Clearwire receives unsolicited offer from DISH

[bigsnake49]

I somehow missed this question a few weeks ago.

 

The answer is, yes, Sprint probably can use carrier aggregation with two carriers in the PCS band, definitely if those two carriers are contiguous, probably if those two carriers are non contiguous. In the latter case, a problem could arise if Sprint were to aggregate the PCS G block with the PCS A1 block, or even worse, the PCS/AWS-2 H block with the PCS A1 block.

 

The problem is that the G block and H blocks are at the very high end of each of the uplink/downlink segments, while the A block is at the very low end of each of the uplink/downlink segments. That brings the G block and H block uplinks within 10-20 MHz of the A block downlink. To illustrate, I have notated the following band plan diagram:

 

 

If Sprint were to aggregate A1+G blocks or A1+H blocks, a mobile transmitting on the G block or H block uplink and receiving on the A1 block downlink would possibly interfere with itself -- the frequency separation between the uplink and downlink may not be enough. Think of it a bit like placing a speaker (transmitter) too close to a microphone (receiver).

 

Now, the potentially unfortunate reality is that Sprint does hold a lot of PCS A block licenses (e.g. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, et al.) because these, along with the PCS B block licenses, are the large MTA based licenses that Sprint won at the first PCS auction to go from zero to a nearly nationwide footprint in one stroke.

 

AJ

 

AJ, they would have those interference concerns whether they were doing carrier aggregation or not and whether they were the owners of the A1 block or not.

[WiWavelength]

AJ, they would have those interference concerns whether they were doing carrier aggregation or not and whether they were the owners of the A1 block or not.

 

Yes and no. This is somewhat similar to the Sprint-Dish interference issue, but I have not heard as much concern over the G block and H block uplink separation from the A block downlink. That is probably because the separation here is at least 10 MHz, while the separation between Sprint downlink and Dish uplink is at most 10 MHz and could be effectively zero.

 

With carrier aggregation, though, the issue becomes exacerbated because, as I tried to describe, transmitter and receiver interference would be within the same mobile device. In other words, transmitter and receiver operating only 10 MHz apart would be also located only inches apart. And for reducing the negative effects of out of band emissions, distance is your friend, proximity your enemy.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Yes and no. This is somewhat similar to the Sprint-Dish interference issue, but I have not heard as much concern over the G block and H block uplink separation from the A block downlink. That is probably because the separation here is at least 10 MHz, while the separation between Sprint downlink and Dish uplink is at most 10 MHz and could be effectively zero.

 

With carrier aggregation, though, the issue becomes exacerbated because, as I tried to describe, transmitter and receiver interference would be within the same mobile device. In other words, transmitter and receiver operating only 10 MHz apart would be also located only inches apart. And for reducing the negative effects of out of band emissions, distance is your friend, proximity your enemy.

 

AJ

 

Maybe then they can flip between those blocks instead of aggregating them. Carrier aggregation is beneficial when the blocks are near empty. Once they get filled up then aggregation loses its apparent benefit to the end user.

[WiWavelength]

Maybe then they can flip between those blocks instead of aggregating them. Carrier aggregation is beneficial when the blocks are near empty. Once they get filled up then aggregation loses its apparent benefit to the end user.

 

I think that, if Sprint pursues carrier aggregation, it will be between the PCS G block and H block, especially since they are contiguous. For non contiguous aggregation, it could be between a 5 MHz FDD LTE carrier that Sprint has refarmed from its traditional PCS A-F block holdings and the 3-5 MHz FDD LTE carrier in SMR 800 MHz.

 

But that is all predicated on Sprint actually electing to use carrier aggregation. And I am not sure that it will be necessary. As long as Sprint-Clearwire gets some 20 MHz TDD LTE up and running, then that will offer the cheap thrill peak speeds that many may be craving.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

it turns out that Dish made a preliminary offer to Clearwire before Sprint did:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/02/01/dishs-ergen-made-3-billion-bid-for.html?page=4

 

There's some interesting chronology in that article.

[bigsnake49]

Here's Tim Farrar's excellent speculation on the whole Clearwire/Dish situation:

 

http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2013/02/04/did-atts-spectrum-deep-dive-dump-dish-deal/

 

I was thinking that if Sprint plays this right, they can get their own spectrum back then sell Clearwire to Dish along with their debt. Dish is desparate to get somebody to help deploy their spectrum. Sprint can make that a reality by first buying Clearwire and then selling the network and EBS leases to Dish.

[Deval]

Here's Tim Farrar's excellent speculation on the whole Clearwire/Dish situation:

 

http://tmfassociates...dump-dish-deal/

 

I was thinking that if Sprint plays this right, they can get their own spectrum back then sell Clearwire to Dish along with their debt. Dish is desparate to get somebody to help deploy their spectrum. Sprint can make that a reality by first buying Clearwire and then selling the network and EBS leases to Dish.

 

My question is this...why would Dish want someone else to deploy their spectrum when they can just piggyback upon Sprint's established NV install? They could potentially get their own backhaul if needed, etc.

[bigsnake49]

My question is this...why would Dish want someone else to deploy their spectrum when they can just piggyback upon Sprint's established NV install? They could potentially get their own backhaul if needed, etc.

 

I think they want the Clearwire spectrum as well.

[Deval]

I think they want the Clearwire spectrum as well.

 

That 55mhz chunk basically is earmarked to Sprint anyway lol.

[bigsnake49]

That 55mhz chunk basically is earmarked to Sprint anyway lol.

 

Yes, Sprint has a right of first refusal.

[ericdabbs]

I wish Dish would hurry up and just do a spectrum sharing deal with Sprint so we can move on from this saga. I just can't see which carrier out there would be interested in Dishs S-band spectrum anyways. Sprint can make use of that spectrum since it would be next to the PCS H block spectrum. Even AT&T would have a hard time getting that spectrum given that it recently received permission to deploy LTE on WCS band spectrum. AT&T has enough spectrum as it is.

[bigsnake49]

I wish Dish would hurry up and just do a spectrum sharing deal with Sprint so we can move on from this saga. I just can't see which carrier out there would be interested in Dishs S-band spectrum anyways. Sprint can make use of that spectrum since it would be next to the PCS H block spectrum. Even AT&T would have a hard time getting that spectrum given that it recently received permission to deploy LTE on WCS band spectrum. AT&T has enough spectrum as it is.

 

I don't really know if Sprint sites can accommodate panels and RRU for 4 different frequencies. Plus Dish would probably want Sprint to utilize some of the capacity of the Dish Network which means that Sprint phones would have to have 4 RF paths which I'm sure that Sprint does not want.

[Deval]

I don't really know if Sprint sites can accommodate panels and RRU for 4 different frequencies. Plus Dish would probably want Sprint to utilize some of the capacity of the Dish Network which means that Sprint phones would have to have 4 RF paths which I'm sure that Sprint does not want.

 

Unless there is a physical site constraint in terms of equipment installation, why wouldn't they accommodate? Perhaps Dish is looking for someone to simply host their equipment and not have to pay for site leasing, etc.

[bigsnake49]

Unless there is a physical site constraint in terms of equipment installation, why wouldn't they accommodate? Perhaps Dish is looking for someone to simply host their equipment and not have to pay for site leasing, etc.

 

Yes, I'm afraid that some of their sites might need to be braced further to accommodate additional panels.

 

I think that having to accommodate 4 frequencies in the same handset might be more troublesome. I think that Sprint might want to reserve the fourth frequency for rural roaming.

Edited February 18, 2013 by bigsnake49

[irwinshere]

How many can frequencies can the photon handle?

[WiWavelength]

How many can frequencies can the photon handle?

 

Three. Cellular 850 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, and BRS/EBS 2600 MHz. The first two are limited to CDMA1X/EV-DO, the last limited to WiMAX.

 

AJ

[irwinshere]

What about the gsm and uts frequencies ... or don't they count since they are probably not actvie ...

[MacinJosh]

What about the gsm and uts frequencies ... or don't they count since they are probably not actvie ...

 

Are you thinking about the original Photon, or the Photon Q?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

What about the gsm and uts frequencies ... or don't they count since they are probably not actvie ...

 

No, that is a good point about the Photon. It is a world phone, so to speak, and supports GSM in the Cellular 850 MHz, GSM 900 MHz, DCS 1800 MHz, and PCS 1900 MHz bands, plus W-CDMA in the Cellular 850 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, and IMT 2100+1900 MHz bands. But none of those have any bearing on a Sprint activated Photon in the US.

 

AJ

[irwinshere]

Was just wondering about the difficulty of putting 4 or more frequencies on one device per the earlier comments and was courious if the photon would have been an example of that or not. Then realized they are not all active at one time anyway. That should be true for both photons i would think?

[bigsnake49]

Was just wondering about the difficulty of putting 4 or more frequencies on one device per the earlier comments and was courious if the photon would have been an example of that or not. Then realized they are not all active at one time anyway. That should be true for both photons i would think?

 

In the GSM arena only two are active at most at the same time. Which is probably true for the CDMA/WiMax side as well. For future phones that don't have carrier aggregation and support VoLTE, you could have just one RF path being active.

[irwinshere]

Thanks for the info.

[lordsutch]

Yes, I'm afraid that some of their sites might need to be braced further to accommodate additional panels.

 

I think that having to accommodate 4 frequencies in the same handset might be more troublesome. I think that Sprint might want to reserve the fourth frequency for rural roaming.

 

Bear in mind Sprint will be removing the pre-NV panels from most of its towers, so a second panel for NV 2.0 shouldn't be too problematic (and probably can be smaller for 2500/2600-only). And if they were to put S-band on the towers, they could probably use the same panels for both BRS and S-band. RRUs might be a different story though.

[bigsnake49]

Bear in mind Sprint will be removing the pre-NV panels from most of its towers, so a second panel for NV 2.0 shouldn't be too problematic (and probably can be smaller for 2500/2600-only). And if they were to put S-band on the towers, they could probably use the same panels for both BRS and S-band. RRUs might be a different story though.

Yes, but you have 800Mhz panels, 1900Mhz panels, 2500/2600MHz already, plus the RRU's for each. Yes S band and 2600MHz can share, but will be not be optimal for either.

[lordsutch]

The 800/ESMR and 1900 antennas are both in the same panel housing with NV inside the new, center-mounted panel. Even though there are physically multiple antennas inside (three total, two for 1900 carriers and one for ESMR, is pretty common, but other configurations are possible depending on how many 1900 carriers are in use in the market), it just looks like one. (The old panels, typically mounted on the ends of the rack, are no longer powered and will eventually be removed.) There's no reason why the vendors can't build S-band and 2500/2600 panels into the same housing either.

 

Having said that Sprint is probably going to tell Dish to go pound sand on any co-hosting agreement after Charlie's throwing a (small) wrench in the Clear merger. The only thing Dish may have going for them at this point is a bunch of empty Nextel racks that tower owners will want tenants for in the next 2-3 years (and Sprint may strategically decide to keep leasing many of them either to expand the native footprint or just to keep them out of Dish's and T-Mobile's hands).