Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[bigsnake49]

It's not their decision to make. The FCC doesn't want them to merge.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

I am advocating merging networks, not companies.

[bigsnake49]

Someone in the comments section of this Engadget article regarding Sprint's auction announcement, this person named TimmmayTimmmay, has made a few comments stating that Sprint is using an old network "backbone". What exactly is this person referring to?

 

http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/26/sprint-passes-on-fcc-wireless-auction/

 

Edit Note : I'm pasting their comment here

 

"They're right, considering all the spectrum they are going to reallocate from WiMax. But the problem is the network backbone is ancient and overloads too easily. One of my Union friends here in Chicago was handling the wind-down of US Cellular here a few years ago when they exited the market (and sold it to Sprint) and he went on and on about how US Cellular's Huawei equipment was more compact, efficient, and cheaper to deploy than Sprint's, which was either really old Cisco equipment or "low-end" modern Cisco equipment (mostly 2941's) because they were too cheap to buy the all-fiber stuff.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/158342-a-rare-look-inside-an-lte-cell-site-operated-by-sprint-in-san-Francisco

 

It may appear high tech, and I know that article is 2 years old, but that is exactly what Sprint is still deploying NOW and the only thing that is fiber is the feed and interconnects. The antenna array is still 1Gbps copper, which means an 54 antenna (9x2, some ARE 9x3, in a triangle) site only has a theoretical maximum 5400MB/sec throughput, or ~5220MB/sec with overhead. That's ridiculous, and that's why Sprint's performance is so erratic. Considering current 4G LTE technology can throughput 50Mbps, that means <1000 customers could technically bring an entire cell site to its knees. So it's no wonder connections are artificially throttled to <20Mbps in my experience, testing at 4AM when the tower should be damn near idle.

 

This isn't a spectrum problem, this is a capacity problem. And the only saving grace is Sprint is bleeding customers, which means the towers are less loaded. The problem is they have a LOT of MVNO's like Virgin, Cricket, Ting, and so on, so the actual number of "customers" using these sites isn't clear (Sprint discloses they have 4.3 million customers through MVNO's but they don't disclose which of those have unlimited data, and many, such as Virgin, do, and those people while treat data like a cheap commodity."

He is totally confusing backbone and back haul. If you have 1000 people on one site you are freaking screwed no matter what. His math is very suspect.

[Fraydog]

He is totally confusing backbone and back haul. If you have 1000 people on one site you are freaking screwed no matter what. His math is very suspect.

 

There's times where Sprint isn't using enough speeds on the fiber links they have, but that's completely different than what he referred to. First off, Huawei has to be gone out of Sprint anyway. Secondly, most of the equipment Sprint is using in their network core is more modern than anything he referenced. 

[Arysyn]

He is totally confusing backbone and back haul. If you have 1000 people on one site you are freaking screwed no matter what. His math is very suspect.

There's times where Sprint isn't using enough speeds on the fiber links they have, but that's completely different than what he referred to. First off, Huawei has to be gone out of Sprint anyway. Secondly, most of the equipment Sprint is using in their network core is more modern than anything he referenced.

I figured that had to be it, though the way the comment has so much description to it made me curious of what the differences are in the technicalities. I think this must have been prior to NV, though the make it sound as though it was after that.

 

I certainly welcome all perspectives of this so I can learn a bit more about this technical stuff with wireless equipment. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about wireless network equipment as many people here are. So, any ideas, information, and opinions would be helpful.

[JonnygATL]

He already edited it. He said 1H 2015 for 3rd B41 carrier when he meant to say 1H 2016.

Oh ok. I guess I missed most of that.

[lilotimz]

I figured that had to be it, though the way the comment has so much description to it made me curious of what the differences are in the technicalities. I think this must have been prior to NV, though the make it sound as though it was after that.

 

I certainly welcome all perspectives of this so I can learn a bit more about this technical stuff with wireless equipment. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about wireless network equipment as many people here are. So, any ideas, information, and opinions would be helpful.

 

Basically Sprints equipment is the typical standard in the entire industry. The most subpar macro equipment were already replaced (early Alcatel-Lucent (Panasonic)) or in the process of being replaced (Ericsson RRUS11 B25s) with upgraded / superior equipment. 

 

The most significant issue affecting Sprint cellular sites is lack of cell site density thus increasing the amount of users on each cell (thus decreasing speeds) and backhaul limitations early on for LTE sites where they used sub par non scalable backhaul that topped out in the low double digit range. Said backhaul orders were completely discontinued in favor of semi scalable backhaul of up to 100-200 mbps range which can fully provision a standard Sprint multi 5x5 MHz setup. 

 

Ofcourse they cheaped out on backhaul too which meant most of the setups, many fiber fed, did not have equipment at the end of the lines that can boost it all the way to gigabit speeds. Thus they fired up sites provisioned as though it was a 5x5 MHz carrier (40 mbps) while orders went out for gigabit speed backhaul. 

[Jones]

 

Ofcourse they cheaped out on backhaul too which meant most of the setups, many fiber fed, did not have equipment at the end of the lines that can boost it all the way to gigabit speeds. Thus they fired up sites provisioned as though it was a 5x5 MHz carrier (40 mbps) while orders went out for gigabit speed backhaul. 

Great Post, thank you!

One question, have the gigabit backhaul orders been mostly completed? Does it require a site visit from the fiber tech or can they pay for higher speeds and then flip it on like when I called FiOS to get the 50/50 package?

[Ascertion]

Good representation of spectrum assets.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher?confirmation=123

 

Looks like Sprint only has 15-20Mhz in nothern Phoenix?  Is that correct, even with Clearwire's/Nextel's spectrum?

[lilotimz]

Great Post, thank you!

One question, have the gigabit backhaul orders been mostly completed? Does it require a site visit from the fiber tech or can they pay for higher speeds and then flip it on like when I called FiOS to get the 50/50 package?

 

It requires site visits on both fiber termination points and physical upgrade to equipment. It's like Google buying out Provo's fiber optic lines in Utah for Google Fiber and them having to upgrade all the physical hardware on the network for gigabit speed whereas the existing hardware is capable of a hundred mbs or so. 

 

If it's capable of higher speeds without visits then they've aready ordered the max that is physicaly capable in order to fire up additional LTE carriers like the many Band 41 sites that are or were provisioned initially 40 mbps and then upped to to the maximum (above 40) and activated with a second band 41 carrier for Carrier Aggregation. 

 

Most sites will be upgraded by EOY or early 1H 2016 with a small number that will need new backhaul deployed or ordered if its physically incapable of doing speeds required by Sprint such as copper backhaul fed from a fiber hub. 

[Arysyn]

Good representation of spectrum assets.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher?confirmation=123

 

Looks like Sprint only has 15-20Mhz in nothern Phoenix? Is that correct, even with Clearwire's/Nextel's spectrum?

Excellent post!!! Spectrum maps, similar to what I mentioned the other day! Although while not quite the same as a dedicated site with extra detailed information, this will do. I looked at the AllNet site, which charges alot of money for the data they had, though they certainly have the information needed, if they ever desired to have a site similar to what I proposed the other day. Then again, they wouldn't be able to both charge so much, while having a successful site.

[Arysyn]

The Sprint auction article on FW is becoming a Magentan troll festival. However, the article title of it, is pure clickbait for them, and clearly shows FW's bias against Sprint :

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-seen-winner-sprints-decision-bow-out-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2015-09-28

[jamisonshaw125]

The Sprint auction article on FW is becoming a Magentan troll festival. However, the article title of it, is pure clickbait for them, and clearly shows FW's bias against Sprint :

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-seen-winner-sprints-decision-bow-out-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2015-09-28

Look at how many times Fabian comments. It's really sad lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[derrph]

I say let them have a hoot and party in the comments. As a person who has one foot in the tech world and half as a average consumer, the average consumer side of me doesn't care I want reliable coverage NOW and not some 2+ years down the road. If I can't get that I'll just go elsewhere and get what I need who is currently offering it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JThorson]

This could all be a tactic on Sprints behalf. If more wireless providers back out, than the cable operators may not want to sell as much of their spectrum. If that were the case that would really hurt T-Mobile since they are the one that really needs it.

 

Now while I wish Sprint would go in the auction if not just to up the price, I do believe this is a smart and precise plan. While they are somewhat limited on low band spectrum, as others know the 600MHz won't be useful for at least a couple years. Why spend millions of dollars now on something you can't use when you can spend it on building out your network and strengthening your infrastructure.

 

I approve Sprint, you may now go forward with this plan and become the monster we know you're capable of. 

[S4GRU]

Good representation of spectrum assets.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher?confirmation=123

 

Looks like Sprint only has 15-20Mhz in nothern Phoenix?  Is that correct, even with Clearwire's/Nextel's spectrum?

 

I don't know if I would call it Northern Phoenix.  The entire metro is well covered with the maximum.  However, Prescott, Flagstaff and Sedona looked reduced in spectrum.  It says it includes 2.5GHz assets.  But one would need to check the licenses themselves to be sure.

[davidtm]

Good representation of spectrum assets.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher?confirmation=123

 

Looks like Sprint only has 15-20Mhz in nothern Phoenix?  Is that correct, even with Clearwire's/Nextel's spectrum?

I'm curious how much the relative dearth in Central Virginia is a result of nTelos and how much it will change as Shentel starts updating the network.

[Fraydog]

Luke makes a good point in the Fierce comments. If Verizon makes a deal with Dish, which personally I think is more and more likely, that leaves AT&T and T-Mobile as participants. AT&T could just decide that they'd be better off purchasing USCC and other CCA carriers to fill their spectrum holes in the middle of America over 600 MHz participation. Then what's going to happen? Broadcasters back out. T-Mobile is left with scraps at best.

 

I agree that, on the surface, this looks bad, however, there might be a different calculus at play here.

[Deval]

Luke makes a good point in the Fierce comments. If Verizon makes a deal with Dish, which personally I think is more and more likely, that leaves AT&T and T-Mobile as participants. AT&T could just decide that they'd be better off purchasing USCC and other CCA carriers to fill their spectrum holes in the middle of America over 600 MHz participation. Then what's going to happen? Broadcasters back out. T-Mobile is left with scraps at best.

 

I agree that, on the surface, this looks bad, however, there might be a different calculus at play here.

 

I'm in your boat. There has to be more at play, and I think Sprint is really banking on the densification project to really help solve today's problems.

[WiWavelength]

Good representation of spectrum assets.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher?confirmation=123

 

Looks like Sprint only has 15-20Mhz in nothern Phoenix?  Is that correct, even with Clearwire's/Nextel's spectrum?

 

No, you are completely misreading that report and its maps.  Note all of the qualifiers -- namely, LTE and downlink.

 

The former qualifier counts only spectrum that AllNet Labs deems present or possible for LTE deployment.  That is speculative right there, especially as the article states that AllNet Labs subtracts 10 MHz of PCS from both VZW and AT&T holdings to account for legacy voice services.  But what about T-Mobile and Sprint?  Plus, the VZW and AT&T subtraction is largely arbitrary.

 

The latter qualifier means that the spectrum depth is being expressed in FDD type format.  So, in parts of northern Arizona -- not northern Phoenix -- Sprint may have 15-20 MHz FDD, which means up to 40 MHz of total spectrum just for LTE.  And Sprint may actually have greater spectrum depth than that, since AllNet Labs is adjusting down any BRS/EBS spectrum holdings to account for TDD operation.

 

In the end, I have found AllNet Labs work published at FierceWireless to be surprisingly amateurish, providing analysis that is no better than I can do and have done, not to mention, operating on a lot of assumptions.  I will give AllNet Labs credit, though, for disclosing those assumptions in these published maps.  But this exercise seems about on the level of fantasy football stat projections.  In other words, not that reflective of reality.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

AJ, where are they getting their account of BRS/EBS spectrum holdings?

[WiWavelength]

AJ, where are they getting their account of BRS/EBS spectrum holdings?

 

FCC ULS.  The same source from which we all do.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

No, you are completely misreading that report and its maps. Note all of the qualifiers -- namely, LTE and downlink.

 

The former qualifier counts only spectrum that AllNet Labs deems present or possible for LTE deployment. That is speculative right there, especially as the article states that AllNet Labs subtracts 10 MHz of PCS from both VZW and AT&T holdings to account for legacy voice services. But what about T-Mobile and Sprint? Plus, the VZW and AT&T subtraction is largely arbitrary.

 

The latter qualifier means that the spectrum depth is being expressed in FDD type format. So, in parts of northern Arizona -- not northern Phoenix -- Sprint may have 15-20 MHz FDD, which means up to 40 MHz of total spectrum just for LTE. And Sprint may actually have greater spectrum depth than that, since AllNet Labs is adjusting down any BRS/EBS spectrum holdings to account for TDD operation.

 

In the end, I have found AllNet Labs work published at FierceWireless to be surprisingly amateurish, providing analysis that is no better than I can do and have done, not to mention, operating on a lot of assumptions. I will give AllNet Labs credit, though, for disclosing those assumptions in these published maps. But this exercise seems about on the level of fantasy football stat projections. In other words, not that reflective of reality.

 

AJ

Even though it isn't the best or as good as what could be done, the maps help at least somewhat, for those wanting at least a general idea of the spectrum holdings carriers have.

 

Although, it would be nice for there to be a site showing several different coverage maps, each one dedicated to a particular spectrum band, father than a combination of spectrum bands.

 

There also ought to be a clear distinction in which amount of spectrum is being used for data and which for voice. This would surely help those wanting to know more about a carrier's coverage than relying on increasingly generalized coverage maps put out by carriers.

[dnicekid]

Luke makes a good point in the Fierce comments. If Verizon makes a deal with Dish, which personally I think is more and more likely, that leaves AT&T and T-Mobile as participants. AT&T could just decide that they'd be better off purchasing USCC and other CCA carriers to fill their spectrum holes in the middle of America over 600 MHz participation. Then what's going to happen? Broadcasters back out. T-Mobile is left with scraps at best.

 

I agree that, on the surface, this looks bad, however, there might be a different calculus at play here.

 

You have a very scary but possible scenario. My only question is where would leave sprint? That would seemingly force them into the auction. If not sprint would be left in a bad position if Tmo got a decent chunk of 600.

[dnicekid]

Hopefully the densification has been extremely well thought out. I am not yet sold on this bringing sprint over the top. I do believe it will help especially in urban areas. Do they plan on putting some real power into 800?

 

Sprint may also plan on some of their partners buying 600 and then buying them, but that would be dangerous at best. I believe son has a plan..... Didn't sprint just buy some 700??

[cdk]

Luke makes a good point in the Fierce comments. If Verizon makes a deal with Dish, which personally I think is more and more likely, that leaves AT&T and T-Mobile as participants. AT&T could just decide that they'd be better off purchasing USCC and other CCA carriers to fill their spectrum holes in the middle of America over 600 MHz participation. Then what's going to happen? Broadcasters back out. T-Mobile is left with scraps at best.

 

I agree that, on the surface, this looks bad, however, there might be a different calculus at play here.

 

AT&T could buy USCC, but they sure don't look like they are interested in selling. If they are interested in selling I am sure they will be open to looking at multiple suitors and I would mostly likely suspect some concessions will be made that could provide other opportunities.