A Channel Sharing Scheme for Cellular Mobile Communications.
This paper presents a channel sharing scheme, Neighbor Cell Channel Sharing (NCCS) , based on region partitioning of cell coverage for wireless cellular networks. Each cell is divided into an inner-cell region and an outer-cell region. Cochannel interference is suppressed by limiting the usage of sharing channels in the inner-cell region. The channel sharing scheme achieves a traffic-adaptive channel assignment and does not require any channel locking. Performance analysis shows that using the NCCS scheme leads to a lower call blocking probability and a better channel utilization as compared with other previously proposed channel assignment schemes.
Introduction
One of the major design objectives of wireless cellular communication systems is high network
capacity and flexibility, while taking into account time-varying teletraffic loads and radio link
quality. The limited radio frequency spectrum requires cellular systems to use efficient methods
to handle the increasing service demands and to adapt system resources to various teletraffic
(referred to as traffic) in different cells. Many current cellular systems use the conventional
radio channel management, fixed channel assignment (FCA), where a set of nominal channels
is permanently allocated to each cell for its exclusive use according to traffic load estimation,
cochannel and adjacent channel interference constraints [1]. Due to the mobility of users, the
traffic information is difficult to accurately predict in any case. As a result, the FCA scheme is
not frequency efficient in the sense that the channel assignment cannot adapt to the dynamically
changing distribution of mobile terminals in the coverage area. In order to overcome the deficiency
of FCA, various traffic-adaptive channel assignment schemes have been proposed, such as dynamic
channel assignment (DCA) [2]-[4] and hybrid channel assignment (HCA) [5]. In centralized DCA
schemes, all channels are grouped into a pool managed by a central controller. For each call
connection request, the associated base station will ask the controller for a channel. After a
call is completed, the channel is returned to the channel pool. In distributed DCA schemes,
a channel is either selected by the local base station of the cell where the call is initiated, or
selected autonomously by the mobile station. A channel is eligible for use in any cell provided
that signal interference constraints are satisfied. Since more than one channel may be available in
the channel pool to be assigned to a call when required, some strategy must be applied to select
the assigned channel. Although the DCA schemes can adapt channel assignment to dynamic
traffic loads, it can also significantly increase network complexity due to cochannel cell locking
and other channel management, because it is a call-by-call based assignment. In order to keep
both cochannel interference and adjacent channel interference under a certain threshold, cells
within the required minimum channel reuse distance from a cell that borrows a channel from the
central pool cannot use the same channel. DCA also requires fast real-time signal processing and
associated channel database updating. A compromise between the radio spectrum efficiency and
channel management complexity is HCA, which combines FCA with DCA. In HCA, all available
channels are divided into two groups, FCA group and DCA group, with an optimal ratio. It has
been shown that both DCA and HCA can achieve a better utilization of radio channel resources
than FCA in a light traffic load situation, due to the fact that both schemes can adapt to traffic
load dynamics. However, they may perform less satisfactorily than FCA in a heavy traffic load
situation due to the necessary channel locking [2]-[5]. Another approach to adaptive channel
assignment is channel borrowing, in which the channel resources are divided into borrowable and
non-borrowable channel groups [6]-[7]. The non-borrowable group is assigned to a cell in the same
way as FCA. When all of its fixed channels are occupied, a cell borrows channels from its neighbor
cells which have a light traffic load. More recently, a channel borrowing scheme called channel
borrowing without locking (CBWL) is proposed [8], where the C channels of each base station
are divided into seven distinct groups. The C 0 channels of group 0 are reserved for exclusive use
of the given cell. The (C of the other six groups can be borrowed by
the six adjacent cells respectively, one group by one adjacent cell. Each borrowing channel is
used with a limited power level. That is, the borrowed channel is directionally limited as well as
power limited. Therefore, the channel locking for cochannel cells is not necessary.
In this paper, we propose a channel sharing scheme based on a channel sharing pool strategy.
The scheme can adapt to traffic dynamics so that a higher network capacity can be achieved.
The method partitions cell coverage region to eliminate the cochannel interference due to the
dynamic channel sharing; therefore, it does not need any channel locking. In addition, because
the borrowable channels are a portion of total available channels and are shared only among
adjacent cells, the channel sharing management is relatively simple as compared with that of DCA
and HCA. Compared with the CBWL borrowing scheme, the advantage of the newly proposed
scheme is the relaxed constraint on directional borrowing, which results in a higher degree of
traffic adaptation and a lower call blocking probability. This paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, after studying the cochannel interference issue, we calculate the cochannel interference
spatial margin for cell region partitioning, and then propose the Neighbor Cell Channel Sharing
(NCCS) scheme for traffic adaptive channel assignment. The adjacent channel interference using
the NCCS scheme is also discussed. In Section 3, the call blocking probability using the NCCS
scheme is derived. Numerical analysis results are presented in Section 4, which demonstrate the
performance improvement of the NCCS over that of previously proposed schemes including FCA,
HCA, and CBWL. The conclusions of this work are given in Section 5.
2 The Neighbor Cell Channel Sharing (NCCS) Scheme
A. Cochannel Interference
A cellular network employs distance separation to suppress cochannel interference. Fig. 1 shows
the frequency reuse strategy for a cellular system with frequency reuse factor equal to 7, where
the shadowed cells are the cochannel cells of Cell (17) using the same frequency channels (as an
example). We assume that the received carrier-to-interference ratio (CIR) at a mobile station
(e.g., in Cell (17)) caused by the base stations in the cochannel cells is, on the average, the same
as the CIR at the base station of Cell (17) caused by the mobile stations in the cochannel cells.
The CIR can be calculated by [9]
R
(1)
where R is the radius of each cell, D i is the distant between the interested cell and its ith
cochannel cell, q and fl is a propagation path-loss slope determined by the actual
terrain environment (usually fl is assumed to be 4 for cellular radio systems). In a fully equipped
hexagonal cellular system, there are always six cochannel cells in the first tier. It can be shown
that the interference caused by cochannel cells in the second tier and all other higher-order tiers
is negligible as compared with that caused by the first tier cochannel cells [10]. As a result, if
we consider the cochannel interference only from the cells in the first tier,
in equation (1), where q is a constant.
In order to achieve a probability of at least 90% that any user can achieve satisfactory radio
link quality for voice service, it requires that the CIR value be or higher, which corresponds
to 4. If a channel of Cell (17) is lent to any of its six neighbor cells, then the
cochannel interference to and from any of the six cochannel cells in the first tier may increase.
For example, if a channel of Cell (17) is lent to Cell (24), the distances between cochannel cells
will be D
3:5R. The shortest one is 3R. The channel borrowing of Cell (24) from Cell (17)
reduces the CIR value of the channel in Cell (24) from dB to 16 dB, if R is kept unchanged.
A similar degradation on radio link quality also happens in Cell (38), where the CIR value is
reduced to 17.4 dB. The decrease of the CIR value is due to the decrease of the q i values.
B. Cell Region Partition
From the above discussion, we conclude that any reduction of the q i value due to a channel
borrowing will degrade the radio link quality, because a channel borrowing will result in a decrease
of some D i values. One way to keep the q i value unchanged even with channel borrowing is to
reduce the value of R accordingly when D i is reduced, which can be implemented by reducing the
transmission power. By reducing R to R r borrowed channel can be used
only inside the circle (called the inner-cell region) centered at the base station with radius equal
to R r in all cochannel cells. In other words, each cell is divided into two regions, the inner-cell
region and the rest (called the outer-cell region). For example, if Cell (24) borrows a channel
from Cell (17), with D should be 0.652 in order to ensure that q i - 4:6. Since
the overall CIR value will be greater than Correspondingly, all the C channels
of each base station are also divided into two groups: one consists of N nominal channels to be
used exclusively in the cell (in both the inner-cell and outer-cell regions), and the other consists
of the rest S (= sharing channels to be used in the inner-cell regions of the given cell and
its six neighbor cells. For each cell, there is a pool of sharing channels to be used in its inner-cell
region. The sharing pool consists of all the available sharing channels of the cell and the neighbor
cells.
C. The Proposed Channel Sharing Scheme
In the following, it is assumed that: i) all base stations work in the same condition: omnidirection
antennas are used, and transceivers are available at a given carrier frequency; ii) only cochannel
interference and adjacent channel interference are considered, and all other kinds of noise and
interferences are neglected; and iii) neighbor cells can communicate with each other. Without loss
of generality, Fig. 2 shows the flowchart of the channel assignment for a two-cell network, where
"CH" stands for "channel". Using NCCS, the channel resources in each cell consist of N nominal
channels to serve the users in the whole cell as conventional FCA and S sharing channels to serve
users in the inner-cell regions. When a call connection is requested, a nominal channel will be
assigned to it. In the case that all the nominal channels of the cell are occupied, if the mobile is in
the inner-cell region, then a channel from the sharing pool will be used; otherwise, if the mobile
is in the outer-cell region and there is a mobile in the inner-cell region using a nominal channel,
then an event of channel swapping occurs: the inner-cell mobile switches to a channel from the
sharing pool and gives up its original nominal channel to the new call from the outer-cell region.
The purpose of the channel swapping is to make room for new calls so that the system channel
resources can be fully deployed. Note that when there is no channel available in the sharing pool,
channel swapping may be carried out in a neighbor cell to allow for channel borrowing. The call
will be blocked if i) all the nominal channels are occupied and no channel swapping is possible
when the mobile is in the outer-cell region; ii) all the nominal channels and sharing channels in
the pool are occupied when the mobile is in the inner-cell region. When a connected user moves
from the outer-cell region into the inner-cell region, the transmitters of both mobile terminal
and base station will reduce the transmitting power automatically since the mobile terminal gets
closer to the base station. When an inner-cell mobile terminal using a sharing channel moves
into the outer-cell region, not only the associated power control occurs, but also an intra-cell
handoff happens because the sharing channel cannot be used in the outer-cell region. If there is
no nominal channel available for the intra-cell handoff, the link will be forced to drop.
In implementing the NCCS, each borrowable channel has an "on/off" register in the associated
channel sharing pools to indicate whether the channel is available. During the channel
borrowing from a neighbor cell, the borrowed channel register is turned to "off" in the sharing
pools. For example, when Cell (24) borrows a channel from Cell (17), the channel register
is turned "off" in the sharing pools of Cell (17), Cell (10), Cell (11), Cell (16), Cell (18), and
Cell (25). When the borrowed channel is returned, the register is then turned back to "on" in
the pools. One aspect that should be taken into account is the potential borrowing conflict, that
is, two adjacent cells try to borrow the same channel from the different cells at the same time.
This will violate the channel reuse distance limitation. To prevent the borrowing conflict, some
selective borrowing algorithms should be introduced such as borrowing with ordering [11], borrowing
from the richest [12]. The cell selectivity for borrowing can achieve higher capacity at the
expense of higher complexity. One simple approach is to use directional borrowing restriction. For
example, in Fig. 1, when Cell (24) borrows a channel from Cell (17), it is required that Cell (23)
not borrow the same channel from Cell (22), and Cell (31) and Cell (32) not borrow the same
channel from Cell (38). All other neighbor cells of the six cochannel cells are allowed to borrow
the same channel. In order words, the borrowing restriction is limited only to those cells affected
by the borrowing of Cell (24) from Cell (17). The restriction can be implemented by turning "off"
the register of the channel in the sharing pools of Cell (23), Cell (31) and Cell (32). It should
be mentioned that in the CBWL scheme [8], directional lending is used to avoid the borrowing
conflict, where each cell can borrow up to one sixth of the borrowable channels from its neighbor
cells. As a result, using the NCCS scheme each cell has a much larger channel sharing pool than
that using the CBWL scheme under the same condition of the channel resource arrangement. It
is expected that the NCCS scheme can adapt channel assignment to traffic dynamics to a larger
extent as compared with the CBWL scheme, leading to a lower call blocking probability.
D. Adjacent Channel Interference
Adjacent channel interference is a result of the splatter of modulated RF signals. Because the
mobility of network users, the distance between a mobile terminal and its base station changes
with time. At each moment, some mobile terminals are close to the base station and others
are not. Considering the receiver at the base station, the adjacent channel interference may
not be a problem if the signals from the desired channel and both its adjacent channels are
received with the same power level. The bandpass filter of the receiver should provide adequate
rejection to the interference from the adjacent channels. However, the problems may arise if two
users communicate to the same base station at significantly different transmitting power levels
using two adjacent channels. Signal from the adjacent channel can be stronger than that from
the desired channel to such a degree that the desired signal is dominated by the signal carried
by the adjacent channel. This situation is referred to as "near-far" effect in wireless mobile
communication systems. The larger the difference between the near-far distances, the worse the
adjacent channel interference in radio links. Severe adjacent channel interference may occur when
the difference in the received power levels exceeds the base station receiver's band rejection ratio.
Therefore, channel separations are required, which is primarily determined by the distance ratio,
the path-loss slope fl, and the receiver filter characteristics. The required channel separation, in
terms of channel bandwidth W , is 2
(d a =d b ) fl , L in dB is the
falloff slope outside the passband of the receiver bandpass filter, d a is the distance between the
base station and mobile terminal M a using the desired channel, and d b is the distance between
the base station and mobile terminal M b using one of the adjacent channels. In order to overcome
the adjacent channel interference, FCA achieves channel separation by channel interleaving in
such a way that there is sufficient channel guard band between any two channels assigned to
a base station. For a call connection, the user can just randomly choose any channel with the
strongest signal from all the available channels, without violating the adjacent channel interference
constraint.
With channel borrowing, if a cell has traffic congestion, it will borrow channels from its
neighbor cell(s). A borrowed channel may be located in the channel guard band, which can
introduce excessive interference to the desired signal when the difference between d a and d b is
large. Therefore, two aspects need to be taken into account with channel borrowing: one is
the cochannel interference issue as to whether channel borrowing is allowed; the other is the
adjacent channel interference issue as to whether the borrowed channel can provide satisfactory
link quality. For the NCCS, it has been shown that with dynamic power control, if d a =d b - 16, no
extra channel separation is required between any two channels assigned to the same base station
in order to overcome the adjacent channel interference [10]. If we consider the users, M a and M b ,
both in the inner-cell region, then the requirement d a =d b - 16 is eqivalent to that the radius of the
is the minimal distance between a mobile terminal and the base
station. Under the condition, no channel spacing is needed among the sharing channels used in
the inner-cell regions. With the cell radius R adjacent channel interference
does not affect the channel interleaving and the target radio link quality when channel borrowing
happens in the NCCS operation as long as R 0 - 0:04075R.
Compared with other channel assignment schemes, the NCCS scheme offers the following
advantages: i) it ensures satisfactory link quality (taking into account both cochannel interference
and adjacent channel interference) for both nominal channels and borrowable channels, which
cannot be achieved using directed retry and its enhanced schemes [6]; ii) it does not need global
information and management of channel assignment which is required when using DCA schemes,
resulting in simplicity of implementation; iii) each base station is required to operation on its
nominal channels and the borrowable channels of its sharing pool, which is a much smaller set as
compared with that when using DCA schemes; and iv) no channel locking is necessary, which leads
to a better utilization of the channel resources and a simpler management for channel assignment
as compared with DCA and HCA.
Performance Analysis
In the following performance analysis of the NCCS scheme, we consider that the network operates
on a blocked call cleared (BCC) basis, which means once a call is blocked it leaves the system.
Under the assumption that the number of users is much larger than the number of channels
assigned to a base station, each call arrival is independent of the channel occupancy at the base
station [13]. Handoff calls are viewed as new calls.
A. Basic Modeling
In general, requests for radio channels from mobile users can be modeled as a Poisson arrival
process. The occupancy of radio channels at a base station conventionally is considered as a
"birth and death" process with states f0; is the number of total channels
assigned to the base station. A new call arrival enters the system with a mean arrival rate - and
leaves the system with a mean departure rate -. Defining the traffic density A = -, it can be
derived that the probability of the channel occupancy being at state j is [13]
From equation (2), the probability of radio channel resource congestion (i.e, the call blocking
probability) is
which provides a fundamental measure of the mobile cellular network performance. Equation (3)
is usually referred to as
B. Call Blocking Probability with Channel Sharing
In order to formulate the call blocking probability for the NCCS scheme, we consider the channel
sharing between two adjacent cells without loss of generality. Both base stations are equipped
with the same numbers of nominal channels and borrowable channels respectively. The uniform
topology of this scenario is shown in Fig. 3. For Cell (i) (where
the traffic density in the inner-cell region; y i the traffic density in the outer-cell region; u
Sg the channel occupancy in the inner-cell; and v i 2 f0; 1; 2; :::; ; Ng the channel
occupancy in the outer-cell. We assume that u i and v i are independent random variables. For
each cell, the channel occupancy in the inner-cell region may be different from that in the outer-
cell region, so is the call blocking probability. Let PB (C 1;in ) and PB (C 1;out ) denote the blocking
probability of Cell (1) for inner-cell and outer-cell regions respectively. Due to the channel sharing,
the blocking probabilities of Cell (1) depend on the channel occupancy of the neighbor cell,
Cell (2), which is at one of the following two states:
(I) The Cell (2) channel occupancy is within its C equipped channels. In this case, we say that
Cell (2) is underflow with a 2 f0; unused and borrowable channels. The probability
of Cell (2) being underflow is
(II) The Cell (2) channel occupancy is over its assigned C channels. In this case, we say that
Cell (2) is overflow with b 2 f1; :::Sg borrowed channels from Cell (1). The probability of
Cell (2) being overflow is
It can be verified that P (C
For state (I), the blocking probability of the outer-cell region of Cell (1) (represented by
outer cell (1) for simplicity) is
The call blocking probability of the inner-cell region of Cell (1) (represented by inner-cell (1)),
only conditioned upon Cell (2) channel occupancy, but also upon the
situation of outer-cell (1). If there are n unused channels out of the N nominal channels in
Cell (1), the inner-cell users can use them. Under the assumption that the channel occupancies
in outer cell (1) and Cell (2) are independent, we have
For state (II), the blocking probability of the outer cell (1) is
and the blocking probability of the inner cell (1) is
Using equation (2) to compute P
2, the four conditional probabilities of equations (6)-(9)
can be obtained. Then, using equations (4)-(5) the blocking probabilities of both inner-cell and
outer-cell regions of Cell (1) can be calculated according to the theorem on total probability
C. Effect of User Mobility
Taking user mobility into consideration, the number of mobile terminals in a cell at a given
moment is a random variable. For the two-cell network, the overall traffic load is dynamically
distributed over the two cells. The network is designed in such a way that each cell has a fair
share of resources depending on its traffic load in a long term. However, the traffic load over each
cell is a random process. Let A i ( 4
the total traffic density of Cell (i) for
and 2, and ~
the overall traffic density of the cellular network. Given the number of
subscribers, the traffic of the whole network, ~
A, is a constant. Let A
A and A
where ff 2 [0; 1] is a random variable referred to as a traffic load distributor whose value indicates
the traffic load in Cell (1) and Cell (2). If Cell (1) and Cell (2) are identical (Fig. 3), the traffic
load distributor should have a mean value 0:5. The following relations are considered for
the blocking probability equations: x
(referred to as an interior distributor inside Cell (i)) is a random variable with a mean value of
coverage of inner-cell(i)
coverage of whole 2:
Using these two distributors, the blocking probabilities in equations (10)-(11) can be denoted as
where g(\Delta) and h(\Delta) denote any measurable function. If we assume that mobile terminals are
uniformly distributed in the coverage area and the cell sizes are the same, then ae
Furthermore, the number of terminals in each cell or cell region follows a binomial distribution,
from which we can obtain the joint probability distribution function p(ff; ae) of the distributors
ff and ae. As a result, the blocking probabilities related to the overall traffic density ~
A and the
design parameters N and S are
PB;C 1;outer
PB;C 1;inner
In reality, cellular network service operators will try to achieve service fairness, that is, appropriate
channel resources will be allocated to each base station in order to obtain the same call blocking
probability over all the cells in the service area. Therefore, the system is designed to have
PB;C 1;inner
As a result, the blocking probabilities in terms of the traffic density ~
A and channel resources N
and S is
where p ff (ff i ) is the probability distribution function of ff. The analysis for the two-cell network
can be extended to a multiple-cell network as shown in Fig 1, where for a cell under consideration
all of its 6 neighbor cells can be equivalently modeled by a composite neighbor cell.
4 Numerical Results and Discussion
The numerical analysis in this section is to provide a performance comparison between the NCCS
and other channel assignment schemes. The following assumptions are made in the analysis: i)
All the base stations are equipped with the same numbers of nominal channels and borrowable
Each new call is initiated equally likely from any cell and is independent
of any other calls. Except in the analysis of the bounds of the blocking probability, the
following assumptions are also made: iii) Taking into account the possible borrowing conflict, the
channel sharing pool for each cell consists of available borrowable channels of the cell and four
of its neighbor cells; iv) The traffic loads in all the cells are statistically the same. Under the
assumptions, given the total traffic loads in the network, the traffic load distributor for the cell
under consideration follows a binomial distribution.
Fig. 4 shows the call blocking probabilities of the FCA, HCA [5] and NCCS schemes. In
FCA, each base station has 28 nominal channels; in HCA, each base station has 20 FCA channels
and 8 DCA channels; and in NCCS, In Fig. 4 and all the following figures,
A is the traffic density for each cell. The performance of the FCA scheme is calculated based
on Equation (3), while the performance of the NCCS scheme is based on Equation (17). It is
observed that: i) At a low traffic load, HCA has a much lower blocking rate than FCA; however,
as the traffic load increases, the advantage of HCA over FCA disappears. In fact, HCA may have
a higher blocking probability, due to the necessary DCA channel locking; ii) The NCCS scheme
outperforms the HCA scheme because the NCCS scheme can adapt to traffic dynamics without
channel locking; iii) The NCCS scheme performs much better than the FCA scheme, but the
improvement is reduced as the traffic load increases. This is because with a large value of A, all
the cells tend to be in a congestion state, so that the probability of having any sharing channel
available for borrowing is greatly reduced.
Fig. 5 shows the blocking probabilities of the FCA, CBWL with channel rearrangement [8]
and NCCS schemes. In the CBWL scheme, each base station has 24 channels with C
and 30% of call arrivals can use borrowed channels. In the NCCS scheme,
corresponding to 25% of calls can use borrowed channels. It is observed that
the NCCS scheme has a lower blocking probability than the CBWL scheme, due to the fact that
the CBWL is limited to the directional lending, resulting in a channel sharing pool with much
less borrowable channels as compared with that of the NCCS scheme.
The call blocking probability of the NCCS scheme depends on the traffic load dynamics,
which can be difficult to generalize. In the following, we consider two extreme cases which lead to
the lower and upper bounds on the call blocking probability for the NCCS scheme with channel
sharing among m (= 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) neighbor cells. First, consider the situation where one cell is
a traffic "hot spot" and its neighbor cells have many idle channels, which we refer to as a local
burst situation. The heavily traffic loaded cell can borrow most or all of the sharing channels
from its neighbor cells, resulting in a lower bound of blocking probability for the cell. The other
situation is that all the cells are heavily loaded and no channel sharing is possible, which is
referred to as a global busy situation. If the channel resources, C, in each cell is properly divided
into the nominal channel group and sharing channel group, then the global busy situation results
in the upper bound of the call blocking probability of the NCCS scheme, which is the same as
the call blocking probability of the FCA scheme. Fig. 6 shows the lower and upper bounds of
the call blocking probability of the NCCS scheme with channel sharing among m multiple cells.
Each base station has 15 nominal and 5 sharing channels. It is observed that the lower bound
decreases significantly as m increases, due to an increased number of sharing channels available
in the sharing pool. However, when the traffic density increases, the performance improvement
of the NCCS over FCA (the upper bound) is significantly reduced. Even with all the sharing
channels from the m neighbor cells, it is still possible that the channel resources available to the
cell are not enough to provide service to all the incoming calls in the hot spot.
Conclusions
In this paper, we have developed the neighbor cell channel sharing (NCCS) scheme for wireless
cellular networks. Both cochannel interference and adjacent interference issues regarding the
channel sharing have been discussed. It has been shown that the NCCS scheme achieves a lower
call blocking probability for any traffic load and traffic dynamics as compared with other channel
assignment schemes. The performance improvement is obtained at the expense of additional
intra-cell handoffs. With more neighbor cells in channel sharing, the proposed scheme offers
better traffic handling capacity. The advantages of the proposed scheme include i) that no
channel locking is necessary, and ii) larger channel sharing pools are available due to less strict
constraint on directional borrowing, which lead to both simpler channel resource management
and lower call blocking probability.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank ITRC (the Information Technology Research Center - Center of
Excellence supported by Technology Ontario) for the research grant which supported this work.



--R

"Handover and channel assignment in mobile cellular networks"
"Performance analysis of cellular mobile communication systems with dynamic channel assignment"
"Distributed dynamic channel allocation algorithms with adjacent channel constraints"
"Performance issues and algorithms for dynamic channel assignment"
"A hybrid channel assignment scheme in large-scale cellular-structured mobile communication systems"
"A cellular mobile telephone system with load sharing - an enhancement of directed retry"
"Load sharing sector cells in cellular systems"
"CBWL: a new channel assignment and sharing method for cellular communications systems"
Mobile cellular telecommunication systems.
"Channel assignment and sharing for wireless cellular networks"
"A new frequency channel assignment algorithm in high capacity mobile communication systems"
"Comparisons of channel assignment strategies in cellular mobile telephone systems"
Queueing Systems.
--TR
Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems

--CTR
Jean Q.-J. Chak , Weihua Zhuang, Capacity Analysis for Connection Admission Control in IndoorMultimedia CDMA Wireless Communications, Wireless Personal Communications: An International Journal, v.12 n.3, p.269-282, March 2000
cellular mobile communications;neighbor cell channel sharing;channel assignment