Network Question 850mhz vs 1900mhz
whats the difference?
i looked at the definitions and i get that they are different frequencies and one is cellular and the other is PCS, but what separates them?
does 1900 provide a service area or something like that?
just wondering
thanks!
-VZW429
i looked at the definitions and i get that they are different frequencies and one is cellular and the other is PCS, but what separates them?
does 1900 provide a service area or something like that?
just wondering
thanks!
-VZW429
...
1900 is better/faster fo' data, but 850 has better building penetration/indoors reception.
...
is 1900 and 850 on every tower in their enhanced service area? or does it vary by tower?
...
PCS towers generally line highways and major cities. Reason being, from what I understand, the PCS radiowaves do not travel as far as digial 850... so more need to be present in comparison to digital towers. Another thing I have heard, is that it takes the same amount of money to build either tower.
Sprint (or the former) runs off of CDMA PCS towers...
There are pros and cons to all of the technologies.
Sprint (or the former) runs off of CDMA PCS towers...
There are pros and cons to all of the technologies.
...
Along time ago, in the 1970's, the Federal Communications Commission or FCC, licensed a spectrum of radio wave at 850mghtz for wireless telecommunications use. The licenses for this spectrum were auctioned off and only two service providers per region were allowed to have a license for the 850mghtz spectrum. Now fast forward to the early 1990's and the wireless business is booming. The FCC sees demand for wireless phones and service growing at a staggering rate and decides it needs to allocate another piece of radio spectrum to meet demand and allow more wireless service providers to operate in any given region. The 1900mghtz or 1.9ghtz spectrum was set aside for wireless phone use and auctioned off once again by the FCC. Clever marketing ta...
(continues)
(continues)
...
When you say weaker penetration, do you mean inside of buildings. If you do then why doesn't verizon work in any of the buildings or stores in the chicago but my sprint phone works great and it runs on 1900MHZ. People say that maybe there is a tower on top of the building but on all buildings and malls I doubt it.
...
repeasters in buildings are common. 850/1900 varies on vzw depending on what spectrum we are able to license (or obtain roaming agreements) in that market. With vzw (not sure about the others), large companies can elect to have repeaters or (in boeings case) full blown towers put in to their facilities. At a cost of around a million a pop for towers, there is a lot of thought put in to where it goes to get max reception.. wireless isn't perfect however and never will be.. but the carriers do what they can given zoning and land avalibility restrictions.
in cities, its tricky because buildings block line of sight. sometimes height of the building plays into things. There are so many variables in what determines where signals are good...
(continues)
in cities, its tricky because buildings block line of sight. sometimes height of the building plays into things. There are so many variables in what determines where signals are good...
(continues)
...
Right you are. As far as Chicago is concerned, I don't live there and I am not familiar with the Sprint vs Verizon situation there. Sprint may have pro actively placed more micro cells and repeaters in such facilities since the higher frequency is more prone to line of sight issues. There are about a half dozen ways to get coverage inside a large building including running charged wires or cables throughout the structure, micro cells which can be attached to the sides of the structure with minimal visibility and repeaters which serve as a kind of extension for a nearby macro cell.
...
Thank you. I always wondered about this and that makes some sense. Does Verizon plan on putting any of the repeaters or micro cells in buildings. People would like to use their phones in buildings to not only outside.
Thanks.
Thanks.
...
yes.. all of the carriers are working very hard to 1. improve coverage and capacity and 2. improving in-building coverage.
they will be putting on repeaters and implementing software and hardware to the phones and the network to enhance coverage and capacity.
"People would like to use their phones in buildings to not only outside."
very true, and we can see that becuase of a survey i put on here as well as many people leaving their wireline to go to their wireless, but in-building coverage (or lack there of) is problamatic and sub-par.
they will be putting on repeaters and implementing software and hardware to the phones and the network to enhance coverage and capacity.
"People would like to use their phones in buildings to not only outside."
very true, and we can see that becuase of a survey i put on here as well as many people leaving their wireline to go to their wireless, but in-building coverage (or lack there of) is problamatic and sub-par.
...
MORE THAN LIKELY IT IS. cellular companies like to place towers at it highest point so the range can be launched further. the dis-andvantage is people at about a 45 degree under the tower if its to highg may not have pretty good reception.
...
800/850 are not as good as 1.9ghz when it comes to data speeds and lower latency applications, however, 800/850 is better than the 1.9ghz when it comes to signal range and in-building penetration.
you also need more towers when you use 1.9ghz then you need for 800/850.
it is also very crowded at the 800/850 level and 1.9ghz isnt as much so it lets people to do more things without the big problems with interference and latency issues.
you also need more towers when you use 1.9ghz then you need for 800/850.
it is also very crowded at the 800/850 level and 1.9ghz isnt as much so it lets people to do more things without the big problems with interference and latency issues.
...
nextel18 said:
800/850 are not as good as 1.9ghz when it comes to data speeds and lower latency applications, however, 800/850 is better than the 1.9ghz when it comes to signal range and in-building penetration.
you also need more towers when you use 1.9ghz then you need for 800/850.
it is also very crowded at the 800/850 level and 1.9ghz isnt as much so it lets people to do more things without the big problems with interference and latency issues.
You keep trying to sound smart, but, each and every post shows how dumb you really are. Here is the real explanation:
https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php?fm=m&f ... »
Now STFU once and for all.
...
SF, my short and succint explanation is very similiar what he said... and what i said was correct.
"The truth is, any company running a wireless network on the 1.9ghtz frequency is at a disadvantage. The higher you go in radio frequency, the more ballistic and unstable the signal is. This results in weaker penetration, and shorter range when using comparable power levels of transmission compared to the 850mghtz frequency. "
said that :"800/850 are not as good as 1.9ghz when it comes to data speeds and lower latency applications, however, 800/850 is better than the 1.9ghz when it comes to signal range and in-building penetration. "
" A company using the higher frequency has to erect three times as many cellular sites as a compa...
(continues)
"The truth is, any company running a wireless network on the 1.9ghtz frequency is at a disadvantage. The higher you go in radio frequency, the more ballistic and unstable the signal is. This results in weaker penetration, and shorter range when using comparable power levels of transmission compared to the 850mghtz frequency. "
said that :"800/850 are not as good as 1.9ghz when it comes to data speeds and lower latency applications, however, 800/850 is better than the 1.9ghz when it comes to signal range and in-building penetration. "
" A company using the higher frequency has to erect three times as many cellular sites as a compa...
(continues)
...
