Jump to content
IamMrFamous07

Sprint TD-LTE 2500/2600mhz Discussion

Recommended Posts

Not so fast. Double that for 800 LTE and add some more for the EVDO.Sprint will quickly need 250mbps at most sites and that's not even counting TDD.

At that point they might as well get gigabit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't see how.. Only 100 Mb/s ?  If you're downloading at 7 Mb/s on a single phone ( which is typical for LTE ) you'd only have enough bandwidth for a dozen phones on that tower...

 

Short of a test lab situation, you are not apt to see a three sector site with a 5 MHz FDD LTE carrier ever be called upon to deliver a consistent 7 Mbps per user to a dozen UEs.  That basically would require an even distribution at four users per sector.  Since the total of 28 Mbps per sector would be pushing the 37 Mbps max of the 5 MHz FDD carrier, each UE would need to be in similarly excellent RF conditions to support 64-QAM and 2x2 MIMO.  And each user would have to be constantly requesting downlink data at 7 Mbps rates or greater.  Those are real world circumstances unlikely to occur.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think Gigabit backhaul would be over kill and sprint would be having to pay more money for it. But I could see it if they were upgrading to LTE Advanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the bandwidth used by 2500/2600 (once it becomes co-located on sprint towers), so your ~222 could easily double or more at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple does not deal with China Mobile currently, and it's not likely it ever will, since Apple would have to incorporate GSM, WCDMA (with CA for HSPA+), TD-SCDMA, CDMA2000, LTE TDD (with MIMO and CA), and LTE FDD (with MIMO). That makes the iPhone impossibly expensive for China Mobile's audience. And unlike China Unicom and China Telecom (who both have customers that actually sign contracts and pay a lot of money), China Mobile's customers are almost entirely prepaid with demands for cheap devices.

 

 

Good info. I wasn't aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the bandwidth used by 2500/2600 (once it becomes co-located on sprint towers), so your ~222 could easily double or more at that point.

 

*IF* it becomes co-located. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think Gigabit backhaul would be over kill and sprint would be having to pay more money for it. But I could see it if they were upgrading to LTE Advanced.

 

Overkill? Is there such a thing? It would behoove Sprint to be ahead of the curve this time around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the experts. Since back haul is a huge reason sprint is lagging behind in NV deployment of lte, is it possible it can share back haul with clear wire on those sites where they currently co-locate. I mean won't it be like that eventually when they eliminate redundant clear sites anyway. This way maybe some lte can be turned on sooner then later and then get even more back haul once Triband phones come online. I think backhaul repurposed for 1900 is more important than 2600 right now.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*IF* it becomes co-located. 

 

I would expect it to be more of a matter of when.

 

Sprint does not want to continue to pay for separate clearwire towers if they don't have to and a suitable sprint tower can provide the same or similar coverage.

 

Of course the reverse could happen too, where NV800/1900 is added a clearwire tower to increase coverage in a particular area that has limited sprint towers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that point they might as well get gigabit.

Why pay for what you don't need? You've got 2x 5x5 FD-LTE (~222 Mbps), plus a 20 MHz TD-LTE carrier (200-ish for 3 sectors? somebody who knows this better help me out here), plus a smattering for EV-DO and 1X means we're still a good ways south of 500 Mbps. Until Sprint needs to start refarming PCS 1900 MHz from EV-DO/1X on to LTE, or they decide to go with larger TD-LTE carriers than 20 MHz, there's no point paying for an extra 500 Mbps that physically cannot be used.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect it to be more of a matter of when.

 

Sprint does not want to continue to pay for separate clearwire towers if they don't have to and a suitable sprint tower can provide the same or similar coverage.

 

Of course the reverse could happen too, where NV800/1900 is added a clearwire tower to increase coverage in a particular area that has limited sprint towers.

I actually hope they convert some Clearwire sites in to NV ones. Due to 2.5 GHz spacing, Clearwire has more complete and more consistent coverage in Grand Rapids MI than Sprint does, by a long shot, save some in-building areas (which you really can't help at 2.5...)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why pay for what you don't need? You've got 2x 5x5 FD-LTE (~222 Mbps), plus a 20 MHz TD-LTE carrier (200-ish for 3 sectors? somebody who knows this better help me out here), plus a smattering for EV-DO and 1X means we're still a good ways south of 500 Mbps. Until Sprint needs to start refarming PCS 1900 MHz from EV-DO/1X on to LTE, or they decide to go with larger TD-LTE carriers than 20 MHz, there's no point paying for an extra 500 Mbps that physically cannot be used.

It makes sense if they aren't using it, but it would be feasible to get gigabit to run maybe 2 or 3 towers via microwave rather than pay for 3 300 megabit connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought all the backhaul they are ordering is intended to be upgradable/burstable to cover whatever bandwidth the particular tower needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense if they aren't using it, but it would be feasible to get gigabit to run maybe 2 or 3 towers via microwave rather than pay for 3 300 megabit connections.

 

Excellent point, they could run a full gbit backhaul to a 'core' tower, then daisy chain microwave links off that to whatever other towers that are not necessarily as easy/cheap to get fiber to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense if they aren't using it, but it would be feasible to get gigabit to run maybe 2 or 3 towers via microwave rather than pay for 3 300 megabit connections.

If that ends up being more cost effective without sacrificing network performance or reliability, sure. It's still overkill to get gigabit to every site, until the day comes when we're serving up a 100 MHz TD-LTE network or something silly like that...

 

I thought all the backhaul they are ordering is intended to be upgradable/burstable to cover whatever bandwidth the particular tower needs.

That is correct, at least with what Rob has posted.

 

Edit: also, sites, not towers, people! I know it's common vernacular to call them towers, but they hardly all are "tower" shaped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the experts. Since back haul is a huge reason sprint is lagging behind in NV deployment of lte, is it possible it can share back haul with clear wire on those sites where they currently co-locate. I mean won't it be like that eventually when they eliminate redundant clear sites anyway. This way maybe some lte can be turned on sooner then later and then get even more back haul once Triband phones come online. I think backhaul repurposed for 1900 is more important than 2600 right now. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Yes, this is possible at those sites where Sprint and Clearwire are colocated. However, Clearwire legacy backhaul isn't exactly high capacity. I think Clearwire has sites with as little as 10-20Mbps service. And sometimes even less at some Protection Sites.

 

So it might be OK as a temporary stop gap to share Clearwire backhaul at colocated sites, upgraded backhaul would still be needed. As the Sprint LTE may drop to way below acceptable levels.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense if they aren't using it, but it would be feasible to get gigabit to run maybe 2 or 3 towers via microwave rather than pay for 3 300 megabit connections.

 

I thought all the backhaul they are ordering is intended to be upgradable/burstable to cover whatever bandwidth the particular tower needs.

1. A single optical fiber can theoretically carry in excess of 10 Gbps. Fiber optic providers typically run fibers in bundles. Thus, once the fiber optic cable (bundle) has been run to any given site, there is an enormous amount of bandwidth available to that site, dependent on the electronic interfaces installed at each end of the fiber. Thus, ramping up backhaul to very large numbers is easy, once the fiber is in place (remembering that the fiber providers' monthly charges are based on capacity connected, not just on a per-fiber basis).

 

2. In a number of places (for example, the Chicago exurbs), Sprint has planned to bring fiber to a hub site, and then use microwave links to tie other sites into the fiber at the hub, thus saving time and money. Where the fiber has been run in a timely fashion (I think much of Rockford, Illinois, is an example), this tactic has worked well. However, the fiber backhaul providers have not always installed the backhaul in a timely fashion (for example, Dekalb and McHenry counties in Illinois), which has left large clusters of NV-ready sites with only old backhaul, and thus with no LTE. Also, with fiber to a hub and MW to the spokes, you have possibilities for "common mode" failures affecting large clusters of sites.

 

I believe people in other threads have suggested that Sprint is revisiting the "fiber-to-microwave" tactic since the SoftBank consummation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the experts. Since back haul is a huge reason sprint is lagging behind in NV deployment of lte, is it possible it can share back haul with clear wire on those sites where they currently co-locate.

 

To get access to that backhaul, Sprint just needs to know Clearwire's password.  I heard that it is "King-of-Pruschia."

 

:P

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is possible at those sites where Sprint and Clearwire are colocated. However, Clearwire legacy backhaul isn't exactly high capacity. I think Clearwire has sites with as little as 10-20Mbps service. And sometimes even less at some Protection Sites.

 

So it might be OK as a temporary stop gap to share Clearwire backhaul at colocated sites, upgraded backhaul would still be needed. As the Sprint LTE may drop to way below acceptable levels.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Interesting. Do you think this is a possibility. Even as a temp stop gap it seems like it could help especially places that have backhaul already ordered and just that are just idly waiting. The new backhaul should come in time for the new Triband phones. Even that low capacity backhaul could help 3g NV Sites not just lte sites. Seems like a no Brainer since more and more people are moving from wimax to lte.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get access to that backhaul, Sprint just needs to know Clearwire's password. I heard that it is "King-of-Pruschia."

 

:P

 

AJ

Not even K1ng-0f-Pru5ch!@?

That's not very secure.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even K1ng-0f-Pru5ch!@?

That's not very secure.

 

Nicely done.  My comedic writing is starting to rub off on some of you.

 

;)

 

AJ

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard clear's password is herron1996 :)

 

 

 

gkYl8aY.jpeg

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Do you think this is a possibility. Even as a temp stop gap it seems like it could help especially places that have backhaul already ordered and just that are just idly waiting. The new backhaul should come in time for the new Triband phones. Even that low capacity backhaul could help 3g NV Sites not just lte sites. Seems like a no Brainer since more and more people are moving from wimax to lte.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

They could do as you suggest, or, push for a very fast overlay of TD-LTE on WiMax sites. It would be a similar type of deployment as Tmo LTE overlay on its HSPA+ network.

 

If vendors can produce the equipment fast enough and the workers can be secured for it, it seems plausible to me that Sprint could get TD-LTE deployed on all Clearwire legacy sites in 4-5 months. It's only 10,000 more sites approximately to go.

 

I think I would do it. Every Sprint site that has not been converted and is colocated with Clearwire, I would priortize these to be converted immediately and connect to Clearwire backhaul temporarily until new fiber backhaul arrives.

 

Simultaneously, I would start a mega ambitious project of adding TD-LTE to every Clearwire WiMax site, including Protection Sites. This would usher in a new LTE quickly and allow Sprint to dump all the Huawei equipment out there.

 

Also, simultaneously I would begin planning for Network Vision/Clearwire integration. Plan for all Clearwire sites that are presently colocated with Sprint to be moved over to the Sprint side on New NV base stations and racks. Allow Clearwire colocated sites to be decommissioned, saving lots of money. Then the Clearwire sites that are not colocated with Sprint should be converted to Network Vision or decommissioned if redundant in coverage. These Clearwire sites that are not colocated with Sprint should have the other LTE bands and CDMA installed too where it makes sense.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got an ephemeral LTE Band 41 connection in far exurban Chicagoland. RSRP between -109 & -120 dBm, unable to get data to transfer. Then the Netgear dropped back to Band 25, from a different site about 2 miles away. I believe the Band 41 site is a Clear-only tower with WiMAX, about 1 mile distant.

 

Was this real? Was it a test? Am I hallucinating? I drove within 300 feet of the suspect site yesterday, and got not even a hint of LTE signal.

 

I can pick up a WiMAX signal of about the same strength, likely from the same tower, on my decommisioned HTC EVO, but I was never able to get reliable data from it at this location, either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/vikingsvsseahawks/
    • https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/vikingsvsseahawks/
    • https://vslivestreamfootball.de/fcportovsgalatasaray/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/schalke04vslokomotivmoscow/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/borussiadortmundvsasmonaco/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/barcelonavstottenham/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/atleticomadridvsclubbrugge/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/intermilanvspsv/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/liverpoolvsnapoli/ https://vslivestreamfootball.de/parissaintgermainvsredstarbelgrade/
    • https://pclivestreamontv.de/fcportovsgalatasaray/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/schalke04vslokomotivmoscow/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/borussiadortmundvsasmonaco/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/barcelonavstottenham/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/atleticomadridvsclubbrugge/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/intermilanvspsv/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/liverpoolvsnapoli/ https://pclivestreamontv.de/parissaintgermainvsredstarbelgrade/
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×