Jump to content
CriticalityEvent

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

Recommended Posts

No.

 

For 700A they have to do tower modifications with new antennas and new radios by antennas.

Isn't that what RRH is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what RRH is?

A RRH is a remote radio head.

 

You can have all the radio heads in the world for all I care but if the antennas don't support the frequency of the radios then it doesn't matter at all.

 

Tmobile must add 700 b12 radios and have compatible antennas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, having a mismatch SWR of greater than 2:1 can reduce your transmit power substantially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, having a mismatch SWR of greater than 2:1 can reduce your transmit power substantially.

What's SWR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's SWR?

 

Standing wave ratio.  It relates to the resonant length of the antenna.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

You're too cynical. It's not hard to get backhaul to these sites. It just takes more planning, which T-Mobile does a good job of, and they've proven themselves well, so far. Even Sprint has done a semi-decent job with many of the exurban sites it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maxsilver already said this....

I realized that after I typed it. Didn't have a chance to edit it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

 

I don't think that's likely -- backhaul should be pretty straightforward. I suspect that if there any "dressing of a pig" it will be in site count / density / placement.

 

I'm imaging rural towns like Cadillac, Michigan. To properly cover that town with usable service, you need at least three cell sites. Today AT&T and Verizon are on four, and Sprint is on two. T-Mobile has no coverage in any direction for 80+ miles.

 

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's likely -- backhaul should be pretty straightforward. I suspect that if there any "dressing of a pig" it will be in site count / density / placement.

 

I'm imaging rural towns like Cadillac, Michigan. To properly cover that town with usable service, you need at least three cell sites. Today AT&T and Verizon are on four, and Sprint is on two. T-Mobile has no coverage in any direction for 80+ miles.

 

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

Reminds me of Sprint with their LTE rollout. Of course that changed in 2014 with most big cities being launched with closer to 80% covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

I think you certainly have a valid concern as it's not gonna be easy for them to fully match Verizon/AT&T rural cell count maybe ever, but at the same token overlaying the existing 2G footprint with PCS and 700MHz LTE should bring them pretty close to 290 million pop mark.

 

Population of Cadillac, MI is just over 10,000, and it's important to understand that T-Mobile never claimed that they'll actually match Verizon's rural areas cell for cell. Their goal is 300 million by the end of '15, Verizon is already at 303 million pops, and while some rural areas may be left out others will emerge, and we should probably have our expectations reset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you certainly have a valid concern as it's not gonna be easy for them to fully match Verizon/ATT rural cell count maybe ever, but at the same token overlaying the existing 2G footprint with PCS and 700MHz will bring them pretty close to 290 million pop mark.

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil (edit: 282m) pops

 

ATT's LTE covers 300m+ POPs. It would stand to reason that T-Mobile's network needs to be roughly the same size as ATT's to match that number.

Population of Cadillac, MI is about 11,000, and it's important to understand that T-Mobile never claimed that they'll actually match Verizon cell for cell. Their goal is 300 million by the end of '15, and while some rural areas may be left out others will emerge, and it's important to have the expectations properly set from the get go.

Legere is the one who claimed he would "match Verizon almost everywhere, and win". It's not like I'm expecting him to cover every rural area -- these are places that ATT and Sprint already have coverage too.

 

He's intentionally setting expectations high, by claiming to match Verizon "almost everywhere", and by claiming to have an LTE network equal in size (by POPs covered) to ATT's. If he's not actually planning to match most of Verizons / all of ATT's coverage, he should stop publicly promising to do that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil pops, if I remember correctly.

 

AT&T's LTE covers 300m POPs. It would stand to reason that T-Mobile's network needs to be roughly the same size as AT&T's to match that number.

 

 

Legere is the one who claimed he would "match Verizon almost everywhere, and win". It's not like I'm expecting him to cover every rural area -- these are places that AT&T and Sprint already have coverage too.

 

He's intentionally setting expectations high, by claiming to match Verizon "almost everywhere", and by claiming to have an LTE network equal in size (by POPs covered) to AT&T's. If he's not actually planning to match most of Verizons / all of AT&T's coverage, he should stop publicly promising to do that.

According to official T-Mobile info, right now the entire footprint is at 286 million pops. With the addition of 700MHz LTE overlay, it's reasonable to guess that reach could be extended by close to 4 million pops.

 

Now obviously, I have no way of verifying how many pops they cover and if they're honest or not, but since they have been publicly stating that 286M number for a while now I'm guessing they're fully ready to stand behind their claim.

 

Also, as I said in another thread, they've already met and exceeded quite a few goals that at first may have looked like a complete BS. If their execs and engineers didn't believe that they can meet 300 million pops goal by the end of '15, I'm sure they would've set the expectations lower so they can meet and exceed. I'm an optimist, but I guess we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil pops, if I remember correctly.

 

282 Million covered in 3G at least according to broadbandmap.gov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a hard time believing that Verizon covers only 303 Million people with LTE, even if that's a claim that they made themselves. I think it's more than that by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.

 

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a (male chauvinist) pig…but he is still John Legere.

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to official T-Mobile info, right now the entire footprint is at 286 million pops. With the addition of 700MHz LTE overlay, it's reasonable to guess that reach could be extended by close to 4 million pops.

I don't see how low band is going to increase pops by that much. It should bring the LTE network up to GSM 1900 coverage levels or a little more, but it's not gonna increase pop coverage. They'll still have the same amount of markets covered after the 700 rollout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how low band is going to increase pops by that much. It should bring the LTE network up to GSM 1900 coverage levels or a little more, but it's not gonna increase pop coverage. They'll still have the same amount of markets covered after the 700 rollout.

Considering T-Mobile's decades old and neglected Nortel 1900MHz GSM infrastructure vs a 700MHz spectrum band that propagates at least 2.5x further, which will also require brand new antennas and RRUs at the tower top, I don't think that extra 4 million pops estimation is unreasonable. 

 

Early user reports are already showing improved GSM coverage and 1900MHz LTE that fully matches old Nortel 2G footprint after the simple act of replacing the rusty and outdated cabinets and equipment with new NSN/Ericsson base stations on the ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering T-Mobile's decades old and neglected Nortel 1900MHz GSM infrastructure .

 

Early user reports are already showing improved GSM coverage and 1900MHz LTE that fully matches old Nortel 2G footprint after the simple act of replacing the rusty and outdated cabinets and equipment with new NSN/Ericsson base stations on the ground.

At least in my areas of travel, I have not noticed any appreciable difference in coverage. Granted the majority of this coverage isn't quite as old as the Nortel gear in OK, some of it was very, very old from the PowerTel days.

 

That being said, while user experience has improved greatly, consistency has taken a dive. I'm not sure if it is my iPhone 6, or network niggles upstream of me, but I have the worst luck with VoLTE. Can't place outbound calls, calls turn into dead air, etc. And this is with my phone hanging off the dashboard, no hands attenuating it. Very frustrating. And also, in areas that are not properly spaced, I often times fall to no service rather than the GSM network that is there and waiting. I chalk this up to the iPhone, but still. I have found the LTE network to be < the existing GSM footprint and the GSM footprint seeing no appreciable difference in coverage.

 

I can only wonder what my network performance and coverage would be with RRH and a UMTS layer to handle my voice duty and receive the SIB19 message to handup to the the LTE layer in seconds, not minutes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If tmo/sprint are going after the big 2, Why not work together as far as getting towers up and co locating? Wouldn't that help expenses and expand footprint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If tmo/sprint are going after the big 2, Why not work together as far as getting towers up and co locating?

 

There's a bunch of reasons. The biggest one: this probably wouldn't help much, since 90+% of the towers they need are already built and owned/operated by third party leasing companies, who already let them use these towers easily and at fairly low costs. (Crown Castle, American Tower, etc)

 

Occasionally a site they want is full (weight/wind/space limits) or is unusually expensive to lease / backhaul.

 

But in most cases, the only reason Sprint or T-Mobile aren't on a particular tower, is that they've simply chosen not to purchase leased space on it.

 

There's any number of reasons they might choose to skip a site. Everything from "that they might feel they already have sufficient coverage there" to "they just don't want to provide service in a particular area".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

 

In Oklahoma and NW Arkansas alone, T-Mobile is using microwave to reach 300+ sites. They're not turning up sites without backhaul in place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies to moderate my cynicism.  I really have a hard time believing that T-Mobile will be able to meet their timelines if they follow a similar development path to what Sprint has done.  We know the challenges in getting new backhaul in place (microwave is certainly one way to reduce this risk and as mentioned seems to be key).  We know that permitting takes time.  We know there are unforeseen supply chain events that affect hardware deliveries.  There's weather and crew availability.  It just seems that with all of those pacing items/contingencies causing potential schedule risk. The other challenge is likely that going from 260ish M POPs to 300M POPs will likely require far more than a linear/proportional number of cell sites.  So I assume that they're going to have to find space on a bunch of new sites simply to expand the footprint. 

 

I guess my mind just drifts to 'slap up some panels to replace what's there' (don't change the number or general physical shape to facilitate an easy permitting process), keep the existing backhaul (so you don't have to worry about backhaul driving LTE availability), and market the crap out of your urban/exurban speeds.  Voila, a Nation-wide LTE network.

 

 

That said, I hope they do meet their POP target with a legitimate, sufficiently dense LTE network as I think that is key to creating a competitive alternative to the duopoly. 

 

Now if Sprint would take some of that 'Google balloon technology' and cover the Dakotas with a 3 or 4 balloons' worth of 25/26/41, we'd really have something interesting (I make no claims to the technical merits or feasibility of this idea). lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if Sprint would take some of that 'Google balloon technology' and cover the Dakotas with a 3 or 4 balloons' worth of 25/26/41, we'd really have something interesting (I make no claims to the technical merits or feasibility of this idea). lol

 

If only Lightsquared's LTE via satellite idea didn't cause interference with GPS and thus illegal. There would be LTE everywhere.

 

w2KFIJL.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Lightsquared's LTE via satellite idea didn't cause interference with GPS and thus illegal. There would be LTE everywhere.

 

Lightsquared was not gonna do lte over satellite. They just had frequencies that were primarily used for satellite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
       
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
       
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
       
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
       
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
       
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
       
       
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
       
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By S4GRU
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 7:46 PM MST
       
      Since last fall, there had been talk of a Samsung Galaxy Nexus launching on American carriers other than Big Red. Sprint has finally announced several weeks ago that it is the another vendor slated for release in the U.S. Suffice to say, many of us out there, especially those adverse to heading to Verizon and paying its premium prices, are excited about the impending release.
      The good news is that Google could be working on an updated version of the Galaxy Nexus. It has unofficially been dubbed the Galaxy Nexus Plus. There is much anticipation that it will be released before Sprint turns on LTE this summer. It’s not the first time an OEM has refreshed a device and re-released it to the market place, which works to our advantage. It’s rumored that the new Galaxy Nexus will have either a 1.5 or 1.8 GHz Texas Instrument OMAP4670 dual core processor. This would be a significant upgrade from the 1.2 GHz dual core processor found in the current Verizon version.
      We don’t know anything about official specs, but it’s also rumored to have an 8 MP camera. This is a noteworthy upgrade to the 5 MP shooter on the Verizon model (which has been lauded by many techies). We already know that the Sprint model will come installed with Google Wallet, per previous announcements. Some rumors also point to a beefier battery as well. The phone should have all the other features that’s on the current Galaxy Nexus, so now all we have to do is wait.
       
       
      Source: http://androidandme....era-on-the-way/
    • By EntrepreneurKid
      With Todays announcement that T-Mobile and Sprint are merging, and the announcement of the T-Mobile Sprint Roaming deal that will survive and will last for four years regardless if the merger is completed or not, which is effect immediately as stated in the conference call and the slides made available. So I thought I'd create this to see if anyone has been able to use their Sprint device on T-Mobile roaming yet. And of course if not, once you do, come back here and say you have. Personally I'm not bothering with anything until after the coverage map is updated again, hopefully to reflect the T-Mobile roaming. And of course if you are able to roam onto T-Mobile what kind of speeds are you pulling, and on what device.
      Also for those that are unaware, the T-Mobile Sprint Roaming agreement that was announced as part of todays merger announcement is a roaming agreement for Sprint customers to roam onto T-Mobile for 4 years and takes affect immediately, yes right now, regardless if the merger completes or not. Surely it's a stepping stone to integrating the networks by getting Sprint devices that are capable, which according to the conference call is 20 Million Sprint devices ready to be used on the T-Mobile network full time once deal is approved by the regulators and finally completed.
    • By lilotimz
      Ericsson RRUS31 B25 + RRUS11 B26
      These are the newest and greatest remote radio units to come from Ericsson. 

      The new Ericsson RRUS31  B25 should be fairly distinctive compared to the earlier RRUS11s and now the RRUS12s being deployed by ATT and Verizon. One of these new RRUS31s can do the job of two earlier RRUS11s thus reducing deployment costs for Sprint and complexity in deploying new sites and making it easier for users to spot as there are now 4 jumpers coming out of one RRUS31 rather than two from each RRUS11 that Ericsson originally deployed. 

      All future deployments will be utilizing the new Ericsson RRUS31s. In addition Ericsson are sending crews to their original deployments and swapping out older RRUS11s for these new RRUS31s due to the aforementioned fact that one RRUS31 can do the job of 2 RRUS11s. Weight savings will be significant at sites where there are 4 or 5 RRUS11 B25s that can be replaced by one or 2 RRUS31s. The Ericsson RRUS31 deployment project is known as the 65 Mhz Project. 

       

      Ericsson RRUS11 B26 top and RRUS31 B25 bottom

       

       
      Ericsson High Capacity / 4x4/2 MIMO Deployment
      Note the additional antenna + PCS radio.
      Previously Ericsson utilized additional PCS radios and used RF combiners for high capacity setups where they utilized three or more PCS radios. This new setup will utilize a completey new antenna + radio set just like Samsung and run 4x2 MIMO on the LTE antenna / radio set. 
       

       

       

       
      Ericsson RRUS11 B25 [EOL'd] and B26
      A standard Ericsson Network Vision 1.0 site with 3 RRUS11s where two are dedicated to PCS and one to SMR.  

      This type of setup is no longer deployed or utilized in new sites. Existing sites will be slowly converted to newer RRUS31 B25 via the Sprint 65 mhz project. 


       
      Ericsson NV high capacity site [EOL'd]
      3 or 4 PCS RRUs are present for a total of 4 or 5 RRUS11s per antenna. 


       

       

       
      Close up of Antennas
       

       
      Ericsson cabinets 
      (center)



      All credit to those who took the photographs. They know who they are!
       
  • Posts

    • Hummmn, they are still using the old nTelos SID on 1x.
    • Don't know.  I was barreling down the highway at the time I took the picture, and I don't usually do speed tests anyway.  But considering the available speed used to be zero, I'm going to say it's decent, sure. On my way home today, I'm going to take a long route to check on some more sites I don't usually go by.  Expect the Premiere map to fill in some after I get home.  (Also, I'm amused that with yesterday's update to the Sprint coverage map, the Red House tower that's on the air is now missing from the map along with the Hat Creek tower, while the Sugar Hill site that had no antennas two weeks ago is still present.) - Trip
    • Because you simply have to plug it in to a power outlet near a window. 
    • Except for a soft hand off to thw macro network. It can't do that, but other than that, there exactly the same. 
    • Because public WiFi has an ongoing maintance cost, plus the cost to set it up and properly isolate it from your network. The magic box is just easier. You aren't responsible for it. The magic box (via LTE) also has vastly superior QoS so that one person won't bog it down.

      My parents house is one place where a magic box works amazingly. Their only internet option is 3 mbps DSL. B26 only on phones, and that's upstairs only. The magic box latches on to b25 and provides 15-30 Mbps consistently. They actually use it now with a Sprint mobile broadband plan. For some people, the magic box is a better solution than an Airave or wifi calling (which won't work well on 3 mbps DSL if someone is using the internet). For businesses, it's a $0 cost, easy deployment to help customers. And they aren't responsible for what people do on it.

      Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×