Jump to content
IamMrFamous07

Sprint TD-LTE 2500/2600mhz Discussion

Recommended Posts

Not that quick really - EDGE will have been out there for what, 15 years by that shutdown date, and EDGE is about as 1x for data. I assume GSM will go with it. Since they are redoing their network with LTE and HSPA+ and WCDMA/HSPA+ carries voice, GSM is pretty useless at this point.

 

I also seem to recall T-Mobile saying that, wherever possible, they want to totally shut down GSM/EDGE and be totally HSPA+ and LTE.

 

The problem is machine to machine (M2M) connections.  Apparently, a lot of those rely on GSM/GPRS/EDGE.  That is a questionable choice in the US, since GSM coverage has historically lagged well behind cdmaOne/CDMA2000 coverage.  For M2M almost everywhere in the US, CDMA1X or EV-DO would make far more sense.  But the GSM based M2M modules are reportedly very cheap because of international economy of scale.  So, M2M customers went the cheap route.  It could come back to bite them, as some may have to upgrade to W-CDMA or LTE modules after only a few years.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the current AT&T antennas list basically a 700-2200 MHz range on the bottom.  We have a telephoto shot or two in one of the threads around here.  But I believe the antennas have only one low frequency port, one high frequency port, making them basically dual band antennas.

 

If AT&T cannot or will not do AWS 2100+1700 MHz in a market, the high frequency port in the current antennas seemingly could be used for PCS 1900 MHz.  So, maybe the new antennas are for Cellular 850 MHz and WCS 2300 MHz.

 

AJ

 

These are the ones they did in the Baton Rouge area for their LTE bolt on. The antennas are Amphenol brand.  I bet there's extra power and fibers in the hybrid cables for another RRU.  Slap on another RRU per sector and you've got LTE on another band.

 

You can even read the -45 and +45 diversity labels ;)

 

NL03ME052_RACK1_INNERA.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is machine to machine (M2M) connections. Apparently, a lot of those rely on GSM/GPRS/EDGE. That is a questionable choice in the US, since GSM coverage has historically lagged well behind cdmaOne/CDMA2000 coverage. For M2M almost everywhere in the US, CDMA1X or EV-DO would make far more sense. But the GSM based M2M modules are reportedly very cheap because of international economy of scale. So, M2M customers went the cheap route. It could come back to bite them, as some may have to upgrade to W-CDMA or LTE modules after only a few years.

 

AJ

All articles I've read about m2m have the carriers insisting they're keeping 2g as long as their m2m customers need them even Verizon.

But I call BS. I think 5mhz FDD LTE is orders more profitable than equal spectrum amount for CDMA/gsm m2m.

Edited by hoxsox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read up much on the 2.5/2.6ghz stuff since it's not going to really have an affect on my day to day things for a while but maybe the ones who have can analyze this.  I went to one of the protection wimax sites that is kinda near me.  There are only 2 in the area.  The other one is about 8-9 miles south of this one.  Nothing has changed with the equipment since I looked at the site last year. 

 

Taken about 200 yards from the site.

 

HWY19_LAVEY_1.jpg

 

HWY19_LAVEY_2.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT&T uses a combined panel for all their different bands for use in limited space stealth sites and flagpoles. Sprint could do the same. They just usually support less carriers. But that way they can use all three bands and still upgrade the site.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

Are triband panels that support all three NV frequencies currently available?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are triband panels that support all three NV frequencies currently available?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

Not that I'm aware of.  But it's not an unusual feat.

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm aware of.  But it's not an unusual feat.

 

Robert

 

True, but wouldn't having three bands mean less performance for each band?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but wouldn't having three bands mean less performance for each band?

How so???

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so???

 

Robert

 

Mainly due to the fact that if the panels have to stay the same size, they need to shrink the other antennas inside to fit the 2500 one. Then they'll need to make the antennas resonate on the desired frequencies again by adding inductance (to make the antenna physically longer) or capacitance (if the antenna is too long), both which result in losses. 

 

Then again, this might not be as big of a deal at higher frequencies. HTC/Samsung/Apple manage to fit a bunch of frequencies in their phones without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly due to the fact that if the panels have to stay the same size, they need to shrink the other antennas inside to fit the 2500 one. Then they'll need to make the antennas resonate on the desired frequencies again by adding inductance (to make the antenna physically longer) or capacitance (if the antenna is too long), both which result in losses. 

 

Then again, this might not be as big of a deal at higher frequencies. HTC/Samsung/Apple manage to fit a bunch of frequencies in their phones without a problem.

 

Typically, flagpole sites are low capacity sites to begin with.  They can have less antennas in the panel for each band, thus allowing more bands.  No loss in performance for the bands housed within, but less carriers for each band will be supported.

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, flagpole sites are low capacity sites to begin with.  They can have less antennas in the panel for each band, thus allowing more bands.  No loss in performance for the bands housed within, but less carriers for each band will be supported.

 

Robert

 

Good point. I've noticed that I never connect to the flagpole near my house, even though it's a lot closer than the tower I do connect to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I've noticed that I never connect to the flagpole near my house, even though it's a lot closer than the tower I do connect to.

Could be a one or two sector site where the antenna panels are pointed away from you.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally notice the flagpole and fake tree sites are near highways, so I imagine they are more positioned and tuned to serve road traffic than the population in the local area.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally notice the flagpole and fake tree sites are near highways, so I imagine they are more positioned and tuned to serve road traffic than the population in the local area.

Fake trees? Booo. You'd think people would be happy to see a site so close to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake trees? Booo. You'd think people would be happy to see a site so close to them.

I'd much rather see a fake tree.  Who wants to see a bunch of metal antennas and boxes in the air.  Most people can't identify whose antenna it would be anyway.  Put them all over the place then, I'm now offering up my living room's Christmas tree--I am on a higher elevation on the second floor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the fake tree towers unless they are of the palm tree type.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the fake tree towers unless they are of the palm tree type.

 

Wouldn't they look a little out of place in Delaware?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't they look a little out of place in Delaware?

 

They look out of place no matter where they are located.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much rather see a fake tree. Who wants to see a bunch of metal antennas and boxes in the air. Most people can't identify whose antenna it would be anyway. Put them all over the place then, I'm now offering up my living room's Christmas tree--I am on a higher elevation on the second floor.

Me.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't they look a little out of place in Delaware?

 

Yes. Yes they would. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that most stealth sites just look silly. The fake pine and palm trees are really ridiculous when you have this lone palm tree sticking 150 feet above the rest of the tree line with proportionately stubby leaves compared to its size. The flag pole sites I have seen are so thick with comically massive flags to attempt to blend in with their size. Personally, I like nice monopole tower. I am a tech guy to the core so when I see a high tech looking panel with fiber optic cables running down it makes me feel warm inside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that most stealth sites just look silly. The fake pine and palm trees are really ridiculous when you have this lone palm tree sticking 150 feet above the rest of the tree line with proportionately stubby leaves compared to its size. The flag pole sites I have seen are so thick with comically massive flags to attempt to blend in with their size. Personally, I like nice monopole tower. I am a tech guy to the core so when I see a high tech looking panel with fiber optic cables running down it makes me feel warm inside.

Are you sure it isn't the radiation making you feel warm inside lol. But I like the monopole look as well, helps to be able to clearly identify carriers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-plans-use-25-ghz-spectrum-catch-verizon-att-lte/2013-08-29

 

 

 

 

As noted by Barron's, Wells Fargo Securities and investors met earlier this week with Sprint CEO Dan Hesse and CFO Joe Euteneuer, who provided more details and color on the company's Network Vision network modernization efforts, the first phase of which the carrier expects to complete by mid-2014 (as part of that, Sprint expects to cover 200 million POPs with LTE by year-end). The second phase will be the deployment of Clearwire's 2.5 GHz airwaves on a nationwide basis, and Sprint's management expects to reveal more details on that part of the company's plans "at some point in the not-too-distant future," according to note, written by Wells Fargo Securities analysts J. Davis Herbert and Eric Fishel.

Sprint disclosed in July that it plans to deploy Clearwire's 2.5 GHz spectrum using TD-LTE on all 38,000 of its planned Network Vision cell sites in a nationwide rollout. And, due to the weaker propagation characteristics of 2.5 GHz, Sprint will also deploy small cells and other sites beyond the 38,000 Network Vision sites. Previously, Sprint had said it would use Clearwire's spectrum as a "hotspot" LTE network to offload traffic in urban markets.



Read more: Sprint plans to use 2.5 GHz spectrum to catch up to Verizon, AT&T in LTE - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-plans-use-25-ghz-spectrum-catch-verizon-att-lte/2013-08-29#ixzz2dOI8OZOQ 
Subscribe at FierceWireless

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×