Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/28/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Few quick updates on the Seattle market: Verizon B5/B26 MFBI is now live in Seattle. Verizon is also replacing all of the antennas on many of their sites with new MIMO (and possibly NR-capable) antennas. It seems that in a large majority of these setups, only half of the ports are used—I think they will come back and hook up new RRUs (again maybe for NR) to these unused ports later. Verizon has historically had phenomenal site optimization and load balancing but not-so-great site density in my area, although recently, they have been closing that gap. Although they still seem to be avoiding using wooden utility poles as much as possible, they are colocating onto many existing macros and buildings as well as constructing their own towers. I think they will soon become a much stronger competitor to the other carriers in this market. All Sprint towers in the market that can support the weight are being upgraded to one hexadecaport antenna (4x4 800, 4x4 1900, 8x8 2500) and one 8T8R antenna (8x8 2500) per sector. Sites with weight limitations are also getting triband upgrades but with lower order MIMO. The common setups in order of weight are: A single hexadecaport antenna (4x4 800, 4x4 1900, 4x4 2500) per sector. A standard 6-port dual-band NV antenna (2x2 800, 4x4 1900) and a 10-port dual-band next-gen antenna (2x2 800, 8x8 2500) per sector. (This setup is quite rare). A single decaport triband antenna (2x2 800, 4x4 1900, 4x4 2500) per sector. I haven’t seen any L600 in the Seattle metro on T-Mobile yet. They largely seem to have stagnated over the last year or so. Many sites (probably 1/4 or 1/5) still don’t have L700, mostly sites on wooden utility poles or powerlines. I haven’t seen permits or anything to upgrade these sites... AT&T also seems to have largely stagnated in the Seattle market following their WCS rollout. That being said, their network is probably holding up the best in my immediate area. They have the best site density in my market and their 15x15 lowband and 20x20 midband is working out really great for them.
  2. 3 points
    They are not saying two different things. They are saying two different parts of the same story. Combs: we are investing 5-7 billion in out network for the next two years. Marcelo: we are but it will not likily change the overall market and we wont gain significant scale out of the investment. Combs: we are building a a 5g network with deep spectrum assets. Marcelo: yes we are, but it will be limited geographically to major metros and it wont penetrate buildings for crap. See? Same story, just different parts.
  3. 3 points
    Also we really need to stop acting like what is being said is new information. Marcelo says Sprint is going to need to spend $20-25 Billion over the next 4 years to build out 5G coverage to urban and suburban areas. Sprint already said they plan on spending $5-6Billion in capex per year going forward. Marcelo said Sprint doesn't have the spectrum to deploy 5G across its entire footprint and will be forced to stay within urban centers and their suburbs. We already knew that given how 2.5GHz propagates and that 5G deployment at least initially would focus on areas that would provide the largest return on investment. The only thing new is the that Marcelo is saying that he thinks this increased investment won't be enough to take on Verizon and AT&T. The information hasn't changed, only the tone. The change in tone is simply to sell the merger as a necessity.
  4. 2 points
    Prayers have been answered. Somehow sprint has LTE in Penn Station. I havent seen any change in the DAS antennas that are all over but I'm getting strong B25 signals. Same set up as above ground 10x10 + 5x5. Speeds aren't great but it's better than before. I guess this is sort of a GMO conversation type of set up for a DAS. edit: just got confirmation there is also B26 but B41 is still pending with no date. my guess is the antennas can't broadcast 2500mhz
  5. 2 points
    I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon. Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.
  6. 1 point
    Basically. The CDMA model uses a Qualcomm modem whereas the GSM model uses an Intel modem, therefore no CDMA support. -Anthony
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    Because they read this forum and want to make you all happy
  9. 1 point
    The hell? downloading now. This makes what 3 updates in 4 weeks? not that I am complaining but why no many updates in such a short period of time.
  10. 1 point
    Just had another update today.
  11. 1 point
    Once again, it's the same information with a different tone. In the context of mmWave being the standard spectrum for deployment of high speed 5G services, yes Sprint's 2.5GHz is lowband. 2.5GHz can be deployed throughout urban and suburban areas in a cost effective manner while still providing the gigabit speeds you see from mmWave. mmWave in itself is not a practical way to deliver 5G services to anywhere outside of dense urban areas and even T-Mobile acknowledges that. You can see in the filing that the areas where they expect to match Sprint in high speed 5G are pathetically small compared to Sprint. To these points, the term nationwide in used in two contexts, blanket coverage and covering cities across the country. If you expected Sprint to offer blanket coverage over 2.5GHz, I don't know where you got that idea. Neither T-Mobile, nor Verizon, nor AT&T offer blanket LTE coverage over their midband holdings. Sure they cover a lot of the country but it's mostly due to their 700MHz and 850MHz holdings. And while 600MHz offers great coverage, the speed it produces will be similar to LTE. Because of this, I'd say it isn't unfair to call 600MHz the spectrum of the past. In use it resembles LTE more than it embodies the high speeds that we expect from 5G. I really don't understand why you're railing hard against Sprint and 2.5GHz when T-Mobile has expressed even more doubts about how well its 600MHz will be for 5G. They spent billions on what's only barely faster LTE. TL;DR Sprint alone will have great speeds but not great coverage. T-Mobile alone will have great coverage but not great speeds. Neither of these is new information and isn't a change in tune from what we heard previously.
  12. 1 point
    I just find it ironic how Dr. Saw used to say how 5G over Millimeter Wave wasn’t economically feasible (https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/sprint-says-no-to-mmwave-yes-to-mobile-5g/d/d-id/739592) Sprint's CTO said Wednesday that he is not sure that using millimeter waves to deliver 5G services is a practical economic use of the high-band spectrum and that Sprint will be focusing on using its existing bandwidth to deploy 5G, at least initially. "What is the cost to deliver a bit over millimeter waves? Where is the business case on that?" John Saw asked at the Citi conference in Las Vegas. Instead, we heard that 2.5 GHz was the lowband of 5G:(http://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Sprint-Kicks-Off-5G-Demonstration-at-Copa-Amrica-Centenario-in-Philadelphia-with-Speeds-Up-to-4-Gbps/default.aspx) “The cornerstone of 5G will be massively dense networks that use high-bandwidth spectrum to deliver vast amounts of data at tremendously high speeds,” said Dr. John Saw, Sprint CTO. “Our 2.5 GHz spectrum is the low-band spectrum of 5G. And with holdings of more than 160 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum in the top 100 U.S. markets, we hold more 5G-capable spectrum than any other carrier. This gives us great confidence in our position for 5G.” And now we hear from Marcelo’s statements to congress that deploying 2.5 GHz nationwide isn’t economically feasible. We also heard that Sprint lacks the low band spectrum (read 600 MHz) to deploy 5G nationwide... which is what T-Mobile got in the 600 MHz auction, which Sprint didn’t participate in because it was called “spectrum of the past”, derided for taking years to deploy, etc.... we were assured it wasn’t about the money by the then CFO... Meanwhile, T-Mobile wound up with a boatload of it and Sprint also helped ensure this would happen because it advocated along with Dish for a 40 MHz reserve, which actually wound up being 30 MHz but no matter... so here we are.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Good to see Sprint still investing on the network as planned, especially on Massive MIMO. Allocated a billion dollar purchase order on M-MIMO alone! Webcast of John Saw discussion with Well's Fargo. https://cc.talkpoint.com/well001/062118a_as/?entity=3_Y4ISKKL
×