3 ms·

So while many of the posts seem to be focusing on how to pay for it, there is another issue. It's not technically feasible, in urban areas at 700 mhz you would

by Aloha 14y ago

So while many of the posts seem to be focusing on how to pay for it, there is another issue. It's not technically feasible, in urban areas at 700 mhz you would need a very wide block of spectrum, several hundred megs, plus backhaul to provision something that could offer 50 mbit service to everyone, you need this, because of frequency reuse issues (700 carries too far, not enough atmospheric attenuation). In rural areas, you cant pay for the cost of the infrastructure on the subscriber density, rural areas need a much lower frequency to be able to make an affordable site density. For this to be possible, we need much more dense modulation than we currently have, and a wide block of spectrum. I really believe for urban areas the future is mesh, ala Ricochet (even using some of the same methods), which means cells that extend over a 1-3 block radius and extremely fast/wide backhaul, the backhaul needs to be automatic and self healing, wireline backhaul from anything more then every other 3-5 sites breaks the cost quotient. High Sites wont work in any event, you could deploy something in rural areas looking more like the cell phone network - but again, to enable reuse, you need a really wide block of spectrum. In either case, be it mesh, or cell site like things, these have to be engineered networks, you cant just throw it up and expect it to work. Also, the chance for great financial success as a commerical entity is low, see Ricochet and Clearwire.

surrealize 14y ago
> 700 carries too far, not enough atmospheric attenuation I'm no RF expert, but couldn't you decrease power to increase cell density?
- Aloha 14y ago
  To an extent, yes. That said, for universal wireless anything, you need a considerable block of spectrum. Consider that between T-Mobile/Sprint/Clearwire/AT&T/Verizon in the Seattle market, they hold something like 400+ mhz of spectrum. To provide this kind of service, you would need a similar (though not as large) block of spectrum. If you just looked at LTE or WiMax, to roll out a nationwide footprint, you would need something like 250 mhz of spectrum, and that includes backhaul pairs, and this is to provide enough carriers per site that most people could get a 'similar to cable internet experience'. There isnt 250 mhz of spectrum (other than the huge swaths the government has held for itself) in the bands that are useful for both rural and urban environments.

by Aloha 14y ago

surrealize 14y ago

> 700 carries too far, not enough atmospheric attenuation I'm no RF expert, but couldn't you decrease power to increase cell density?

Aloha 14y ago
To an extent, yes. That said, for universal wireless anything, you need a considerable block of spectrum. Consider that between T-Mobile/Sprint/Clearwire/AT&T/Verizon in the Seattle market, they hold something like 400+ mhz of spectrum. To provide this kind of service, you would need a similar (though not as large) block of spectrum. If you just looked at LTE or WiMax, to roll out a nationwide footprint, you would need something like 250 mhz of spectrum, and that includes backhaul pairs, and this is to provide enough carriers per site that most people could get a 'similar to cable internet experience'. There isnt 250 mhz of spectrum (other than the huge swaths the government has held for itself) in the bands that are useful for both rural and urban environments.