Iden Thinning team

[Josh]

It can still benefit Sprint and Clearwire in both ways. WiMAX needs to be phased out soon for full LTE power!

WiMax only uses 10MHz bands and clearwire has enough spectrum that they will not launch all the remaining spectrum in the next few years, Wimax is not hurting anything and not in the way, keep the cash cow until no one is on the network.

 

They're committed to WiMAX until 2015. Besides they have more than enough spectrum to run LTE and WiMAX concurrently and they're getting mileage out of WiMAX via Virgin and Boost. There's no reason to be in a rush to put it out to pasture.

Not to mention Freedom Pop and Net Zero, along with other wholesale customers and clearwire's direct customers... sprint is not the only ones using the wimax.

 

Re: homes having lower electrical consumption than Nextel sites, keep in mind that homes have power usage spread across the entire place (with the exception of A/C0, while cell sites (and, really, any data center-esque environment) has really dense power requirements, which run nonstop. Factor in less than efficient cooling apparatus and you end up with some high power bills. Anyone want to multiply out several kilowatts per hour, every hour, for a month? Then add 50% onto that for cooling? I certainly don't want to pay that power bill.

There is no comparison from a house to a cell site. Cell sites use high amounts of energy to throw radio signals for miles in every direction, that is what uses the energy. The cooling of the cabinet is also included, but it is just to keep it from melting down. I would still say that even with inefficient old equipment, and a inefficient dying technology, $3000 for power still sounds high... but I will be interested to know if the savings really are that great.

[WiWavelength]

Since the cost of electricity usage has come up in this thread, here is a potential frame of reference. An AT&T cell site atop Samuel L. Jackson's apartment building in NYC has been stealing electricity to the tune of $40,000 per year.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/residents-upper-east-side-building-home-samuel-jackson-t-pay-750-000-refund-electric-bill-charges-article-1.1120523

 

AJ

[jefbal99]

Since the cost of electricity usage has come up in this thread, here is a potential frame of reference. An AT&T cell site atop Samuel L. Jackson's apartment building in NYC has been stealing electricity to the tune of $40,000 per year.

 

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1120523

 

AJ

 

Wow, that is crazy and the slap in the face offer from at&t is even worse. I hope this group sues the pants off at&t, and everyone else they've been stealing from. If any company is doing this, they need to settle up and give something back (i.e free service, credits to existing customers, etc.)

[digiblur]

Wow GSM is very thirsty like iDen? I need to go check out the meter in my area again and write down the kwh again on 2 separate days again. I did it before but forgot the numbers. I remember it being under $200 a month I figured though, and I wouldn't be surprised with the old school equipment that is located at this tower due to the affiliate that installed it and Sprint really hasn't touched much here since they took over back in 2005 or so.

[cdiao]

Comparing it to iDEN and EVDO, Clearwire all-IP WiMAX network architecture makes it efficient at a lower cost from its compact design.

 

 

I believe that the footnotes are incorrectly notated and that they should be switched between footnote 2 and footnote 3. note that a major element of "efficiency" in this powerpoint is comparing capital with opex in that CLWR in this example is using digital microwave for backhaul (vs leasing fiber). Besides potential QoS issues related to DM such as weather or foliage, the comparison itself is self-serving because both carriers can elect to employ identical backhaul (it is not some inherent advantage of WiMax). The tower rent differential is somewhat specious because it is premised on CLWR negotiating better site rents than legacy cellular carriers. This isn't some great "efficiency" inherent in WiMax and at most reflects smaller footprints of later generation technology cell site equipment used by CLWR when compared with the legacy systems of cellular carriers (remember their equipment also support voice carriers), which the latest generation cell sites such as Sprint's NV would also have similar size and power attributes as CLWR's WiMax. This page is part of the "spin" that the company used to entice the investment community, who didn't know any better.

 

CLWR is building its LTE "overlay" on its existing footprint by cherry picking sites that are high volume network "hot spots" - that is why it chose not to piggy-back Sprint's NV build by co-locating on Sprint's cell sites (at least for the initial build) since CLWR enjoys operating "sunk costs" from its existing WiMax sites (tower rent, power, and backhaul). So until it turns its WiMax dark, perhaps in the 2015 time-frame, it is unlikely to reduce its ongoing operating cost to keep the network up and running, and even then only by the reduction in those WiMax only sites that it has chosen not to deploy LTE at (i.e. those sites that were originally built for "coverage" and otherwise not economically viable when viewed purely on a usage-demand basis). Hopefully CLWR can match the inevitable decline in WiMax revenues with some reduction in network opex by pruning the WiMax network, while simultaneously grow revenues from its TD-LTE hot spot capacity shaving business sufficiently to pay for the network opex that will remain. It's seems like a tricky path to navigate and not without some financial execution risk (it's not the technology but CLWR's ability to secure revenues from its commercial relationships). The bet is that the other carriers will be desperate for capacity off-load by then or otherwise will value CLWR's exceedingly fat pipe. I hope that's the case because I would love some of that 40Mhz TD-LTE wideband pipe.

[S4GRU]

 

I believe that the footnotes are incorrectly notated and that they should be switched between footnote 2 and footnote 3. note that a major element of "efficiency" in this powerpoint is comparing capital with opex in that CLWR in this example is using digital microwave for backhaul (vs leasing fiber). Besides potential QoS issues related to DM such as weather or foliage' date=' the comparison itself is self-serving because both carriers can elect to employ identical backhaul (it is not some inherent advantage of WiMax). The tower rent differential is somewhat specious because it is premised on CLWR negotiating better site rents than legacy cellular carriers. This isn't some great "efficiency" inherent in WiMax and at most reflects smaller footprints of later generation technology cell site equipment used by CLWR when compared with the legacy systems of cellular carriers (remember their equipment also support voice carriers), which the latest generation cell sites such as Sprint's NV would also have similar size and power attributes as CLWR's WiMax. This page is part of the "spin" that the company used to entice the investment community, who didn't know any better.

 

CLWR is building its LTE "overlay" on its existing footprint by cherry picking sites that are high volume network "hot spots" - that is why it chose not to piggy-back Sprint's NV build by co-locating on Sprint's cell sites (at least for the initial build) since CLWR enjoys operating "sunk costs" from its existing WiMax sites (tower rent, power, and backhaul). So until it turns its WiMax dark, perhaps in the 2015 time-frame, it is unlikely to reduce its ongoing operating cost to keep the network up and running, and even then only by the reduction in those WiMax only sites that it has chosen not to deploy LTE at (i.e. those sites that were originally built for "coverage" and otherwise not economically viable when viewed purely on a usage-demand basis). Hopefully CLWR can match the inevitable decline in WiMax revenues with some reduction in network opex by pruning the WiMax network, while simultaneously grow revenues from its TD-LTE hot spot capacity shaving business sufficiently to pay for the network opex that will remain. It's seems like a tricky path to navigate and not without some financial execution risk (it's not the technology but CLWR's ability to secure revenues from its commercial relationships). The bet is that the other carriers will be desperate for capacity off-load by then or otherwise will value CLWR's exceedingly fat pipe. I hope that's the case because I would love some of that 40Mhz TD-LTE wideband pipe.[/quote']

 

I like the 500 sites noted, whereas Cellular has 125. The difference being propagation, of course. But they spin it as capacity. Kind of funny.

 

It is true though. When you consider that Clearwire can deploy several 20MHz carriers in a much more dense network. The amount of capacity is staggering to consider when you compare to VZW or ATT.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[jefbal99]

So when is the next round of iDen thinning scheduled for? Will Sprint/Nextel try to select a market and convert the customers (or let them leave), then shutdown iDen in that area or just slowly nationwide reduce coverage until its all turned off?

[Rasta Cheesehead]

So when is the next round of iDen thinning scheduled for? Will Sprint/Nextel try to select a market and convert the customers (or let them leave), then shutdown iDen in that area or just slowly nationwide reduce coverage until its all turned off?

 

No more thinning, its gonna be shut down by June of 2013. The thinning was to reduce capacity and cost on a network that was built to handle 20 million pople, but only had 4 million

[jefbal99]

No more thinning, its gonna be shut down by June of 2013. The thinning was to reduce capacity and cost on a network that was built to handle 20 million pople, but only had 4 million

 

Wow, I figured they'd either continue thinning or target under utilized areas and get people moved over to Sprint, then shut down unneeded towers or free up spectrum for 800Mhz 1x Advanced.

[pyroscott]

Wow, I figured they'd either continue thinning or target under utilized areas and get people moved over to Sprint, then shut down unneeded towers or free up spectrum for 800Mhz 1x Advanced.

 

The plan was to thin throughout this year, but they were very aggressive and got it done really early. They should already have spectrum freed up for the 800 MHz 1xA carrier

[S4GRU]

 

Wow' date=' I figured they'd either continue thinning or target under utilized areas and get people moved over to Sprint, then shut down unneeded towers or free up spectrum for 800Mhz 1x Advanced.[/quote']

 

They targeted all the areas and removed all the iDEN they can. Any additional thinning would have a pretty adverse effect on coverage. They targeted the absolute maximum the network could likely support and still function cohesively.

 

I believe they can still deploy 1x on 800 channel 476 without additional thinning. I believe the conflicting iDEN carriers around wideband Channel 476 can be turned off quite easily leaving the higher iDEN channels in place. So existing iDEN operations should have no impact on Sprint deploying CDMA 800.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

[jefbal99]

Thanks for the info guys, I thought we needed additional thinning for 800mhz nationwide cdma

 

Sent from my CM9 Epic 4g Touch using Forum Runner

[Rasta Cheesehead]

Thanks for the info guys, I thought we needed additional thing for 800mhz nationwide cdma

 

Sent from my CM9 Epic 4g Touch using Forum Runner

 

That is some what true. Sprint said it will only deploy 800 cdma in approximately 80 percent of the top 100 markets at first for network vision.. I think it needs iden completely shut down for nation wide and still may not have enough 800 for all Sprint locales to receive .800.. I think border locations near Mexico

[jefbal99]

 

That is some what true. Sprint said it will only deploy 800 cdma in approximately 80 percent of the top 100 markets at first for network vision.. I think it needs iden completely shut down for nation wide and still may not have enough 800 for all Sprint locales to receive .800.. I think border locations near Mexico

 

didn't Sprint/fcc setup something with the Mexican gov't to be able to refarm 800mhz on the border?

 

I thought the big question was the Canadian border.

 

Sent from my CM9 Epic 4g Touch using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

 

That is some what true. Sprint said it will only deploy 800 cdma in approximately 80 percent of the top 100 markets at first for network vision.. I think it needs iden completely shut down for nation wide and still may not have enough 800 for all Sprint locales to receive .800.. I think border locations near Mexico

 

That last 20% are in markets where they will have to use Channel 526 or in border areas, like you reference. Although, in my estimation, it won't be quite as high as 80% when considering POP's.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[digiblur]

The plan was to thin throughout this year, but they were very aggressive and got it done really early. They should already have spectrum freed up for the 800 MHz 1xA carrier

 

I don't think this was about spectrum, just about coverage. You figure they could control some things remotely on what channels can be used, etc.

[pyroscott]

I don't think this was about spectrum, just about coverage. You figure they could control some things remotely on what channels can be used, etc.

 

You're probably right. I'm not familiar with the channel/frequency reuse distance and reuse factor of iDEN.

[WiWavelength]

I don't think this was about spectrum, just about coverage. You figure they could control some things remotely on what channels can be used, etc.

 

In some ways, iDEN thinning is about spectrum, as iDEN thinning is essentially the reverse of cell splitting. Furthermore, since iDEN is a TDMA/FDMA based airlink, it is subject to frequency reuse constraints. Unlike CDMA2000, iDEN cannot utilize the same frequencies on adjacent cell sites. So, by taking cell sites out of service, Sprint is potentially freeing up the amount of spectrum deployed on those sites.

 

For example, imagine that carrier X deploys iDEN and holds 20 MHz of spectrum. If carrier X has only one cell site, then it can deploy all 20 MHz on that site. If carrier X adds an adjacent cell site, then it has to split the spectrum, 10 MHz per site. If carrier X adds two more adjacent cell sites, then it has to split the spectrum yet again, 5 MHz per site. (At this point, carrier X has a cluster of four cell sites and can likely repeat this cluster configuration as it continues to add sites. This is a common configuration called N=4 frequency reuse.) Now, if carrier X takes one of the four cell sites out of service, it can redistribute the 5 MHz of spectrum to the remaining three sites. Or carrier X can utilize that 5 MHz for other purposes.

 

AJ

[Rasta Cheesehead]

 

 

I don't think this was about spectrum, just about coverage. You figure they could control some things remotely on what channels can be used, etc.

 

It sa about Spectrum also. Sprint said it needed a 2.67 MHZ slice of that iden 800 spectrum to deploy its one 1x advanced carrier in those markets.. thinning did not occur in all iden markets. Just the under utilized ones and the spectrum constrains ones

[Josh]

In some ways, iDEN thinning is about spectrum, as iDEN thinning is essentially the reverse of cell splitting. Furthermore, since iDEN is a TDMA/FDMA based airlink, it is subject to frequency reuse constraints. Unlike CDMA2000, iDEN cannot utilize the same frequencies on adjacent cell sites. So, by taking cell sites out of service, Sprint is potentially freeing up the amount of spectrum deployed on those sites.

 

For example, imagine that carrier X deploys iDEN and holds 20 MHz of spectrum. If carrier X has only one cell site, then it can deploy all 20 MHz on that site. If carrier X adds an adjacent cell site, then it has to split the spectrum, 10 MHz per site. If carrier X adds two more adjacent cell sites, then it has to split the spectrum yet again, 5 MHz per site. (At this point, carrier X has a cluster of four cell sites and can likely repeat this cluster configuration as it continues to add sites. This is a common configuration called N=4 frequency reuse.) Now, if carrier X takes one of the four cell sites out of service, it can redistribute the 5 MHz of spectrum to the remaining three sites. Or carrier X can utilize that 5 MHz for other purposes.

 

AJ

 

I did have some questions about the 800MHz spectrum that sprint owns, and I bet AJ knows...

 

I have heard that it was a 14MHz slice, but is it completely nationwide coverage? I thought that Southern Link also had some ESMR spectrum and was still using it. As I understand, in those areas sprint does not have enough spectrum for a whole LTE carrier +voice carrier. (http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20040701/sub/nextel-southernlinc-reach-agreement-for-800-mhz-rebanding/) But are there other areas that sprint does not own the whole 14MHz of ESMR?

Could the SouthernLINC and border areas account for most of the 20% that they will not be able to deploy LTE? Also, would there be any chance/benefit of sprint purchasing SouthernLINC in the future(or any other owners of spectrum in the 800MHz band), and is the ESMR spectrum their only spectrum?

[ericdabbs]

Josh....I'll let AJ explain the details but yes you are right in that the 14 MHz slice is not nationwide and the region of the US that I know for sure that has less than 14 MHz slice is in the southeast region of the US like Atlanta. Since SoutherLinc owns a decent portion of 800 MHz that hugs right next to the ESMR band and doesn't provide enough guard band between iDEN and CDMA so Sprint has to move up their center freq of the CDMA carrier and LTE carrier to a higher channel number than what they would do for a market which has the full 14 MHz slice . I think this is why people say those regions have less than 14 MHz of useable 800 MHz spectrum.

 

If anything those areas that have less than 14 MHz slice could still deploy a 1x Advanced CDMA and a 3x3 MHz LTE carrier to still supplement the 1900 MHz LTE. Dan Hesse has said in most areas that have 14 MHz slice that they anticipate to deploy a 1x Advanced CDMA and a 5x5 LTE carrier.