Jump to content

3GPP Approves DISH AWS-4 Wireless Spectrum Standards

4GHoward

By 4GHoward
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

dmchssc Member Level: 1x Advanced

dmchssc

Posted
Posted

I thought Sprint was requesting that the AWS-4 uplink be shifted up by 5 mhz, not to place power restrictions on it.

 

Edit: I just looked at the FCC's spectrum dashboard. If the government vacates 1755 - 1780, the AWS band could be expanded to 1710-1780/2110-2180. That gets rid of the AWS-2 downlink (non PCS H block) at 2175-2180. Then, proposed AWS-4 could have its uplink shifted up by 5 MHz, taking out the uplink of (non PCS H) AWS-2.That would leave a 5 MHz guard band that could be used for low power applications in-between PCS H and the AWS-4. The new bands would be PCS (1850-1920/1930-2000), AWS-1 (1710-1780/2110-2180), and AWS-4 (2005-2025/2180-2200).

 

That plan would find a use for the oddball AWS-2 spectrum and expand usable spectrum by 100 MHz compared to an expansion of only 40 MHz if the AWS-4 (2000-2020/2180-2200) configuration is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

I thought Sprint was requesting that the AWS-4 uplink be shifted up by 5 mhz, not to place power restrictions on it.

 

Edit: I just looked at the FCC's spectrum dashboard. If the government vacates 1755 - 1780, the AWS band could be expanded to 1710-1780/2110-2180. That gets rid of the AWS-2 downlink (non PCS H block) at 2175-2180. Then, proposed AWS-4 could have its uplink shifted up by 5 MHz, taking out the uplink of (non PCS H) AWS-2.That would leave a 5 MHz guard band that could be used for low power applications in-between PCS H and the AWS-4. The new bands would be PCS (1850-1920/1930-2000), AWS-1 (1710-1780/2110-2180), and AWS-4 (2005-2025/2180-2200).

 

That plan would find a use for the oddball AWS-2 spectrum and expand usable spectrum by 100 MHz compared to an expansion of only 40 MHz if the AWS-4 (2000-2020/2180-2200) configuration is used.

 

That's an excellent idea. Why don't you leave a comment on the FCC's webpage concerning Dish's application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmchssc Member Level: 1x Advanced

dmchssc

Posted
Posted

The FCC has plenty of people who are way more knowledgeable and intelligent than I am. That idea is simple enough that I'm sure it's been thought of before. The major barrier to it would be the need for the government to vacate the 1700 MHz spectrum. I think that would require an act by Congress. I'm just questioning Dish's essential assertion that Sprint is just trying to steal their spectrum. They don't have a deployed network or deployed devices, and Sprint is proposing a band reorganization that would significantly increase the amount of usable spectrum.

 

When did the standardization process for the band as currently defined start? Would it take more than a year to get through the process again if the band was redefined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

The FCC has plenty of people who are way more knowledgeable and intelligent than I am. That idea is simple enough that I'm sure it's been thought of before. The major barrier to it would be the need for the government to vacate the 1700 MHz spectrum. I think that would require an act by Congress. I'm just questioning Dish's essential assertion that Sprint is just trying to steal their spectrum. They don't have a deployed network or deployed devices, and Sprint is proposing a band reorganization that would significantly increase the amount of usable spectrum.

 

When did the standardization process for the band as currently defined start? Would it take more than a year to get through the process again if the band was redefined?

 

I don't know that they are that smart:). It does not hurt to lend another voice.

 

Sprint wants to be able to bid on band H without having to worry about potential interference from Dish's spectrum. If Dish's application goes through untouched without power restrictions or shifting it up by 5MHz, then PCS H will become unusable serving as just a guard band. Is it a dire prospect for Sprint if they could not bid on PCS H? No, but it would be nice to be given the opportunity to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ericdabbs Member Level: LTE Advanced

ericdabbs

Posted
Posted

Apparently the FCC agrees with Sprint and plans to impose that Dish shift up their spectrum holdings to 2005-2025 MHz on the uplink to ensure that there is no interference between Dish's spectrum and the PCS 'H' block. Also it sounds like the FCC is planning on a 'H' block spectrum offering in 2013.

 

"Separately, the FCC also said it will propose auctioning the H Block of PCS spectrum in 2013, which Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) has said it wants for its LTE network.

"Chairman Julius Genachowski today shared proposals with his colleagues that will unleash up to 50 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband, including LTE," said an FCC spokesperson. "Specifically, the chairman proposes final action to enable terrestrial use for AWS-4 spectrum, and moves forward with implementation of Congressional direction to auction the H Block, slated for 2013."

 

 

http://www.fiercewir...trum/2012-11-20

  • Like 2
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
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Dkoellerwx
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By Dkoellerwx · Posted

      Probably a lot of Midwest towers. Slight bias since Nebraska is a weird market, but there are tons of USCC sites that T-Mobile isn't yet co-located on. Think a similar situation in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri. But some other markets, like yours, probably don't have that issue!
    • topdownat4
      Keep a Word, Drop a Word #7

      By topdownat4 · Posted

      Bubble Gum
    • chamb
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By chamb · Posted

      Sticky Customers - YES, and leave them flip to the T-Mobile PLMN when needed and they will be even more likely to Stick.
    • Trip
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Trip · Posted

      It seems to me that if the goal is to improve rural, the US Cellular buy-out would get them only part of the way there, considering there are plenty of rural areas that US Cellular does not serve.  But I also have a hard time reading it the way I think that article is, that the cost of this deal comes straight out of the $9 billion.  I mean, they're getting spectrum for their existing operations in US Cellular markets, including places that I wouldn't call rural.  (Roanoke, VA is the 9th largest city in the state, for example.)  It seems like some of it should be allocated to rural expansion, but certainly not the whole purchase price. There's also something to be said for getting the customer base of potentially sticky customers who have been used to US Cellular being the only game in town for potentially decades. - Trip
    • dkyeager
      T-Mobile to acquire UScellular

      By dkyeager · Posted

      T-Mobile has stated 15% of their sites don't have 5g triband. In WV I know WISPs had a lot of 2.5GHz, but T-Mobile was trying to buy as much as possible. More rural FWA would be a big selling point that might overcome any soft bandwidth cap slight overages. Especially since UScellular likely started offering it on c-band.

  • Recently Browsing

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