AT&T band 5 LTE 850 makes its first appearance

[Nickel]

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

Yes, 1700 is paired with 2100 and the blocks match up so that if you 1710 MHz uplink then you have 2110 MHz on the downlink.

[Mobilesolutions]

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

 

A 5MHz PCS carrier for VZW sounds quite fit to me.  Vzw would have an uncrowded band to run its own version of TRI-Band devices.

[ericdabbs]

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

 

Where did you read that?  AWS spectrum is always paired with 1700 and 2100 MHz spectrum.  Whatever table you are looking at is wrong or the 2100 MHz is assumed.  The uplink is 1700 and downlink is 2100 MHz.  In terms of video streaming on youtube/Netflix and web browsing on the go when you are out and about the downlink is what really matters.  Think of it like your home ISP, you just care about the downlink speeds and not the uplink speeds.

 

So if you think about it from a marketing perspective the perception that "lower frequency" equals "superior service" due to better building penetration characteristics. Just look at the marketing from Verizon and ATT, they have said that their LTE is superior than Sprint because they deploy LTE on 700 MHz which is low band frequency and penetrates buildings better. 

 

So for Tmobile advertising LTE at 1700 MHz is not technically wrong since the uplink part of LTE will be deployed on 1700 MHz but we know that the downlink is what really matters and that is deployed at 2100 MHz.  It sounds better to advertise LTE at 1700 MHz than at 2100 MHz because lower is better.  Heck they can say that Tmobile LTE beats Sprint LTE since Sprint LTE deploys at 1900 MHz.

[milan03]

So if you think about it from a marketing perspective the perception that "lower frequency" equals "superior service" due to better building penetration characteristics. Just look at the marketing from Verizon and ATT, they have said that their LTE is superior than Sprint because they deploy LTE on 700 MHz which is low band frequency and penetrates buildings better. 

To wireless operators lower spectrum is much more important for overall coverage footprint than urban building propagation. Verizon launched 39 markets on day one back in 2010, and by 2012 they've covered ~90% of their 3G footprint. With 700Mhz spectrum they didn't have to deploy to every cell site in order to reach millions, so they've done it much quicker than T-Mo or Sprint, and they've ended up saving lots of time and money.

They just love to cater their ad campaign towards highly populated areas, so they've isolated that one aspect that benefits urban users which is in building propagation.

 

Truth to be told, I have absolutely no AT&T LTE coverage in my brick house in NYC, and I'm around -105dBm RSRP on my Verizon's device. 

On the other hand, T-Mobile's LTE is sitting at -80dBm which is in AWS. 

[Nickel]

To wireless operators lower spectrum is much more important for overall coverage footprint than urban building propagation. Verizon launched 39 markets on day one back in 2010, and by 2012 they've covered ~90% of their 3G footprint. With 700Mhz spectrum they didn't have to deploy to every cell site in order to reach millions, so they've done it much quicker than T-Mo or Sprint, and they've ended up saving lots of time and money.

They just love to cater their ad campaign towards highly populated areas, so they've isolated that one aspect that benefits urban users which is in building propagation.

 

Truth to be told, I have absolutely no AT&T LTE coverage in my brick house in NYC, and I'm around -105dBm RSRP on my Verizon's device. 

On the other hand, T-Mobile's LTE is sitting at -80dBm which is in AWS. 

It's all about proximity to the cell site.

[ericdabbs]

To wireless operators lower spectrum is much more important for overall coverage footprint than urban building propagation. Verizon launched 39 markets on day one back in 2010, and by 2012 they've covered ~90% of their 3G footprint. With 700Mhz spectrum they didn't have to deploy to every cell site in order to reach millions, so they've done it much quicker than T-Mo or Sprint, and they've ended up saving money.

They just like to create their ads where it'll connect with most users, so they've isolated that one aspect that benefits urban users which is in building propagation.

 

Truth to be told, I have absolutely no AT&T LTE coverage in my brick house in NYC, and I'm around -105dBm RSRP on my Verizon's device. 

On the other hand, T-Mobile's LTE is sitting at -80dBm which is in AWS. 

 

You are right.   I meant to say that coverage per square foot is the number 1 benefit of lower frequency but another huge benefit of lower frequency is building penetration especially since folks have moved a ton of their mobile traffic indoors and its important that they are able to use it.  At this point, Sprint and Tmobile customers care more about getting some sort of LTE coverage vs. caring about whether they can use it indoors.

[GinaDee]

I'm glad AT&T is doing this as opposed to just neglecting markets where they lack enough 700 MHz spectrum.  I'd like to see them use PCS spectrum as well.  

 

I'm really interested long term if they can make a success story out of carrier aggregation. 

 

According to this article AT&T is serious about shutting down their 2G network so they should have more spectrum to use:  http://cd2migration.att.com

[Thomas L.]

Where did you read that? AWS spectrum is always paired with 1700 and 2100 MHz spectrum. Whatever table you are looking at is wrong or the 2100 MHz is assumed. The uplink is 1700 and downlink is 2100 MHz. In terms of video streaming on youtube/Netflix and web browsing on the go when you are out and about the downlink is what really matters. Think of it like your home ISP, you just care about the downlink speeds and not the uplink speeds.

 

So if you think about it from a marketing perspective the perception that "lower frequency" equals "superior service" due to better building penetration characteristics. Just look at the marketing from Verizon and ATT, they have said that their LTE is superior than Sprint because they deploy LTE on 700 MHz which is low band frequency and penetrates buildings better.

 

So for Tmobile advertising LTE at 1700 MHz is not technically wrong since the uplink part of LTE will be deployed on 1700 MHz but we know that the downlink is what really matters and that is deployed at 2100 MHz. It sounds better to advertise LTE at 1700 MHz than at 2100 MHz because lower is better. Heck they can say that Tmobile LTE beats Sprint LTE since Sprint LTE deploys at 1900 MHz.

 

But isn't it the case that you have to have a good uplink signal to have a good downlink? It's my understanding that it's a weakest link type situation - that is to say that AWS will effectively have the performance characteristics of a signal that had both the uplink and downlink on 2100mhz spectrum. Maybe AJ or Robert can chime in.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Thomas L.]

It's all about proximity to the cell site.

Exactly, if Sprint had a small cell on every light pole in America, they could probably get away with using just Clearwire spectrum and be fine.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[WiWavelength]

But isn't it the case that you have to have a good uplink signal to have a good downlink? It's my understanding that it's a weakest link type situation - that is to say that AWS will effectively have the performance characteristics of a signal that had both the uplink and downlink on 2100mhz spectrum.

 

Pretty much.  If the 2100 MHz downlink signal is lost, then the 1700 MHz uplink signal is rendered irrelevant.  About the only thing that can be done to compensate for worse path loss characteristics on 2100 MHz than 1700 MHz is to turn up the power on the downlink.  But T-Mobile seems not to have done that.  If anything, users have complained about lower power on band 4 AWS than on band 2 PCS.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

A 5MHz PCS carrier for VZW sounds quite fit to me.  Vzw would have an uncrowded band to run its own version of TRI-Band devices.

 

With a 10 MHz FDD band 13 LTE 750 carrier and a 10-20 MHz FDD band 4 LTE 2100+1700 carrier, who wants the 5 MHz FDD band 2 LTE 1900 carrier?  That is like the runt of the litter.  And that is my point.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

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

 

The "1700 MHz" listing is just a distorted shorthand used out of convenience.  The proper nomenclature is my nomenclature, which I created back in 2006.  AWS 2100+1700 MHz.  But the reason why others emphasize only the "1700 MHz" part is to distinguish from IMT 2100+1900 MHz -- the primary W-CDMA band across most of the world.  Still, "1700 MHz" alone is a poor choice of terminology, since both Japan and South Korea have 1700 MHz centric bands that have nothing to do with AWS.

 

AJ

[Mobilesolutions]

With a 10 MHz FDD band 13 LTE 750 carrier and a 10-20 MHz FDD band 4 LTE 2100+1700 carrier, who wants the 5 MHz FDD band 2 LTE 1900 carrier?  That is like the runt of the litter.  And that is my point.

 

AJ

Be that as it may, 750 is a very loaded carrier; at times unusable. I would be looking to maximize the investment from an AWS rollout and taking a card from Sprint's playbook (custom sectors) AWS+PCS would be feasible if they overlay on 100% of their 750 footprint.

 

I do see that vzw would have some hardship in doing so, as in most markets with cell 850; site spacing does not have to be as tight. Another problem for vzw is their site choices are quite awkward ( at least in Tulsa) they use many small poles, some wooden & rack space simply isn't available, nor is the broadcast height suitable for anything other than island style coverage with AWS. Their options are limited & they carry around the largest subscription base.

[maximus1987/lou99]

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

Their own doing. They cheaped out in the 700 auction. They could've bought all the B,C blocks.

[maximus1987/lou99]

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.

AT&T (NYSE:T) said it is moving to the 21 Mbps version of HSPA+ as it upgrades its network rather than the 14.4 Mbps HSPA+ version, a move likely precipitated by T-Mobile USA's aggressive migration to the 21 Mbps HSPA+ variant.

 

Read more: AT&T: 21 Mbps HSPA+ available on 80% of 3G footprint - FierceBroadbandWireless http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/att-21-mbps-hspa-available-80-3g-footprint/2010-11-18#ixzz2dAvIBKDf

Subscribe at FierceBroadbandWireless

[WiWavelength]

Their own doing. They cheaped out in the 700 auction. They could've bought all the B,C blocks.

 

Are you referring to the Lower 700 MHz C block licenses or the Upper 700 MHz C block licenses that VZW won?  The Lower 700 MHz C block licenses were not included in Auction 73 in 2008.  They were auctioned five years earlier.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

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.

Soon to be 6 bands: WCS (30), 700 MHz D,E supplemental downlink (29).

[maximus1987/lou99]

Are you referring to the Lower 700 MHz C block licenses or the Upper 700 MHz C block licenses that VZW won? The Lower 700 MHz C block licenses were not included in Auction 73 in 2008. They were auctioned five years earlier.

 

AJ

Lower. The ones that ATT bought from Verizon for ~$3 bil in Verizon's AWS-related divestment.

[WiWavelength]

Lower. The ones that ATT bought from Verizon for ~$3 bil in Verizon's AWS-related divestment.

 

Well, as I said, the Lower 700 MHz C block licenses were auctioned five years earlier -- while they were still encumbered by UHF TV and before anybody really knew what to do with them.  So, no, AT&T could not have bought all of them.  AT&T acquired its Lower 700 MHz C block spectrum on the secondary market.  And it did acquire a lot, mainly via its transaction with Aloha.  But other Lower 700 MHz C block licensees were not interested in selling, still are not interested in selling.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

The "1700 MHz" listing is just a distorted shorthand used out of convenience.  The proper nomenclature is my nomenclature, which I created back in 2006.  AWS 2100+1700 MHz.  But the reason why others emphasize only the "1700 MHz" part is to distinguish from IMT 2100+1900 MHz -- the primary W-CDMA band across most of the world.  Still, "1700 MHz" alone is a poor choice of terminology, since both Japan and South Korea have 1700 MHz centric bands that have nothing to do with AWS.

 

AJ

I never understood band 9, unless I am reading the chart wrong, it is a subset of band 3 and why would you subset one of the most popular bands in the world?

[Bob Newhart]

Where did you read that?  AWS spectrum is always paired with 1700 and 2100 MHz spectrum.  Whatever table you are looking at is wrong or the 2100 MHz is assumed.  The uplink is 1700 and downlink is 2100 MHz. 

 

Sorry, didn't link the table correctly from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks#Americas

 

Trying to learn the terminology.

[WiWavelength]

I never understood band 9, unless I am reading the chart wrong, it is a subset of band 3 and why would you subset one of the most popular bands in the world?

 

Band 9 was created because it is just a slightly rejiggered version (FDD offset increased by 5 MHz) of what we in the CDMA2000 world have long referred to as band class 4 aka Korean PCS.  Though relatively small in population, South Korea is one of the most important mobile markets on the planet.  So, it got its own LTE subset band.

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

Sorry, didn't link the table correctly from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks#Americas

 

Trying to learn the terminology.

 

 

Ahh I see now.  Yeah its misleading under the North America section.  It does mention in the North America section about AWS 1700.  Then if you go to the wikipedia page for AWS as shown below, you will find the following:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Wireless_Services#United_States_2

 

First sentence of the second paragraph.

"The AWS band uses microwave frequencies in two segments: from 1710 to 1755 MHz for uplink, and from 2110 to 2155 MHz for downlink.^[1]"

[Thomas L.]

Pretty much.  If the 2100 MHz downlink signal is lost, then the 1700 MHz uplink signal is rendered irrelevant.  About the only thing that can be done to compensate for worse path loss characteristics on 2100 MHz than 1700 MHz is to turn up the power on the downlink.  But T-Mobile seems not to have done that.  If anything, users have complained about lower power on band 4 AWS than on band 2 PCS.

 

AJ

 

And why WOULDN'T they increase the power of the downlink, is there a reason? Some sort of regulations that prevent them from doing so? I would think they'd want it as high as possible.

[WiWavelength]

And why WOULDN'T they increase the power of the downlink, is there a reason? Some sort of regulations that prevent them from doing so? I would think they'd want it as high as possible.

 

I have no clear idea.  I report only what others have observed.  Maybe T-Mobile cheaps out on the electric bill.  To sell cheap service, it has to cut corners somewhere.

 

AJ