Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[Trip]

Yeah, that was my fault.  I really should have qualified the statement.  I meant average, sensible, vast majority people.  Most of us, post the year 2000, have RF radiating devices in our homes and pockets.  We have no problems, no "tinfoil hat" concerns.

 

You might be surprised.  Try to put up a cell phone tower in your yard and see how many people come to town meetings shrieking about cancer risks and other such stupidity--often while talking on the phone pressed against their head.  The inverse square law is really lost on those people.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

I agree with you and get your point on which way to spend 10 billion. My only thought is would 10 billion in towers cost more long term with leasing and whatever goes with towers? Vs adding 600 to existing towers? I do realize there are cost with both however small cell might actually be the most cost efficient for 10 billion. Follow that up with Sprint signs on people's roof tops with built in femocells/micro cells.

 

Obviously, yes, there are ongoing costs with leasing new sites.  And I admit that I am glossing over some of those costs.  But if the current wireless data usage climate continues, another 5-10-20 MHz FDD of 600 MHz spectrum -- again, assuming that even happens -- is not going to solve the problem.  The problem just will continue.

 

People are relying too upon much cellular data, overloading networks.  That is my opinion.

 

The solutions are multifold.  Put users on tiered plans with caps or usurious overages.  They need to limit or their usage and/or offload to Wi-Fi.  Or split cells by greatly increasing site density -- and that reduces the efficacy of new low band spectrum, especially if that new low band spectrum is limited bandwidth.

 

Other solutions and ideas are out there.  I do not have all the answers.  But throwing copious amounts of spectrum at the problem never will be the answer.  Address the symptom, not the cure.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Obviously, yes, there are ongoing costs with leasing new sites.  And I admit that I am glossing over some of those costs.  But if the current wireless data usage climate continues, another 5-10-20 MHz FDD of 600 MHz spectrum -- again, assuming that even happens -- is not going to solve the problem.  The problem just will continue.

 

People are relying too upon much cellular data, overloading networks.  That is my opinion.

 

The solutions are multifold.  Put users on tiered plans with caps or usurious overages.  They need to limit or their usage and/or offload to Wi-Fi.  Or split cells by greatly increasing site density -- and that reduces the efficacy of new low band spectrum, especially if that new low band spectrum is limited bandwidth.

 

Other solutions and ideas are out there.  I do not have all the answers.  But throwing copious amounts of spectrum at the problem never will be the answer.  Address the symptom, not the cure.

 

AJ

 

 

Isn't WiFI itself spectrum inefficient compared to where the 5G wireless standards are going? I honestly look the state of WiFi and the honest answer is that WiFi sucks in a lot of ways, as has been exposed by the LTE-U debate. Most WiFi channels around me are 2.4 GHz that all interfere with each other. Pardon me for saying that might not be a good user experience. 5 GHz is comparatively underused, but a lot of home routers don't have the ability to beam 5 GHz through a house. Compare to an LTE small cell that can easily outgun WiFi. LTE-U can do that today. LTE might not be the most robust air interface, but based on the testing that Qualcomm has done, it is more robust than LTE is at this stage. The LTE-U debate has exposed WiFi in a lot of ways. 

 

I was cynical about LTE-U at first but the more that I saw the research and the more I seriously examined the failures of WiFi the more I became open to a different approach. 

 

As for 5G, I think that we're too early in the process to speak too definitively about it. That said, vendors like Nokia, Samsung, and Ericsson (Sprint's primary vendors with Alcatel-Lucent sucked into Nokia) are making far more headway on 5G than I suspected they would be making a year ago. It's the possibility that 5G could fracture into different technological tracks that scares the hell out of me with 5G. A common standard needs to be reached. 

[Fraydog]

http://9to5mac.com/2016/04/19/apple-releases-new-12-inch-retina-macbook-line-new-processors-rose-gold-better-battery-life/?pushup=1

 

Off-topic, but Rose Gold Skylake. 

[WiWavelength]

You might be surprised.  Try to put up a cell phone tower in your yard and see how many people come to town meetings shrieking about cancer risks and other such stupidity--often while talking on the phone pressed against their head.  The inverse square law is really lost on those people.

 

Oh, I get it.

 

Some people see large cell sites, associate size with strength, and automatically think that massive RF is raining down upon them.

 

But, Trip, you are awesome for referencing the inverse square law.  I have been saying the same thing for years now.  If you are concerned about RF exposure -- but still use a cellphone -- you want your serving site nearby.

 

Some of these people erroneously seem to think that a small cellphone radiates little, if any RF.  The RF comes only from the cell site.  Nope.  Ah, common people, who have inadequate physics knowledge.

 

The RF radiation issue is the cellphone, not the cell site.  The -100 dBm signal may be received by the cellphone, while the 20 dBm signal transmitted by the cellphone is partially absorbed by your head and body.  And that 120 dB difference cannot be overstated.

 

The received RF from the cell site is minuscule -- the transmitted RF from the cellphone may be significant.

 

AJ

[caspar347]

Yeah, that was my fault.  I really should have qualified the statement.  I meant average, sensible, vast majority people.  Most of us, post the year 2000, have RF radiating devices in our homes and pockets.  We have no problems, no "tinfoil hat" concerns.

 

And I am glad that you mention West Virginia -- because I was going to bring it up.  Those with possibly legitimate or just psychosomatic sensitivity to anthropomorphically generated RF, some do move to the National Radio Quiet Zone.

 

 

AJ

 

 

You might be surprised.  Try to put up a cell phone tower in your yard and see how many people come to town meetings shrieking about cancer risks and other such stupidity--often while talking on the phone pressed against their head.  The inverse square law is really lost on those people.

 

- Trip

 

IME entire neighborhoods (and anybody who lives nearby and has too much time on their hands) will show up to city council meetings etc spouting this stuff. (I've witnessed it from afar twice in the past and I'm about to be personally involved with a new case. See the CLT premier thread for details. Though honestly in my area I think it's a lot more about property value and people against towers will say anything to make their case seem more legitimate. I understand the property value concerns, but please people, stop spreading FUD. Nothing bothers me more.)

 

Isn't the telecom act of '96 supposed to prevent this stuff from being an issue? I'd think anybody serious enough about protesting to do some research would figure out pretty quickly that you can't make those arguments.

[WiWavelength]

caspar347, you should know that cell tower RF is dangerous.  And vaccines cause autism.

 

Beware!

 

And this comes from someone diagnosed with autism.

 

 

AJ

[Overstew]

caspar347, you should know that cell tower RF is dangerous.  And vaccines cause autism.

 

Beware!

 

And this comes from someone diagnosed with autism.

 

 

AJ

I was wondering where my mutated third arm came from.

[bigsnake49]

caspar347, you should know that cell tower RF is dangerous.  And vaccines cause autism.

 

Beware!

 

And this comes from someone diagnosed with autism.

 

 

AJ

 

I think you were misdiagnosed, AJ! You sound like an Asperger's to me. Lord, I apologize, and be with the starvin' Pygmies in New Guinea! Amen.  .

Edited April 19, 2016 by bigsnake49

[afazel]

I always thought of AJ as more of an ass burger

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

Isn't WiFI itself spectrum inefficient compared to where the 5G wireless standards are going? I honestly look the state of WiFi and the honest answer is that WiFi sucks in a lot of ways, as has been exposed by the LTE-U debate. Most WiFi channels around me are 2.4 GHz that all interfere with each other. Pardon me for saying that might not be a good user experience. 5 GHz is comparatively underused, but a lot of home routers don't have the ability to beam 5 GHz through a house. Compare to an LTE small cell that can easily outgun WiFi. LTE-U can do that today. LTE might not be the most robust air interface, but based on the testing that Qualcomm has done, it is more robust than LTE is at this stage. The LTE-U debate has exposed WiFi in a lot of ways. 

 

I was cynical about LTE-U at first but the more that I saw the research and the more I seriously examined the failures of WiFi the more I became open to a different approach. 

 

As for 5G, I think that we're too early in the process to speak too definitively about it. That said, vendors like Nokia, Samsung, and Ericsson (Sprint's primary vendors with Alcatel-Lucent sucked into Nokia) are making far more headway on 5G than I suspected they would be making a year ago. It's the possibility that 5G could fracture into different technological tracks that scares the hell out of me with 5G. A common standard needs to be reached. 

What do you mean, inefficient?  

 

5GHz is unlicensed spectrum that isn't limited to WiFi technology.  Same for 2.4GHz, 900MHz, 3.5Ghz, etc.  2.4GHz is crowded just because 60MHz isn't a lot of spectrum in today's world.

 

There are some issues with LTE-U.  Cellular companies will be limited to broadcasting power of 5GHz.  Currently, the max output is 1watt in 225MHz of the spectrum, the lower 100MHz and upper 125MHz.  So I'd expect cellular companies will broadcast largely in just 225MHz of the spectrum to use that 1 watt output vs the 250mW for the middle channels.

 

I also was recently explained, that LTE-U won't play nicely with WiFi.  If both WiFi and LTE share some channels, WiFi will get killed and have really degraded performance.  WiFi is polite.  WiFi listens for others and broadcasts when no one else is. But LTE-U broadcasts all the time, even when it doesn't need too, and only lets up just enough to meet the federal regulations.  This 225MHz is practically what all 5GHz WiFi routers currently broadcast in.  If this really is the case, I won't be much of a fan for LTE-U unless they use the middle 5GHz channels. 

[bigsnake49]

I am totally against, LTE-U, LTE-LAA or any other LTE in WiFi channels. Let them use 28GHz or any other frequency. Hands off WiFi! Work with the cable cos on having ubiquitous WiFi where appropriate.

[caspar347]

It's been a while since I've thought about LTE-U, but my opinion hasn't really changed. I'm totally OK with carriers using unlicensed spectrum for networking. WISPs do it already. But I'm really scared of the possibility of them adopting a standard that seriously harms existing unlicensed users. Which is a real possibility at this point.

 

For example, I'm totally cool with carrier WiFi because A) it's standard-compliant and won't cause problems with existing CPEs in any way and it typically won't be taking up every channel. I would not be OK with a proprietary protocol in use over unlicensed frequencies that disregards existing CPEs and UEs. For example broadcasting across all channels just 'cause it's possible. Which I have no doubt is the current end-game since there's no legislation preventing this. Maybe we could get some sort of spectrum screen for unlicensed use i.e. if you own x Mhz of licensed spectrum you can only use y unlicensed channels. There's probably some legal reason this wouldn't work/could be abused, but it would certainly help in this particular situation.

 

Ideally LTE and WiFi can merge as a standard with identical interference protocols and such.

[Houston_Texas]

I always thought of AJ as more of an ass burger

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my SM-N910 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

 

Kudos that Sascha's article was mostly informative and positive.  But, unsurprisingly, he did manage to get in a few digs at Sprint.  The funny part -- and I know that I am not necessarily a representative sample -- but I cannot get my handset NOT to camp on band 41 inside my house and around my neighborhood.  I guess I must live in a wet paper bag with gaping holes in it.

 

And if T-Mobile successfully had played this longterm Nextel, Clearwire, BRS/EBS 2600 MHz gambit that will pay off with a massive swath of "low band 5G" spectrum for Sprint, you know that Sascha would be practically gushing about how smart and strategic Neville and T-Mobile are.

 

Sascha got "swathe" [sic] wrong, by the way.  That is a verb -- to wrap.  It is not the noun -- a strip or portion.

 

 

(NSFW)

 

 

AJ

 

Nice!   What do you think Sprint is experimenting with for its indoor coverage solutions for 2.5GHz?

[bigsnake49]

It's been a while since I've thought about LTE-U, but my opinion hasn't really changed. I'm totally OK with carriers using unlicensed spectrum for networking. WISPs do it already. But I'm really scared of the possibility of them adopting a standard that seriously harms existing unlicensed users. Which is a real possibility at this point.

 

For example, I'm totally cool with carrier WiFi because A) it's standard-compliant and won't cause problems with existing CPEs in any way and it typically won't be taking up every channel. I would not be OK with a proprietary protocol in use over unlicensed frequencies that disregards existing CPEs and UEs. For example broadcasting across all channels just 'cause it's possible. Which I have no doubt is the current end-game since there's no legislation preventing this. Maybe we could get some sort of spectrum screen for unlicensed use i.e. if you own x Mhz of licensed spectrum you can only use y unlicensed channels. There's probably some legal reason this wouldn't work/could be abused, but it would certainly help in this particular situation.

 

Ideally LTE and WiFi can merge as a standard with identical interference protocols and such.

 

 

The carriers can play in the 3.5GHz sandbox all they want! Just keep out of the WiFi area.

[Overstew]

The carriers can play in the 3.5GHz sandbox all they want! Just keep out of the WiFi area.

This is my hesitation.  If they're going to be using unlicensed spectrum, it's going to cause issues for many people running WiFi in their homes. 

[RedSpark]

I have a theory on what Sprint has planned for its 2.5 GHz Indoor Coverage Plans...

 

I'll bet it's going to be a small cell requiring no customer provided backhaul (i.e. Ethernet, etc.) as the AIRAVE/Wi-Fi Connect Router do. Instead, it will utilize Sprint's LTE Relay infrastructure and auto-configure itself upon being plugged in. If so, it'll have to be the size of an AIRAVE/Wi-Fi Connect Router or smaller to promote adoption.

 

Even better, I'll bet it will have a feature which will allow it to extend coverage to other nearby units, such that if a unit is installed in the bowels of a building, it'll receive an extended signal from a unit installed at a window.

 

If this is really the case, I see Sprint working closely with customers, landowners and government entities to install hundreds of thousands of these across the country. Thoughts?

[dnicekid]

I can totally see that. Lets go a step further, Maybe so type of microwave/antenna setup that sprint installs for customers who have LOS to the tower?  Honestly speaking, its a good idea. Hopefully there is some incentive for the customer or else its not such a great idea!

[Fraydog]

Without going too much into the technical rationale, LTE-U and LAA have forms of listen before talk to ensure no interference between WiFi and LTE exists. I suspect the FCC will mandate LBT as things stand. It's also primarily going to be used on DAS and microcell locations for VZ and T-Mobile indoors, with maybe some very specific outdoor cases off microcell layouts.

 

Read Nokia's whitepaper on this, that outlines a lot of the technical scenarios.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Edited April 19, 2016 by Fraydog
On LTE-U and WiFi

[smooth25]

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160419005661/en/SoftBank-Sercomm-Rohde-Schwarz-Join-MulteFire-Alliance

 

"FREMONT, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The MulteFire Alliance, an independent, diverse and international member-driven consortium, today announced that SoftBank Corp. (“SoftBank”), Sercomm and Rohde & Schwarz have joined the Alliance to advance MulteFire – an LTE-based technology for small cells operating solely in unlicensed spectrum."

 

 

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160419005661/en/SoftBank-Sercomm-Rohde-Schwarz-Join-MulteFire-Alliance

 

"FREMONT, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The MulteFire Alliance, an independent, diverse and international member-driven consortium, today announced that SoftBank Corp. (“SoftBank”), Sercomm and Rohde & Schwarz have joined the Alliance to advance MulteFire – an LTE-based technology for small cells operating solely in unlicensed spectrum."

 

 

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

There are definitely some big plans in the works!

[dnicekid]

There are definitely some big plans in the works!

 

Talk about timing!!!

Wow!!!

[RedSpark]

Talk about timing!!!

Wow!!!

 

Interesting how SoftBank is the only carrier listed. Perhaps it was done this way so as to not tip everyone off that Sprint is getting involved.

[RedSpark]

Sprint just announced its 4Q15 Earnings Call Date:

 

Sprint Corporation Schedules Fiscal 2015 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results Announcement

May 3, 2016 at 8:30AM ET