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

[Deval]

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.

 

Other parts of Jersey would beg to differ though.

 

Was in Jersey City and Hoboken yesterday, rock solid service. Hackensack, perfect.

 

Where in Jersey are you referring to?

[RedSpark]

Infeasible.  Not one of the big four domestic operators uses the same infrastructure vendor across all markets.  Supply chain.  Not enough equipment to go around quickly.

 

And, in some cases, Network Vision, for example, certain vendor infrastructure plays more nicely with certain legacy infrastructure as some sites are upgraded, others remain legacy during the lengthy network overhaul process.  Ericsson CDMA2000 is Nortel legacy intellectual property.  Alcatel-Lucent CDMA2000 is Lucent legacy intellectual property.  Samsung CDMA2000, on the other hand, still is Samsung intellectual property.  But Sprint had only one or two Samsung legacy markets. 

 

AJ

 

Appreciate the info on that. Is there a performance disparity between equipment types?

[lilotimz]

Appreciate the info on that. Is there a performance disparity between equipment types?

 

ATT has began the process of entirely ripping out their Alcatel-Lucent GSM / WCDMA / LTE infrastructure for a full Nokia Flexi 10 setup. Meanwhile Verizon began replacement of Alcatel-Lucent markets with Ericsson equipment and T-mobile declined ALU's bid for their network modernization program. 

 

That should tell you something about the equipment of one vendor who no longer exists. 

[WillM]

Other parts of Jersey would beg to differ though.

 

Was in Jersey City and Hoboken yesterday, rock solid service. Hackensack, perfect.

 

Where in Jersey are you referring to?

Obviously some parts are better than others. I would expect them to have solid coverage in places like Jersey City but if you head into less urban areas things change and I'm not talking about some rural suburbs but areas with a lot of people

 

I'm mostly in Somerset and parts of Mercer and there are coverage holes that have been there for years. Step inside too many shopping centers and you're on 3G which is often useless. They also never seem to keep up with development.

[RedSpark]

ATT has began the process of entirely ripping out their Alcatel-Lucent GSM / WCDMA / LTE infrastructure for a full Nokia Flexi 10 setup. Meanwhile Verizon began replacement of Alcatel-Lucent markets with Ericsson equipment while T-mobile declined ALU's bid for their network modernization program. 

 

That should tell you something about the equipment of one vendor who no longer exists. 

 

Interesting. Where does the ALU gear come up short?

 

Do you see Sprint eventually migrating everything to one platform?

[SkyGuy98]

And exactly WHAT ISP will support speeds even remotely close to that?

I know EPB in Chattanooga, TN offers up to 10Gbps

[greenbastard]

The carriers can deploy a small cell a block, and 1 out of every 5 or so can be fed fiberoptic while the others that are in LoS can pick up back haul via UE Relay from the fiber optic fed small cell. There's many ways to feed the small sites.

You still have to pay rent and utilities. And Sprint doesn't have enough subscribers to cover the costs of adding and maintaining thousands of new cells. These aren't a plug and forget setup, this is something Sprint will have to pay in perpetuity. It's not financially viable. It's just not.

 

Pipe. Dream.

 

When I said Sprint's good, I meant with their spectrum holdings. I know their deployment isn't good I'm in the city every day dealing with hit or miss speeds!

 

So you see the current mess that Sprint has had to deal with since launching Spark (2.5 GHz) and you think 60 GHz is viable???? Seriously?

There just isn't much more that can be done with current spectrum. If there was a newer tech to deploy current spectrum on, everyone would be experimenting on it. We'd have more research papers on what it may be. But so far all the research and vendors and carriers are looking at EHF frequencies to do build high capacity networks. If we were to make a whole new tech with a brand new modulation method that would take much longer than any high band deployment.

How so? Why would it take longer? LTE was first considered in 2004 and rollout began in 2009 in Europe and came to the U.S. in 2010.

 

You keep talking about papers, but that's all they are. You know how many of these papers never come to fruition??? Hell, we are all still waiting for Artemis' P-Cell after they released their paper. What you want for wireless carriers to do is a financial nightmare. It will never work, not even for Verizon.

 

Sure. You can make the argument that you will only deploy '5G' where needed, but that's not something consumers will like or take kindly to. Remember how many pissed off people there were in Phoenix, San Diego, and El Paso for being sold '4G' but not having it in their region?

 

Pipe. Dream.

[payturr]

You still have to pay rent and utilities. And Sprint doesn't have enough subscribers to cover the costs of adding and maintaining thousands of new cells. These aren't a plug and forget setup, this is something Sprint will have to pay in perpetuity. It's not financially viable. It's just not.

 

Pipe. Dream.

 

 

So you see the current mess that Sprint has had to deal with since launching Spark (2.5 GHz) and you think 60 GHz is viable???? Seriously?

How so? Why would it take longer? LTE was first considered in 2004 and rollout began in 2009 in Europe and came to the U.S. in 2010.

 

You keep talking about papers, but that's all they are. You know how many of these papers never come to fruition??? Hell, we are all still waiting for Artemis' P-Cell after they released their paper. What you want for wireless carriers to do is a financial nightmare. It will never work, not even for Verizon.

 

Sure. You can make the argument that you will only deploy '5G' where needed, but that's not something consumers will like or take kindly to. Remember how many pissed off people there were in Phoenix, San Diego, and El Paso for being sold '4G' but not having it in their region?

 

Pipe. Dream.

First of all I'm not saying Sprint's gonna do this. Sprint has their own problem but as we all know they're experimenting with 5G. Maybe in a decade if their finances allow it they can expand into high band but until then 2.5 is solid.

 

Second Sprint had a hard time deploying 2.5GHz because of their WiMAX network, the fact it's a boutique frequency in the US which means it's equipment isn't an affordable commodity like AWS and PCS equipment, ESPECIALLY since it's 8T8R. Everyone wants to use high band so the price will come down with mass production.

 

Third, everything starts with papers. You think processors and wired telephones were just made and worked? No it took research and study. Just cause there's a G instead of an M for the Hertz doesn't mean it's impossible. It will be hard but that's the point of this market. All these carriers and manufacturers have to innovate and experiment to make an affordable fast high capacity solution. To just give up without trying is crazier than trying.

 

Last, since capacity and speeds will be so high and LTE bandwidth will be heavily freed up, all carriers could offer consumers unlimited data for a fee in markets where 5G is deployed.

 

This is industry doing the best they can with their finances to make things happen, and you're gonna sit and just say it's not possible because we don't use that frequency now? That's what's ridiculous. Watch how the Sprint 5G trial goes - watch Marcelo say it was a success and we'll be offering more trials across the nation.

[JustinRP37]

I know EPB in Chattanooga, TN offers up to 10Gbps

 

Wow I just looked there prices are not that bad actually. Only $299 per month for the 10Gbps. But alas the vast majority of the USA is under the wrath of Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc. I still can't believe the experimental caps of 200Gb some ISPs are trying to do on even premium level service. With the 10Gbps service from EPB you could use that up in under a minute!

[payturr]

Wow I just looked there prices are not that bad actually. Only $299 per month for the 10Gbps. But alas the vast majority of the USA is under the wrath of Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc. I still can't believe the experimental caps of 200Gb some ISPs are trying to do on even premium level service. With the 10Gbps service from EPB you could use that up in under a minute!

Well the point of 802.11ad isn't to necessarily improve your internet speeds but improve your home networking speeds, so for example making your file server deliver 4K video to your set top box faster without a wire.

[SkyGuy98]

Wow I just looked there prices are not that bad actually. Only $299 per month for the 10Gbps. But alas the vast majority of the USA is under the wrath of Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc. I still can't believe the experimental caps of 200Gb some ISPs are trying to do on even premium level service. With the 10Gbps service from EPB you could use that up in under a minute!

Pretty crazy, ain't it? I'm sitting here with 40mbps CenturyLink and that's pretty good for my area. Oh, the future...

[JWMaloney]

ATT has began the process of entirely ripping out their Alcatel-Lucent GSM / WCDMA / LTE infrastructure for a full Nokia Flexi 10 setup. Meanwhile Verizon began replacement of Alcatel-Lucent markets with Ericsson equipment and T-mobile declined ALU's bid for their network modernization program. 

 

That should tell you something about the equipment of one vendor who no longer exists. 

 

When does this take effect? Verizon just built two new monopoles here within the last month, and both are online with ALU equipment. Their six-sector rip/replace sites have also been ALU.

[JustinRP37]

Well the point of 802.11ad isn't to necessarily improve your internet speeds but improve your home networking speeds, so for example making your file server deliver 4K video to your set top box faster without a wire.

 

I realize that, my comment was mainly aimed at the stagnation of ISP technology, but we are still quite a ways away from seeing 802.11ad deployed by anyone other than an major techie. Hell most universities just upgraded to 802.11n within the last few years. Keep in mind your audience here is completely different from the target audience. Most of the people here love technology, but the vast majority of Americans just want streaming video to work, their photos to upload in a reasonable amount of time, etc. 

[lilotimz]

When does this take effect? Verizon just built two new monopoles here within the last month, and both are online with ALU equipment. Their six-sector rip/replace sites have also been ALU.

Already taking place in the Dakotas.

 

Robert talked with Verizon installers who were installing new Ericsson equipment where the surroundings was Alcatel-Lucent. Stated that they're going back to rip out the Alcatel-Lucent equipment as well.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[ase500]

Well the point of 802.11ad isn't to necessarily improve your internet speeds but improve your home networking speeds, so for example making your file server deliver 4K video to your set top box faster without a wire.

One problem ac peaks at 5.3 Gbps which is far beyond what is needed for say 8k 3D content. Ac peak is far above what most users will need for some time. In home streaming is beyond most users. I have thousands of movies and TV shows to stream in upto 6 locations in the home. I have probably one of the most sophisticated sets you can imagine. Mythtv with kodi frontends locations include 3 bedrooms with 1080p, office at 1080p, livingroom at 4k, and a theater with 3d projection. Also an emby deployment to allow streaming to my devices over the Internet. With all of this I have yet to max out a gigabit network. I highly doubt the average user is going to max out an ac router. However a wireless connection on ad will give them no better connection out of the room the router is in and will give flaky and unreliable connections. The average user is not going to understand the limitations of such a device and will misunderstand how it could benefit them.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

One problem ac peaks at 5.3 Gbps which is far beyond what is needed for say 8k 3D content. Ac peak is far above what most users will need for some time. In home streaming is beyond most users. I have thousands of movies and TV shows to stream in upto 6 locations in the home. I have probably one of the most sophisticated sets you can imagine. Mythtv with kodi frontends locations include 3 bedrooms with 1080p, office at 1080p, livingroom at 4k, and a theater with 3d projection. Also an emby deployment to allow streaming to my devices over the Internet. With all of this I have yet to max out a gigabit network. I highly doubt the average user is going to max out an ac router. However a wireless connection on ad will give them no better connection out of the room the router is in and will give flaky and unreliable connections. The average user is not going to understand the limitations of such a device and will misunderstand how it could benefit them.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Oh we're quite aware, we both know 802.11ad isn't for general public. Only for tech guys and, in my opinion, DAS systems for wifi in stadiums and colleges

[ase500]

Oh we're quite aware, we both know 802.11ad isn't for general public. Only for tech guys and, in my opinion, DAS systems for wifi in stadiums and colleges

It won't even work for that. Again get to far and the signal will degrade. Surrounded by people it would be unusable. Point to point links for short distance, maybe, but fiber prices are low enough to really make that pointless. Ad may very well just be doomed to be an interface similar to Bluetooth.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

Infeasible. Not one of the big four domestic operators uses the same infrastructure vendor across all markets. Supply chain. Not enough equipment to go around quickly.

 

And, in some cases, Network Vision, for example, certain vendor infrastructure plays more nicely with certain legacy infrastructure as some sites are upgraded, others remain legacy during the lengthy network overhaul process. Ericsson CDMA2000 is Nortel legacy intellectual property. Alcatel-Lucent CDMA2000 is Lucent legacy intellectual property. Samsung CDMA2000, on the other hand, still is Samsung intellectual property. But Sprint had only one or two Samsung legacy markets.

 

AJ

I totally forgot about the legacy issues. Which is weird since I'm in a damned Motorola legacy market. The whole "no eHRPD (and I think eCSFB was a problem too) until literally the entire market is NV3G-complete" fiasco, that was wild.

[tyroned3222]

I also want to know about this.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Yup! That 6 sector set up from Verizon you were telling me about.. Is that carrier aggregation or just more capacity?

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

First of all I'm not saying Sprint's gonna do this. Sprint has their own problem but as we all know they're experimenting with 5G. Maybe in a decade if their finances allow it they can expand into high band but until then 2.5 is solid.

 

You don't get it. Sprint could get their ducks in a row and it would still be too expensive to deploy a 60 GHz in every major Street corner. Operating costs would skyrocket. Rent isn't going to get any cheaper.

Second Sprint had a hard time deploying 2.5GHz because of their WiMAX network, the fact it's a boutique frequency in the US which means it's equipment isn't an affordable commodity like AWS and PCS equipment, ESPECIALLY since it's 8T8R. Everyone wants to use high band so the price will come down with mass production.

 

Sprint has managed to put B41 close to every cell tower they have in major metropolitan area in Texas. They aren't having problems securing hardware since B41 is up and running. The network is just not dense enough.

 

Also, you are way over ypur head if you don't think Verizon and At&t will certify their own band just like they did with Band 13 and Band 17 to leave smaller carriers to fend for themselves.

Third, everything starts with papers. You think processors and wired telephones were just made and worked? No it took research and study.

Never denied such thing. As a matter of fact, I used LTE as an example.

 

What you don't seem to derstand is that everything that is published doesnt come to fruiton.

 

Just cause there's a G instead of an M for the Hertz doesn't mean it's impossible. It will be hard but that's the point of this market. All these carriers and manufacturers have to innovate and experiment to make an affordable fast high capacity solution. To just give up without trying is crazier than trying.

 

Nobody is saying they shouldn't try. You're just putting too much stock on mmW and ignoring simple physics.

Last, since capacity and speeds will be so high and LTE bandwidth will be heavily freed up, all carriers could offer consumers unlimited data for a fee in markets where 5G is deployed.

 

It won't be freed. B41 is currently outdoors exclusive in many areas of Austin, Houston, and San Antonio and B26 is still congested.

This is industry doing the best they can with their finances to make things happen, and you're gonna sit and just say it's not possible because we don't use that frequency now? That's what's ridiculous. Watch how the Sprint 5G trial goes - watch Marcelo say it was a success and we'll be offering more trials across the nation.

The best they can with their finances? Well that's all relative depending on who you ask. Sprint is being very secretive with what they're doing, so it's hard to tell if NV really did cut costs or if they are making an early case for a merger with T-Mobile.

 

I've never said 5G won't work. But I did say that ultra high band spectrum won't work. As far as I'm concerned, 5G will be a new standard, not a new band. The costs of executing a deployment to blanket just the Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Aneheim area would cost so much, add massive operating expenses, and not relieve current LTE airlink.

 

It's just not worth it, even as an outdoors only network. B41 is currently an outdoor network (never seen it drop below 15 Mbps even with a weak RSRP) and it still doesn't relieve indoor congestion. EVDO is currently faster than B26 in most areas.

[Terrell352]

Yup! That 6 sector set up from Verizon you were telling me about.. Is that carrier aggregation or just more capacity?

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

CA and band 2 and 4 support.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

You don't get it. Sprint could get their ducks in a row and it would still be too expensive to deploy a 60 GHz in every major Street corner. Operating costs would skyrocket. Rent isn't going to get any cheaper.

Sprint has managed to put B41 close to every cell tower they have in major metropolitan area in Texas. They aren't having problems securing hardware since B41 is up and running. The network is just not dense enough.

 

Also, you are way over ypur head if you don't think Verizon and At&t will certify their own band just like they did with Band 13 and Band 17 to leave smaller carriers to fend for themselves.

Never denied such thing. As a matter of fact, I used LTE as an example.

 

What you don't seem to derstand is that everything that is published doesnt come to fruiton.

 

Nobody is saying they shouldn't try. You're just putting too much stock on mmW and ignoring simple physics.

It won't be freed. B41 is currently outdoors exclusive in many areas of Austin, Houston, and San Antonio and B26 is still congested.

The best they can with their finances? Well that's all relative depending on who you ask. Sprint is being very secretive with what they're doing, so it's hard to tell if NV really did cut costs or if they are making an early case for a merger with T-Mobile.

 

I've never said 5G won't work. But I did say that ultra high band spectrum won't work. As far as I'm concerned, 5G will be a new standard, not a new band. The costs of executing a deployment to blanket just the Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Aneheim area would cost so much, add massive operating expenses, and not relieve current LTE airlink.

It's just not worth it, even as an outdoors only network. B41 is currently an outdoor network (never seen it drop below 15 Mbps even with a weak RSRP) and it still doesn't relieve indoor congestion. EVDO is currently faster than B26 in most areas.

Again, talking about more than Sprint. Sprint is the worse carrier to use talking about mmW use in 5G.

 

AT&T and VZ can get their own band, yes, but chances are it'll find it's way in a superset like Band 17. The only special band here is VZ's B13 because they hold a monopoly on it.

 

I know everything published doesn't happen, like CDMA Rev. C. But until someone suggests a better idea, mmW is 5G as far as we can tell, and it makes a lot of sense.

 

Every engineer who has a good understanding of physics are the ones preaching that high band will be perfect for 5G networks. So I do not believe I'm ignoring the physics, especially since a lot of articles suggest that EHF wouldn't be awful for 5G, but instead, very good.

 

B41 doesn't relieve B26 or B41 because it's not block by block like I'm suggesting 5G will be. B41 comes and goes with major gaps in between. It's not a good example to denounce a 39GHz network. That's where small cells come in for 5G, and to fix Sprint's network.

 

I'm a strong believer in mmW because there's science behind it and the entire industry is backing it. I'd be more hesitant if it was just one group suggesting it, but it's literally everyone. It's hard to say an entire industry with scientific papers and engineers backing it are wrong. 

[tyroned3222]

CA and band 2 and 4 support.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I switch over to Verizon 2 weeks ago and noticed.. There spectrum here want that hot. They got 30 mhz of aws band 4 they got band 13 10*10mhZ no pcs.. They have a thing layer of aws 3 here do you think thats enough going foward

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[Terrell352]

I switch over to Verizon 2 weeks ago and noticed.. There spectrum here want that hot. They got 30 mhz of aws band 4 they got band 13 10*10mhZ no pcs.. They have a thing layer of aws 3 here do you think thats enough going foward

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

I dont think so unless 3xCa between the three are in the works. How did Jacksonville get 30mhz aws and we got 40 mhz. There is no band 2 here yet either though but when we get it Verizon will have 30mhz of it.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

I dont think so unless 3xCa between the three are in the works. How did Jacksonville get 30mhz aws and we got 40 mhz. There is no band 2 here yet either though but when we get it Verizon will have 30mhz of it.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I hope so, but it's dense enough here for now to hold El Paso over until they bring carrier aggregation

 

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk