LTE building penetration

[4ginnc]

...

A decent rain in the south doesn't really kill my signals but it seems to make 3g just about unusable. Is it because of noise or just everyone checking the radar loop to see if it is raining at their house?

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

 

I've seen this as well with my broadband card. During moderate to heavy rain the 3G is pretty much operating at 1X speeds. I'll even see it drop to 1X at times during storms. Just have to kind of wait it out and then disconnect/reconnect to get back to 3G.

[S4GRU]

AJ the tower is on top of a building across the street. But the antenna don't have the little box behind them' date=' like I have seen in other pic. So I thought it wasn't upgraded. I'll try to get a pic next time I go that way.[/quote']

 

In rooftop locations, the RRU's are often not visible as they are usually just under the panel on the opposite side of a parapet wall.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

Yes. I spent a few days in Waco this past holiday weekend doing LTE radio performance testing. I am working up articles to explain the difference. LTE on 1900 is significantly better than WiMax on 2600.

 

Robert

 

When you do this please please keep the standard here you guys have so far....comparing the LTE to WiMAX is tough to write about as most ppl end up being very general with it and readers end up with conclusions like LTE =better building penetration than WiMAX which is a poor statement as the freq has a ton to do with it(though you have shown it drops off more than evdo which is interesting and I'd really like to see WiMAX on same freq to see its drop off rate compared to those two....that'll never happen though lol)...real test would be LTE on 2.6 vs WiMAX on 2.6....which should be about the same roughly no?

Just the same should be said as WiMAX on 1.9 would be considerably better than it on 2.6...

 

The clearwire deployment of WiMAX really left a spur taste in general peoples mouths, which they now turn into statements like LTE is better than WiMAX when its really better right now only bc the freq its been deployed on...deploy on same freq is best test....something we won't be able to do for awhile if ever no?

 

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

...I'd really like to see WiMAX on same freq to see its drop off rate compared to those two....that'll never happen though lol)...real test would be LTE on 2.6 vs WiMAX on 2.6....which should be about the same roughly no?

 

A few comments...

 

WiMAX is TDD, while LTE (in our current configuration) is FDD. TDD airlinks will always be distance limited because of the inability to transmit and receive simultaneously and the time required to switch between transmission and reception modes. For example, Clearwire's WiMAX configuration is distance limited to 8.35 km (5.19 mi). Hence, LTE FDD can have an advantage over WiMAX in that regard.

 

Also, WiMAX uses OFDMA for both uplink and downlink, while LTE uses SC-FDMA for uplink, OFDMA for downlink. OFDMA allows for MIMO, which WiMAX can employ even on the uplink for multiplied data rates. But OFDMA has higher peak to average power requirements. That is a taller order for power limited mobiles and may limit their uplink range. So, again, LTE may have that advantage, albeit at the cost of less efficient uplink data throughput.

 

AJ

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

A few comments...

 

WiMAX is TDD, while LTE (in our current configuration) is FDD. TDD airlinks will always be distance limited because of the inability to transmit and receive simultaneously and the time required to switch between transmission and reception modes. For example, Clearwire's WiMAX configuration is distance limited to 8.35 km (5.19 mi). Hence, LTE FDD can have an advantage over WiMAX in that regard.

 

Also, WiMAX uses OFDMA for both uplink and downlink, while LTE uses SC-FDMA for uplink, OFDMA for downlink. OFDMA allows for MIMO, which WiMAX can employ even on the uplink for multiplied data rates. But OFDMA has higher peak to average power requirements. That is a taller order for power limited mobiles and may limit their uplink range. So, again, LTE may have that advantage, albeit at the cost of less efficient uplink data throughput.

 

AJ

 

Excellent post there! Thanks AJ

 

What changes with the case of TDD LTE in regards to the comparison btw...just wondering.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[Fifth313ment]

I remember reading a while ago that Verizon's 700MHz LTE network is great because of building and distance penetration but Sprints LTE network would be just as good, if not better, because their 1900MHz LTE would be setup on a network which is closer together due to legacy towers and would create a larger coverage area (net). Is this true or will Sprint simply cheap out and only place LTE upgrades on towers which are "enough" to cover an area? Will Sprint be putting LTE upgrades on every current 3G tower?

 

Robert what do you think the coverage gaps will look like since you've been testing the network out recently? I also remember reading Sprint's LTE upgrades on current 3G towers would increase range by 20% (Or if you had 2 bars you would have 3 with the LTE network vision upgrade and so on). Right now my house sits within 5 or 6 Sprint towers but I get no more than 2 bars max (usually 1 and barely 1 aka -100+db) from any of them which usually leaves my phone switching towers looking for a signal and killing battery. I have an Airvana at home but it has tons of negatives and I would rather not use it and I figured when my area is finally upgraded according to Sprint I should have at least 3 bars from the closest tower? Any info you or anyone who has been using the new LTE network before or after knows would be appreciated.

[4ginnc]

I remember reading a while ago that Verizon's 700MHz LTE network is great because of building and distance penetration but Sprints LTE network would be just as good, if not better, because their 1900MHz LTE would be setup on a network which is closer together due to legacy towers and would create a larger coverage area (net). Is this true or will Sprint simply cheap out and only place LTE upgrades on towers which are "enough" to cover an area? Will Sprint be putting LTE upgrades on every current 3G tower?

 

Robert what do you think the coverage gaps will look like since you've been testing the network out recently? I also remember reading Sprint's LTE upgrades on current 3G towers would increase range by 20% (Or if you had 2 bars you would have 3 with the LTE network vision upgrade and so on). Right now my house sits within 5 or 6 Sprint towers but I get no more than 2 bars max (usually 1 and barely 1 aka -100+db) from any of them which usually leaves my phone switching towers looking for a signal and killing battery. I have an Airvana at home but it has tons of negatives and I would rather not use it and I figured when my area is finally upgraded according to Sprint I should have at least 3 bars from the closest tower? Any info you or anyone who has been using the new LTE network before or after knows would be appreciated.

 

Sprint is putting NV (upgraded 3G and LTE) on ALL current towers except for a handful as Robert's mentioned before. Not only that, but they will also be putting 800MHz voice and LTE on over 80% of their towers starting sometime after the Nextel IDEN shutdown is complete, starting middle of next year.

[avb]

Your RSRP (signal strength) is not "very weak." That is just a moderate signal. You have at least a 10 dB margin before reselection to eHRPD. However, your RSRQ (signal quality) is not great.

 

 

What is considered good signal quality as far as RSRQ goes?

[steveo27o]

and did I here that the 3G speeds would increase after a tower was upgraded? My 3G is just as bad as before the upgrade.I get LTE outside my office and then 3G inside.

[shockerengr]

and did I here that the 3G speeds would increase after a tower was upgraded? My 3G is just as bad as before the upgrade.I get LTE outside my office and then 3G inside.

 

Once the network vision upgrades for 3G are implemented, then you should improved performance. There's only a portion where both the 4G and 3G upgrades are happening at the same time.

[shifted]

I was under the impression LTE was the same frequency as 3G and that by then end of this upgrade everywhere that has 3G would have LTE. If that is the case why is building penetration even being discussed? Shouldn't it be the same as 3G?

Edited September 6, 2012 by shifted

[WiWavelength]

I was under the impression LTE was the same frequency as 3G and that by then end of this upgrade everywhere that has 3G would have LTE. If that is the case why is building penetration even being discussed? Shouldn't it be the same as 3G?

 

Some members are questioning it because they apparently do not have the patience or foresight to wait for full market LTE deployment. Incomplete deployment will inevitably have coverage issues -- in building or even outside -- in many locations.

 

AJ

[Boosted20V]

Some members are questioning it because they apparently do not have the patience or foresight to wait for full market LTE deployment. Incomplete deployment will inevitably have coverage issues -- in building or even outside -- in many locations.

 

AJ

 

I've noticed this as well. People can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that not all towers are upgraded. If they hadn't let users connect to these towers, users would complain. Then they do let them connect, and users complain that coverage sucks and Sprint is going to pull a WiMax on us.

[el_oh_el88]

I have a question with regards to 3g upgrades. If the 3g on the towers that have been upgraded to 4g is still slow, what could be the cause of that? Do they have to come back to completed towers to finish the 3g aspect?

[S4GRU]

I have a question with regards to 3g upgrades. If the 3g on the towers that have been upgraded to 4g is still slow, what could be the cause of that? Do they have to come back to completed towers to finish the 3g aspect?

 

As a Sponsor, you have access to the NV Sites Complete map. In that map you can see that some sites are marked 3G, 4G, 3G/4G, and even some show 800 too.

 

In a site that shows 4G only, it means only the 4G has been upgraded to Network Vision. The 3G is still on the legacy network. It will be upgraded later.

 

In a site that shows 3G only, it means only the 3G has been upgraded to Network Vision. The 3G may, or may not, be connected to new backhaul (especially in Chicago). 4G will be installed later. Sometimes a few weeks, sometimes a few months.

 

If a site shows both 3G and 4G, then the legacy network is no longer in operation and only running on Network Vision. It is believed in all cases where the site shows 4G is complete that new backhaul is in place.

 

If a site shows 800, then the CDMA 800 (1x) is operational on at least one 800MHz channel. 800 is complete with 3G, or sometime after, but never before.

 

Robert

[el_oh_el88]

As a Sponsor, you have access to the NV Sites Complete map. In that map you can see that some sites are marked 3G, 4G, 3G/4G, and even some show 800 too.

 

In a site that shows 4G only, it means only the 4G has been upgraded to Network Vision. The 3G is still on the legacy network. It will be upgraded later.

 

In a site that shows 3G only, it means only the 3G has been upgraded to Network Vision. The 3G may, or may not, be connected to new backhaul (especially in Chicago). 4G will be installed later. Sometimes a few weeks, sometimes a few months.

 

If a site shows both 3G and 4G, then the legacy network is no longer in operation and only running on Network Vision. It is believed in all cases where the site shows 4G is complete that new backhaul is in place.

 

If a site shows 800, then the CDMA 800 (1x) is operational on at least one 800MHz channel. 800 is complete with 3G, or sometime after, but never before.

 

Robert

 

This is what I wanted to know, because it seems like a lot of work to do the 4g upgrade, then have to go and revisit every tower for the 3g upgrade, then turn around and revisit each tower AGAIN to remove the legacy equipment.

[S4GRU]

This is what I wanted to know, because it seems like a lot of work to do the 4g upgrade, then have to go and revisit every tower for the 3g upgrade, then turn around and revisit each tower AGAIN to remove the legacy equipment.

 

It definitely is. However, the work that is required to upgrade the 3G in the future is pretty minimal. Although I do not know for certain the cause for this, it almost always happens in Ericsson markets where 4G is being completed and not 3G at the same time. I can only deduct it is related to equipment. Maybe Ericsson does not have the 1x/EVDO carrier cards, yet? There are only a handful of Ericsson sites that have 3G completed. The early sites in the Waco FIT and in the far NW Houston exurbs.

 

Robert

[shockerengr]

I have a question with regards to 3g upgrades. If the 3g on the towers that have been upgraded to 4g is still slow, what could be the cause of that? Do they have to come back to completed towers to finish the 3g aspect?

 

The other issue is in many cases, the backhaul on towers is through frame relay systems that can't talk to the new fiber based backhaul without a translator, so even tho there is new backhaul, the legacy system wouldn't be able to make use of it. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to spend the money on making the new and old talk to each other when the old is going away soon.

 

I would imagine they'll want to move relatively quickly to get the new equipment in to use the fiber once it's in place so they can drop the more expensive legacy backhaul systems.

[el_oh_el88]

Ok, I see. Basically, the old equipment can't interface with the new backhaul without an item that would be a waste of money, because its all getting binned soon anyway. Thanks

[S4GRU]

The other issue is in many cases, the backhaul on towers is through frame relay systems that can't talk to the new fiber based backhaul without a translator, so even tho there is new backhaul, the legacy system wouldn't be able to make use of it. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to spend the money on making the new and old talk to each other when the old is going away soon.

 

I would imagine they'll want to move relatively quickly to get the new equipment in to use the fiber once it's in place so they can drop the more expensive legacy backhaul systems.

 

Interesting. Not something I have ever thought about before.

 

Robert

[shockerengr]

If you go to the 5:10 mark of this video, they show an example of fiber getting converted to T1 at a cell site:

 

[S4GRU]

If you go to the 5:10 mark of this video, they show an example of fiber getting converted to T1 at a cell site:

 

 

I was aware of the conversion of ethernet backhaul into "T1" service for 1x/voice. I have also seen this video before. But I had never considered a delay in the conversion equipment at Ericsson sites as a possible culprit of why 4G is going live without 3G. Interesting to consider. Thanks for the post.

 

Robert

[shockerengr]

I was aware of the conversion of ethernet backhaul into "T1" service for 1x/voice. I have also seen this video before. But I had never considered a delay in the conversion equipment at Ericsson sites as a possible culprit of why 4G is going live without 3G. Interesting to consider. Thanks for the post.

 

Robert

 

I'd really be surprised if this was causing the 3G delays...since it's all ethernet based on the NV side, there's no need for any of this equipment, the new equipment should just plug into the switch and be good to go...there must be something else going on with Ericsson keeping them from rolling it out. The only thing this would really affect is helping the legacy equipment out prior to the NV 3G equipment rolling in.

 

But, as always, it's all speculation on my part.

[feteru]

Overcast means complete cloud cover. Are your cell site antennas mounted so high that they are in or above the clouds?

 

AJ

Hahaha, whoops! I meant raining and other inclement weather. And I wish that they were mounted that high, it might mean we could get service in airplanes (besides the whole FAA/FCC thing).

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

I'd really be surprised if this was causing the 3G delays...since it's all ethernet based on the NV side, there's no need for any of this equipment, the new equipment should just plug into the switch and be good to go...there must be something else going on with Ericsson keeping them from rolling it out. The only thing this would really affect is helping the legacy equipment out prior to the NV 3G equipment rolling in.

 

But, as always, it's all speculation on my part.

 

That and they are supposed to have the fiber run all the way to the radios which are not in a cabinet and are up at the antennae, then a coax from radio to antennae....no?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2