how-to block ads
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | 700 MHz? Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. But then I only operate and repair radios, not make spectrum policy.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  
griminal
Finally.
join:2001-06-25
Bangor, MI | Re: 700 MHz? Better penetration with that frequency. Larger coverage areas for a single POP. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: 700 MHz? said by griminal  :Better penetration with that frequency. Larger coverage areas for a single POP. We have been getting some good building penetration in the GHz range with smaller antennas, better bandwidth, less power. But penetration and range are not an issue (note: FIXED providers are referenced in the article, not mobile), you can install outside antennas in most areas and you would probably want a directional antennas of some sort to maximize your ability to make smaller cells that do not waste your bandwidth on a few users over a large area.
Problem is, most of the spectrum is more or less taken/divvied up/spoken for up through 300 GHz even though there are some likely looking spots above 100 GHz (good luck getting cheap equipment though). And considering the way they 'sell' the spectrum, will it even be cost effective?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | jervin123
join:2005-04-14
Philadelphia, PA | The way I feel about that in large city is higher frequency = More capacity per mile or Square mile. If I was an RF engineer in a place like NYC I would choose 1900 over 850 for capacity sakes. | |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by RayW :Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. yes there is, like about 300 MHz worth.
Only thibg is, now it is called "TV channels", and unavailable for use, even though few people get their TV exclusively over the air anymore, there are unused channels in most locations, and in rural areas (where new broadband sources are needed the most), almost all that spectrum is unused.
This is a huge deal for rural broadband. It could be the big break that BPL was never going to be. In many rural areas, WISPs just don't cut it at 2.4 and GHz - trees and hills kill connectivity. 900 MHz had good propagation, but there's only a tiny sliver available there. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: 700 MHz? said by PDXPLT :said by RayW :Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. yes there is, like about 300 MHz worth. Unmm.. It is interesting that even though the channel/frequency lists show freqs as being fairly contiguous from ch 14 at 470-476 Mhz through ch 83 at 884-890 Mhz, in reality the actual allocations are not all those channels. In the 700 MHz area only 698-764 (ch 52-62) and 776-794 (ch 65-67) are allocated to broadcast according to the spectrum usage chat I have (dated 2003 or see »www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf), and they share that with other mobile and fixed services.
Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment.
said by PDXPLT :This is a huge deal for rural broadband. It could be the big break that BPL was never going to be. In many rural areas, WISPs just don't cut it at 2.4 and GHz - trees and hills kill connectivity. 900 MHz had good propagation, but there's only a tiny sliver available there.
900 is jammed packed anyway. But not all the GHz spectrum is absorbed/reflected by trees, have to look at the absorption patterns over the range of frequencies and you see a lot of peaks and valleys (of course, the valleys are probably all claimed). Anyway, you are more worried about hills and dales in many places, and for that you are looking at low VHF and HF, or tall antennas and lots of cells on the higher ground (500-700 MHz is still very line of sight).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | Re: 700 MHz? said by RayW :Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment. I haven't studied the FCC docs, but I don't think they'll lose equipment investments as they will probably continue on their issued frequencies. The broadcasting industry could make a stink over losing open frequencies for new licensees, though.
One thing that makes this a good rural solution at first glance I think is that you have less UHF TV stations in more rural areas, so there would be more whitespace to work with. Here in NE PA, there's only five or six big stations. I haven't scanned the UHF TV band in ages as I'm on cable, but there's probably several little LPTV stations to steer around in some communities. That may be an issue.
I wonder why they don't open up the VHF TV channels as well. Here in Eastern PA, AFAIK only stations in Philly and NYC are on VHF TV channels, with one exception being one in Lancaster. Unless population density/distrubution really changes here in the East, is there anyone lining up investments for building new TV stations when the four big networks have stations covering everywhere and there's cable and satellite everywhere? I dunno...
Update: I see the FCC is asking for comments about VHF channels... | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| I think you're getting confused by the title of this story. It has nothing to do with 700 MHz spectrum. These channels (52-62) are being re-assigned to non-TV use, and being auctioned off, and will not be available to the devices covered by this Order.
This Order covers operation on TV channels 5-13, 21-36, & 38-51. That's 234 MHz worth of spectrum (OK, not quite 300). But that's alot of very good spectrum, including some in the Low-VHF region. This might increase in the future once the FCC feels that operation on 2-4 won't interfere with VCR's and STB's, and operation on 14-20 won't interfere with public safety comm systems.
quote:
Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment.
No, you're missing the point. These devices will only get to use channels that the TV folks aren't using. There are separation, adjacent-channel, and "taboo" channel rules that the FCC uses for keeping 1 MW TV stations apart, that don't need to apply when you are talking about 1-10 watt WISP base stations. | |
| 
AnonDOG
@208.66.x.x
| quote:
Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. But then I only operate and repair radios, not make spectrum policy.
An analog TV channel is six MHz wide, isn't it?
Motorola Canopy puts 3 channels between 902 and 928 MHz which are each capable of 3.4x1.2 asymetric. That would be 2.3x2.3 symetric. These channels are each the width of a single TV channel.
I should also say that there are more sophisticated modulation schemes.
It isn't a lot of spectrum but they also suggest that "smart" radios that can avoid channels which are in use will be provided.
We deliver using 900 MHz ISM. 700 will not give us a significantly enhanced capability because there is not that much difference between absorbtion at 700 and at 900; however, it is a move in the right direction. | |
| | | | |
|
