AT&T band 5 LTE 850 makes its first appearance

[vryan44]

Was browsing a little into howard forums when I found this:

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1757531-AT-amp-T-4G-LTE-Latest-markets-launching-and-speculation/page99

 

Looks like at&t has already started deploying lte on band 5 with 5 mhz channels. 

[Paynefanbro]

Was browsing a little into howard forums when I found this:

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1757531-AT-amp-T-4G-LTE-Latest-markets-launching-and-speculation/page99

 

Looks like at&t has already started deploying lte on band 5 with 5 mhz channels. 

 

 

Why are speeds so low, and pings so high with full bars on a new LTE channel?

[milan03]

Was browsing a little into howard forums when I found this:

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1757531-AT-amp-T-4G-LTE-Latest-markets-launching-and-speculation/page99

 

Looks like at&t has already started deploying lte on band 5 with 5 mhz channels. 

I'm sorry maybe I'm blind, but I'm seeing reports of Band 17 with 5Mhz channels.

[WiWavelength]

I'm sorry maybe I'm blind, but I'm seeing reports of Band 17 with 5Mhz channels.

 

Try this post.  The market in question is Bloomington-Normal, IL.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1757531-AT-amp-T-4G-LTE-Latest-markets-launching-and-speculation?p=15207974#post15207974

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

As an addendum, AT&T holds no paired Lower 700 MHz spectrum in CMA250.  USCC holds both Lower 700 MHz B and C block licenses.  The only Lower 700 MHz spectrum AT&T holds in Bloomington-Normal is the unpaired Lower 700 MHz D block.  So, there is the definitive reason for 5 MHz FDD band 5 LTE 850.

 

AJ

[milan03]

As an addendum, AT&T holds no paired Lower 700 MHz spectrum in CMA250.  USCC holds both Lower 700 MHz B and C block licenses.  The only Lower 700 MHz spectrum AT&T holds in Bloomington-Normal is the unpaired Lower 700 MHz D block.  So, there is the definitive reason for 5 MHz FDD band 5 LTE 850.

 

AJ

Ah this sums it all up. Danke!

[ericdabbs]

Makes sense.  AT&T should be seeking for opportunities to refarm it current spectrum for LTE instead of trying to hoard spectrum.  They have plenty of spectrum when all things are considered.  Hopefully Verizon will refarm its 850 MHz spectrum for LTE.

[maximus1987/lou99]

So for voice ATT is using pcs? Why the rush to refarm when HSPA can give you decent speeds AND voice?

[milan03]

Makes sense.  AT&T should be seeking for opportunities to refarm it current spectrum for LTE instead of trying to hoard spectrum.  They have plenty of spectrum when all things are considered.  Hopefully Verizon will refarm its 850 MHz spectrum for LTE.

I'm pretty sure it would make more sense for Verizon to refarm their 1900Mhz spectrum since they have nationwide 700c almost fully deployed. 

After AWS i'm betting on PCS being refarmed.

[bigsnake49]

So for voice ATT is using pcs? Why the rush to refarm when HSPA can give you decent speeds AND voice?

 

They will leave 5Mhz of HSPA+ and refarm 5MHz for LTE. 37Mbps vs 14Mbps (AT&T never went for the 21Mbps flavor). I would take that tradeoff.

[WiWavelength]

I'm pretty sure it would make more sense for Verizon to refarm their 1900Mhz spectrum since they have nationwide 700c almost fully deployed. 

After AWS i'm betting on PCS being refarmed.

 

Maybe.  But VZW does not have the same level of PCS holdings that the other big three do.  New York City is really the exception in that regard with 40 MHz of PCS.  In so many other markets, VZW has only a single 10 MHz PCS license.  At best, that would buy VZW only an added 5 MHz FDD band 2 LTE 1900 carrier.  What does that really gain?

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

I'm pretty sure it would make more sense for Verizon to refarm their 1900Mhz spectrum since they have nationwide 700c almost fully deployed. 

After AWS i'm betting on PCS being refarmed.

 

Why do you need to bet?  OH you must not have heard that Verizon is already planning to refarm PCS for LTE in 2015.  I made a topic about this before back in June.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4113-verizon-to-start-refarming-pcs-spectrum-for-lte-in-2015/

 

Fiercewireless article on Verizon refarming PCS for LTE in 2015.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-start-refarming-pcs-spectrum-lte-2015/2013-06-27

[maximus1987/lou99]

Maybe. But VZW does not have the same level of PCS holdings that the other big three do. New York City is really the exception in that regard with 40 MHz of PCS. In so many other markets, VZW has only a single 10 MHz PCS license. At best, that would buy VZW only an added 5 MHz FDD band 2 LTE 1900 carrier. What does that really gain?

 

AJ

Sprint.

[milan03]

Why do you need to bet?  OH you must not have heard that Verizon is already planning to refarm PCS for LTE in 2015.  I made a topic about this before back in June.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4113-verizon-to-start-refarming-pcs-spectrum-for-lte-in-2015/

 

Fiercewireless article on Verizon refarming PCS for LTE in 2015.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-start-refarming-pcs-spectrum-lte-2015/2013-06-27

Seen FierceWireless article when it came out. That's not really the point...

The point is that Verizon has low band 700c spectrum for coverage laid out already across the US. In places where they need capacity and don't have AWS holdings, it would make more sense to deploy mid band PCS which has similar propagation characteristics. Especially with the introduction of CA and small cells.

 

Now as AJ just pointed out, there is another issue, and that is lack of significant PCS in many markets.

[Bob Newhart]

Are cell companies allowed to upload/download on different frequencies such as upload on 1900 Mhz and download on 700 Mhz at the same time?

[ericdabbs]

Seen FierceWireless article when it came out. That's not really the point...

The point is that Verizon has low band 700c spectrum for coverage laid out already across the US. In places where they need capacity and don't have AWS holdings, it would make more sense to deploy mid band PCS which has similar propagation characteristics. Especially with the introduction of CA and small cells.

 

Now as AJ just pointed out, there is another issue, and that is lack of significant PCS in many markets.

 

Good that you saw the article but why bring it up in the first place if you knew?  To me the Fiercewireless article pretty much implies that Verizon will deploy LTE on PCS after AWS. 

 

Verizon pretty much has nationwide AWS holdings. Of course some markets have more than others.  But my point still remains that ATT and Verizon still need to refarm their 850 MHz holdings at some point. 

[milan03]

Good that you saw the article but why bring it up in the first place if you knew?  To me the Fiercewireless article pretty much implies that Verizon will deploy LTE on PCS after AWS. 

 

Verizon pretty much has nationwide AWS holdings. Of course some markets have more than others.  But my point still remains that ATT and Verizon still need to refarm their 850 MHz holdings at some point. 

Why bringing it up? Because it makes more sense refarming mid band spectrum after you've already blanketed the entire nation with low band LTE, taking care of coverage. Common sense, no? So you're right, according to Verizon AWS is next, and PCS is to follow. Not CLR. 

Voice is mostly on 850Mhz which is another reason why it wouldn't make sense to start shutting that down too soon.

Eventually they will use 850Mhz spectrum for LTE, but they're in a completely different position than AT&T and are definitely not in a hurry to refarm 850Mhz spectrum for LTE...

[WiWavelength]

Are cell companies allowed to upload/download on different frequencies such as upload on 1900 Mhz and download on 700 Mhz at the same time?

 

Yes, to an extent.  But a carrier aggregation pairing of a PCS 1900 MHz uplink and a Lower 700 MHz downlink would not be a great combination, as it would not really take advantage of 700 MHz reception characteristics.

 

AJ

[Bob Newhart]

T-Mobile uses their 1700/2100 Mhz for upload/download combination.

Do they do that because they are required to, or because they want to?

 

Maybe a 700/850Mhz combination would be better paired?

[Thomas L.]

T-Mobile uses their 1700/2100 Mhz for upload/download combination.

Do they do that because they are required to, or because they want to?

 

Maybe a 700/850Mhz combination would be better paired?

 

T-Mobile doesn't have a choice, nor do AT&T or Verizon or any of the smaller carriers on AWS  - that's just how the AWS spectrum was paired by the FCC

[ericdabbs]

T-Mobile uses their 1700/2100 Mhz for upload/download combination.

Do they do that because they are required to, or because they want to?

 

Maybe a 700/850Mhz combination would be better paired?

 

AWS spectrum is paired spectrum with a 2100 MHz downlink block and 1700 MHz uplink block. So when people refer or say "AWS" or "1700/2100 MHz" spectrum, they are basically saying the same thing. 

 

The 1700/2100 MHz blocks were assigned by the FCC to pair these 2 spectrum blocks together for auction.  The 1700/2100 MHz spectrum blocks were not pulled out of thin air and are not random.

 

Also you can't pair 700 and 850 MHz together since they are completely separate band classes.  700 and 850 MHz spectrum each have their own paired spectrum blocks.

[tongboy]

Although I had heard it before, I never thought how much of spectrum disaster att has. It has to lead to very inconsistent experience for customers from market to market.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Bob Newhart]

AWS spectrum is paired spectrum with a 2100 MHz downlink block and 1700 MHz uplink block. So when people refer or say "AWS" or "1700/2100 MHz" spectrum, they are basically saying the same thing. 

 

The 1700/2100 MHz blocks were assigned by the FCC to pair these 2 spectrum blocks together for auction.  The 1700/2100 MHz spectrum blocks were not pulled out of thin air and are not random.

 

Also you can't pair 700 and 850 MHz together since they are completely separate band classes.  700 and 850 MHz spectrum each have their own paired spectrum blocks.

 

How is T-Mobile using just 1700 Mhz for LTE, for both upload and download?

 

Unless this table listing 1700 Mhz also assumes the paired 2100 Mhz band?

 

thanks

[milan03]

Although I had heard it before, I never thought how much of spectrum disaster att has. It has to lead to very inconsistent experience for customers from market to market.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4

You're absolutely right about their spectrum. Their UE requirements have changed to Band 2, 4, 5, 17 after they've divested large chunks of their AWS spectrum to T-Mobile. And since they don't really have nationwide lower 700Mhz paired spectrum either, they have to deploy LTE in other three bands. Perfect example is Bloomington, IL where they're introducing Band 5.

 

As far as user experience, I don't think it should matter that much as long as your AT&T branded device supports all four LTE bands.

[tongboy]

You're absolutely right about their spectrum. Their UE requirements have changed to Band 2, 4, 5, 17 after they've divested large chunks of their AWS spectrum to T-Mobile. And since they don't really have nationwide lower 700Mhz paired spectrum either, they have to deploy LTE in other three bands. Perfect example is Bloomington, IL where they're introducing Band 5.

 

As far as user experience, I don't think it should matter that much as long as your AT&T branded device supports all four LTE bands.

Does AT&T own both A and B cellular bands in Bloomington? Where would their voice traffic go?