en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Mostly worried about their infrastructure handling the load
AT&T's 3G network can't handle the 3G as it is... why add more fuel to the fire.
They need to add more spectrum. 5MHz isn't enough in most metros to handle both voice AND data traffic.
Eg. in Los Angeles, AT&T has 17.5MHz of GSM/EDGE spectrum for voice and data, while they are using 5MHz for both 3G voice and data.
3G capable phones will prefer 3G networks to GSM for voice and data, adding fuel to the fire. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| said by en102  :AT&T's 3G network can't handle the 3G as it is... why add more fuel to the fire. They need to add more spectrum. 5MHz isn't enough in most metros to handle both voice AND data traffic. Eg. in Los Angeles, AT&T has 17.5MHz of GSM/EDGE spectrum for voice and data, while they are using 5MHz for both 3G voice and data. 3G capable phones will prefer 3G networks to GSM for voice and data, adding fuel to the fire. Do they need more spectrum or more tower bandwidth? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| As the majority of my 3G voice calls either drop or handoff to GSM (even with full signal), I'd say YES.
Its kind of hard to think that AT&T (or any other company) could take a large percentage (lets assume 40%) of voice traffic and a higher number (lets assume 75%) of data traffic and stick it into less than 1/3 of the same spectrum.
Data is less of an issue, as for the most part, unless its _really_ overloaded (eg everyone streaming online or downloading many GB), it comes in peaks. Voice on the other hand needs a more circuit like connection (high number of users / small amounts of data/call, and can even use DTX to help).
5MHz may be ok for data
5MHz may be stretching it for voice
5MHz for voice + data with the volume of customers AT&T has in a large metro like Los Angeles is just WRONG. |
|
Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs: 
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Skype
 ·Dreamhost
·Comcast
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to en102
said by en102 :They need to add more spectrum. 5MHz isn't enough in most metros to handle both voice AND data traffic. Eg. in Los Angeles, AT&T has 17.5MHz of GSM/EDGE spectrum for voice and data, while they are using 5MHz for both 3G voice and data. 3G capable phones will prefer 3G networks to GSM for voice and data, adding fuel to the fire. I thought ATT (75mil users) had 95Mhz of spectrum in LA. T-Mobile (30mil users) has 50Mhz. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to en102
UPDATE:
AT&T has launched its 850MHz spectrum on 3G in Los Angeles (Santa Clarita at least). This _should_ help out coverage AND capacity.
Channel 4385 on WCDMA 850
Channel 512 on WCDMA 1900 |
|
Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·Skype
·Dreamhost
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by en102 :UPDATE: AT&T has launched its 850MHz spectrum on 3G in Los Angeles (Santa Clarita at least). This _should_ help out coverage AND capacity. Channel 4385 on WCDMA 850 Channel 512 on WCDMA 1900 Yes, that's the way it's been for a while.
ATT always had some 3G on 850MHz. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Not in SoCal or even the Bay area. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Gbcue
Hell no.
AT&T is running Cell A (25MHz - 12.5MHz paired) and PCS D (10MHz - 5MHz paired) as well as PCS B3 (10MHz - 5MHz paired)
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
