Sprint Deployment vs. AT&T Deployment

[Steven800]

Only i think i dont like about roaming is that they only allow like 300mbs of data or else they will cut you off or something of that nature.

[leozno1]

So I know this is a Sprint vs AT&T deployment thread but I will go ahead and ask about another carrier since they're all competition. With the current T-Mobile Spectrum refarming plan if they are transitioning all their HSPA+ data service from AWS 1700 to PCS 1900 spectrum, wouldn't that decrease their already relatively weak HSPA+ data coverage area and increase the area where you will only have EDGE coverage?

[lynyrd65]

So I know this is a Sprint vs AT&T deployment thread but I will go ahead and ask about another carrier since they're all competition. With the current T-Mobile Spectrum refarming plan if they are transitioning all their HSPA+ data service from AWS 1700 to PCS 1900 spectrum, wouldn't that decrease their already relatively weak HSPA+ data coverage area and increase the area where you will only have EDGE coverage?

No, they will still have HSPA on the 1700 band even when LTE is deployed, the only difference is performance will degrade for some 1700 only devices as there will no longer be DC-HSPA+ on the 1700 spectrum.

 

Their HSPA+ coverage could improve with the refarm. It is however EXTREMELY dissapointing that they will not be converting current 2G areas to LTE or even 3G areas. If you have EDGE/GPRS now, expect to have it forever.

[leozno1]

No, they will still have HSPA on the 1700 band even when LTE is deployed, the only difference is performance will degrade for some 1700 only devices as there will no longer be DC-HSPA+ on the 1700 spectrum.

 

Their HSPA+ coverage could improve with the refarm. It is however EXTREMELY dissapointing that they will not be converting current 2G areas to LTE or even 3G areas. If you have EDGE/GPRS now, expect to have it forever.

 

Thanks for the clarification. So will they have enough spectrum on the 1900 band to deploy HSPA+ 42 or will their entire network just stick to HSPA+ 21 and LTE from that point on?

 

Also is the reason for them not expanding their 3G areas due to lack of spectrum in those areas or lack of money or desire to do so?

[lynyrd65]

Thanks for the clarification. So will they have enough spectrum on the 1900 band to deploy HSPA+ 42 or will their entire network just stick to HSPA+ 21 and LTE from that point on?

 

Also is the reason for them not expanding their 3G areas due to lack of spectrum in those areas or lack of money or desire to do so?

Some areas will see DC-HSPA+ on the 1900 band while others will not, this is due to spectrum constraints. It is the same way with the 1700 band, There are some cities which only have HSPA+21 on the 1700 band due to this problem.

 

The reasons for not deploying HSPA in their current EDGE areas is still a mystery to me. They have had the spectrum to deploy 3G nationwide even over 1700 and have been more profitable than Sprint for a while. My theory is that they're quite content leaving a single T1 line for backhaul at their current EDGE sites and would rather not have to upgrade to a fiber or coax backhaul and new equipment to serve 3G services. This is stupid and a missed opportunity, imo.

[WiWavelength]

Thanks for the clarification. So will they have enough spectrum on the 1900 band to deploy HSPA+ 42 or will their entire network just stick to HSPA+ 21 and LTE from that point on?

 

I have been following T-Mobile spectrum policy rather closely for the last year, ever since the merger started to dissolve and T-Mobile started to refarm PCS MHz spectrum. I have found no evidence thus far to indicate that T-Mobile will take out of service DC-HSPA+ 42 (which requires fully 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum) in any markets and reduce it to HSPA+ 21 (which requires only 10 MHz of spectrum). That said, T-Mobile may shift DC-HSPA+ from AWS to PCS in some markets, but that matters little, as all T-Mobile DC-HSPA+ capable devices also support W-CDMA band 2 (PCS). The other W-CDMA band 4 (AWS) only devices will be left at least one HSPA+ carrier in all markets for the next several years. And this will all still be quite the awkward juggling act for T-Mobile, as it has enough AWS spectrum for fully 15-20 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, for 10 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, for 5 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, and for no LTE in some markets.

 

AJ

[leozno1]

I have been following T-Mobile spectrum policy rather closely for the last year, ever since the merger started to dissolve and T-Mobile started to refarm PCS MHz spectrum. I have found no evidence thus far to indicate that T-Mobile will take out of service DC-HSPA+ 42 (which requires fully 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum) in any markets and reduce it to HSPA+ 21 (which requires only 10 MHz of spectrum). That said, T-Mobile may shift DC-HSPA+ from AWS to PCS in some markets, but that matters little, as all T-Mobile DC-HSPA+ capable devices also support W-CDMA band 2 (PCS). The other W-CDMA band 4 (AWS) only devices will be left at least one HSPA+ carrier in all markets for the next several years. And this will all still be quite the awkward juggling act for T-Mobile, as it has enough AWS spectrum for fully 15-20 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, for 10 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, for 5 MHz FDD LTE in some markets, and for no LTE in some markets.

 

AJ

 

Wow that is pretty ridiculous. I have seen on this site that for Sprint devices they need to have the capability built into them in order to support 10x10 MHz LTE since they are only made to support 5x5 MHz right now. How much work is required to have a device support multiple channel widths like that and will it make it that much more of a headache for device manufacturers to make devices that support 15-20 MHz, 10 MHz and 5 MHz all at the same time?

[DaQue]

5 Mhz should be enough for anyone. Nobody will need more than 640k ram

 

 

:-)

[pslee]

let me ask you a questions. is sprint building 800mhz LTE tower on every 1900mhz LTE or on sprint 3G towers only?

[Ascertion]

let me ask you a questions. is sprint building 800mhz LTE tower on every 1900mhz LTE or on sprint 3G towers only?

80% of every tower. The exact sites given upgrades to LTE800 are unknown.

[pslee]

80% of every tower. The exact sites given upgrades to LTE800 are unknown.

 

wow 80 percent sounds promising with lower frequency band. clearwire's LTE will be on every wimax towers? i see that wimax has so many towers due to its high 2500mhz frequency. i've read on this forum that clear is not trying to make the coverage wide spread as they did with wimax. I am very interested in what will happen now. thanks for your comment.

Edited November 28, 2012 by pslee

[Dkoellerwx]

let me ask you a questions. is sprint building 800mhz LTE tower on every 1900mhz LTE or on sprint 3G towers only?

 

What do you mean 3G towers only? Every sprint tower is getting 1900 LTE. (with only about 100 exceptions).

 

wow 80 percent sounds promising with lower frequency band. clearwire's LTE will be on every wimax towers? i see that wimax has so many towers due to its high 2500mhz frequency. i've read on this forum that clear is not trying to make the coverage wide spread as they did with wimax. I am very interested in what will happen now. thanks for your comment.

 

We don't know enough about Clear's plans for LTE yet, but it will likely be only in high traffic areas, and not necessarily on every WiMax tower, at least initially.

[lilotimz]

wow 80 percent sounds promising with lower frequency band. clearwire's LTE will be on every wimax towers? i see that wimax has so many towers due to its high 2500mhz frequency. i've read on this forum that clear is not trying to make the coverage wide spread as they did with wimax. I am very interested in what will happen now. thanks for your comment.

 

80 Percent in actuality is probably equal if not more than that of 100% 1900mhz LTE deployment.

 

I know for a fact in my city (sacramento), that the downtown area has like 20-50 towers in a 5-10 mile radius. You'll find that true in a lot of cities as well with towers literally several blocks from each other. You really only need to upgrade a small percentage of those towers to 800mhz to cover the others as they are so densely packed due to the urban layout.

 

Also regarding Clearwire. Most likely, they'll possibly try to convert their existing markets to LTE first (why not?.. they have the towers, the back haul, etc in place) while also taking in requests from Sprint to deploy where sprint needs them to. You'll probably see them start deploying LTE in existing wimax markets at the same time as NV 2.0. If we're lucky and SoftBank/ New Sprint decides to take an even bigger stake of Clearwire, we might get Clearwire 2.5ghz in a lot more places than just very urban / high demand neighborhoods.

[pslee]

What do you mean 3G towers only? Every sprint tower is getting 1900 LTE. (with only about 100 exceptions).

 

 

 

We don't know enough about Clear's plans for LTE yet, but it will likely be only in high traffic areas, and not necessarily on every WiMax tower, at least initially.

 

if every 3G towers are getting 4G LTE 1900mhz towers on it, does that mean if you used to get crappy 3g speed, you will likely not able to fully utilize 4G LTE from that tower since they have same frequency?

[Dkoellerwx]

if every 3G towers are getting 4G LTE 1900mhz towers on it, does that mean if you used to get crappy 3g speed, you will likely not able to fully utilize 4G LTE from that tower since they have same frequency?

 

Your 3G speeds are more likely related to the number of users, or the backhaul of the site being overwhelmed. If you have a strong 3G signal, you will have a great LTE signal. Also, once the tower is upgraded, 3G speeds will improve as well.

[Deval]

Technically the 4G LTE is on a slightly different block of the same spectrum as the 3G, and it is a dedicated block. So you'll get great LTE speeds, till more users use LTE in your area.

 

As for 3G, crappy speeds are usually associated with limited backhaul and/or EVDO carriers. The new Network Vision equipment with enhanced backhaul will fix the majority of those issues.

[DVCal]

No ATT and Verizon have been lightyears faster at deploying. Sprint will likely be 3-4 years behind Verizon here and 2-3 years behind AT&T. Sad but true.

[omega]

No ATT and Verizon have been lightyears faster at deploying. Sprint will likely be 3-4 years behind Verizon here and 2-3 years behind AT&T. Sad but true.

 

Not really true Sprint will match att lte coverage next year. That means sprint is less than one year behind att.

[Dkoellerwx]

No ATT and Verizon have been lightyears faster at deploying. Sprint will likely be 3-4 years behind Verizon here and 2-3 years behind AT&T. Sad but true.

Not really true Sprint will match att lte coverage next year. That means sprint is less than one year behind att.

 

And, Sprint is deploying much faster. They plan to have most of the network converted in 2 years or less. Verizon didn't deploy in 2 years, AT&T certainly didn't. They are behind, sure, but they're not deploying slowing, they're deploying "lightyears" faster that Verizon or AT&T did.

[xcharles718]

No ATT and Verizon have been lightyears faster at deploying. Sprint will likely be 3-4 years behind Verizon here and 2-3 years behind AT&T. Sad but true.

Not quite in the case of AT&T. Their LTE deployment hasn't exactly been blazing. This, along with their lack of spectrum in many markets(only a few cities with 10x10 @ 700MHz, a couple cites with 5x5 @ 700MHz, and insufficient AWS spectrum due to the failed buyout), I don't see AT&T going anywhere fast until WCS spectrum is ready...which will not be the case for a few years.

 

Or they do something crazy and bid on PCS H Block.

[iansltx]

Not quite in the case of AT&T. Their LTE deployment hasn't exactly been blazing. This, along with their lack of spectrum in many markets(only a few cities with 10x10 @ 700MHz, a couple cites with 5x5 @ 700MHz, and insufficient AWS spectrum due to the failed buyout), I don't see AT&T going anywhere fast until WCS spectrum is ready...which will not be the case for a few years.

 

Or they do something crazy and bid on PCS H Block.

 

More likely: refarming their rather large PCS holdings away from GSM and HSPA and on to LTE.

[S4GRU]

No ATT and Verizon have been lightyears faster at deploying. Sprint will likely be 3-4 years behind Verizon here and 2-3 years behind AT&T. Sad but true.

 

Stop it. Your posts are inaccurate. If you are going to be negative, cite information that backs it up or go away. Your posts are pointless. You can't get away with those types of posts here. You're done.

 

Robert

[codex57]

Sweet, thanks!

[hopeforLTE1]

Sprint is moving fast as hell with LTE deployment I loom at sensorly once a week and every time they are covering more and more

[mellimel2212]

'

 

I concur. Looking at Sensorly maps in Chicago of Sprint and AT&T LTE from the same level, it clearly shows that Sprint's LTE already covers a wider area. Honestly, I'm not surprised though. In my experience Sprint has always had more coverage than AT&T here in the Florida markets.

 

I agree lol I looked at the map yesterday sprint lte is twice what att has here in Chicago

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus Rockin 4.2.1 using Tapatalk 2