Results 1 to 15 of 38
- 09-04-2003, 11:35 AM #1CraigGuest
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
- 09-04-2003, 11:38 AM #2JustinGuest
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.
- 09-04-2003, 11:49 AM #3Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
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
- 09-04-2003, 11:50 AM #4Larry ThomasGuest
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]
- 09-04-2003, 12:07 PM #5Larry ThomasGuest
Re: Cell Site Affordability
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[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]
- 09-04-2003, 01:57 PM #6O/SirisGuest
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.
---
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them
begin 666 icon-inline-search.gif
M1TE&.#EA$0`0`.8``(5H;Z*4F+ZZO-32TXY[AM')SH]MB(UKB<3 QLK(U)J:
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MRJVDGL?$POSX]MW;VL?$P_?T]/7S\_S[^________P``````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````````````````````"'Y! $``%\`
M+ `````1`! ```>7@%Y3@X2%AH)>B8I'7%M8.8J"4Y%'3@,/$ 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*Q@9"UVHB3U$4 `*!10>1I&>/D51!@XWD?&3
>250'$3CY]'FQ0H"!CH "$2*TI3#?)$,0"WD)! `[
`
end
- 09-04-2003, 02:23 PM #7JustinGuest
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>
- 09-04-2003, 02:26 PM #8JohnGuest
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
- 09-04-2003, 03:58 PM #9127.0.0.1Guest
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.
- 09-04-2003, 06:09 PM #10CraigGuest
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....
- 09-04-2003, 06:27 PM #11CraigGuest
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
- 09-04-2003, 10:01 PM #12Paul KimGuest
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.
- 09-04-2003, 10:18 PM #13Justin GreenGuest
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.
- 09-04-2003, 10:31 PM #14Justin GreenGuest
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.
- 09-04-2003, 11:29 PM #15Paul KimGuest
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
- Cingular
- alt.cellular.nextel
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat