Search the Community

by Jeff Foster Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America. The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing. Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services. Short-Term Plan AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough. The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers. A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T. In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB. "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said. Data use is skyrocketing Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature. The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz. The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner. As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon. Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas. Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end. Is there really a shortage problem? The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA. In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum. "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years. A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work. So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it. Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on. These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed. Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated??? Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET

Found an article on FierceWireless speculating that Sprint may not jump into the AWS auction...Thoughts? http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analyst-sprint-might-pass-fccs-spectrum-auctions/2014-04-04?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Now all your WCS are belong to AT&T...

I'm getting up to speed on all the bits and pieces of the Sprint network after getting my Moto X smartphone about 6 weeks ago. I was trying to find some info on the number of EVDO rev. A carriers per sector at a typical site in the PCS spectrum constrained Chicago market. I guess what I'm trying to find out is the effective EVDO air link capacity available to me in the outer Chicago suburbs. I would find it hard to believe if there is only one EVDO carrier serving the whole area of a sector with only 3.1 Mbps theoretical max to share with everyone in my area. Out where I live, a typical tower serves about a 3 mile radius which I calculate a 120 degree sector would cover the users in a 9.4 square miles area (with the 3 sectors of the tower would cover abaout 28.3 sq miles). Ideally I perhaps could use a spectrum analyzer which I could maybe borrow from work, but if someone here has the scoop, it would be very helpful. Now if there is 2, 3 or 4 EVDO carriers per sector with the back haul to match, then I suspect there is some breathing room, and my phone perhaps can jump to the carrier that is least utilized, possibly by looking at SNR if I understand correctly. Also would I be correct to state that one 1X Adv carrier and 3 EVDO carriers would fit exactly into 5 MHz of spectrum? I appreciate any feedback as a brand new poster. Brian

CDMA is leaps and bounds better then GSM... And LTE was built upon GSM... And WiMAX is a little something different. What did Qualcomm have as their 4G initiative? Was it better then LTE/WiMAX? Was Qualcomm involved in either LTE/WiMAX development? Any CDMA goodness within either?

Rumor--Friends at US Cellular say they are going to be bought and they suspect it's Sprint doing the buying. Speculation is it's going to be by the end of the year.

So as my curiosity got the best of me, i figured id run down the basics of Sprint`s future plans to deploy LTE on the 800Mhz band. This topic is for anyone new to the site, and individuals who want to know the difference between lower, and higher frequency networks. Lower radio bands: Becomming a golden standard for most mobile network companies today, network carriers recently started to use the lower bands of spectrum, mainly for their LTE networks. Why is a lower band better: *Wider Geographical coverage(Better in-building access) *Faster speeds(Depending on the distance of the tower, and other factors that may influence the signal, and or speed of the network connection.) How a lower band can be hurtful: *The network on the lower band(800Mhz for example) is more affected by weather, and or other interfearences. Higher radio bands: Used mainly for 3G networks, as well as some LTE networks(Not very common for LTE networks). AT&T is one of the carriers who runs thier 3G/HSPA+ network on the 1800/1900 Mhz band. Although the numbers may seem pleasing, which at times they can be, everything has its ups and downs. Why a higher band is better: *Less affected by weather *Allows more spectrum for smaller cities *More efficient(Since the higher bands have less geographical reach, towers need less power to operate the networks. How higher bands can be hurtful: *Poor in-building coverage(Depending on the location of the serving cell site) *Less geographical range(towers that may be 3 miles away would not be accessable, as to where towers with lower bands at the same distance would be accessable.) Wrapping that bit of information up, we now get to sprint`s future plans to deploy their LTE network on the 800Mhz band, which was previously occupied by sprints iDEN network(Push to talk service). Not too long ago, sprint gloated about thier WIMAX network, which was deployed on the 2500Mhz band from the internet provider Clearwire. As we all know here, the speeds with wimax were not that bad when it all began, but then came a list of operating fees, maitenance, and poor speeds due to the available amount of spectrum. We also know that wimax did not work well at times in structures, mainly due to the high frequency band it was deployed on. From my guess, sprint does not want a repeat of the terror their WIMAX network brought them, so this time around, sprint is going to do things the right way. With LTE being on a lower band, more users with LTE capable devices will be able to access it, because of its wider geographical range. Also, since lower bands offer faster speeds, users can enjoy even faster downloads and youtube browsing. Also, due to the wider geographical range of lower frequency networks, less towers wil exist in areas, since one single tower running a lower frequency network can cover as much as two towers can that operate a higher frequency network, which leads to lowered operating costs, and better management. Do you guys think sprint is doing something right this time around?

While Googling about LTE, I came across this document on the FCC's website. The tidbit I found most interesting was the section on bandwidth options. It listed the standard 6 options (1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20) and then the "occupied bandwidth" for each carrier size (1.08, 2.7, 4.5, 9, 13.5, 18). I'm curious as to what exactly that means, and it brings up several questions. Since the occupied bandwidths and channel sizes for 5 MHz and above are proportional, does this mean that there is no "waste" from using two 5 MHz carriers instead of one 10 MHz carrier? For example, the 5 MHz carrier would have a peak speed of exactly half of the 10 MHz carrier. Is the unoccupied (so to speak) bandwidth required to be completely empty for the channel to work properly? If not, what is stopping Sprint from using the unoccupied bandwidth for CDMA carriers in ESMR? A configuration where the LTE carrier is sandwiched between a 1x and an EVDO carrier would fit into the 7 MHz they have in most places. The .25 MHz "extra" on each end of the LTE carrier would be shared with the CDMA carriers. It would look like this: |1|.25|4.5|.25|1|. I've read about an Australian carrier doing something similar with WCDMA and GSM when they refarmed either the 900 MHz or 850 MHz band.

http://www.engadget....-and-customers/ Anyone would like to chime in on how greatly this could affect the Midwest with their LTE rollout? Perhaps some 10mhz LTE deployments?

Phonescoop http://www.phonescoo...cle.php?a=11297 FCC http://hraunfoss.fcc...document=316703 FCC http://hraunfoss.fcc...document=316705 Some more spectrum news to chew on! Is AT&T giving up on AWS?!?

I was browsing Cellular Spectrum over at Wikipedia (great source, i know ) and I noticed that ITU recommended using the 900Mhz spectrum for wireless services in 2003. Band FQ Band UL DL Channel # UL Channel# DL VIII 900 880 - 915 925 - 960 2712–2863 2937 - 3088 What is the 900Mhz band used for in the US? Is this something that the FCC could auction off to wireless providers? It would be another lower frequency band that would offer great rural coverage or building penetration. However, it would require new devices and network build out. What say ye oh great minds of wireless spectrum?

So my question is in the future is it going to be possible to for sprint to make LTE on their 1900mhz spectrum when of course everyone switches from 3g devices to 4g LTE devices and have a lot of spectrum left after their evdo carriers are getting hammered anymore?

Nice to see them getting together to fight this... Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/06/t-mobile-sprint-and-directv-file-with-fcc-to-halt-verizons-aws/ Also: http://www.slashgear.com/verizon-faces-lte-fight-as-t-mobile-and-more-fight-aws-cable-deal-06217021/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slashgear+%28SlashGear%29 And here: http://ruraltelecomgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Joint-Ex-Parte-re-Redactions-2012_03_06.pdf