Floating Cell Towers

[4GHoward]

Is this possible? The FCC is thinking about launching floating cell towers.

 

Source: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/fcc-considering-plan-launch-floating-cell-towers

[pyroscott]

Cell on wheels is a lot more doable. I think this would be a waste of money for the FCC to invest in this tech.

[4GHoward]

Cell on wheels is a lot more doable. I think this would be a waste of money for the FCC to invest in this tech.

 

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

[pyroscott]

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...

[4GHoward]

...

 

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.

[WiWavelength]

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

[JohnHovah]

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

[4ginnc]

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.

[pyroscott]

 

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

[4ginnc]

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.

[pyroscott]

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.

[WiWavelength]

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

 

AJ

[4ginnc]

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.

[pyroscott]

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

 

AJ

 

Sorry, SatCOLT http://www.flickr.co...hawk/213808225/

[WiWavelength]

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

[pyroscott]

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...

[pyroscott]

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.

[pyroscott]

Maybe there will be separate floating cell sites for public service and commercial cell carriers.