Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Negative. No smartphone ever has supported 4x MIMO. And it will be a long time, if ever. Something the size of smartphone will be hard pressed to get 4 individual antenna paths that support LTE. Not enough real estate. Not to mention, it wouldn't be very effective when held.

 

If we ever see a 4x MIMO device, it will likely be on a large tablet, hotspot, or computer or other device (like car). It may never get to a smartphone with current technology.

The T-Mobile iPhone 5S has 4. I've seen it in field test.

Posted

The T-Mobile iPhone 5S has 4. I've seen it in field test.

 

Negative.  You see a field that identifies that the site is broadcasting on 4 antennas.  Your device is not actually using 4x MIMO.  I repeat, there are no 4x MIMO devices out there yet at all.  Let alone a smartphone.  All LTE iPhones to date have been 2x MIMO.

  • Like 3
Posted

Negative. You see a field that identifies that the site is broadcasting on 4 antennas. Your device is not actually using 4x MIMO. I repeat, there are no 4x MIMO devices out there yet at all. Let alone a smartphone. All LTE iPhones to date have been 2x MIMO.

Oh wow ok. I've thought 4x2 phones existed for a while lol. Guess I jump to too many conclusions.

Posted

Oh wow ok. I've thought 4x2 phones existed for a while lol. Guess I jump to too many conclusions.

 

It's easy to misunderstand.  And with the field in the Apple Field Test screen, it really causes confusion.  But I'm glad it's there, because it helps us to identify sites where 4x2 is being broadcasted.

Posted

It's easy to misunderstand. And with the field in the Apple Field Test screen, it really causes confusion. But I'm glad it's there, because it helps us to identify sites where 4x2 is being broadcasted.

Yea. It's labeled Num Tx Antennas so I just naturally thought it was referring to the phone.

Posted

Yea. It's labeled Num Tx Antennas so I just naturally thought it was referring to the phone.

Tx = Transmit antennas.

Posted

http://technews.co/2015/09/24/skycross-imat-rf-technology-enables-4x4-mimo-for-lte-and-wi-fi-maximizing-performance-of-devices-equipped-with-qualcomm-snapdragon-820-chipsets/

 

I've been cynical that 4x4 in a smartphone could be pulled off in the past, that said, if this company can pull it off that would be amazing.

 

Fascinating.

 

Softbank Trial and Field Test

In May 2015, Softbank and Sprint announced Asia and North America’s first successful trials respectively of LTE 4×4 MIMO in higher frequency bands. The results of the technical pilot operation have shown that 4×4 MIMO increased coverage by as much as 15 percent and increased overall system capacity, as much as 50 to 60 percent at cell edge. The results also showed improved throughput performance for 4×4 within building as much as 55 to 73 percent.

 

It would be even more interesting if the link pointed to the trial being conducted by Sofbank and Sprint instead of something about T-Mobile. Maybe down the line some time.

  • Like 4
Posted

Fascinating.

 

 

It would be even more interesting if the link pointed to the trial being conducted by Sofbank and Sprint instead of something about T-Mobile. Maybe down the line some time.

That was testing done in Eastern Europe, not by the TMUS people.

Posted

That was testing done in Eastern Europe, not by the TMUS people.

Oh yes, I get that. I didn't specify T-mobile US.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Posted

http://technews.co/2015/09/24/skycross-imat-rf-technology-enables-4x4-mimo-for-lte-and-wi-fi-maximizing-performance-of-devices-equipped-with-qualcomm-snapdragon-820-chipsets/

 

I've been cynical that 4x4 in a smartphone could be pulled off in the past, that said, if this company can pull it off that would be amazing.

Well, I am not an actual engineer but you could do one antenna on each corner on a large phone but then you have to find room for wifi/bluetooth. My guess is that they did this and then paired the top and bottom antennas since they can now can support a bunch of bands on each pair. This might provide decent isolation but I wonder how it does with low band stuff since you can't really do the half a wavelength separation rule of thumb there due to size of the phones. 

 

I have seen 4x4 in smaller tablet sized applications in the field though but these are on higher frequencies than LTE.

Posted

Question about Sprint's potential use of 2.5 GHz for interband wireless backhaul.  Does anyone know how much spectrum Sprint would want to commit for wireless backhaul?  I wonder since Sprint has 120 MHz on average of 2.5 GHz spectrum in many markets that perhaps they can devote 20 MHz to support wireless backhaul.  That way that still leaves Sprint 100 MHz to devote to LTE for 5xCA way down the line.

Posted

Question about Sprint's potential use of 2.5 GHz for interband wireless backhaul.  Does anyone know how much spectrum Sprint would want to commit for wireless backhaul?  I wonder since Sprint has 120 MHz on average of 2.5 GHz spectrum in many markets that perhaps they can devote 20 MHz to support wireless backhaul.  That way that still leaves Sprint 100 MHz to devote to LTE for 5xCA way down the line.

At this point no one knows what will happen with all that spectrum. Sprint might have a hardtime finding a smartphone Manufacturer that will support that much. So it could just be mobile hotspots if sprint would use all 120. Why I would like to see them do it sells 2 band 41 carriers which would still leave them with 80mhz. Sell it and, do a spectrum swap with another carrier in exchange for more 1900 PCS spectrum.

Posted

At this point no one knows what will happen with all that spectrum. Sprint might have a hardtime finding a smartphone Manufacturer that will support that much. So it could just be mobile hotspots if sprint would use all 120. Why I would like to see them do it sells 2 band 41 carriers which would still leave them with 80mhz. Sell it and, do a spectrum swap with another carrier in exchange for more 1900 PCS spectrum.

 

Currently the LTE rel 10 standard can support CA of up to 100 MHz on up to 5 LTE carriers.  I don't think Sprint has to worry about any OEM's ability to support 5xCA in the future because the standard supports it.  I am fully confident that it will be done due to optimization and improving antenna technology and will be supported no doubt when the time is appropriate.  2015 year is just the beginning where all the carriers are starting to add CA support for their appropriate LTE bands and I don't see the carriers holding back.  With Sprint having such little PCS/ESMR spectrum, I don't want Sprint to get rid of any of its 120 MHz spectrum especially if they are sitting out the 600 MHz spectrum auction.  To me the most ideal situation is to eventually deploy 5xCA on B41 and use 20 MHz for wireless backhaul especially in dense urban markets like NYC which are hard enough to run fiber through the top of buildings where the NV sites are at but can also feed backhaul to small cells on the ground.

 

I just don't see opportunities for Sprint in the near term to swap PCS spectrum blocks with other carriers to create wider channels until the other carriers are in the process of vacating that spectrum of CDMA/EVDO/HSPA+/UTMS and going full LTE mode.  Even though 2.5 GHz spectrum is supported by B41 and the equipment is out there, I just don't see the other 3 national carriers really that interested in 2.5 GHz spectrum.

 

https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/lte/lte-carrier-aggregation

  • Like 1
Posted

The maximum carrier aggregation sprint will set up is 20+20+20. On high capacity band 41 sites they will run a second chain of 60 mhz (20+20+20).

 

Wireless backhaul is not traditional backhaul. It's a recent technology called LTE UE Relay.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

  • Like 1
Posted

Currently the LTE rel 10 standard can support CA of up to 100 MHz on up to 5 LTE carriers.  I don't think Sprint has to worry about any OEM's ability to support 5xCA in the future because the standard supports it.  I am fully confident that it will be done due to optimization and improving antenna technology and will be supported no doubt when the time is appropriate.  2015 year is just the beginning where all the carriers are starting to add CA support for their appropriate LTE bands and I don't see the carriers holding back.  With Sprint having such little PCS/ESMR spectrum, I don't want Sprint to get rid of any of its 120 MHz spectrum especially if they are sitting out the 600 MHz spectrum auction.  To me the most ideal situation is to eventually deploy 5xCA on B41 and use 20 MHz for wireless backhaul especially in dense urban markets like NYC which are hard enough to run fiber through the top of buildings where the NV sites are at but can also feed backhaul to small cells on the ground.

 

I just don't see opportunities for Sprint in the near term to swap PCS spectrum blocks with other carriers to create wider channels until the other carriers are in the process of vacating that spectrum of CDMA/EVDO/HSPA+/UTMS and going full LTE mode.  Even though 2.5 GHz spectrum is supported by B41 and the equipment is out there, I just don't see the other 3 national carriers really that interested in 2.5 GHz spectrum.

 

https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/lte/lte-carrier-aggregation

Yeah. I see your point. However band 41 doesnt have the reach of other LTE bands. Verzion has said they would possible be intresting in band 41 if Sprint ever when that way.

Posted

The maximum carrier aggregation sprint will set up is 20+20+20. On high capacity band 41 sites they will run a second chain of 60 mhz (20+20+20).

 

Wireless backhaul is not traditional backhaul. It's a recent technology called LTE UE Relay.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

So your saying sprint will most likely sell/swap some of their band 41? Maybe or just use all 6 carriers just no 5 or 6 times CA.

Posted (edited)

Yeah. I see your point. However band 41 doesnt have the reach of other LTE bands. Verzion has said they would possible be intresting in band 41 if Sprint ever when that w

 

So your saying sprint will most likely sell/swap some of their band 41? Maybe or just use all 6 carriers just no 5 or 6 times CA.

Oh wait 2nd chain of 20x20x20.  I didnt read that  right the first time. So that answers the question I just asked.

Edited by Tengen31
Posted

Yeah. I see your point. However band 41 doesnt have the reach of other LTE bands. Verzion has said they would possible be intresting in band 41 if Sprint ever when that way.

 

I understand the range issue but why would Verizon give up any of its PCS spectrum in the first place?  What incentive do they have to give up PCS spectrum.  The only way I see Verizon biting would be if Sprint offered say 20 MHz of 2.5 GHz for 10 MHz of PCS spectrum.  Verizon's towers are too spaced out in most markets for 2.5 GHz deployment so even though they might have said it, I doubt that they would really execute on it.

Posted

The maximum carrier aggregation sprint will set up is 20+20+20. On high capacity band 41 sites they will run a second chain of 60 mhz (20+20+20).

 

Wireless backhaul is not traditional backhaul. It's a recent technology called LTE UE Relay.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

 

I guess if Sprint plans to run a 2nd set of 20+20+20 at those high capacity sites then I would rather them not do LTE UE Relay at all and just do 2 x 20+20+20 with the 120 MHz.

Posted

I understand the range issue but why would Verizon give up any of its PCS spectrum in the first place?  What incentive do they have to give up PCS spectrum.  The only way I see Verizon biting would be if Sprint offered say 20 MHz of 2.5 GHz for 10 MHz of PCS spectrum.  Verizon's towers are too spaced out in most markets for 2.5 GHz deployment so even though they might have said it, I doubt that they would really execute on it.

10mhz of pcs sounds fair. add it to what sprint has now. would be higher than the 5x5 they have now and, the 10x10 they they look like their adding. Even tho more 10x10 in alot of cities is a long time away.

Posted

I guess if Sprint plans to run a 2nd set of 20+20+20 at those high capacity sites then I would rather them not do LTE UE Relay at all and just do 2 x 20+20+20 with the 120 MHz.

Sprint has two band 41 setups just like how there's two types of pcs 1900.

 

One is a standard band 41 setup configured for 3 band 41 carriers for a single chain single traditional sector. This is a standard capacity site and will be as configured in most areas.

 

High capacity sites add another three additional carriers in a new separate chain for up to 60 mhz additional lte bandwith. This will be used in areas where capacity demands it and needed asap. Going from 3 20 mhz carriers to 6 20 mhz carrier requires double the backhaul requirements (1gigabit minimum per site to 2 gigabit minimum) which most of the time entails nearly twice the backhaul costs. We're about paying $1000-2000 to $5000-$7000 a month.

 

It is a huge cost and a huge waste if they don't even need that much capacity say in a suburban area in comparison to urban zones where three 20 MHz band 41 carriers will easily suffice especially with additional site density via small cells.

 

Furthermore there's thus nifty new technology called LTE UE Relay. It is what sprint says "use 2.5 for backhaul" as it does indeed use existing band 41 carriers for bandwith.

 

In simple summary they can be viewed as wireless repeaters though they have one significant advantage. These small cells connect to an existing LTE carrier, use that lte carrier as a backhaul, and then broadcast a brand new signal using that same information of the macro cell but the Small cell doing the Relay will clean up the signal and any errors or interference unlike a repeater where everything is amplified.

 

Thus it will appear as though a user is connected to a super close and strong macro cell when in reality it is a small cell broadcasting that signal but it itself is feeding off the macro site.

 

So in an area where outdoors you get a - 100-110 signal, you drop down an outdoor pico cell configured as a relay , it'll connect to a cleaner signal since it's mounted way up and then it broadcasts a brand new even stronger signal.

 

Instead of a - 110 dBm b41 signal outdoors and non existent signal indoors, users will connect to a strong band 41 signal indoors since that pico cell is broadcasting band 41 lte carriers in that area.

 

Instead of using dedicated fiber or microwave, it instead feeds off the macro network like a Hotspot. Thus sprint can easily add additional coverage and capacity quickly while they wait for dedicated backhaul to be deployed to the site whenever.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

  • Like 13
Posted

Sprint has two band 41 setups just like how there's two types of pcs 1900.

 

One is a standard band 41 setup configured for 3 band 41 carriers for a single chain single traditional sector. This is a standard capacity site and will be as configured in most areas.

 

High capacity sites add another three additional carriers in a new separate chain for up to 60 mhz additional lte bandwith. This will be used in areas where capacity demands it and needed asap. Going from 3 20 mhz carriers to 6 20 mhz carrier requires double the backhaul requirements (1gigabit minimum per site to 2 gigabit minimum) which most of the time entails nearly twice the backhaul costs. We're about paying $1000-2000 to $5000-$7000 a month.

 

It is a huge cost and a huge waste if they don't even need that much capacity say in a suburban area in comparison to urban zones where three 20 MHz band 41 carriers will easily suffice especially with additional site density via small cells.

 

Furthermore there's thus nifty new technology called LTE UE Relay. It is what sprint says "use 2.5 for backhaul" as it does indeed use existing band 41 carriers for bandwith.

 

In simple summary they can be viewed as wireless repeaters though they have one significant advantage. These small cells connect to an existing LTE carrier, use that lte carrier as a backhaul, and then broadcast a brand new signal using that same information of the macro cell but the Small cell doing the Relay will clean up the signal and any errors or interference unlike a repeater where everything is amplified.

 

Thus it will appear as though a user is connected to a super close and strong macro cell when in reality it is a small cell broadcasting that signal but it itself is feeding off the macro site.

 

So in an area where outdoors you get a - 100-110 signal, you drop down an outdoor pico cell configured as a relay , it'll connect to a cleaner signal since it's mounted way up and then it broadcasts a brand new even stronger signal.

 

Instead of a - 110 dBm b41 signal outdoors and non existent signal indoors, users will connect to a strong band 41 signal indoors since that pico cell is broadcasting band 41 lte carriers in that area.

 

Instead of using dedicated fiber or microwave, it instead feeds off the macro network like a Hotspot. Thus sprint can easily add additional coverage and capacity quickly while they wait for dedicated backhaul to be deployed to the site whenever.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

 

So say you were connected to one of these repeaters, would it display as the same information (like GCI and PCI) as if you were connected to the macro site? Or would it have it's own numbers? 

Posted

So say you were connected to one of these repeaters, would it display as the same information (like GCI and PCI) as if you were connected to the macro site? Or would it have it's own numbers?

These are not repeaters. They are relays. There Is no way to distinguish a relay from a macro site in a type 2 setup. It uses the same information as the macro site.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

  • Like 3
  • 5 weeks later...
Posted

These are not repeaters. They are relays. There Is no way to distinguish a relay from a macro site in a type 2 setup. It uses the same information as the macro site.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

 

Can they be configured from a LTE Relay to be a eNB if they ever do get dedicated backhaul?  It seems like a great short-term solution to increase bps/Hz due to getting better SINR on the cell edge, but in the long term if it is in a high-enough traffic area it seems like it would make sense to make them dedicated eNB.  Although I don't know how necessary because relaying 2 3x20MHz carriers seems like plenty of capacity (in lieu of adding some number of carriers). 

 

Also, would the initial solution only need power - since the bandwidth for Tx/Rx comes from the current macro network - making it much easier to deploy than a traditional micro/pico/femto cell?

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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Was it like only 1.2MB?  I had a tiny one last night but no date change as I was already on November here.
    • A new apartment building in my neighborhood is getting a 4G/5G DAS installed. No idea if it's going to be carrier agnostic or if it's going to be just for one carrier. The antennas they are using cover the full range of spectrum from 600MHz-4.9GHz so no telling by equipment alone. I noticed a ton of Cat6E ethernet being run in the garage a couple of days back and then I saw a guy running the ethernet through the ceiling yesterday and didn't think to ask what for until I noticed this antenna this morning mounted on a wall outside near the ramp but with nothing connected to it at the moment.     The garage attendant told me that the phones that are provided to them by the parking management company are on Verizon and they're the only carrier without coverage down there so the building management told them that they're "installing something to fix it". So as far as I know, this will work on Verizon but I'm curious to see who else will get a boost too. — — — — — Without exaggerating, I have mapped a new at least one new small cell on my way to work every day this week. I don't know who the regional network managers for NYC and Boston are, but other cities need to take a page from their book about small cell buildouts. And it's not just upgrades of existing small cells, it's new ones too. Not to mention pings near 10ms on all of them.
    • Yep, 562.51MB December 1 sec patch just found here tonight as well. 
  • Recently Browsing

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