Jump to content

FCC announces service rules for PCS/AWS-2 H block


WiWavelength

Recommended Posts

I wonder why they don't also impose the requirement on the downlink for PCS A to reject out of band emissions

 

I am not sure I follow. Are you talking about interference to or from the PCS A block downlink?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interference to the PCS A downlink. That is ostensibly the reason for the lower power levels.

 

Correct, but is that not what I stated yesterday in the thread?

 

More importantly, though, power in the 1917-1920 MHz segment will be limited to ≤6 dBm. This is because the traditional PCS A-F block downlink starts at 1930 MHz, and interference mitigation is paramount.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always two sides

Correct, but is that not what I stated yesterday in the thread?

 

 

 

AJ

 

There is always two sides to the interference mitigation equation. First, a transmitting device must not bleed signal into adjacent bands and thus cause interference. You can mitigate this by using strong filters. The other side is that a receiving device must reject interference from adjacent bands. Of course as we saw from the Lightsquared debacle, the interference rejection part does not always get enforced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always two sides

 

But incumbency always rules. Additionally, a fixed downlink is less likely to interfere with a mobile uplink on a nearby frequency than vice versa.

 

Of course as we saw from the Lightsquared debacle, the interference rejection part does not always get enforced.

 

Let us not get into the LightSquared debacle. From an engineering perspective, LightSquared was in the wrong but tried to "lawyer" a solution.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But incumbency always rules. Additionally, a fixed downlink is less likely to interfere with a mobile uplink on a nearby frequency than vice versa.

 

 

 

Let us not get into the LightSquared debacle. From an engineering perspective, LightSquared was in the wrong but tried to "lawyer" a solution.

 

AJ

 

It depends on how far away from the tower the handset is and whether we are talking about interference with the tower itself or with the reception of an adjacent handset.

 

The fact remains that interference rejection is not rigorously tested at the FCC or should I say at the contractors that test for the FCC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on how far away from the tower the handset is and whether we are talking about interference with the tower itself or with the reception of an adjacent handset.

 

It is rather difficult/rare for mobile devices to get within 100 ft of any downlink transmitters. Even if they do, chances are that they are extremely off axis, hence on the heavily attenuated side of the power response. But mobile devices come into very close proximity with mobile transmitters all the time. And that is why protection of downlink reception from uplink interference tends to be more important than the converse.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

All questions/issue related to the H block.

 

This thread is weakly related to 

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3843-sprint-add-a-second-pcs-2x5-lte-carrier/

 

but it's different because the above thread has to do with Sprint re-purposing current PCS spectrum for LTE whereas H block is part of neither PCS (LTE band 2) nor PCS+G (LTE band 25).

 

H block:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/aws-2pcs-h-block-spectrum-auction-guide

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why hasn't Sprint already pushed to defined another band included PCS+G+H AND started including it in its phones?

The following thread kinda addressed this

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3609-why-are-there-no-sprint-phones-that-support-future-lte-bands/

 

but this is about spectrum that 

a) is right next to G block

B) Sprint, at least, knew it was going to be auctioned eventually.

c) Sprint is probably going to win in future auction. Sure, Dish could bid just so it can use it as a guard band for 2000-2005MHz but come on . . . it's pretty reasonable for Sprint to assume it's gonna win some H block licenses.

d) is FDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already have at least one productive thread on the PCS/AWS-2 H block.  So, this thread will be closed and merged later this afternoon.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/2840-fcc-announces-service-rules-for-pcsaws-2-h-block/?hl=block

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why hasn't Sprint already pushed to defined another band included PCS+G+H AND started including it in its phones?

The following thread kinda addressed this

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3609-why-are-there-no-sprint-phones-that-support-future-lte-bands/

 

but this is about spectrum that 

a) is right next to G block

B) Sprint, at least, knew it was going to be auctioned eventually.

c) Sprint is probably going to win in future auction. Sure, Dish could bid just so it can use it as a guard band for 2000-2005MHz but come on . . . it's pretty reasonable for Sprint to assume it's gonna win some H block licenses.

d) is FDD

 

 

You are jumping the gun here and skipping a few steps.  While Sprint and Dish are the most likely bidders of the H block, the auction hasn't occurred yet.  Until the spectrum is officially auctioned off, Sprint can't put the H block into their phones and certainly can't apply for a 3GPP band yet.  

  • 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

    • 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!
    • That's odd, they are usually almost lock step with TMO. I forgot to mention this also includes the September Security Update.
    • 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. 
    • T-Mobile is selling the rest of the 3.45GHz spectrum to Columbia Capital.  
    • Still nothing for my AT&T and Visible phones.
  • Recently Browsing

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