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

    • Trip
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By Trip · Posted

      I assume that any agreement is not perpetual and has an end date. - Trip
    • radem
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By radem · Posted

      I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • Trip
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By Trip · Posted

      On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • wispiANt
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By wispiANt · Posted

      Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.

  • Recently Browsing

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