Sprint is looking for more spectrum

[bigsnake49]

I would not be surprised if Sprint makes a play for Leap if only for the spectrum. Yes they have a mixture of AWS and PCS, but they could probably trade AWS for PCS with a willing partner (T-Mobile/Metro)?

[supert0nes]

Too lazy to start a new topic. Hopefully the announced AWS auctions bring down the competition for the PCS H block.

[bigsnake49]

Too lazy to start a new topic. Hopefully the announced AWS auctions bring down the competition for the PCS H block.

 

I think the PCS H block will only be bid by Sprint and Dish and Dish will only bid to make it expensive for Sprint.

[WiWavelength]

I think the PCS H block will only be bid by Sprint and Dish and Dish will only bid to make it expensive for Sprint.

 

Sprint has in essence already made a down payment on the PCS/AWS-2 H block because Sprint would not have to reimburse itself for BAS relocation costs. Dish or any other buyer would, though.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Sprint has in essence already made a down payment on the PCS/AWS-2 H block because Sprint would not have to reimburse itself for BAS relocation costs. Dish or any other buyer would, though.

 

AJ

 

I don't think that Dish has any intentions of actually winning the auction. They just want to drive the price up for Sprint.

[ericdabbs]

I don't think that Dish has any intentions of actually winning the auction. They just want to drive the price up for Sprint.

 

I agree. I don't think Dish cares at all about the H block spectrum only wanting to make it hell for Sprint to obtain it by driving up the price. Sadly I think Sprint needs to spend whatever it takes to buy up the H block spectrum nationwide if possible since the major markets needs it and all the sub 20 MHz markets need it.

 

Once the Sprint/Softbank/Clearwire merger is over, Sprint would need to take a look at purchasing Cricket for its PCS spectrum at some point in the future.

[bigsnake49]

I agree. I don't think Dish cares at all about the H block spectrum only wanting to make it hell for Sprint to obtain it by driving up the price. Sadly I think Sprint needs to spend whatever it takes to buy up the H block spectrum nationwide if possible since the major markets needs it and all the sub 20 MHz markets need it.

 

Once the Sprint/Softbank/Clearwire merger is over, Sprint would need to take a look at purchasing Cricket for its PCS spectrum at some point in the future.

 

After the whole shebang closes, I would like for Sprint to articulate exactly what they're going to do with all that Clearwire spectrum. They won't need it except in very limited places. Now if they change their business model to something else (involving video on demand, OTT video), then I can see them needing all that spectrum, but other than becoming wholesale provider for Dish and DirectTV, I just don't see it.

[jefbal99]

After the whole shebang closes, I would like for Sprint to articulate exactly what they're going to do with all that Clearwire spectrum. They won't need it except in very limited places. Now if they change their business model to something else (involving video on demand, OTT video), then I can see them needing all that spectrum, but other than becoming wholesale provider for Dish and DirectTV, I just don't see it.

 

I disagree, data is king, who would have thought 10 years ago that a T1 wouldn't be enough backhaul for a cell tower. Now scalable fiber or AAV is backhauling cell sites.

 

Sprint has set itself apart with unlimited data and I don't really see that going away. Sprint/Softbank/Clear can increase bandwidth network wide over the next few years, adding BRS support along the way. Perhaps Eaton Rapids, MI doesn't need 20x20 TD-LTE right now, but in two years when everyone is expecting 100Mb/s on their mobile devices, Sprint can provide that. Further away from the towers, SMR and PCS LTE can provide slower, but still reliable service.

[bigsnake49]

I disagree, data is king, who would have thought 10 years ago that a T1 wouldn't be enough backhaul for a cell tower. Now scalable fiber or AAV is backhauling cell sites.

 

Sprint has set itself apart with unlimited data and I don't really see that going away. Sprint/Softbank/Clear can increase bandwidth network wide over the next few years, adding BRS support along the way. Perhaps Eaton Rapids, MI doesn't need 20x20 TD-LTE right now, but in two years when everyone is expecting 100Mb/s on their mobile devices, Sprint can provide that. Further away from the towers, SMR and PCS LTE can provide slower, but still reliable service.

 

I don't for a moment belive that you will need 100Mbits/sec on your smartphone except to brag. What the heck are you going to be going that will require that? 20x20 channels will be able to get you 150Mbits/sec/sector. It's not going to be about you but about you and the 15 other people that are in your sector. It's not about replacing your home connection with a wireless connection, it's supplementing it. If the cable guys think that they are losing customers to the wireless guys they will either lower your home internet connection price or jack up the wholesale price to the wireless guys.

Edited March 27, 2013 by bigsnake49

[WiWavelength]

Perhaps Eaton Rapids, MI doesn't need 20x20 TD-LTE right now...

 

Careful. "20x20 TD-LTE" is a contradiction in terms because TD-LTE uses only one allocation that is shared in time between uplink and downlink. "20x20" would be 20 MHz FDD, but Clearwire is deploying 20 MHz TDD.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Yes, when referring to a 20MHz TDD carrier, it would be better expressed "20MHz TD-LTE." 20x20 would refer to separate uplink and downlink channels of FDD.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[Fraydog]

Now if I really want to nitpick, it would be either "2x20" or "20+20", signifying 20 MHz up and 20 MHz down.

 

I do think that, in the future, that Sprint could also consider both TDD-LTE and FDD-LTE in the 2600 band. I would have to look into the ramifications of what it would take to align our 2600 MHz spectrum with Canada and Europe. I simply don't know how it could be done though.

 

I need to sit down and do a lot more research on this.

[jefbal99]

I don't for a moment belive that you will need 100Mbits/sec on your smartphone except to brag. What the heck are you going to be going that will require that? 20x20 channels will be able to get you 150Mbits/sec/sector. It's not going to be about you but about you and the 15 other people that are in your sector. It's not about replacing your home connection with a wireless connection, it's supplementing it. If the cable guys think that they are losing customers to the wireless guys they will either lower your home internet connection price or jack up the wholesale price to the wireless guys.

 

Mobile devices are the way of the future, higher quality streaming media, higher bandwidth applications, higher bandwidth everything. It will not shock me to see the PC make an exit in the next 10 years and the laptop in the next 20 with the replacement being tablets, phablets, and phones. Internet companies hosting services like Office 365 and other productivity over the internet that require higher bandwidth connections. Multi player gaming platforms that run over mobile/handheld devices over the internet.

 

Look at how the bandwidth consumption has increased over the last 10 years and it will probably accelerate exponentially. Developers have always and will continue to build services that max out the current generation of products, so the network/device must be robust enough to support these services, plus everything else.

 

Wasn't it Bill Gates that made a comment in the 80s about a personal computer never needing more than 640k of RAM? Now we have cell phones with 2GB of RAM.

 

Just because you can't see a future service that will require an incredibly high speed connection, doesn't mean that someone else can't envision those services.

 

Careful. "20x20 TD-LTE" is a contradiction in terms because TD-LTE uses only one allocation that is shared in time between uplink and downlink. "20x20" would be 20 MHz FDD, but Clearwire is deploying 20 MHz TDD.

 

AJ

 

Thanks AJ, I now remember that and it was the intent of my message, just typo'd it

[WiWavelength]

Now if I really want to nitpick, it would be either "2x20" or "20+20", signifying 20 MHz up and 20 MHz down.

 

Nope. I would then have to nitpick those conventions. "2x20" sounds like an asymmetric pairing of uplink and downlink bandwidth. And "20+20" could be carrier aggregation.

 

Trust me, I have thought this through. My conventions are impeccable. Either "20 MHz x 20 MHz" or "20 MHz FDD" is as clear as it gets.

 

I do think that, in the future, that Sprint could also consider both TDD-LTE and FDD-LTE in the 2600 band. I would have to look into the ramifications of what it would take to align our 2600 MHz spectrum with Canada and Europe. I simply don't know how it could be done though.

 

Neal Gompa wants a band 7 FDD configuration, but it is not feasible. The BRS/EBS 2600 MHz band plan would have to be reworked, the licenses reassigned.

 

To illustrate, I doctored the BRS/EBS band plan and have posted this image numerous times. If an EBS license in the band 7 uplink is not leased (or the lease is lost), then the corresponding BRS/EBS spectrum in the band 7 downlink is rendered worthless.

 

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Mobile devices are the way of the future, higher quality streaming media, higher bandwidth applications, higher bandwidth everything. It will not shock me to see the PC make an exit in the next 10 years and the laptop in the next 20 with the replacement being tablets, phablets, and phones. Internet companies hosting services like Office 365 and other productivity over the internet that require higher bandwidth connections. Multi player gaming platforms that run over mobile/handheld devices over the internet.

 

Look at how the bandwidth consumption has increased over the last 10 years and it will probably accelerate exponentially. Developers have always and will continue to build services that max out the current generation of products, so the network/device must be robust enough to support these services, plus everything else.

 

Wasn't it Bill Gates that made a comment in the 80s about a personal computer never needing more than 640k of RAM? Now we have cell phones with 2GB of RAM.

 

Just because you can't see a future service that will require an incredibly high speed connection, doesn't mean that someone else can't envision those services.

 

 

 

Thanks AJ, I now remember that and it was the intent of my message, just typo'd it

 

Is nobody going to be working? Is everybody going to be out in the park? Or driving all the time? Or are going to be a society of leisure in which we are going to be out and about for 16 hours, just going to our houses only to sleep? Never using either the work or home network/wifi?

[jefbal99]

Is nobody going to be working? Is everybody going to be out in the park? Or driving all the time? Or are going to be a society of leisure in which we are going to be out and about for 16 hours, just going to our houses only to sleep? Never using either the work or home network/wifi?

 

You hit another huge nail on the head, yes, everyone will be working but connecting via mobile device to enterprise services via the cloud. Citrix or VMware clients to get back to secure corporate networks via a mobile provider something I can easily see.

 

I work for the State of Michigan and we already do this with our Enterprise iPad and iPhone solutions. Verizon LTE is used here for those high speed connections, also field techs use iPhones to hook into the Enterprise VOIP system. These are all data hungry services that need high speed connections.

 

Consider anything you do on a PC/Laptop today will be wireless and mobile in the near future.

[bigsnake49]

 

You hit another huge nail on the head, yes, everyone will be working but connecting via mobile device to enterprise services via the cloud. Citrix or VMware clients to get back to secure corporate networks via a mobile provider something I can easily see.

 

I work for the State of Michigan and we already do this with our Enterprise iPad and iPhone solutions. Verizon LTE is used here for those high speed connections, also field techs use iPhones to hook into the Enterprise VOIP system. These are all data hungry services that need high speed connections.

 

Consider anything you do on a PC/Laptop today will be wireless and mobile in the near future.

 

While the momentum towards mobile devices is inexorable, the economics of wireless communication prohibit wholesale replacement of fixed/wifi infrastructure by cellular access. Yes, field people will live and die by cellular access but office workers will not.

[jefbal99]

While the momentum towards mobile devices is inexorable, the economics of wireless communication prohibit wholesale replacement of fixed/wifi infrastructure by cellular access. Yes, field people will live and die by cellular access but office workers will not.

 

More and more office workers are moving away from the traditional office to a roving or mobile office, dependent on mobile and wireless solutions.

[Deval]

I've seen and spoken to a lot of people from a lot of companies who are looking to empower their employees by deploying MDM clients on their iPads or tablets, allowing for secure Enterprise access remotely. That is where the future is going, for wireless access anywhere to internal resources. That all requires either good WIFI availability, or high-bandwidth cellular connectivity. While I do believe we don't need to all be streaming Netflix while sitting in a park, having LTE available on an iPad can help me work faster.

[MagnusOchncap]

I still personally believe that T-mobile/MetroPCS will become a merger or acquisition target for Sprint-uh-Bank within three years. All together they would still be under 100m subscribers, which would still be smaller than either AT&T and Verizon at such a time.

 

This administration's FCC is all about consumer choice and protection. Having a really strong third national player would work towards that goal. Likely part of such a deal would be a promise to maintain unlimited smartphone data, sub-$50 monthly plans, and prepaid brands?

 

Even logistically, Sprint would garner a legacy GSM network for international roaming partners, and more extensive PCS band holdings. Sell off or hold the AWS bands? Who knows. They'd gain LTE roaming or compatibility with AT&T and Verizon, who are both using LTE on AWS.

 

SoftBank's Son's expansion plans are all about economies of scale. Sprint was a target simply because of their Clearwire connection. SoftBank is also using the same LTE bands in Japan as Clearwire is here. Buying 80,000 network cabinets instead of 40,000 probably gets you a couple billion dollar break. Plus, SoftBank is all about crazy subscriber expansion.

 

From this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2012/10/11/us-consumers-need-softbank-to-buy-sprint/

 

Today’s news about Softbank considering buying Sprint could have a profound impact on the US mobile market. There would finally be a real chance of effective price competition. In Japan, Softbank made a bold move in 2006 by acquiring the badly stumbling Vodafone unit. In just one year, Softbank managed to boost the subscriber base of the challenger carrier from 700,000 in fiscal 2006 to 2.7 million in fiscal 2007, vaulting ahead of its giant rivals NTT-DoCoMo and KDDI in sub additions.

 

By the beginning of 2008, Softbank had grabbed 44% of Japan’s new mobile subscribers, well ahead of KDDI’s 35% and NTT-DoCoMo’s 11%. The minnow had morphed into an eagle.

[DaQue]

I always try to save a couple billion when I can too.

[lordsutch]

I think the FCC would probably approve of a merger or mergers that improved Sprint's geographic coverage & strengthened its rural presence, which would be the exact opposite of a T-Mobile+MetroPCS (or Cricket or other metro carrier) merger. Merging with T-Metro would probably require lots of divestitures, and would be yet another merger of incompatible technologies.

 

Frankly I think a roll-up of regional CDMA carriers (C Spire, nTelos, US Cellular, whatever's left of divested Alltel, etc.) in states where Sprint has limited/no native coverage is much more likely than a T-Metro merger.