Jump to content

How much bandwidth does a single LTE site have?


Recommended Posts

This is something I've wondered for a while now...

 

How much bandwidth does a single LTE site/tower have? Say I'm in Atlanta and downloading a large file at 20 Mbps. How many people like me would it take to max out the bandwidth at that location at a given time?

 

Also, I want to make sure my understanding is correct about how LTE connections work. Say a tower gives off 100 Mbps. If I am the only one connected to it, I obviously won't get the full 100 Mbps, but perhaps would get 20-ish or whatever the maximum number that Sprint usually allows. If it's 20, then I imagine four other people connecting at the same time would all get 20 as well, and then if the total number of users jumped to 10, we would all get slower speeds (approximately 10 Mbps) to share the available bandwidth. With 20 users, we would each get approximately 5 Mbps. Is this generally correct?

 

By the way, I realize that it's not a real-world example, but when I say "users," I'm meaning people who are essentially maxing out their connection -- all doing speed tests, large file downloads, etc. People with a sustained large transfer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much bandwidth does a single LTE site/tower have? Say I'm in Atlanta and downloading a large file at 20 Mbps. How many people like me would it take to max out the bandwidth at that location at a given time?

 

Most sites have three sectors. In Sprint's initial LTE deployment, each sector has a peak data capacity of effectively 37 Mbps, but average data capacity is likely closer to 20 Mbps. So, for you to download a large file and average 20 Mbps, you would probably have to be one of very few users on that sector at that time.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most sites have three sectors. In Sprint's initial LTE deployment, each sector has a peak data capacity of effectively 37 Mbps, but average data capacity is likely closer to 20 Mbps. So, for you to download a large file and average 20 Mbps, you would probably have to be one of very few users on that sector at that time.

 

AJ

 

So a sector physically is an area, say sector 1 would be from 0 degrees to 96 degrees and sector too from 97 degrees to 270 and so forth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most sites have three sectors. In Sprint's initial LTE deployment, each sector has a peak data capacity of effectively 37 Mbps, but average data capacity is likely closer to 20 Mbps. So, for you to download a large file and average 20 Mbps, you would probably have to be one of very few users on that sector at that time.

 

AJ

So when a site is complete, what would its capacity be? Are we talking three sectors times 37 Mbps, so essentially 110 Mbps per tower?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a sector physically is an area, say sector 1 would be from 0 degrees to 96 degrees and sector too from 97 degrees to 270 and so forth?

 

In a typical site configuration, the lowest numbered sector covers 300-60 degrees, the second sector 60-180 degrees, the third sector 180-300 degrees. All of the above reference N to 0 degrees and reflect a clockwise rotation.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when a site is complete, what would its capacity be? Are we talking three sectors times 37 Mbps, so essentially 110 Mbps per tower?

 

My question: why would you be concerned about the total capacity of the site? With LTE, no user can connect to more than one sector at a time.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, just curiosity. If one tower covers an entire neighborhood or something, I'm wondering how much bandwidth all the users are sharing.

 

For that matter, do you happen to know the capacity of a 3G tower?

 

Thanks for the info!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iirc, sprint nv upgraded towers typically have microwave or fiber backhaul that has a capacity of 300mbps that can be increased if needed. Old legacy towers are typically supplied by T1 lines which has a capacity of 1.5 mbps each. Usually they bundle 3 of them together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that matter, do you happen to know the capacity of a 3G tower? Thanks for the info!

 

Per sector·carrier, EV-DO Rev A has a peak throughput of 3.1 Mbps, but average aggregate throughput is likely closer to 2 Mbps.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You def have a max at around 35mbs but I'm hoping that the site atleast have 1gb internet for a backhaul.

 

What does it matter if the backhaul is so fast? You would be limited by the LTE connection so the rest would just be wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have thousands of people connected to one tower. You would hope that the back haul is fast so that it could handle multiple connections. Could be a major reason why sprints 3g network is soo bogged down right now in some areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have thousands of people connected to one tower. You would hope that the back haul is fast so that it could handle multiple connections. Could be a major reason why sprints 3g network is soo bogged down right now in some areas.

 

If the backhaul is faster than the theoretical airlink connection, it is wasted speed. Now if Sprint acquires additional spectrum or hosts Clear's spectrum I understand that can change, but for the most part, having 1gb/s backhaul when your airlink can only support 300mb/s is a waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have thousands of people connected to one tower. You would hope that the back haul is fast so that it could handle multiple connections. Could be a major reason why sprints 3g network is soo bogged down right now in some areas.

 

it is the reason that the network is so bogged down. Sprints original plan was for wimax phones to be on clearwires network and so didn't plan for the fact that Wimax expansion would stop and all the wimax phones will be using the legacy network and the T1 backhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, apologies in advance for this barrage of questions, but I was trying to tie it all together here and needed a couple of things cleared up.

 

If the backhaul is faster than the theoretical airlink connection, it is wasted speed. Now if Sprint acquires additional spectrum or hosts Clear's spectrum I understand that can change, but for the most part, having 1gb/s backhaul when your airlink can only support 300mb/s is a waste.

 

Is the “theoretical airlink connection” that you’re referring to the maximum speed per sector? I would like to tie this into imekul’s question:

 

So when a site is complete, what would its capacity be? Are we talking three sectors times 37 Mbps, so essentially 110 Mbps per tower?

 

If each tower does have a total of 110 Mbps shared among three sectors, then would the backhaul only need to support a maximum of 110 Mbps? If this is the case, does it invalidate lilotimz’s comment about towers having a capacity of 300 Mbps?

 

iirc, sprint nv upgraded towers typically have microwave or fiber backhaul that has a capacity of 300mbps that can be increased if needed. Old legacy towers are typically supplied by T1 lines which has a capacity of 1.5 mbps each. Usually they bundle 3 of them together.

 

Does this mean that each legacy tower had a total backhaul capacity of 4.5 Mbps? If that’s the case, then per AJ’s comment…

 

Per sector·carrier, EV-DO Rev A has a peak throughput of 3.1 Mbps, but average aggregate throughput is likely closer to 2 Mbps.

 

AJ

 

…is it theoretically possible to use over half of a legacy tower’s capacity from a single sector?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have thousands of people connected to one tower. You would hope that the back haul is fast so that it could handle multiple connections.

 

The "thousands of people" comment is misleading. Whether one user is connected to the sector or a thousand users are connected to the sector, the total downlink throughput for that LTE sector·carrier maxes out at 37 Mbps. The airlink is the bottleneck, not the backhaul, so 1 Gbps is definitely not necessary anytime soon.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, apologies in advance for this barrage of questions, but I was trying to tie it all together here and needed a couple of things cleared up.

 

 

 

Is the “theoretical airlink connection” that you’re referring to the maximum speed per sector? I would like to tie this into imekul’s question:

 

 

 

If each tower does have a total of 110 Mbps shared among three sectors, then would the backhaul only need to support a maximum of 110 Mbps? If this is the case, does it invalidate lilotimz’s comment about towers having a capacity of 300 Mbps?

 

 

 

Does this mean that each legacy tower had a total backhaul capacity of 4.5 Mbps? If that’s the case, then per AJ’s comment…

 

 

 

…is it theoretically possible to use over half of a legacy tower’s capacity from a single sector?

 

While the 5x5 1900mhz LTE carrier currently used offers 37.5mb/s per sector, remember you have 3G to support for EVDO and calls and you also will be adding another 5x5 carrier with 800mhz. So it's a function of the number of sectors (usually 3), but not every sector may be fully utilized. That still wouldn't need 1gb/s however. Regarding legacy backhaul, not ALL sites have 3 T1's, there are varying numbers, as well as some sites with AAV connections.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that each legacy tower had a total backhaul capacity of 4.5 Mbps? If that’s the case, then per AJ’s comment…

 

 

 

…is it theoretically possible to use over half of a legacy tower’s capacity from a single sector?

 

I believe that is theoretically accurate in the above scenario, which was a legacy site with 3 EVDO carriers (one per sector) and a total of 3 T1 lines for backhaul for all of them. I'm not sure if you can get the peak throughput 3.1mbps in the real world or not, but assuming you could, then yes in that scenario a sector running at maximum throughput would use 2 out of the 3 T1 lines for backhaul.

 

Sites have a varying amount of T1 lines for backhaul, but I believe that was the main problem with some of Sprint's sites getting so slow. They didn't have enough backhaul to support anywhere even close to 100% utilization of the sectors. At Sprint's Network site http://network.sprint.com you'll see towers listed as getting "Data Capacity Upgrades" and "Data Speed Upgrades". I could be wrong, but I believe the "Data Capacity Upgrade" refers to adding EVDO carriers, and the "Data Speed Upgrades" refers to adding additional T1 backhaul. Which is why you'll see many sites where the only upgrade is a "Data Speed Upgrade". They simply added more T1 backhaul to support the already existing EVDO carriers.

 

On the bright side of upgrades, Sprint finally got around to upgrading a site nearby which was mostly unusable for data regardless of the time of day or night. 4 Total upgrades. "1 voice upgrade, 1 data capacity upgrade, 2 data speed upgrades".

Edited by billyjoejimbob
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add this into the discussion, Sprint's backhaul contracts specified "scalable" backhaul. For comparison, Charter offers cable internet in my area, so they offer a basic 5mbps download speed, then you can scale up your connection all the way to 100mbps download speeds. This is what Sprint specified, so that when they add 800mhz LTE, additional 1900 mhz LTE carriers, clearwire LTE hotspots, microwave airlinks to other cell sites et cetera, they contact the provider and it gets bumped up. No waiting months for additional T1 lines to be delivered as before...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most sites have three sectors. In Sprint's initial LTE deployment, each sector has a peak data capacity of effectively 37 Mbps, but average data capacity is likely closer to 20 Mbps. So, for you to download a large file and average 20 Mbps, you would probably have to be one of very few users on that sector at that time.

 

AJ

 

Not to change the subject, but it strikes me how this also helps illustrate/underscore the importance of Wi-fi offloading when available, particularly in the face of more egregious/abusive usage. Unless I'm misunderstanding the numbers here (and please by all means correct me if I am), say hypothetically you get more than say 10 max people downloading things over an extended period of time on one sector....and suddenly you're in danger of being back at square one in spite of Network Vision.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to change the subject, but it strikes me how this also helps illustrate/underscore the importance of Wi-fi offloading when available, particularly in the face of more egregious/abusive usage. Unless I'm misunderstanding the numbers here (and please by all means correct me if I am), say hypothetically you get more than say 10 max people downloading things over an extended period of time on one sector....and suddenly you're in danger of being back at square one in spite of Network Vision.

 

Correct, which is why over time I don't see how you don't impose usage caps. Albeit higher than what ATT/VZ offer. Unless users are forced to keep in mind some semblance of usage, they waste the bandwidth. I suppose if you put Clear's holdings to full use it would put it off for a while but on a long enough timeline I still think caps are necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iirc, sprint nv upgraded towers typically have microwave or fiber backhaul that has a capacity of 300mbps that can be increased if needed. Old legacy towers are typically supplied by T1 lines which has a capacity of 1.5 mbps each. Usually they bundle 3 of them together.

 

 

Where are you getting this fiber capacity of 300Mbps figure from?

 

Fiber is theoretically unlimited...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add this into the discussion, Sprint's backhaul contracts specified "scalable" backhaul. For comparison, Charter offers cable internet in my area, so they offer a basic 5mbps download speed, then you can scale up your connection all the way to 100mbps download speeds. This is what Sprint specified, so that when they add 800mhz LTE, additional 1900 mhz LTE carriers, clearwire LTE hotspots, microwave airlinks to other cell sites et cetera, they contact the provider and it gets bumped up. No waiting months for additional T1 lines to be delivered as before...

 

This right here!

 

Beauty of Fiber and not dealing with the limits of T1 junk... Much easier to up your limits... lot less excuses they can give for troubles once this is rolling and all.

 

Gonna be great! :)

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 2
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

    • So, in summary, here are the options I tested: T-Mobile intl roaming - LTE on SoftBank, routes back to the US (~220ms to 4.2.2.4) IIJ physical SIM - LTE on NTT, local routing Airalo - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer SoftBank), routed through Singapore (SingTel) Ubigi - 5G on NTT, routed through Singapore (Transatel) US Mobile East Asia roaming - 5G on SoftBank, routed through Singapore (Club SIM) Saily - 5G on NTT, routed through Hong Kong (Truphone)...seems to be poorer routing my1010 - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer KDDI), routed through Taiwan (Chunghwa Telecom) I wouldn't buy up on the T-Mobile international roaming, but it's a solid fallback. If you have the US Mobile roaming eSIM that's a great option. Otherwise Ubigi, Airalo, or my1010 are all solid options, so get whatever's cheapest. I wouldn't bother trying to find a physical SIM from IIJ...the Japanese IP is nice but there's enough WiFi that you can get a Japanese IP enough for whatever you need, and eSIM flexibility is great (IIJ as eSIM but seems a bit more involved to get it to work).
    • So, the rural part of the journey still has cell service for nearly all the way, usually on B18/19/8 (depending on whether we're talking about KDDI/NTT/SoftBank). I think I saw a bit of B28 and even n28 early on in the trip, though that faded out after a bit. Once we got to where we were going though, KDDI had enough B41 to pull 150+ Mbps, while NTT and SoftBank had B1/B3 IIRC. Cell service was likewise generally fine from Kawaguchiko Station to Tokyo on the express bus to Shinjuku Station, though there were some cases where only low-band LTE was available and capacity seemed to struggle. I also figured out what I was seeing with SoftBank on 40 MHz vs. 100 MHz n77: the 40 MHz blocks are actually inside the n78 band class, but SoftBank advertises them as n77, probably to facilitate NR CA. My phone likely preferred the 40 MHz slices as they're *much* lower-frequency, ~3.4 GHz rather than ~3.9, though of course I did see the 100 MHz slice being used rather often. By contrast, when I got NR on NTT it was either n28 10x10 or, more often, 100 MHz n78. As usual, EMEA bands on my S24 don't CA, so any data speeds I saw were the result of either one LTE carrier or one LTE carrier plus one NR carrier...except for B41 LTE. KDDI seems to have more B41 bandwidth live at this point, so my1010 or Airalo works well for this, and honestly while SoftBank and NTT 5G (in descending order of availability) have 5G that's readily available it may be diminishing returns, particularly given that I still don't know how to, as someone not from Hong Kong, get an eSIM that runs on SoftBank 5G that isn't the USM "comes for free with the unlimited premium package" roaming eSIM (NTT is easy enough thanks to Ubigi). In other news, I was able to borrow someone's Rakuten eSIM and...got LTE with it. 40 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, 40ms latency to Tokyo while in Tokyo...which isn't any worse than the Japan-based physical SIMs I had used earlier. But not getting n77 or n257 was disappointing, though I had to test the eSIM from one spot rather than bouncing around the city to find somewhere with better reception. It's currently impossible to get a SIM as a foreigner that runs on Rakuten, so that was the best I could do. Also, I know my phone doesn't have all the LTE and 5G bands needed to take full advantage of Japanese networks. My S24 is missing: B21 (1500 MHz) - NTT B11 (1500 MHz) - KDDI, SoftBank B42 (3500 MHz) - NTT, KDDI, SoftBank n79 (4900 MHz) - NTT Of the above, B42/n79 are available on the latest iPhones, though you lose n257, and I'm guessing you're not going to find B11/B21 on a phone sold outside Japan.
    • T-Mobile acquiring SoniqWave's 2.5 GHz spectrum  Another spectrum speculator down! T-Mobile is acquiring all of their licenses and their leases. Details are lacking but it looks like T-Mobile might be giving them 3.45GHz in exchange in some of the markets where they're acquiring BRS/EBS to sweeten the deal and stay below the spectrum screen. Hopefully NextWave is at the negotiating table with T-Mobile so NYC can finally get access to the full BRS/EBS band as well. 
    • Maybe. The taller buildings on one side of the street all have Fios access and the NYCHA buildings are surrounded by Verizon macros that have mmWave. I don’t think this site will add much coverage. It’d be better off inside the complex itself.
  • Recently Browsing

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