Cell Site Affordability

Search google for "1900 propagation loss" and you'll see some "real world"
data. Here is one:

http://www.radiofiber.com/propagation1.pdf

---

› See More: Cell Site Affordability

Also, take into account that cell towers have directional antennas, and
since directionality is directly proportional to the wavelength, you'll
typically get 2 times more directivity at 1900 than 800.

Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so your
signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will benefit
from multipath dB gain.

That takes me to the point that 1900 will be much better than 800 for BLAST,
where Bell Labs has gotten unprecedented bandwidth efficiency (something
like 15bps/Hz...i think). Of course in order to get good BLAST effect,
you'll need lots of buildings and other things that the signal can bounce
off of to generate more multipath effects.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:

> The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current existence
> of a 1900 MHz network.

Really? Then Nextel's CEO really *didn't* mean it when he said, "...the
contiguous 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum -- which mirrors
networks from rivals Sprint PCS (NYSE: PCS) and VoiceStream -- may be
useful to Nextel in providing next-generation services, such as
high-speed
data capabilities."

Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.

<dishonest "schooling" snipped>
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In most parts of the country verizon has to have almost as many
antenna sites as Sprint PCS not because of range, but because of capacity.


Craig wrote:
> If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
> safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
> given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
> Verizon 800mhz markets). I would expect this to be the case more in
> rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
> would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.
>
> If this is the case, how does Sprint stay competitive if their
> networks operate in a less desirable part of the electromagentic
> frequency spectrum, and they need to install more sites (higher equip
> costs, higher lease payments, etc)?
>
> Thanks

"Paul Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Also, take into account that cell towers have directional antennas, and
> since directionality is directly proportional to the wavelength, you'll
> typically get 2 times more directivity at 1900 than 800.

The directivity is the property of the antenna design and not the
frequency wavelength utilized. The antenna has gain properties that put
the signal at the horizon and the beamwidth (side to side) properties.
This can also be modified by the use of downtilt that is a mechanical
installation change that physically points the antenna to the ground.
Most cellular cites run between .5 degree and 3 degrees of antenna
downtilt. You can make an 800 signal more directional that 1900 if you
want to.
>
> Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so your
> signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will benefit
> from multipath dB gain.

Incorrect, 1900 has greater pathloss and multipath can be detrimental
more than additive as it is usually received out of phase from the
target signal. All of this will decrease the usable signal at the
target phone. You can't get gain by bouncing a signal, there is always
a loss as gain is a property of antenna or amplifier design.


[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
> about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
> bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.

Actually, Nextel is merely saying/implying that:

1) It needed more spectrum, so it bought some (at 900MHz).

2) 900MHz is neither contiguous with Nextel's existing 800MHz spectrum, nor
compatible with the next-generation equipment currently available (from Lucent,
Nortel, Ericsson, etc.), almost all of which is tuned for 800MHz or 1900MHz.

3) Thus, Nextel wants to trade the 900MHz spectrum for 800MHz or 1900MHz
spectrum that will be compatible with the equipment it wishes to purchase.

4) Nextel would presumably prefer 800MHz spectrum because of its near-contiguity
with Nextel's existing spectrum and its superior building penetration. But
800MHz spectrum is all filled up with users, and hence probably not available at
a realistic price; so Nextel will be satisfied enough with some 1900MHz.

Nothing in the article you cite indicates that Nextel sees any technical
advantage of 1900MHz over 800MHz.

"Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With the above being said, it still fascinates me that they are able
> to compete, having to build twice (conservative estimate) as many
> sites as an 800mhz carrier in a lot of less populated areas. This
> could really add up....

The original financial argument of Sprint and other 1900MHz newcomers was that
by avoiding all the legacy infrastructure (analog equipment, COBOL-written
billing systems, etc.) and purchasing the latest-and-greatest from scratch, they
could build out their networks economically and run them much more cheaply than
the incumbent wireless carriers. T-Mobile (nee VoiceStream) made this same
financial argument.

Results so far are mixed. Neither Sprint PCS nor T-Mobile has gone bankrupt
(yet). T-Mobile is still growing rapidly, but so was Sprint PCS at that stage
in its life. Sprint PCS' subscriber growth rate is now rather small in
comparison to Verizon Wireless. The latter is coming out the big winner here
and may dominate the industry over the next ten years. Verizon has both the
brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.

On 4 Sep 2003 10:35:48 -0700, [email protected] (Craig) wrote:

>If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
>safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
>given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
>Verizon 800mhz markets). I would expect this to be the case more in
>rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
>would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.
>
>If this is the case, how does Sprint stay competitive if their
>networks operate in a less desirable part of the electromagentic
>frequency spectrum, and they need to install more sites (higher equip
>costs, higher lease payments, etc)?

It depends on subscriber load. If Verizon Wireless has more peak
subscribers in a certain cell they're likely going to have to "beef
up" coverage (adding more towers or frequencies).

If you look at Verizon's native coverage (not roaming partners) they
cover fewer people than Sprint PCS, so they're paying more to roaming
partners than Sprint PCS likely is.

Sprint PCS also has advantages in that they have licenses for the
entire US, and Sprint corporate can provide the fiber backbone for
both voice and data over the entire US.

"O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current
existence
> > of a 1900 MHz network.
>
> Really? Then Nextel's CEO really *didn't* mean it when he said, "...the
> contiguous 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum -- which mirrors
> networks from rivals Sprint PCS (NYSE: PCS) and VoiceStream -- may be
> useful to Nextel in providing next-generation services, such as
> high-speed
> data capabilities."
>
> Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
> about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
> bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.

He DID say that. Again, Nextel got what was available. He was happy to get
ADDITIONAL bandwidth, even though some of the bandwidth was better than the
other.

"O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current
existence
> > of a 1900 MHz network.
>
> Really? Then Nextel's CEO really *didn't* mean it when he said, "...the
> contiguous 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum -- which mirrors
> networks from rivals Sprint PCS (NYSE: PCS) and VoiceStream -- may be
> useful to Nextel in providing next-generation services, such as
> high-speed
> data capabilities."
>
> Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
> about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
> bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.
>
> <dishonest "schooling" snipped>
> --
> -+-
> RØß
> O/Siris
> I work for Sprint PCS
> I *don't* speak for them

You really should read up on your chosen profession's technology. You
should be schooling me, but you can't.

Craig wrote:

> If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
> safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
> given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
> Verizon 800mhz markets).


It does cost them more at least in the near term, but not entirely
because of penetration issues. That does have something to do with it.
The other major part of the equation is that Sprint is still in
build-out phase in a number of places, whereas incumbent cell carriers
(such as Verizon) already had AMPS infrastructure in place that would
simply be converted to a CDMA overlay.

> I would expect this to be the case more in
> rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
> would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.

FWIW, Sprint does NOT build out in rural areas. Secondary markets, as
they're called in wireless industry parlance, are often given to
affiliate companies to build out and license under Sprint's name (other
companies do this as well, such as Nextel who has built a shell comany
knowns as "Nextel partners" to build out rural areas). The idea behind
this arrangement is that a smaller wireless company will assume the risk
of investing in the network, and in return they get to market their
services under a larger brand, with greater coverage than the smaller
affiliate company provides by themselves, and not have to invest in a
billing or collections system because the parent company is taking care
of that.

> If this is the case, how does Sprint stay competitive if their
> networks operate in a less desirable part of the electromagentic
> frequency spectrum, and they need to install more sites (higher equip
> costs, higher lease payments, etc)?

A 1900Mhz system won't demand a higher lease payment than that of an
800Mhz system. they take up the same footprint and use largely similar
equipment. You may however, need more towers.

And FWIW, 800Mhz systems are now having problems of their own. In
particular, they're coming under fire for interfering with adjacent
police and emergency radio systems. As such, they too have to incur
expenses to retuen their equipment at times to avoid degrading police
radio systems.

For info, see: http://tinyurl.com/mcdv . Nextel seems to be the
company with the biggest problem.

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>

> Verizon has both the
> brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
> latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
> building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
> carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.

Lawrence ... SPCS has already said months ago that they would bypass going
to 1xEV-DO and devote their resources to the next phase after that ...
1xEV-DV. Nothing wrong with doing that ...

Bob

If that's the case, then why can't they get decent native (no pun
intended) coverage in Oklahoma!

--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in Verizon has both
the
> brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
> latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
> building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
> carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Craig wrote:
>
> > If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
> > safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
> > given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
> > Verizon 800mhz markets).
>
>
> It does cost them more at least in the near term, but not entirely
> because of penetration issues. That does have something to do with it.
> The other major part of the equation is that Sprint is still in
> build-out phase in a number of places, whereas incumbent cell carriers
> (such as Verizon) already had AMPS infrastructure in place that would
> simply be converted to a CDMA overlay.
>
> > I would expect this to be the case more in
> > rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
> > would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.
>
> FWIW, Sprint does NOT build out in rural areas. Secondary markets, as
> they're called in wireless industry parlance, are often given to
> affiliate companies to build out and license under Sprint's name (other
> companies do this as well, such as Nextel who has built a shell comany
> knowns as "Nextel partners" to build out rural areas). The idea behind
> this arrangement is that a smaller wireless company will assume the risk
> of investing in the network, and in return they get to market their
> services under a larger brand, with greater coverage than the smaller
> affiliate company provides by themselves, and not have to invest in a
> billing or collections system because the parent company is taking care
> of that.

Sprint sure advertises in rural areas.

Actually, Larry, I didn't mean to imply that there's any inherent
advantage. I was responding to what I still think is a wrong statement
that it's an inherent DISadvantage. I disagree that it is.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them


[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]