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

[WiWavelength]

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

[bigsnake49]

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

[WiWavelength]

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

[bigsnake49]

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.

[WiWavelength]

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

[bigsnake49]

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.

[WiWavelength]

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

[maximus1987/lou99]

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

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

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

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

[maximus1987/lou99]

Will Sprint have to modify towers again for H-block support?

[WiWavelength]

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

[runagun]

Cmon, you should know its counterproductive to be productive

[ericdabbs]

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

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.  

[Mobilesolutions]

Yeah, me, too. Over the weekend, I tried "quasi asymmetric carrier aggregation" as a pickup line at a bar and did not get anywhere. But your mileage may vary.

 

AJ

 

I would have gone home with ya