Page 171 of 280 FirstFirst ... 71 121 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 221 271 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,565 of 4198

Thread: National 3G Maps

  1. #2551
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog View Post
    The economics for rural HSPA+ sucks. That's another reason for AT&T to do a skip to LTE/HSPA+ dual deployments. AT&T can do HSPA+ that's a bolt-on now, meaning it's circuit switched only up to the eNodeB then flip that voice data to IP backhaul.

    Most rural areas they should start with 850 HSPA+ and 1900 LTE then they can flip a 850 channel of 5x5 LTE for coverage when enough LTE handsets are on the network.
    If the economics for a BRAND NEW technology to overlay an entire network are there, then basic 3G across an entire GSM network is entirely possible.

  2. #2552
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chester, IL
    Posts
    7,063
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Unlimited
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wireless Junkie View Post
    If the economics for a BRAND NEW technology to overlay an entire network are there, then basic 3G across an entire GSM network is entirely possible.
    LTE is better for doing that, ironically, because it flattens the architecture of the network. As opposed to adding the circuit switch infrastructure for UMTS which costs big money, HSPA+ can just be threw on at the base station.

    Read up on the RBS 6000. There's a big reason Ericsson set it up that way.

    I know there are places AT&T is spectrum constrained for LTE, but they can at least get LTE ready for fast deployment in the areas where they are spectrum constrained for LTE when they gain more spectrum in the 700 or AWS block in a given area.

    As far as VZW goes, they are going to have that last year of LTE deployment be the hardest. Why? It's not their fault, the reality is that VZW is going to have to run a lot of their own fiber on places because the rural backhaul situation sucks over the last 20% of the country they deploy in. I applaud VZW's ambitious goals, but they'll have a lot of headaches that last 20%.
    Have you read the forum rules lately?

  3. #2553
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog View Post
    LTE is better for doing that, ironically, because it flattens the architecture of the network. As opposed to adding the circuit switch infrastructure for UMTS which costs big money, HSPA+ can just be threw on at the base station.

    Read up on the RBS 6000. There's a big reason Ericsson set it up that way.

    I know there are places AT&T is spectrum constrained for LTE, but they can at least get LTE ready for fast deployment in the areas where they are spectrum constrained for LTE when they gain more spectrum in the 700 or AWS block in a given area.

    As far as VZW goes, they are going to have that last year of LTE deployment be the hardest. Why? It's not their fault, the reality is that VZW is going to have to run a lot of their own fiber on places because the rural backhaul situation sucks over the last 20% of the country they deploy in. I applaud VZW's ambitious goals, but they'll have a lot of headaches that last 20%.
    The cost right now to deploy basic HSPA service across the GSM network is substantially less right now with the availability of UMTS vendor's and equipment vs. a brand new technology such as LTE.

    As much as people love to find excuses for this and that. Quite frankly, there are none anymore. It's not 2006, and we can't all pretend EVDO is so much cheaper to deploy and conveniently LTE is as well because there is so much that goes into the LTE network including building a stable eHRPD core and implementing IMS gateways to manage media and QOS parameters.

    No reason why AT&T cannot be at 99% HSPA across their entire network.

    They have proven it is very well possible in areas that had shoddy GSM network's like Alltel, so there are literally no excuses except they are cheap.

  4. #2554
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chester, IL
    Posts
    7,063
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Unlimited
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wireless Junkie View Post
    The cost right now to deploy basic HSPA service across the GSM network is substantially less right now with the availability of UMTS vendor's and equipment vs. a brand new technology such as LTE.

    As much as people love to find excuses for this and that. Quite frankly, there are none anymore. It's not 2006, and we can't all pretend EVDO is so much cheaper to deploy and conveniently LTE is as well because there is so much that goes into the LTE network including building a stable eHRPD core and implementing IMS gateways to manage media and QOS parameters.

    No reason why AT&T cannot be at 99% HSPA across their entire network.

    They have proven it is very well possible in areas that had shoddy GSM network's like Alltel, so there are literally no excuses except they are cheap.
    The key difference is that all that is being done at the mobile switch. AT&T is spending metric tons of money at their mobile switches to get their network up to snuff. From everything I'm able to tell it's a complete network reengineer. What LTE does is makes it less expensive to deploy at the eNodeB. Either way you need good backhaul.

    Let's not forget a lot of the rural EV-DO sites being powered by T1's. Those sites will have to be upgraded. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm just stating realistically where providers are going to have issues. VZW is going to run into a lot of roadblocks on LTE in rural areas they didn't have in EV-DO.

  5. #2555
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NE IN
    Posts
    10,935
    Device(s)
    HTC TILT, 8525, BJI, BJII, SE w580i, w760a, z750a
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    They are much better off getting HSPA+ out across the entire network with equipment they can easily drop LTE into at a later date. There is a much much larger HSPA subscriber base that could make use of it right now and that's why I am glad to see new HSPA coverage that is slated to come.
    iPhone 4 on AT&T:


    http://www.xti9.com/v3xx[/FONT][/SIZE]

  6. #2556
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    306
    Device(s)
    iPhone 4 (Black)
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is the real world where they've competing with two other national carriers - Verizon and Sprint. Not rinky dinky GSM TMobile et. al.

  7. #2557
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wireless Junkie View Post
    That say's something about GSM or about the carrier's. And there is no reason why legacy CDMA carrier's and CDMA area's migrated to UMTS don't count, that just proves its possible so the carriers are just lazy.
    Not lazy, smart economically. CDMA to UMTS doesn't count because when those UMTS users left the UMTS area they'd get nothing. Thus it's essential to overlay the entire network. When UMTS users fall back to GSM, they still have voice/text and slow data. Not bad for the most rural places.

  8. #2558
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    592
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Uhde View Post
    Not lazy, smart economically. CDMA to UMTS doesn't count because when those UMTS users left the UMTS area they'd get nothing. Thus it's essential to overlay the entire network. When UMTS users fall back to GSM, they still have voice/text and slow data. Not bad for the most rural places.
    "Not bad" unless you happen to have bad enough hearing to need to use a captioning service for your calls that ONLY works on 3G or better!

  9. #2559
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane B. View Post
    "Not bad" unless you happen to have bad enough hearing to need to use a captioning service for your calls that ONLY works on 3G or better!
    Like I said, not bad at all. How quickly the amazing becomes mundane. Can you imagine a deaf/hard of hearing individual having access to a service to live caption their phone calls 20 years ago? Those were the days of the TTY/TDD. How far we have came. Now, deaf and hard of hearing individuals, can, for the most part use the very same communications services the general population uses - texting/SMS/email.

    Never before in history has anyone, and especially the deaf/HoH community had more access to communication technology.

    It is to be expected that, with any technology for any group, those living in urban areas will have more access to technology than those in rural areas. Part of that is plain and simple economics, and part of it is that people in rural areas have a tendency to actively fight technology in their area. I know two towns in Montana that every carrier has wanted to cover for years, but they may never see coverage because the radiophobic locals fight so hard and viciously to make sure they will never be covered.

    Yes, EDGE to 3G upgrades are simple economics. But look at the many rural communities in Europe stuck on GPRS, that never even saw EDGE! Never in history have you had so much access to technology, and AT&T is a world leader in their field, Americans quickly forget that.

  10. #2560
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Uhde View Post
    Like I said, not bad at all. How quickly the amazing becomes mundane. Can you imagine a deaf/hard of hearing individual having access to a service to live caption their phone calls 20 years ago? Those were the days of the TTY/TDD. How far we have came. Now, deaf and hard of hearing individuals, can, for the most part use the very same communications services the general population uses - texting/SMS/email.

    Never before in history has anyone, and especially the deaf/HoH community had more access to communication technology.

    It is to be expected that, with any technology for any group, those living in urban areas will have more access to technology than those in rural areas. Part of that is plain and simple economics, and part of it is that people in rural areas have a tendency to actively fight technology in their area. I know two towns in Montana that every carrier has wanted to cover for years, but they may never see coverage because the radiophobic locals fight so hard and viciously to make sure they will never be covered.

    Yes, EDGE to 3G upgrades are simple economics. But look at the many rural communities in Europe stuck on GPRS, that never even saw EDGE! Never in history have you had so much access to technology, and AT&T is a world leader in their field, Americans quickly forget that.
    This just show's how poor of a technology GSM really is then, and how much of a leader CDMA has been to rural communities.

    Without 3G EVDO, many people would still be stuck on dial up and satellite. CDMA has been very essential to the development of rural communities and connecting people.

    I HIGHLY doubt you would be *ok* with just EDGE in a small town with NO other internet access. Its acceptable to the investors, but NOT the user's.

    Quite frankly I could care less about Europe's rural wireless network failures, I don't feel special because we can get 50kbps more a second in small communities, where EVDO has been delivering 600kbps+ for years...

  11. #2561
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Uhde View Post
    Not lazy, smart economically. CDMA to UMTS doesn't count because when those UMTS users left the UMTS area they'd get nothing. Thus it's essential to overlay the entire network. When UMTS users fall back to GSM, they still have voice/text and slow data. Not bad for the most rural places.
    It STILL counts because its happened and PROVES its possible.

    Its not smart economically, especially when you have customer's in rural areas leaving for other providers that provide LTE while you are still deliver.

    Without CDMA, your state likely wouldn't have anything better than EDGE or GPRS from your standpoint. And you think thats ok? HAH

    Try and live in an area where the most you can get is EDGE and see how happy you would be.

    CDMA has served the US much better than GSM has, and by the time GSM carriers are starting to catch up, CDMA carriers are already deploying something much better than UMTS.

  12. #2562
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog View Post
    The key difference is that all that is being done at the mobile switch. AT&T is spending metric tons of money at their mobile switches to get their network up to snuff. From everything I'm able to tell it's a complete network reengineer. What LTE does is makes it less expensive to deploy at the eNodeB. Either way you need good backhaul.

    Let's not forget a lot of the rural EV-DO sites being powered by T1's. Those sites will have to be upgraded. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm just stating realistically where providers are going to have issues. VZW is going to run into a lot of roadblocks on LTE in rural areas they didn't have in EV-DO.
    Right now, from an economic standpoint. LTE costs WAY more than HSPA+ to deploy, you also forget the other elements involved in deploying LTE. Its not a simple plug and play operation... You can't just hook up an LTE panel to an ethernet cord and say done..

    AT&T can just as easily deploy much more readily available UMTS equipment with flat IP architecture MUCH cheaper than LTE.

    LTE equipment costs way more than much more mature UMTS equipment, it would be just as easy to run UMTS off T1's than it would LTE off fiber optics in rural communities...

    For a provider that was about to spend $39 billion on T-Mobile, there is no excuse anymore to not have 100% of the network at HSPA+..

  13. #2563
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by xcrunner View Post
    This is the real world where they've competing with two other national carriers - Verizon and Sprint. Not rinky dinky GSM TMobile et. al.
    Sprint is less of a competitor at this point, their system is tiny compared with T-Mobile's. It's all up to AT&T and Verizon on the truly national scene. AT&T is banking completely on HSPA+, wringing every possible bit of speed they can get from it. It is far more extensive than Verizon's LTE is right now as well.

    Frankly I don't see AT&T ever having as extensive an LTE network as Verizon will have. If they can get the rest of their EDGE areas upgraded to HSPA+ (which is a whole other discussion), why worry about LTE at all? They don't have the nationwide block of spectrum that Verizon has to get LTE out to the entire country anyway. AT&T has this huge problem with all the areas that are still EDGE (half the state of Texas comes to mind, not a small area) and they are going to have to deal with that eventually or they will end up with a network with two very different classes of service, or even three if they do move forward with LTE.

  14. #2564
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog View Post
    The key difference is that all that is being done at the mobile switch. AT&T is spending metric tons of money at their mobile switches to get their network up to snuff. From everything I'm able to tell it's a complete network reengineer. What LTE does is makes it less expensive to deploy at the eNodeB. Either way you need good backhaul.

    Let's not forget a lot of the rural EV-DO sites being powered by T1's. Those sites will have to be upgraded. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm just stating realistically where providers are going to have issues. VZW is going to run into a lot of roadblocks on LTE in rural areas they didn't have in EV-DO.
    What is the maximum data capacity of microwave links as opposed to fiber for use in the rural areas? Rural sites are not going to have thousands of people trying to use data at the same time like sites do in the city, so could those existing microwave links continue to be used in the rural areas until fiber can be placed?

  15. #2565
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,330
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro Max
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    What is the maximum data capacity of microwave links as opposed to fiber for use in the rural areas? Rural sites are not going to have thousands of people trying to use data at the same time like sites do in the city, so could those existing microwave links continue to be used in the rural areas until fiber can be placed?
    Verizon installed 3 new microwave dishes on the cell site by my house. It is in a rural area and I would assume that the new microwave dishes will provide more than enough bandwidth for LTE in my area. Since they installed those dishes, my neighbor (and myself) have been getting 1.8 to 2.4Mbps on the forward link (DL) and a steady .7+Mbps on the reverse link (UL).

    So in areas like mine, I think microwave will certainly be sufficient.

    I think newer microwave back haul systems can provide gigabit back haul.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Your results may vary. Network performance differs per user location.

Page 171 of 280 FirstFirst ... 71 121 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 221 271 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-12-2012, 02:47 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 03:21 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-03-2010, 11:51 AM
  4. National Freedom coverage maps
    By gbynum in forum Temporary Verizon/Alltel buyout discussion forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 04:51 PM
  5. Local Freedom plan on National Freedom plan or National Automatically?
    By jestexman in forum Temporary Verizon/Alltel buyout discussion forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 02:46 PM

Bookmarks