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

    • PedroDaGr8
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By PedroDaGr8 · Posted

      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!
    • PedroDaGr8
      Galaxy S22 thread

      By PedroDaGr8 · Posted

      That's odd, they are usually almost lock step with TMO. I forgot to mention this also includes the September Security Update.
    • PythonFanPA
      Galaxy S24 Info & Discussion

      By PythonFanPA · Posted

      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. 
    • Paynefanbro
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      T-Mobile is selling the rest of the 3.45GHz spectrum to Columbia Capital.  
    • mdob07
      Galaxy S22 thread

      By mdob07 · Posted

      Still nothing for my AT&T and Visible phones.

  • Recently Browsing

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