Sprint makes official offer to acquire Clearwire

[S4GRU]

I can most assuredly "feel" the difference between 12 Mb and 50Mb. I had that transition here at the house with my wifi. My cableco bumped me from 16 to 50 without telling me. One day i was moving along nicely like it normally does at 16..then blam! I watched a 50 meg download go in less than half the time on my phone...that's what tipped me off as i had not fired up my computer yet. Once i investigated i found i had a new 50 meg promo on my account that dropped my rate for the next 6 months..

 

I cannot feel the difference between 12Mbps and 5Mbps (which my DSL slows down to at night) on my smartphone. No difference in any of the apps nor streaming. The only thing that I can do to notice the difference is to download large files. And I do not download anything larger than a couple hundred MB's on my phone. And that is not a frequent occurrence.

 

If you need mega ultra high speed mobile downloads in lieu of ultra high speed mobile data, find another carrier. I bet when you run through your data allotment with another carrier, Sprint's LTE speeds will seem pretty darn fast.

 

How fast does your car go? Did you know that they make cars that go double or triple the top speed of your car? Why don't you buy them? Because they are expensive and there is a car in your price range that meets your needs. That is Sprint LTE.

 

We need to get back to reality with our data desires and pair it with our needs. I'm a broken record here, but most people reject higher speeds at home with ala carte pricing. The average American has 6Mbps internet at home and it meets their needs. They aren't willing to pay more for faster speeds. If we implemented an increased cost for faster speeds on mobile wireless internet, most smartphone users would still select approx. 6Mbps, because they would realize there is little advantage for faster mobile speeds and would be wasting money.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[bigsnake49]

Unfortunately Robert, speed tiers will probably not be offered, just total number of GB. But that's another rant for another day.

[S4GRU]

Unfortunately Robert, speed tiers will probably not be offered, just total number of GB. But that's another rant for another day.

 

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I'm just illustrating that most customers are not willing to pay more for higher speeds. People just want consistency in the experience all over the network. People that want speeds greater than what a 5MHz LTE carrier can provide are a minority, especially if they have to give up unlimited or pay more for it.

 

Robert

[dedub]

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/12/report-data-caps-just-a-cash-cow-for-internet-providers/

[Guest 503ducati]

January 2009 it was exciting to have a mobile data card that could connect at +/- 10Mbps on mobile WiMAX. To this day that is still plenty fast.

[supert0nes]

I cannot feel the difference between 12Mbps and 5Mbps (which my DSL slows down to at night) on my smartphone. No difference in any of the apps nor streaming. The only thing that I can do to notice the difference is to download large files. And I do not download anything larger than a couple hundred MB's on my phone. And that is not a frequent occurrence.

 

If you need mega ultra high speed mobile downloads in lieu of ultra high speed mobile data, find another carrier. I bet when you run through your data allotment with another carrier, Sprint's LTE speeds will seem pretty darn fast.

 

How fast does your car go? Did you know that they make cars that go double or triple the top speed of your car? Why don't you buy them? Because they are expensive and there is a car in your price range that meets your needs. That is Sprint LTE.

 

We need to get back to reality with our data desires and pair it with our needs. I'm a broken record here, but most people reject higher speeds at home with ala carte pricing. The average American has 6Mbps internet at home and it meets their needs. They aren't willing to pay more for faster speeds. If we implemented an increased cost for faster speeds on mobile wireless internet, most smartphone users would still select approx. 6Mbps, because they would realize there is little advantage for faster mobile speeds and would be wasting money.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Not to mention latency is half of the feel of speed anyway. And the new Sprint network will be top notch in that regard!

[mhammett]

-deleted because the editor jacked it up-

[mhammett]

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

 

Assuming a low enough overhead in the aggregation mechanism, multiple smaller channels will produce higher throughput (up to the maximum available for that technology). Halving the channel size produces a 3 dB better signal. Better signal means you're more likely to maintain higher modulation, therefore better throughput. Obviously if at full modulation already, there isn't anything to gain other than SNR and fade margin.

 

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

 

I would say it matters minimally, unless they have a big problem with coverage off of a given 2.5 GHz radio.

 

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

 

The leading technologies will always have reduced power efficiency as that new tehcnology can only be achieved in a dedicated chip. Usually the second generation integrates it with other systems, producing power efficiency gains. In the case you mention, the quad core is the new technology.

 

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.

 

Sure they do. It is easier (given available spectrum) to deploy to deploy 20 MHz channels than 2x 10 MHz channels given that it is often an additional thing to manage and requires an additional radio.

 

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

 

There is little need for that much throughput to a given handset with today's consumption. Greater radio capacity will, though, better absorb future "killer apps" and more subscribers.

 

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.

 

No, all carriers need more small cell deployments. Small cell offloading of dense areas not only improves the service for the dense area, but the macro network as a whole. That bandwidth demand has been removed from the macro network as well as the likely lower modulation devices.

 

Exactly what I have been saying. Until the Sprint/Softbank and the US Cellular transactions are finalized next year, Sprint needs to not focus on Clearwire. Sprint needs to stay under the spectrum screen so that they can bid on the PCS H block and possibly work out a deal with Dish Network for the 40 MHz of 2 GHz spectrum. Sprint desperately needs the H block spectrum to expand their 5x5 G block carrier to a 10x10 G+H block carrier.

 

Clearwire should be the very last deal that Sprint makes (hopefully in 2014) since they already have a controlling interest in the company. Sprint will no doubt have Softbank's blessing since by then the Sprint/Softbank transaction will be finalized. No other company at the moment is interested in Clearwire other than Sprint so the bargaining chip is already in Sprint's favor. Clearwire investors are just playing hardball because they want more and I hope it stays that way. Hopefully this is enough to delay any purchase of Clearwire for the time being. Obtaining more PCS spectrum should be Sprint's number 1 priority especially in many areas of the US where they only have 20 MHz of PCS spectrum in that market. The US Cellular deal is a first step to address Chicago and some other cities but getting PCS divestitures from the MetroPCS/Tmobile deal would be another step.

More PCS capacity in constrained markets is good, but alternate bands with larger channels is also necessary.

[mhammett]

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

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Assuming it's available, which it increasingly isn't. Divide and conquer is the only long-term solution we have.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

You can re-use frequencies assuming that the two devices in communication with each other cannot hear other communications on that frequency. Well, at least can hear that other communication at a level low enough to maintain an efficient modulation. This is where the smaller cells and smart antennas come into play. Higher orders of diversification and technologies such as beam forming will contribute to an overall increase in the frequency re-use ratio.

 

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

 

There is no theroritical limit as to the number of APs, base stations, carriers, etc. per tower. You just need sufficient isolation between them to have a net increase in capacity.

 

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.

 

and the more they can reuse those frequencies.

 

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)

 

Well, that's not exactly the case unless LTE (or Sprint) starves only those affected devices. In my experience, a device can get whatever is available on a given radio. If you have half of the userbase drop to 32 QAM from 64 QAM, the capacity of the entire radio is reduced, but everyone still shares an equal amount of throughput (assuming all are requesting equal amounts. Also, halving of the modulation complexity does not halve the throughput. For example, on a given backhaul radio, on a 28 MHz channel, going from 256 QAM to 1024 WAM to 2048 WAM (8x increase in modulation complexity) only goes from 195 mbit to 240 mbit to 260 megabit. I believe this applies to all radios of all technologies, unless you start adding in MIMO, etc. which then place those increases on another improvement, not the QAM complexity.

 

That also doesn't take into account the baseline overhead that happens no matter what you're doing on the network at a given time. That would remain constant per user no matter what the modulation was.

[mhammett]

They don't need this spectrum either. If they were to concentrate on PCS-H and/or getting some divestitures from T-Mobile/Metro and maybe acquiring Leap, it would be a lot cheaper. They did not have to pay $7.7B for Clearwire, just to use them for hotspots. So either they have other plans, such as using them for fixed broadband as well, or this deal makes absolutely no sense. The 2.6GHz band is well suited for dense urban areas like in Europe or China or NYC, but a total waste for the suburban/rural US.

 

Whoever ended up with Clear and the money to make it happen is the winner.

 

It does and it doesn't. If Sprint has a solid 30MHz of A-F in all of its markets

 

 

It does and it doesn't. I am worried about handoffs between 2.6GHz cell and the PCS G/800Mhz. I think you need to minimize handoffs to minimize drops. If Sprint can get their hands on enough spectrum in the A-F bands to have a solid 30MHz in all their markets, then they have less need for PCS-H.

 

I just don't think that Sprint is buying Clearwire for the spectrum. They are buying them to sell them to Dish or DirectTV. They just did not want Dish to get them for cheap.

 

They'll keep and integrate. How are the EVDO and LTE handoffs working? That's a completely different protocol. Inter-band handoffs shouldn't be a big deal. Depending on the radio, it's just another channel.

 

I sure would host a small cell for Sprint in my home just so I could have better service in my house.

 

I'd expect all residential pico-cell requests to be denied. A femtocell would be a better use in a low density residential setting. A picocell would be more appropriate in a large apartment building, mall, campus (business, educational or government), etc.

 

Man has a point... I'd put one up free of charge if had the option... Told em that during the wimax ordeal when I had been stuck between two wimax towers and was in a black hole so to say. Lol

 

I am surprised that Cisco has not been a bigger player in this space.... Though I think I recall them getting involved with one of the other carriers recently... They did some big things for a TWC network switch hub a few years back I believe... Guess still not their full wheelhouse as the others...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

The backhaul costs compared to the likely benefits is not a good ratio. Few people have good resources for that. I have towers and backhaul, but not always good spots for pico-cells. I have ideas of where to put them, but I don't have towers or backhaul there.

 

That in a sense is what I was somewhat trying to get to understand... Right now it seems its easier/cheaper to just gain more spectrum which will up the avg DL overall on already built site....as opposed to buying and deploying many little peco cells in constrained areas...

 

So another step back.... When we say when a tower gets over capacity and sprint will then roll a truck to add a carrier to said tower.... This can not happen unless sprint has extra in used spectrum in that area they didn't deploy initially...correct? Or did I just take 2 steps back in this learning session? Lol

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

Spectrum is damn expensive and increasingly scarce. It just isn't sustainable to throw spectrum at the existing tower infrastructure. Deploying pico-cells in high use areas is not.

 

I agree to an extent. But I will give the wireless carriers some leeway. Small cell technology has not taken off until recently. (Now, you can certainly view that as a "chicken or the egg" dilemma." Fair enough.) But moreover, our broadband infrastructure is broken. It is focused on making copious amounts of money for a few oligopolists, not on providing the proverbial "information superhighway" to commerce and society. If fiber were cheap and ubiquitous by now, as it should be, then carriers would have little excuse for not deploying countless small cells. In fact, many businesses, organizations, and even residential customers would love to host such small cells on their premises.

 

AJ

 

It hasn't taken off until recently because of their own incompetence. Fiber is widely available from a host of sources for business and carrier customers. Hell, you want fiber in my area and I'll build it to you... assuming you can cost-justify it.

[mhammett]

I think I remember hearing that Huawai is one of Clearwire's LTE vendors.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus running Paradigm 3.0 using Forum Runner

 

I'd prefer Huawei to stay out. They have been bad news for the last decade.

 

 

for a 10Mhz slot? a billion? <insert random deity> Damn!!!

 

I was thinking $500mil - $750mil tops

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

 

AT&T bought 127 licenses (which is not even the entire country) in the B block for $6.6B. The B block is 2x 6 MHz.

 

10 MHz in the mobile world is a sizable. Not so much in the fixed world. I deploy radios that do 2x 80 MHz (different polarities) for 1 gigabit of throughput in 11 and 18 GHz.

 

It will probably cost close to a billion for nationwide spectrum, according to some of the estimates I have seen.

 

Much more.

 

 

Some people around here thing that Sprint won't bid on PCS-H. I think that they will, and will also try and secure additional A-F spectrum. They recognize that PCS is their bread and butter band, a great compromise between cellular and >2.5 GHz spectrum.

I just don't see Clearwire's spectrum as valuable as some other people seem to think. Unless they plan to do something else with it in addition to mobile. I just did not see the need for Sprint to spend close to $8B.

 

There simply isn't the capacity in the entire PCS band to support no-cap service to a large number of users, much less profitably.

 

So how long before we get some 2.5ghz phones?

 

Like the EVO 4G? :-p Until we get Sprint LTE in 2.5 GHz? I'd guess 18 to 36 months. The network needs to have signs of major headway and someone needs to make a chip to do it.

 

I know how they got there. I still think this has something to do with Dish. They might sell Clearwire's network and some of the spectrum to Dish.

 

Other people think that Dish is making a play to be acquired by AT&T whole. Or sell it's spectrum to AT&T.

 

I think Dish will put up some effort to build something, but will likely sell it to someone else. A partnership or sale of that spectrum to LightSquared may work out.

 

2.2 billion dollar price tag plus 5.5 billion in debt is where I got the 7.7 billion. I doubt they are going to sell the spectrum for a loss.

 

Yesterday's news puts them at a $10B valuation.

[bigsnake49]

The $10B includes Sprint's part of the company. The $7.7 does not. It just includes what they paid for the part of Clearwire they don't own plus debt plus lease obligations.

[jefbal99]

http://en.wikipedia....pectrum_auction

 

AT&T bought 127 licenses (which is not even the entire country) in the B block for $6.6B. The B block is 2x 6 MHz.

 

10 MHz in the mobile world is a sizable. Not so much in the fixed world. I deploy radios that do 2x 80 MHz (different polarities) for 1 gigabit of throughput in 11 and 18 GHz.

 

In fairness, that was for 12Mhz of 700Mhz "beach front" spectrum, not Restricted PCS spectrum (see the new FCC requirements)

[mhammett]

In fairness, that was for 12Mhz of 700Mhz "beach front" spectrum, not Restricted PCS spectrum (see the new FCC requirements)

 

What new FCC requirements? My FCC reading has been tied up with their 3550 - 3650 NPRM.

 

That low spectrum is nice and important, but over-rated for all but ultra-rural areas.

[mhammett]

http://arstechnica.c...rnet-providers/

 

Not entirely true.

[bigsnake49]

I think Dish will put up some effort to build something, but will likely sell it to someone else. A partnership or sale of that spectrum to LightSquared may work out.

 

 

 

Yesterday's news puts them at a $10B valuation.

 

A sale to AT&T makes a lot of sense particularly since AT&T can use Dish's 700MHz lower E block as well as their AWS-4 spectrum.

 

A Sprint partnership could work, but Sprint does not need yet another band on their phones. Sprint can sell them Clearwire's network and some of that 160MHz of spectrum, particularly if Dish wants to use it for fixed broadband and VOD instead of mobile broadband. I want to see their business model.

 

T-Mobile, Dish and Metro makes sense up to a point. It would definitely help defray the cost of developing a network, but they will have the same problem as Sprint. They will have LTE on AWS and PCS and then AWS-4 and they probably want to roam on somebody like AT&T or Verizon or Sprint, so that will be 4 bands again.

Edited December 18, 2012 by bigsnake49

[MacinJosh]

I'd expect all residential pico-cell requests to be denied. A femtocell would be a better use in a low density residential setting. A picocell would be more appropriate in a large apartment building, mall, campus (business, educational or government), etc.

 

Femtocell's are worthless in neighborhoods with 1 acre lot sizes. 5000 sq ft is too small a range. They won't deny all residential picocell requests. It would be cheaper for them than to deploy a new cell tower in areas that normally would have great service if it wasn't for tree and powerline interference.

[mhammett]

I have 10 acres and my femtocell does pretty good, but I'm also not completely isolated from the macro network either. Location and antenna selection makes a big difference too.

 

I could see foliage attenuation, but not powerline interference.

 

So there is currently a picostation request process?

[iansltx]

Like the EVO 4G? :-p Until we get Sprint LTE in 2.5 GHz? I'd guess 18 to 36 months. The network needs to have signs of major headway and someone needs to make a chip to do it.

 

Chips supporting LTE-TD in BRS/EBS are either nearly, or already, available. I expect that, at the latest, phones two generations later than the SIII and the Evo will have that band. Might even happen with the upcoming generation.

 

EDIT: By "chips" I mean SoCs that have, among other bands (including FD in band 25), TD in BRS/EBS.

[mhammett]

 

Chips supporting LTE-TD in BRS/EBS are either nearly, or already, available. I expect that, at the latest, phones two generations later than the SIII and the Evo will have that band. Might even happen with the upcoming generation.

 

I meant integral that support the required handoffs. There are LTE chips in a bunch of bands.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

I meant integral that support the required handoffs. There are LTE chips in a bunch of bands.

 

Who says the basebands do not support inter band handoffs? Regardless, that is more a network function than it is a UE function.

 

AJ

[mhammett]

 

Who says the basebands do not support inter band handoffs? Regardless, that is more a network function than it is a UE function.

 

AJ

 

Traditionally, that hasn't worked well without an integral chipset.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Traditionally, that hasn't worked well without an integral chipset.

 

I do not follow. Qualcomm's top basebands already integrate both LTE and TD-LTE on the same chipset.

 

AJ

[mhammett]

 

I do not follow. Qualcomm's top basebands already integrate both LTE and TD-LTE on the same chipset.

 

AJ

 

On the required bands?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

On the required bands?

 

No, that is not the responsibility of the baseband. That is a function of the transceiver chipset. And yes, the top Qualcomm transceiver now supports seven bands: three <1 GHz, three >1 GHz, and one >2.5 GHz.

 

AJ