Trust me, I know the game well. People in corporate jobs love tot protect their turf even if it means losing money.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Brian Webster <bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com > wrote: > But what did you know right Cameron? The arrogance and ignorance of > carriers still never ceases to amaze me. Most times it is due to the fact > that the person in that position of network design authority, who should > already know those answers, simply does not and feel like they need to draw > the line in the sand and make it seem like they know more than the > consultant, otherwise they fear their bosses will question their value to > the organization…..**** > > ** ** > > Thank You,**** > > Brian Webster**** > > www.wirelessmapping.com**** > > www.Broadband-Mapping.com**** > > ** ** > > *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On > Behalf Of *Cameron Crum > *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:46 PM > *To:* WISPA General List > > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie**** > > ** ** > > That's right Blake, and it was way before 4G that designing for capacity > came into play. Before I became a wisp in '03, I had designed and had a part > in building over 1000 cell sites for 4 different carriers in 3 different > countries. In the mid-90s companies were going for coverage only. They > quickly learned that once digital technologies came into play, coverage > meant squat in terms of how many subs you could pack on a network. Just like > with us, cell sites are limited in capacity and the noisier things get with > CDMA based systems, the quicker they go to crap. In urban, sub-urban > morphologies, capacity rules. In rural areas though, they don't anticipate > near the traffic levels, so they build taller sites that can cover more > area. Along highways, they may only build 2 sector sites, at least > initially, because the extra sector that doesn't carry any traffic is a > waste of money. If they really are going for fixed wireless as a major play, > then they may have to add sites in the rural areas. They may not realize it > yet. It was tough sell to convince them the first time around. When Sprint > first deployed 1x, we, the consultants told them that designing for coverage > was a waste of time and money. They didn't believe us and ended up having to > add 25% more sites after turning the network up. **** > > ** ** > > Cameron**** > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Blake Bowers <bbow...@mozarks.com> > wrote:**** > > Cellular systems in urban areas are built for capacity. Thats why you have > so many low level sites, frequency reuse. Capacity rules king. > > In rural areas, coverage rules. That is why they use a lot of > intellirepeater sites, that actually work off close existing sites, with > very minimal capacity. Often limited to one outdoor cabinet and 3 panels. > (and in some cases a mag mount antenna on the cabinet for the donor site to > be able to talk to it) > > Capacity of varying sites changes also on a network. While one site may > have X capacity with X transcievers, the one 5 miles away, same network, > may > have twice that number. They may look alike from the outside, but the > equipment inside is different TOE. > > > Don't take your organs to heaven, > heaven knows we need them down here! > Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.**** > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Wu" <c...@cticonnect.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM**** > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie > > **** > > >I have a dissenting opinion... > > > >>It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost > >>effectively provide broadband. > > > > A cellular network is built for coverage > > > > Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, > > will tend to put the same equipment everywhere > > > > What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the > > tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway > > where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment > and > > capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous > > users > > > > So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base > station > > have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage > > requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity > > > > In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP > and > > putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers > aren't > > affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is "found money" -- > > self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower > > with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor > > > > -Charles**** > > /**** > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/**** > > ** ** > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
