Jump to content

What if Sprint used Clearwire's spectrum as the down link and PCS for the uplink?


bigsnake49

Recommended Posts

Just thinking out loud. Turn up the power on the downlink so that the coverage is identical to PCS and use PCS spectrum for the uplink. Now of course the FCC would have to agree to that, but I think the idea has merit. Any technical problems besides the increased power bill? Even that can be ameliorated by the use of smart antennas.

 

Actually this idea would work really well with the uplink portion of Lightsquared's spectrum.

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCS is paired spectrum, thus split into two parts, each with their own spectrum range. It's not continuous, thus it would at least be two separate channels. I don't think the FCC would ever approve something like this. The possibility of interference is something that would have to be taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may also cause interference with Wi-Fi Signals.

 

If they have managed to not interfere with WiFi so far, I think thay might be able to avoid it in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they have managed to not interfere with WiFi so far, I think thay might be able to avoid it in the future.

 

I doubt it will work simultaneously since AWS Spectrum might cause interference even if there was no Wi-Fi Interference in its way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clearwire would adopt beamforming, it would help downlink transmission tremendously. There are increased energy costs associated with beamforming and more panels.

 

However, with beamforming, Clearwire may even be able to achieve PCS spacing. And then could just jump on Sprint NV sites.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clearwire would adopt beamforming, it would help downlink transmission tremendously. There are increased energy costs associated with beamforming and more panels.

 

However, with beamforming, Clearwire may even be able to achieve PCS spacing. And then could just jump on Sprint NV sites.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

That would solve the problem for a TDD configuration. What I'm prposing is an FDD configuration with Clearwire's spectrum being the down link and a lower frequency being the uplink. LTE TDD configurations have inherent disadvatages vis a vis FDD configuration as far as decreased coverage. Unless those problems have been solved lately!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking out loud. Turn up the power on the downlink so that the coverage is identical to PCS and use PCS spectrum for the uplink. Now of course the FCC would have to agree to that, but I think the idea has merit.

 

Yes, that would be multi band carrier aggregation supplemental downlink, which is supported under LTE Advanced. I proposed the same idea about nine months to a year ago. I have quoted my proposal on several sites, including here at S4GRU in the post linked below.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/770-lte-network-buildout-a-comparison-between-carriers/page__view__findpost__p__12777

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be multi band carrier aggregation supplemental downlink, which is supported under LTE Advanced. I proposed the same idea about nine months to a year ago. I have quoted my proposal on several sites, including here at S4GRU in the post linked below.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...dpost__p__12777

 

AJ

 

That was you wasn't it? I knew I had seen it before, I just did not remember where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clearwire would adopt beamforming, it would help downlink transmission tremendously. There are increased energy costs associated with beamforming and more panels.

 

However, with beamforming, Clearwire may even be able to achieve PCS spacing. And then could just jump on Sprint NV sites.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

What does Clearwire currently do? If beamforming does increase coverage then they need to do it since they must take advantage of any techniques that can increase the poor 2.5 GHz propagation. I am sure the RRU's on the top of Clearwire towers must have helped with coverage. I can't imagine what the 2.5 GHz Wimax coverage would be like if it didn't adopt RRU's up high on the towers.

 

I wonder if Sprint is planning to implement beamforming for its microwave backhaul and for its antennas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Clearwire currently do? If beamforming does increase coverage then they need to do it since they must take advantage of any techniques that can increase the poor 2.5 GHz propagation. I am sure the RRU's on the top of Clearwire towers must have helped with coverage. I can't imagine what the 2.5 GHz Wimax coverage would be like if it didn't adopt RRU's up high on the towers.

 

I wonder if Sprint is planning to implement beamforming for its microwave backhaul and for its antennas.

No need to do beamforming for microwave backhaul since those are point to point links. The beamwidth is very narrow. However beamforming should be used to increase coverage and capacity. People much smarter than me have been advocating the use of beamforming and smart antennas for the last 10 years. I defer to their knowledge and experience. I don't know why it has not taken off. Carriers are more interested in buying more spectrum to keep it away from their competitors than fully utilizing what spectrum they have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beamforming is more expensive in design, deployment and operationally. The design has to be extremely accurate and the install has to be perfectly done.

 

The amount of panels it takes to do 360 coverage from a site is a minimum of 15, but could be even higher. Whereas a conventional deployment may have one or two per sector, for a total of 3 or 6. That is a lot of increased material and labor cost in deployment.

 

Operationally, it costs more per radio to run beamforming than a conventional signal, and also, with the multiplier of more panels/radios equals a significant operational cost increase.

 

So wireless carriers believe beamforming is not an option at this time because they hold on to hope of having copious amounts of cheap to deploy low and mid frequency spectrum.

 

In reality, there is not a spectrum crisis as it's being presented by VZW and ATT. There is a scarcity of cheap and easy to deploy spectrum. With cell splitting, Pico and Micro cells and higher frequency use through beamforming, we have lots more spectrum to exploit for the next 10 years without raiding other sources.

 

Robert via Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
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

    • https://ir.echostar.com/news-releases/news-release-details/echostar-corporation-announces-successful-completion-various They have pushed off debt for at least 6 years, except for 139 million. It is secured by spectrum.  They want to put this money towards completing their build out.  Hopefully this includes some midrange capacity.
    • Just revisiting the RCS issue and discussing another point I find odd.  Yeah, my family and close friends and most coworkers still mostly use whats app in our chats due to the odd RCS issues.   Some have Apple phones, some Samsung.  But using Facebook Messenger or Whats App handily eliminates those issues.   But the other thing I find odd is how all the information out there states that to use the Smart View app to mirror your phone to your TV that your TV and your phone have to be on the same wifi network.  That is 100 percent untrue.  I've historically not had wifi at home and only use it in our common areas in our community or occasionally at work.  But primarily I just use my phone for everything and do not have wifi at home.  It's because I haven't needed it.  I've been using all my Samsung phones for the better part of a decade now as my entertainment center because it's simple, effective, portable and absolutely does not require a wifi connection for my TV in order to cast all the content from my phone.  I'm not sure why it is stated that it is required.  The two devices - as we all no doubt know - create a wifi direct connection between the two devices in order for smart view to work, however, no general wifi network is required at all.  Again, I've been enjoying the feature for close to a decade but I find it odd that they say that you need wifi at home to use it.  Samsung television sets, Roku TV sets, LG TV sets (I cast to all of them at work regularly, again, sans wifi) and TCL TVs are all compatible.  There are likely more but these are the ones that I regularly screen mirror to, again, without the two devices being on the same network (this is separate from the notion of creating a wifi direct connection between the 2 in order to enable the service). This is the sole reason I only buy Samsung phones.   I tried a Pixel device before the Pixel 8 (which was the first to allow display out via wired connection for streaming) but it simply did not offer the same feature.   I wonder why they say this.  It's interesting if nothing else.  
    • Yeah, I probably see it through a Washington/Oregon market lens. And maybe a little Nebraska too.  These are the only places I have monitored Tmo overlay of USC closely. Tmo has already added service on 80% of the same towers that were unique to USC just 5 years ago around here.  The 20% left are either too close to an existing Tmo site, or, probably already on Tmo's plans to collocation.  But there is one USC site on the beach where our family likes to go that I am dying for Tmo to add service.  There won't be a lot of new coverage added here. But I have not done really any review in other USC areas.  But I definitely think it's a good move. Robert
    • Found Ericsson C-band+DoD in Brooklyn. What tipped me off was when I mapped a new eNB in this area on Halloween but I didn't see any permits for a new site in the area and the sectors I mapped matched the existing site that was there. Drove by it today and sure enough it's an Ericsson C-band + DoD site, likely one of the first in the city.  This is eNB 110340, formerly eNB 115257. — — — — — Also a T-Mobile new build in Queens. The permit for this one was submitted last year as a replacement for another monopole that got demolished nearby. It must've only recently got installed because it was offline when I drove by it.
  • Recently Browsing

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