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

[lynyrd65]

There was a House of Reps hearing on the 600mhz incentive auctions on 7/23: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/oversight-incentive-auction-implementation

PR releases from Sprint

 

http://forums.androidcentral.com/sprint/291874-official-sprint-tri-band-lte-phone-discussion-thread.html

 

http://forums.androidcentral.com/sprint/291874-official-sprint-tri-band-lte-phone-discussion-thread.html

Those are links to a thread discussing triband Sprint devices not PR releases.

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

There was a House of Reps hearing on the 600mhz incentive auctions on 7/23: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/oversight-incentive-auction-implementation

 

House and not Senate?  In that case, Al Franken likely was not part of the hearing.  If Franken were there, I would watch.  He at least has a Harvard degree, critical thinking mind, and sense of humor -- unlike so many of the country lawyers and doctors that seem to populate Congress.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

SoftBank and Sprint combined, which have a subscriber total of ~88M, are dwarfed by the combined strength of Vodafone (450M), Airtel (266M), SingTel (265M), América Móvil (252M), Telefónica (250M), Orange (230M), VimpelCom (215M), TeliaSonera (160M), Telenor (150M), and Deutsche Telekom (130M). All of those operators participate in the GSM/UMTS/LTE ecosystem, and all of them are doing GSM/LTE or GSM/UMTS/LTE with LTE FDD and LTE TDD with Bands 7+38 instead of Band 41 LTE TDD. That is an ecosystem of 2368 million (~2.4 billion) subscribers.Unfortunately enough, SoftBank can participate in this ecosystem and get good pricing on handsets with a swap to Band 41, but Sprint cannot. This is because SoftBank's handsets involve a simple filter swap on GSM/UMTS/LTE devices that support Band 38 to widen to Band 41 (and not include the Band 7 PA, which nearly all Band 38 devices currently do not have anyway). Also, since SoftBank uses bands for UMTS that are the same as the rest of Asia and Europe, there is a higher degree of reuse. This dramatically cuts the cost.Sprint has several counts against it in the ecosystem. While it uses PCS A-F spectrum (which is widely used for UMTS service), it provides CDMA2000 service on that band instead. It also provides CDMA service on ESMR, with plans to provide LTE service on the band soon, too. Additionally, its PCS G block has not yet been auctioned elsewhere because the viability of the ecosystem is considered suspect, so the PCS G LTE network is considered "unusual". While it is true that most power amplifier parts are multi-mode, the procurement of CDMA devices and infrastructure is much more expensive because of the vastly reduced market for it. It doesn't help that Verizon's planned exit of the user device procurement market for CDMA/LTE devices will cause an ecosystem crash (it cuts the size of the CDMA/LTE market by more than half). Sprint will have to spend substantially more per device, which means Sprint has less money to spend on infrastructure.3GPP infrastructure will be much cheaper for Sprint to acquire now, since it can use the combined strength of Sprint and SoftBank, but 3GPP2+3GPP gear will continue to get more expensive. That is why SoftBank wants to convert Sprint to 3GPP-only by 2017. It doesn't want to fund what it considers to be a waste (which it does consider the 3GPP2 gear to be that).

I thought you said Sprint will keep CDMA on ESMR until 2020.

 

The US isn't the whole world, and there are certainly exceptions. Sprint plans to retain 1xRTT on ESMR through 2020, and T-Mobile plans to retain skeleton GSM allocations on PCS through 2020 as well. Most Asian operators are in the process or have already replaced 2G networks with UMTS and LTE, though. European operators began that process this year and will continue to do it for the next several years. Latin America will straggle a bit, but I imagine that it'll get there fairly quickly, too.Incidentally, Sprint and other CDMA operators aren't really experiencing a good level of take-up on this. Most M2M product developers realize that it would be a poor decision to use CDMA in their products. No one wants to go through the "OnStar hell" with their customers.

Also, AJ said that Sprint will only get rid of CDMA when the current equipment starts failing which I'm guessing is not not gonna be a mere 3.5 years.Looks like the ublox-Sprint M2M deal wasn't worth jack, huh? cause ATT also plans to shutdown their 2G by 2017. Though Sprint could, like you said, keep 1x on ESMR but the modem mentioned in below article doesn't have ESMR. http://www.u-blox.com/en/wireless-modules/cdma/fw75.htmlSprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdownRead more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2aGZulvlo Subscribe at FierceWireless Edited July 27, 2013 by asdf190

[ericdabbs]

I thought you said Sprint will keep CDMA on ESMR until 2020.

 

 

Also, AJ said that Sprint will only get rid of CDMA when the current equipment starts failing which I'm guessing is not not gonna be a more 3.5 years.

 

Well the working groups that are working on fixing the VoLTE issues need to step it up if they want everyone to transition voice completely to LTE.  If VoLTE is in a state where it can be deployed I am sure carriers would love to begin switch over to it at least partially for the time being to offload some voice capacity to see how it behaves and add that capability onto the LTE phones.  If VoLTE is more than ready before 2020, the only reason to even keep CDMA until 2020 is to provide support for those that still have CDMA phones that never upgrade their phones.

[maximus1987/lou99]

SoftBank and Sprint combined, which have a subscriber total of ~88M, are dwarfed by the combined strength of Vodafone (450M), Airtel (266M), SingTel (265M), América Móvil (252M), Telefónica (250M), Orange (230M), VimpelCom (215M), TeliaSonera (160M), Telenor (150M), and Deutsche Telekom (130M). All of those operators participate in the GSM/UMTS/LTE ecosystem, and all of them are doing GSM/LTE or GSM/UMTS/LTE with LTE FDD and LTE TDD with Bands 7+38 instead of Band 41 LTE TDD. That is an ecosystem of 2368 million (~2.4 billion) subscribers.

 

Unfortunately enough, SoftBank can participate in this ecosystem and get good pricing on handsets with a swap to Band 41, but Sprint cannot. This is because SoftBank's handsets involve a simple filter swap on GSM/UMTS/LTE devices that support Band 38 to widen to Band 41 (and not include the Band 7 PA, which nearly all Band 38 devices currently do not have anyway). Also, since SoftBank uses bands for UMTS that are the same as the rest of Asia and Europe, there is a higher degree of reuse. This dramatically cuts the cost.

 

Sprint has several counts against it in the ecosystem. While it uses PCS A-F spectrum (which is widely used for UMTS service), it provides CDMA2000 service on that band instead. It also provides CDMA service on ESMR, with plans to provide LTE service on the band soon, too. Additionally, its PCS G block has not yet been auctioned elsewhere because the viability of the ecosystem is considered suspect, so the PCS G LTE network is considered "unusual". While it is true that most power amplifier parts are multi-mode, the procurement of CDMA devices and infrastructure is much more expensive because of the vastly reduced market for it. It doesn't help that Verizon's planned exit of the user device procurement market for CDMA/LTE devices will cause an ecosystem crash (it cuts the size of the CDMA/LTE market by more than half). Sprint will have to spend substantially more per device, which means Sprint has less money to spend on infrastructure.

 

3GPP infrastructure will be much cheaper for Sprint to acquire now, since it can use the combined strength of Sprint and SoftBank, but 3GPP2+3GPP gear will continue to get more expensive. That is why SoftBank wants to convert Sprint to 3GPP-only by 2017. It doesn't want to fund what it considers to be a waste (which it does consider the 3GPP2 gear to be that).

Why would G block LTE be suspect if Sprint did the hard work of getting B25 going?

 

This means that Sprint is gonna get into high gear with respect to VoLTE cause that'll be its only voice option if it gets rid if CDMA.

I'm sure once AJ sees this line of thinking, he'll go ballistic lol.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2013 by asdf190

[maximus1987/lou99]

Well the working groups that are working on fixing the VoLTE issues need to step it up if they want everyone to transition voice completely to LTE. If VoLTE is in a state where it can be deployed I am sure carriers would love to begin switch over to it at least partially for the time being to offload some voice capacity to see how it behaves and add that capability onto the LTE phones. If VoLTE is more than ready before 2020, the only reason to even keep CDMA until 2020 is to provide support for those that still have CDMA phones that never upgrade their phones.

Those are the lowest ARPU users. Carriers will "keep" the CDMA equipment on the towers but if one fails, oh well. If Verizon has long switched from CDMA by 2020 and Sprint at least in the process of switching, no vendor will still be making CDMA equipment unless there's a contract AND the carriers choose to enforce that contract.

[Conan Kudo]

I thought you said Sprint will keep CDMA on ESMR until 2020.

 

 

Also, AJ said that Sprint will only get rid of CDMA when the current equipment starts failing which I'm guessing is not not gonna be a mere 3.5 years.

 

 

Looks like the ublox-Sprint M2M deal wasn't worth jack, huh? cause ATT also plans to shutdown their 2G by 2017. Though Sprint could, like you said, keep 1x on ESMR but the modem mentioned in below article doesn't have ESMR.

 

http://www.u-blox.com/en/wireless-modules/cdma/fw75.html

 

 

 

Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown

 

 

Read more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2aGZulvlo

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 

I did say that, but Sprint made those announcements prior to SoftBank acquiring them. I think SoftBank will leave ESMR CDMA alone (as it can service Assurance Wireless customers, M2M, and legacy customers). But it will aggressively work to get Sprint to switch PCS A-F to 3GPP from 3GPP2.

 

G block is suspect because there are no other players. Canada has G block open and auctioned off, but the company Public Mobile went with CDMA2000 instead (and has to buy specialty devices for its audience). Sprint really hasn't tried to push the Band 25 ecosystem to those who use PCS LTE. It's been quite content being the only provider of Band 25 LTE services.

 

C Spire is an unusual aberration that was caused by C Spire's need to get devices quickly, and no one could provide Band 2 PCS LTE or Band 12 700MHz LTE devices at the time C Spire wanted to launch. But C Spire has no G block spectrum, and it only uses Sprint devices rebranded. No unique devices at all.

 

I doubt A.J. will particularly like my reasoning, but I've talked to enough people to confirm that the problem exists. But this is a game of economic and technological scale, and Sprint doesn't have it. Like it or not, these are real problems that Sprint has.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I did say that, but Sprint made those announcements prior to SoftBank acquiring them. I think SoftBank will leave ESMR CDMA alone, but PCS CDMA is going to be a problem in the future.

Can't ublox just add CDMA band 10?

It appears b10 is a superset of band 0.

http://niviuk.free.fr/cdma_band.php

 

Maybe the current 800/1900 module actually supports band 10; the website just says "800/1900".

[maximus1987/lou99]

I did say that, but Sprint made those announcements prior to SoftBank acquiring them. I think SoftBank will leave ESMR CDMA alone, but PCS CDMA is going to be a problem in the future.

Then everything should be fine. 1xA has 4x the capacity and on these forums it is stated that all Sprint phones going back some number of years have 1xA on Band 10 (ESMR) so everything should be fine from eliminating CDMA on PCS, right?

 

http://www.qualcomm.com/solutions/wireless-networks/technologies/1x-advanced

[maximus1987/lou99]

I did say that, but Sprint made those announcements prior to SoftBank acquiring them. I think SoftBank will leave ESMR CDMA alone (as it can service Assurance Wireless customers, M2M, and legacy customers). But it will aggressively work to get Sprint to switch PCS A-F to 3GPP from 3GPP2.

 

G block is suspect because there are no other players. Canada has G block open and auctioned off, but the company Public Mobile went with CDMA2000 instead (and has to buy specialty devices for its audience). Sprint really hasn't tried to push the Band 25 ecosystem to those who use PCS LTE. It's been quite content being the only provider of Band 25 LTE services.

 

C Spire is an unusual aberration that was caused by C Spire's need to get devices quickly, and no one could provide Band 2 PCS LTE or Band 12 700MHz LTE devices at the time C Spire wanted to launch. But C Spire has no G block spectrum, and it only uses Sprint devices rebranded. No unique devices at all.

 

I doubt A.J. will particularly like my reasoning, but I've talked to enough people to confirm that the problem exists. But this is a game of economic and technological scale, and Sprint doesn't have it. Like it or not, these are real problems that Sprint has.

 

I'm glad it has it so we move quicker to one LTE model for America:

4, 13, 17, 25(includes 2), 26(includes 5), TDD 41.

Bam!

Sprint will NEED 1xA on CDMA B10 but when it hears the price from Apple to include it, it'll quickly move to add more towers with B26 (ESMR) LTE.

Edited July 27, 2013 by asdf190

[lynyrd65]

I'm glad it has it so we move quicker to one LTE model for America: 4, 13, 17, 25(includes 2), 26(includes 5), TDD 41. Bam! Sprint will NEED 1xA on CDMA B10 but when it hears the price from Apple to include it, it'll quickly move to add more towers with B26 (ESMR) LTE.

 

CDMA BC10 is already available on the iPhone 5.

 

The great thing about band 25 and 26 from Apple's perspective is that they are supersets of other band classes (2 and 5 or 1900 PCS and Cellular 850) which other carriers will use also. So including 25 and 26 isn't a major expense for Apple as they could sell an iPhone with these bands to VZW (which the iPhone 5 for VZW does, at least band 25)

[WiWavelength]

I doubt A.J. will particularly like my reasoning, but I've talked to enough people to confirm that the problem exists. But this is a game of economic and technological scale, and Sprint doesn't have it. Like it or not, these are real problems that Sprint has.

 

I am just not buying it, Neal.  You honestly need to produce some solid evidence backed by accepted numbers to get this to stick.

 

Economy of scale quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns, so 50 million is much different from 5 million but not so different from 500 million.  Thus, if OEMs have issue producing the appropriate 3GPP2 band class devices for a carrier the size Sprint, they deserve to be told to go screw themselves.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

CDMA BC10 is already available on the iPhone 5.

 

The great thing about band 25 and 26 from Apple's perspective is that they are supersets of other band classes (2 and 5 or 1900 PCS and Cellular 850) which other carriers will use also. So including 25 and 26 isn't a major expense for Apple as they could sell an iPhone with these bands to VZW (which the iPhone 5 for VZW does, at least band 25)

Then why didn't they include LTE B26 on the iphone 5. Please don't say "because Sprint didn't have LTE on ESMR yet"

[WiWavelength]

Then why didn't they include LTE B26 on the iphone 5. Please don't say "because Sprint didn't have LTE on ESMR yet"

 

No device included band 26 LTE 800 until last week.  You cannot single out iPhone 5 in that regard.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

No device included band 26 LTE 800 until last week. You cannot single out iPhone 5 in that regard.

 

AJ

Why didn't Apple include b26?

[WiWavelength]

Why didn't Apple include b26?

 

Why would Apple do so?  No other devices at the time were including band 26.  No other devices.  Figure it out.  Put two and two together.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why would Apple do so? No other devices at the time were including band 26. No other devices. Figure it out. Put two and two together.

 

AJ

It included B5 and B26 is a superset of B5 just like B25 is superset of B2 for Verizon.

[WiWavelength]

It included B5 and B26 is a superset of B5 just like B25 is superset of B2 for Verizon.

 

Cellular 850 MHz and SMR 800 MHz have different FCC rules.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Cellular 850 MHz and SMR 800 MHz have different FCC rules.

 

AJ

For power output?

So does this mean that Apple will never be able to include only B26 but also separately include b5 on different RF path?

[WiWavelength]

For power output?

So does this mean that Apple will never be able to include only B26 but also separately include b5 on different RF path?

 

You also have to take into account that the FCC did not formally approve broadband (>25 kHz bandwidth) operations in SMR 800 MHz until early last summer.  Apple released iPhone 5 about 100 days later, meaning that the design and specs were probably already locked in by that point.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

For power output?

So does this mean that Apple will never be able to include only B26 but also separately include b5 on different RF path?

No parts were available for Band 26 from various suppliers until March 2013. Development started on power amplifiers and duplexers just after the Part 90 (SMR) rules were amended.

[maximus1987/lou99]

You also have to take into account that the FCC did not formally approve broadband (>25 kHz bandwidth) operations in SMR 800 MHz until early last summer. Apple released iPhone 5 about 100 days later, meaning that the design and specs were probably already locked in by that point.

 

AJ

Ok. But what rules means that B26 an B5 are forever separated?

[maximus1987/lou99]

No parts were available for Band 26 from various suppliers until March 2013. Development started on power amplifiers and duplexers just after the Part 90 (SMR) rules were amended.

Ok. But what rules means that B26 an B5 are forever separated?

[Conan Kudo]

I am just not buying it, Neal.  You honestly need to produce some solid evidence backed by accepted numbers to get this to stick.

 

Economy of scale quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns, so 50 million is much different from 5 million but not so different from 500 million.  Thus, if OEMs have issue producing the appropriate 3GPP2 band class devices for a carrier the size Sprint, they deserve to be told to go screw themselves.

 

AJ

Then Sprint would be left with ZTE, Huawei, and Kyocera. The rest would be told "go screw yourselves".

 

 

Ok. But what rules means that B26 an B5 are forever separated?

 

None, but most operators in the US will only do interoperability as far as it benefits them to do so. Sprint should be using Band 27 instead of Band 26 for its ESMR LTE, but it won't. In fact, Sprint should have pushed for 26 and 27 to be combined into a single band, but it didn't, because it wanted to keep its competitors out of the space.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Then Sprint would be left with ZTE, Huawei, and Kyocera. The rest would be told "go screw yourselves".

His point is that with Sprint's 50 mil, no one would lose anything by making devices just for them.