Comments related to the NV Running List Thread

[MacinJosh]

Yes. Although I wouldn't use the word overlay. It is a complete teardown and rebuilding of every "native" Sprint site into a multi-modal base station that supports new 4G LTE technology as well.

 

Ok. but still they will be placing LTE in every area that is truly native Sprint service.

 

Agreed. I think Sprint is having these discussions now to encourage these partners to either install Network Vision type base stations, or at the least, incorporate a LTE G-Block hosting deal. Although I don't know of any specific talks.

 

One reason you haven't heard about any yet is maybe they are completely secret talks and only 1 or 2 people from each company knows about it.

 

Why do you hope not? That is the entire Sprint network! Were you hoping it would be less than all of it?

 

I think he was hoping for more coverage than what shows up on that map.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Multiquote champion right there. LOL

 

Nice post there Robert.

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

[ChadBroChillz]

I am sure a lot of us were hoping for more. You know that Verizon is going to try and cover their existing 3G network with 4g. I just hope they change their mind about shutting down all of the Nextel sites, especially if Robert's calculation of needing only an extra 1000 sites to cover areas where they have iden but not CDMA is close.

[S4GRU]

I am sure a lot of us were hoping for more. You know that Verizon is going to try and cover their existing 3G network with 4g. I just hope they change their mind about shutting down all of the Nextel sites, especially if Robert's calculation of needing only an extra 1000 sites to cover areas where they have iden but not CDMA is close.

 

Of course it's accurate...I'm awesome! And to prove it, here is my logic...Unicorns are awesome. I like unicorns. Therefore, because I like unicorns, I am awesome.

 

And even though, people may be hoping for more than 100% of the entire network getting LTE, I'm actually still just stoked that Sprint is taking it over it's entire footprint. I wouldn't have thought that as a remote possibility. Especially when you consider the WiMax deploy FAIL.

 

Robert

[MacinJosh]

Craig McCaw can only be successful once. AT&T Wireless was his one success. So Clearwire had to be a fail, lol. Hahaha

 

(This is my personal opinion and has no real bearing to my knowledge. If there is any connection to real life, it is purely coincidental.)

[ChadBroChillz]

 

 

Of course it's accurate...I'm awesome! And to prove it, here is my logic...Unicorns are awesome. I like unicorns. Therefore, because I like unicorns, I am awesome.

 

And even though, people may be hoping for more than 100% of the entire network getting LTE, I'm actually still just stoked that Sprint is taking it over it's entire footprint. I wouldn't have thought that as a remote possibility. Especially when you consider the WiMax deploy FAIL.

 

Robert

 

Lol. I am still stoked, since unlimited+LTE gives me a nerdgasm. I think the main reason I wanted to see more coverage was so sprint could better compete against the duopoly. I am still very excited to see their native coverage converted to LTE; I just hope they do not stop and keep battling, especially since tmobile seems like they are waving the white flag.

[stitch1007]

I understand the upgraded towers will carry a stronger signal farther. Up to 7miles? What kind of distance are we getting now with EVDO?

[BenChase7]

I understand the the upgraded towers will carry a stronger signal farther. Up to 7miles? What kind of distance are we getting now with EVDO?

 

Good question.. I have often wondered this myself. In my recent (non-scientific) test.. the current towers can reach well over 7 miles.. up to about 10-12 miles in my experience.

 

And yes.. I also understand that the new equipment being placed on all the towers in the Network Vision upgrade will improve signal strength/distance/penetration approximately 20%.

[S4GRU]

The distance PCS can travel is highly variable. It depends on height of the tower it is installed on and the down tilt. I can tell you based on my experience that on a 300' boomer with minimum downtilt that the signal can carry over 15 miles from the tower in wide open area without vegetation.

 

However, creating very large cells can be very problematic and it has to be very lower usage area. Like rural highways.

 

In most cases, PCS cells are designed where downtilt on the antennas reduces the size of the coverage area intentionally and gives a more concentrated signal. PCS cells are often 3mi to 7mi radius from the site location. In dense urban areas, they can be much smaller to allow for more capacity.

 

In Network Vision, the increased efficiences of fiber cabling and remote RRU's will give up to a ~20% gain. So in any given spot you used to have a legacy signal, in that same spot your NV signal should be 20% stronger.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

[Denny]

In dense urban areas, they can be much smaller to allow for more capacity.

 

 

The larger capacities are achieved through frequency (spectrum) sharing?

[S4GRU]

 

The larger capacities are achieved through frequency (spectrum) sharing?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. However, if a site becomes capacity constrained, they can keep adding additional carriers with the licensed spectrum they have, until they run out.

 

Once they run out of spectrum, they have two choices...1) buy or share spectrum with someone, or 2) add more sites and reduce the size of cells in affected areas.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

[MacinJosh]

I'm not sure I understand your question. However, if a site becomes capacity constrained, they can keep adding additional carriers with the licensed spectrum they have, until they run out.

 

Once they run out of spectrum, they have two choices...1) buy or share spectrum with someone, or 2) add more sites and reduce the size of cells in affected areas.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

 

Let's hope they use number 2 for where I live, because vegetation will impact the signal for my phone service on a constant basis.

[4ringsnbr]

I'm not sure I understand your question. However, if a site becomes capacity constrained, they can keep adding additional carriers with the licensed spectrum they have, until they run out.

 

Once they run out of spectrum, they have two choices...1) buy or share spectrum with someone, or 2) add more sites and reduce the size of cells in affected areas.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

 

There is a third option. 6-sector towers (like Verizon uses in a few spots). Basically it is two BSCs on a single tower with one rack skewed 60° from the other. They can be used with CDMA networks and each sector is now a 60° window (6 sectors make the whole circumference of coverage). This gives you double the capacity of that cell. The only trick is to make sure you don't add too much to carrier pollution-- so you keep your downtilt to limit the coverage distance from the tower to reduce the carrier pollution with neighboring cells.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6_sector_site_in_CDMA.jpg

Edited March 31, 2012 by 4ringsnbr

[MacinJosh]

There is a third option. 6-sector towers (like Verizon uses in a few spots). Basically it is two BSCs on a single tower with one rack skewed 60° from the other. They can be used with CDMA networks and each sector is now a 60° window (6 sectors make the whole circumference of coverage). This gives you double the capacity of that cell. The only trick is to make sure you don't add too much to carrier pollution-- so you keep your downtilt to limit the coverage distance from the tower to reduce the carrier pollution with neighboring cells.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ite_in_CDMA.jpg

 

Interesting method. Maybe Sprint will use it in some areas.

[Duffman]

Most towers (outside of urban areas) will realistically only go about 5 miles on my maps. They may be capable of farther reach but they don't. Perhaps they are just set that way for performance reasons.

 

Or perhaps it is just the handsets, with their weaker transmission strength, that limits the distance. I have mobile broadband card users 10 miles from towers in "no service" areas but they are only able to connect because of external antennas/boosters.

 

I understand that getting those RRUs up on the pole will allow for a longer "throw" at the same signal level. But wouldn't the handset limitation still apply meaning that the signal will be better at the same distance, but the overall possible distance from the tower would remain the same?

[chamb]

Most towers (outside of urban areas) will realistically only go about 5 miles on my maps. They may be capable of farther reach but they don't. Perhaps they are just set that way for performance reasons.

 

Or perhaps it is just the handsets, with their weaker transmission strength, that limits the distance. I have mobile broadband card users 10 miles from towers in "no service" areas but they are only able to connect because of external antennas/boosters.

 

I understand that getting those RRUs up on the pole will allow for a longer "throw" at the same signal level. But wouldn't the handset limitation still apply meaning that the signal will be better at the same distance, but the overall possible distance from the tower would remain the same?

 

When you put radios up high behind the antennas, the received signal from the handset is fed to the receiver with little or no loss. This makes things work very very well. With Radios on the ground, you could crank up the transmitter and feed a very strong signal to the transmitting antenna. But the handset can not do the same on that end. One of the thngs that makes RRU's work so good is the ability to receive the signal from the handset with no loss in the coax before it gets to the radio receiver. The signal received at the cell site from the little tiny transmitters in a cell phone is normally very weak. Being able to capture this signal and process it with little or no loss is what makes things work so well.

[Denny]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

I guess the term I was searching for is frequency reuse.

 

[S4GRU]

Most towers (outside of urban areas) will realistically only go about 5 miles on my maps. They may be capable of farther reach but they don't. Perhaps they are just set that way for performance reasons.

 

Or perhaps it is just the handsets' date=' with their weaker transmission strength, that limits the distance. I have mobile broadband card users 10 miles from towers in "no service" areas but they are only able to connect because of external antennas/boosters.

 

I understand that getting those RRUs up on the pole will allow for a longer "throw" at the same signal level. But wouldn't the handset limitation still apply meaning that the signal will be better at the same distance, but the overall possible distance from the tower would remain the same?[/quote']

 

Your device is likely strong enough to permit you to use it outdoors at 10+ miles so long as the panels are aimed out that far, there are no physical obstructions (LOS) and the noise floor is low. I do it in New Mexico often while hiking.

 

Downtilt is a huge factor. Downtilt in each sector is determined by RF Engineering in advance. Those panels are aimed at the ground. If you attached a string to the top of the panel at the degree of downtilt and ran that out, it would eventually run into the ground. Coverage beyond this string would be virtually nil.

 

This is the case in most deployments. The downtilt is designed to intentionally engineer the cell size for maximum cell performance. However, in many rural places we have boomers which have minimal downtilt for the purposes of creating very large cells. In these cases, in ideal conditions and line of sight, thats where these weird long distance anomalies occur.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

[4ringsnbr]

I guess the term I was searching for is frequency reuse.

 

On CDMA networks frequency reuse is n=1 -- all towers and handsets use the same channels -- the encryption codes are what is unique to each call/handset/tower/sector. That is why it is so much more efficient than GSM with n=4 or n=7 reuse or iDEN with n=7 reuse.

[Duffman]

This place gives me a tech boner. Thanks for the great education.

[gr8nuguy]

its always great learning something new by going to this site

[MarkyD311]

Pretty interesting that Sprint seems to have given up on Oklahoma. They just ended their roaming agreement with Pioneer, basically cutting all their Rural OK coverage. The other carriers have included OKC as one of their first "4G" markets:

 

-Verizon launched 4G LTE in OKC as one of the very first markets launched in late 2010.

-T-Mobile launched "4G" HSPA+ 42mbps a few months after Verizon launched LTE

-AT&T launched LTE in OKC in the second wave of cities.

 

Sprint never had WiMax here, and doesn't appear to have plans to make OKC a priority on their NV LTE launch. Disappointing, but not surprising. Their 3G network here has deteriorated significantly over the last few years. I remember my Sanyo phone on Sprint with the polyphonic ringtones. Man, that phone was cutting edge! I hope to see Sprint turn things around here in OK, but it looks like they've striked this market from their "give a damn" list.

[S4GRU]

I just saw a new doc that includes Oklahoma. I hope to able to discuss it soon. Need further corroboration.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

[runagun]

Aww Man, I thought it was cause of me.

 

This place gives me a tech boner. Thanks for the great education.

[ericdabbs]

Pretty interesting that Sprint seems to have given up on Oklahoma. They just ended their roaming agreement with Pioneer, basically cutting all their Rural OK coverage. The other carriers have included OKC as one of their first "4G" markets:

 

-Verizon launched 4G LTE in OKC as one of the very first markets launched in late 2010.

-T-Mobile launched "4G" HSPA+ 42mbps a few months after Verizon launched LTE

-AT&T launched LTE in OKC in the second wave of cities.

 

Sprint never had WiMax here, and doesn't appear to have plans to make OKC a priority on their NV LTE launch. Disappointing, but not surprising. Their 3G network here has deteriorated significantly over the last few years. I remember my Sanyo phone on Sprint with the polyphonic ringtones. Man, that phone was cutting edge! I hope to see Sprint turn things around here in OK, but it looks like they've striked this market from their "give a damn" list.

 

Keep in mind that it was Pioneer that decided to end the roaming agreements with Sprint and jump in bed with Verizon. I am positive it was not intentional. Lets face it, Verizon is more attractive to Pioneer especially if Verizon approached them with guaranteeing LTE through its Rural America Program. Unfortunately that area is covered by Pioneer so its not much Sprint can do other than to do roaming agreements in that area.

 

In terms of whether Sprint cares about OKC for NV, I feel that OKC/Tulsa will be a 3rd round market and not fall into the 4th round. Don't feel sad as some of the other bigger cities like Milwaukee, Las Vegas, Denver, Pittsburgh, etc will probably be in the 3rd round market as well.