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

    • My s24 Ultras auto updated to April 1 security patch over night. Not on wi-fi.  Play system remains at March 1. No notice that update occurred on screen.
    • Got the latest update. On my S24 ultra the NR-ARFCN display remains constant (which is inaccurate according to diags) while n41 and 38 toggle back and forth.  I updated then rebooted before testing. Two sims active. My security patch level updated automatically to April 1 before this update. Diags sent while n38 was displaying.
    • Was able to install the March 1 Android security patch. Seems slightly more accurate with 5g ca band id, but can not swear by it. Updated google play system update through the software information screen to March 1. *#73# still works. Froze updates waiting on SCP update beta to fix n41 showing as n38.
    • Just installed it. Thanks for the info.  71 mb mar 1st date.
    • There's a permit for a new 47 story building at 205 Montague St in Downtown Brooklyn. The problem is that  T-Mobile eNB 48352 is on the building next door and this new building will block two out of 3 sectors of the site. For reference, the new building will be roughly as tall as 16 Court St which is right across the street. This site is the primary site covering Cadman Plaza so I wonder what the plan is. Will they just try to change sector placement, move to a different building, or will this just speed up the conversion of the Sprint site at 25 Monroe Place?
  • Recently Browsing

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