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

Unless this is a mistake. Mobilitie is also helping VZW on there small cell approach too. I'm familiar with them doing arenas with all the providers , just not small cell. http://www.downers.us/public/docs/agendas/2017/11-14-17/RES 2017-7580 - Right-of-Way License Agreement with Mobilitie, LLC - 11-14-2017_8260.pdf

This one has stumped me and I'm hoping someone can shed light on this... I have Sprint as my provider, and I'm out in a no-coverage area north of Lake Superior in Minnesota. I purchased a 20db gain Yagi antenna, and pointed it at the nearest tower, which is 16 miles away on the other side of a high bluff. The antenna is connected to a Wilson (WeBoost) amplifier Amplifier showing all green as it's at max power and working properly. I am getting a signal! It's a middle of the road "2-3 bar" -87 dBm signal on both my Android HTC 10 and my wife's iPhone 6S Plus Signal Check Pro says it's the Verizon tower, which makes sense as I'm pointing it at the 850 mhz Verizon tower. The problem is that calls do not work. No tones or audio when dialing and eventually it just disconnects, and no data connection available. I tried a Verizon MiFi and had similar results. It had a signal but couldn't connect. What's the problem? I've put in about $800 into this setup, and I don't want to give up on getting data and switching to Satellite if I'm very close to getting a connection! Thanks in advance for your ideas/explanations.

Am I the only one that likes to look at Verizon's coverage comparison tool. I think it gives a good idea of a carrier's generalized coverage as far as those cities that have been announced. However, it takes a while for it to get updated. I look at Verizon's map and think, no one will ever build an LTE network of that size. When I look at T-Mobile, I see a spotty, spread out network. AT&T is also spotty with a few highways covered here and there. Sprint seems to be more put together as in even if it is spotty, they are in blobs rather than random remote areas. I've also found a few places that Sprint has coverage in but not Verizon such as in southern Texas. http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/4g-lte.html

Daring Fireball linked to a really great piece in the New York Times over the weekend about how U.S. Consumers “may overpay by over a quarter of a trillion dollars for worse levels of service than customers in other countries receive.”

Something interesting I stumbled across on Twitter...Good idea...does Sprint have a "Bat Cave"? http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/08/network-cave-protects-emergency-equipment-60-feet-underground.html Check it out...

Supporting article: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/06/4461371/international-expansion-for-sprint.html If SoftBank/Sprint were to expand into Canada and Mexico, and offer Unlimited Roaming Data, with a an industry first Transnational voice+text+data Plan, wouldn't that be the most amazing thing ever? What would those specifics be? Isn't there still a CDMA1x network still in operation in Canada? Couldn't Sprint buy out that network? Rundown of Canadian Wireless Industry = Not Good - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6803/125/ And in Mexico, a CDMA1x/EV-DO carrier is still active, with an iDEN network as well... The 2.5Ghz frequency is has been open for business in Mexico for quite some time... Will Sprint buy that too? It it available for telecom use in Canada? My post is not well thought out. I don't want to take the time to research compatible frequencies. So help me out. I have the idea, now as a community, help build out this transnational vision!

With the FCC and Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have agreed to this new unlocking policy. How does this effect sprint phones such as the IPhone. I have heard that Sprint can unlock your phone but you can not take it to other carriers such as Verizon and the IPhone can only be used overseas. (Correct me if I am wrong). I am glad that this has finally happened. But when it comes to Sprint how would this work?

"This is pretty incredible when you think about it: Verizon has instituted a system where I actually have incentives to not use its network." http://bgr.com/2013/09/27/verizon-att-lte-data-cap-criticism/

"So you could argue that SoftBank’s ability to smack down bigger rivals like NTT-DoCoMo and KDDI did not hinge on the one-time surprise attack it staged in 2007. SoftBank has been able to keep its bigger rivals on the defensive through half a decade, introducing a variety of new pricing and marketing strategies." "If SoftBank does acquire Sprint (S) and/or Clearwire (CLWR), the obvious U.S. analogs to NTT-DoCoMo would be AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ)." http://www.bgr.com/2012/10/12/softbank-sprint-acquisition-analysis/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/07/21/sim-cards-have-finally-been-hacked-and-the-flaw-could-affect-millions-of-phones/ I had no idea that a SIM controlled so much. However, I would be much more concerned with my SIM-less CDMA handset being cracked than with a sim card that is easily replaced.

I've seen various times around the site that Verizon's 700 Mhz LTE site spacing is rather large and they don't have it deployed on all the towers they have EVDO, whereas Sprint is going to deploy 800 Mhz LTE on most (I think I've seen 85%?) of their sites. Meaning for in-building coverage Sprint would have a better set-up. Has AT&T done the same thing as Verizon and used the fact that 700 has a large range and deployed it to just achieve coverage? I haven't really seen a lot of mention of AT&T's LTE on this site and was curious how Sprint's 800 Mhz will likely compare to theirs once completed in an area.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/verizon-eyeing-wireless-business-canada-114557556.html

"... there is no sales growth to be had from chasing new customers; all the upside is now in squeezing more money from existing subscribers." Article: http://bgr.com/2013/06/21/att-verizon-fees-analysis/ Presentation: http://www.chetansharma.com/usmarketupdateq12013.htm

I have a question, outside of the data issue, Why is it that people refuse to be on sprint? I have seen people talk bad about Sprint more than T-Mobile.

Came across this website today that compares customer complaints to all carriers and locations. You will learn that every company has issues and significant ones. It will also help those people who want to switch carriers to see what reviews the other companies got. I learned sprint in NYC is rated 2nd and of all four carriers and every carrier has dead zones. (Not a lot of reviews on site but sill some interesting info) Check it out and add any thoughts. http://www.cellreception.com/coverage/ Click on your city at the bottom of page..or put zip but i learned clicking on city works better. I recommend adding your review and spreading awareness as well.

While commuting to work this morning on MetroNorth, the railroad put a copy of their monthly newsletter on all the seats. Interestingly enough, they officially stated that cell service is coming to the Park Avenue tunnel. This tunnel is the main artery between Grand Central and the outdoor world, and all MetroNorth trains travel through it. Interestingly enough, the big carriers have contracted Ericsson to provide the cell coverage throughout the tunnel and public WiFi in the terminal. AT&T, Sprint, T-mobile, and Verizon are all funding the project and it will take up to two years to complete. This announcement will soon be posted on MTA.info under the MetroNorth Mileposts section, but I was able to find an earlier report here: http://gothamist.com...g_to_grand.php Will this be a good thing for commuters or will it turn out to be annoying with people screaming "I'm in the tunnel can you hear me?" into their phones? Only time will tell!

I saw this from an article about Verizon FiOS at CES 2013 and wondered how they could ever broadcast live video over LTE when spectrum is hard to come by. I have FiOS service at home and have to say nothing beats fiber for home internet and tv. I just wish more companies would invest in infrastructure to provide for a more widespread fiber backbone. Verizon everywhere In his CES keynote, Verizon’s chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam indicated that FiOS TV won’t be limited to fixed line access in years to come. He said that Verizon may broadcast (multicast) live video over LTE in 2014. Mr. McAdam handed off a part of his presentation to a Ford Motor Company executive who described Ford’s Sync App link for smartphones – which indicated that Verizon, and not just AT&T , also has a focus on the connected car. http://www.telecompetitor.com/ces-verizon-updates-fios-redbox-instant-to-meet-borderless-lifestyle-demands/

"Verizon executive says selling phones off contract is a “great thing,” will watch T-Mobile along with AT&T before acting" http://www.pocketables.com/2013/01/verizon-executive-says-selling-phones-off-contract-is-a-great-thing-will-watch-t-mobile-along-with-att-before-acting.html

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-shammo-well-finish-lte-buildout-mid-2013/2012-11-08 The big question is whether "complete" now means something less than having LTE wherever 3G was before. Which is probably doable...all Verizon has left at this point are pretty rural areas where they'll be deploying for coverage rather than capacity (e.g. in Fredericksburg and Kerrville, TX where they have PCS spectrum and thus plenty of sites to choose from). But will VZW see enough money to be made to do it?

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=10900 The DOJ specified that a lot of the cross marketing stuff would not be allowed or limited. The cable companies made it pretty clear the cross marketing stuff had to stay. It will be interesting to see if this deal still goes through.

Today I was able to test a Verizon LTE Rezound and the Sprint LTE EVO from the same location. Here is the results: Sprint Download: 6065kbps Upload: 6599kpbs Ping: 62ms Verizon Download: 10867kbps Upload: 3907kbps Ping: 117ms

I know Sprint is the only carrier where we have (to my knowledge) information about which vendor is handling what part of their network, but I'm curious as to whether Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile have similarly regionalized their next-gen network deployments. For reference, here's who's building out networks for the Big Four, plus C-Spire and MetroPCS (since we now who they're using to roll out LTE): Verizon - Ericsson, AlcaLu, NSN AT&T - Ericsson, AlcaLu Sprint - Ericsson, AlcaLu, Samsung T-Mobile - Ericsson, NSN MetroPCS - Ericsson, Samsung C-Spire - AlcaLu AlcaLu = Alcatel-Lucent NSN = Nokia Siemens Networks ...and yes, Ericsson is really busy rolling out LTE, it seems.

Right now I'm tethered (via the official Sprint Mobile Hotspot app; I bought the 2GB data pack last week) to Sprint LTE via my GSIII in central Fort Worth, specifically 1709 E Hattie St (yes, bad part of town...it's a mission trip). I also have LTE on my iPad on Verizon, plus HSPA+ (not sure if it's dual-carrier) on my T-Mobile ZTE Rocket 3.0. Over the next few days, when I find the time, I'll be pounding all three carriers' networks with speed tests, traceroutes, etc. and will post with the results that I find. Results have been encouraging so far...I've been able to hit 27 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up (see this speedtest result for example: http://www.speedtest...d/214310452.png) on the network while inside one of the buildings here, though I just hit 17 Mbps down, 7 Mbps up on SoftLayer's speedtest while WiFi tethered. Latency-wise, I've hit sub-40ms to SoftLayer in Dallas, which is a good measure of network-specific latency since SoftLayer is extremely well-connected and is pretty much right next door. I'll post a traceroute sometime tomorrow. I just did a quick ping to 4.2.2.4 (Level3 anycasted DNS, with one cluster in Dallas) and hit 25ms at one point. Crazy stuff, for a cellular network. I'm being served (according to NetMonitor) by the tower at 140 Beach St., 2.07 miles away according to Google Maps. The signal from where I'm at right now (on the second floor, inside) is in the high -80s to low -90s according to my system status in Android settings (RSRP I assume?). Side note: it appears as though NetMonitor kicks the hotspot functionality offline :/. One side note: I didn't hit LTE on my trip from DFW to here until maybe ten minutes away. I had eHRPD from the moment I turned my phone on near the E concourse, and speeds were decent (1+ Mbps). But the way we drove I didn't hit 4G until a couple dozen cell sites, and a dozen miles, later (I have my NetMonitor logs turned on). So yeah...I can see why people are kvetching about LTE coverage being nowhere near complete in the DFW market EDIT 1: For some odd reason tethering seems to sporadically drop its connectivity (solution: restart tethering, reconnect my computer). Other than that, the web browsing experience is like I'm sitting on my home connection. Which is saying a lot...I have a $115/mo cable connection hooked to a $130 (today's dollars) 802.11n high power router

Situation: My friend has Verizon and is using an old blackberry. They were about to update and get a RAZR Maxx but I told them to hold off, its not the time to update. Email is very important, but using the internet on the blackberry has been frustrating. User also uses a lot of minutes, sometimes over 1,000 minutes per month. They need to sync email, contacts, and documents between the computer and phone and have everything available in the cloud/backed up locally. He doesn't like the iphone, he'd rather not follow the herd. He's old school but educated, so he's concerned about the personal data the apps collect on Android. Also he has an android tablet I bought them and he's not a huge fan of it, it gets the job done though. Blackberry is DOA so its not even on the table. My advice: I recommended waiting until sprint (or verizon) gets Windows phone 8. They like the interface (including my laptop running windows 8 release preview), its unique and not the iPhone. Windows phone 8 will get apps fairly quickly with windows 8 sharing a similar kernal (apps sharing a lot of code). Apps aren't too important but would be nice. Important: EMAIL, Docs, MAPS (big time), browsing the web. Back to SPRINT: Sprint would work in this scenerio. The minutes issue would go away because all mobile to mobile is covered under sprint. Data is unlimited so thats not an issue. My friend travels to rural locations though but since sprint roams on verizon, he basically keeps the verizon coverage. Network vision should be live in the fall/winter. That means LTE will be up, drop calls won't be an issue and data speeds should be consistent. Concerned: Verizon is known to be rock solid. I put up with sprint because I use wifi...a lot. My friend uses verizon constantly so i don't want them jumping in now while the network is still in flux. I'm still concerned sprint will not be as rock solid as verizon. Am I giving good advice?