Jump to content

Aggregating both TDD & FDD


IamMrFamous07
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if anyone posted this article or not but apparently SK telecom and Nokia achieved this in the summer.

 

I know sprint has an abundance of TD LTE spectrum thanks to clear wire and they plan to aggregate those channels

 

Do you think sprint will try to aggregate all their frequencies in the future?

 

http://networks.nokia.com/news-events/press-room/press-releases/lte-throughput-leader-nokia-sets-world-record-with-sk-telecom-of-close-to-4-gbps-using-tdd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect there are too many differences in propagation characteristics between the bands to make much difference.

 

besides the fact, even if it were possible, it would be wasting double or triple the spectrum per user (ie now a user would be using both b26 and b25, instead of only b26 or only b25).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone posted this article or not but apparently SK telecom and Nokia achieved this in the summer.

 

I know sprint has an abundance of TD LTE spectrum thanks to clear wire and they plan to aggregate those channels

 

Do you think sprint will try to aggregate all their frequencies in the future?

 

http://networks.nokia.com/news-events/press-room/press-releases/lte-throughput-leader-nokia-sets-world-record-with-sk-telecom-of-close-to-4-gbps-using-tdd

I can't remember where Robert's post was but due to the depth of Sprints B41 spectrum, there really is no reason for Sprint to aggregate FDD and TDD.  In addition, B41 is suppose to be the capacity and speed which will be aggregated to 40mhz and then to 60mhz.  Finally, there are several markets that have multiple B41 carriers active (chicago??).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think sprint will try to aggregate all their frequencies in the future?

No.

 

They may aggregate B25 carriers, or B25 and B26 *maybe*. But there's no need to aggregate B25 and B41, even if there was a way to do it. Which with the current setup, there is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

They may aggregate B25 carriers, or B25 and B26 *maybe*. But there's no need to aggregate B25 and B41, even if there was a way to do it. Which with the current setup, there is not.

How would aggregating B25 & 26 work? I would imagine the propagation differences between the bands would make it difficult where B25 doesn't reach.

 

I know Chicago has 2 B25 carriers, would aggregating these two 5x5 carriers make sense? From a capacity standpoint it doesn't make much of a difference but would the improvements in peak speed and (maybe?) better edge of cell performance be worth the trouble?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6 on the Now Network

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would aggregating B25 & 26 work? I would imagine the propagation differences between the bands would make it difficult where B25 doesn't reach.

 

I know Chicago has 2 B25 carriers, would aggregating these two 5x5 carriers make sense? From a capacity standpoint it doesn't make much of a difference but would the improvements in peak speed and (maybe?) better edge of cell performance be worth the trouble?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6 on the Now Network

For B25 and B26, aggregated connections would only be available where you have both signals. You would still be able to connect to only B26 or only B25 if needed. However, aggregating these two carriers isn't likely. Capacity needs to be reserved for those beyond the reach of B25.

 

As far as aggregating two B25 carriers, the peak speed and performance boosts may be worth it. Especially since a lot of people now base their perception of network performance solely on speed.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The framework for implementing FDD + TDD CA won't be finalized until 3GPP Rel 12 is frozen this March, so it's still a ways off from real-world deployment. For now, Sprint only has plans for CA in B41. Inter-band aggregation will be much more important for an operator like AT&T, whose spectrum holdings are much more varied and non-contiguous. In most markets, they'll need to aggregate AWS + PCS + WCS to keep up with the peak download speeds Sprint will have with a single 60 MHz B41 chain.

 

While low-band spectrum can be aggregated with the mid- or high-band spectrum, I also believe that operators should leave those bands separate to help ensure usable throughput is maintained for people at the edge of coverage. Aggregation with another low-band (i.e. B5 + 12, or B26 + 600 MHz) would be alright though.

 

As far as aggregating two B25 carriers, the peak speed and performance boosts may be worth it. Especially since a lot of people now base their perception of network performance solely on speed.

 

I agree that this would be a good idea, but can Sprint's equipment be software-upgraded to support CA within B25?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree that this would be a good idea, but can Sprint's equipment be software-upgraded to support CA within B25?

 

Band 25 carrier aggregation is dead and Sprint equipment does not and will not support it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Band 25 carrier aggregation is dead and Sprint equipment does not and will not support it. 

 

It's not entirely "dead" in that 3GPP will support it in Rel 12. It's a question of whether Sprint's existing NV equipment can be upgraded to support it. If it requires a hardware upgrade, then I agree it would be all but dead to Sprint, as they would (justifiably) feel that it would be a waste of time and money to deploy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not entirely "dead" in that 3GPP will support it in Rel 12. It's a question of whether Sprint's existing NV equipment can be upgraded to support it. If it requires a hardware upgrade, then I agree it would be all but dead to Sprint, as they would (justifiably) feel that it would be a waste of time and money to deploy it.

 

No it's dead. According to neal, Sprint does not have the "channelization" to even deploy interband carrier aggregation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's dead. According to neal, Sprint does not have the "channelization" to even deploy interband carrier aggregation. 

 

What does he mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would aggregating B25 & 26 work? I would imagine the propagation differences between the bands would make it difficult where B25 doesn't reach.

For B25 and B26, aggregated connections would only be available where you have both signals. You would still be able to connect to only B26 or only B25 if needed. However, aggregating these two carriers isn't likely. Capacity needs to be reserved for those beyond the reach of B25.

 

For carrier aggregation, I typically just refer to the carrier and supplemental carrier, but the 3GPP terms/acronyms are primary component carrier (PCC) and secondary component carrier (SCC).

 

Now, it is important that the PCC have propagation characteristics that are better than or equal to those of the SCC.  Otherwise, the PCC fails before the SCC.  In that case, the entire link fails, and the network must be reacquired.

 

CA03.jpg

 

http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained

 

So, apply this to Sprint.  The band 26 carrier would have to be the PCC, while the band 25 carrier would have to be the SCC.  But Sprint does not want that configuration.  Band 26 is not to be primary; it is to be secondary -- used for coverage, not capacity.

 

See the problem?

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, it is important that the PCC have propagation characteristics that are better than or equal to the SCC.  Otherwise, the PCC fails before the SCC.  In that case, the entire link fails, and the network must be reacquired.

 

The key then is how long it takes for a network to be "reacquired." If we're talking a couple seconds (like the transition we see in tri-band devices switching between B25/26 FDD and B41 TDD), then that's not much of an impediment. CA could simply be disabled during VoLTE calls when smooth band switching is of paramount importance. If it's any longer than that, then any sort of inter-band CA (even AWS + PCS) could be a problem. 

 

In any case, I agree that low-band (<1 GHz) should not be aggregated with mid- or high-band spectrum. This also presumably wouldn't be a factor to consider with B25 intra-band aggregation.

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

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Well, I saw a good deal on a factory unlocked A32 5G on eBay and was able to convince the seller to show me the software info screen--and it was May.  So I jumped on it. Stuck one of my Tello SIMs in it, and while my Moto One 5G Ace would connect to n71 SA, this phone refuses to do so.  And with only 0 for the TA value, it's less useful for LTE than my older devices.  Oh, and the *#2263# menu doesn't work properly for NR.  So definitely glad I'm able to disable updates. - Trip
    • NextWave re-emerges with 2.5 GHz private network service  https://www.fiercewireless.com/private-wireless/nextwave-re-emerges-25-ghz-private-network-service https://www.nextwave5g.com/nextwave-news The only way for T-Mobile to get up to 190MHz now is to either buy out NextWave in it's entirety or wait until NextWave's lease is up and attempt to "outbid" them for the right to lease the spectrum from the Archdiocese.
    • A whole bunch more: Sprint eNB 79606 (40.75132648431523,-73.90146879382196) --> T-Mobile eNB 310071 Sprint eNB ?? (40.76217959031908,-73.98290725716903) --> T-Mobile eNB 306359 Sprint eNB ?? (40.73515112286398,-74.05620754132336) --> T-Mobile eNB 219100 Sprint eNB 74287 (40.70103618706469,-73.88568221202024) --> T-Mobile eNB 307512 Sprint eNB ?? (40.61153605033678,-73.97809151056654) --> T-Mobile eNB 216122  Sprint eNB ?? (40.85506888812853,-73.8833696864961) --> T-Mobile eNB 894975 Sprint eNB 74711 (40.8825393882436,-73.8824177643403) --> T-Mobile eNB 894014  Sprint eNB ?? (40.853581236454886,-73.96895437356767) --> T-Mobile eNB 878599 Sprint eNB ?? (40.858543517828,-73.99069077095734) --> T-Mobile eNB 879007 Sprint eNB 103747 (40.72050408418687,-74.05430368479026) --> T-Mobile eNB 216911 Sprint eNB ?? (40.71543795248539,-74.04311338634996) --> T-Mobile eNB 894452
    • Mike. I sent in more diags for wi-fi 6e yesterday where SCP shows channel = 0.  Thanks.
    • Added and modified them all! I took a trip through the L train tunnel between 1st Avenue and Bedford Avenue recently and found n41 live in the tunnel. It's 80 MHz, speeds were 250-300, and I didn't have time to check if n71 is there. Some stations speeds slow wayyyy down when a train pulls in now, even the ones with B2 at 15 or 20 MHz, so any upgrade is great sight to see.
  • Recently Browsing

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