griminal
Finally.
join:2001-06-25
Bangor, MI | reply to RayW
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
| 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 | reply to griminal
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. |
|
