Dish Trialing Mobile TV service on 700MHz Block E

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

Yes, WCS is much closer to commercial realization than is 600 MHz. WCS could start showing up as early as next year, while 600 MHz is at least three years distant -- if ever.

 

AJ

 

 

According to the 3GPP, the work item for WCS has been completed, as of June 11. The final draft documents for the band spec were released on June 20. It is expected to be formally included as Band 30 on July 14. Once it is released, AT&T will begin modifying its RFPs and RFQs to vendors for 2014 deployments to include WCS. Handsets released by mid-2014 (summer launch), should include WCS.

 

There are still rumors that AT&T will drop AWS for WCS, but it may not happen now, because of Canada and Latin America. AWS has become so important as a band that AT&T cannot afford to drop it now. Sprint is the only stick-in-the-mud, but it'll be forced to include it too, at some point.

 

I don't get it. Why would ATT need to keep AWS? It's so big! If it wants 2,5,17,29,30 and not 4 then who's gonna say no to them?

 

Though I JUST read something that pretty much proves you're right.

 

 

approved technical specifications for aggregation of a downlink Band 29 with an uplink frequency band in Band 2 (PCS 1900 MHz) or Band 4 (AWS 1700/2100 MHz).

 

Read more: AT&T: Carrier aggregation woes slow launch of ex-Qualcomm 700 MHz spectrum - FierceBroadbandWireless http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/att-carrier-aggregation-woes-slow-launch-ex-qualcomm-700-mhz-spectrum/2013-06-26#ixzz2YHNpulfQ

Subscribe at FierceBroadbandWireless

 

Why would they go to all this work for 4 if they're gonna drop it eventually?

 

Sprint will get it just because Verizon has it.

[WiWavelength]

Why would they go to all this work for 4 if they're gonna drop it eventually?

What work?

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why would they go to all this work for 4 if they're gonna drop it eventually?

What work?

 

AJ

From the article: aggregation with Band 29 (D,E blocks).

[WiWavelength]

From the article: aggregation with Band 29 (D,E blocks).

I still do not follow the "all this work" question. AT&T will downlink carrier aggregate band 29 with band 2.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

From the article: aggregation with Band 29 (D,E blocks).

I still do not follow the "all this work" question. AT&T will downlink carrier aggregate band 29 with band 2.

 

AJ

Why would they care about band 4 and band 29 aggregation if they're gonna drop 4?

[WiWavelength]

Why would they care about band 4 and band 29 aggregation if they're gonna drop 4?

First, "they" would be 3GPP, not AT&T. Second, band 4 and band 2 are very similar, so they tend to go hand in hand.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why would they care about band 4 and band 29 aggregation if they're gonna drop 4?

First, "they" would be 3GPP, not AT&T. Second, band 4 and band 2 are very similar, so they tend to go hand in hand.

 

AJ

What about band 4 and 29? I thought 3gpp only standardizes things it is asked to standardize.

My point is that 4 and 29 was mentioned in an article specifically about ATT but we thought it was going to drop AWS, right?

 

How are 2 and 4 similar? They don't share any frequencies in common.

[WiWavelength]

What about band 4 and 29? I thought 3gpp only standardizes things it is asked to standardize.

My point is that 4 and 29 was mentioned in an article specifically about ATT but we thought it was going to drop AWS, right?

3GPP likely started the standardization process before AT&T had to dispose of much of its AWS. Additionally, Canadian operators will likely aggregate band 29 with band 4.

 

How are 2 and 4 similar? They don't share any frequencies in common.

The difference between an 1800 MHz uplink and a 1700 MHz uplink is negligible. The same holds true for a 1900 MHz downlink and a 2100 MHz downlink. Furthermore, PCS and AWS service rules are practically the same.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

3GPP likely started the standardization process before AT&T had to dispose of much of its AWS. Additionally, Canadian operators will likely aggregate band 29 with band 4.

 

 

The difference between an 1800 MHz uplink and a 1700 MHz uplink is negligible. The same holds true for a 1900 MHz downlink and a 2100 MHz downlink. Furthermore, PCS and AWS service rules are practically the same.

 

AJ

 

AT&T requested the Band 29 supplemental downlink standardization just before the AT&T/T-Mobile deal was announced. It started the process right after that. It was completed just before AT&T announced it was withdrawing its bid for T-Mobile.

 

In terms of the 3GPP standardization of RF characteristics, PCS and AWS are very similar. Both use rules derived from DCS and IMT.

[linhpham2]

Hopefully, Dish will give up in a few years. Then Sprint can buy this spectrum from Dish and move the video streamers (e.g., Netflix, Sprint TV) over.

Edited July 10, 2013 by linhpham2

[maximus1987/lou99]

Hopefully, Dish will give up in a few years. Then Sprint can buy this spectrum from Dish and move the video streamers (e.g., Netflix, Sprint TV) over.

If anyone buys this spectrum it's gonna be ATT. It's already prepping the infrastructure for Band 29 and Band 2,4 aggregation. Look at some posts above: ATT is well underway in deploying bands D,E (supplemental downlink) that Dish is using.

 

Sprint is already going to need to add 600 MHz to its network, bringing us to 4 LTE bands, so I don't think it wants to add a fifth.

[bigsnake49]

If anyone buys this spectrum it's gonna be ATT. It's already prepping the infrastructure for Band 29 and Band 2,4 aggregation. Look at some posts above: ATT is well underway in deploying bands D,E (supplemental downlink) that Dish is using. Sprint is already going to need to add 600 MHz to its network, bringing us to 4 LTE bands, so I don't think it wants to add a fifth.

 

I do think that Dish's best bet is to sell their spectrum to AT&T. AT&T can definitely use the 700MHz E band in their aggregation scheme. As far as what they are going to to do with WCS and Dish's S-band spectrum I'm not sure yet.

[lynyrd65]

If anyone buys this spectrum it's gonna be ATT. It's already prepping the infrastructure for Band 29 and Band 2,4 aggregation. Look at some posts above: ATT is well underway in deploying bands D,E (supplemental downlink) that Dish is using.Sprint is already going to need to add 600 MHz to its network, bringing us to 4 LTE bands, so I don't think it wants to add a fifth.

They are adding band 12 700mhz as well.

 

Near future Sprint devices will have 700 b12/800 b26/1900 b25/2600 b41 LTE radios.

 

So assuming they add 600, future phones will be at least pentaband.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

They are adding band 12 700mhz as well.

 

Near future Sprint devices will have 700 b12/800 b26/1900 b25/2600 b41 LTE radios.

 

So assuming they add 600, future phones will be at least pentaband.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

Why would ATT or Sprint add band 12?

[lynyrd65]

Why would ATT or Sprint add band 12?

To support cross carrier roaming with band 12 licensees (US Cellular, Blue Grass, etc.) and increase the economies of scale across the band.

 

It's a win-win, 700mhz A-C licensees can get the iPhone and other devices for lower prices (if they could get them at all before), have access to a nationwide LTE footprint without dealing with Verizon, and receive roaming revenue from traveling Sprint subscribers, while Sprint has LTE Roaming partners who will use their network (roaming revenue through their subscribers traveling out of regional coverage), and further increases in Sprint's economies of scale around their own frequency bands (SMR, PCS G-Block and BRS/EBS)

[maximus1987/lou99]

To support cross carrier roaming with band 12 licensees (US Cellular, Blue Grass, etc.) and increase the economies of scale across the band.

 

It's a win-win, 700mhz A-C licensees can get the iPhone and other devices for lower prices (if they could get them at all before), have access to a nationwide LTE footprint without dealing with Verizon, and receive roaming revenue from traveling Sprint subscribers, while Sprint has LTE Roaming partners who will use their network (roaming revenue through their subscribers traveling out of regional coverage), and further increases in Sprint's economies of scale around their own frequency bands (SMR, PCS G-Block and BRS/EBS)

 

Well that doesn't necessarily make sense. Sprint doesn't have any cellular spectrum and yet most Sprint phones have included CDMA 850 for some time.

Verizon has 850 and 1900 spectrum so Sprint naturally benefitted because its 1900 is a subset. What's Sprint gonna do: REQUIRE phones to NOT have 850? They already existed with 850 because of Verizon.

 

What you're saying is that Sprint should demand all phones to have a band it doesn't even own and one which Verizon doesn't use either so that Sprint customers can roam on Band 12 LTE on networks that are not guaranteed to be built - unless Sprint buys it all - and that is encumbered with Channel 51 which will EVENTUALLY get moved?

 

Why not just do what I suggested? Lease out SMR to rural carriers and they'll be able to not only deploy 5x5 LTE - Band 26 - but also 1xRTT and they can choose how many 1x channels to deploy at the expense of LTE; Lower A 700 MHz is 5x5 so no CDMA voice. All Sprint CDMA devices being sold now have CDMA Band 10 support and after the rural carriers have transitioned all voice to CDMA-800, they can refarm current voice spectrum for LTE.

All bands they are using for voice today are supported in all versions of current iphone 5 for LTE use: 850 is Band 5, PCS is Band 2/25 and for Leap, AWS is Band 4. All those bands are all supported by today's iphone 5 and probably other phones but CDMA 800 is and has been supported for years so transitioning voice users to CDMA-800 should be trivial.

The rural carriers get Sprint's economy of scale and Sprint will probably even help them get their networks running and then Sprint's map will show NATIVE LTE and voice almost everywhere

 

Doesn't that sound easier and smoother?

[lynyrd65]

Verizon has 850 and 1900 spectrum so Sprint naturally benefitted because its 1900 is a subset. What's Sprint gonna do: REQUIRE phones to NOT have 850? They already existed with 850 because of Verizon.

 

What you're saying is that Sprint should demand all phones to have a band it doesn't even own and one which Verizon doesn't use either so that Sprint customers can roam on Band 12 LTE on networks that are not guaranteed to be built - unless Sprint buys it all - and that is encumbered with Channel 51 which will EVENTUALLY get moved?

 

Why not just do what I suggested? Lease out SMR to rural carriers and they'll be able to not only deploy 5x5 LTE - Band 26 - but also 1xRTT and they can choose how many 1x channels to deploy at the expense of LTE; Lower A 700 MHz is 5x5 so no CDMA voice. All Sprint CDMA devices being sold now have CDMA Band 10 support and after the rural carriers have transitioned all voice to CDMA-800, they can refarm current voice spectrum for LTE.

All bands they are using for voice today are supported in all versions of current iphone 5 for LTE use: 850 is Band 5, PCS is Band 2/25 and for Leap, AWS is Band 4. All those bands are all supported by today's iphone 5 and probably other phones but CDMA 800 is and has been supported for years so transitioning voice users to CDMA-800 should be trivial.

The rural carriers get Sprint's economy of scale and Sprint will probably even help them get their networks running and then Sprint's map will show NATIVE LTE and voice almost everywhere

 

Doesn't that sound easier and smoother?

That's the Verizon LTE in rural America approach which doesn't really engender trust from the carriers you're targeting. The appeal to supporting band 12 is that the regional carriers retain control of their own destinies and would be beholden to no one where Verizon's LTE IRA program looks like a catalyst for acquisition. IRA carriers have to follow VZW's plans in pricing, device selection, and technology deployment which in effect makes them nothing more than extensions of VZW like i Wireless is an extension of T-Mobile.

 

If I were running a regional company the last thing i would want is to have to trust a larger competitor to look out for my best interests. With Sprint supporting band 12 it is much less of a threat to these smaller companies that they would be acquired. They can still stand alone with their respective lte networks and partner with someone else if Sprint gets too far away with pricing.

 

The difference between what you are proposing and what Sprint is doing is the freedom these regionals can retain which oddly enough will likely cause better long term relationships between these carriers and Sprint.

 

Also if I failed to mention it, Sprint is working for PCS A-F LTE roaming and cellular 850 LTE roaming as well with these carriers. The band class (26) that enables SMR LTE also covers Cellular 850 frequencies. Likewise band class 25 which enables G block LTE also covers PCS A-F.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[hxnk134]

That's the Verizon LTE in rural America approach which doesn't really engender trust from the carriers you're targeting. The appeal to supporting band 12 is that the regional carriers retain control of their own destinies and would be beholden to no one where Verizon's LTE IRA program looks like a catalyst for acquisition. IRA carriers have to follow VZW's plans in pricing, device selection, and technology deployment which in effect makes them nothing more than extensions of VZW like i Wireless is an extension of T-Mobile.

 

If I were running a regional company the last thing i would want is to have to trust a larger competitor to look out for my best interests. With Sprint supporting band 12 it is much less of a threat to these smaller companies that they would be acquired. They can still stand alone with their respective lte networks and partner with someone else if Sprint gets too far away with pricing.

 

The difference between what you are proposing and what Sprint is doing is the freedom these regionals can retain which oddly enough will likely cause better long term relationships between these carriers and Sprint.

 

Also if I failed to mention it, Sprint is working for PCS A-F LTE roaming and cellular 850 LTE roaming as well with these carriers. The band class (26) that enables SMR LTE also covers Cellular 850 frequencies. Likewise band class 25 which enables G block LTE also covers PCS A-F.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

I agree with your last paragraph because Sprint does not have to do anything extra.

 

Yes, copying Verizon's rural LTE is NOT in a rural carrier's best interest. That's the consequence of being a Tier 3 carrier. Sprint is not in business to make life easy for rural carriers without significant benefit for itself and roaming over a few million POPs is not worth adding a whole other LTE band to all its phones.

 

It's not Sprint's job to solve the Band 12 mess the FCC created.

[lynyrd65]

I agree with your last paragraph because Sprint does not have to do anything extra.

 

Yes, copying Verizon's rural LTE is NOT in a rural carrier's best interest. That's the consequence of being a Tier 3 carrier. Sprint is not in business to make life easy for rural carriers without significant benefit for itself and roaming over a few million POPs is not worth adding a whole other LTE band to all its phones.

 

It's not Sprint's job to solve the Band 12 mess the FCC created.

The FCC didn't create a mess with band 12 rather AT&T made a mess with band 17.

 

I've noticed a couple members here have began to take AT&T's side that the A-Block in the lower 700 is to be avoided due to interference with TV broadcasters and is therefore a liability.

 

Well, let me tell you, my 700 MHz A-Block LTE network is working great with great speeds and coverage across the majority of my area (US Cellular in Oklahoma). US Cellular continues to built out its A-Block network at a respectable pace for its size.

 

I find this hocus pocus about channel 51 interference to be nothing but a verbal tactic employed by AT&T to justify its throwing of rural carriers under the bus when it comes to device purchasing.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bigsnake49]

The FCC didn't create a mess with band 12 rather AT&T made a mess with band 17. I've noticed a couple members here have began to take AT&T's side that the A-Block in the lower 700 is to be avoided due to interference with TV broadcasters and is therefore a liability. Well, let me tell you, my 700 MHz A-Block LTE network is working great with great speeds and coverage across the majority of my area (US Cellular in Oklahoma). US Cellular continues to built out its A-Block network at a respectable pace for its size. I find this hocus pocus about channel 51 interference to be nothing but a verbal tactic employed by AT&T to justify its throwing of rural carriers under the bus when it comes to device purchasing. Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

 

There are channel 51 exclusion zones. Those tend to be rather large, unncessesarily so in my opinion. Channel 51 will be the first one to go in the incentive auction. It will be much easier to deal with interference concerns from a cellular set up than a 150,000-400,000 watt transmitter 70 miles away. I have not seen the spectrum map after the latest Verizon divestitures, but Verizon owns a hell of a lot of the A block and will probably be the largest beneficiary if those channel 51 exclusionary zones went away.

[hxnk134]

The FCC didn't create a mess with band 12 rather AT&T made a mess with band 17. I've noticed a couple members here have began to take AT&T's side that the A-Block in the lower 700 is to be avoided due to interference with TV broadcasters and is therefore a liability.Well, let me tell you, my 700 MHz A-Block LTE network is working great with great speeds and coverage across the majority of my area (US Cellular in Oklahoma). US Cellular continues to built out its A-Block network at a respectable pace for its size.I find this hocus pocus about channel 51 interference to be nothing but a verbal tactic employed by AT&T to justify its throwing of rural carriers under the bus when it comes to device purchasing.Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

The exclusion zones are real

 

 

as are the interference concerns. I remember reading a PDF that ATT submitted to the FCC with graphs detailing the interference channel 51 would cause to their B,C blocks but I can't find it just now.

 

And it is the FCC's mess: they knew about the Channel 51 interference and they still auctioned off the A-block. In retrospect, looks like it would've better to not auction it at all.

 

Also, US cellular already has launched a Samsung Galaxy smartphone with band 12 so it seems it is possible to get Band 12 devices.

Edited July 13, 2013 by hxnk134

[lynyrd65]

The exclusion zones are real as are the interference concerns. I remember reading a PDF that ATT submitted to the FCC with graphs detailing the interference channel 51 would cause to their B,C blocks but I can't find it just now. And it is the FCC's mess: they knew about the Channel 51 interference and they still auctioned off the A-block. In retrospect, looks like it would've better to not auction it at all. Also, US cellular already has launched a Samsung Galaxy smartphone with band 12 so it seems it is possible to get Band 12 devices.

 

I was unaware of this, but nevertheless, some networks can exist without interference in the A-Block (as we've noted USCC) and there is no reason not to support these networks that have coexisted peacefully with channel 51 broadcasters.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I was unaware of this, but nevertheless, some networks can exist without interference in the A-Block (as we've noted USCC) and there is no reason not to support these networks that have coexisted peacefully with channel 51 broadcasters.

Yes, some networks can exist but not in the exclusion zones.

There is a very good reason to not support them:

1) using band 12 devices but only transmitting on band 17 - what ATT would have to do - would degrade the signal in the exclusion zone.

They posted signal strength/filter charts showing that Ch 51 is too strong for band 12 filter; they need band 17 filter.

2) mandating dual band 12/17 on all such devices would take up a port on the transceiver/modem/something like that.

(The following statement is a guess)

This would leave ATT one less port to use for Band 29 (D,E block) supplemental downlink.

(End potentially clueless statement).

 

I think the FCC should have not sold the A block at all until Ch 51 was gone. That way, at least all those A-purchasers would still have their $$$ which they could use for refarming current spectrum.

 

Furthermore, the A-block purchasers were clueless and lazy. They should've known about the exclusion zones, they should've known about the bleed-through into B,C blocks and they should've done engineering tests around channel 51 with band 12 devices (or done simulations).

 

 

Unless AJ wants to chime in, I'll assume this viewpoint is correct.

Edited July 15, 2013 by asdf190

[adame233]

King Street Wireless and KGAN-TV (Channel 51 in Cedar Rapids) are petitioning the FCC to switch the station from 51 to 29. The petition says KGAN-TV has "entered into a voluntary relocation agreement with King Street Wireless, L.P." and that this will "remove any potential interference with a wireless license in the Lower 700MHz A Block"

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520929493

 

This should help U.S. Cellular's LTE roll-out in Eastern Iowa. I believe they have already launched LTE here on their AWS spectrum.

 

I wonder if other holders of A-Block spectrum will be negotiating with Channel 51 licensees and paying them to relocate.

[digiblur]

King Street Wireless and KGAN-TV (Channel 51 in Cedar Rapids) are petitioning the FCC to switch the station from 51 to 29. The petition says KGAN-TV has "entered into a voluntary relocation agreement with King Street Wireless, L.P." and that this will "remove any potential interference with a wireless license in the Lower 700MHz A Block"

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520929493

 

This should help U.S. Cellular's LTE roll-out in Eastern Iowa. I believe they have already launched LTE here on their AWS spectrum.

 

I wonder if other holders of A-Block spectrum will be negotiating with Channel 51 licensees and paying them to relocate.

 

Should be a win win for the station if the wireless company is paying for the change and advertisements/training of the public to delete and rescan their OTA tuners.  The station will end up gaining a tad bit of coverage with the frequency change.