that is what I was saying... because I based my knowledge on your past lectures.
as stated in my post: "they will have to be more thick with the signal to make it usable."
Thick = more towers
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
why has sprint left its' biggest 4g markets out in the cold?
- Thread starter New Jersey
- Start date
that is what I was saying... because I based my knowledge on your past lectures.
as stated in my post: "they will have to be more thick with the signal to make it usable."
Thick = more towers
If you think 600 MHz can't make a huge difference you need to take a look at the attenuation caused by Oxygen absorption at 60 GHz. The slope is so steep that moving up or down in frequency by 600 MHz could change receive signal by 20-30 dB.
One other thing, Sprint is not at the helm of the 4G rollout. Sprint is an MVNO for Clear. Yes, Sprint does own a controlling interest in Clearwire but the network, with the exception of a few sprint in-building sites, is Clear owned.
One other thing, Sprint is not at the helm of the 4G rollout. Sprint is an MVNO for Clear. Yes, Sprint does own a controlling interest in Clearwire but the network, with the exception of a few sprint in-building sites, is Clear owned.
ok going to call it, try again. Sprint actually hands out the contracts for the wimax builds, Samgung, comcast, timewarner, and others. It is not only clear that is building out the network. 60ghz, Only a factor of 20 times greater then what we are talking about. You are talking about a wave that is 5 millimeters long. But the speeds are increable. Let me see, 2.5Gbps?
Ok, what part of tower density dont you understand. Is it the tower part, or the density part? The problem is not signal fade for buildings, it is tower density to balance out the building fade. Any wireless signal will fade in any building. Building enough towers to reduce that effect is what has to happen. Oh and the lower spectrum, do not go there, there are some really big problems with the lower spectrum. Can we all say signal degradation do to tower density?
First, I think you have misunderstood something. Sprint has considerable input into what markets are built but there are no Sprint employees involved in the construction of the 4G network with the exception of some work with in-building systems. If there were, colo's would be much easier believe me. Clearwire is driving the build in all markets. There are contractors involved with the actual construction but the design, management, monitoring and R&M is all Clearwire.
Second, you mistake my point. I was using the 60 GHz example to show that a small change in frequency can have drastic effects on signal propagation. I was not suggesting a direct comparison be made.
Tower density is directly related to signal propagation.
Verizon, will need fewer towers (good thing since they dont have much spectrum) to get similar coverage to Clear. The spectrum issue will also become problematic once they start stacking sectors for capacity augments.
Spectrum and back haul will be Verizons major problems.
Sprint put their foot down on the rollout process and changed the shot gun approach to a more organized and systematic roll out, especially on the new roll outs..
Agree with everything else
For all of you in the Queens, NY area, I was at Citifield last night was getting a solid 2 bars on 4G and my download speeds were averaging 4mbps and uploads were around 1mbps.
It is scary how much faster 4g is then 3g. I was surfing websites and sending 2mb attachments almost instantly.
It is scary how much faster 4g is then 3g. I was surfing websites and sending 2mb attachments almost instantly.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
And this is where Sprint has the massive upper hand in the 4G battles. Once the network becomes solid, the 2500Mhz frequency can handle more throughput, meaning more capacity, and more SPEEEED, which is what we all want. Once it's saturated at the amount 3G tower are, and if they have the backhaul to match, Sprint has the upper hand unless vzw/att pick up a massive amount of spectrum, which needless to say, isn't cheap.
Couple of things actually
ATT and Verizon wanted to use wire lines for back haul, because they are in the land line business
Sprint/Clear are using Microwave, cheaper, faster to install and in a lot of places the only option.
Sprint sewed up a hell of a deal on the Micorwave equipment and back haul provider.
ATT and Verizon are now figuring out the land line Costs and problems and are trying to incorporating Microwave for back haul as well..
Clear/Sprint bought about 60-70% of the available Microwave equipment from one of the biggest vendors..
(very smart move that will buy more time)
Sprint and Clear predicted the back Haul issue and planned very well for it.
Add the massive Spectrum holdings and they are looking very good..
If India actually goes through will rolling out Wimax that will be icing on the cake..
A few points should be made here...
1. The characteristics of 2.5ghz are not that different from 1.9ghz. I am a broadcast engineer, and haven't done the math, but the 1.5db estimate for additional attenuation seems correct for houses and small buildings. In a larger office building with heavier, steel-framed walls, and more of them the reduction in signal would be greater, perhaps 3 to 6db. However, in most cases these levels would not change usability by very much in areas where 3g is already very solid, if 4g were operating at all of the same sites and sectors.
2. For the non-technical folks here, no frequency has inherently faster or slower transmission. It is a matter of signal quality, the type of data transmission used, and the amount of interference. The 4g network was designed for speed roughly 10x faster than the 3g network, and has the advantage of not sharing it spectrum with phone calls.
3. Here in Washington-Baltimore, 4g is supposedly operational. In reality, with its present levels of coverage it is a battery-wasting gimmick. It is available sporadically, and usually only right on major roadways, but not out in the neighbourhoods. If you are mobile and someone else is driving it is possible to browse at higher speeds than 3g, but of the 100 or more places where I have tried (all over the region), only 1 had enough coverage to use 4g inside at my destination.
4. They should not be marketing it as an important feature yet. EVO phones should be listed as "4g ready", rather than "4g", with an implication that it will be useful someday once the service is available.
5. The speed increase is moderately useful at best, since the mobile version of most websites sends smaller files and lower-resolution graphics for the small screen.
6. I normally leave 4g off unless I am testing coverage, which I usually do while connected to an external power source. If I were not an engineer with an interest in the technology, it would just stay off all of the time for the foreseeable future; this is what I would advise my friends to do. The EVO is a fantastic phone and 3g browsing works better than anything else I have tried on any mobile device.
7. Sprint should not be charging an extra $10 per month for a service which does not exist.
8. Maybe 4g is all an illusion, secretly financed by the companies that make extra batteries and chargers!
...Sam
1. The characteristics of 2.5ghz are not that different from 1.9ghz. I am a broadcast engineer, and haven't done the math, but the 1.5db estimate for additional attenuation seems correct for houses and small buildings. In a larger office building with heavier, steel-framed walls, and more of them the reduction in signal would be greater, perhaps 3 to 6db. However, in most cases these levels would not change usability by very much in areas where 3g is already very solid, if 4g were operating at all of the same sites and sectors.
2. For the non-technical folks here, no frequency has inherently faster or slower transmission. It is a matter of signal quality, the type of data transmission used, and the amount of interference. The 4g network was designed for speed roughly 10x faster than the 3g network, and has the advantage of not sharing it spectrum with phone calls.
3. Here in Washington-Baltimore, 4g is supposedly operational. In reality, with its present levels of coverage it is a battery-wasting gimmick. It is available sporadically, and usually only right on major roadways, but not out in the neighbourhoods. If you are mobile and someone else is driving it is possible to browse at higher speeds than 3g, but of the 100 or more places where I have tried (all over the region), only 1 had enough coverage to use 4g inside at my destination.
4. They should not be marketing it as an important feature yet. EVO phones should be listed as "4g ready", rather than "4g", with an implication that it will be useful someday once the service is available.
5. The speed increase is moderately useful at best, since the mobile version of most websites sends smaller files and lower-resolution graphics for the small screen.
6. I normally leave 4g off unless I am testing coverage, which I usually do while connected to an external power source. If I were not an engineer with an interest in the technology, it would just stay off all of the time for the foreseeable future; this is what I would advise my friends to do. The EVO is a fantastic phone and 3g browsing works better than anything else I have tried on any mobile device.
7. Sprint should not be charging an extra $10 per month for a service which does not exist.
8. Maybe 4g is all an illusion, secretly financed by the companies that make extra batteries and chargers!
...Sam
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Well two years from now once the networks are proper of course there won't be as many signal issues.. lol
silencer271
Well-Known Member
sprint may own 51% of clearwire but clearwire is the one deciding on where it goes first and they are going to areas where they have infrastructure already in place.. I agree its stupid and sprint thinks so to.