Non-G-Block PCS LTE Carriers

[newyork4me]

No, please do not oversimplify this -- it is not that simple.

 

The LTE carrier in the PCS G block theoretically could be expanded to 10 MHz FDD in some markets. Going on three years ago, I wrote about that:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-27-spectrum-analysisdoes-sprint-have-more-options-for-additional-lte-carriers/

 

It is not apt to happen soon, but please do not be so glib about it.

 

That said, why are you so concerned with Sprint deploying a band 25 10 MHz FDD carrier in Chicago? Not all handsets without firmware updates would be able to utilize it. Is your e-penis that big? Are you looking for peak band 25 speeds in the Windy City? Especially, when you have "New York" in your username.

 

In the end, one market does not a network make; one market does not a network break. If it did, Sprint would be kaput -- based upon the incessant complaints from our Louisiana members. The same could be said for T-Mobile, which operates a barebones license protection network in Nebraska but does not actually sell service there. Yet, both continue on as national wireless providers.

 

AJ

 

Oh, come on. Pigs could theoretically fly too. If Sprint doesn't have the ability to do it right now with what they have, it is too speculative to be seriously talked about.

 

And Chicago was the market that made the made sense, since they were getting fresh spectrum that would have prevented the need to refarm. But, let's be serious, Sprint should be at 10x10 in as many markets as they can. If that means starting to turn down 1x or EVDO as they shift traffic to LTE and 1x800, then so be it.  T-Mobile is very aggressively refarming for LTE with minimal consequences. 

 

Wider channels are more efficient too. Period. They allow faster peak speeds which allow users to start and complete a data task faster, thus removing them as an active data user that much faster. But, more importantly, it prevents the otherwise recurrent problem of idle capacity on the non-loaded channel. 

 

Yes, the network tries to load balance, but there is not one person who is foolish enough to claim the load balancing is 100% efficient. The network simply cannot move users around with enough frequency and accuracy to perfectly balance loads. It does a good job of preventing one channel from being 100% loaded and the other from being 0%, sure, but it cannot reproduce the same efficiency benefits of having one channel.  Even if the network is able to balance load to 60% and 40%, it's still less optimal than the wider channel. 

[dedub]

With LTE Advanced carrier aggregation, in the future couldn't Sprint do carrier aggregation with it's G block and pcs spectrum?  Isn't that what AT&T plans to do with intraband carrier aggregation soon?  I would think that would be easier for Sprint since pcs and G block are much closer compared to the bands AT&T are using for carrier aggregation.  **of course I don't know as much about this stuff as some of you, so if it's not that easy please be kind 

 

native 10mhz carrier is more efficient than trying to CA 2x 5mhz carriers, less overhead and processing required.

 

CA is similar in concept to RAID arrays, striping 2x 1tb drives to get 2 tb is less efficient than a single 2tb drive.

Edited July 25, 2014 by dedub

[Nickel]

Wider channels are more efficient too. Period. They allow faster peak speeds which allow users to start and complete a data task faster, thus removing them as an active data user that much faster. But, more importantly, it prevents the otherwise recurrent problem of idle capacity on the non-loaded channel. 

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

 

Sent from my LG G3 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

 

AJ

[Shyruk]

OK, are we still talking about Non G-Block PCS LTE Carriers?

[anthony.spina97]

OK, are we still talking about Non G-Block PCS LTE Carriers?

Before all of the propaganda posts, yes, actually, we were. 

 

-Anthony

[Shyruk]

I've been on this forum for more then 2 years maybe 2.5. So please don't think of me as a Noob. The reason asked if we r still talking about Non G-Block LTE because I got down and up frequency of the second channel. Its not SignalCheckPros Bug   

[Shyruk]

UL Channel: 26315 (1877.5MHz)

DL Channel: 8315 (1957.5 MHz)

[anthony.spina97]

I've been on this forum for more then 2 years maybe 2.5. So please don't think of me as a Noob. The reason asked if we r still talking about Non G-Block LTE because I got down and up frequency of the second channel. Its not SignalCheckPros Bug   

I wasn't trying to think of you as a noob. I was trying to be funny haha. I apologize if it came off that way.

 

-Anthony

[WiWavelength]

I've been on this forum for more then 2 years maybe 2.5. So please don't think of me as a Noob. The reason asked if we r still talking about Non G-Block LTE because I got down and up frequency of the second channel. Its not SignalCheckPros Bug   

UL Channel: 26315 (1877.5MHz)

DL Channel: 8315 (1957.5 MHz)

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5454-network-vision-and-spark-earfcn-logging-thread/

 

AJ

[uecker87]

I wanted to bounce something off of you guys. 

 

Here in WI, Airadigm was sold to USCC (technically sold to themselves since both are owned by TDS), and it has been known that USCC intends to shutdown Airadigm's GSM network in September and sell off some assets that it doesn't want/need.

 

Airadigm owns the PCS C Block (1895-1910 and 1975-1990).  USCC is in pretty good shape in MOST of the areas that they have this spectrum (A and B block 700mhz and the cellular A block, some PCS and AWS).  What do you guys think are the chances that USCC would maybe be looking into selling that spectrum to Sprint?  Do you think Sprint would be interested in such spectrum given the limited geographical reach of it?  It literally is only about 2/3 of WI and the northeastern portions of IA. 

 

Just a thought.  Or maybe USCC puts the spectrum to use with LTE and they start their LTE roaming deal with Sprint (and have it be treated as native )