T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[EvanA]

It will take some time to get AWS 3 ready, usable and deployed. At least they have the band approved in advance. That helps. It will be some time before AWS 3 gets deployed anywhere and have devices able to use it.

 

But I'd pursue it if I was Tmo...in markets where they currently can't achieve 15-20MHz channels now. So they can provide a more consistent experience. Tmo doesn't need to make a big AWS3 purchase. Just a carefully crafted and thoughtful purchase.

 

Besides, popular consensus is that AWS3 is all about AT&T. They are the ones who desperately need it. And I wouldn't be surprised to see VZW make some strategic plays for it in key markets where they may need to bolster capacity soon. Our XLTE speeds are steadily dropping and no longer anything special.

I think they will be focusing on areas in which they are only able to deploy PCS LTE, like Cincinnati.

[S4GRU]

Verizon already has AWS E and F blocks in Pennington, SD, so your capacity drops are due to backhaul, not spectrum.

My sweeps of the spectrum analyzer disagree with your guesses. An unburdened LTE signal on the spectrum analyzer shows very tall peaks and empty valleys. A burdened one shows very shallow valleys up near the top of the readings near the peak.

 

I am watching the valleys fill in nicely on VZW Band 4 around here. And with a 70 share, that's to be expected.

 

Are you trying to convince yourself or Verizon that they don't needs AWS 3? Because you haven't convinced me that they don't or won't.

[Conan Kudo]

My sweeps of the spectrum analyzer disagree with your guesses. An unburdened LTE signal on the spectrum analyzer shows very tall peaks and empty valleys. A burdened one shows very shallow valleys up near the top of the readings near the peak.

 

I am watching the valleys fill in nicely on VZW Band 4 around here. And with a 70 share, that's to be expected.

 

Are you trying to convince yourself or Verizon that they don't needs AWS 3? Because you haven't convinced me that they don't or won't.

Are they using both blocks where you are yet? Do they have all cell sites running AWS?

[jroepcke51]

My sweeps of the spectrum analyzer disagree with your guesses. An unburdened LTE signal on the spectrum analyzer shows very tall peaks and empty valleys. A burdened one shows very shallow valleys up near the top of the readings near the peak.

 

I am watching the valleys fill in nicely on VZW Band 4 around here. And with a 70 share, that's to be expected.

 

Are you trying to convince yourself or Verizon that they don't needs AWS 3? Because you haven't convinced me that they don't or won't.

I agree.  I was looking at a coworkers phone here in the ABQ market where XLTE is only 10x10.  Now it has provided great capacity for the city for Verizon but it was already bogged down.  In Journal Center, he was pulling 10 to 15 megs on band 4. Still great. I wouldn't complain, however, last time Verizon pushed LTE out, it took a while for speeds to come down.  Amazing to see the speeds already decreasing. This was an iphone 5s. 

 

I would be really surprised if they didn't. They have available cash (several billion) after all of the debt issuance to buy themselves.

[bigsnake49]

Contrary to what Neal believes, there will be fierce competition among the three for AWS-3 spectrum. There is a $10B reserve for the 25x25 block of spectrum. It will be met and exceeded. While none of them have immediate need for the spectrum (Both Verizon and AT&T can refarm their 850MHz and PCS spectrum, T-Mobile can refarm their PCS spectrum), they all want to warehouse it, if only to keep it away from their competitors. 

 

The dark horse will be Dish. They will be bid and get the 1695-1710MHz uplink. They will combine it with their 2180-2200Mhz downlink for a nice 20x15 block. Then they will combine their 2000-2020Mhz block with their PCS G for another nice 25x5 block. That has to be attractive to Sprint...

[S4GRU]

Are they using both blocks where you are yet? Do they have all cell sites running AWS?

They are running one 15MHz channel on all sites. They fired up the first 3/4 last November. And the last 1/4 in Mid Spring. The sectors facing away from the city over farms can run around 100Mbps. But typically 70-80Mbps. But busier city sites are now running 15-30Mbps on B4. They were running 40-60Mbps last November.

 

VZW B13 runs around 4-8Mbps. Best sectors run around 10Mbps. B13 was so bad around here before B4 deployment. It was consistently under 1Mbps at busy sites. VZW users had to stop using a lot of their data because it was getting bad. I've had a few VZW friends who increased their data buckets when B4 came online because speeds were usable again. Also, VZW picked up a lot of ATT subs the past year as ATT has dragged on LTE deployment locally.

 

VZW is not going to sit out on AWS 3. They may not make a national play for it. But VZW is not content they have enough spectrum for now. They also plan for the future. Better than anyone else.

[dnicekid]

Well.....http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NBFQ5D6KLVRZ01-3IFVFJ69P7UA7JHB4CBV6BRK1K

Looks like charlie might start playing games.. Either buy Tmo or bluffing to make sprint give him a deal..

[tommym65]

Well.....http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NBFQ5D6KLVRZ01-3IFVFJ69P7UA7JHB4CBV6BRK1K

Looks like charlie might start playing games.. Either buy Tmo or bluffing to make sprint give him a deal..

 

Ergen and LeGere -- Now THAT would be a marriage made in Hell!!!!!!!!!

[S4GRU]

Ergen and LeGere -- Now THAT would be a marriage made in Hell!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fraydog]

Well.....http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NBFQ5D6KLVRZ01-3IFVFJ69P7UA7JHB4CBV6BRK1K

Looks like charlie might start playing games.. Either buy Tmo or bluffing to make sprint give him a deal..

I can't see Legere sticking around for long under Charlie. Just can't. Oil and water there.

[JeffDTD]

Do it, Charlie. Do it.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

Don't laugh. The combination will have some major amounts of spectrum. Now of course it will also be saddled with major amounts of debt .

[Ascertion]

Don't laugh. The combination will have some major amounts of spectrum. Now of course it will also be saddled with major amounts of debt .

It'll be even more spectrum over 1ghz. Lol which T-Mobile doesn't need as much as sub 1ghz.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P

[bigsnake49]

It'll be even more spectrum over 1ghz. Lol which T-Mobile doesn't need as much as sub 1ghz.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P

Dish has some  700Mhz downlink spectrum. So they might bid in the 600Mhz auction...

[WiWavelength]

It'll be even more spectrum over 1ghz. Lol which T-Mobile doesn't need as much as sub 1ghz.

Dish has some  700Mhz downlink spectrum. So they might bid in the 600Mhz auction...

 

Ascertion is right.  A Dish-T-Mobile combination still would bring to the table little valuable low band spectrum -- outside of that all important market of Myrtle Beach.  

 

And do not try to make the argument using the Lower 700 MHz E block -- that spectrum is a hot mess in so many ways.  Dish does not hold those licenses in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco.  The spectrum is just 6 MHz unpaired.  And it is standardized for carrier aggregation only with mid band spectrum, totally negating its low band propagation advantage.

 

Carrier aggregation, done right, should have a low band main carrier aggregated with a mid/high band secondary downlink.  Lower 700 MHz E block may never have that.  It is practically orphaned spectrum in search of a sensible use. 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Hey, don't forget about Myrtle Beach!

[belusnecropolis]

Got-dang right it's all important.

 

Although having the equivalent of greater New York pour through your county in 6 months makes for a few extra campers on capacity.

 

I would say I will take the eleventy hundred MHz available in 2600 vs the lone 850 block and some AWS all week.

 

Densification of course, is another matter here . . . I see little movement so far, but some interesting site placement options are popping up here, I have noticed in my travels.

[bigsnake49]

Ascertion is right.  A Dish-T-Mobile combination still would bring to the table little valuable low band spectrum -- outside of that all important market of Myrtle Beach.  

 

And do not try to make the argument using the Lower 700 MHz E block -- that spectrum is a hot mess in so many ways.  Dish does not hold those licenses in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco.  The spectrum is just 6 MHz unpaired.  And it is standardized for carrier aggregation only with mid band spectrum, totally negating its low band propagation advantage.

 

Carrier aggregation, done right, should have a low band main carrier aggregated with a mid/high band secondary downlink.  Lower 700 MHz E block may never have that.  It is practically orphaned spectrum in search of a sensible use. 

 

AJ

Huh? Your second and third paragraphs contradict each other.

[bigsnake49]

AT&T and Verizon deployed on 700 MHz with the proper 700Mhz spacing. Then when their main band got saturated, they overlayed on AWS in a hotspot mode. They have a major capex advantage because in total, they deployed on less sites.

Sprint, because they did not have any midband spectrum other than PCS G and not as many sites as T-Mobile, had to deploy their 800MHz on almost all their sites for capacity reasons. Midband spectrum is important when you have little or no lower frequency spectrum. Yes T-Mobile/Dish will need to bid on 600MHz spectrum. If Dish acquires T-Mobile they will be awash in debt which will limit the amount they can devote to 600Mhz. 

 

Dish wants some kind of tie-up with Sprint. They want to exploit Sprint's EBS/BRS spectrum for their OTT video and video on demand as well as fixed brodband in rural/exurban areas. For some reason or another Sprint is dragging their feet. Sprint does not want to merge with or aquire Dish right now since Sprint's stock is depressed and Dish's is robust. The same reason they did not acquire MetroPCS. I think that Sprint just wants to maybe do a spectrum swap with Dish and host their spectrum. I think that Dish wants to do a little bit more than that. They would like to market OTT video to Sprint's customers as well as theirs. 

[WiWavelength]

Huh? Your second and third paragraphs contradict each other.

No, they do not. You misunderstand.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

No, they do not. You misunderstand.

 

AJ

"And it is standardized for carrier aggregation only with mid band spectrum, totally negating its low band propagation advantage."

 

"Carrier aggregation, done right, should have a low band main carrier aggregated with a mid/high band secondary downlink.  Lower 700 MHz E block may never have that."

 

What am I missing here? Why is it great to have it aggregated with a mid/high band downlink, but not great when done only with a midband spectrum?

[WiWavelength]

You are missing the main carrier versus secondary downlink distinction. Unpaired Lower 700 MHz E block can never be the main carrier. But when the main carrier signal fails, so too does the secondary downlink, regardless of propagation advantage.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

"And it is standardized for carrier aggregation only with mid band spectrum, totally negating its low band propagation advantage."

 

"Carrier aggregation, done right, should have a low band main carrier aggregated with a mid/high band secondary downlink.  Lower 700 MHz E block may never have that."

 

What am I missing here? Why is it great to have it aggregated with a mid/high band downlink, but not great when done only with a midband spectrum?

Because Lower 700MHz D and E blocks can never be used as the PCC (primary component carrier) for any carrier aggregation, only the SCC (secondary component carrier). There's a big difference when it comes to the way carrier aggregation is done now (DL only). The PCC is the one that handles uplink, downlink, and network signaling. The SCC only handles supplemental downlink capacity as requested.

 

If you use a low-band FDD PCC with a mid-band or high-band SCC, then you're basically providing "spots" of additional capacity with no loss of coverage. If you move out of an SCC coverage zone, you don't lose coverage. However, if the PCC is mid-band and the SCC is low-band, then you get no benefits in terms of coverage.

 

Because of the nearness of frequency and the issues with UE radio design, you cannot generally do low band PCC+low band SCC. You also have the same problem in certain circumstances where mid-band PCC is being aggregated with another mid-band that's nearby (such as IMT [2.1GHz] and PCS [1.9GHz] in Brazil).

 

In general, the preferred carrier aggregation scenario is mid-band PCC with high-band SCC on the same technology type. That is, FDD mid-band with FDD high-band (such as CA {1,2,4}+7), as it provides coverage, additional hotspot capacity, lots of capacity on the PCC and isn't technically challenging to coordinate (like FDD+TDD CA is). Also, FDD+FDD CA (or TDD+TDD CA) lets you aggregate both uplink and downlink, should you want to. Mixed technology aggregation makes this difficult.

[gusherb]

Off current topic for a second. A little while back we were discussing T-Mobile voice quality and someone mentioned that Sprint to T-Mobile sounded horrible. I've just noticed the same thing this past week, looked at the engineering screen in a call and turns out whenever I receive a call from a T-Mo number my phone is using 4GV-NB, so the problem appears to be Sprint. If I call a T-Mo number it sets up in EVRC-NW like normal, and the call sounds fine, or calling from a landline it sounds like I'm talking to another landline. 

[bigsnake49]

Because Lower 700MHz D and E blocks can never be used as the PCC (primary component carrier) for any carrier aggregation, only the SCC (secondary component carrier). There's a big difference when it comes to the way carrier aggregation is done now (DL only). The PCC is the one that handles uplink, downlink, and network signaling. The SCC only handles supplemental downlink capacity as requested.

 

If you use a low-band FDD PCC with a mid-band or high-band SCC, then you're basically providing "spots" of additional capacity with no loss of coverage. If you move out of an SCC coverage zone, you don't lose coverage. However, if the PCC is mid-band and the SCC is low-band, then you get no benefits in terms of coverage.

 

Because of the nearness of frequency and the issues with UE radio design, you cannot generally do low band PCC+low band SCC. You also have the same problem in certain circumstances where mid-band PCC is being aggregated with another mid-band that's nearby (such as IMT [2.1GHz] and PCS [1.9GHz] in Brazil).

 

In general, the preferred carrier aggregation scenario is mid-band PCC with high-band SCC on the same technology type. That is, FDD mid-band with FDD high-band (such as CA {1,2,4}+7), as it provides coverage, additional hotspot capacity, lots of capacity on the PCC and isn't technically challenging to coordinate (like FDD+TDD CA is). Also, FDD+FDD CA (or TDD+TDD CA) lets you aggregate both uplink and downlink, should you want to. Mixed technology aggregation makes this difficult.

 

Now that makes a lot more sense! Take that, AJ ...

 

One more question. Why can't D&E be used as the PCC?

Edited September 6, 2014 by bigsnake49