Jump to content

Alcatel-Lucent CEO: Company could disappear

Fraydog

By Fraydog
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

utiz4321 Member Level: 4G WiMax

utiz4321

Posted
Posted

Their equipment might not be second rate but the speed at which they deploy NV is. Just compare the progress of Chicago and Washington/Baltimore. Both first round NV markets yet Washington/Baltimore have a ton of sites without lte where as almost all of Chicago have lte. Ni really hate being in an AL market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nickel Member Level: 4G WiMax

Nickel

Posted
Posted

Their equipment might not be second rate but the speed at which they deploy NV is. Just compare the progress of Chicago and Washington/Baltimore. Both first round NV markets yet Washington/Baltimore have a ton of sites without lte where as almost all of Chicago have lte. Ni really hate being in an AL market.

Don't forget that with Chicago there were incompatibilities with legacy equipment that made them speed the process up, having said that, I think your point has some truth to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcltoys Member Level: 3G EVDO

bcltoys

Posted
Posted

Their equipment might not be second rate but the speed at which they deploy NV is. Just compare the progress of Chicago and Washington/Baltimore. Both first round NV markets yet Washington/Baltimore have a ton of sites without lte where as almost all of Chicago have lte. Ni really hate being in an AL market.

Baltimore market is a mess.The eastern shore tower's for the most part where to be all done in 2012 there is 12 or so live with 4g. BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rawvega Member Level: 4G LTE

Rawvega

Posted
Posted

I hope alcaltel-lucent is locked out of the next round of network upgrades. They are moving at a snails pace in their deployments compared to Samsung and Ericsson. Hopefully, Nokia will buy them out.

 

That's interesting since according to the NV sites complete map they've done more NV sites than either Samsung or Ericcson. Just sayin'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dave Member Level: 4G WiMax

The Dave

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't call any of ALU equipment second rate, it's just that compared to other companies such as Samsung, Ericsson and NSN, they just aren't at the same level with current technology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utiz4321 Member Level: 4G WiMax

utiz4321

Posted
Posted

That's interesting since according to the NV sites complete map they've done more NV sites than either Samsung or Ericcson. Just sayin'...

That is because they have the most 3G complete. As far as 4g forget it, they are no where close. Their first round markets are way behind Samsung and Ericsson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdk Member Level: 4G LTE

cdk

Posted
Posted

That is because they have the most 3G complete. As far as 4g forget it, they are no where close. Their first round markets are way behind Samsung and Ericsson.

 

They maybe lagging in that regard, but no one has offered hard evidence that it is their equipment's fault. It maybe their scheduling, or their crews, or the backhaul providers fault. I don't hear much of their deployments being riddled with doughnuts and 1x 800 sites that made it impossible to place calls.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdk Member Level: 4G LTE

cdk

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't call any of ALU equipment second rate, it's just that compared to other companies such as Samsung, Ericsson and NSN, they just aren't at the same level with current technology.

 

So would that be first and a half rate?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utiz4321 Member Level: 4G WiMax

utiz4321

Posted
Posted

They maybe lagging in that regard, but no one has offered hard evidence that it is their equipment's fault. It maybe their scheduling, or their crews, or the backhaul providers fault. I don't hear much of their deployments being riddled with doughnuts and 1x 800 sites that made it impossible to place calls.

It's a forum, there is no such thing as hard evidance. Just appeals to athority :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdk Member Level: 4G LTE

cdk

Posted
Posted

On AlLu, I really think their problem isn't the quality of what they build, but that their tech simply isn't as advanced. 

 

It is advanced enough to be 4G. It is advanced enough to not have widespread problems with legacy equipment. How are you defining as advanced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fraydog Member Level: LTE Advanced

Fraydog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It is advanced enough to be 4G. It is advanced enough to not have widespread problems with legacy equipment. How are you defining as advanced?

How about it's really really problematic for 3GPP Release 10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RichardXy Member Level: 3G EVDO

RichardXy

Posted
Posted

That's interesting since according to the NV sites complete map they've done more NV sites than either Samsung or Ericcson. Just sayin'...

So if you look at the division of the country you will see that Alcatel really is responsible for two regions in the country. This is equivalent to 54% of the top 20 markets. Ericsson is responsible for 25% and Samsung for 21% of the top 20 markets. So Alcatel is upgrading half of the population. They should have twice as many sites completed as the other vendors.

 

For the top 100 markets alcatel has 44%, Samsung and Ericsson have about 27% each.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Trip
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By Trip · Posted

      On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • wispiANt
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By wispiANt · Posted

      Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • radem
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By radem · Posted

      Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • swintec
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By swintec · Posted

      will this work for service in a plane?
    • Paynefanbro
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.

  • Recently Browsing

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