Jump to content

Future 600 MHz band & OTHER discussion thread (was "Sprint + 600 MHz?")


Recommended Posts

The big advantage of 600MHz for Sprint would be to level the playing field with the duopoly with lower frequency spectrum. If Sprint could have at least a 10x10 LTE carrier in 600, then they would be sitting very good for the long term.

 

Although, I'm not sure 600 is necessary. With an aggressive LTE 2600 plan in place, and refarmed PCS, and placing LTE 800 as the lowest priority to be used only when you can't get a PCS or 2600 signal, then LTE 800 probably can meet Sprint's low frequency needs for a long time.

 

The big problem Sprint has with SMR 800 is that they do not have 14MHz nationwide. In those places, a big chunk of 600 could be very helpful.

 

Robert

 

Is there a map of where Sprint doesn't have 14MHz nationwide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a map of where Sprint doesn't have 14MHz nationwide?

 

I cannot publish it. It has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it. I have been thinking of creating my own for publishing, though. It will not be in the very near future, though.

 

Robert

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot publish it. It has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it. I have been thinking of creating my own for publishing, though. It will not be in the very near future, though.

 

Robert

 

Isn't this public information? If I wanted to - I won't - couldn't I go to the FCC spectrum dashboard and piece together who owns what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this public information? If I wanted to - I won't - couldn't I go to the FCC spectrum dashboard and piece together who owns what?

 

You can. And I suggest you do that. But anything that has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it, I do not share. It would be the end of S4GRU.

 

Robert

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-8923-0-15769800-1368209427_thumb.png

 

I found the TMUS band plan proposal

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022116151

 

And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency.

I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER!

 

But, this is linear distance so if you want to know how much more area is covered, you square it.

 

If you want to compare PCS vs VZW LTE, you divide both their values by PCS(value) and then you square the result.

So, 1.3/1.3 = 1 (duh) and 3.5/1.3 = 2.69

Now, the meaning of this number is: if you have a signal on PCS and VZW transmitting from the same tower at same power level, then for a given signal threshold you set, the signal on VZW's spectrum will travel 2.69 x the distance it travels on PCS before degrading to that same threshold.

So, for example, if the signal from PCS LTE dies after 5 miles, then the equivalent VZW LTE signal would die after 5x2.69 = 13 miles

 

But, if we want to figure out how much more area - square miles - VZW spectrum covers as compared to PCS, then we take 2.69^2 = 7.24

 

This number means that for coverage, not capacity, PCS spectrum needs 7x as many towers compared to VZW's spectrum.

 

I'm not sure if this is all correct so if it's not, someone let me know and I'll remove/modify things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What right do the broadcasters have to resist spectrum reclamation?

They were given the spectrum for free, they made money from advertising, then they starting making money from re-transmission fees.

Now, they feel entitled to proceeds from the auction?

@#$!?

 

Really?

 

Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a television station?

 

Not a 24hr cable channel, a real over-the-air television channel? More than you can imagine! Sure some stations make money hand over fist, but most barely reclaim operating costs with those re-transmission fees and advertising. For most stations, they get the majority of their money from the networks that they air.

 

Stations have invested millions - even billions - of dollars into equipment to provide a *free* service to the public. So when you want to take away their spectrum, force them to move, get all new equipment that costs millions more, yeah they're going to be resistant! Not to mention the outpouring of complaints from the surprisingly large number of over-the-air only viewers whose reception suddenly changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a television station?

 

Not a 24hr cable channel, a real over-the-air television channel? More than you can imagine! Sure some stations make money hand over fist, but most barely reclaim operating costs with those re-transmission fees and advertising. For most stations, they get the majority of their money from the networks that they air.

 

Stations have invested millions - even billions - of dollars into equipment to provide a *free* service to the public. So when you want to take away their spectrum, force them to move, get all new equipment that costs millions more, yeah they're going to be resistant! Not to mention the outpouring of complaints from the surprisingly large number of over-the-air only viewers whose reception suddenly changes.

 

I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement.

 

Agree that mobile data is more important?

 

Well, you will find that, particularly in emergency situations, OTA is much more important than mobile data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement.

 

I'm not sure about that. I think we live in a smartphone world, so we tend to think in terms of people we know of. However, if you took a poll of *EVERYONE*, including all the old people in this country, I think you would be surprised about the results.

 

Besides, we do not have a spectrum crunch. We have a spectrum allocation and efficiency problem.

 

Robert

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many true emergencies, there is no power to receive OTA.

 

I would not necessarily put mobile data specifically more important, but mobile *communications* I would definitely put as more important than OTA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that mobile data is more important?

 

Well, you will find that, particularly in emergency situations, OTA is much more important than mobile data.

 

Hmm, now, why would a "weatherman" think that way???

 

I kid, I kid...

 

:P

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, now, why would a "weatherman" think that way???

 

I kid, I kid...

 

:P

 

AJ

 

I know you're kidding, but in all seriousness, people freak out if they can't get the weather on their TV when the sirens are going off. Most of the time it's because they're on satellite which is blocked out by rain, and don't know they can switch to the over-the-air signal and still see us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with FDD operation in the 600 MHz band is that it would require a duplex gap. So, what would occupy the duplex gap? A DTV broadcaster? Nope. A guard band? Maybe, but wasteful. And however large the duplex gap would be, it would add to the size of the band, thus increasing the spectrum that would have to be cleared. Honestly, this UHF TV 600 MHz incentive auction looks like a "big bag of hurt." Broadcasters are resistant, and I am not sure that any meaningful results will emerge.

 

AJ

 

Care to guess which bandplan - TDD or FDD - the FCC will adopt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to guess which bandplan - TDD or FDD - the FCC will adopt?

 

My apologies, as I sound like Johnnie Cochran, but either way, my guess is that the band plan will be a mess.

 

Qualcomm wants an FDD band plan and makes some persuasive technical arguments in its favor. Prima facie, the TDD band plan makes more sense and seems more feasible, but I am not sure that I have enough technical expertise to evaluate it fully.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qualcomm usually wins on matters like this with the FCC, I have found. They have very powerful lobbyists on their side as well as Darrell Issa out of their district who is pretty active on Qualcomm's behalf.

 

If Sprint would, at some point, join in on backing T-Mobile's proposal I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many true emergencies, there is no power to receive OTA.

 

I would not necessarily put mobile data specifically more important, but mobile *communications* I would definitely put as more important than OTA.

 

Battery powered TVs and generators work just fine. I have a small LCD that receives digital OTA. Used it last hurricane when I had no power for a week.

 

I would hate to see any OTA channels go away as many people use them. I use them myself even combined with satellite TV. I enjoy having the additional sub channels and the quality is better getting it from the source. My satellite receivers put them right there in the guide and even let you DVR the channels like any others.

 

There's also another aspect people do not think of. Many cable companies and satellite POPs in the various cities receive the local channels via OTA since it is much cheaper than fiber to simply snag the digital 19 megabit signal out of the air.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Propagation_distance.png

 

I found the TMUS band plan proposal

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022116151

 

And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency.

I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER!

 

But, this is linear distance so if you want to know how much more area is covered, you square it.

 

If you want to compare PCS vs VZW LTE, you divide both their values by PCS(value) and then you square the result.

So, 1.3/1.3 = 1 (duh) and 3.5/1.3 = 2.69

Now, the meaning of this number is: if you have a signal on PCS and VZW transmitting from the same tower at same power level, then for a given signal threshold you set, the signal on VZW's spectrum will travel 2.69 x the distance it travels on PCS before degrading to that same threshold.

So, for example, if the signal from PCS LTE dies after 5 miles, then the equivalent VZW LTE signal would die after 5x2.69 = 13 miles

 

But, if we want to figure out how much more area - square miles - VZW spectrum covers as compared to PCS, then we take 2.69^2 = 7.24

 

This number means that for coverage, not capacity, PCS spectrum needs 7x as many towers compared to VZW's spectrum.

 

I'm not sure if this is all correct so if it's not, someone let me know and I'll remove/modify things.

 

Isn't the formula for area of a circle (pi)r^2? You used the area of a square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the formula for area of a circle (pi)r^2? You used the area of a square.

 

Right. But maximus was not calculating total coverage area. Instead, he was creating a ratio (i.e. a comparison), in which case the π on both sides of the ratio would cancel. So, the square of the radius gives us the appropriate ratio for the 2-D propagation model in use.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 


And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency.
I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER!


Not to rain on your parade, but this is, honestly, nothing new. We have a similar VZW propagation graphic posted somewhere here in the archives at S4GRU. Both cases are using a simple free space path loss formula. The nutshell of it is the inverse square rule. Take the ratio of one frequency to another. Use the inverse (i.e. the reciprocal). Then, square that value.

But free space path loss is a theoretical model. Empirical formulas tend to better model RF in real world environments. For example, Okamura, Hata, and COST are some well known empirical models. You can start with a little bit of "free space" research at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation_model

AJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to rain on your parade, but this is, honestly, nothing new. We have a similar VZW propagation graphic posted somewhere here in the archives at S4GRU. Both cases are using a simple free space path loss formula. The nutshell of it is the inverse square rule. Take the ratio of one frequency to another. Use the inverse (i.e. the reciprocal). Then, square that value.

 

But free space path loss is a theoretical model. Empirical formulas tend to better model RF in real world environments. For example, Okamura, Hata, and COST are some well known empirical models. You can start with a little bit of "free space" research at Wikipedia.

 

http://en.wikipedia....opagation_model

 

AJ

 

Could you make a pinned thread with all the informational infographics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you make a pinned thread with all the informational infographics?

 

Please clarify. I am not really sure what you are asking.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the FCC would put limits on now much lower frequency spectrum carriers can own. It'd be a much more level playing field, better for the consumers. For example, I believe verizon owns 100% of the 850 mhz spectrum in my area due to the alltel buyout. Ridiculous!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn I didn't even know 600mhz existed (I'm new to all this) but if sprint does get access to 600mhz how long do you think it will take for them to deploy TDD-LTE? I know the auction is next year so should we say 2015-2016? Do you think Sprint will have 600mhz phones by next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Has anyone checked Verizon n77 in areas with more than 100MHZ active? This spectrum has been fully available since August of last year.  Of course they are not typically using SA.
    • I updated my other s21 ultra factory unlocked to the latest firmware... It behaves like the S24 Ultra n38 or n41 depending on 80 or 100MHz or their nr- arfcn.
    • I see everything correct. The two ARFCN's you mentioned earlier and they idenitify as n-41.  using 4.832b SCP. Only using one TM SIM.
    • I posted this in the Nebraska Premier thread last week, but just wanted to share in this thread the progress that T-Mobile has made in filling in the great coverage gap known as Nebraska. Between late last year and this year, they have added 28 new expansion sites filling in the coverage hole, plus 11 Sprint site conversions in eastern Nebraska and far western Iowa. Notably, in the last month n41 coverage was added on over a dozen expansion sites in western Nebraska that were added to the network last year. For comparison, here is the very first map that I created in October of 2022 after we noted expansion sites outside of Sprint conversion in Lincoln and Omaha. It doesn't show any western parts of the state, but just know there was nothing besides roaming coverage and a little B12 coverage leaking down from South Dakota to the west of Valentine, NE.
    • Sent a copy of my DB in an e-mail just now.  Couldn't leave the house today but can hopefully get a screenshot when I'm out on another cell site tomorrow.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...