how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 RR ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CAPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | reply to BF69
Re: WHY??? said by BF69:said by sectvfreak:Seriously why would att want to offer LTE in the WCS band? at such a high frequency with limited coverage and building penetration? Whats the real reason they want this band?
A) They've already PAID for this spectrum. I supposed they would like to get some ROI on it. B)They could offer a service like Verizon's HomeFusion which uses an antenna OUTSIDE the home so building penetration is not a issue. Also heck I can get Wi-Fi which uses 2.4 GHz from one building to another so why would 2.3 GHz have more issues? it should have slightly less. The mountains, trees and canyons in areas like ours though would be a HUGE obstacle to 2.3 Ghz. I mean, 1900 does okay (AT&T, T-Mobile and Metro PCS all use 100% 1900 here, Verizon uses 1900 only for EVDO, and 850 for 1X, and USCC uses 850 only) but 2.3 would take even more sites, that'd be an expensive proposition. You'd need some pretty serious line of sight, and that's a VERY difficult thing to get in a lot of places.
--
»www.amtrak.com
»www.freightrailworks.org
»www.isu.edu
»www.nwprr.net
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.cahighspeedrail.gov | |
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by RR Conductor:said by BF69:said by sectvfreak:Seriously why would att want to offer LTE in the WCS band? at such a high frequency with limited coverage and building penetration? Whats the real reason they want this band?
A) They've already PAID for this spectrum. I supposed they would like to get some ROI on it. B)They could offer a service like Verizon's HomeFusion which uses an antenna OUTSIDE the home so building penetration is not a issue. Also heck I can get Wi-Fi which uses 2.4 GHz from one building to another so why would 2.3 GHz have more issues? it should have slightly less. The mountains, trees and canyons in areas like ours though would be a HUGE obstacle to 2.3 Ghz. I mean, 1900 does okay (AT&T, T-Mobile and Metro PCS all use 100% 1900 here, Verizon uses 1900 only for EVDO, and 850 for 1X, and USCC uses 850 only) but 2.3 would take even more sites, that'd be an expensive proposition. You'd need some pretty serious line of sight, and that's a VERY difficult thing to get in a lot of places. Not everywhere has mountain, trees etc. Some areas are pretty flat. Just because 2.3 GHz would be impractical in SOME areas doens't mean in can't be used in ANY areas. | |
RR ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CAPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | said by BF69:Not everywhere has mountain, trees etc. Some areas are pretty flat. Just because 2.3 GHz would be impractical in SOME areas doens't mean in can't be used in ANY areas.
True, which is why I said in areas like mine.  In the valleys here, like Ukiah, Willits, and over in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley's it'd be awesome. | |
|
