Question: What’s a good way to avoid disappointment?
Answer: Lower your expectations.
No, this is not a blog post offering dating advice. But I do
want to talk about how wireless operators, who have moved to remote radio unit
(RRU) architectures on their cell towers, need to change their expectations
about return loss.
In this case, you don’t need to lower your expectations but
A system return loss test measures multiple devices within a
wireless network simultaneously. With the deployment of RRUs—which move some radio
functions to the tower top—the amount of insertion loss that used to be present
in older style networks is gone. That’s a good thing, of course—it means less
signal power loss and better power efficiency for the network. But it is
throwing off the standards by which return loss used to be measured. The test
limit that used to account for loss between the radio and
the antenna does not work for these RRU architectures. A new standard for
measuring return loss needs to be put forward.
That’s exactly what I’m doing. To help clarify what your new
expectations for return loss should be in an RRU (also known as remote radio
head or RRH) architecture, I just authored a white paper titled “ReturnLoss Comparisons: Ground Base System vs. Short Remote Radio Head Jumper.”
It’s a four-page document that should contain most of what you need to know
about RRU return loss measurement expectations.
Take a look at the white paper if you are involved in return
loss measurements at cell sites. It will tell you what to expect when measuring
RRU architectures. If you still have questions, feel free to post a comment