Future 600 MHz band & OTHER discussion thread (was "Sprint + 600 MHz?")

[S4GRU]

Given how badly the Clearwire spectrum sharing worked out, I would not recommend to Sprint such a deal. Just based on that factor alone. But that's just one man's opinion.

 

Robert

[lordsutch]

Frankly if (and I emphasize if) 600 MHz happens, it wouldn't surprise me if the FCC insisted on auction winners doing a lot better than Sprint and T-Mobile have to date with rural coverage, perhaps even on par with the geographic coverage requirements that Cellular 850 has.

[xcharles718]

That makes too much sense to happen.

Competition doesn't like to share, thus things like redundant exist in the U.S. If in the off chance that they do decide to go this route, there's still many other things that'll have to be hammered out, from whether they're going with TDD or FDD, and how would network use be shared.

[MacinJosh]

T-Mobile went this route before when they jointly operated a network with Cingular. In the end Cingular bought AT&T wireless and had to give T-Mobile the joint network. Maintenance costs went up, and now they sold their towers to Crown Castle. Joint ventures don't work out too well. Cingular was a joint venture, and now look at them. Ma Bell's cash cow slave.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

[JeffDTD]

In theory, its not a bad idea. The problem is shared costs =/ equal consumption. When it comes time to renegotiate contracts or pricing agreements, there will always be a hot head on one side or the other who doesn't think its fair. And should someone be acquired or bought out, shared resources are always an invitation for the other party to "drive a hard bargain"...

[Mobilesolutions]

 

In my area Tmo has decent rural EDGE coverage with good spacing. The problem around here is not the frequency used in rural areas, it is that it is EDGE only. Although in Santa Fe and ABQ, Tmo does need more density or lower frequency. Tmo is unusable indoors around here more than a half mile from the site.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

At home I am 3/4 of a mile from my Sprint tower, -112 EVDO if i put my phone up to the back window. Otherwise circle with a line through it and then roaming.

 

[Fraydog]

Sprint itself is presenting a TD-LTE band plan for 600 MHz. I don't know if it will take. Qualcomm, doing the bidding of Verizon and AT&T, is opposing that plan. Qualcomm has, historically, had lots of jack at the FCC.

[maximus1987/lou99]

it looks like Tmo's voice future for low frequency will be VoLTE. And it will match their LTE coverage and likely be a noticeable improvement over their AWS/PCS voice footprint. VoLTE on 600MHz sounds much better than VoLTE on AWS or PCS with anemic coverage.

 

Robert

 

If TMUS gets 10 MHz of TDD 600 MHz:

1) will that be 37 Mbps maximum download/upload capacity assuming 50/50 TDD ratio?

2) will they need to put their towers slightly closer because VoLTE drops out at a higher signal level than 1x?

3) how many kilobits/sec does it take for whatever HD voice TMUS will use?

4) how many simultaneous HD voice calls can you fit assuming aforementioned parameters?

[S4GRU]

 

 

it looks like Tmo's voice future for low frequency will be VoLTE. And it will match their LTE coverage and likely be a noticeable improvement over their AWS/PCS voice footprint. VoLTE on 600MHz sounds much better than VoLTE on AWS or PCS with anemic coverage.

 

 

Robert

 

 

If TMUS gets 10 MHz of TDD 600 MHz:

1) will that be 37 Mbps maximum download/upload capacity assuming 50/50 TDD ratio?

 

2) will they need to put their towers slightly closer because VoLTE drops out at a higher signal level than 1x?

3) how many kilobits/sec does it take for whatever HD voice TMUS will use?

4) how many simultaneous HD voice calls can you fit assuming aforementioned parameters?

 

1. I believe they will use a much higher DL time slot than 50%. To use Clearwire WiMax TDD as an example, I believe they are using 10:1. Assuming Tmo would want that same type of ratio for the data side, and voice side was true 1:1 ratio, then you would end up with a final LTE-TDD ratio for Tmo on 600MHz more in the ballpark of 3:1 final TDD ratio. 3 timeslots download for every 1 upload.

 

However, the reality would probably be something more dynamic than that, driven by load. And QoS would have to be set up to give voice priority for it to work properly on TDD.

 

2. No. I believe 600MHz VoLTE spacing is probably slightly better than AWS/PCS voice. So it should work pretty well with current site spacing. In my observations, VZW LTE 750 is roughly the same coverage area as Sprint PCS 1x, all things being equal. Just the LTE 750 penetrates better within that same footprint.

 

3. I'm not following VoLTE close enough, nor HD voice, to answer your question.

 

4. Also cannot answer this question.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

2. No. I believe 600MHz VoLTE spacing is probably slightly better than AWS/PCS voice. So it should work pretty well with current site spacing. In my observations, VZW LTE 750 is roughly the same coverage area as Sprint PCS 1x, all things being equal. Just the LTE 750 penetrates better within that same footprint.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz.

[S4GRU]

 

 

 

 

2. No. I believe 600MHz VoLTE spacing is probably slightly better than AWS/PCS voice. So it should work pretty well with current site spacing. In my observations, VZW LTE 750 is roughly the same coverage area as Sprint PCS 1x, all things being equal. Just the LTE 750 penetrates better within that same footprint.

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

 

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz.

Since they are only going to deploy LTE on 600, they pretty much have to stick to LTE 600 spacing and not an equivalent using another technology. And LTE 600 would ideally be spaced on PCS/AWS voice in my mind.

 

So, let's say that Tmo wanted to start service in Rapid City, SD. They would likely colocate on existing sites. There already is an established network of 850 spaced sites or PCS/AWS. Tmo would likely choose to deploy TD-LTE 600 on PCS/AWS spacing. To try to do the 850 Cellular spacing in place would be problematic for voice on LTE.

 

Based on my observations here in New Mexico, Verizon 1x voice on 850 travels much farther than LTE on 750. So it would not be a good idea, in my opinion to try to space LTE-600 on 850 voice. But it could be done with mixed results.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. No. I believe 600MHz VoLTE spacing is probably slightly better than AWS/PCS voice. So it should work pretty well with current site spacing. In my observations, VZW LTE 750 is roughly the same coverage area as Sprint PCS 1x, all things being equal. Just the LTE 750 penetrates better within that same footprint.

 

 

 

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

 

 

 

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz.

 

Since they are only going to deploy LTE on 600, they pretty much have to stick to LTE 600 spacing and not an equivalent using another technology. And LTE 600 would ideally be spaced on PCS/AWS voice in my mind.

 

 

 

So, let's say that Tmo wanted to start service in Rapid City, SD. They would likely colocate on existing sites. There already is an established network of 850 spaced sites or PCS/AWS. Tmo would likely choose to deploy TD-LTE 600 on PCS/AWS spacing. To try to do the 850 Cellular spacing in place would be problematic for voice on LTE.

 

 

 

Based on my observations here in New Mexico, Verizon 1x voice on 850 travels much farther than LTE on 750. So it would not be a good idea, in my opinion to try to space LTE-600 on 850 voice. But it could be done with mixed results.

 

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

What I'm getting at is that one of the mods said VoLTE (or LTE) is usable down to -93db but 1x down to -103db. Assuming TMUS will use VoLTE, wouldn't they want to be a little conservative in their spacing?

[S4GRU]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. No. I believe 600MHz VoLTE spacing is probably slightly better than AWS/PCS voice. So it should work pretty well with current site spacing. In my observations, VZW LTE 750 is roughly the same coverage area as Sprint PCS 1x, all things being equal. Just the LTE 750 penetrates better within that same footprint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz.

 

 

 

Since they are only going to deploy LTE on 600, they pretty much have to stick to LTE 600 spacing and not an equivalent using another technology. And LTE 600 would ideally be spaced on PCS/AWS voice in my mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, let's say that Tmo wanted to start service in Rapid City, SD. They would likely colocate on existing sites. There already is an established network of 850 spaced sites or PCS/AWS. Tmo would likely choose to deploy TD-LTE 600 on PCS/AWS spacing. To try to do the 850 Cellular spacing in place would be problematic for voice on LTE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on my observations here in New Mexico, Verizon 1x voice on 850 travels much farther than LTE on 750. So it would not be a good idea, in my opinion to try to space LTE-600 on 850 voice. But it could be done with mixed results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

What I'm getting at is that one of the mods said VoLTE (or LTE) is usable down to -93db but 1x down to -103db. Assuming TMUS will use VoLTE, wouldn't they want to be a little conservative in their spacing?

You don't think my response says they should?

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Well, I am not sure why I did not think of this previously, but maybe the most salient objection to a TDD 600 MHz band plan is rural coverage.

 

In a TDD airlink, since the uplink and downlink are not separated by frequency, they must be separated by time -- including a very important guard period in between all uplink and downlink time slots.  Otherwise, transmitter and receiver operating at the same frequencies overlap, and the results are catastrophic.  So, the guard period is the time in between slots that both transmitter and receiver shut down.

 

Then, due to the speed of light, the length of the TDD airlink guard period determines the maximum coverage distance -- regardless of signal strength.  For example, Clear WiMAX, which is a TDD airlink, is limited to a radius of 8.35 km.  Now, that maximum coverage distance is arguably more than fine for BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum.  But a similar limitation would prove problematic for 600 MHz spectrum deployed in rural areas.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Well, I am not sure why I did not think of this previously, but maybe the most salient objection to a TDD 600 MHz band plan is rural coverage.

 

In a TDD airlink, since the uplink and downlink are not separated by frequency, they must be separated by time -- including a very important guard period in between all uplink and downlink time slots. Otherwise, transmitter and receiver operating at the same frequencies overlap, and the results are catastrophic. So, the guard period is the time in between slots that both transmitter and receiver shut down.

 

Then, due to the speed of light, the length of the TDD airlink guard period determines the maximum coverage distance -- regardless of signal strength. For example, Clear WiMAX, which is a TDD airlink, is limited to a radius of 8.35 km. Now, that maximum coverage distance is arguably more than fine for BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum. But a similar limitation would prove problematic for 600 MHz spectrum deployed in rural areas.

 

AJ

 

I never thought about the limitation of WiMax distance. I assumed it was a frequency issue. Because Motorola Expedience on 2600 was the same. But I assume it was a TDD technology too.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Can't they adjust length of that guard slot?

Of course, if the slot has to be too long, then it negates the advantage of using TDD - have more download capacity compared to using FDD with same amount of spectrum.

[centermedic]

If sprint was not being bought out by softbank then they might be interested in sharing spectrum. Some how i dont think SoftBank will be interested.

[Fraydog]

Wouldn't 600 MHz TD-LTE be in a very bad position to interfere with GLONASS? Qualcomm brought it up in one of their filings on the 600 auction.  I just glanced over it, maybe I should go back and read the entire filing. 

[WiWavelength]

Wouldn't 600 MHz TD-LTE be in a very bad position to interfere with GLONASS? Qualcomm brought it up in one of their filings on the 600 auction.  I just glanced over it, maybe I should go back and read the entire filing. 

 

All GNSS frequencies are greater than 1 GHz.  So, there is no possibility of overlap or adjacency with 600 MHz spectrum.  I would assume that Qualcomm must be concerned about harmonics at certain frequencies inside mobile devices that could disrupt GLONASS reception.  But if GPS is primary, should GLONASS be a major concern?

 

AJ

[o_swas]

Can't we safely assume that Sprint intends to bid on the 600 MHz spectrum if they've asked the FCC to prohibit Verizon and AT&T from bidding as well?  Otherwise, T-Mobile would be the only one bidding, and I'm sure that's NOT what Sprint wants to happen.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Can't we safely assume that Sprint intends to bid on the 600 MHz spectrum if they've asked the FCC to prohibit Verizon and AT&T from bidding as well? Otherwise, T-Mobile would be the only one bidding, and I'm sure that's NOT what Sprint wants to happen.

 

No one wants ATT and VZW to be banned from bidding, just restricted from owning more than 1/3 of sub-1 GHz in a market except if that threshold is already met in which case they can bid on up to one 5x5 block.

 

Tmobile needs 600 Mhz more than anyone as it has no sub-1 GHz.

[supert0nes]

I really like the sliding spectrum screen solution T-Mobile proposed.  More info here...

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-proposes-sliding-spectrum-screen-rule-600-mhz-auction/2013-06-25

[ericdabbs]

I really like the sliding spectrum screen solution T-Mobile proposed.  More info here...

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-proposes-sliding-spectrum-screen-rule-600-mhz-auction/2013-06-25

 

So do I.  Tmobile is proposing separating the 600 MHz spectrum into 5 MHz blocks for auction.  I really hope all of the TV broadcasters give up their 600 MHz spectrum and take the FCC payment to free up more spectrum for wireless. 

 

I agree with maximus1987 in that Verizon and ATT should only be allowed to bid on one 5x5 block and that is it.  Sprint, Tmobile and the remaining smaller carriers should only be allowed to bid on the rest of the 5x5 blocks.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

I really like the sliding spectrum screen solution T-Mobile proposed. More info here...

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-proposes-sliding-spectrum-screen-rule-600-mhz-auction/2013-06-25

 

 

So do I. Tmobile is proposing separating the 600 MHz spectrum into 5 MHz blocks for auction. I really hope all of the TV broadcasters give up their 600 MHz spectrum and take the FCC payment to free up more spectrum for wireless.

 

I agree with maximus1987 in that Verizon and ATT should only be allowed to bid on one 5x5 block and that is it. Sprint, Tmobile and the remaining smaller carriers should only be allowed to bid on the rest of the 5x5 blocks.

I was simply summarizing the fiercewireless article in the post you quoted.

[Dkoellerwx]

So do I.  Tmobile is proposing separating the 600 MHz spectrum into 5 MHz blocks for auction.  I really hope all of the TV broadcasters give up their 600 MHz spectrum and take the FCC payment to free up more spectrum for wireless. 

 

I agree with maximus1987 in that Verizon and ATT should only be allowed to bid on one 5x5 block and that is it.  Sprint, Tmobile and the remaining smaller carriers should only be allowed to bid on the rest of the 5x5 blocks.

 

It's going to be hard to get stations to give up their spectrum. With the switch to digital just a few years ago forcing some stations to revamp their transmitters, I don't see it happening again soon. Smaller stations, like mine, are in no position to be changing transmitters.

 

I was wondering with all the consolidation in the broadcast TV industry lately (Gannett buying King-TV and Tribune buying Local TV Holdings) a lot of the analysts like these deals because the bigger companies will be getting more/better re-transmission fees from cable companies. I know that the 600 MHz auction is dependent on TV broadcaster's selling spectrum back to the government to be sold to mobile broadband companies, so if they don't sell will that leave 600 MHz DOA? Or are these TV broadcasters using different frequency? Sorry if I am way off base, I was just curious.

 

Gannet bought BELO, not KING-TV. KING-TV was one of the channels operated by BELO. 

 

Only some stations are broadcasting in the 600Mhz band. Channels range from ~470 to ~750Mhz. However, stations have a lot invested in their transmitting equipment, and for the stations that do broadcast in the 600Mhz band, there isn't really anywhere else for them to go, especially in larger markets. It's going to be a tough sell to get them to move.