Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
  1. #1
    Craig
    Guest
    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



    See More: Cell Site Affordability




  2. #2
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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


    They advertise coverage in areas where there is none. It's basically free
    to them if the customer just accepts the poor quality as a standard. Sprint
    is at a disadvantage because they are allocated the 1900 MHz band.





  3. #3
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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


    I think it takes about 4 times as many sites to cover the same area.
    However, because of capacity issues, in populated areas, Verizon needs more
    towers anyway, so it becomes a non-issue in most cases. Building
    penetration is another issue all together. There, Verizon will have the
    edge because of the more favorable spectrum.

    Tom Veldhouse





  4. #4
    Larry Thomas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    Yes everything you said is true. It does cost a lot more to run a 1900
    Mhz system. Sprint has affiliates operating in many areas so they don't
    have to front the buildout costs in every market.

    --
    -Larry
    Sprint user since 1997



    [email protected] (Craig) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > 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


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



  5. #5
    Larry Thomas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability



    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <3f577b47$0$167$a1[email protected]>:
    >
    > "Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > 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

    >
    > I think it takes about 4 times as many sites to cover the same area.
    > However, because of capacity issues, in populated areas, Verizon needs more
    > towers anyway, so it becomes a non-issue in most cases. Building
    > penetration is another issue all together. There, Verizon will have the
    > edge because of the more favorable spectrum.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >


    Actually I hear it takes only 2 to 2.5 times the number of towers not 4.


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



  6. #6
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    Justin wrote:
    > "Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> 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

    >
    > They advertise coverage in areas where there is none. It's basically
    > free to them if the customer just accepts the poor quality as a
    > standard. Sprint is at a disadvantage because they are allocated the
    > 1900 MHz band.


    Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor using
    1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that range.

    Although the story is old, it outlines several such reasons:

    http://www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/story/19033.html

    ---
    Nextel senior director of investor relations Steve Virostek told Wireless
    NewsFactor the company is planning to purchase the NeoWorld 900 MHz spectrum
    and then trade it for "more contiguous" 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum in a
    deal proposed with the government last week.
    ---
    Yankee's Entner said despite Nextel's debt, the company is wise to be
    purchasing spectrum at a time when it is cheap. "They definitely need
    spectrum because their spectrum is slim," he said.
    ---
    Virostek 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.
    ---


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


    begin 666 icon-inline-search.gif
    M1TE&.#EA$0`0`.8``(5H;Z*4F+ZZO-32TXY[AM')SH]MB(UKB<3 QLK(U)J:
    MHJ>HNIJ=KY^CMYZBMJZPN+.WQ8^6J9.ANJ>ZUZ:VS,S3VY"RUK+$U.;L\=KC
    MZJ/$W*+/ZZ6YQJG,WKC.V:7;\Y_/Y*BYP,+?ZK+E]J+/WJ'-W+[>Z-/DZ:K:
    MYJG1V+ON\MCQ\L#L[;G:VM'KZZ&BHLWX\\+?VLSHX^3V\-7AW>;JY?W][OS\
    M^/'Q[?___>[N[/[^_?_^^/_\[/_WU?_^^OGSX^+>TO[]^O7T\?_8=/_3<O[W
    MZ/[]^]V[?-^X>_OX\_CU\.[GW>_IX//Q[N;<T.Z91>V?3_OW\_"'..N;7-C0
    MRJVDGL?$POSX]MW;VL?$P_?T]/7S\_S[^________P``````````````````
    M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    M`````````````````````````````````````````````````"'Y! $``%\`
    M+ `````1`! ```>[email protected]%[email protected]%AH)>B8I'7%M8.8J"4Y%'[email protected],/$ A//(J#D4,"
    M"2(?&Q)5G9.)0ED7)R8H*B -2XF>B5):'24I,3(L'$RUJ5Y*5QHD+30U+B%-
    MPHH[01,C,#,_%2\VSXE 2 $6*[email protected]"UVHB3U$4 `*!10>1I&>/[email protected]?&3
    >250'$3CY]'FQ0H"!CH "$2*TI3#?)$,0"WD)! `[

    `
    end




  7. #7
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    Rob took a puff off of his crack pipe and posted:

    > Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor

    using
    > 1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that range.



    <laughing my ass off>
    Umm... I'm pretty new to wireless technology, and I'd hate to have to school
    someone who works at a wireless carrier. Nah, no I wouldn't...

    800 MHz works better for building penetration, and 1900 MHz (a shorter
    frequency) has a higher rate of reflection, meaning that the 800 is better
    for in building penetration. If you take lots of smoke breaks, then yes,
    1900 MHz may be better for you because it has a better ability to bounce
    around buildings.
    The 800 MHz designated cellular band was alread licensed to certain
    providers, meaning that when "PCS" services entered into the scene, they
    were allocated the 1900MHz band by the FCC. Not because it has any real
    advantages. It was what was available.

    It takes roughly twice as many 1900MHz towers to provide the coverage area
    as 800 MHz towers because higher frequencies have shorter useable ranges.

    The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current existence
    of a 1900 MHz network. It's already there. They didn't buy the bandwidth
    because they wanted 1900 MHz, they bought it because despite it's
    weaknesses, it's what's available and the network exists. The 900 MHz band
    is allocated to other uses in the US, so if Nextell wants additional US
    spectrum, they would have to trade it to acquire useable spectrum in the US.

    You've been duly educated.</laughing my ass off>










  8. #8
    John
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    If we assume everyone had to build all its towers and buy its spectrum from
    scratch, 1900 MHz carriers will probably have to spend more. However, you
    have to realize that there are other factors involved. Sprint has the
    advantage that it bought most of its spectrum a while back and I believe
    they have more than enough in most major markets. They were able to buy it
    at a reasonable price. If a carrier has to buy more spectrum now, then its
    going to pay a huge premium if they can even get any. Just look at what
    Verizon would have paid if that whole Nextwave fiasco had gone through.
    Basically, SPCS competitive disadvantage in one area may be balanced out in
    other areas, including cost of spectrum rights.


    "Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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






  9. #9
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Rob took a puff off of his crack pipe and posted:
    >
    > > Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor

    > using
    > > 1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that

    range.
    >
    >
    > <laughing my ass off>
    > Umm... I'm pretty new to wireless technology, and I'd hate to have to

    school
    > someone who works at a wireless carrier. Nah, no I wouldn't...
    >
    > 800 MHz works better for building penetration, and 1900 MHz (a shorter
    > frequency) has a higher rate of reflection, meaning that the 800 is better
    > for in building penetration. If you take lots of smoke breaks, then yes,
    > 1900 MHz may be better for you because it has a better ability to bounce
    > around buildings.
    > The 800 MHz designated cellular band was alread licensed to certain
    > providers, meaning that when "PCS" services entered into the scene, they
    > were allocated the 1900MHz band by the FCC. Not because it has any real
    > advantages. It was what was available.
    >
    > It takes roughly twice as many 1900MHz towers to provide the coverage area
    > as 800 MHz towers because higher frequencies have shorter useable ranges.


    higher frequences travel farther (but as you mentioned, can't penetrate as
    well so you loose signal on forest/mountain terrains) at the same power
    output as lower freqs.
    >
    > The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current

    existence
    > of a 1900 MHz network. It's already there. They didn't buy the bandwidth
    > because they wanted 1900 MHz, they bought it because despite it's
    > weaknesses, it's what's available and the network exists. The 900 MHz

    band
    > is allocated to other uses in the US, so if Nextell wants additional US
    > spectrum, they would have to trade it to acquire useable spectrum in the

    US.
    >
    > You've been duly educated.</laughing my ass off>


    don't forget the power consumption, lower freqs require more power than
    higher freqs for the same distance.
    i'm not sure what the fcc regulations are on power output.

    another consideration to buying frequencies.. it keeps the competition from
    using it.





  10. #10
    Craig
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    Thanks for the information. From all of your posts I get the
    following :

    Affiliates keep the costs down to SPCS in rural areas where cost/tower
    spacing really becomes an issue and there are no real capacity
    contraints. Even though intuition would tell you that it is extremely
    expensive to build a 1900mhz network in rural areas, somehow Sprint
    PCS corporate makes it worth their while and it is somewhat profitable
    (or maybe not since some of those affiliates are in financial trouble)

    Even though it may cost SPCS more to build out networks in rural and
    less densely populated areas VS. Verizon's costs, all things constant,
    all things really arent constant. Sprint didn't pay much for its
    spectrum in the USA relative to other carriers and because of this,
    they can dump a good amount into the network, ensuring good coverage
    at 1900mhz.

    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....



  11. #11
    Craig
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    O/Siris, I was comparing 1900mhz to 800mhz, not 1900/800mhz contiguous
    spectrum to Nextel's SMR band which has certain frequencies entangled
    with other public safety frequencies. Naturally a contingous block of
    spectrum for Nextel in the 1900 or 800mhz band would be beneficial for
    a CDMA type system as well as data services, regardless of the
    propogation, but that's not what we are discussing.

    If there are reasons to use 1900mhz over 800mhz other than cost and
    availability (800mhz licenses were bought up a long time ago 1900mhz
    acquistions are more recent) they continue to elude me. I am also
    trying to learn about the costs of a 1900mhz vs 800mhz system in areas
    where propogation is a factor (less dense areas where fewer towers
    would be needed due to limited capacity constraints)


    O/Siris wrote:

    Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor
    using
    1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that
    range.

    Although the story is old, it outlines several such reasons:

    http://www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/story/19033.html



  12. #12
    Paul Kim
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > <laughing my ass off>
    > Umm... I'm pretty new to wireless technology, and I'd hate to have to

    school
    > someone who works at a wireless carrier. Nah, no I wouldn't...


    > It takes roughly twice as many 1900MHz towers to provide the coverage area
    > as 800 MHz towers because higher frequencies have shorter useable ranges.


    Hahaha!! TWICE!? In most cases, maybe a 5-15db loss for 1900.





  13. #13
    Justin Green
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Paul Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > <laughing my ass off>
    > > Umm... I'm pretty new to wireless technology, and I'd hate to have to

    > school
    > > someone who works at a wireless carrier. Nah, no I wouldn't...

    >
    > > It takes roughly twice as many 1900MHz towers to provide the coverage

    area
    > > as 800 MHz towers because higher frequencies have shorter useable

    ranges.
    >
    > Hahaha!! TWICE!? In most cases, maybe a 5-15db loss for 1900.


    Several scientists would disagree with you.





  14. #14
    Justin Green
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability


    "Paul Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > <laughing my ass off>
    > > Umm... I'm pretty new to wireless technology, and I'd hate to have to

    > school
    > > someone who works at a wireless carrier. Nah, no I wouldn't...

    >
    > > It takes roughly twice as many 1900MHz towers to provide the coverage

    area
    > > as 800 MHz towers because higher frequencies have shorter useable

    ranges.
    >
    > Hahaha!! TWICE!? In most cases, maybe a 5-15db loss for 1900.


    P.S. - here's some links. It's pretty basic, so you might actually have a
    chance of understanding the difference.

    http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone8.htm

    Here's another site, just in case the former was too hard for you to read:
    http://www.cellularfone.us/resources/cellular_pcs.php

    The only other advantage to be gleamed from these articles could be that PCS
    services that are digital *may* have better sound clarity. In reality, this
    is not always the case. What IS the case, however, is that PCS networks
    need more towers to cover the same area, the cellular networks are more
    mature, and 800 MHz has better building penetration.





  15. #15
    Paul Kim
    Guest

    Re: Cell Site Affordability

    > P.S. - here's some links. It's pretty basic, so you might actually have a
    > chance of understanding the difference.
    >
    > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone8.htm
    >
    > Here's another site, just in case the former was too hard for you to read:
    > http://www.cellularfone.us/resources/cellular_pcs.php


    Or better yet, why not do the math yourself:

    http://www.ece.utah.edu/~ece5960/lec...20Interference
    /L3.html

    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~randy/Co...Propagation.ps

    Or take a basic telecommunication class at your local community college.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast