Jump to content


S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MrZorbatron

  1. The 900 mhz range is super congested. I'd be curious how it would perform.

    Not that congested anymore.  The bloat always moves upward.


    Higher frequency = better, at least in the minds of typical, stupid, number-obsessed Americans.  Look at 5.8 GHz cordless landline phones...  Garbage is an understatement, but newer phones, which work in the 1800-1900 MHz range, are sold as "DECT 6.0" to basically trick the idiots.


    Basically, the VHF (40-50MHz) public spectrum gave way to 900, which gave way to 2400, and now 5800 for certain things.  Each time a new, higher band is introduced, lots of the things that populated the previous "popular" band tend to abandon it to jump on the high frequency bandwagon.


    I still use a 900MHz DSSS cordless phone and run into zero interference issues, and quite like the ability to walk around a decent portion of my subdivision with it.

    • Like 1
  2. I notice that on AT&T too all the time considering I spend a lot of time in an area with -114 to -118 LTE/HSPA. Phone holds on to LTE a lot better. How would they compare if they were both 5mhz tho?

    UMTS would have somewhat better fringe performance.


    CDMA2000 would be much better still. Just because WCDMA has some CDMA style features, it is a totally different type of signal.

  3. I think in reality, what goes farther is gonna be largely network dependant. On paper 1X is probably king, followed by GSM, and then UMTS/WCDMA, and lastly LTE.


    In reality I've seen it all over the place, though one thing that holds true almost all of the time is that 1x is king for distance. 




    On T-Mobile I have seen band 4 LTE outperform UMTS on PCS in several odd instances as far as signal goes.


    Wider LTE signal is usable for a greater distance than a narrower one.

  4. Well I dont think thats whats it is. On private computers at target, it shows up as Target Corp as the isp. The private and public use the same internet source, the public does not use a tunnel to minneapolis. It is straight from an internal router/server to restrict illegal stuff and to redirect to the login page. other than that its all in building. What is weird though is we use VOIP and wimax wouldnt be ideal, we could be using bundled T1 offering from them maybe?

    Sprintlink doesn't offer Tx connections. Remember that the guest data need not go through the same VPN or tunnel as the corporate network.

  5. So here's a question - I am due for an upgrade in August (currently on a non-Spark 5s). Is it worth hanging on to upgrade to a 6/6s or other Spark compatible device in the Detroit area? By August should I see improved download speeds (better than the mostly less and 1 Mbps I get now)?



    I am seeing a LOT of LTE 2.5 (B41) around. Even near home (Orion Township), I am seeing 40+ Mbps speeds sometimes.

    • Like 1
  6. Rural areas usually only have one PCS 1X carrier, and one evdo carrier on the CDMA side. I don't really see a need to keep multiple panels and radios up unless its a high capacity site.


    Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

    Radio power.


    Most of my area isn't extremely rural. Near me there are 2-4 EVDO and 2-3 1x carriers at most sites. I know this by talking to technicians at sites. Spacing is very sparse, however. I know that several local rural-ly spaced Sprint sites were served by T3s (43Mbps) before being upgraded.


    LTE 1900 here has lots of holes in it, which is really annoying. This dual rig idea would clear that up a lot, I think.


    What is really interesting is that we have had EVDO data speeds 600Kbps-1.2Mbps for years in most of my area, well before Network Vision,so I never really understood the awful data rates so many people complained about.

    • Like 1
  7. I believe the confusion taylorcox75 has is due to the very first sentence. It explicitly implies that everything has been resolved

    Right. I should have said that a solution gas been determined, though not necessarily applied yet.


    I still think the 1900 hardware should be left, especially in rural areas like mine, with very large areas served by individual sites. These are cases where the radios run at their maximum power levels. The more carriers that a radio is required to broadcast, the less power is available to be put into any individual carrier.


    Throwing all of the CDMA stuff on one radio and the one or eventually two LTE carriers onto another would be a great way to increase LTE 1900 coverage.

  8. Now that the IBEZ issues have cleared up, what form will the retrofit take? Will they just add the 800MHz radio with its own antenna or will it entail removal and replacement of all of the existing 1900MHz-only antenna hardware and then adding the 800 radio?


    We do have a number of higher capacity sites with twin PCS setups, so those seem to have a straightforward answer.


    I live in Michigan, where most of the state is PC only. This even includes a couple of brand new sites that I have inspected. It seems extremely short sighted to install all of these goofy PCS antennas, only to replace them shortly.


    I suppose it is possible that they will install the dual band antenna with its own two radios at every site, leaving the existing PCS antenna and its radio installed and functioning. This would be good from the standpoint of redundancy and signal range due to radio limitations. Unfortunately, it would also make too much sense for a major cellular carrier to consider it. There is also the issue of the situations in which the PCS hardware, due to its compactness, is simply lashed directly to the tower mast. This would need to be replaced by dual band setups, if they even fit at all.


    Just a few thoughts.

    • Like 1
  9. I don't think you could create thousands of pcells with just 3 pmodules.

    On paper, it would, since it basically leverages crosstalk.  More would still be better, up to a point, though.


    The biggest problem is still that any remotely high noise floor would totally annihilate its performance, since it can't account for any signals that it itself is not producing.  Also, this technology would not lend itself to close to the same level of improvement on the reverse link.


    Again, this would be functional in a lab, but in the real world, it won't work.  Certain people here seem to be so taken with this idea what they look straight past its obvious flaws and shortcomings, to just wholeheartedly believe in it.  Perlman's proven to be full of crap more than once before, and he has successes as well.  On this one, I'm leaning so far toward crap that I can barely stand up anymore.


    The whole point of this system is to use the RF energy that is already out there, produced by the various radios, in the location of the subscriber.  Through technologies like phased antennas, beam forming, and a high degree of electronic processing, it purports to use all of its P-Cell antennas in an area in combination, in order to precisely control exactly what signal the subscriber unit sees.


    If the system really works as it should, the bottleneck will be the data center processing the information, since all the P-Cell radios will need will be a link sufficient for one cell site's full load on whatever bandwidth they have, at maximum spectral efficiency.  If you can feed the data center fast enough, every user will have basically full speed.  The more P-Cell units are installed, the smaller and more finely grained the individual pseudo cell environments can be, and the higher and higher the processing load at the computing center will be (exponential basically).


    By using a combination of constructive and destructive interfering signals to turn signal intended for one subscriber unit, which would normally be simple interference to all others, into signal useful to others.  This level of fine-grained, area-by-area, tight control over the RF spectrum basically requires a high resolution, real time understanding of exactly the signal present in every location at the same time.  This level of understanding is not possible, as some interfering signals will not be produced by the P-Cell units, and therefore not known to them.  The fact that this is supposed to work with existing LTE phones tells me that there is no monitoring and reporting done by the client hardware.


    This is why the system is bullshit.  The level of processing is a fantasy in today's world.  There is no accounting for stray interference.  What we will see is a multiple small cell solution, with carefully managed, mapped, and balanced sizes.  The sizes may be irregular through beam forming etc.


    Do I think the system will work?  Yes.  Do I think it will work as well as Perlman says it will, by the mechanisms he says it will, not at all.

    • Like 2
  10. I wonder:

    For N people, how many pcell modules M do you need to continuously N pcells?

    Even if M pcell modules can only synthesize D<N pcells continually, if the ratio of N/D - duty cycle effectively - is high enough, the data speeds should still massively improve



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Theoretically, you just need the overlap of two or three.

  • Create New...