Jump to content

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

bigsnake49

By bigsnake49
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted (edited)

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
xcharles718 Member Level: 3G EVDO

xcharles718

Posted
Posted

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
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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
4GHoward Member Level: eHRPD

4GHoward

Posted
Posted

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
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

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
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

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
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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
ericdabbs Member Level: LTE Advanced

ericdabbs

Posted
Posted

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
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Paynefanbro
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      Kind of amazing that T-Mobile is still holding onto that speed title despite Verizon all but killing off lowband 5G on their network. While Verizon is mostly being evaluated on mmWave and C-band performance, T-Mobile and AT&T's average 5G speeds include their massive lowband 5G networks that are significantly slower.
    • schmidtj
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By schmidtj · Posted

      5G in the U.S. – Additional Mid-band Spectrum Driving Performance Gains T-Mobile holds on to it's lead in 5G Speed
    • RedSpark
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By RedSpark · Posted

      Yup. Very true. We were originally on an Everything Data 1500 Plan, which got Unlimited Minutes thanks to Marcelo's "Loyalty Benefits" offer. We then switched to Unlimited Freedom (with the Free HD add-on that Sprint originally wanted $20/month per line for.... remember that?) because the pricing was better with "iPhone for Life", vs. the "Loyalty Credit" for staying on a Legacy Plan. After that, I ran the numbers and switched us over to Sprint MAX, especially for the international travel benefits. There's absolutely no reason for us to switch to Go5G Plus or Go5G Next if we're going to do BYOD by purchasing from Apple/Samsung/Google directly as we've been doing. These new plans aren't priced for current customers to switch to. They're priced for new customers, where they throw in a free line, etc. It's gone from "Uncarrier" to "Carrier". What a shame.
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Strange business model that they keep around all these pricing plans. 1000s of plans per carrier is reportedly not uncommon.  Training customer support must be a nightmare. Even MVNOs have legacy plans. A downside of their contract mentality I guess. Best to change contracts during a recession. But then all carriers try to squeeze out legacy plan benefits as they grow old.  
    • RedSpark
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By RedSpark · Posted

      Everything "Uncarrier" is becoming "Carrier" again. Because of the Credit Limit that T-Mobile put on our account for no reason at all (and wouldn't change/update the last time I checked all the way up to the CEO), I don't plan on buying/upgrading our iPhones through T-Mobile. I'm going through Apple directly. Looks like I'll be going through Google and Samsung directly for our other lines for upgrades. Also, we're staying on Sprint Max given the ridiculous pricing for Go5G Plus. On Sprint Max, we currently pay for our Plan: $260 for 7 Voice Lines $25 for two Wearable Lines. (One is $10/Month. The other is $15/Month because the AutoPay discount only applies up to 8 lines.) Total: $285/Month vs. Go5G Plus (Per the Broadband Facts "nutrition label" on the T-Mobile Website): https://www.t-mobile.com/commerce/cell-phone-plans $360 - ($5 AutoPay Discount x 7 Voice Lines) = $325 The Watch Plans show as either $12/Month or $15/Month: https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/affordable-data-plans/smartwatches So this is about the same for the wearables as what we're paying now. Overall, it's quite more than we're paying now to switch plans. Ridiculous....

  • Recently Browsing

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