PCS H Block Spectrum discussion (was "Draft Rules for H Block Auction Set by FCC"

[maximus1987/lou99]

Aggregating two 5x5 carriers is not the same thing as 10 MHz FDD.

 

Anyway, Sprint doesn't get any benefit from a network efficiency side from one 10x10 versus two 5x5. In either case, the bits/sec/Hz is the same. So, Sprint has no incentive to transition to 10 MHz FDD because that will only influence peak speeds and not average speeds.

[S4GRU]

Aggregating two 5x5 carriers is not the same thing as 10 MHz FDD.

 

Anyway, Sprint doesn't get any benefit from a network efficiency side from one 10x10 versus two 5x5. In either case, the bits/sec/Hz is the same. So, Sprint has no incentive to transition to 10 MHz FDD because that will only influence peak speeds and not average speeds.

In Sprint carrier aggregation FIT testing, two aggregated 5x5's performed nearly the same as one 10x10. It's not the same, but it's close.

 

Sprint cannot deploy one 10x10 in a combined G/H block, because every Sprint LTE smartphone to date would lose its LTE where they did that. However, if they do CA with them, it will allow new devices with CA capability to run like a 10x10, but still allow the G block carrier to be used by non CA LTE devices.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[ericdabbs]

I didn't know that Sprint was doing carrier aggregation in their FIT testing.  I guess it makes sense since they have to be testing out LTE-Advanced Release 10 software in a real world setting anyways.

[maximus1987/lou99]

In Sprint carrier aggregation FIT testing, two aggregated 5x5's performed nearly the same as one 10x10. It's not the same, but it's close.

 

Sprint cannot deploy one 10x10 in a combined G/H block, because every Sprint LTE smartphone to date would lose its LTE where they did that. However, if they do CA with them, it will allow new devices with CA capability to run like a 10x10, but still allow the G block carrier to be used by non CA LTE devices.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

How so you known it performed the same?

[S4GRU]

How so you known it performed the same?

Based on internal FIT testing reports from Spring 2012. In most side by side testing of a Sprint 10MHz device and a double 5MHz CA device, throughput speeds were almost identical. 98% - 100% of the same speeds. The biggest loss came in ping, which added 20-25ms in initial testing.

 

They further believed that ping tines could be reduced by the time they get a CA network and device ecosystem ready. But, they believed that CA performance could be reduced further from testing in some model devices because of the secondary antenna could get blocked somewhat when being held. However, these are not going g to be huge.

 

The big deal with carrier aggregation experienced in testing is reduction in battery life. This is a much bugger issue to resolve than a very slight reduction in performance between one 10MHz and two aggregated 5MHz carriers.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[digiblur]

Why not? Maybe for rural customers but suburban, there's Comcast and uverse.

There's that me me me attitude again just like with your screw OTA thing. I live in the city. Uverse quality is garbage but I can't get them anyways. Cox is high priced and has DVRs from 1995. Dish screwed up with their Hoppa' with only 3 tuners for recording and they are shared to other rooms. DirecTV is really the only choice. No thanks on that merger. There are areas very close to me that satellite is the only choice. Let's just shut it all down then and have one cellular provider. You've got a land line right? Screw the wireless phones.

[bigsnake49]

Based on internal FIT testing reports from Spring 2012. In most side by side testing of a Sprint 10MHz device and a double 5MHz CA device, throughput speeds were almost identical. 98% - 100% of the same speeds. The biggest loss came in ping, which added 20-25ms in initial testing.

 

They further believed that ping tines could be reduced by the time they get a CA network and device ecosystem ready. But, they believed that CA performance could be reduced further from testing in some model devices because of the secondary antenna could get blocked somewhat when being held. However, these are not going g to be huge.

 

The big deal with carrier aggregation experienced in testing is reduction in battery life. This is a much bugger issue to resolve than a very slight reduction in performance between one 10MHz and two aggregated 5MHz carriers.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Carrier aggregation particularly inter-frequency carrier aggregation is especialy tough because you're using two different radio chains. Intrafrequency carrier aggeragation is not as battery draining because you are using the same radio chain. Other than that if you are using the same number of subcarriers in a 10Mhz carrier aggregated channel vs a natural 10Mhz channel you will incure the same battery consumption.

[ericdabbs]

Carrier aggregation particularly inter-frequency carrier aggregation is especialy tough because you're using two different radio chains. Intrafrequency carrier aggeragation is not as battery draining because you are using the same radio chain. Other than that if you are using the same number of subcarriers in a 10Mhz carrier aggregated channel vs a natural 10Mhz channel you will incure the same battery consumption.

 

Can you define intrafrequency and interfrequency carrier aggregation.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Can you define intrafrequency and interfrequency carrier aggregation.

Intra - non contiguous but same band class.

Inter - two or more band classes.

 

Sprint said it's not gonna do inter-band aggregation.

 

In fact, Sprint's priority is LTE-Advanced CA using Clearwire's 2.5 GHz spectrum rather than Sprint's own holdings in Bands 25 and 26, said Doug Alston, the carrier's director of technology and strategy, who was quoted by RCR Wireless.

 

Read more: Sprint exec: Clearwire spectrum is our priority for LTE carrier aggregation - FierceBroadbandWireless http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/sprint-exec-clearwire-spectrum-our-priority-lte-carrier-aggregation/2013-04-21#ixzz2ZLe9ClUC

Subscribe at FierceBroadbandWireless

Edited July 17, 2013 by asdf190

[WiWavelength]

Can you define intrafrequency and interfrequency carrier aggregation.

 

That should be intra band and inter band.  Intra frequency would mean within the same single frequency.  If you want to define a single frequency as one hertz, well, that would not be much bandwidth.

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

Intra - non contiguous but same band class.

Inter - two or more band classes.

 

Sprint said it's not gonna do inter-band aggregation.

 

In fact, Sprint's priority is LTE-Advanced CA using Clearwire's 2.5 GHz spectrum rather than Sprint's own holdings in Bands 25 and 26, said Doug Alston, the carrier's director of technology and strategy, who was quoted by RCR Wireless.

 

Read more: Sprint exec: Clearwire spectrum is our priority for LTE carrier aggregation - FierceBroadbandWireless http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/sprint-exec-clearwire-spectrum-our-priority-lte-carrier-aggregation/2013-04-21#ixzz2ZLe9ClUC

Subscribe at FierceBroadbandWireless

 

Thanks for the explanation.

[ericdabbs]

That should be intra band and inter band.  Intra frequency would mean within the same single frequency.  If you want to define a single frequency as one hertz, well, that would not be much bandwidth.

 

AJ

 I see.  Yeah I was just using the terms that bigsnake49 was referring to.  Thanks for the clarification.

[maximus1987/lou99]

That should be intra band and inter band. Intra frequency would mean within the same single frequency. If you want to define a single frequency as one hertz, well, that would not be much bandwidth.

 

AJ

If we're getting picky, a single frequency is 0 bandwidth.

[bigsnake49]

That should be intra band and inter band.  Intra frequency would mean within the same single frequency.  If you want to define a single frequency as one hertz, well, that would not be much bandwidth.

 

AJ

 

 

Thanks AJ, I was about to correct my post.

[WiWavelength]

If we're getting picky, a single frequency is 0 bandwidth.

 

Yep, that is not much bandwidth.  But, at least, it could be an infinite time signal.

 

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Yep, that is not much bandwidth. But, at least, it could be an infinite time signal.

 

 

AJ

Good old Dirac delta.

[bigsnake49]

Has Sprint applied with the 3GPP for including PCS H in the PCS LTE band class 25?

[maximus1987/lou99]

Has Sprint applied with the 3GPP for including PCS H in the PCS LTE band class 25?

They'd probably get a new band class cause there are already devices with b25 in circulation but yes, I'm interested answer to this also.

[koiulpoi]

Good old Dirac delta.

?

[marioc21]

Saw this today:

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dish-we-likely-wont-meaningfully-participate-h-block-auction/2013-08-05

 

So Dish won't "meaningfully participate", which probably means they'll do their best to drive up the auction price for Sprint.  Otherwise, it looks like the H block might be Sprint's to take if it wants it.  

[ericdabbs]

Saw this today:

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dish-we-likely-wont-meaningfully-participate-h-block-auction/2013-08-05

 

So Dish won't "meaningfully participate", which probably means they'll do their best to drive up the auction price for Sprint.  Otherwise, it looks like the H block might be Sprint's to take if it wants it.  

 

Sprint really needs this H block spectrum to bolster a ton of 20 MHz markets.  I expect Dish to do some jabbing at the auction to drive up proceeds but I don't expect Dish to capture yet another band class that they would be on the clock for build out requirements.  Dish with the S-band spectrum and now trying to acquire the Lightsquared spectrum, I would say they have their hands full.  They still haven't found a partner yet to build out their LTE network.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Sprint really needs this H block spectrum to bolster a ton of 20 MHz markets. I expect Dish to do some jabbing at the auction to drive up proceeds but I don't expect Dish to capture yet another band class that they would be on the clock for build out requirements. Dish with the S-band spectrum and now trying to acquire the Lightsquared spectrum, I would say they have their hands full. They still haven't found a partner yet to build out their LTE network.

Tmibile would be willing. Its towers are only supporting two LTE bands.

But since TMO knows its the only option, don't expect them to be a cheap option for dish.

[ericdabbs]

Tmibile would be willing. Its towers are only supporting two LTE bands.

But since TMO knows its the only option, don't expect them to be a cheap option for dish.

 

I don't see Tmobile interested in the H block since they Tmobile prefers the AWS band for all LTE usage.  Besides AWS band is expanding with the AWS-3 auction which provides another 25x25 MHz block and is supported by more carriers which means cheaper prices for economies of scale.  This puny 10 MHz of PCS isn't worth it to Tmobile given that they also have to pony up the BAS relocation fees to Sprint since they paid for the BAS relocation fees in the first place.

[bigsnake49]

I don't see Tmobile interested in the H block since they Tmobile prefers the AWS band for all LTE usage.  Besides AWS band is expanding with the AWS-3 auction which provides another 25x25 MHz block and is supported by more carriers which means cheaper prices for economies of scale.  This puny 10 MHz of PCS isn't worth it to Tmobile given that they also have to pony up the BAS relocation fees to Sprint since they paid for the BAS relocation fees in the first place.

 

We were talking about T-Mobile hosting Dish's spectrum.

[WiWavelength]

We were talking about T-Mobile hosting Dish's spectrum.

 

Charlie, please buy T-Mobile.  Free us from the Teutonic tutti frutti.

 

AJ