Sprint Reportedly Bowing Out of T-Mobile Bid (was "Sprint offer" and "Iliad" threads)

[Johnner1999]

Apple could have supported B41 in the last iPhone. The chipset supported it. But didn't want to go through the trouble. So even if the MDM 9635 supports CA and is in the next iPhone, it is not an automatic thing CA will be included. Or Sprint CA.

 

Also, Apple would then get to decide which bands do CA as well, and mixes of bands. We have already seen several AT&T devices where not all bands will or mixes of bands will do CA, even though the device itself supports LTE on all AT&T bands.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Sorry I've gone for awhile, what is CA?

[maxsilver]

Sorry I've gone for awhile, what is CA?

 

I believe it refers to carrier aggregation.

 

http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained

[KD8JBF]

Sorry I've gone for awhile, what is CA?

 

Carrier Aggregation...

[KD8JBF]

I believe it refers to carrier aggregation.

 

http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained

 

Op...he beat me to it...LOL

[Johnner1999]

I assume CA does use more power... Apple really enjoys it's power saving skills. Sort of like the Apollo 13 ground crew.

[S4GRU]

I assume CA does use more power... Apple really enjoys it's power saving skills. Sort of like the Apollo 13 ground crew.

During active data transfer, it does. But it will not half your battery. Nothing even close to that. It will nearly double your radio battery consumption during active data sessions where CA is used. But when you consider that radios are not the top usage in smartphones these days, giving up a little more battery resources for a better data experience (when needed) is worth it for most users.

 

The average user will not see any meaningful difference with a CA device and a non CA device, except possibly downloading or streaming really, really large files for hours. Hopefully CA can be turned off.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[Johnner1999]

During active data transfer, it does. But it will not half your battery. Nothing even close to that. It will nearly double your radio battery consumption during active data sessions where CA is used. But when you consider that radios are not the top usage in smartphones these days, giving up a little more battery resources for a better data experience (when needed) is worth it for most users.

 

The average user will not see any meaningful difference with a CA device and a non CA device, except possibly downloading or streaming really, really large files for hours. Hopefully CA can be turned off.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Does vzw or att currently support it.

 

That may be the key ;-)

[bigsnake49]

I assume CA does use more power... Apple really enjoys it's power saving skills. Sort of like the Apollo 13 ground crew.

Yes it does.But that assumes that you are fully using all of the subcarriers of all the aggregated channels.

[maxsilver]

Does vzw or att currently support it.

 

That may be the key ;-)

 

AT&T supports it. Has for at least few months now on both sides (some of their devices support it and some markets having deployed service live).

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-lights-lte-advanced-carrier-aggregation-chicago-other-markets/2014-03-07

[S4GRU]

Does vzw or att currently support it.

 

That may be the key ;-)

As was mentioned above, AT&T supports interband Carrier Aggregation on some devices in some areas. On some devices, they only support a few bands for CA and not all. Also they require the same size channels to bond, which is really unfortunate. Because AT&T has a lot of markets with one 10MHz channel and one 5MHz channel. Not being able to bond that 5MHz channel to the 10 is rather inconvenient.

 

AT&T has a messy spectrum position. In my market, they have a B12 and B17 6MHz slice next to each other, that is one continuous 12x12 if paired together. But AT&T cannot run it as one 10MHz carrier. Because then all their B17 devices without B12 support cannot run on it and they would see no LTE in the area. Whereas a B12 device could. So now they will have to do two separate 5MHz channels, and bond together with CA. But AT&T hasn't released any B12/B17 interband CA devices, yet.

 

Interband CA with many, many LTE bands is messy in trying to get all the different combinations supported and tested by the FCC. Sprint will have an easier time just doing intraband CA on B41 only.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[VW Maverick]

I believe it refers to carrier aggregation.

 

http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-carrier-aggregation-explained

Yikes. It reads like stereo instructions.  

 

Mav.  

[Johnner1999]

As was mentioned above, AT&T supports interband Carrier Aggregation on some devices in some areas. On some devices, they only support a few bands for CA and not all. Also they require the same size channels to bond, which is really unfortunate. Because AT&T has a lot of markets with one 10MHz channel and one 5MHz channel. Not being able to bond that 5MHz channel to the 10 is rather inconvenient.

 

AT&T has a messy spectrum position. In my market, they have a B12 and B17 6MHz slice next to each other, that is one continuous 12x12 if paired together. But AT&T cannot run it as one 10MHz carrier. Because then all their B17 devices without B12 support cannot run on it and they would see no LTE in the area. Whereas a B12 device could. So now they will have to do two separate 5MHz channels, and bond together with CA. But AT&T hasn't released any B12/B17 interband CA devices, yet.

 

Interband CA with many, many LTE bands is messy in trying to get all the different combinations supported and tested by the FCC. Sprint will have an easier time just doing intraband CA on B41 only.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks for the info!

 

 

I suspect apple will wait till next year...

 

Unless maybe the extra battery in the larger iPhones can offset the power consumed.

 

Typically Apple likes to wait...

[bigsnake49]

Here is something that will be happening in Asian countries: Cloud RAN (Radio Access Network). Basically, moving the basestation functionality from the site onto the cloud where you can use generic hardware to do the processing.With both data and control instructions flowing directly from the cloud onto the RRH via fiber. It supposedly will result in 30-60% savings in deployment costs and 71% savings in power.

Of course you will use a lot more fiber bandwidth, that's why I have been advocating for Sprint to buy fiber loops.

 

Anyway, here is the article talking about it:

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/special-reports/c-ran-plotting-next-generation-wireless-inside-base-station-hotel

[Josh]

I'd be curious if this wasn't Son's own doing. What are odds he was already in control of the board back when Dan was inches from buying metroPCS.

 

My logic being:

 

Dan had a plan to strengthen sprint for the cheap.

 

Son didn't agree and said something like hey I'll take my offer off the table if you buy metro. As son wanted tmo as well and the feds never would have agreed if sprint bought two competitors. ...

 

Yeah its a stretch.

 

I actually wondered this as well when it happened, as they also used CDMA over at least some PCS spectrum.  I also kinda expected sprint to maybe capture leap afterwords, but they didn't, then FCC allowed At&t to pick them up and overtake verizon in subscribers again.  I know that sprint completely overlapped each company in coverage (making their infrastructure worthless) and the subscribers gained would be sub-prime prepaid customers... but the spectrum would have helped in many markets, and they could have sold/swapped the AWS spectrum, and it wouldn't have hurt to have another few Million customers.  

 

I think since they eventually wanted to make a move for t-mobile, that might have been a factor for not buying the other smaller competitors (both from a cost AND regulatory perspective)... but not the deciding factor, as each company was expensive compared to what they would have received and required extra time and money to integrate.  

 

Now that they are out of large scale options for the time being, I would like to see them make some moves for a smaller player that will improve their rural coverage.  But I do believe that US Cellular is not looking to sell, but they would provide immediate coverage benefits instantly increasing coverage to Maine, West Virginia, Iowa, Nebraska and increasing coverage in other areas like NC, WA, OR, ect.   But the real benefit is that they hold licenses outside their current footprint.  Although they might not have as much spectrum in those areas they do not currently serve, if sprint already has a NV tower in that area, they could instantly add capacity.  Sprint would have to decide if they wanted to integrate the 850/700Mhz spectrum into the network, as they could possibly purchase more from other small carriers, and they would almost certainly sell/swap the AWS for PCS if possible.  

 

If Son could purchase us cellular and maybe a few other strategic small carriers along with a modest expansion to increase coverage in markets they currently serve, coupled with B41 deployment in all major markets as well as overburdened sites... I believe sprint could really be on the way back up.  If they do any part of this, they will have a chance, but it will take everything to really change the perception of sprint.

[JimBob]

I wonder if Marcello Claure's 1-year Sprint stock performance bonus will be based on yesterday's near-bottom price rather than the $8-$9 it was not too long ago. If the bonus is based on the $5 start, then Claure may easily earn tens of millions of dollars due to that that "good timing."

[mozamcrew]

As was mentioned above, AT&T supports interband Carrier Aggregation on some devices in some areas. On some devices, they only support a few bands for CA and not all. Also they require the same size channels to bond, which is really unfortunate. Because AT&T has a lot of markets with one 10MHz channel and one 5MHz channel. Not being able to bond that 5MHz channel to the 10 is rather inconvenient.

 

AT&T has a messy spectrum position. In my market, they have a B12 and B17 6MHz slice next to each other, that is one continuous 12x12 if paired together. But AT&T cannot run it as one 10MHz carrier. Because then all their B17 devices without B12 support cannot run on it and they would see no LTE in the area. Whereas a B12 device could. So now they will have to do two separate 5MHz channels, and bond together with CA. But AT&T hasn't released any B12/B17 interband CA devices, yet.

 

Interband CA with many, many LTE bands is messy in trying to get all the different combinations supported and tested by the FCC. Sprint will have an easier time just doing intraband CA on B41 only.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

I thought ATT only had a single 6x6 in Rapid City. Are they leasing the A Block stuff?

[S4GRU]

I thought ATT only had a single 6x6 in Rapid City. Are they leasing the A Block stuff?

 

AT&T purchased Long Lines Wireless which owns the 700-A Block in Western & Eastern South Dakota.  That deal closed last May.  Also, AT&T is doing a 10x10 in Band 4 in our area.

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  Sprint RRPP member James Valley Telecomm owns the A-Block in the Aberdeen BEA (North Central South Dakota).

Edited August 12, 2014 by S4GRU
Added Edit line

[S4GRU]

I thought ATT only had a single 6x6 in Rapid City. Are they leasing the A Block stuff?

 

AT&T is desperate for spectrum in the Sioux Falls area, particularly.  So they will have to use the A Block there to make the network usable.  AT&T has picked up A Block in Myrtle Beach, Chicago, and now two BEA's in South Dakota.  So AT&T is moving toward inclusion of Band 12 now soon.  

 

Now that Band 12 is becoming commonly supported with the addition of Sprint and Tmo starting to pick up device support, AT&T really has no advantage of trying to coerce the OEM market with the B17 Lower 700 device blockade.  The dam is breaking on them.  So they might as well join the 700-A spectrum fight against Tmo in some strategic BEA's.

 

Robert

[lordsutch]

Nope. We have no idea. The only thing that has been "leaked" to the public is design and size. I've looked all over the interwebs and haven't found a single piece of information mentioning b41. My assumption, which is probably right, is that it will have spark. It would be a big loss for them not to have spark especially if sprint really gets into pushing the new "spark" network. 

 

edit: that and I'll be livid. I would switch to android because of that. 

 

I think Apple is increasingly in the position where they have to play ball with Sprint and other carriers, even if that means "boutique" bands; they're no longer in a position where everyone who wants a smart device will drop what they're doing and stand in line at the Apple Store for an iPhone 7, much less will they switch carriers for one, which means carrier marketing is increasingly important.

 

If Sprint wanted to bury non-Spark iDevices at the back of the store or online in favor of pushing Galaxy devices and HTC and LG, they probably could now and not lose a lot of customers. They'll eventually sell whatever they guaranteed Apple a few years back either way (in iPads if nothing else).

[lilotimz]

Well guys. This thread has been quite the ride from the beginning and now to the end.

 

Since the merger talks are practically 100% dead the usefulness of this thread has about come to a close.

 

I would like all to continue talks about the new Sprint leadership in the relevant Softbank- New Sprint Discussion thread  where we can now all discuss the future moves of Softbank, the new CEO, the hopefully reinvigorated corporate structure, and etc and the T-mobile talks in the relevant threads or the discussion of their network here. 

 

See yall at the other theads!