Jump to content

Sprint files with the FCC on the PCS H block


bigsnake49
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017094139

 

It seems they really want the FCC to hurry up and auction this band. The only problem I see is if the FCC allowed the big two to bid. They would probably try to jack up the price for Sprint out of spite. The only way to prevent that is to put strict buildout requirements, let's say two years or less on deployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see statements like "By incorporating the H Block frequencies into existing operations, PCS licensees such as Sprint can provide additional capacity, higher peak speeds, and expanded service to customers."

 

I am curious if sprint is feeling a little heat from competing 10x10MHz TD-LTE solutions.

 

Maybe WiWavelength can explain what this means:

 

Sprint explained ways in which carriers could incorporate this spectrum into existing PCS portfolios, including through the use of two duplexers in H Block devices for a short period of time until a single duplexer solution could be implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the FCC would look too favorably on VZW trying to hoard this spectrum since it's looking like they're going to approve their AWS purchase from the cablecos. AT&T on the other hand would probably love to be able to stick it to Sprint after their part in blocking the T-Mobile acquisition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like for Sprint to get a substantial chunk of the PCS H block for another reason. If they do, then Dish spectrum is very close (only 5MHz separation between Dish's spectrum and PCS H block) so it stands to reason that at some point or another if Dish and Sprint cooperate that 5MHz sliver might just get thrown in for chits and giggles. Now that would be some impressive block of spectrum!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main competitor for sprint is AT&T, but I think AT&T will focus on the next AWS spectrum auction. I believe the FCC is freeing up another 40mhz. AT&T could probably go in and grab 20mhz nationwide since tmobile will likely be it's only main compeititor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its too bad LTE Band 25 didn't include H Block. It would require yet another LTE Band to cover all of PCS.

 

On another note, I'm not a big believer in 10MHz LTE carriers. One 10MHz carrier has roughly the same capacity as two 5MHz carriers. The only advantage is speed and bragging rights.

 

5MHz carriers offer more than sufficient speed for 99% of mobile broadband uses. Especially when the wireless carrier has more opportunities to deploy additional carriers as needed. If Sprint sticks with 5MHz channels, it becomes much easier to dig up more PCS spectrum for another carrier. If you are always looking for a 10MHz swath, your options for additional capacity are much fewer.

 

Since Sprint will have the densest LTE network of all, the capacity from a single 5MHz carrier is pretty good. And since they will have lots more flexibility for additional 5MHz carriers, it gives them more capacity expansion options.

 

I think consumers are looking for an inexpensive, consistently performing LTE network without data limits. I think that consumers will not want speeds greater than 10 - 15 Mbps, especially if they have to pay for it.

 

Also, if H Block has stringent build out requirements, expect Sprint not to go after nationwide licensing. They are not going to deploy in places like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas so soon. They may allow someone else to pick up those License areas.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its too bad LTE Band 25 didn't include H Block. It would require yet another LTE Band to cover all of PCS.

 

On another note, I'm not a big believer in 10MHz LTE carriers. One 10MHz carrier has roughly the same capacity as two 5MHz carriers. The only advantage is speed and bragging rights.

 

5MHz carriers offer more than sufficient speed for 99% of mobile broadband uses. Especially when the wireless carrier has more opportunities to deploy additional carriers as needed. If Sprint sticks with 5MHz channels, it becomes much easier to dig up more PCS spectrum for another carrier. If you are always looking for a 10MHz swath, your options for additional capacity are much fewer.

 

Since Sprint will have the densest LTE network of all, the capacity from a single 5MHz carrier is pretty good. And since they will have lots more flexibility for additional 5MHz carriers, it gives them more capacity expansion options.

 

I think consumers are looking for an inexpensive, consistently performing LTE network without data limits. I think that consumers will not want speeds greater than 10 - 15 Mbps, especially if they have to pay for it.

 

Also, if H Block has stringent build out requirements, expect Sprint not to go after nationwide licensing. They are not going to deploy in places like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas so soon. They may allow someone else to pick up those License areas.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

I don't think they will go for a nationwide license. They seem to have an aversion to Wyoming and Montana...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its too bad LTE Band 25 didn't include H Block. It would require yet another LTE Band to cover all of PCS.

 

On another note, I'm not a big believer in 10MHz LTE carriers. One 10MHz carrier has roughly the same capacity as two 5MHz carriers. The only advantage is speed and bragging rights.

 

5MHz carriers offer more than sufficient speed for 99% of mobile broadband uses. Especially when the wireless carrier has more opportunities to deploy additional carriers as needed. If Sprint sticks with 5MHz channels, it becomes much easier to dig up more PCS spectrum for another carrier. If you are always looking for a 10MHz swath, your options for additional capacity are much fewer.

 

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Wider channels have the advantage of not needing guard bands except at the endpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe WiWavelength can explain what this means:

 

I interpret that to mean that the PCS/AWS-2 H block could at first be treated as its own band, then absorbed later into yet another superset band. To illustrate, PCS A-F blocks are band 2, PCS A-F blocks are superset band 25, PCS A-H blocks could end up as superset band 27. But, to expedite deployment, a PCS H block licensee could offer devices that initially include a separate duplexer for the PCS H spectrum. Then, once the superset band is established, a single duplexer would suffice, just as it is today for Sprint's band 25 devices.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the 3GPP's structure of these Band Classes. When someone request a extension of a Class, the Band Class with the extension should be the same, given a revision number, and then after a period of no activity with regards to extensions, finalize it.

 

If Sprint & Dish can get a band class that covers their spectrum along with the rest of PCS, they'll have a nice super-duper band class for them and device manufacturers to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wider channels have the advantage of not needing guard bands except at the endpoints.

 

That is true with CDMA1X/EV-DO but not with LTE. Like W-CDMA, LTE uses internal guarding within each carrier. For example, the occupied bandwidth of a 5 MHz LTE downlink is effectively 4.5 MHz (e.g. 300 subcarriers × 15 kHz spacing = 4.5 MHz), while the occupied bandwidth of a 10 MHz LTE downlink is effectively 9 MHz (e.g. 600 subcarriers × 15 kHz spacing = 9 MHz). So, the ratio of the occupied bandwidth to the internal guarding bandwidth is the same; the wider LTE carrier does not have an advantage. The only exception to this is the 1.4 MHz LTE downlink configuration. It does have a lower, less efficient ratio of occupied bandwidth to internal guarding bandwidth and is to be avoided, if at all possible.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sprint & Dish can get a band class that covers their spectrum along with the rest of PCS, they'll have a nice super-duper band class for them and device manufacturers to work with.

 

Unfortunately, that would be impossible, as Dish's S band/AWS-4 spectrum has only its uplink (or downlink, as that has yet to be decided) but not both adjacent to PCS A-H blocks. Once Dish's spectrum is fully classified as AWS-4, it will be have its other paired link several hundred MHz away or go unpaired. Regardless, it will require a separate band/band class.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest anyone get too excited at the prospect of Sprint acquiring the PCS/AWS-2 H block, Sprint may have an ulterior motive for this filing to expedite auction of the spectrum. I believe that I have mentioned this previously, but, in order to take possession of the PCS G block, Sprint had to pay out of pocket approximately $750 million to relocate the BAS (Broadcast Auxiliary Service). This relocation also cleared the PCS H block. Thus, any PCS H block licensee (other than Sprint) will have to reimburse Sprint for a pro rated portion of those relocation costs. In other words, Sprint may just want to recoup a few hundred million bucks.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest anyone get too excited at the prospect of Sprint acquiring the PCS/AWS-2 H block, Sprint may have an ulterior motive for this filing to expedite auction of the spectrum. I believe that I have mentioned this previously, but, in order to take possession of the PCS G block, Sprint had to pay out of pocket approximately $750 million to relocate the BAS (Broadcast Auxiliary Service). This relocation also cleared the PCS H block. Thus, any PCS H block licensee (other than Sprint) will have to reimburse Sprint for a pro rated portion of those relocation costs. In other words, Sprint may just want to recoup a few hundred million bucks.

 

AJ

$750 Million flat? Sounds like a bargain compared to the 800MHz move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think tmobile will focus on the AWS-3 auction. I do think AT&T could attempt to steal sprint thunder and grab some of the spectrum, but if it has a strict building requirement, I believe we will see them go after the AWS-3 since they could potentially get 20mhz nationwide. I also think AT&T has bigger fish to fry than cockblocking sprint. If they do not kick it up a notch, they will get left behind by Verizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main competitor for sprint is AT&T, but I think AT&T will focus on the next AWS spectrum auction. I believe the FCC is freeing up another 40mhz. AT&T could probably go in and grab 20mhz nationwide since tmobile will likely be it's only main compeititor.

 

Yes I agree that AT&T is going to be the main competitor for the PCS H block spectrum. However if the Verizon deal gets approved, Verizon has said it would do the concessions of the Verizon/Tmobile spectrum swap AND sell its 700 MHz A and B blocks. I am sure AT&T is going to gobble up all of the 700 MHz B block spectrum since it coincides with their 700 MHz holdings and the rest like Metro, US Cellular, etc are going to gobble up the 700 MHz A block.

 

If this is true, then the FCC could look at AT&T and say you recently bought up spectrum in the 700 MHz so you should have sufficient spectrum and not allow AT&T to gobble up as much PCS H spectrum as they would have liked. Besides I think that the FCC should also consider whether the carrier that is obtaining the new spectrum is planning to build LTE in that band. It seems like AT&T is focused on trying to deploy LTE on the AWS spectrum so why should they get PCS spectrum? We know that Sprint would use the H block spectrum in the near future if they obtained nationwide licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Just figured out this is a waste of time. US Mobile and Verizon lock the eSim to the emei while T-Mobile only uses it to see that you have a capable phone, like Red Pocket does with physical sims (although RP does keep track of what phone you are using it on with the emei.)  So @Trip was right in this case on liking physical sims.
    • Verizon has a reputation for being frugal with MVNOs. After looking around, I also decided US Mobile was my best option. People have gotten C band on it.  Hoping for esim for my S21 Ultra.  No luck so far.  Red Pocket does not claim Verizon 5g, although they say Soon!(TM).  I do see some 5g with it. Typically MVNOs are deprioritized, thus I am reluctant to claim truly getting top speeds with one.
    • Did some exploring yesterday/last night and didn't find a shred of C-Band, including with my brand new US Mobile SIM. Did find 4CA CBRS but the site seemed backhaul constrained; both that plus 15x15 B2 and band-locked 2/66 got me 190 Mbps or so.
    • Did some more exploring yesterday/last night and I think I spotted some LAA downtown but didn't get a chance to confirm before it went away in favor of mmW, which also went away pretty quickly. Also saw another n66 site, as well as an n2 site, making AT&T the second carrier to run n2 DSS within a few miles of me. I think at this point they won't be able to advertise anything flashy, but due to the sheer amount of CA they're throwing at customers here they can keep their network at 50+ Mbps until they can deploy both 3.45 and 3.7, and that's probably enough.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...