 | | What is WCS band? Is it now used for Sirius XM as on-ground broadcast band in large cities? Whenever I am in Chicago and suburbs, I can listen to xm radio fine under bridge or trees but not so once I go to a rural area, assuming it then switches to satellite signal. | |
|
 | RyC
join:2007-08-18
San Luis Obispo, CA | Re: What is WCS band? No, Sirius XM's terrestrial repeaters operate within Sirius XM's allocated spectrum | |
|
| | WHY??? 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? | |
|
| | | Re: WHY??? Any chance they can do fixed wireless with LOS to the transmitter in this band efficiently? | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | 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. | |
|
| |  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | Re: WHY??? 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 ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CAPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | 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 | Re: WHY??? 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 | Re: WHY??? 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. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | To get more spectrum and to hamper competition. | |
|
| | | | Re: WHY??? Some where along the lines, I'm sure that the real reason. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by KrK:To get more spectrum and to hamper competition.
what do you mean to get more spectrum? They already HAVE the spectrum. Quit thinking something is always something when sometimes it's nothing. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: WHY??? Quit denying the obvious, or thinking something is nothing when it something, you could say. | |
|
| | | | RR ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CAPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Re: WHY??? said by KrK:Quit denying the obvious, or thinking something is nothing when it something, you could say.
Huh? | |
|
| zorxd
join:2010-02-05
Quebec, QC Reviews:
 ·Acanac
 ·voip.ms
| 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?
One of the most popular LTE band worldwide is 2600 MHz. | |
|
| | RR ConductorNWP RR Inc.,serving NW CAPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Re: WHY??? said by zorxd: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?
One of the most popular LTE band worldwide is 2600 MHz. That frequency would be okay in densely populated and/or small countries, like many in Europe, or in large cities, but it wouldn't work in a lot of areas, like the Western US, most of Australia, most of Canada, etc.
--
»www.amtrak.com
»www.freightrailworks.org
»www.isu.edu
»www.nwprr.net
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.cahighspeedrail.gov | |
|
| | No wonder Sirius XM is turning off the repeaters And as usual they feed us the bullshit that they're improving service. | |
|
|
|
