Sprint makes official offer to acquire Clearwire

[ericdabbs]

I think that is an overstatement. If Sprint "desperately needs" the PCS/AWS-2 H block, then Sprint is in real trouble because the H block will not be commercially viable for another three years.

 

AJ

 

If Sprint didn't get the H block spectrum...of course its not the end of the world and Sprint will not go bankrupt but I do think it will still put them at a disadvantage especially in markets that only have 20 MHz. Tmobile, Verizon and AT&T have been bolstering its spectrum assets so Sprint needs to do the same to stay in the game.

 

I just don't think Sprint will get that much or if any at all from PCS divestitures from the Tmobile/MetroPCS deal to bolster those markets that they have spectrum. If Sprint plans to rely on that route instead of going with the mentality that the H block has to be a very high priority then they are screwed especially when the spectrum fits right next to your current LTE deployment spectrum. I don't care about 2.5 GHz spectrum as much because even if Sprint purchases Clearwire since the idea will still be that spectrum will be deployed in hotspots vs. full deployment. Sprint needs more full market deployment spectrum in all markets. Even with the benefits of spectrum saved from deploying 1x Advanced is not enough.

[S4GRU]

I don't get the whole "Sprint must have 10MHz LTE channels or the sky is falling" mentality. I think deploying several 5MHz carriers for capacity is a better option, all things considered. Customers do not have any use for speeds faster than 10Mbps. Really. And what's going to happen when Clearwire TD-LTE with 60-90Mbps goes live? Even 10MHz channels from Verizon and AT&T will feel slow in comparison.

 

Or will they? Will anyone notice the difference between 20Mbps, 37Mbps, 50Mbps or 90Mbps? Not on a smartphone. And not for 98% of what they would do on a tethered computer. And people are not going to pay more for faster speeds. If there was a premium for speeds greater than 20Mbps, 90% of customers wouldn't pay the premium. Because they do not have a need for the faster speeds. It's all a pecker size contest. And I'm tiring of it, frankly.

 

 

Robert

[ericdabbs]

I don't get the whole "Sprint must have 10MHz LTE channels or the sky is falling" mentality. I think deploying several 5MHz carriers for capacity is a better option, all things considered. Customers do not have any use for speeds faster than 10Mbps. Really. And what's going to happen when Clearwire TD-LTE with 60-90Mbps goes live?

 

Robert

 

I get what you are saying and I personally don't care if its 5 MHz channels or 10 MHz channels but what I do want for Sprint is flexibility. Sure right now Sprint can deploy several 5 MHz channels for LTE but as more and more spectrum gets refarmed or acquired for LTE, I would think Sprint would want to increase its channel sizes to 10 MHz so they don't have to add more RRUs and antennas on its towers since they only have a limited amount of carriers it can support per unit and that is where I feel flexibility is key. This is why their new Network Vision architecture is so crucial since it allows Sprint to adapt more easily to the ever going changes in the wireless industry.

 

Clearwire boasts about being able to deploy fat pipes of 20 MHz carriers. Obviously the end users don't need to have the speeds of 20 MHz channels LTE speeds for the daily activities. If you base your logic for Sprint LTE deployment for its spectrum on Clearwire then Clearwire should just deploy multiple 10 MHz TDD LTE channels instead of fat 20 MHz TDD LTE channels since they don't need that speed. I would be interested to see what Sprint would do to Clearwire in terms on how big the fat pipes Sprint would be with Clear's 2.5 GHz spectrum if it bought them out right now.

[S4GRU]

I get what you are saying and I personally don't care if its 5 MHz channels or 10 MHz channels but what I do want for Sprint is flexibility. Sure right now Sprint can deploy several 5 MHz channels for LTE but as more and more spectrum gets refarmed or acquired for LTE, I would think Sprint would want to increase its channel sizes to 10 MHz so they don't have to add more RRUs and antennas on its towers since they only have a limited amount of carriers it can support per unit and that is where I feel flexibility is key. This is why their new Network Vision architecture is so crucial since it allows Sprint to adapt more easily to the ever going changes in the wireless industry. Clearwire boasts about being able to deploy fat pipes of 20 MHz carriers. Obviously the end users don't need to have the speeds of 20 MHz channels LTE speeds for the daily activities. If you base your logic for Sprint LTE deployment for its spectrum on Clearwire then Clearwire should just deploy multiple 10 MHz TDD LTE channels instead of fat 20 MHz TDD LTE channels since they don't need that speed. I would be interested to see what Sprint would do to Clearwire in terms on how big the fat pipes Sprint would be with Clear's 2.5 GHz spectrum if it bought them out right now.

 

Yes, but Clearwire has spectrum resources where they can deploy 20MHz TDD channels. And Clearwire does not need to spend billions buying more spectrum in order to deploy ultra wide channels. Sprint does not have the spectrum to deploy 10MHz channels now, and they have to spend a lot of money to be able to deploy it in PCS. And it will only be in one spot they will be able to do 10MHz channels. There will not be many places they will be able to do a 10MHz channel in A-F blocks, and it will be years before they can. And they will likely never be able to in SMR band.

 

So they will be having lots of 5MHz LTE channels for a long time in the future, even with any 10MHz G-H block combo (which is years out anyway). And then what about all the devices dependent on G block for LTE? You going to take away their access to the G block when you change it a 10MHz channel? This is why Sprint will likely not do a single 10MHz channel between G and H blocks. They would likely use Carrier Aggregation and have two separate carriers in G and H Block. And this is what I would do too.

 

Robert

[dmchssc]

Would CA for two adjacent 5 MHz carriers have power consumption drawbacks compared to a single 10 MHz carrier?

[pyroscott]

Would CA for two adjacent 5 MHz carriers have power consumption drawbacks compared to a single 10 MHz carrier?

 

Today, yes, but look how far phones have come along at dealing with LTE power drain since the first devices that came out. The Thunderbolt pales in comparison to the EVO LTE or GS3. That is in a matter of just over a year between the TB and the EVO LTE (17 March 2011 to 2 June 2012)

 

When/if the H-block can be deployed, there is a good possibility that carrier aggregation could be much less of a power drain, or there could be large advances in battery technology. It has been a long time since we had any large advances in battery tech...

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I don't get the whole "Sprint must have 10MHz LTE channels or the sky is falling" mentality. I think deploying several 5MHz carriers for capacity is a better option, all things considered. Customers do not have any use for speeds faster than 10Mbps. Really. And what's going to happen when Clearwire TD-LTE with 60-90Mbps goes live? Even 10MHz channels from Verizon and AT&T will feel slow in comparison.

 

Or will they? Will anyone notice the difference between 20Mbps, 37Mbps, 50Mbps or 90Mbps? Not on a smartphone. And not for 98% of what they would do on a tethered computer. And people are not going to pay more for faster speeds. If there was a premium for speeds greater than 20Mbps, 90% of customers wouldn't pay the premium. Because they do not have a need for the faster speeds. It's all a pecker size contest. And I'm tiring of it, frankly.

 

 

Robert

 

While this is true, this is the kind of rational that got Sprint into the mess they are in now, no?... Assuming X speed will suffice should never be the case as they should be preparing to go way above the norm to be able to handle data trends going forward....

 

Part of what I just said though depends on the relationship between backhaul capacity, spectrum capacity/bandwidth, to that of # customers and their speed on a tower...

 

I know more customers the slower the speed but would that really only be because of backhaul?.... I'd think that spectrum capacity/size on that tower would also play into this, no?

 

The way it seems is that if your lacking in either one then speeds drop with # ppl connected, so its not guaranteed that 5x5 or even 10x10 spectrum size will suffice all the time for X speeds... Backhaul is not going to be an issue or limiting capacity for sprint since they are all scalable quickly if needed... So that leaves spectrum right?

 

I guess another way to put it would be at what point with unlimited users will increasing backhaul not help speeds at all for the given spectrum deployed on the tower? Seems really I'm getting more to wanting to see the formula to how its determined I guess. lol

 

Sorry for the ramble ramble here. Hehe

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Today, yes, but look how far phones have come along at dealing with LTE power drain since the first devices that came out. The Thunderbolt pales in comparison to the EVO LTE or GS3. That is in a matter of just over a year between the TB and the EVO LTE (17 March 2011 to 2 June 2012)

 

The Thunderbolt may not be the most meaningful basis for comparison. The biggest power management problem with the Thunderbolt is that it is a dual baseband modem design. In other words, it has one baseband for CDMA1X and another for EV-DO/LTE, and both chipsets are always active. That dual baseband design is now a vestige of the past. The only two handsets on Sprint affected are the Galaxy Nexus and Viper, neither of which are befitting of the first LTE handsets on Sprint.

 

The relevant baseline going forward is probably the EVO LTE or Galaxy S3, both of which are single baseband modem designs. Moreover, they use a single SoC that incorporates processor and baseband in a single chipset. One chipset is as low as it goes, so that aspect cannot be improved. If anything, recent designs have already taken a few steps backward in power consumption. The Optimus G is a good example. Not only does it use separate processor and baseband chipsets but also the processor is unnecessarily quad core. And battery life suffers as a result.

 

So, I would not be surprised if we have seen a local maximum in effective power management, and it will be a few years again before high end handsets meet or exceed the standard set by the EVO LTE and Galaxy S3.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

While this is true, this is the kind of rational that got Sprint into the mess they are in now, no?... Assuming X speed will suffice should never be the case as they should be preparing to go way above the norm to be able to handle data trends going forward...

 

If Sprint has 50-150 MHz of BRS/EBS spectrum acquired from Clearwire, why does the 10 MHz PCS/AWS-2 H block matter so much, if at all?

 

AJ

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

If Sprint has 50-150 MHz of BRS/EBS spectrum acquired from Clearwire, why does the 10 MHz PCS/AWS-2 H block matter so much, if at all?

 

AJ

 

Mine wasn't geared much at 10 PCS as much as it was just 10 in general... Which then got the brain running through the rest of my post trying to figure out the calculation and such for when speeds are effected as backhaul or spectrum can affect speeds when more ppl pull on the tower and just started to try and figure out where each meet its respective limit... I think its easier to figure out/understand when backhaul causes it, but spectrum can do the same it seems...

 

You have a calculation or can explain the relationship of them both for unlimited ppl what levels of backhaul for X spectrum will be more than said spectrum can handle/need?

Like if you go to a tower and are the only one on it you'll see 25Mbps DL and that drops with each person that joins that tower ontop of you...I'm assuming increasing backhaul in these cases is not going to increase speeds as it shouldn't be the bottleneck...if it was then sprint would be increasing it and increasing advertised speeds expected when done....

 

 

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[pyroscott]

The Thunderbolt may not be the most meaningful basis for comparison. The biggest power management problem with the Thunderbolt is that it is a dual baseband modem design. In other words, it has one baseband for CDMA1X and another for EV-DO/LTE, and both chipsets are always active. That dual baseband design is now a vestige of the past. The only two handsets on Sprint affected are the Galaxy Nexus and Viper, neither of which are befitting of the first LTE handsets on Sprint.

 

The relevant baseline going forward is probably the EVO LTE or Galaxy S3, both of which are single baseband modem designs. Moreover, they use a single SoC that incorporates processor and baseband in a single chipset. One chipset is as low as it goes, so that aspect cannot be improved. If anything, recent designs have already taken a few steps backward in power consumption. The Optimus G is a good example. Not only does it use separate processor and baseband chipsets but also the processor is unnecessarily quad core. And battery life suffers as a result.

 

So, I would not be surprised if we have seen a local maximum in effective power management, and it will be a few years again before high end handsets meet or exceed the standard set by the EVO LTE and Galaxy S3.

 

AJ

 

I am talking about the advances that occur within the early generations of technology. Carrier aggregation is still within its early stages, and could see advances in reducing power consumption similar to what LTE devices saw between their first and second generations of devices.

[pyroscott]

Mine wasn't geared much at 10 PCS as much as it was just 10 in general... Which then got the brain running through the rest of my post trying to figure out the calculation and such for when speeds are effected as backhaul or spectrum can affect speeds when more ppl pull on the tower and just started to try and figure out where each meet its respective limit... I think its easier to figure out/understand when backhaul causes it, but spectrum can do the same it seems...

 

You have a calculation or can explain the relationship of them both for unlimited ppl what levels of backhaul for X spectrum will be more than said spectrum can handle/need?

Like if you go to a tower and are the only one on it you'll see 25Mbps DL and that drops with each person that joins that tower ontop of you...I'm assuming increasing backhaul in these cases is not going to increase speeds as it shouldn't be the bottleneck...if it was then sprint would be increasing it and increasing advertised speeds expected when done....

 

 

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

Speeds near the cell site will be blazing fast thanks to the 2500Mhz "fat pipe" hotspots. Then, in the outlying areas/indoor coverage, speeds will be more modest with 1900Mhz and 800Mhz 5x5 carriers providing the LTE in those areas. It might be nice to have a 10x10 carrier on 1900, but with the (current) devices not supporting the band class required or 10x10 LTE carriers, the whole discussion is much ado about nothing.

 

As far as the number of connections that can be serviced by a 10x10 vs 2-5x5... There will be little to no difference in the number of connections. Also, as long as the network has the appropriate management tools to load up both 5x5 carriers equally, there will be very little difference in speeds as long as we aren't talking about an unloaded cell site that could throw the additional Mhz to allow higher max speeds.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

Speeds near the cell site will be blazing fast thanks to the 2500Mhz "fat pipe" hotspots. Then, in the outlying areas/indoor coverage, speeds will be more modest with 1900Mhz and 800Mhz 5x5 carriers providing the LTE in those areas. It might be nice to have a 10x10 carrier on 1900, but with the (current) devices not supporting the band class required or 10x10 LTE carriers, the whole discussion is much ado about nothing.

 

As far as the number of connections that can be serviced by a 10x10 vs 2-5x5... There will be little to no difference in the number of connections. Also, as long as the network has the appropriate management tools to load up both 5x5 carriers equally, there will be very little difference in speeds as long as we aren't talking about an unloaded cell site that could throw the additional Mhz to allow higher max speeds.

 

See I was talking 5x5 versus 10x10 not 2 5x5s vs a 10...

 

Still trying to figure out the limits of the spectrum user wise for each to be able to get X speed and what amount of backhaul bandwidth would be the theoritical max a site would need for unlimited users and any higher bandwidth of backhaul and no increase would be seen. ...

 

I know speed will drop with signal and typically be faster at a tower vs away. I'm simply talking about the # users on the tower and limits of spectrum and also backhaul for that number since they both factor into the speed a user will see...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

I am talking about the advances that occur within the early generations of technology. Carrier aggregation is still within its early stages, and could see advances in reducing power consumption similar to what LTE devices saw between their first and second generations of devices.

 

That is still relevant to my point. I just did not do a very effective job of making it.

 

Unlike chipset consolidation or process shrink, I am not aware of any technological developments that could make specifically carrier aggregation more power efficient.

 

But I am not so worried that carrier aggregation will cause much greater power drain. To illustrate, T-Mobile already uses a form of adjacent channel carrier aggregation with DC-HSPA+. However, that carrier aggregation applies only to the downlink. On the uplink, the mobile remains connected to only one of the two aggregated carriers.

 

I would not be surprised to see LTE carrier aggregation implemented the same way because 1) uplink transmission consumes far more power than does downlink reception and 2) uplink speeds are less crucial than are downlink speeds.

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

See I was talking 5x5 versus 10x10 not 2 5x5s vs a 10...

 

Still trying to figure out the limits of the spectrum user wise for each to be able to get X speed and what amount of backhaul bandwidth would be the theoritical max a site would need for unlimited users and any higher bandwidth of backhaul and no increase would be seen. ...

 

I know speed will drop with signal and typically be faster at a tower vs away. I'm simply talking about the # users on the tower and limits of spectrum and also backhaul for that number since they both factor into the speed a user will see...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

Well the LTE carrier airlink can be broken down very far into time slots, packets etc.

 

The amount of users a single 5x5 carrier on one sector of a cell site can support depends on what the users are doing with their connection. If it is large file downloads, streaming video, constant speed tests or even streaming audio, the carrier will be able to connect far fewer concurrent connections without any noticeable speed dip than a carrier that has less data intensive connections from tapatalk, casual web browsing etc.

 

Basically, at 64 QAM (or at very good signal levels) all the users of the carrier are sharing approximately 35Mbps. If there are 5 users downloading large files and using the maximum amount of bandwidth, they would each have approximately 7Mbps speeds. If there are 10 users in that example, they would see approximately 3.5Mbps and so on. Now if there was noise or lower signal strength, the connection would drop to a lower QAM and speeds would drop. In the 5 user example, if 2 of the users dropped to 32 QAM, their speeds would drop to 3.5Mbps while the rest would be 7Mbps still. At cell edge, you would get even slower speeds while still taking up the same percentage of the total capacity.

 

The line gets much blurrier when you add in the users who are using less data intensive applications and can share time slots or finish their use quickly and allow others to connect.

 

A 10x10 carrier has approximately 70Mbps to distribute over the users connected to it at 64 QAM, so you could generalize and say that it has double the capacity.

 

2-5x5 carriers brings you back up to that 70Mbps number, but on an unloaded carrier, or light-use carrier, your max speeds, or speeds at cell edge will be slower. (unless you are using carrier aggregation)

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

Well the LTE carrier airlink can be broken down very far into time slots, packets etc.

 

The amount of users a single 5x5 carrier on one sector of a cell site can support depends on what the users are doing with their connection. If it is large file downloads, streaming video, constant speed tests or even streaming audio, the carrier will be able to connect far fewer concurrent connections without any noticeable speed dip than a carrier that has less data intensive connections from tapatalk, casual web browsing etc.

 

Basically, at 64 QAM (or at very good signal levels) all the users of the carrier are sharing approximately 35Mbps. If there are 5 users downloading large files and using the maximum amount of bandwidth, they would each have approximately 7Mbps speeds. If there are 10 users in that example, they would see approximately 3.5Mbps and so on. Now if there was noise or lower signal strength, the connection would drop to a lower QAM and speeds would drop. In the 5 user example, if 2 of the users dropped to 32 QAM, their speeds would drop to 3.5Mbps while the rest would be 7Mbps still. At cell edge, you would get even slower speeds while still taking up the same percentage of the total capacity.

 

The line gets much blurrier when you add in the users who are using less data intensive applications and can share time slots or finish their use quickly and allow others to connect.

 

A 10x10 carrier has approximately 70Mbps to distribute over the users connected to it at 64 QAM, so you could generalize and say that it has double the capacity.

 

2-5x5 carriers brings you back up to that 70Mbps number, but on an unloaded carrier, or light-use carrier, your max speeds, or speeds at cell edge will be slower. (unless you are using carrier aggregation)

 

Ok so if they have 5x5Mhz on a tower then the total backhaul needed would be 35Mbps, and any more than that would be a waste as it would provide no benefit at all, correct?...

 

Now that's just for 1 carrier sector on the tower which typically have 3 per tower right? Could they add as many carriers or sectors as they want/need or is there a limit in that too? OR that 5x5 35Mbps is for that spectrum chunk total and all the carrier/sectors must share that bandwidth thus 3 panels and 3 ppl connected 1 to each panel, would be the same as all 3 connected to one panel?...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[pyroscott]

Ok so if they have 5x5Mhz on a tower then the total backhaul needed would be 35Mbps, and any more than that would be a waste as it would provide no benefit at all, correct?...

Pretty much... as long as it will always give you that speed

Now that's just for 1 carrier sector on the tower which typically have 3 per tower right?

correct

Could they add as many carriers or sectors as they want/need or is there a limit in that too? OR that 5x5 35Mbps is for that spectrum chunk total and all the carrier/sectors must share that bandwidth thus 3 panels and 3 ppl connected 1 to each panel, would be the same as all 3 connected to one panel?...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

They can add carriers just the same as they do with EV-DO. Once more customers are on LTE phones, I would expect Sprint will start dropping ED-DO carriers for LTE carriers. Sprint can reuse the same spectrum for 3 sectors per cell site (which most are set up to have 3 sectors) as well as neighboring cell sites. They do need to manage interference though, because if the sectors/cell sites overlap too much, the noise will cause the QAM to drop and speeds will drop.

 

Also, this is why there is a lot of talk about small cells, or pico cells. The smaller the cell, the more available bandwidth for users because there are fewer users than a macro cell that may be broadcasting miles in every direction.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Ok so in theory if they had a constant issue with a tower over capacity that is getting backhaul of 35Mbps, then the solution is to add carriers/sectors to the tower....and in turn they could theoretically add 15 carriers/sectors so everyone got 35Mbps DL all the time?.... Or is there a limit on number carriers/sectors you can add to one chunk of spectrum?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[S4GRU]

EVDO and 1x share backhaul with LTE, don't forget.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[Ascertion]

EVDO and 1x share backhaul with LTE, don't forget. <br /><br />Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

<br />I actually didn't know this. How come 3g and 4g sites aren't completed at the same time as 4g only sites

[supert0nes]

I think there are times when they can install new with 4g before they are ready to replace existing coverage in a market. With replacement you have potentially disrupted service.

[pyroscott]

Ok so in theory if they had a constant issue with a tower over capacity that is getting backhaul of 35Mbps, then the solution is to add carriers/sectors to the tower....and in turn they could theoretically add 15 carriers/sectors so everyone got 35Mbps DL all the time?.... Or is there a limit on number carriers/sectors you can add to one chunk of spectrum?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

The nationwide PCS G-Block will be deployed on 1 carrier per sector. The ESMR spectrum, once reclaimed from Nextel, will be deployed with one carrier for 1xA and one carrier for LTE per sector because it is 14 Mhz, 7 up 7 down. 5x5 of that will be LTE and the other 2x2 Mhz will be 1xA, guard bands, and possibly a very small slice of unused spectrum. 1xA uses 1.25x1.25, so I'm not sure what is happening with the other .75x.75 Mhz...

 

Once a G block carrier starts seeing heavy loading and hits a certain threshold that Sprint has most likely set, they will add another carrier with other available PCS spectrum. In some areas, Sprint is spectrum constrained, like Chicago (pre US Cellular transaction) and might have difficulty adding carriers without dipping into spectrum previously allocated to EV-DO and/or 1x voice. LTE carriers can be 1.5x1.5 3x3 5x5 10x10 or 20x20, so they could possibly reduce the size of another carrier and add a small LTE carrier.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

The nationwide PCS G-Block will be deployed on 1 carrier per sector. The ESMR spectrum, once reclaimed from Nextel, will be deployed with one carrier for 1xA and one carrier for LTE per sector because it is 14 Mhz, 7 up 7 down. 5x5 of that will be LTE and the other 2x2 Mhz will be 1xA, guard bands, and possibly a very small slice of unused spectrum. 1xA uses 1.25x1.25, so I'm not sure what is happening with the other .75x.75 Mhz...

 

Once a G block carrier starts seeing heavy loading and hits a certain threshold that Sprint has most likely set, they will add another carrier with other available PCS spectrum. In some areas, Sprint is spectrum constrained, like Chicago (pre US Cellular transaction) and might have difficulty adding carriers without dipping into spectrum previously allocated to EV-DO and/or 1x voice. LTE carriers can be 1.5x1.5 3x3 5x5 10x10 or 20x20, so they could possibly reduce the size of another carrier and add a small LTE carrier.

 

Okay now were talking... So what makes it considered spectrum constrained if they have a 5x5 and it seems additional carriers do not help?....so there is a limit on the number of carriers one can add to a tower for a fixed piece of spectrum? Is this more so a physical technical limit in terms of what they can put on a tower carrier/sector wise?...

 

Why not in Chicago go the Pico cell route if that's a possibility over adding spectrum? Guess spectrum cheaper than adding a ton of hardware everywhere?

 

 

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[pyroscott]

Okay now were talking... So what makes it considered spectrum constrained if they have a 5x5 and it seems additional carriers do not help?....so there is a limit on the number of carriers one can add to a tower for a fixed piece of spectrum? Is this more so a physical technical limit in terms of what they can put on a tower carrier/sector wise?...

 

You can only have one carrier deployed on a piece of spectrum. So if you are deploying a 5x5 carrier on the PCS G Block, that is it, no other carriers on the G Block. The amount of carriers Sprint, or any other cell carrier can deploy is limited to the amount of spectrum they have leased from the government. In markets that Sprint is considered spectrum constrained, they own approximately 20Mhz of PCS plus the G Block. The LTE devices currently offered by Sprint can only use LTE in the PCS spectrum, so they are limited to deploying carriers in PCS blocks A-G. Sprint needs to keep 1x voice and EV-DO on air, so they have few options to add more carriers for 1x, EV-DO or LTE unless they buy more spectrum from another carrier. It has to be PCS though. For instance, let's pretend that Sprint purchased Dish's AWS-4 20x20 block of spectrum, they would have to release new devices before they would be able to deploy any carriers on AWS and have them see any use or provide relief for their current 1x 3G and 4G carriers.

 

Why not in Chicago go the Pico cell route if that's a possibility over adding spectrum? Guess spectrum cheaper than adding a ton of hardware everywhere?

 

Bingo! Pico-cells would be the socially responsible thing for all the carriers to do, but buying more spectrum and deploying more carriers is the path all the US carriers have decided to follow. Now they complain that we are in a spectrum crunch, even though the problem can be reduced with small cells.

[S4GRU]

AT&T is addicted to spectrum. Its far cheaper than building and dividing cells.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk