3 and Vodafone

watty

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/09/vodafone_australia_hutchison/

3 and Vodafone do co-operate here. 3 coverage in many areas is via Vodafone mast gear and infrastructure.

Such a pooling of resources here would help 3 customers, especially if vodafone upgraded it's GSM from GPRS to EDGE or EDGE2 (50kbs ->240kbps ->1.2Mbps). Because GSM is TDMA/FDMA and not CDMA like 3G/HSDPA, it can in theory support several 1.2Mbps or 240kbps connections separately at once. With HSDPA, you very quickly have less than 800kbps with 5 simultaneous connections and 400Kbps down to 200kbps with 10 connections. It's possible for EDGE2 to sustain 10 x 1.2Mbps connections on GSM if there are no phone calls.

I can't really understand why people want to recycle 900/1800 MHZ as 3G instead of GSM. OK 14.4Mbps HSPA+ "sounds" better than 1.2Mbps, but for 10 users or more the EDGE2 wins. It's not economic to build 3G masts for only 4 users per sector.

drunkmonkey

Haven't 3 there own Infrastructure and only piggy back on Vodafone when they don't...

You can still get the 3GB broadband off 3 which allows you roam on Vodafone data bit it's way over priced at €39.99pm with 3GB usage as opposed to €19.99 with 15GB usage...

tbh, comreg should impose some measures to distribute the bandwith so everbody has a connection.....we don't need 4 different masts from 4 different companies....dosen't make sense...

helimachoptor

3 have their own 3G infrastructure, but in places where they dont they use Vodafones network.

watty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Haven't 3 there own Infrastructure and only piggy back on Vodafone when they don't...

You can still get the 3GB broadband off 3 which allows you roam on Vodafone data bit it's way over priced at €39.99pm with 3GB usage as opposed to €19.99 with 15GB usage...

tbh, comreg should impose some measures to distribute the bandwith so everbody has a connection.....we don't need 4 different masts from 4 different companies....dosen't make sense...

Centrally planed infrastructure vs competiton. Comreg is not for directly for consumer but the doctrine that Competition will benefit consumer. In many cases it just cuts margins so companies can't upgrade and makes it easy for new entrants. With out removing funding based on Telecom profits to directly fund Comreg and changing it to a direct levy on connected consumers (about 10 euro a year a person would be loads), Comreg won't regulate more in favour of consumers than Vendors.
90% of Comreg's current levy on Operators seems to be a stealth tax direct to government and nothing to do with funding Regulation or improving infrastructure.

The excess amount levy paid by Comreg to Government in 2007 is almost twice the 39Million direct government grant to 3 for NBS (an additional 40M from EU).

Bulmers

[QUOTE=watty;58959347

I can't really understand why people want to recycle 900/1800 MHZ as 3G instead of GSM. OK 14.4Mbps HSPA+ "sounds" better than 1.2Mbps, but for 10 users or more the EDGE2 wins. It's not economic to build 3G masts for only 4 users per sector.[/QUOTE]

ultimately less sites, less capex/opex, better coverage / in building penetration

watty

Yes those are good arguments for LTE or EDGE2 data on 900MHz also. None of those are good reason so spend money replacing existing bases.

CDMA based 3G/HSDPA is less spectrum efficent and needs more cells due to cell breathing.

LTE and GSM/EDGE2 doesn't have that flaw. I'll admit though that 3G voice call can be marginally better quality than GSM, But I was more thinking of Data.

Bulmers

but the thinking is that you could have one WCDMA900 BTS for 3 WCDMA2100 BTSs..this is the most appealing thing for operators as it's a huge opex / capex saving for the operator, plus there are new BTSs coming out from the vendors that can contain 2g/3g and LTE technologies in one cab..all driven for cost savings basically, operators ultimately aim to reduce their no of sites, less spend

watty

But to reduce contention, rising to numbing heights, they need to INCREASE the number of bases. Not decrease. They need 4x to 16x the number of masts for decent data speeds in many areas.

Increase range x2 and have less Masts = x4 contention.

Your increased range/ less masts thinking assumes only voice calls and only at a 5 year ago level. Also on W-CDMA contended data capacity per MHz can be 1/4 of EDGE2 contended data capacity. Now if you suggested replacing all GSM with LTE and using 1800Mhz for downlink and 900MHz for uplink, that would be good. Then the wasted 2MHz 900MHz Guard band and 1800MHz Guard bands give you extra capacity.
Uplink @ 900MHz and downlink @ 1800MHz is 90MHz each = 9 x 10MHz LTE FDD channels. Much more useful than 2.6GHz all in one band LTE. Or than 4 x FDD LTE each in 900MHz and 1800MHz. (Dual band radio more costly in handset/Modem).

The wide spacing makes handset and Modem filters very cheap. 900MHz is cheaper for Handset TX than 1800.

LTE downlink can be over x4 capacity of data per MHz at cell edge compared to W-CDMA.

drunkmonkey

watty wrote: »

But to reduce contention, rising to numbing heights, they need to INCREASE the number of bases. Not decrease. They need 4x to 16x the number of masts for decent data speeds in many areas.

Isn't that the problem 02 and voda face, they need to upgrade their masts, they could be still using some of the old digifone and eircell masts and locations which will be inadequate for 3G coverage....they have a pretty big job infront of them, planning permission and power could also get in the way.....have I that correct?

watty

People need to be educated in Four things:
1) After over 100 years the only effect found is cateracts for people that stare into Radar transmitters (2kW to 100kW peak power).

2) The more masts there are the lower the RF power

3) The handset radiates you with 1000 to 100,000 times more power than the mast. (Inverse Square Law)

4) There is almost no RF directly under a mast. A mast on top of the school or your house gives the kids about 200x less RF than a Mast down the street.

My belief is that objections grew originally out of Middle Class NIMBYism of we don't want to see that ugly metal lattice thing. Attempts to justify it with pseudo science came later.

Most of the eircell/eircom masts sold last year I think to Threefold. A mast company

ESB has a lot, also Garda rent them out,

Really the more masts there are the lower the height too. 15m (45ft) is typical roadside mast. Eircom wants 30m masts for Tetra. As cell usage increases you need more to reduce contention, then the aerials can bolt on around a domestic or Pub chimney.

With 4 times the masts you have at least 1/4 power on modem/handset worst case and in about 25% of cases 1/10th the power in areas than needed 1/2 to 3/4 power.

Bulmers

watty wrote: »

But to reduce contention, rising to numbing heights, they need to INCREASE the number of bases. Not decrease. They need 4x to 16x the number of masts for decent data speeds in many areas.
.

agreed but while not an RF planner, i do know that Operators are ultimately planning to have fewer basestations in the future due to technology. WCDMA900 would most likely be used as a macro layer, with LTE used in cities / high density areas. By the time this tech comes out, it would be expected backhaul would be all IP from the basestations to the Core

watty

[/If they do have fewer basestations, then dataspeeds will be worse, no matter what technology they use.B]
14.4Mbps HSPA+, 100Mbps LTE 4x4 MIMO etc all assume MORE, SMALLER cells.

Obviously there is a lack of RF planning coupled with a "look at coverage, never mind the speed attitude".

Anyone that thinks W-CDMA900 is method to have fewer cells or "advanced" knows very little about spectrum usage or RF planning.

In fact W-CDMA900 is an obsolete technology before it is deployed. EDGE2 on GSM is superior data capacity & cell throughput (lower "up to speed" for less than 5 users) and is mostly SW upgrade to any existing GSM/EDGE.
Either Wimax or LTE could be deployed on 900MHz with x2 better coverage than W-CDMA900, up to x4 capacity in same spectrum and no evil cell breathe.

W-CDMA900 cell breathe on a rural "get as much coverage as you can plan" even with MIMO and I-HSPA/HSPA+ will vary in coverage by over 50% to 70% of area with load. I suspect the idea of W-CDMA900 is being promoted as a "quick fix" by certain base station vendors and Operators should get a proper expert independent study by someone unconnect with basestation or phone handset vendors. A W-CDMA900 is x4 waste of spectrum, waste of money and a lost opportunity. If replacing GSM, then a new efficient technology should be used, not any wasteful CDMA based technology, all of which are obsolete.

They ALL need more rural basestations, no matter what technology they use. Pooling rural resources would help.