Jump to content

Sprint and Dish Clash over 5 MHz Satellite Spectrum


rjw
 Share

Recommended Posts

A funny idea, if their powers combine sprint customers would finally get some 4G LTE love and hopefully better overall service and dish could get back AMC. It's a win, win situation if you ask me.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully the H auction waits as long as possible until Network Vision revenue comes in and Sprint can actually pay for more spectrum.

 

Hopefully the H block spectrum auction is in late 2014/early 2015 while Sprint focuses on completing Network Vision nationwide first. Sprint needs to try to get as many licenses as possible in their footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am definitely on sprint side with this. I thought Dish was going to be building out soon, but when I heard the 2016 date, I started to question if they actually wanted to even build out or was it a ploy to get att/verizon to buy out their spectrum. Either way, Sprint and others could use that H-block spectrum now, so I believe they should get priority in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, you're starting to sound like wiwavelength. Seriously though, can't those panels/RRUs do H? I mean it's so close!

 

Not likely. PCS/AWS-2 H block will require yet another new 3GPP band, maybe band 29 or 30, as bands 27 and 28 seem to have been recently added to the queue.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, you're starting to sound like wiwavelength. Seriously though, can't those panels/RRUs do H? I mean it's so close!

 

Close yes, but technically far. Everything is tuned and certified for the bands it covers. Even the panels they are installing are down to the exact specs needed for 2 pcs w/g block and 1 smr antenna inside.

 

Hell we are holding phones that use 800SMR except for Lte. Seems so close that any phone could do it right?

 

 

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to continue that, Sprint probably wont visit a lot of these towers again for 10 years for an upgrade like this! Thank goodness they are installing 800 on the first go around! Any new spectrum upgrades would probably only happen in major congestion areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to continue that, Sprint probably wont visit a lot of these towers again for 10 years for an upgrade like this! Thank goodness they are installing 800 on the first go around! Any new spectrum upgrades would probably only happen in major congestion areas.

 

Robert would have to confirm this, but I believe when they roll out 800SMR LTE they will have to revisit things. I do know that not every tower will get the 800 LTE either. And another downside which might not be that bad though, is if they use the same panel they will not have separate downtilt adjustments for 800-1X and 800-LTE like they do for 1900-LTE and 1900-1X/EV. Which is why I laugh when I continue to see people say they are not using their upgrade until an 800SMR LTE phone comes out. Get a new phone now, and maybe there will be 800 LTE in your area when your next 2 yr upgrade comes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Robert would have to confirm this' date=' but I believe when they roll out 800SMR LTE they will have to revisit things. I do know that not every tower will get the 800 LTE either. And another downside which might not be that bad though, is if they use the same panel they will not have separate downtilt adjustments for 800-1X and 800-LTE like they do for 1900-LTE and 1900-1X/EV. Which is why I laugh when I continue to see people say they are not using their upgrade until an 800SMR LTE phone comes out. Get a new phone now, and maybe there will be 800 LTE in your area when your next 2 yr upgrade comes up.[/quote']

 

A new RRU will be needed at LTE 800 sites, I believe. As well as a carrier card. So there will be site visits for LTE 800. It will be a whole separate deployment. But will be much easier and faster. It's quite possible that the sites at the tail end of Network Vision will get LTE 800 in their initial NV upgrade.

 

Sprint is targeting about 80% of sites in each market to get LTE 800. In early planning, the 20% that will not get LTE 800 are in redundant urban sites and in remote rural sites away from the interstate highways. Although, in my opinion, the rural sites need LTE 800 the most.

 

If you think about it, since LTE 1900 doesn't travel as far as EVDO (limited to about -95dBm RSSI), LTE 800 will not travel anywhere as far as CDMA 800. LTE 800 will probably have a coverage area equal to 3G EVDO now, or slightly farther. Device LTE radio performance is really going to be a big factor in LTE coverage.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite possible that the sites at the tail end of Network Vision will get LTE 800 in their initial NV upgrade.

 

I sorta suspected that might be the case. That's why I haven't been too bummed about Las Vegas apparently being somewhere near the tail end of NV deployment. Well that and decent WiMAX performance when I need it ^_^ . I hope that when they finally do decide to start deploying here that they've gotten any and all bugs worked out of their installation and testing procedures and they give us the whole 9 yards in one fell swoop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see them traveling all the way out to northern Minnesota or really anywhere outside the cities to add a 5x5 carrier for PCS H.

 

If they just go around adding one 5x5 LTE carrier in H block, then you are probably right. They will just add them where additional LTE 1900 capacity is needed. Unless they had build out requirements from the FCC. Then you might see it appear in some wacky and unnecessary locations. But if small towns in rural MN are sufficiently served by the one carrier in G block, why add another? I only have one EVDO carrier on my rural site. I have no need for a second. The first one is more than enough.

 

However, they might want to go with one 10x10 LTE 1900 carrier, instead of two 5x5's. Having G and H block would give them this possibility. So, if they did go this route, they may deploy it in every place they presently had a PCS 5x5 LTE carrier. But this poses problems with all the 5MHz only LTE devices out there.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If half of the 10x10 is outside of what existing phones support then I don't see them being able to use any of that spectrum. Any phones that don't support H probably wouldn't work on that spectrum at all. That's like all LTE phones sold in the first 2-4 years. But my understanding is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If half of the 10x10 is outside of what existing phones support then I don't see them being able to use any of that spectrum. Any phones that don't support H probably wouldn't work on that spectrum at all. That's like all LTE phones sold in the first 2-4 years. But my understanding is limited.

 

I think that the old phones will still be able to access the subcarriers in the lower half of the 10x10 block while newer phones will access the subcarriers in the whole 10x10 block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the old phones will still be able to access the subcarriers in the lower half of the 10x10 block while newer phones will access the subcarriers in the whole 10x10 block.

 

That would be a really neat inclusion in the LTE spec. I did a search to find out more about this, but no luck. Do you have more information on how this would work, maybe a spec sheet, or keyword?

 

The closest I could find would be Intra-band Contiguous Carrier Aggregation, but it seems like this could be done with 2 5x5?

 

What is the capacity increase of 1 10x10 vs. 2 5x5 with carrier aggregation? I don't care much about top end speed increase, but that seems worth investigating too.

 

G Block: 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz

Proposed H Block: 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2005 MHz so they would definitely be contiguous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the capacity increase of 1 10x10 vs. 2 5x5 with carrier aggregation? I don't care much about top end speed increase, but that seems worth investigating too.

 

Very little difference actually. The difference in number of users per sectors and throughput speeds is theoretically the same, but likely some mild actual loss with CA. However, devices using Carrier Aggregation suffer larger battery drain according to internal Sprint documents I have read.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would contiguous carrier aggregation take up 2 antennas? This could be difficult, as it takes an antenna away from being able to do carrier aggregation on other bands or other parts of PCS, also probably the cause of the battery drain.

 

CA may require antenna diversity of four antennas. If you need two MIMO to each different carrier, that makes four. You could have less than four, but that would reduce performance. And that would defeat the purpose. I don't see CA as a miraculous panacea for LTE in smartphones. Not while trying to cram in a whole bunch of other LTE bands, too.

 

Robert

  • Like 1
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

    • Added, and 2 more estimated sites: T-Mobile eNB 876480. Looks like its located at (40.62210996397784, -73.97627312607108), as the tower looks like a Sprint setup. T-Mobile eNB 875632. Both this site and Sprint eNB 9022 seem to be located at (40.61640722407462, -73.96985178560767).
    • Many of these sites I am uploading are for sites that do not exist, yet.  Although, I suppose I could go into NR only mode every time I connect to a new site, and then switch back, allowing all the TAC NR trails that occur to now have a home. Ideally, I would love to ne able to add the TAC's myself.  I have the NR Trails CSV file downloaded, and I see all the TAC-less NR entries.  Is there any way I can edit and manually upload them myself?  Maybe create a portal for such an upload?  Or at least give me a way to create at least one manual entry for every new site? Robert
    • Could we send the TAC as -1 if it’s invalid? Then, if there’s and existing site that matches the other info, I could match the web data entry up with it (despite the TAC being absent). 
    • Mine has been enabled.  And they show up in my device logs with the TAC null. Robert
    • If the TAC is missing, an entry is still recorded in the log, but it would not be included in uploads.. so you could probably manipulate a trail log export to add the data to the map if you were able to nail down the sites without the TAC. EDIT: Sites with a missing TAC are only recorded in the log if the option to do so is enabled (Logger > Log Sites with Missing TAC).
  • Recently Browsing

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