Jump to content

Floating Cell Towers


4GHoward

Recommended Posts

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

...

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Since this is kind of the general chat thread, I have to share this humorous story (at least it is to me): Since around February/March of this year, my S22U has been an absolute pain to charge. USB-C cables would immediately fall out and it progressively got worse and worse until it often took me a number of minutes to get the angle of the cable juuuussst right to get charging to occur at all (not exaggerating). The connection was so weak that even walking heavily could cause the cable to disconnect. I tried cleaning out the port with a stable, a paperclip, etc. Some dust/lint/dirt came out but the connection didn't improve one bit. Needless to say, this was a MONSTER headache and had me hating this phone. I just didn't have the finances right now for a replacement.  Which brings us to the night before last. I am angry as hell because I had spent five minutes trying to get this phone to charge and failed. I am looking in the port and I notice it doesn't look right. The walls look rough and, using a staple, the back and walls feel REALLY rough and very hard. I get some lint/dust out with the staple and it improves charging in the sense I can get it to charge but it doesn't remove any of the hard stuff. It's late and it's charging, so that's enough for now. I decide it's time to see if that hard stuff is part of the connector or not. More aggressive methods are needed! I work in a biochem lab and we have a lot of different sizes of disposable needles available. So, yesterday morning, while in the lab I grab a few different sizes of needles between 26AWG and 31 AWG. When I got home, I got to work and start probing the connector with the 26 AWG and 31 AWG needle. The stuff feels extremely hard, almost like it was part of the connector, but a bit does break off. Under examination of the bit, it's almost sandy with dust/lint embedded in it. It's not part of the connector but instead some sort of rock-hard crap! That's when I remember that I had done some rock hounding at the end of last year and in January. This involved lots of digging in very sandy/dusty soils; soils which bare more than a passing resemblance to the crap in the connector. We have our answer, this debris is basically compacted/cemented rock dust. Over time, moisture in the area combined with the compression from inserting the USB-C connector had turned it into cement. I start going nuts chiseling away at it with the 26 AWG needle. After about 5-10 minutes of constant chiseling and scraping with the 26AWG and 31AWG needles, I see the first signs of metal at the back of the connector. So it is metal around the outsides! Another 5 minutes of work and I have scraped away pretty much all of the crap in the connector. A few finishing passes with the 31AWG needle, a blast of compressed air, and it is time to see if this helped any. I plug my regular USB-C cable and holy crap it clicks into place; it hasn't done that since February! I pick up the phone and the cable has actually latched! The connector works pretty much like it did over a year ago, it's almost like having a brand new phone!
    • That's odd, they are usually almost lock step with TMO. I forgot to mention this also includes the September Security Update.
    • 417.55 MB September security update just downloaded here for S24+ unlocked   Edit:  after Sept security update install, checked and found a 13MB GP System update as well.  Still showing August 1st there however. 
    • T-Mobile is selling the rest of the 3.45GHz spectrum to Columbia Capital.  
    • Still nothing for my AT&T and Visible phones.
  • Recently Browsing

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