Jump to content

Clear LTE channel width....?


Recommended Posts

I was running through my inbox on another forum and came across a discussion that brought up some LTE Clearwire stuff I had completely forgotten about....

 

I remember last year there was discussion about Clearwire wanting the FCC to allow them to increase the LTE channel width from 5.5MHz to 20MHz from the FCC. They ran tests long long long ago at 20MHz and were hitting 80Mbps, though only ones on tower...

 

I also remember reading this FCC doc which seemed that the FCC adopted Clears proposal, but they are seeking more comment on the affect of widening the channels...

http://www.fcc.gov/document/amendment-parts-1-21-73-74-and-101-commissions-rules-facilitate-provision-fixed-and-mobil-0

 

 

Another lil doc I found somewhat interesting but dont know if it relates much...

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016883156

 

 

 

now this could very well all of gotten solved and could not be worth even mentioning but It got me thinking when I came across this old info again as I never herd a final outcome and such. Just thought I'd see if anyone had gotten any info on this since we are talking of Clear using X MHz of channel bandwidth for LTE already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the day that Clearwire filed with the FCC to use wider channels. But I have not heard one peep since. I have read several things about Clearwire planning its TD-LTE in 20MHz carriers. So I guess we can assume that they received approval. But after a quick Google search, I am not able to confirm with certainty.

 

- Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the day that Clearwire filed with the FCC to use wider channels. But I have not heard one peep since. I have read several things about Clearwire planning its TD-LTE in 20MHz carriers. So I guess we can assume that they received approval. But after a quick Google search, I am not able to confirm with certainty.

 

- Robert

 

yup this is my worry as well though b/c when they had their thing set on the docket of the FCC meeting it was scratched last min and after emailing the current media relation person at the FCC back and forth thats when he linked to me the first FCC document in my post saying that was the result.

BUT in that document it said they adopted it but were still were seeking more comment on it....and haven't herd much else since...

 

With all the talk of running it on 20MHz i had completely forgotten about this whole thing till i was cleaning out my inbox over at xda and ran across a few PM's about NV and do-advanced SVDO and all that...the good times trying to explain how EVDORevB was likely not coming and how it shouldn't matter really anyway once its all said and done, and how just 800MHz provision for our evo3d does not mean it will do voice/data same time on cdma network. lol

 

chat enough with a guy that works for qualcomm and you'll learn a ton. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCC has not yet released an order regarding 20 MHz BRS/EBS channel widths. The most recently released FCC document is the proposed rulemaking that the Sgt. references. Here is the original document (in far more readable form):

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/...w?id=7021686918

 

And this is the entire docket (which, you might note, dates all the way back to 2003):

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/...nmks&name=03-66

 

The second document that the Sgt. links above pertains to expanded channel widths in microwave backhaul that Clearwire utilizes in various bands >5 GHz. So, it is not relevant to BRS/EBS spectrum that Clearwire uses for direct mobile service.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with that said Clear deploying LTE at 20MHz is still technically on hold till the FCC approves it?...

 

Deploying...no. Broadcasting, yes. However, if Clearwire wants to mitigate risk, it waits for FCC approval. If it doesn't get approved, its not the end of the world. They can aggregate smaller carriers together with LTE Advanced when it hits the street. But I can't think of any reasonable reason for them to deny Clearwire's request.

 

S4GRU is now mobile...posted via Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deploying...no. Broadcasting, yes. However, if Clearwire wants to mitigate risk, it waits for FCC approval. If it doesn't get approved, its not the end of the world. They can aggregate smaller carriers together with LTE Advanced when it hits the street. But I can't think of any reasonable reason for them to deny Clearwire's request.

 

S4GRU is now mobile...posted via Forum Runner

 

Is increasing channel width something that req visit to towers or is that something that could be controlled completely remotely?

JW incase say they want to go to 30MHz in future is that not just something they could adjust remotely since towers would have LTE hardware, or is the channel width's something that is controlled via hardware at the tower specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is increasing channel width something that req visit to towers or is that something that could be controlled completely remotely?

JW incase say they want to go to 30MHz in future is that not just something they could adjust remotely since towers would have LTE hardware, or is the channel width's something that is controlled via hardware at the tower specifically?

 

I'm not 100% certain, but I do believe that it would be a significant deal to increase carrier width and would require site visits and possibly even equipment changes. It would probably be easier to aggregate carriers in the future if they do not deploy 20MHz carriers. Perhaps AJ knows more about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not 100% certain, but I do believe that it would be a significant deal to increase carrier width and would require site visits and possibly even equipment changes. It would probably be easier to aggregate carriers in the future if they do not deploy 20MHz carriers. Perhaps AJ knows more about this?

 

Yeah that's something I'd be interested in knowing. Would think that by now they could find a way to adjust carrier width VIA software to tower no?

Like deploy it full for total spectrum bc clear is only using that for LTE now, and then control the amount actually used VIA software.

Obv I have no idea just thinking hypothetical here.

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with that said Clear deploying LTE at 20MHz is still technically on hold till the FCC approves it?...

 

The issue, per se, is not actually 20 MHz channels. While it may be tempting to interpret the proposed rulemaking to indicate that Clearwire requires FCC approval to expand bandwidth to 20 MHz per TDD channel, that is not truly the case.

 

Recall that BRS/EBS is divided into 5.5 MHz or 6 MHz license blocks. And Clearwire currently operates WiMAX in 10 MHz TDD channels. So, Clearwire already spans adjacent license blocks with its 10 MHz WiMAX channelization. Thus, adherence to established license block channelization is not the concern.

 

Rather, the issue is the "emissions mask," which limits the out of band power levels that could potentially interfere with adjacent services. (Think of this as similar to but not even remotely as controversial as the LightSquared-GPS interference affair.) That said, BRS/EBS base stations (i.e. cell sites) do not have problems adhering to the current emissions mask because base stations are not particularly space nor power constrained regarding amps and filters.

 

As a result, base stations transmitting on 20 MHz channels is also not the problem. So, that narrows down the issue to mobile stations (i.e. mobile devices), which do tend to be space and power constrained regarding amps and filters. Because it is difficult to design mobiles to transmit on 20 MHz channels yet meet the current emissions mask, Clearwire, et al., seeks to have the emissions mask relaxed somewhat.

 

In the meantime, Clearwire can deploy 20 MHz TD-LTE channels, no problem. And Clearwire can even test 20 MHz TD-LTE services, as long as the testing devices (which can be bulkier and less power efficient than will be the eventual commercial devices) adhere to the current emissions mask.

 

AJ

  • 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

    • Luckily, that hasn't arisen in my area where I am, aside from having B14 (well, ALL of AT&T signal) not work at all in Coosa county, Alabama. I wish there was a service for first responders that would go to ANY available carrier, provider, etc..and in the absolute worst case scenario, would give us service. I've been on an ambulance, trying to find an address, and my driver actually had to pull over and we pulled out a map book and tried to find the road using the "old fashioned way".. and that takes valuable time away that sometimes may be vital to someone surviving. BUT, I will say that I've only seen that in Coosa county... both my Tmo and AT&T phones had zero service and I couldn't get GPS, and neither could my driver (VZW service). Maybe satellite will help with that in those times where that occurs.. but that's an extreme example.     Edit to add: Let me add some context to this.. Coosa county isn't regular coverage area for my job.. so it's not a regular thing that we are dispatched to Coosa county.. and actually, there's been a change and that county now has it's own ambulance service that operates.. so the only time we might receive a request is if it's a multiple casualty scenario, or it's a transfer going home from our contracted hospital.  The way that reads above, it may seem like we are just out without some sort of GPS gadget to direct us on where to go, but for the most part, we know our coverage area pretty well. Dispatch can also give us cross streets for reference inside our coverage area (and our home county). Coosa just isn't a regular area for my job to run in. 
    • "Priority" doesn't mean "exclusivity."  When emergency services don't need B14, AT&T can use it for everyone else.  The trade-off is that when it is needed for emergency services, they not only get all of B14, but they have also arranged for priority on the rest of the AT&T network as well.  Beats having spectrum sitting unused most of the time and then not having enough when disaster strikes, as it could be without a partnership with a wireless company like AT&T. - Trip
    • I've wondered if being on the first responder plan has the priority over other 'regular' lines in the same way firstnet does (or, supposed to do with B14...I've seen normal customers on AT&T hit B14 so it's not {specifically} for Firstnet only)...  
    • T-Mobile prices people pay are all over the map. The free lines are key, so take them if ever offered again.  Your priority level would be a key factor for your price.  Only T-Mobile would know the average prices people pay.  Samsung has been offering very good deals at time of new model introductions so I have gone that route for factory unlocked, which allows me to also have a Verizon priority MVNO for when T-Mobile signal fails or I manually override.
    • I also wanted to post a speed test result.. I only do these once in a while from my home area because we are gonna be the last to see changes, like load balancing.  Right now they are digging all over the place for fiber installs, so I'm not sure what the hold-up is on making the upload speed a little more in-line with download speeds, but here is the most recent from my area:   https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/10133670525
  • Recently Browsing

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