Expected Data Speeds on 1xAdvanced?

[WiWavelength]

I have a hard time believing it decides to not use it all! This is AWS so the capacity improvements are . . . alot?

"[N]ot use it at all" means that AT&T would sell it off.

 

Do you know the real-world ratio of how many AWS towers can be squeezed in one 700MHz cell?

AT&T is not likely to build out thousands of additional new sites.  Any AWS (and PCS or WCS, for that matter) deployment would be overlay on existing sites.

 

But ATT is using 850 MHz for voice, right? So Band 2 then.

AT&T is using both Cellular 850 MHz and PCS 1900 MHz in most markets for W-CDMA and/or GSM.  But that does not mean there is no room for LTE as W-CDMA and GSM use declines.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

AT&T is not likely to build out thousands of additional new sites.  Any AWS (and PCS or WCS, for that matter) deployment would be overlay on existing sites.

 

AJ

 

"AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T) unveiled a multibillion-dollar initiative, called Project Velocity IP (or VIP), that calls for the company to expand its LTE network to 300 million covered POPs by the end of 2014 and deploy more than 10,000 new macrocells, 40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) throughout its network."

 

Read more: AT&T to expand LTE network to 300M POPs, deploy at least 40,000 small cells - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-expand-lte-network-300m-pops-deploy-least-40000-small-cells/2012-11-07#ixzz2UWFTuplm 

 

 

"that the company's expansion of LTE to 300 million POPs will include a "densification" of the network, meaning that the additional macro cells,"

(same article as above)

[S4GRU]

"AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T) unveiled a multibillion-dollar initiative, called Project Velocity IP (or VIP), that calls for the company to expand its LTE network to 300 million covered POPs by the end of 2014 and deploy more than 10,000 new macrocells, 40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) throughout its network."

 

Read more: AT&T to expand LTE network to 300M POPs, deploy at least 40,000 small cells - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-expand-lte-network-300m-pops-deploy-least-40000-small-cells/2012-11-07#ixzz2UWFTuplm 

 

 

"that the company's expansion of LTE to 300 million POPs will include a "densification" of the network, meaning that the additional macro cells,"

(same article as above)

 

AT&T finally got smart and stopped the foolishness of trying to buy up all the spectrum in the country.  This is a way better route to take.  Something AJ and I have been advocating for a long time.

 

It illustrates how we do not have a spectrum problem in this country.  We've just had a wireless industry that has refused to fully use the spectrum it has.  This will go a long way to adding a ton of capacity to the AT&T network without any additional spectrum resources being added.

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

"AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T) unveiled a multibillion-dollar initiative, called Project Velocity IP (or VIP), that calls for the company to expand its LTE network to 300 million covered POPs by the end of 2014 and deploy more than 10,000 new macrocells, 40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) throughout its network."

 

AT&T finally got smart and stopped the foolishness of trying to buy up all the spectrum in the country.  This is a way better route to take.  Something AJ and I have been advocating for a long time.

 

Regarding AT&T, I will believe it when I see it.  Dividend obsessed AT&T is CAPEX averse.  AT&T views its real customers as its shareholders.  Subscribers, on the other hand, are just an inconvenient means to an end.  As such, AT&T would rather buy existing revenue producing assets than build out its own network.

 

Furthermore, the claim of "10,000 new macrocells" seems like quite a stretch.  Prima facie, that would increase AT&T's macrocell count by something like 20 percent.  So, I see some potential inflating of the stats here.

 

One, AT&T could count deployment of new AWS, PCS, Cellular, or WCS panels for LTE on existing sites but separate racks as new macrocells.  Two, the timeframe mentioned is for LTE footprint expansion; no timeframe is included for the deployment of these supposed new macrocells.  Thus, we could be talking about something that will not be fully realized until 2020.

 

Color me skeptical.  AT&T is a jerk of a corporation that is highly representative of what is terribly wrong with telecom and broadband in this country.  In the end, AT&T needs to show me something before I give it the benefit of goodwill.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

AT&T views its real customers as its shareholders.  

 

AJ

 

How is this different from any company? For example, Apple has $130bil+ in the bank so one can conclude that its products don't have to be that expensive to maintain current level of quality. But has Apple lowered the price of its products for us, its customers?

 

I can understand that more anger may be provoked against infrastructure companies because its customers are more "captive"  and because government policies/regulation play a far larger role than in smartphones. However, if the shoe were on the other foot and you or I were CEO of AT&T, we'd would do the same because our bosses would be the shareholders.

[WiWavelength]

How is this different from any company?

The public bestows upon AT&T certain rights and privileges -- sanctioned monopoly, spectrum licenses, right of way, etc. As as result, AT&T has a responsibility to serve the public good, something that it does to a bare minimum. Furthermore, telecom and broadband have become de facto necessary services. None of the aforementioned applies to your example of Apple.

 

However, if the shoe were on the other foot and you or I were CEO of AT&T, we'd would do the same because our bosses would be the shareholders.

Nope, not me. I am not the sociopath that many CEOs are. And Randall Stephenson makes about as much money in one month as I will likely make in my entire lifetime. So, if I were somehow appointed CEO of AT&T, I would not let shortsighted shareholder greed influence my leadership one iota. I would do what is right for the public good first, the employees second, the shareholders last. The board could fire me, and I would not care a whit.

 

AJ

[Mobilesolutions]

The public bestows upon AT&T certain rights and privileges -- sanctioned monopoly, spectrum licenses, right of way, etc. As as result, AT&T has a responsibility to serve the public good, something that it does to a bare minimum. Furthermore, telecom and broadband have become de facto necessary services. None of the aforementioned applies to your example of Apple.Nope, not me. I am not the sociopath that many CEOs are. And Randall Stephenson makes about as much money in one month as I will likely make in my entire lifetime. So, if I were somehow appointed CEO of AT&T, I would not let shortsighted shareholder greed influence my leadership one iota. I would do what is right for the public good first, the employees second. The board could fire me, and I would not care a whit.AJ

I'd rather see you chair the board of the FCC.

[vryan44]

In the past year I have seen almost a dozen at&t sites go up in about a 20 mile radius of my house, some rural and some urban. It has helped make at&t coverage almost perfect everywhere I go. 

 

If they are doing the same in other areas, they may not be bluffing about that 10,000 macrocell number. I guess we will see. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I would not give AT&T any extra credit in that regard. Sure, AT&T's LTE devices have supported AWS from the beginning. But that point is moot as long as AT&T has not deployed any LTE in AWS. And several of us surmise that AT&T never will deploy anything in AWS now because it had to divest so much AWS to T-Mobile as part of the merger break up. In many markets, AT&T gave up all of its AWS, and nationwide, AT&T lost much of its economy of scale to deploy AWS.

 

But the next 6-12 months will likely tell the story. The iPhone 5 has unleashed the uneducated public's interest in LTE, and both AT&T and VZW have great numbers of iPhone 5 piling on to their LTE networks. Both AT&T and VZW are of similar size, but AT&T relies upon the iPhone as a sales tool far more than VZW does. Furthermore, AT&T has many current markets -- some examples include Los Angeles, Chicago, and Charlotte -- in which AT&T has deployed only an LTE 700 5 MHz x 5 MHz FDD carrier. AT&T lacks the second, adjacent Lower 700 MHz license in those markets to deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz FDD. In other words, AT&T has to support roughly three times the number of subs as Sprint does in the same 5 MHz x 5 MHz FDD capacity that Sprint is initially deploying. In those LTE spectrum challenged markets, AT&T will use its AWS spectrum in the next several months or will never use it at all.

 

AJ

 

 

"[N]ot use it at all" means that AT&T would sell it off.

 

AJ

 

 

 

What about this idea: AT&T sells the rest of AWS to TMUS on the condition that TMUS gives it a really nice AWS LTE roaming deal?

Meanwhile, ATT builds up its LTE on PCS, WCS.

TMUS gets spectrum and short-term revenue while ATT gets to avoid the problems Verizon is/will be facing and cash to fund dividend  . . . I mean cash to fund PCS, WCS LTE deployment.

 

Plus, after ATT has built up WCS, PCS LTE, it gets the added advantage of being able to drop Band 4 (AWS) compatibility from its future phones thereby increasing obstacle to its customers from leaving to TMUS in the future.

[WiWavelength]

What about this idea: AT&T sells the rest of AWS to TMUS on the condition that TMUS gives it a really nice AWS LTE roaming deal?

Meanwhile, ATT builds up its LTE on PCS, WCS.

 

Not feasible.  AT&T is quite roaming averse with regard to T-Mobile.  Moreover, 3GPP devices operate as single mode between W-CDMA and LTE, unlike 3GPP2 devices, which operate as dual mode between CDMA2000 and LTE.

 

So, for example, a Sprint device can be CDMA1X roaming on VZW and simultaneously on native Sprint LTE -- as we have seen members post, erroneously thinking that they were roaming on VZW LTE.  But an AT&T device could not be LTE roaming on T-Mobile and simultaneously on native AT&T W-CDMA.  The device is single mode:  it is either on LTE or W-CDMA.  And when that AT&T device roaming on T-Mobile LTE would use CSFB to W-CDMA, it would be on T-Mobile W-CDMA.

 

In the end, it would be like AT&T putting a segment of its own subs on the T-Mobile network.  Not gonna happen.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Not feasible.  AT&T is quite roaming averse with regard to T-Mobile.  Moreover, 3GPP devices operate as single mode between W-CDMA and LTE, unlike 3GPP2 devices, which operate as dual mode between CDMA2000 and LTE.

 

So, for example, a Sprint device can be CDMA1X roaming on VZW and simultaneously on native Sprint LTE -- as we have seen members post, erroneously thinking that they were roaming on VZW LTE.  But an AT&T device could not be LTE roaming on T-Mobile and simultaneously on native AT&T W-CDMA.  The device is single mode:  it is either on LTE or W-CDMA.  And when that AT&T device roaming on T-Mobile LTE would use CSFB to W-CDMA, it would be on T-Mobile W-CDMA.

 

In the end, it would be like AT&T putting a segment of its own subs on the T-Mobile network.  Not gonna happen.

 

AJ

 

What will ATT's solution be to avoid VZW's current LTE speeds?

 

I'm in metro-Detroit and with two bars on Motorola Razr, I got 1.5 Mbps on VZW LTE.

 

Why would ATT care that they're roaming on TMUS' W-CDMA? Just require that it says "ATT LTE" in top-left corner and . . . everybody's happy.

 

TMUS keeps stating how much space their network has and it's not as if this is a permanent arrangement.

[digiblur]

The solution is more cells or split ones that have capacity issues.  They are already doing this in many areas around me as I know I can drive to one site and see Sprint RRUs and AT&T RRUs, drive down the highway and see another AT&T LTE site without Sprint, then the next site has Sprint and AT&T again.

[maximus1987/lou99]

The solution is more cells or split ones that have capacity issues.  They are already doing this in many areas around me as I know I can drive to one site and see Sprint RRUs and AT&T RRUs, drive down the highway and see another AT&T LTE site without Sprint, then the next site has Sprint and AT&T again.

 

What about their plans for their AWS spectrum?

1) Sprint doesn't want it

2) FCC won't let Verizon get more

3) US Cellular + Leap already have enough or too much

 

TMUS is the only option but it's also their biggest competitor but . . . if they don't deploy it, they'll have no choice but to sell it to TMUS.

[Fraydog]

What about their plans for their AWS spectrum?

1) Sprint doesn't want it

2) FCC won't let Verizon get more

3) US Cellular + Leap already have enough or too much

 

TMUS is the only option but it's also their biggest competitor but . . . if they don't deploy it, they'll have no choice but to sell it to TMUS.

 

At this point, I'd deploy AWS alongside PCS if I were AT&T. All existing AT&T LTE phones support AWS. The same support does not exist for PCS. As far as buying Leap or USCC... I think that's off limits for the Death Star. Other than small regional carriers, AT&T probably not going to be able to buy. Then there's WCS in the future.  

 

AT&T is in more of a juggling act with their spectrum holdings, but they have the money to make it work due to their size and scale, where a TMo couldn't consider trying that type of spectrum juggling. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

What about their plans for their AWS spectrum?

1) Sprint doesn't want it

2) FCC won't let Verizon get more

3) US Cellular + Leap already have enough or too much

 

TMUS is the only option but it's also their biggest competitor but . . . if they don't deploy it, they'll have no choice but to sell it to TMUS.

 

 

As far as buying Leap or USCC... I think that's off limits for the Death Star. Other than small regional carriers, AT&T probably not going to be able to buy. Then there's WCS in the future.

 

I meant that those were the carriers ATT could sell the AWS to if they don't want to deploy.

 

Does ATT care whether TMO or Leap, USM buys AWS from them? Or whoever's the highest bidder and allowed by FCC?

 

I just remembered:

 

Leap CEO: 60% of our spectrum is not being used, and we're interested in network, spectrum sharing

 

Read more: Leap CEO: 60% of our spectrum is not being used, and we're interested in network, spectrum sharing - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/leap-ceo-60-our-spectrum-not-being-used-and-were-interested-network-spectru/2012-11-01#ixzz2VYMdOfmW

Subscribe at FierceWireless

[supert0nes]

They can wait until the next aws auction and jump back in in a big way.

 

sent from phone

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

They can wait until the next aws auction and jump back in in a big way.

 

sent from phone

 

 

?

[supert0nes]

?

 

 

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=12124

The Federal Communications Commission has informed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that it plans to hold an auction for wireless spectrum in September 2014. By law, the FCC must give the NTIA 18 months notice of such auctions. The auction will be for two spectrum bands, 1695-1710MHz and 1755-1780MHz. The NTIA had already indicated that it would reassign the 1695-1710MHz block from government to commercial use. The FCC has to auction off and license that spectrum for use by February 2015. Similarly, the FCC needs to reallocate and license the 2155-2180 MHz band by 2015. The CTIA and wireless industry in general would like to see the 2155-2180MHz block paired with the 1755-1780MHz block for commercial use. The 1755-1780MHz block is currently being used by the government, though the government is researching the possibility of sharing that spectrum with commercial entities.

 

 

 

I don't see any reason why AT&T can't purchase a lot of this spectrum.  It's not like T-Mobile needs it and Verizon may be limited in that auction with the enormous amount of AWS they have yet to deploy.  I don't think many agree with me that AT&T will do this, but it's certainly a possibility.

[bigsnake49]

In the past year I have seen almost a dozen at&t sites go up in about a 20 mile radius of my house, some rural and some urban. It has helped make at&t coverage almost perfect everywhere I go. 

 

If they are doing the same in other areas, they may not be bluffing about that 10,000 macrocell number. I guess we will see. 

 

They are doing the same thing in Florida. They put up approximately 600 new sites last year. 

[bigsnake49]

I meant that those were the carriers ATT could sell the AWS to if they don't want to deploy.

 

Does ATT care whether TMO or Leap, USM buys AWS from them? Or whoever's the highest bidder and allowed by FCC?

 

I just remembered:

 

Leap CEO: 60% of our spectrum is not being used, and we're interested in network, spectrum sharing

 

Read more: Leap CEO: 60% of our spectrum is not being used, and we're interested in network, spectrum sharing - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/leap-ceo-60-our-spectrum-not-being-used-and-were-interested-network-spectru/2012-11-01#ixzz2VYMdOfmW

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 Leap should let Sprint host their spectrum and become a Sprint MVNO.

[WiWavelength]

They are doing the same thing in Florida. They put up approximately 600 new sites last year. 

 

Well, if that is indeed true, then AT&T is showing once again that it basically perjured itself by claiming that, without T-Mobile, it would scale back its network expansion goals.  Kudos to government regulation forcing capital investment rather than consolidation.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

They are doing the same thing in Florida. They put up approximately 600 new sites last year.

 

 

Well, if that is indeed true, then AT&T is showing once again that it basically perjured itself by claiming that, without T-Mobile, it would scale back its network expansion goals. Kudos to government regulation forcing capital investment rather than consolidation.

 

AJ

This document already proved that:

 

http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/1678331~018ee90413e657e412818181a5d840ff/DOC.pdf

[WiWavelength]

This document already proved that:

 

http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/1678331~018ee90413e657e412818181a5d840ff/DOC.pdf

Yes, I am well aware. That is why I said "once again."

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

This document already proved that:

 

http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/1678331~018ee90413e657e412818181a5d840ff/DOC.pdf

 

Yes, I am well aware. That is why I said "once again."

 

 

AJ

That document was extremely informative for me cause I used to think it took tens of billions $$$ to rollout LTE; my respect for the current Tmobile plummeted after I realized they COULD have a national US network if they really wanted.

[WiWavelength]

That document was extremely informative for me cause I used to think it took tens of billions $$$ to rollout LTE; my respect for the current Tmobile plummeted after I realized they COULD have a national US network if they really wanted.

No, no, no, the document is relevant only to AT&T, not T-Mobile. You cannot come to the same conclusion about T-Mobile based on that evidence. AT&T already had bought up a vast network of rural sites and treasure chest of sub 1 GHz spectrum. The same cannot be said for T-Mobile.

 

AJ