Jump to content

Future low band


red_dog007

Recommended Posts

https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/T-Band_FactSheet_July2016.pdf

Possibly 42MHz added for cellular from 470-512MHz here? Would this be TDD?

 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-330A1.pdf

After 2024, does this mean that any licenses remaining can be purchased and utilized for cellular?  At this time, would Sprint be able to purchases licenses from any PS or CI license holders? This covers 809-815MHz.  Not sure if using the expansion band or guard band would be possible (815-817MHz), though that is largely where SoLinc sits now?  Do we know if Southern Linc has any intentions to participate in these auctions and widen their license holidings?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/T-Band_FactSheet_July2016.pdf

Possibly 42MHz added for cellular from 470-512MHz here? Would this be TDD?

Hard to say. There isn't much duplex spacing so I'd say possibly although not certainly. I wouldn't be surprised if the lower and upper part of the T-band were FDD and there were non-paired chunks of spectrum inbetween. This is how the lower 700 MHz band is set up. For those unfamiliar, see here:

700-MHz-Blocks-_v10.png

4 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

httpshttps://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-330A1.pdf

After 2024, does this mean that any licenses remaining can be purchased and utilized for cellular?  At this time, would Sprint be able to purchases licenses from any PS or CI license holders? This covers 809-815MHz.  Not sure if using the expansion band or guard band would be possible (815-817MHz), though that is largely where SoLinc sits now?  Do we know if Southern Linc has any intentions to participate in these auctions and widen their license holidings?

I'm not sure if Sprint will be able to pick up spectrum here. Maybe someone else more knowledgeable can chime in here. 

SoLINC operates directly below Sprint, in the expansion band. Their 1.4 MHz LTE carrier is centered at 816.6/861.6 MHz. If they are interested in acquiring licenses, it will only be in their limited coverage area. As of today, they haven't made any public statements regarding acquiring spectrum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they could still do three blocks off that, beings that it would be 5MHz blocks instead of 6.  It would be just like Lower 700MHz except with 1MHz guards on both sides maybe. Or even like 600MHz, 10/11MHz in the middle of guard band.

Looking at it, why does 700L allow for 12x12 as usable DL spectrum between the links, but the 600MHz guard band is just that, guard band. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some 900MHz for mobile broadband, maybe just for CI.  Would be a 3x3 block at 897.5-900.5 / 936.5-939.6 initially between reallocation of 896-901 / 935-940.  If future need warranted, they have the option to add a second 1.4x1.4 channel.

This possible 10MHz for LTE would put this in LTE Band 8. 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356298A1.pdf

 

IIRC Sprint owned 3x3MHz in 900MHz range.  What frequencies was that at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/12/2019 at 10:09 AM, red_dog007 said:

Here is some 900MHz for mobile broadband, maybe just for CI.  Would be a 3x3 block at 897.5-900.5 / 936.5-939.6 initially between reallocation of 896-901 / 935-940.  If future need warranted, they have the option to add a second 1.4x1.4 channel.

This possible 10MHz for LTE would put this in LTE Band 8. 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356298A1.pdf

 

IIRC Sprint owned 3x3MHz in 900MHz range.  What frequencies was that at?

That 900 MHz spectrum is owned by pdvWireless. That is the 3x3 MHz block of 900 MHz spectrum Sprint sold off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They should also take away 450-470 and combine it with the 470-512 spectrum. Public safety LMR spectrum allocations are available in the 700 and 800MHz bands. Plus the LTE band at 700Mhz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

They should also take away 450-470 and combine it with the 470-512 spectrum. Public safety LMR spectrum allocations are available in the 700 and 800MHz bands. Plus the LTE band at 700Mhz.

What a nightmare that would be.  In multiple ways.  Tons of non-public safety operations are in 450-470.   Every one of those cheapo walkie-talkies that you see at Wal-Mart is in 450-470, so the spectrum would be swimming in interference from them for years.  On top of that, only certain channels from 470-512 aren't used by TV stations in fewer than a dozen markets.  And on top of that, in the most congested markets, 700 and 800 are full, if you believe the public safety folks.

- Trip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Trip said:

What a nightmare that would be.  In multiple ways.  Tons of non-public safety operations are in 450-470.   Every one of those cheapo walkie-talkies that you see at Wal-Mart is in 450-470, so the spectrum would be swimming in interference from them for years.  On top of that, only certain channels from 470-512 aren't used by TV stations in fewer than a dozen markets.  And on top of that, in the most congested markets, 700 and 800 are full, if you believe the public safety folks.

- Trip

Like I would care about the cheap walkie talkies. The 700Mhz public safety band is quite empty. The problem with public safety networks is that they are build with very few towers at high power which limits channel reuse. If they actually turned down the power a bit and used more towers they will have a lot more capacity. Plus PS people just like to complain. I know, I worked with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Like I would care about the cheap walkie talkies. The 700Mhz public safety band is quite empty. The problem with public safety networks is that they are build with very few towers at high power which limits channel reuse. If they actually turned down the power a bit and used more towers they will have a lot more capacity. Plus PS people just like to complain. I know, I worked with them.

The cheap walkie-talkies are usually unregistered and would cause interference when used.  While you may not care, I find that wireless carriers do tend to care when there is interference in their spectrum.

I don't disagree with you on public safety, though the question is "who pays for more density?"  Adding sites adds cost, and I'm not clear who would pay for this massive overhaul of public safety, both moving from 450-512 and within 700/800.

You didn't address the non-public safety entities in the band.  There are quite a few of them.

And neither of us touched the issue of the antennas not fitting in a typical cell phone.  Further, I'm not sure who would buy this spectrum even if it were to be made available.

- Trip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trip said:

The cheap walkie-talkies are usually unregistered and would cause interference when used.  While you may not care, I find that wireless carriers do tend to care when there is interference in their spectrum.

I don't disagree with you on public safety, though the question is "who pays for more density?"  Adding sites adds cost, and I'm not clear who would pay for this massive overhaul of public safety, both moving from 450-512 and within 700/800.

You didn't address the non-public safety entities in the band.  There are quite a few of them.

And neither of us touched the issue of the antennas not fitting in a typical cell phone.  Further, I'm not sure who would buy this spectrum even if it were to be made available.

- Trip

Well it is always about the money, isn't it? If you don't want overcrowded channels, reuse them. There is a small town next to mine that has twice as many policemen and firemen as my own. Same crime rates and populations and all. Hell both towns could probably be served much better by the sheriffs office but no they need their own police departments and fire depts and of course their own radio networks. 

I went to college in the 70s and I took an antenna course. The stuff that they use for antennas nowadays totally amaze me. This isn't the dipole, full length antennas of the 70s. Yes you may not be able to do a M-MIMO antenna of a small size in the 450 band but I was surprised that you can to a 4x4 in the 700 and 600Mhz bands.

As far as the TV channels are concerned let the feds buy them out of their slots and recover the funds from the auction or repack them where you have space.

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.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Really a shame that Dish wasn't able to get in on this in some fashion, at least in terms of the customers. 4M people would have been in a nice infusion. IMO if Dish wants to grow, they need to acquire a lot of their base, and there isn't much base left to go after that isn't already in control by the big 3.  Growing organically is going to be extremely challenging for them.  They need new branding and lots of marketing.
    • T‑Mobile Shatters World Record for 5G Uplink Speed https://www.t-mobile.com/news/network/t-mobile-shatters-for-5g-uplink-speed The biggest news in this is that T-Mobile only recently got access to n258 after swapping their n260 for it with AT&T and they wasted no time deploying it at SoFi Stadium. Hopefully that means we're gonna start seeing a lot more mmWave deployments in stadiums soon. *fingers crossed*
    • Would anyone else be curious in helping me compile a list of quirks for various devices/modems/chipsets for SCP? I've noticed that Mediatek chipsets seem to report more information than Qualcomm. I bought a cheap Moto G 5G 2024 and notice that it displays the LTE downlink bandwidth, and the NSA information of T-Mobile, something that my S22+, which is also Qualcomm, won't do. I'm hoping that we can convince either Google or OEMs to fix their reporting on various devices. So far across all Qualcomm devices I've tested: - NR neighbor cells don't report - NR downlink or uplink bandwidth doesn't report (NR doesn't appear with CA as a result, only showing LTE) - NR signal levels randomly stop updating for various period of time before continuing to update (affects CellMapper more) - LTE CA levels randomly report and don't always update quickly when CA changes   On the S22: - LTE Timing Advance (TA) doesn't work and always reports 0, reported issue to Samsung and waiting to hear back   On the Samsung Galaxy S series (USA - Qualcomm Snapdragon): - LTE downlink or uplink bandwidth isn't reported - T-Mobile NR NSA doesn't report band information, AT&T & Verizon work OK (n5 & n77 tested)
  • Recently Browsing

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