Jump to content

Floating Cell Towers

4GHoward

By 4GHoward
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

pyroscott Member Level: LTE Advanced

pyroscott

Posted
Posted

What is the FCC thinking? Will signal even reach the ground?

 

...

 

You got me. I would assume it would, but you would have to have a lot of stuff on that balloon... Batteries or generator, fuel tank, sattellite receiver, cell panels etc. And most of the people on the ground will have dead batteries on their phones within days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
4GHoward Member Level: eHRPD

4GHoward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

...

 

You got me. I would assume it would, but you would have to have a lot of stuff on that balloon... Batteries or generator, fuel tank, sattellite receiver, cell panels etc. And most of the people on the ground will have dead batteries on their phones within days...

 

We need solar chargers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

What is the FCC thinking? Will signal even reach the ground?

 

Yes, easily.

 

Free space path loss for an antenna 50 km away but with a clear LOS (line of sight) above the horizon is ~132 dB (i.e. the signal spreads out and loses intensity by 132 dB). Path loss for a cell site only 1 km away but in an urban area with no clear LOS can be roughly similar to that 132 dB figure.

 

In other words, a floating cell site 50 km distant could provide signal strength similar to that of a ground based cell site only 1 km distant.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnHovah Member Level: 4G WiMax

JohnHovah

Posted
Posted

So either some higher ups at the FCC have a brother who works in the balloon business or they want to bring back the Hindenburg. I could see some potential NIMBY issues with locales due to balloons floating everywhere and the potential for damge if they drop out of the sky due to the weather. then again, 50km is not a bad distance and you could probably get away with only a few dozen in a given area as opposed to hundreds or several thousand ground based towers covering the same distance

Link to comment
Share on other sites
4ginnc Member Level: eHRPD

4ginnc

Posted
Posted

I could see some potential NIMBY issues with locales due to balloons floating everywhere and the potential for damge if they drop out of the sky due to the weather.

 

From what I read, the FCC is investigating these for emergency situations such as hurricanes, tornados, etc where the local infrastructure is out of commission. The NIMBY problem wouldn't really be much of a concern in those situations.

 

I grew up and have family on the coast of Mississippi where the eye of Katrina came through. For weeks after the hurricane there was only one place in the small town where cell phones would work. It was at the end of the highway where a bridge across the Bay used to be. There must have been one tower on the other side that was still working. I was down there a month after the storm and people were still driving to the end of the bridge to use the phone.

 

People were still able to charge their phones either in their cars (for those that still had cars) or with generators when they were finally able to get them. I think it's worth investigating any technology that could move in quickly and provide service in these types of emergencies. And since the article stated the military already uses similar technology I would imagine a lot of the technological hurdles like power, etc have been worked out to some degree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyroscott Member Level: LTE Advanced

pyroscott

Posted
Posted

 

From what I read, the FCC is investigating these for emergency situations such as hurricanes, tornados, etc where the local infrastructure is out of commission. The NIMBY problem wouldn't really be much of a concern in those situations.

 

I grew up and have family on the coast of Mississippi where the eye of Katrina came through. For weeks after the hurricane there was only one place in the small town where cell phones would work. It was at the end of the highway where a bridge across the Bay used to be. There must have been one tower on the other side that was still working. I was down there a month after the storm and people were still driving to the end of the bridge to use the phone.

 

People were still able to charge their phones either in their cars (for those that still had cars) or with generators when they were finally able to get them. I think it's worth investigating any technology that could move in quickly and provide service in these types of emergencies. And since the article stated the military already uses similar technology I would imagine a lot of the technological hurdles like power, etc have been worked out to some degree.

 

Wouldn't a cell on wheels work in the situation you described?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
4ginnc Member Level: eHRPD

4ginnc

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't a cell on wheels work in the situation you described?

 

Yes, it probably would. It might be harder to get in some areas with a wheeled vehicle just because of debris in roads, etc. The day after the hurricane my brother-in-law had to park over a mile away and walk and climb over debris to be able to reach their house.

 

I would suspect you can cover a wider area with an aerial type of tower, as AJ mentioned above. I'm sure there would be situations where each would would be a better fit. Like I said before, I think it's worth investigating anything that could help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyroscott Member Level: LTE Advanced

pyroscott

Posted
Posted

Yes, it probably would. It might be harder to get in some areas with a wheeled vehicle just because of debris in roads, etc. The day after the hurricane my brother-in-law had to park over a mile away and walk and climb over debris to be able to reach their house.

 

I would suspect you can cover a wider area with an aerial type of tower, as AJ mentioned above. I'm sure there would be situations where each would would be a better fit. Like I said before, I think it's worth investigating anything that could help.

 

There might be some value in an airborne cell receiver, but it would be overwhelmed easily, especially if it is used for a large city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Guys, a COW may be a viable alternative but only if it has access to backhaul.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
4ginnc Member Level: eHRPD

4ginnc

Posted
Posted

There might be some value in an airborne cell receiver, but it would be overwhelmed easily, especially if it is used for a large city.

 

Yes, I agree. It could become overwhelmed very easily. And in emergency situations there's not a lot of time for capacity planning, site planning, etc. Plus, could they support multiple carriers (Sprint, Cellular South, Verizon, AT&^T, etc, etc) on one balloon? Would each carrier have their own?

 

The more options the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Sorry SatCOLT

 

The advantage of a floating cell site is that it would not use satellite backhaul. It could use wireless backhaul to a terrestrial site ~100 miles away.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyroscott Member Level: LTE Advanced

pyroscott

Posted
Posted

Yes, I agree. It could become overwhelmed very easily. And in emergency situations there's not a lot of time for capacity planning, site planning, etc. Plus, could they support multiple carriers (Sprint, Cellular South, Verizon, AT&^T, etc, etc) on one balloon? Would each carrier have their own?

 

The more options the better.

 

I think that the main priority of this would be for the band for emergency personnel. I would think having carriers on there would be a bonus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyroscott Member Level: LTE Advanced

pyroscott

Posted
Posted
The advantage of a floating cell site is that it would not use satellite backhaul. It could use wireless backhaul to a terrestrial site ~100 miles away. AJ

 

I have a picture of the floating cell site hooking to terrestrial backhaul.

15.jpg

  • Like 4
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • dkyeager
      SignalCheck Beta Crew Forum

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Mike if you need more Dish data, I have been hunting down sites in western Columbus.  So far just n70 and n71 reporting although I CA all three.
    • S4GRU
      Keep a Word, Drop a Word #7

      By S4GRU · Posted

      Nissan Coupe
    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      Good catch! I meant 115932/119932. Edited my original post I've noticed the same thing lately and have just assumed that they're skipping it now because they're finally able to deploy mmWave small cells.
    • Dkoellerwx
      T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

      By Dkoellerwx · Posted

      At some point over the weekend, T-Mobile bumped the Omaha metro from 100+40 to 100+90 of n41! That's a pretty large increase from what we had just a few weeks ago when we were sitting at 80+40Mhz. Out of curiosity, tested a site on my way to work and pulled 1.4Gpbs. That's the fastest I've ever gotten on T-Mobile! For those that know Omaha, this was on Dodge street in Midtown so not exactly a quiet area!
    • AirlineFlyer
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By AirlineFlyer · Posted

      Did you mean a different site? eNB ID 112039 has been around for years. Streetview even has it with C-band back in 2022 - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7303042,-73.9610924,3a,24.1y,18.03h,109.66t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s2ossx06yU56AYOzREdcK-g!2e0!5s20220201T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2ossx06yU56AYOzREdcK-g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D18.027734930682684%26pitch%3D-19.664180274382204%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu Meanwhile, Verizon's eNB 84484 in Fort Greene has been updated to include C-band and CBRS, but not mmWave. I've seen this a few times now on updated Verizon sites where it's just the CBRS antenna on its own, not in a shroud and without mmWave. Odd.

  • Recently Browsing

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