AT&T LTE Site Spacing Question

[MacinJosh]

 

Which bands?

 

Will Sprint deploy small cells with all 3 LTE bands?

We aren't sure if they'll deploy in 800SMR and 2500/2600 LTE yet. I only know of the Alcatel-Lucent small cell running on 1900 PCS in CDMA/LTE dual band. Re-read the post you quoted.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

[MacPCS]

 

 

 

Which bands?

 

 

 

Will Sprint deploy small cells with all 3 LTE bands?

 

We aren't sure if they'll deploy in 800SMR and 2500/2600 LTE yet. I only know of the Alcatel-Lucent small cell running on 1900 PCS in CDMA/LTE dual band. Re-read the post you quoted.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

I hope they do small cells using the CLWR spectrum. Position them in high traffic / density areas like stadiums, convention halls and malls and sprint will be where it's at.

[digiblur]

 

 

 

2) Pick your poison. I'm not going to take the bait on either.

 

 

I didn't know it was possible to put 700MHz tighter than PCS.

 

I know there's ranges in the tower densities for each band - going from almost losing coverage at cell edges to getting interference if they're too close together - but I never thought the ranges for tower densities overlapped.

 

Of course there is. Downtilt is one way. And it is really easy when the PCS is stretched too far.

[utiz4321]

I've seen various times around the site that Verizon's 700 Mhz LTE site spacing is rather large and they don't have it deployed on all the towers they have EVDO, whereas Sprint is going to deploy 800 Mhz LTE on most (I think I've seen 85%?) of their sites. Meaning for in-building coverage Sprint would have a better set-up. Has AT&T done the same thing as Verizon and used the fact that 700 has a large range and deployed it to just achieve coverage? I haven't really seen a lot of mention of AT&T's LTE on this site and was curious how Sprint's 800 Mhz will likely compare to theirs once completed in an area.

 

Site spacing isn't the whole story with AT&T's lte. Since AT&T uses 850 or 1900 for voice (depending on location) they have made the decision to design their lte network coverage mimic their voice coverage. They don't want their customer's phones to show they have a signal and not be able to make a phone call. I agree with their logic, however it puts them in a position where they have the capacity of a 700 MHz network and the effective lte coverage of 1900 or 850. With sprint because they provide voice service over both 800 and 1900 there will be no need for them to try to match voice coverage of higher frequency with lower frequency lte signals. This is really where sprint has a leg up and the real advantage of the network vision program. Basically, it takes heterogenous networks and frequencies and makes them work more homogeneously maximizing network efficiently.

[vryan44]

At&t has some sites around here with some intense downtilts.  I can recall seeing three towers within one square mile from each other, each equipped with their 700 mhz panels. Each panel facing the other two sites are pretty much pointed directly at the ground. 

 

Personally, I believe they could have achieved full coverage by installing the lte equipment on one or two of the three sites. Verizon achieved it by only using one site. But Verizon's lte speeds have been plummeting, so maybe that was a good move on at&t's part. 

 

I should add sprint is collocated on the same three sites at&t is on, all of which have had the new IBEZ network vison panels added. Of course the downtilt is nowhere near what at&t's is, but thats obviously because 1900 mhz doesn't need that kind of downtilt.  

[maximus1987/lou99]

At&t has some sites around here with some intense downtilts. I can recall seeing three towers within one square mile from each other, each equipped with their 700 mhz panels. Each panel facing the other two sites are pretty much pointed directly at the ground.

 

Personally, I believe they could have achieved full coverage by installing the lte equipment on one or two of the three sites. Verizon achieved it by only using one site. But Verizon's lte speeds have been plummeting, so maybe that was a good move on at&t's part.

 

I should add sprint is collocated on the same three sites at&t is on, all of which have had the new IBEZ network vison panels added. Of course the downtilt is nowhere near what at&t's is, but thats obviously because 1900 mhz doesn't need that kind of downtilt.

 

This is very encouraging. I never would suspect ATT to be the one building the higher density network at 700 but rather Verizon. Gives me confidence that when I switch to AIO aka ATT I won't see such slow speeds.

 

Also, this means that there is something to the "fastest LTE network" claims of ATT: their higher density sites. I always thought it was because they had less LTE subs.

 

This leads me to ask: why isn't Verizon doing the same thing with the downtilting + densification?

They are focusing already on AWS.

 

"We will deploy 5,000 AWS sites this year and it will be a lot more next year"

 

Read more: Verizon's Palmer details the company's AWS deployment strategy, VoLTE launch plans and more - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-palmer-details-companys-aws-deployment-strategy-volte-launch-plans/2013-03-13#ixzz2X0GD6iWi

Subscribe at FierceWireless

[vryan44]

This is very encouraging. I never would suspect ATT to be the one building the higher density network at 700 but rather Verizon. Gives me confidence that when I switch to AIO aka ATT I won't see such slow speeds.

 

Also, this means that there is something to the "fastest LTE network" claims of ATT: their higher density sites. I always thought it was because they had less LTE subs.

 

This leads me to ask: why isn't Verizon doing the same thing with the downtilting + densification?

They are focusing already on AWS.

 

"We will deploy 5,000 AWS sites this year and it will be a lot more next year"

 

Read more: Verizon's Palmer details the company's AWS deployment strategy, VoLTE launch plans and more - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-palmer-details-companys-aws-deployment-strategy-volte-launch-plans/2013-03-13#ixzz2X0GD6iWi

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Verizon does not have the site density for contiguous lte in the AWS band here in metro detroit. With the speeds i'm seeing on family/friends/coworkers phones, AWS is already needed on most urban sites.  After that, the lte on AWS will only be like "hotspots".

 

Too many people are on Verizon around here. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

This is very encouraging. I never would suspect ATT to be the one building the higher density network at 700 but rather Verizon. Gives me confidence that when I switch to AIO aka ATT I won't see such slow speeds.

 

 

Also, this means that there is something to the "fastest LTE network" claims of ATT: their higher density sites. I always thought it was because they had less LTE subs.

 

 

This leads me to ask: why isn't Verizon doing the same thing with the downtilting + densification?

 

They are focusing already on AWS.

 

 

"We will deploy 5,000 AWS sites this year and it will be a lot more next year"

 

 

Read more: Verizon's Palmer details the company's AWS deployment strategy, VoLTE launch plans and more - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-palmer-details-companys-aws-deployment-strategy-volte-launch-plans/2013-03-13#ixzz2X0GD6iWi

 

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 

 

Verizon does not have the site density for contiguous lte in the AWS band here in metro detroit. With the speeds i'm seeing on family/friends/coworkers phones, AWS is already needed on most urban sites. After that, the lte on AWS will only be like "hotspots".

 

Too many people are on Verizon around here.

Then why don't they start downtilting and densifying like ATT?

[4ktvs]

Verizon does not have the site density for contiguous lte in the AWS band here in metro detroit. With the speeds i'm seeing on family/friends/coworkers phones, AWS is already needed on most urban sites.  After that, the lte on AWS will only be like "hotspots".

 

Too many people are on Verizon around here. 

 

Yep they need AWS, though I think they sold some of it to T-mobile. ( I could be mistaken about that)

 

I really don't think Verizon cares that much about there network. They just wanted to pop a bunch of towers down quickly with them spaced as far from each other as they could so they could get that "largest and most reliable 4G LTE network" marketing. With out careing if it covers what there map shows or about thinking about loads of use. Even with there limited plan's they have still not been able to stop there network from clogging up.

 

I also know on the Verizon site the LTE support page was filled with guys from NYC saying that LTE was sub 500kbs and that AT&T/T-mobile worked way better there. And so on. ( I don't know how Verizon is going to fix that just with AWS, this is were I think sprint with 2500 could win big.)

 

I also went to ohio for 3 week's and had to deal with Verizon 3G 90% of the time in a pure 4G LTE zone or at lest that's what the map online said and the rep on the phone said at first, then after a support ticket said it was a "fringe" area even though it was NOT an extended area, it was a dark red should be good to go zone. It was really worse than that even due to loss of service, dropped call's and so on. ( Sorry for venting, but it really sucked. AT&T worked fine in this area by the way and LTE from them was rolling out )

 

Now if sprint would just get there LTE up and running in wake forest, all will be well.

[WiWavelength]

1) Same way I knew where every Sprint tower was in my area before S4GRU, by looking up.

Which website?

 

This is some of the best unintentional comedy.  digiblur means literally "by looking up."

 

Go outside.  Raise your head.  Open your eyes.  There is a whole world out there beyond the World Wide Web.

 

 

AJ

[digiblur]

This is some of the best unintentional comedy.  digiblur means literally "by looking up."

 

Go outside.  Raise your head.  Open your eyes.  There is a whole world out there beyond the World Wide Web.

 

 

AJ

 

He's too busy trolling than reading my spotting Ericsson equipment picture thread as it also shows you how to spot AT&T LTE equipment in some markets.

[RCM]

What's with all the AT$T people around here lately?

[S4GRU]

 

 

This is very encouraging. I never would suspect ATT to be the one building the higher density network at 700 but rather Verizon. Gives me confidence that when I switch to AIO aka ATT I won't see such slow speeds.

 

 

Also, this means that there is something to the "fastest LTE network" claims of ATT: their higher density sites. I always thought it was because they had less LTE subs.

 

 

This leads me to ask: why isn't Verizon doing the same thing with the downtilting + densification?

 

They are focusing already on AWS.

 

 

"We will deploy 5,000 AWS sites this year and it will be a lot more next year"

 

 

Read more: Verizon's Palmer details the company's AWS deployment strategy, VoLTE launch plans and more - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-palmer-details-companys-aws-deployment-strategy-volte-launch-plans/2013-03-13#ixzz2X0GD6iWi

 

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 

 

Verizon does not have the site density for contiguous lte in the AWS band here in metro detroit. With the speeds i'm seeing on family/friends/coworkers phones, AWS is already needed on most urban sites. After that, the lte on AWS will only be like "hotspots".

 

Too many people are on Verizon around here.

If you were to look at a coverage map of fully deployed LTE AWS on Verizon, it would look like a bunch of islands I suppose. However, Verizon is not planning to have LTE AWS working on any device by itself. It will only be deployed where LTE 750 is also already deployed. The two networks will work in tandem.

 

Users won't notice anything, except in the beginning the AWS network will be faster because it is less burdened. Over time, the burden on 750 will go down as AWS goes up. And with network management schemes they will balance the loads as much as possible for optimum efficiency.

 

This is the same thing Sprint will experience with TD-LTE 2600 and AT&T will with LTE WCS. And to some extent what Tmo has gone through with PCS HSPA+.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[S4GRU]

Why not macro first then small?

I thought carriers preferred macro sites to small cells?

 

Which modes and bands will Sprint's small cells support?

Prefer? I'm not familiar with a specific preference policy of macro cells versus small cells as an overriding requirement from any carrier. Every carrier independently evaluates the need in each specific underserved area and comes up with the best solution.

 

My point is that in most urban/suburban areas of the country, Sprint is already deployed at full 1900MHz spacing or denser. Of course, Baton Rouge is a notable exception (and I'm sure there are others too). When you pair this fact with the point that macro sites are horribly expensive and have a payback in years, then small cells seem like a logical choice for areas that are fully dense yet underserved.

 

A small cell is estimated to cost 1/8 to 1/4 the cost of a macro site. Also they are quicker through zoning approvals and much faster to install. However, they cover less area. So a small cell provides no cost advantage of trying to deploy over a wide area than a single macro site could. But if you are infilling areas between macro sites that are underserved with signal or capacity, then small cells make much more sense. Especially if you are just trying to extend the reach of a specific band, like TD-LTE 2600.

 

My point is not that there will never be additional macro sites. However, I believe once small cells start being deployed in the next year or so, it's going to be the predominant driver of the number of new sites. Probably getting to a 5:1 ratio.

 

Sprint will only be adding macro sites to new rural and exurban areas. And in the small handful of under spaced suburban markets (like BR). But there are no large scale plans to do this currently. Small cells is a large scale plan that Sprint has.

 

SoftBank is likely to change up some of these expansion plans. But we don't know to what extent yet.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[TheForce627]

Prefer? I'm not familiar with a specific preference policy of macro cells versus small cells as an overriding requirement from any carrier. Every carrier independently evaluates the need in each specific underserved area and comes up with the best solution.

 

My point is that in most urban/suburban areas of the country, Sprint is already deployed at full 1900MHz spacing or denser. Of course, Baton Rouge is a notable exception (and I'm sure there are others too). When you pair this fact with the point that macro sites are horribly expensive and have a payback in years, then small cells seem like a logical choice for areas that are fully dense yet underserved.

 

A small cell is estimated to cost 1/8 to 1/4 the cost of a macro site. Also they are quicker through zoning approvals and much faster to install. However, they cover less area. So a small cell provides no cost advantage of trying to deploy over a wide area than a single macro site could. But if you are infilling areas between macro sites that are underserved with signal or capacity, then small cells make much more sense. Especially if you are just trying to extend the reach of a specific band, like TD-LTE 2600.

 

My point is not that there will never be additional macro sites. However, I believe once small cells start being deployed in the next year or so, it's going to be the predominant driver of the number of new sites. Probably getting to a 5:1 ratio.

 

Sprint will only be adding macro sites to new rural and exurban areas. And in the small handful of under spaced suburban markets (like BR). But there are no large scale plans to do this currently. Small cells is a large scale plan that Sprint has.

 

SoftBank is likely to change up some of these expansion plans. But we don't know to what extent yet.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

What about places where there are existing towers but Sprint isn't located on that site. Shouldn't they try to increase their network density that way instead of putting up a new tower

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

Prefer? I'm not familiar with a specific preference policy of macro cells versus small cells as an overriding requirement from any carrier. Every carrier independently evaluates the need in each specific underserved area and comes up with the best solution.

 

 

My point is that in most urban/suburban areas of the country, Sprint is already deployed at full 1900MHz spacing or denser. Of course, Baton Rouge is a notable exception (and I'm sure there are others too). When you pair this fact with the point that macro sites are horribly expensive and have a payback in years, then small cells seem like a logical choice for areas that are fully dense yet underserved.

 

 

A small cell is estimated to cost 1/8 to 1/4 the cost of a macro site. Also they are quicker through zoning approvals and much faster to install. However, they cover less area. So a small cell provides no cost advantage of trying to deploy over a wide area than a single macro site could. But if you are infilling areas between macro sites that are underserved with signal or capacity, then small cells make much more sense. Especially if you are just trying to extend the reach of a specific band, like TD-LTE 2600.

 

 

My point is not that there will never be additional macro sites. However, I believe once small cells start being deployed in the next year or so, it's going to be the predominant driver of the number of new sites. Probably getting to a 5:1 ratio.

 

 

Sprint will only be adding macro sites to new rural and exurban areas. And in the small handful of under spaced suburban markets (like BR). But there are no large scale plans to do this currently. Small cells is a large scale plan that Sprint has.

 

 

SoftBank is likely to change up some of these expansion plans. But we don't know to what extent yet.

 

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

What about places where there are existing towers but Sprint isn't located on that site. Shouldn't they try to increase their network density that way instead of putting up a new tower

That's what he meant.

[S4GRU]

What about places where there are existing towers but Sprint isn't located on that site. Shouldn't they try to increase their network density that way instead of putting up a new tower

 

My post addresses them with macro sites.  Same deal.  Sprint doesn't actually build any new macro site locations.  All are provided by tower lease companies.  Whether that tower leaser has other carriers colocated on it or not is not really relevant.  Each site lease is negotiated.

 

Robert

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

What about places where there are existing towers but Sprint isn't located on that site. Shouldn't they try to increase their network density that way instead of putting up a new tower

 

 

Whether that tower leaser has other carriers colocated on it or not is not really relevant.

 

Robert

Is it the case that the lower on the tower the antennas are located, the less the coverage is?

[njjdnt]

Is it the case that the lower on the tower the antennas are located, the less the coverage is?

You have to take down tilt into consideration too. 

[S4GRU]

 

 

 

 

What about places where there are existing towers but Sprint isn't located on that site. Shouldn't they try to increase their network density that way instead of putting up a new tower

 

 

 

 

Whether that tower leaser has other carriers colocated on it or not is not really relevant.

 

 

 

Robert

 

Is it the case that the lower on the tower the antennas are located, the less the coverage is?

It can be true. However, in the case of most urban infill sites and additional capacity sites, they typically are trying to create a much smaller cell.

 

Height can be a good thing. But the needs of the cell is highly variable. It cannot overlap adjacent sites too much. If you have to use a lot of downtilt at a site if you were up high, then many times it makes more sense to mount lower. Additionally, at many sites the lower frequencies are up higher because they are trying to make a larger cell, whereas PCS or AWS on the same tower can be lower because they are covering a smaller cell.

 

So the basic premise you outline is true. But it is often not needed that way except in rural areas or new coverage areas. Every cell needs and engineering is just so drastically different.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[Louisiana84]

 

 

In my area AT&T has tighter spacing on their 700mhz LTE than Sprint does on their 1900 LTE. Same thing on the 850 voice/data side of things vs Sprint 1900 voice/data.

 

 

1) How do you know where ATT's LTE towers are?

 

2) If this fact is true, isn't this negligent on Sprint's part?

Or is it commendable on ATT's part?

Let's just say it is BOTH. AT&T is king in south Louisiana. Sprint's entire network down here in the Lafayette area went offline Monday. Sprint customers had NO service from 10am Monday throughout the day and many are still without service now on Wednesday... and no one knows why. Some folks did get a $10 bill credit, though.

 

The local television news teams ran with it as their top story... And in other news, AT&T went live with their LTE here yesterday. No kidding. Now back to you...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[digiblur]

Verizon must have been down as well if they had no service.

[Txmtx]

Verizon must have been down as well if they had no service.

Yeah. It'd take more than one thing to kill both Sprint and roaming on VZW. Unless they meant sprint was down and everyone with a sprint handset was roaming or nothing. Edited July 4, 2013 by Txmtx

[digiblur]

Yeah. It'd take more than one thing to kill both Sprint and roaming on VZW. Unless they meant sprint was down and everyone with a sprint handset was roaming or nothing.

 

I googled the story and found KATC had it.  They said the store told them a tower was down in Baton Rouge causing the outage.  Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up. 

[Txmtx]

 

 

 

Yeah. It'd take more than one thing to kill both Sprint and roaming on VZW. Unless they meant sprint was down and everyone with a sprint handset was roaming or nothing.

 

 

I googled the story and found KATC had it. They said the store told them a tower was down in Baton Rouge causing the outage. Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

Maybe the tower included the local Sprint DNS server... Idk. If the proxy still tried to... gibberish, something Edited July 4, 2013 by Txmtx