COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF QUALITY OF SERVICE OF GSM NETWORKS IN NIGERIA: CASE OF IKORODU AND BADAGRY
The problem of poor quality of services as well as congestion in channels includes call setup failure, call retention/call drop and traffic congestion. In this study, the quality of services (QOS) of some selected operators of global system for mobile communications (GSM) networks in Ikorodu and Badagry network regions of Nigeria were investigated for six months. A benchmarking drive test method was employed in the collection of call data which included accessibility, retainability, mobility, coverage reliability, and coverage quality and call completion rate. Erlang and poison probability distribution models of call blocking rate and congestion control respectively were employed in the analyses to determine the probability of calls blocked and profound a solution to traffic congestion. The study of quality of services and a set of dimensions for comparative evaluations were analysed and compared with NCC targets. During Ikorodu region test, a total of 90 calls were made with operator A in which 69 were established and 21 were blocked, 90 calls were made with operator B, 49 established 41 blocked, a total of 88 calls were made with operator C in which 62 established and 26 blocked, 90 calls were made with operator D, 89 established and 6 blocked. At Badagry region a total of 274 calls were made with operator A in which 255 were established and 19 were blocked, 274 calls were made with operator B, 212 established 62 blocked, a total of 274 calls were made with operator C in which 191 established and 83 blocked, 274 calls were made with operator D, 205 established and 69 blocked. All calls event were recorded by the TEMS software, Molina lost calls held trunking formula (poison formulas) were established to compare and confirm these calls value. Generally the quality of services of the operators met up to NCC targets as well as that of the Molina lost call formulas in some KPI while some performs below the expected NCC targets, The overall ranking of operator’s KPI revealed that operator C, operator D, operator B and operator A performed in every category of the key performance index (KPI) in that order.