Results 16 to 20 of 20
- 08-16-2007, 08:53 AM #16Jeff LiebermannGuest
Re: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
"Dana" <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>I sm not to sure about that. When I worked for nextel and latter voicestream
>everysite we had had to have a copy of the license in it, and we also had to
>report to the fcc the lat and log of every site to the fcc. Yes it was one
>license, but it listed all our cell sites, and when we added cell sites we
>had to report them to the FCC.
Nextel is different. Nextel is not cellular. It's SMR (specialized
mobile radio) and is individually licenced by the site. When
refarming started, I vaguely recall someone from Nextel mumbling
something about having to tweak 30,000 licenses, and that was just for
the left coast.
>Yet alone the interference they may introduce into the microcells that are
>already licensed and operated.
If a carrier introduces interference to its own system, who's at
fault? For that matter, who is going to fix it?
>The carrier will have todo some frequency
>planning for these cells.
Fat chance. Both the customers and the femto cells are going to be
fairly portable. I would assume that the femto cell has a GPS built
in (for timing sync if nothing else), which should give the carrier a
clue as to its location of the moment.
>Of course they are not radiating much power, but
>close in they may introduce interference, especially between close
>neighbors, if some kind of frequency planning is not being done. Documents I
>have seen indicate that femtocells will have frequency planning as part of
>the design.
The power is low, but then so is the signal from the 3G cell site. The
assumption is that one only needs a femto cell (repeater) if the 3G
signal is too low to be useable in the house. So, it's a fair
assumption that the neighbors will have equally lousy reception from
the 3G cell site. Since the femto cell will probably belch more
signal to the neighbors than they can receive from the cell site,
there's a good chance that their marginal 3G coverage may start to
approach zero.
Planning is good. Engineering is better.
>Yep, good point. The femto cells will bea underlay to existing cell coverage
>hopefully allowing seamless handovers.
Maybe, but only if each femto cell allows roaming from the neighbors
and passerbys. The Ubiquisys box can only handle 4 connections max
which could easily be insufficient to handle both the household and
roaming traffic. At this point, it's all speculation, including most
of what I've been guessing. I really don't know what the various
proponents of femto cells are thinking or plotting. However, I'm sure
the grandois schemes and engineering miracles will follow shortly.
--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
› See More: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
- 08-16-2007, 09:01 AM #17DanaGuest
Re: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
"Jeff Liebermann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dana" <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>
>>I sm not to sure about that. When I worked for nextel and latter
>>voicestream
>>everysite we had had to have a copy of the license in it, and we also had
>>to
>>report to the fcc the lat and log of every site to the fcc. Yes it was one
>>license, but it listed all our cell sites, and when we added cell sites we
>>had to report them to the FCC.
>
> Nextel is different. Nextel is not cellular. It's SMR (specialized
> mobile radio) and is individually licenced by the site. When
> refarming started, I vaguely recall someone from Nextel mumbling
> something about having to tweak 30,000 licenses, and that was just for
> the left coast.
Yes I see that, but voicestream is a pcs carrier, and up here in rural
Alaska everyone of our cell sites is listed on our license with their lat
and longs.
>
>>Yet alone the interference they may introduce into the microcells that are
>>already licensed and operated.
>
> If a carrier introduces interference to its own system, who's at
> fault? For that matter, who is going to fix it?
Which is why I was saying this, the carriers are not going to place
femtocells out there without some kind of frequency planning
>
>>The carrier will have todo some frequency
>>planning for these cells.
>
> Fat chance. Both the customers and the femto cells are going to be
> fairly portable. I would assume that the femto cell has a GPS built
> in (for timing sync if nothing else), which should give the carrier a
> clue as to its location of the moment.
A block of frequecies may be set aside for these femto cells, where the
carriers will work around them.
>
>>Of course they are not radiating much power, but
>>close in they may introduce interference, especially between close
>>neighbors, if some kind of frequency planning is not being done. Documents
>>I
>>have seen indicate that femtocells will have frequency planning as part of
>>the design.
>
> The power is low, but then so is the signal from the 3G cell site. The
> assumption is that one only needs a femto cell (repeater) if the 3G
> signal is too low to be useable in the house. So, it's a fair
> assumption that the neighbors will have equally lousy reception from
> the 3G cell site. Since the femto cell will probably belch more
> signal to the neighbors than they can receive from the cell site,
> there's a good chance that their marginal 3G coverage may start to
> approach zero.
>
> Planning is good. Engineering is better.
>
>>Yep, good point. The femto cells will bea underlay to existing cell
>>coverage
>>hopefully allowing seamless handovers.
>
> Maybe, but only if each femto cell allows roaming from the neighbors
> and passerbys. The Ubiquisys box can only handle 4 connections max
> which could easily be insufficient to handle both the household and
> roaming traffic. At this point, it's all speculation, including most
> of what I've been guessing. I really don't know what the various
> proponents of femto cells are thinking or plotting. However, I'm sure
> the grandois schemes and engineering miracles will follow shortly.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
- 08-26-2007, 08:38 PM #18John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:00:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>John Navas <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>>Many of us are already cutting the cord to our not-free landlines in
>>favor of cellular wireless.
>
>I don't have a wired telephone in the my palatial office and use the
>cell phone exclusively. It works well enough to tolerate the calls
>that go directly to voice mail and the random disconnects (Verizon).
>Fortunately, most of my phone use is during non-prime time, where such
>problems are infrequent.
>
>However, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm referring
>to the difference between a $35 cordless phone purchase, with no
>per-minute charges, attached to a $20/month POTS phone, versus a
>$15/month (2nd phone including handset subsidy and taxes) cellular
>account for a handset with per-minute charges and/or monthly quotas.
MetroPCS offers unlimited cellular calling starting at only $30/month.
My AT&T plan is $40/month for 1000 anytime minutes, which is much more
than I typically need -- I now have several thousand minutes in
Rollover.
>Basically, femto cell is a method of reducing the cost of deploying
>additional cell sites to provide adequate 3G data coverage. Building
>cell sites is expensive. Chopping the cell site into tiny pieces and
>passing it around the neighborhood, is cheaper. Otherwise, they're
>the same.
I think it's more a matter of displacing landlines by making cell phones
work better indoors, which is much easier (albeit more costly) with
femtocells than with conventional cells.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 08-26-2007, 08:39 PM #19John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:57:50 -0700, "Kevin Weaver"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 1. Too busy to waste time here.
>> 2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.
>
>IF your so busy, then why are you back for hours trying to reply ?
Minutes, not hours.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 08-27-2007, 12:23 AM #20Kevin WeaverGuest
Re: NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:57:50 -0700, "Kevin Weaver"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 1. Too busy to waste time here.
>>> 2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.
>>
>>IF your so busy, then why are you back for hours trying to reply ?
>
> Minutes, not hours.
Looking at your times your posting, I see you spent about one hour today.
Another lie. Which you always like to do.
Why did we never see any reply from you about the iphone being offered to
verizon first ? Which was shown from the site you like to copy and paste
from ? (The Register)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
If It's min's then your sure on here many of them.
Similar Threads
- LG
- Samsung
- General Cell Phone Forum
- alt.cellular.attws
Desnudar fotos
in General Cell Phone Forum