[opendtv] Re: AT&T backs Verizon, TMo hesitates on LTE

  • From: "Mark A. Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:35:58 -0400

 You get a shiny star for today! Let's just hope the glue holds...;-)

On 8/18/2010 7:45 AM, Craig Birkmaier wrote:

At 5:04 PM -0400 8/17/10, Mark A. Aitken wrote:
Funny! I really wanted to say "... to handle the 'wants' of an unknowledgeable (veracious) consuming public." In this case the UN makes a big difference! ;-) 

On 8/17/2010 4:50 PM, Mark A. Aitken wrote:
I think that part of the problem (political) for the wireless folks is that they have cried for so long about getting 700MHz spectrum, that now that they don't really want it (700MHz in particular...but, yes, they still want spectrum) they can't change their cry. It seems to me that what they really want (now) is higher frequency (~2GHz) spectrum to maximize frequency reuse, focus on density (smaller cell size) so that distribution and back haul does become the choke point, and maximize overall 'number of bits' per square 'whatever'. They need those three things to get the best efficiencies to handle the 'wants' of an knowledgeable (veracious) consuming public. 

Do I have that right?

Mark
the Mark that is always overwhelmed by the underwhelming lack of knowledge (and vision) of our governments "EXPERT" organizations (such as the FCC) ability to define the policies of tomorrow. 


Speaking of the unknowledgeable consuming public...

aka ME
Mark's post got me thinking a bit about the current situation in the U.S. (and the rest of the world for that matter) with respect to two issues with wireless communications: 

1. Quality of Service
2. Quantity of service - i.e. how to maximize data carrying capacity
As we have seen with the recent "antennagate" episode, quality of service generally sucks unless you are lucky enough to be in an area with strong signals. By the way, it now appears that the Motorola Droid 2 is having some issues with its antennas as well.
What it all boils down to is that anything that attenuates the signal can reduce the signal strength to the point where reliable communications is not possible. This may be the hand holding the phone, or the users head if they are between the phone's antenna and the cell tower, or it may be the physical environment, i.e. terrain blockage, metal buildings and other types of construction that attenuate the signals, etc.
MY cell phone is pretty much useless at the brewery, which is located in a metal warehouse in an area with low signal strength.
On the other hand, as Mark points out, the information carrying capacity of the connection increases as the frequency increases. I found a good graph that illustrates this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mAJDMuyu_WI/TA59_DguIPI/AAAAAAAACbM/C6IQIdWTKoU/s1600/InBuildingFrequencyCapacity.jpg
In addition, as Bert pointed out, the lower the frequency the larger the cell size can be, or to state this another way, with higher frequencies you can use more tower sites per square mile of coverage area. Thus lower frequencies can be more cost effective as they can cover larger areas, however, the data carrying capacity will be much lower than a network using higher frequencies with higher cell density. 

Did I get this right?
One reason that the FCC tried to reallocate a portion of the 700 MHz bands for public safety is that these frequencies do a far better job penetrating buildings, and the cost for the networks can be lower since a cell can cover a larger area.
So it seems to this unknowledgeable consumer that there may be a need for multiple networks overlaid on one another to solve the two issues I listed above.
In rural areas with lower demand/usage, clearly the 700 MHz and potentially the 600 MHz bands may be the most desirable because of their ability to cover larger areas per cell site, and to deal with attenuation issues in lower signal strength areas.
While in urban areas, where the demand/usage is high, the higher frequencies may be more desirable as they can carry more data, and it is possible to have MANY more cells, which in turn will be closer to each user, and thus may have higher signal strengths to mitigate the attenuation issues.
Further, if we were to move to an infrastructure that uses all of these frequencies, it might be possible to have some level of service segmentation to deal with either QOS or the types of data being delivered.
For example, in the brewery, it is likely that the 700 MHz network would enable significantly improved reception, thus the phone would choose this network over a 2 GHz cell with very low signal strength.
And as we have seen with Qualcomm's FLO networks in the 700 MHz band, it is possible to use a lower density network to deliver bits that many people may use simultaneously, such as video streams. Combine this with local caching in the mobile device, and it could significantly reduce the need for individual unicast transactions for the same data.
Of course this begs a larger question. If we use the lower frequencies for data broadcasting, why should we take spectrum from broadcasters and give it to the telcos?
From the perspective of the politicians, the answer is obvious. The Telcos will pay billions for this spectrum, while the broadcasters are paying next to nothing and are not interested in building out modern networks for data broadcasting.
I am not trying to minimize the excellent work that Mark has done in leading the development of the ATSC MHP standard, however, there are serious questions about the spectral efficiency of the MHP approach versus the technologies the telcos are deploying, and the density of the broadcast networks.
Given the sorry state of the broadcast industry today, it seems difficult to imagine that they would invest in the infrastructure needed to maximize the use of the 600-700 MHz bands; on the other hand, the telcos would be able to leverage their existing tower infrastructure, while making the politicians happy with the "windfall profits" from a spectrum auction. 

So again ask: Did I get this right?

Regards
Craig




----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. 



--
Regards,
Mark A. Aitken
Director, Advanced Technology
Sinclair Broadcast Group
===================================
(410) 568-1535 OFFICE
(443) 677-4425 MOBILE
===================================
"Let us have faith that right makes might,
and that in faith, let us,to the end,
dare to do our duty as we understand it."

<>    ~ Abraham Lincoln ~<><


"Our country's founders cherished
liberty, not democracy."

<>    ~ Ron Paul ~<><


"We must accept finite disappointment,
but we must never lose infinite hope."

<>    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. ~<><


"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold
is for people of good conscience to
remain silent."

<>    ~ Thomas Jefferson ~<><



begin:vcard
fn:Mark A. Aitken
n:Aitken;Mark A.
org:Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.;Engineering & Operations
adr:;;10706 Beaver Dam Road;Cockeysville;MD;21030;USA
email;internet:maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
title:Director of Advanced Technology
tel;work:(410) 568-1535
tel;fax:(410) 568-1580
tel;pager:page.maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
tel;home:(410) 357-9511
tel;cell:(443) 677-4425
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.sbgi.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2010