dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to sectvfreak

Re: WHY???

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.


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

I think your reasoning is it.... cause I can't see any other reasons than that. We (speaking in the at&t sense here) already paid for it... why not use it?



RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

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


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by RR Conductor:

said by 88615298:

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 Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1

said by 88615298:

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.