maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 The big advantage of 600MHz for Sprint would be to level the playing field with the duopoly with lower frequency spectrum. If Sprint could have at least a 10x10 LTE carrier in 600, then they would be sitting very good for the long term. Although, I'm not sure 600 is necessary. With an aggressive LTE 2600 plan in place, and refarmed PCS, and placing LTE 800 as the lowest priority to be used only when you can't get a PCS or 2600 signal, then LTE 800 probably can meet Sprint's low frequency needs for a long time. The big problem Sprint has with SMR 800 is that they do not have 14MHz nationwide. In those places, a big chunk of 600 could be very helpful. Robert Is there a map of where Sprint doesn't have 14MHz nationwide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Is there a map of where Sprint doesn't have 14MHz nationwide? I cannot publish it. It has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it. I have been thinking of creating my own for publishing, though. It will not be in the very near future, though. Robert 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I cannot publish it. It has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it. I have been thinking of creating my own for publishing, though. It will not be in the very near future, though. Robert Isn't this public information? If I wanted to - I won't - couldn't I go to the FCC spectrum dashboard and piece together who owns what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Isn't this public information? If I wanted to - I won't - couldn't I go to the FCC spectrum dashboard and piece together who owns what? You can. And I suggest you do that. But anything that has a Sprint confidentiality notice on it, I do not share. It would be the end of S4GRU. Robert 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I found the TMUS band plan proposal http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022116151 And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency. I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER! But, this is linear distance so if you want to know how much more area is covered, you square it. If you want to compare PCS vs VZW LTE, you divide both their values by PCS(value) and then you square the result. So, 1.3/1.3 = 1 (duh) and 3.5/1.3 = 2.69 Now, the meaning of this number is: if you have a signal on PCS and VZW transmitting from the same tower at same power level, then for a given signal threshold you set, the signal on VZW's spectrum will travel 2.69 x the distance it travels on PCS before degrading to that same threshold. So, for example, if the signal from PCS LTE dies after 5 miles, then the equivalent VZW LTE signal would die after 5x2.69 = 13 miles But, if we want to figure out how much more area - square miles - VZW spectrum covers as compared to PCS, then we take 2.69^2 = 7.24 This number means that for coverage, not capacity, PCS spectrum needs 7x as many towers compared to VZW's spectrum. I'm not sure if this is all correct so if it's not, someone let me know and I'll remove/modify things. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dkoellerwx Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 What right do the broadcasters have to resist spectrum reclamation? They were given the spectrum for free, they made money from advertising, then they starting making money from re-transmission fees. Now, they feel entitled to proceeds from the auction? @#$!? Really? Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a television station? Not a 24hr cable channel, a real over-the-air television channel? More than you can imagine! Sure some stations make money hand over fist, but most barely reclaim operating costs with those re-transmission fees and advertising. For most stations, they get the majority of their money from the networks that they air. Stations have invested millions - even billions - of dollars into equipment to provide a *free* service to the public. So when you want to take away their spectrum, force them to move, get all new equipment that costs millions more, yeah they're going to be resistant! Not to mention the outpouring of complaints from the surprisingly large number of over-the-air only viewers whose reception suddenly changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boosted20V Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Really? Do you have any idea how much it cost to run a television station? Not a 24hr cable channel, a real over-the-air television channel? More than you can imagine! Sure some stations make money hand over fist, but most barely reclaim operating costs with those re-transmission fees and advertising. For most stations, they get the majority of their money from the networks that they air. Stations have invested millions - even billions - of dollars into equipment to provide a *free* service to the public. So when you want to take away their spectrum, force them to move, get all new equipment that costs millions more, yeah they're going to be resistant! Not to mention the outpouring of complaints from the surprisingly large number of over-the-air only viewers whose reception suddenly changes. I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dkoellerwx Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement. Agree that mobile data is more important? Well, you will find that, particularly in emergency situations, OTA is much more important than mobile data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I can't completely disagree with what you're saying but it's just a matter of priorities. Is mobile data more important than OTA broadcasts? I'd say most Americans would agree with that statement. I'm not sure about that. I think we live in a smartphone world, so we tend to think in terms of people we know of. However, if you took a poll of *EVERYONE*, including all the old people in this country, I think you would be surprised about the results. Besides, we do not have a spectrum crunch. We have a spectrum allocation and efficiency problem. Robert 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedub Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 In many true emergencies, there is no power to receive OTA. I would not necessarily put mobile data specifically more important, but mobile *communications* I would definitely put as more important than OTA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Agree that mobile data is more important? Well, you will find that, particularly in emergency situations, OTA is much more important than mobile data. Hmm, now, why would a "weatherman" think that way??? I kid, I kid... AJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dkoellerwx Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Hmm, now, why would a "weatherman" think that way??? I kid, I kid... AJ I know you're kidding, but in all seriousness, people freak out if they can't get the weather on their TV when the sirens are going off. Most of the time it's because they're on satellite which is blocked out by rain, and don't know they can switch to the over-the-air signal and still see us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 The problem with FDD operation in the 600 MHz band is that it would require a duplex gap. So, what would occupy the duplex gap? A DTV broadcaster? Nope. A guard band? Maybe, but wasteful. And however large the duplex gap would be, it would add to the size of the band, thus increasing the spectrum that would have to be cleared. Honestly, this UHF TV 600 MHz incentive auction looks like a "big bag of hurt." Broadcasters are resistant, and I am not sure that any meaningful results will emerge. AJ Care to guess which bandplan - TDD or FDD - the FCC will adopt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Care to guess which bandplan - TDD or FDD - the FCC will adopt? My apologies, as I sound like Johnnie Cochran, but either way, my guess is that the band plan will be a mess. Qualcomm wants an FDD band plan and makes some persuasive technical arguments in its favor. Prima facie, the TDD band plan makes more sense and seems more feasible, but I am not sure that I have enough technical expertise to evaluate it fully. AJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraydog Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Qualcomm usually wins on matters like this with the FCC, I have found. They have very powerful lobbyists on their side as well as Darrell Issa out of their district who is pretty active on Qualcomm's behalf. If Sprint would, at some point, join in on backing T-Mobile's proposal I wouldn't be entirely surprised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digiblur Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 In many true emergencies, there is no power to receive OTA. I would not necessarily put mobile data specifically more important, but mobile *communications* I would definitely put as more important than OTA. Battery powered TVs and generators work just fine. I have a small LCD that receives digital OTA. Used it last hurricane when I had no power for a week. I would hate to see any OTA channels go away as many people use them. I use them myself even combined with satellite TV. I enjoy having the additional sub channels and the quality is better getting it from the source. My satellite receivers put them right there in the guide and even let you DVR the channels like any others. There's also another aspect people do not think of. Many cable companies and satellite POPs in the various cities receive the local channels via OTA since it is much cheaper than fiber to simply snag the digital 19 megabit signal out of the air. Sent from my little Note2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny789 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I found the TMUS band plan proposal http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022116151 And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency. I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER! But, this is linear distance so if you want to know how much more area is covered, you square it. If you want to compare PCS vs VZW LTE, you divide both their values by PCS(value) and then you square the result. So, 1.3/1.3 = 1 (duh) and 3.5/1.3 = 2.69 Now, the meaning of this number is: if you have a signal on PCS and VZW transmitting from the same tower at same power level, then for a given signal threshold you set, the signal on VZW's spectrum will travel 2.69 x the distance it travels on PCS before degrading to that same threshold. So, for example, if the signal from PCS LTE dies after 5 miles, then the equivalent VZW LTE signal would die after 5x2.69 = 13 miles But, if we want to figure out how much more area - square miles - VZW spectrum covers as compared to PCS, then we take 2.69^2 = 7.24 This number means that for coverage, not capacity, PCS spectrum needs 7x as many towers compared to VZW's spectrum. I'm not sure if this is all correct so if it's not, someone let me know and I'll remove/modify things. Isn't the formula for area of a circle (pi)r^2? You used the area of a square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Isn't the formula for area of a circle (pi)r^2? You used the area of a square. Right. But maximus was not calculating total coverage area. Instead, he was creating a ratio (i.e. a comparison), in which case the π on both sides of the ratio would cancel. So, the square of the radius gives us the appropriate ratio for the 2-D propagation model in use. AJ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 And on page 7/17, TMUS included relative propagation distance as a function of frequency.I've actually been looking for something like this FOREVER! Not to rain on your parade, but this is, honestly, nothing new. We have a similar VZW propagation graphic posted somewhere here in the archives at S4GRU. Both cases are using a simple free space path loss formula. The nutshell of it is the inverse square rule. Take the ratio of one frequency to another. Use the inverse (i.e. the reciprocal). Then, square that value.But free space path loss is a theoretical model. Empirical formulas tend to better model RF in real world environments. For example, Okamura, Hata, and COST are some well known empirical models. You can start with a little bit of "free space" research at Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation_modelAJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 11, 2013 Author Share Posted May 11, 2013 Not to rain on your parade, but this is, honestly, nothing new. We have a similar VZW propagation graphic posted somewhere here in the archives at S4GRU. Both cases are using a simple free space path loss formula. The nutshell of it is the inverse square rule. Take the ratio of one frequency to another. Use the inverse (i.e. the reciprocal). Then, square that value. But free space path loss is a theoretical model. Empirical formulas tend to better model RF in real world environments. For example, Okamura, Hata, and COST are some well known empirical models. You can start with a little bit of "free space" research at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia....opagation_model AJ Could you make a pinned thread with all the informational infographics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Could you make a pinned thread with all the informational infographics? Please clarify. I am not really sure what you are asking. AJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus1987/lou99 Posted May 11, 2013 Author Share Posted May 11, 2013 Please clarify. I am not really sure what you are asking. AJ A thread with useful infographics/maps like propagation models, market maps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strumgewr Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I wish the FCC would put limits on now much lower frequency spectrum carriers can own. It'd be a much more level playing field, better for the consumers. For example, I believe verizon owns 100% of the 850 mhz spectrum in my area due to the alltel buyout. Ridiculous!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayLuvsCiara Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Damn I didn't even know 600mhz existed (I'm new to all this) but if sprint does get access to 600mhz how long do you think it will take for them to deploy TDD-LTE? I know the auction is next year so should we say 2015-2016? Do you think Sprint will have 600mhz phones by next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayLuvsCiara Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Also just imagine 600/800/850/1900/2500 OMG!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.