave database of over 25,000 network components for all wireless technologies, Cheytec is always able to generate a full BOM with Cost Details. This means always being sure they are simulating the most cost-efficient designs, and that their customers have the best design possible for their specific building.

Cheytec’s mission is to deploy the right solution into the right building every time. Using iBwavehas helped them to achieve this consistently.

Conclusion

iBwave has been a key partner for Cheytec by providing a powerful, flexible and comprehensive software solution to provide Enterprise customers and property owners with turnkey LTE solutions that drive value.

Thanks for being such a great customer Cheytec Telecommunications!

Are you an iBwave customer that wants to be featured in our Customer Spotlight series? Send us an email at marketing@ibwave.com

Modeling with Incline Surfaces vs. Modeling Without: What’s the Impact?

One of the key benefits that set us apart from cellular & Wi-Fi network planning and design software is the ability to model incline surfaces. But why is this such a benefit? In this blog, I take a look at the value of being able to model incline surfaces by diving into a mini-case study of a subway tunnel Wi-Fi network design showing the prediction results of a subway station using just a flat model, versus the prediction of the same subway using a model with incline surfaces. In it, you will see what a difference incline surfaces can make—both in performance and in cost.

The Flat Model Approach

In the following model of the subway station, the modeling has been done with no incline – everything is modeled flat. The area we will focus on to see the difference will be the area circled red in the image, which is the staircase that leads up from the subway platform to the main level of the station.

Now let’s look at that same flat staircase area after running the signal strength heat map to see what the simulated Wi-Fi signal strength is:

Expected Signal Strength for the staircase area is mostly around -65 dBm – pretty decent.

So in this case, when the designer looks at the predicted performance of the network they could conclude that the network meets network performance expectations and the design is complete. And when the customer reviews the design with the prediction, they will see performance should meet their set KPI’s and sign off on the design.

But let’s take a look at what happens when this same subway station and staircase area is modeled accurately to real life with an incline surface.

The Same Venue with Inclined Surfaces

As can see in the below heat map, when you accurately model the staircase with an incline surface, a real difference in network performance prediction results. In fact, a difference of about 35 dBm.

Expected Signal Strength for the incline staircase area is mostly around -100 dBm (pretty bad).

As you can imagine, the troubleshooting and re-design work that will result from having such a difference in the simulated network performance and the go-live network performance will be significant. So let’s look at a few of the ways this performance difference will now impact you and the project.

How does not using incline surfaces put you at risk?

Performance
Costs
Customer Trust

Performance

From looking at the prediction results in the subway station example, this one is pretty obvious. There is a very clear difference in performance when you design with a flat model versus an incline model. In this case, there was a difference of about 35 dBm for signal strength. Which means when the design done using the flat model is installed in the real subway tunnel where incline surfaces exist, there will be a serious performance issue once the network ‘goes live’. Which brings me to my next point – the increase in costs that can result when a venue does not include correctly modeled incline surfaces.

Costs

Where there is poor performance post-installation, there is troubleshooting—and where there is troubleshooting, there can be large costs associated with it. Fact is, when an installed network does not perform as predicted during the design, significant costs can result. Costs to troubleshoot the issues, costs to re-visit the site, costs to re-design the network, and then costs to implement the required changes to the network. It also costs in terms of time—the fewer issues there are to troubleshoot post-installation, the less time you will spend on that design and the quicker you can move onto the next. The quicker you can move on, the quicker you can grow your pipeline and revenues.

Customer Trust

And last but certainly not least, there can be an impact on customer trust when a network does not perform as was presented to them during the design and approval stages of the project. For venue owners, the more troubleshooting, additional site visits, additional time spent testing and re-designing, all translates to inconvenience for their customers and costs for them.

iBwave Venue Model Examples with Incline Surfaces

And now, just for fun, I include a short video to show off some of the impressive 3D models done in iBwave that take advantage of incline surfaces

What has been your experience in using iBwave to design incline surfaces? Do you notice a difference?

Wirelessly yours,

Kelly

How Poor Modeling Can Impact RF Performance and Cost

Intro

In May 2017 we went on a whirl wind of a User Group tour that took us to three different cities across the United States: New York, Dallas, and Newport Beach. In each user group we always like to hear from our users – what they are up to, the challenges they see out there in the field, and of course to share any stories and insights they have from all of that.

One such presentation done at the Newport Beach user group was done by Shane Rubin, Vice President – National Wireless services at Communication Technology Services (CTS). CTS has been a long-time customer of iBwave’s; in fact, they were one of our first customers about 14 years ago (thanks for sticking with us!). With the presence throughout the United States, CTS provides turnkey mobility design and deployment solutions across the entire wireless gamut: Indoor DAS, Outdoor DAS, Small Cells, Public Safety, and WiFi. They have a lot of experience, and thankfully for us, a lot of insights to share with us and the rest of the wireless community.

Shane’s presentation was entitled ‘iBwave Accuracy: The Impact on RF Performance and Cost’. And this was such a compelling presentation because it really showed how what can be perceived as small modeling errors done at the beginning of a project can lead to very large costs at the end of the project – both in terms of RF performance, and in terms of revenue and troubleshooting costs.

In Shane’s presentation he really hit the nail on the head when he started out by saying “accuracy starts with the proper foundation”, a sentiment I have heard many different times in talking to those in the industry and a sentiment we integrate into the best practices we teach around in-building wireless design in our iBwave certification program.

Without a good model to base your wireless network design on, the performance and cost of your project become significantly more at risk. That can come in the form of additional technical trips that need to be done to the site, the increased costs during implementation, delays in the project timeline, and of course the cost that comes when users of the network are not getting the experience they expect.

It’s for this reason so many of our customers take advantage of the advanced 3D Modeling capabilities in our iBwave Wi-Fi and Cellular network design software and take their time during the initial phase of the project to get the modeling absolutely right. To give you an idea of the level our customers are going with their modeling in order to ensure design accuracy, here are a few really impressive models from the CTS design team that Shane shared during his user group presentation.

So what are some modeling issues that can lead to poor RF performance and increased costs?

In Shane’s presentation he highlighted the following:

Scale
Body Loss and Fade
Power Sharing
Wall Types

And while each of these design factors can impact the performance of a network, in this post I’m going to focus on the two factors we hear most about in the field: scale and wall types.

Scale

One of the first things you do on any project is set the scale of the floor plan. Easy enough right? The problem is, even being off by just a little bit when setting the scale can cause large design issues and expenses later on in the project.

As you can see in the following image, Shane used the example of setting the scale of a door incorrectly by at 0.44 FT: 3.00 FT (incorrect) vs. 3.44 (correct).

The result of this? At an overall scale level, the difference became 160,500 SF space (correct) vs. 122,000 SF space.

What was the impact of this difference?

To get a better idea of the impact, let’s first take a look at the design of the network Shane and his team completed under both conditions: 160,000 SF scale and 122,000 SF scale.

A) CORRECT SCALE: 160,600 SF DESIGN

Looking at this heat map, you can see that with the scale correctly set at 160,500 SF the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and 25 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI

B) INCORRECT SCALE: 122,000 SF DESIGN

Looking at this heat map, you can see that with the scale incorrectly set at 122,000 SF the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and only 18 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI

Why does this matter? Because while you are likely to please the customer with a lower design cost (18 antennas vs. 25), once the network is actually implemented in the 160,500 SF space, it will not perform as predicted – in other words, you will not really meet the required KPI, which will result in a not-so-happy customer anymore, and significant troubleshooting and re-design costs.

To make this point even clearer, Shane and the CTS team showed how the network design done with the scale of 122,000 SF would perform in reality with the 160,500 SF of space:

As you can see, when the network that was designed incorrectly for the 122,000 SF space is implemented in the real space of 160,000 SF with only 18 antennas, the performance fails to meet the KPI – and results in an 8% in additional costs. Interesting to see how being off by just 0.44FT when setting the scale can lead to such large performance and cost impacts later on in the project cycle.

Wall Types

If you currently use iBwave Design or iBwave Wi-Fi or have had a chance to try out a free trial, then you know that we have a very large database of materials available to use when designing. To be specific, we currently have over 70 default wall types in iBwave Design and iBwave Wi-Fi (plus you can always add your own custom wall types yourself by editing the database). And the reason is, we know the value of using the right wall materials when designing – and the impact that can happen when the right materials are not used. But what happens when the right wall type is not selected?

This was also a key topic that Shane from CTS talked about in his presentation at the user group – just how critical it can be to model using the right wall material.

To expand on this further, I’m going to use the example Shane used in his presentation.

In this example, we’ll take a look at two similar wall types – Dry Wall vs. Sheet Rock – Light – and the impact that wall materials can have on the network performance and project costs.

Example signal loss config for Drywall (2.4 GHz band)

Example signal loss config for Sheetrock-Light (2.4GHz band)

WALL TYPE: DRYWALL

Looking at this heat map, you can see that when Drywall was correctly set as the wall type, the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and 25 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI.

Looking at this heat map, you can see that when Sheet Rock-Light was set as the wall type, the design requires only 12 Antennas achieves a 95.5% KPI

So again, in this case – clearly the customer would be more inclined to go with the design that only requires the antennas. But, if that is not really the actual wall type – the network will not perform as predicted, and additional equipment, time and troubleshooting costs will be accumulated post-implementation.

To give you an idea of how the ‘Sheetrock – Light’ design would perform in reality with Drywall – take a look at this heat map:

As you can see, with the incorrect material, and the incorrect signal loss assigned to those materials, then the actual performance of the network is significantly at risk – in this case the KPI is reduced to just 30.5%, and the potential costs of the project can significantly increase from what was originally told to the customer – in this example, it would have been 81%

In Conclusion

Interesting to see how little inaccuracies in the design phase of a project can have such large impacts later on in the project. It is the very reason that CTS is so accurate and meticulous when they undertake the modeling phase of the design – and the reason they have so much success with their customers.

Thank you to Shane and all of CTS for presenting at our user group and sharing your valuable insights from the field with us!

What is your experience with modeling mistakes and their impact on performance and costs? Comment below to let us know.

Wirelessly yours,

Kelly

Interested in being featured on our blog? Send me an email at kelly.burroughs@ibwave.com