Sprint to buy spectrum, customers from USCC

[WiWavelength]

I thought Sprint was leasing the Spectrum back to USCC until they shutdown their network or the customer transition period completes, something like 12 months

 

Sprint is leasing the spectrum back to USCC, but that leasing agreement can be amended, periodically and geographically, as the transition period progresses.  Read the "New Lease" attachment here:

 

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp?applID=7180929

 

So, it remains to be seen.  We may have to wait until the USCC network in the affected markets has gone dark before Sprint gains use of all additional spectrum.  Or, every once in a while, here and there, Sprint may gain a few MHz because the leasing agreement is amended, as USCC subs flow to Sprint or go elsewhere.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I would think that USCC could deactivate carriers down to just one 1x and one EVDO carrier all over the affected markets in 30 days or so, freeing up a majority of the spectrum for use by Sprint right away.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[wobbypetty]

I would think that USCC could deactivate carriers down to just one 1x and one EVDO carrier all over the affected markets in 30 days or so, freeing up a majority of the spectrum for use by Sprint right away.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

Robert, do you foresee Sprint keeping the public up to speed with the spectrum migration as things progress or are we to rely on our own tools?  Has Sprint announced any concrete plans yet for the USCC spectrum in the Chicagoland area or is that still TBD? Thanks.

 

Rob

[S4GRU]

 

 

I would think that USCC could deactivate carriers down to just one 1x and one EVDO carrier all over the affected markets in 30 days or so, freeing up a majority of the spectrum for use by Sprint right away.

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

 

Robert, do you foresee Sprint keeping the public up to speed with the spectrum migration as things progress or are we to rely on our own tools? Has Sprint announced any concrete plans yet for the USCC spectrum in the Chicagoland area or is that still TBD? Thanks.

 

Rob

No. I don't think Sprint will say anything publicly. They will just add carriers as needed when the spectrum is available.

 

Sprint also has not announced what they will specifically do with the spectrum. I would guess in the Chicago market, they will add another LTE 1900 carrier on high capacity sites right away. And then maybe add them to other sites as needed. They may also add an EVDO carrier or two to high capacity sites as well.

 

In other markets, like Ft. Wayne, they may add another EVDO carrier now. Or they may save the new spectrum for just one additional LTE 1900 carrier. No one knows outside the walls of Sprint just yet what their plans are.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[wobbypetty]

No. I don't think Sprint will say anything publicly. They will just add carriers as needed when the spectrum is available.

 

Sprint also has not announced what they will specifically do with the spectrum. I would guess in the Chicago market, they will add another LTE 1900 carrier on high capacity sites right away. And then maybe add them to other sites as needed. They may also add an EVDO carrier or two to high capacity sites as well.

 

In other markets, like Ft. Wayne, they may add another EVDO carrier now. Or they may save the new spectrum for just one additional LTE 1900 carrier. No one knows outside the walls of Sprint just yet what their plans are.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I dont understand the purpose of purchasing the spectrum and not using it on every site. Its like purchasing a sprinkler system for my entire yard but only activating one sprinkler lol. Is it costly for Sprint to add an additional carrier?  I imagined it being a software configuration change somewhere. 

[supert0nes]

They're going to use the spectrum.  It's not worth over thinking.

[xenadu]

I don't think we've seen how they will manage this stuff in the new NV system, given that adding spectrum is just a couple of clicks.

 

On the other hand, since they outsourced everything to Ericsson, it probably works like the IT outsourcing contracts where every little adjustment costs them thousands of dollars.

 

My theory is that outsourcing actually works by making everything so difficult that people avoid doing anything, thus "saving" money (in the short term). I realized this when I found out one of our customers who uses outsourced IT has to pay $1500 and wait three weeks to create a new database instance on the database server they already own because the consulting company has to do it. As a result, the internal departments simply don't make any changes.

[WiWavelength]

I dont understand the purpose of purchasing the spectrum and not using it on every site. Its like purchasing a sprinkler system for my entire yard but only activating one sprinkler lol.

 

As a counter, why run all sprinklers and overwater areas of your yard that do not need it?  That just leads to overgrowth.

 

I am not a fan of overuse of unlimited data, so I do not have a problem with Sprint's selective deployment of additional bandwidth where it is actually needed.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I dont understand the purpose of purchasing the spectrum and not using it on every site. Its like purchasing a sprinkler system for my entire yard but only activating one sprinkler lol. Is it costly for Sprint to add an additional carrier? I imagined it being a software configuration change somewhere.

No wireless carrier deploys all their spectrum all over a market. It would be a huge waste of money...both on the install and operationally. Someone would need to be fired wasting so much money and resources. And it wouldn't be very green. This is not a Sprint thing. Every carrier deploys only what is necessary.

 

For instance, if Sprint fully deployed 40MHz of spectrum at every site in a market, but 70% of them only needs 10MHz, and 20% need 20MHz, and 7% need 30MHz and 3% need 40MHz...well, you can see how boneheaded that would be. If each 10MHz cost $10k in additional equipment per site and an additional $500 per month in operational costs per site, that would add up quick. All for unneeded capacity.

 

Let's take a market with 1,000 sites. If we added all 40MHz of spectrum to every site, the amount wasted would be $25.7M in equipment and $15.42M every year in operational costs. That is just in one market. It would be billions of wasted dollars over the entire network. Add all these up over the entire Sprint network and they'd be bankrupt in a year or two. That's why no one does this.

 

Given the way AT&T and VZW are beholden to profits, their shareholders would crucify them publicly if they wasted money like this. And there is no value to doing it either.

 

There is one big fact about wireless networks, the load from each site, and each sector of a site is highly variable. Populations are dynamic. And usages by neighborhood are dynamic. What Sprint needs to do is monitor their network closely and deploy additional carriers to more free spectrum before there is a congestion problem. To be ahead of the curve. This is what VZW does. And this is what Sprint will attempt to do much better in a post Network Vision world. And it's something that SoftBank understands well.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[marioc21]

No wireless carrier deploys all their spectrum all over a market. It would be a huge waste of money...both on the install and operationally. Someone would need to be fired wasting so much money and resources. And it wouldn't be very green. This is not a Sprint thing. Every carrier deploys only what is necessary.

 

For instance, if Sprint fully deployed 40MHz of spectrum at every site in a market, but 70% of them only needs 10MHz, and 20% need 20MHz, and 7% need 30MHz and 3% need 40MHz...well, you can see how boneheaded that would be. If each 10MHz cost $10k in additional equipment per site and an additional $500 per month in operational costs per site, that would add up quick. All for unneeded capacity.

 

Let's take a market with 1,000 sites. If we added all 40MHz of spectrum to every site, the amount wasted would be $25.7M in equipment and $15.42M every year in operational costs. That is just in one market. It would be billions of wasted dollars over the entire network. Add all these up over the entire Sprint network and they'd be bankrupt in a year or two. That's why no one does this.

 

Given the way AT&T and VZW are beholden to profits, their shareholders would crucify them publicly if they wasted money like this. And there is no value to doing it either.

 

There is one big fact about wireless networks, the load from each site, and each sector of a site is highly variable. Populations are dynamic. And usages by neighborhood are dynamic. What Sprint needs to do is monitor their network closely and deploy additional carriers to more free spectrum before there is a congestion problem. To be ahead of the curve. This is what VZW does. And this is what Sprint will attempt to do much better in a post Network Vision world. And it's something that SoftBank understands well.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Are carriers added to sites on the fly? Or do they require Techs to go out to a tower? Can a carrier be turned on remotely during peak times and then turned off once traffic dies down? Or once it's installed it's up and running all day every day?

[S4GRU]

Are carriers added to sites on the fly? Or do they require Techs to go out to a tower? Can a carrier be turned on remotely during peak times and then turned off once traffic dies down? Or once it's installed it's up and running all day every day?

They must be physically installed at the site. As long as existing panels/radios have enough capacity, it's nearly a plug and play type of situation. When additional radios/panels are needed, then it becomes a bigger job. Also, at times, more backhaul is required.

 

Theoretically, a carrier could be turned off an on. However, if anyone was connected to it, they'd be dropped. I don't think anyone does that. Once they install an additional carrier, it stays on 24/7.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Theoretically, a carrier could be turned off an on. However, if anyone was connected to it, they'd be dropped. I don't think anyone does that. Once they install an additional carrier, it stays on 24/7.

 

And this has been a persistent issue for the GSM focused operators and their oversized W-CDMA carrier channels.  It has caused them years of deployment and spectrum problems.  I have been harping on this for a good decade now.  The US operators chose poorly when they let the Eurasians dictate a standard that was not well suited for existing US spectrum.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

 

 

Theoretically, a carrier could be turned off an on. However, if anyone was connected to it, they'd be dropped. I don't think anyone does that. Once they install an additional carrier, it stays on 24/7.

 

 

And this has been a persistent issue for the GSM focused operators and their oversized W-CDMA carrier channels. It has caused them years of deployment and spectrum problems. I have been harping on this for a good decade now. The US operators chose poorly when they let the Eurasians dictate a standard that was not well suited for existing US spectrum.

 

AJ

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened if Cingular and AT&TWS picked CDMA2000?

[WiWavelength]

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened if Cingular and AT&TWS picked CDMA2000?

Not sure. But around the turn of the century, AT&TWS was supposedly very close to migrating to CDMA2000. However, an investment from NTT DoCoMo was reportedly predicated on a switch to GSM because it would lead to W-CDMA. And AT&TWS was the first domestic operator to deploy W-CDMA in a few markets.

 

AJ