Bukti Publikasi Jurnal
Bukti Publikasi Jurnal
Bukti Publikasi Jurnal
1. INTRODUCTION
Distribution of reliable BTS networks with high system capacity, especially in new areas, pose challenges
for Mobile Network Operator (MNO) in procuring devices and installations for upgrading or establishing new
towers [1][5]. To overcome this, some MNOs need to prepare strategy, one of which is network sharing. Network
sharing model between MNOs becomes an alternative to developing telecommunications companies in various
countries because it allows sharing of spectrum and BTS in the same working scheme. Network sharing can be a
solution to expedite network deployment, especially in rural or remote areas [2]. One of the five network sharing
models is Multiple Operator Core Network (MOCN). MOCN is a collaborative telecommunications network
architecture proposed by multiple MNOs to integrate or utilize network resources together. MOCN is vital in the
mobile telecommunications industry, especially in the context of network virtualization and technology. It can
help MNOs reduce investment costs in network infrastructure while maintaining high-quality services. The basic
idea behind MOCN arrangement is that one Radio Access Network (eNodeB) will provide network access to
multiple MNOs, where each MNO maintains its core network. MNOs can also combine their frequencies to
increase capacity. The integration of MOCN will extend network coverage and enhance capacity, resulting in
better network quality for users [3][6]. In line of this, the author seizes the opportunity of this MOCN as the
research topic for the final project. The author focuses on the analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for
the BTS MOCN network (pair colocation) and the standalone BTS network (not- pair), comparing their KPI
performances to determine whether using the BTS MOCN network or BTS not-pair network yields better results.
The objective of this study is to obtain technical findings regarding the reliability of BTS MOCN compared to
BTS not-pair networks.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The network sharing model is where operators or MNOs (Mobile Network Operators), as service providers,
share the utilization of telecommunications network infrastructure, encompassing passive infrastructure (passive
sharing) and active infrastructure (active sharing), both on the radio access network side and on the core network
side[9][14][15].
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 2
(a) (b)
3. METHOD
3.1. Equipment
In this research, in general, the following tools are needed:
Table 1. List of Equipment
No Equipment Amount
1 Laptop 1 pcs
2 LAN cable 1 pcs
3 Site 4 site
Sample
3.2. Research Samples
The research was conducted by collecting network KPI data from 4 (four) sample sites according to the
research scenario. These sites include LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL located on Danau Sentarum Street with
MOCN configuration where IM3 serves as the Master Operator, LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL situated on
Wonobaru 1 alley with MOCN configuration where 3ID acts as the Master Operator, IM3
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP on Diponegoro Street with a non-pair configuration, and 3ID
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 3
LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL on Putri Candramidi Street with a non-pair configuration. These four sites are used
as scenarios for collecting KPI (Key Performance Indicator) data in this research, as depicted in Figure 2.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 4
Transceiver Station) data, theories, regulations, and the development of Multi-Operator Core Network
implementation at PT. Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison.
b. Study Literature
Study literature was conducted to find supporting theories about Multi-Operator Core Network and to study
secondary data about the existing BTS of PT. Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison in the Pontianak area, as well as
4G network KPI parameters.
c. Selection of Sites According to Research Scenarios
This research selected 4 (four) sample sites in Pontianak city according to the research scenarios. These sites
include sites with MOCN configuration where IM3 serves as the Master Operator, sites with MOCN
configuration where 3ID serves as the Master Operator, IM3 sites with non-pair configuration, and 3ID sites
with non-pair configuration. The selection of these four sites for KPI Network data collection in this study
was based on the master operation of the BTS and the similarity of technology used on the BTS
(L900/L1800/L2100).
d. Data Collection
In this stage, the author conducted direct data collection at the Base Station Controller (BSC) owned by PT.
Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison Pontianak. During data collection, the researcher obtained Primary data in the
form of KPI Network data from the four sample sites according to the research scenarios in the Pontianak
city area, with BTS MOCN and BTS not pair configurations. KPI network measurement data was recorded
every 60 minutes (1 hour) on the EPC (Evolved Packet Core) server but only stored for 14 days, so multiple
data collection efforts were needed to obtain data for a total of 28 days.
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 5
99,90
99,80
99,70
99,60
10.00 13.00 14.00 17.00 19.00 21.00 22.00
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 6
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 7
0.0002%, BTS not pair 3ID at 0.0004%, BTS MOCN IM3 at 0.0017%, and BTS not pair IM3 at 0.0020%. This
indicates that the 3ID-managed BTS still outperforms the IM3-managed BTS in terms of Drop Call Rate.
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
Downlink Throughput
20000000
10000000
0
10:00 13:00 14:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 22:00
Downlink Throughput
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
Uplink Throughput
4000000
2000000
0
10:00 13:00 14:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 22:00
Uplink Throughput
LTE_DANAU_SENTARUM_PL LTE_KOTA_BARU_PTK_PL
LTE_SANTIKA_PONTIANAK_EP LTE_ABDUL_RAHMAN_PL
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)
Journal of Electrical Engineering, Energy, and Information Technology (J3EIT) 8
5. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis results of the network KPIs that have been carried out, the following conclusions are
obtained 1) BTS MOCN is better than BTS not-pair in terms of Service Integrity KPI (Downlink and Uplink
Throughput). In terms of Accessability KPI and Retainability KPI, BTS managed by 3ID is still better than BTS
managed by IM3. 2) The success of network KPIs in 4G LTE is not only based on Accessibility KPIs (S1 Signaling,
RRC Setup, ERAB Setup, CSSR, CSFB), Retainability KPI (DCR), and Service Integrity KPI (Downlink and
Uplink Throughput), but also includes Availability KPI (4G Coverage) and Mobility KPI (Handover).3) The
values of these network KPI parameters are heavily influenced by the user traffic and busy hour based on the
highest Data Traffic and Physical Resource Blocks. The more users accessing the eNodeB, the signal reception
and data service quality (downlink and uplink) may also decrease network KPI parameters due to the concept of
shared spectrum allocation. The values of these network KPI parameters can also be affected by factors such as
inadequate infrastructure configuration settings and environmental factors like bad weather or surrounding
building structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanked the chairman and academic civitas of the Faculty of Engineering University of
Tanjungpura and all the parties involved in the preparation of this journal. May the results of this research be of
benefit to both the author and the reader.
REFERENCES
[1] Ericsson. 2020. Dedicated Networks for Industrial Connectivity. Stockholm: Ericsson Mobility Report.
[2] Tim Peneliti Pustlitbang SDPPI. 2018. Analisis Industri Telekomunikasi Indonesia Untuk Mendukung
Efisiensi. Naskah Publikasi. Jakarta: Puslitbang SDPPI Kemkominfo.
[3] GSMA. 2019, June 18. Infrastructure Sharing: An Overview. May 15, 2023.
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/infrastructure-sharing-an-overview/
[4] 3GPP. 2014, December. 3GPP TS 32.130 V12.0.0 (2014-12) Technical Specification. Release 121T.
Valbonne: 3GPP Organizational Partners.
[5] APJII. 2023. Survei Penetrasi & Perilaku Internet 2023. https://survei.apjii.or.id/survei/2023
[6] C, Mawardi. 2019. Analisa Regulasi Network Sharing Berbasis Multi Operator Core Network (MOCN).
InComTech: Jurnal Telekomunikasi dan Komputer, Vol 9 (3), 141-150.
[7] Cox, Christopher. 2014. An Introduction To LTE. Second Edition. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[8] GSMA. 2012, September. Mobile Infrastructure Sharing. May 16, 2023.
https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Mobile-Infrastrusture-sharing.pdf
[9] Imansyah, Fitri. 2019. Buku Ajar Mata Kuliah Teknologi GSM (Global System for Mobile). Pontianak:
Penerbit Pustaka Rumah Aloy.
[10] Johari, J., Imansyah, F., & F. Trias P. W. (2018). Analisis Komparatif Konfigurasi 4g Menggunakan Metode
Radio Frekuensi Sharing Dan Stand Alone. Jurnal Teknik Elektro Universitas Tanjungpura. Jurnal Teknik
Elektro Universitas Tanjungpura, 1(1)
[11] Khotimah, K., Imansyah, F., & F. Trias P. W. (2017). Analisis Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Jaringan
Telekomunikasi Gsm Pada PT. Hutchison 3 Indonesia (H3I) Pontianak.
[12] Y. Türk & E. Zeydan. 2021. On Performance Analysis of Multioperator RAN Sharing for Mobile Network
Operators. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences 29(2):816-830
[13] Yanto. (2013). QoS (Quality Of Service) Analysis on Internet Networks (Case Study: Faculty of
Engineering, University of Tanjungpura). Pontianak Untan Electrical Engineering Journal.
[14] Neilcy Tjahjamooniarsih, Fitri Imansyah, Dasril. (2018). Textbook of Basic Telecommunications Subjects.
Pontianak: Aloy House Library (PRA).
[15] ITU-T. 2022, March 16. Recommendation ITU-T F.743.15 Requirements for Multi-Operator Core Network
Enabled Multimedia Services.
Network KPI Analysis in Network Sharing Technology Configuration Based on Multi-Operator Core Network
(MOCN)(Andreas Gunawan Widiantoro)