Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[greenbastard]

 

 

I honestly don't think you are the minority in the 600 MHz opinion. I too would have liked to see Sprint bid on some 600 MHz spectrum just to secure some more low band spectrum.

 

However at the same time I understand that the future of wireless involves small cells which are suppose to help bridge coverage gaps to provide more capacity in small areas. The idea of small cells are what makes high band spectrum valuable. I think you also have to be honest in that we have no idea what a macro and small cell network experience is like and how it works with 2.5 GHz spectrum. You are purely basing the coverage and speed woes on the current macro site deployment which of course is not fair. Until we see a 2.5 GHz macro and small cell widespread

I don't think you read my post on its entirety. I did acknowledge that 2.5 Ghz can definitely work in a dense network.

Face it, the majority of spectrum available in the future is going to be in very high band spectrum (ex: 24 GHz, 28-29 GHz, 31 GHz and 39 GHz, etc) so 20 MHz of 600 MHz is not going to be that big of a deal in the future anyways. Sprint just doesn't have all the funds in the world to commit to a huge densification project as well as a spectrum auction bid which it cannot use for 4 years.

I think we are all getting carried away by this 'high band 5g' discussion. We don't even know if it will actually work in real world scenarios. There is a reason why there are so many tests going on by all 4 national carriers and vendors. As far as we know, they may just all give up in the coming months due to the complexity of using these ultra high bands.

 

Remember that small cell planning and deployment (to some extent) at Sprint is happening now and if you are telling me giving Sprint a head start of 4 years (assuming 600 MHz deployment is at the earliest late 2020) is not going to equate to much is ridiculous. Its like Sprint being late to the LTE game in 2011/2012. Had Sprint deployed LTE in 2009/2010 with even a LTE 5x5 G block just like when Verizon/AT&T started deploying LTE the growing pains experienced in 2011-2015 the poor reputation and the loss of customers would not have been as dramatic.

Yes, network densification is happening. Nobody is denying that.

 

What I am arguing is that Sprint has aggressively gone after customers with ridiculous promotions and have very little to show for it. With the growing debt they have added recently to their already massive debt, can Sprint really afford to add more operating expenses without adding customers? Sprint doesn't seem to think so because they've lowered CAPEX. At least on paper, Sprint is showing that they aren't confident in the future. Whether that's all being done to make an argument for a merger is another discussion.

[Calvin200]

 

 

Yes, network densification is happening. Nobody is denying that.

 

What I am arguing is that Sprint has aggressively gone after customers with ridiculous promotions and have very little to show for it. With the growing debt they have added recently to their already massive debt, can Sprint really afford to add more operating expenses without adding customers? Sprint doesn't seem to think so because they've lowered CAPEX. At least on paper, Sprint is showing that they are confident in the future. Whether that's all being done to make an argument for a merger is another discussion.

I forget what they referenced but some have said it isn't really happening now anyways like they said it would.  

[JeffDTD]

I like seeing Sprint make moves in small cell deployment, but after talking on Twitter via direct message with Sprint CEO line, I found out there are no planned upgrades for Alabama in the near future.... (what's near future, I'm not sure)...

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

MS and AL are "if we have to" land for Sprint. Customer totals are low and do not warrant expansion. Basically, Sprint will maintain and slowly upgrade portions of what is there, not because they want to but because it was already there

[greenbastard]

MS and AL are "if we have to" land for Sprint. Customer totals are low and do not warrant expansion. Basically, Sprint will maintain and slowly upgrade portions of what is there, not because they want to but because it was already there

It doesn't help that people in Mississippi love their C-Spire.

[payturr]

I think we are all getting carried away by this 'high band 5g' discussion. We don't even know if it will actually work in real world scenarios. There is a reason why there are so many tests going on by all 4 national carriers and vendors. As far as we know, they may just all give up in the coming months due to the complexity of using these ultra high bands.

I don't know. Even if messing around with mmW frequencies is complex, I don't think Verizon or AT&T are gonna give up. Like nexgencpu always says, they're feeling the spectrum crunch. If there's the slightest chance in hell they can make it work, they'll find a way, especially since Verizon has easy access to major license purchases right now. Samsung, NYU, and multiple other organizations have conducted studies basically saying "yeah, we can totally do this"

[greenbastard]

I don't know. Even if messing around with mmW frequencies is complex, I don't think Verizon or AT&T are gonna give up. Like nexgencpu always says, they're feeling the spectrum crunch. If there's the slightest chance in hell they can make it work, they'll find a way, especially since Verizon has easy access to major license purchases right now. Samsung, NYU, and multiple other organizations have conducted studies basically saying "yeah, we can totally do this"

Oh, it can be done.

 

But not anytime soon.

[reedacus25]

It doesn't help that people in Mississippi love their C-Spire.

CSpire has both a lock on their customers, as well as a great network to compete with.

 

And Sprint doesn't exactly have a great incentive to do anything when they have CSpire to roam onto.

[JimBob]

For all of the doubters that Son isn't behind Sprint.

 

I think we are past the bottom of the V and Sprint is on its way back up.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-softbanks-annual-profit-drops-27-pct-on-sprint-woes-2016-5

A one sentence boast that Son has been saying since 2013 with nothing tangible to back it up?  Damn, being CEO is easy...

 

Doubters like beef, and yet the first sentence of the article says Softbank recorded a 49 percent plunge in profit from a year ago.  After shrugging off Sprint's losses with an empty quip, Son then pivots to boasting that he will also do awesome spending billions in India; and then also do awesome in Japanese electricity at the same time.  Son likely has a controlling ownership stake in Softbank.  Otherwise, a sane Board of Directors or common shareholders would have long ago fired him as CEO for having lost tens of billions of dollars in just a few years.

[WillM]

MS and AL are "if we have to" land for Sprint. Customer totals are low and do not warrant expansion. Basically, Sprint will maintain and slowly upgrade portions of what is there, not because they want to but because it was already there

Unfortunately I believe New Jersey, at least my part of it, is in the same boat. We got a few new sites from Nextel and B26 helped at the edges but there is no real push to expand coverage. Personally I think all they have left here is mostly prepaid subs which they don't really care about that much. I still have sites near work that haven't even had NV upgrades.

[JeffDTD]

Unfortunately I believe New Jersey, at least my part of it, is in the same boat. We got a few new sites from Nextel and B26 helped at the edges but there is no real push to expand coverage. Personally I think all they have left here is mostly prepaid subs which they don't really care about that much. I still have sites near work that haven't even had NV upgrades.

And to be fair, population density plays a big role in the decisions to spend. The capital necessary to significantly grow coverage in the states I mentioned is disproportionate to the pops to be gained. Despite the idea that Sprint isnt focusing on population reach, they absolutely do care- and are going to spend to grow that number- as meticulously and calculated as possible (just like TMo)

[kg4icg]

Unfortunately I believe New Jersey, at least my part of it, is in the same boat. We got a few new sites from Nextel and B26 helped at the edges but there is no real push to expand coverage. Personally I think all they have left here is mostly prepaid subs which they don't really care about that much. I still have sites near work that haven't even had NV upgrades.

And what part of New Jersey would that be?

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[ericdabbs]

I don't think you read my post on its entirety. I did acknowledge that 2.5 Ghz can definitely work in a dense network.

No I did read your post in its entirety.  My point is that Sprint is taking that approach to solve the indoor and outdoor capacity/coverage issue.  However its going to take time.  Buying 600 MHz in 2016 is not going to solve their indoor and outdoor issues in the next 4 years so what is the point?

 

 I think we are all getting carried away by this 'high band 5g' discussion. We don't even know if it will actually work in real world scenarios. There is a reason why there are so many tests going on by all 4 national carriers and vendors. As far as we know, they may just all give up in the coming months due to the complexity of using these ultra high bands.

I don't think that anyone is getting carried away at all with the high band 5G discussions.  Certainly if its not any of the current 5 or 6 high band frequencies that are being discussed currently it will certainly be somoe sort of spectrum block that will be allocated for 5G deployment.  The point is that the available spectrum going forward will likely be in a higher band that 2.5 GHz spectrum.  20 MHz carriers might seem large now but who knows what 5G and 6G bandwidths will demand.  Even all the low band spectrum from Verizon/ATT 700 and 850 MHz (10x10 blocks) individually are gonna be chump change for 5G and 6G.

 

Yes, network densification is happening. Nobody is denying that.

What I am arguing is that Sprint has aggressively gone after customers with ridiculous promotions and have very little to show for it. With the growing debt they have added recently to their already massive debt, can Sprint really afford to add more operati

ng expenses without adding customers? Sprint doesn't seem to think so because they've lowered CAPEX. At least on paper, Sprint is showing that they aren't confident in the future. Whether that's all being done to make an argument for a merger is another discussion.

 

The problem with Sprint right now is that they have to fight a 2 front war.  It may seem like the 50% promo is not working based on net adds (which include sub losses) but at the same time you have lots of people switching to other carriers which puts the overall numbers lower than expected.  Sprint still has a huge battle to fight to first and foremost retain its customers.  Lowering churn is just as important as it is to acquiring new customers.  That is what Tmobile did.  They had to first stop customers from bolting to other carriers first.

 

So what Sprint really has to do is focus on what they can control right now and make an impact based on their current resources.  They have a ton of 2.5 GHz spectrum to deploy to add CA and begin deploying small cells to start densifying the network.  It will be great if Softbank participates on Sprint's behalf to pick up 600 MHz spectrum but I think its more of a cherry on top.  Lowering CAPEX has nothing to do with not being confident in the future.  It is more of announcing their expectations based on their current schedule of when they anticipate events will occur.  Certainly I believe that if the permitting process for small cells goes very smoothly without much red tape and be ahead of schedule, then I expect that Sprint can surpass their projected CAPEX to meet the demand.

 

The indoor coverage issue should be fixed via small cells rather than trying to rely on low band spectrum to penetrate through walls from a macro site.   If a carrier can deploy mini cell site (aka: small cells) that are placed directly inside a building, then a lot of the attenuation loss that is encountered with high band spectrum will be negated since it won't have to pierce through walls from the outside from a distant macro site.

[WillM]

And what part of New Jersey would that be?

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

Mostly Somerset in Central and down through parts of Mercer. I've been with Sprint since 2007 and it's the same areas the whole time. They just never add sites. Given the population density just a few sites would make a big difference but it's just not happening. I used to report them but I just gave up.

[kg4icg]

Mostly Somerset in Central and down through parts of Mercer. I've been with Sprint since 2007 and it's the same areas the whole time. They just never add sites. Given the population density just a few sites would make a big difference but it's just not happening. I used to report them but I just gave up.

I've had no problems coming up the NJTP picking up band 41

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

No I did read your post in its entirety. My point is that Sprint is taking that approach to solve the indoor and outdoor capacity/coverage issue. However its going to take time. Buying 600 MHz in 2016 is not going to solve their indoor and outdoor issues in the next 4 years so what is the point?

 

To secure spectrum that will provide reliability and better peak speeds. A low band 10x10 slice of spectrum can do that. While 2.5 GHz can be densified and fix a lot of the issues, it's not going to penetrate every building. I've seen many stores/buildings that sit adjecent to B41 towers, yet there is no B41 inside.

 

Sure, you can argue that in those cases that B26/B25 should be offloaded by then. But unfortunately we live in a wireless environment that is judged by peak speeds, and a 5x5 slice of B26 can't produce those speeds expected by the critics.

I don't think that anyone is getting carried away at all with the high band 5G discussions. Certainly if its not any of the current 5 or 6 high band frequencies that are being discussed currently it will certainly be somoe sort of spectrum block that will be allocated for 5G deployment. The point is that the available spectrum going forward will likely be in a higher band that 2.5 GHz spectrum. 20 MHz carriers might seem large now but who knows what 5G and 6G bandwidths will demand. Even all the low band spectrum from Verizon/ATT 700 and 850 MHz (10x10 blocks) individually are gonna be chump change for 5G and 6G.

 

Yes, we are getting carried away. All we have is speculation. And even if they are making breakthroughs, it will take decades to see this high band '5G' implemented in the real world and into smartphones. One of the tests held by Verizon had a van driving around in circles at a limited speed of 10 MPH.

 

I'm not saying that they are wasting their time, but a lot of folks are really getting carried away. The 5G they are testing will likely be for fixed wireless solutions for homes and businesses. It will take decades before we see these wide band-ultre high frequency spectrum in our phones.

 

The problem with Sprint right now is that they have to fight a 2 front war. It may seem like the 50% promo is not working based on net adds (which include sub losses) but at the same time you have lots of people switching to other carriers which puts the overall numbers lower than expected. Sprint still has a huge battle to fight to first and foremost retain its customers. Lowering churn is just as important as it is to acquiring new customers. That is what Tmobile did. They had to first stop customers from bolting to other carriers first.

 

No argument here.

 

So what Sprint really has to do is focus on what they can control right now and make an impact based on their current resources. They have a ton of 2.5 GHz spectrum to deploy to add CA and begin deploying small cells to start densifying the network. It will be great if Softbank participates on Sprint's behalf to pick up 600 MHz spectrum but I think its more of a cherry on top.

 

As they should. But Sprint just lowered Capex.....so...

 

Lowering CAPEX has nothing to do with not being confident in the future. It is more of announcing their expectations based on their current schedule of when they anticipate events will occur. Certainly I believe that if the permitting process for small cells goes very smoothly without much red tape and be ahead of schedule, then I expect that Sprint can surpass their projected CAPEX to meet the demand.

We always excuse Sprint's actions with excuses like slow permits and local restrictions. Let's just pretend that this is true for the sake of argument....Why hasn't Verizon, T-Mobile, or At&t run into the same issues then? Because if they had, then they also would have lowered CAPEX.

 

But yet, I've seen T-Mobile densify parts of Houston and suburbs. Sprint has yet to start adding cells to the newer subdivisions in town. Lowering CAPEX means one thing; Either Sprint isn't confident in densification or Son is going for a merger under a (gulp) Trump presidency.

[payturr]

To secure spectrum that will provide reliability and better peak speeds. A low band 10x10 slice of spectrum can do that. While 2.5 GHz can be densified and fix a lot of the issues, it's not going to penetrate every building. I've seen many stores/buildings that sit adjecent to B41 towers, yet there is no B41 inside.

 

Sure, you can argue that in those cases that B26/B25 should be offloaded by then. But unfortunately we live in a wireless environment that is judged by peak speeds, and a 5x5 slice of B26 can't produce those speeds expected by the critics.

Yes, we are getting carried away. All we have is speculation. And even if they are making breakthroughs, it will take decades to see this high band '5G' implemented in the real world and into smartphones. One of the tests held by Verizon had a van driving around in circles at a limited speed of 10 MPH.

 

I'm not saying that they are wasting their time, but a lot of folks are really getting carried away. The 5G they are testing will likely be for fixed wireless solutions for homes and businesses. It will take decades before we see these wide band-ultre high frequency spectrum in our phones.

 

10x10 of a low band frequency that won't be available until the 2020s, also roughly the same time 5G is supposed to begin to go live, will never help Sprint. The money that would be wasted on 600MHz is better suited on small cells and the initial purchase costs of 5G technology.

Everyone here keeps suggesting 5G is gonna be this new, crazy tech just like how LTE was a leap from 3G tech. It isn't. It's gonna be LTE (Long Term EVOLUTION) that's revised to use high band frequencies, much larger carriers, and by default use higher level MIMO, beamforming, greater level QAM, and other new techniques being used currently to make the most out of small spectrum. Until there's an announcement that suggests OFDMA isn't as efficient as a newer method, LTE isn't going anywhere. Just lots of revisions.

[greenbastard]

10x10 of a low band frequency that won't be available until the 2020s, also roughly the same time 5G is supposed to begin to go live, will never help Sprint. The money that would be wasted on 600MHz is better suited on small cells and the initial purchase costs of 5G technology.

Everyone here keeps suggesting 5G is gonna be this new, crazy tech just like how LTE was a leap from 3G tech. It isn't. It's gonna be LTE (Long Term EVOLUTION) that's revised to use high band frequencies, much larger carriers, and by default use higher level MIMO, beamforming, greater level QAM, and other new techniques being used currently to make the most out of small spectrum. Until there's an announcement that suggests OFDMA isn't as efficient as a newer method, LTE isn't going anywhere. Just lots of revisions.

There's a difference between going live and having phones support wide band, ultra high spectrum.

 

600 MHz band will be ready faster than any '5G' technology is rolled out.

[WillM]

I've had no problems coming up the NJTP picking up band 41

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

To be honest that's not really much to brag about!

[RedSpark]

There's a difference between going live and having phones support wide band, ultra high spectrum.

 

600 MHz band will be ready faster than any '5G' technology is rolled out.

 

By definition according to John Saw (Sprint CTO), 2.5 GHz is "beachfront" spectrum for 5G. So that's going to be ready much sooner than the 600 MHz spectrum is available for deployment, which according to Tarek Robbiati (Sprint CFO), won't be until 2021. (http://tinyurl.com/z5xct5w)

 

See Saw's comments here: http://www.pcmag.com/news/343816/sprint-planning-will-bring-lte-plus-home-to-you

 

 

In Saw's view, 5G is a "dense network using high-band spectrum," which conveniently places Sprint as a leader, as one can see its 2.5GHz band as the very lowest band of that high-band spectrum.

 

"2.5 is going to be the low-band, beachfront spectrum of 5G," Saw said. "Ten years ago, everybody laughed at us, but I think it's come full circle, and everybody now recognizes the value of high-band spectrum for 5G."

 

[Terrell352]

By definition according to John Saw (Sprint CTO), 2.5 GHz is "beachfront" spectrum for 5G. So that's going to be ready much sooner than the 600 MHz spectrum is available for deployment, which according to Tarek Robbiati (Sprint CFO), won't be until 2021. (http://tinyurl.com/z5xct5w)

 

See Saw's comments here: http://www.pcmag.com/news/343816/sprint-planning-will-bring-lte-plus-home-to-you

SAW could be wrong. Not even he knows how this is going to play out.

[Paynefanbro]

SAW could be wrong. Not even he knows how this is going to play out.

I'm sure several CTO's are thinking about what 5G would entail even though it doesn't exist yet. What's necessary is foresight though. Even if Saw is wrong, judging by the spectrum solutions going forward that other carriers have been talking about such as super high band spectrum, it seems likely that 2.5/2.6 GHz would bee the 700MHz of 5G.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

SAW could be wrong. Not even he knows how this is going to play out.

Sprint could already be having a 5G like network if the proper funding was there to deploy at a fast pace

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[payturr]

There's a difference between going live and having phones support wide band, ultra high spectrum.

 

600 MHz band will be ready faster than any '5G' technology is rolled out.

We have routers support WiGig which is 60GHz, they're small. It's only time until laptops, then tablets, and finally phones support 802.11ad. When phones support 802.11ad, they can easily do 39GHz phone networks.

 

Edit: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2016/01/05/qualcomm-80211ad-products-lead-way-multi-band-wi-fi-ecosystem

There's already a laptop that can handle WiGig and smartphones are apparently in the pipeline for this year.

[bigsnake49]

Sprint could already be having a 5G like network if the proper funding was there to deploy at a fast pace

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

There is a possibility that there will be yet another air interface which has not been decided upon and will not be decided upon until probably 2020. There are other architectural features that maybe implemented earlier.

[tyroned3222]

There is a possibility that there will be yet another air interface which has not been decided upon and will not be decided upon until probably 2020. There are other architectural features that maybe implemented earlier.

I read about that. What's the deal with Sprint not adding any more 2.5 antennas on existing cell sites for now. Is this legit or is it just people throwing out rumors

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk