Sprint Organic Network Expansion Discussion Thread

[WiWavelength]

Not a 100% correct characterization: it will aggregate b41 with b25 which effectively becomes b41-DL only when b41 uplink fails.

 

No, as Neal also responds above, that does not compute.

 

In carrier aggregation, the PCC provides the uplink and downlink, while the SCC provides only the downlink.  If band 41 were the PCC aggregated with band 25 as the SCC, such would gain only the band 25 downlink, not the uplink.

 

Instead, Sprint's proposed configuration, which probably will not be implemented for some time yet, would put band 25 as the PCC with band 41 as the SCC.  But even that configuration would be used only as a UE started to fall out of range of pure intra band carrier aggregation band 41 -- much like band 41, band 25, and band 26 automatic switching occur today.

 

AJ

[belusnecropolis]

For many students that spend lots of time confused by our material, all of these cool facts help us gain a better picture of a larger end product/goal of our work. We are also helped out on the inner workings of wireless and electronics varied technologies.

 

Personally I am an nearly incorrigible student in learning habits, and have a few things that work really hard against me in study and learning. A big thanks for all that you guys keep sharing, please keep it up and directing us to good sites, tools, work, and especially your experience!

 

This also helps us understand where the industry is headed by sharing all this info like the expansion(and multitudes moar). Kind of let's us know where to start digging to keep our pulse tuned to what's coming, and that always helps in our newer, generally crappier economy.

 

On topic, where do we see all this headed for workers in the industry? I have read all about the tower companies, foreign vendors, and shareholders loving it in one way or another. Are we going to see more technicians needed, and what level? Do we see Sprint expanding in more positions for technical doods or mostly sales/service force after having shed redundancies the last few years?

 

I ask this keeping in mind Sprints past efforts at r&d, new patents, and the more unseen side, like green efforts.

 

Thanks for inputs.

[bigsnake49]

Then there is the possibility of carrier aggregating all three bands that Sprint owns like EE in the UK or Telefonica in Spain will be doing:

 

http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/4g-lte/telefonica-plots-5g-route-via-375mbit-s-4g/d/d-id/714094?

[jroepcke51]

Then there is the possibility of carrier aggregating all three bands that Sprint owns like EE in the UK or Telefonica in Spain will be doing:

 

http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/4g-lte/telefonica-plots-5g-route-via-375mbit-s-4g/d/d-id/714094?

They put together 50mhz of spectrum.  Sprint can do 60hmz in one band soon enough and beat that top speed.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Then there is the possibility of carrier aggregating all three bands that Sprint owns like EE in the UK or Telefonica in Spain will be doing:

 

http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/4g-lte/telefonica-plots-5g-route-via-375mbit-s-4g/d/d-id/714094?

That's all fdd.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hypeo]

No. That is a previous program, which is largely complete. This is an additional 1,100 sites.

 

I might have missed it, but do you have any info on which ones are being added?

[S4GRU]

I might have missed it, but do you have any info on which ones are being added?

Nope. At least not yet.

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

[cdk]

Was there any mention of a timetable? Or any intelligent predicitions on how long it might take the vendors to roll out these new sites after funding is finalized?

[S4GRU]

Was there any mention of a timetable? Or any intelligent predicitions on how long it might take the vendors to roll out these new sites after funding is finalized?

 

No.  That will not be able to be figured until after funding is complete.  Because the type of funding, the terms, the payout amounts and dates will all effect the schedule.  

 

It's kind of like seeing there is a house for sale and asking the neighbor how soon until you can move in.  You haven't walked the house, contacted an agent, obtained financing, made an offer, had an offer accepted and start escrow.  Too early in the process to tell when Project Completion will be at this point.  

[gnoj]

No. VOLTE, whenever it is activated, will run on both FDD lte and TDD LTE with FDD lte being prioritized.

Hopefully they will get the thresholds right for B25/26 to B41 VoLTE handover, so that the prioritization of FDD is correctly overridden. Given that B25+41 small cells are not yet available, and Clearwire conversions in many Samsung markets are not yet on the agenda, there will ironically continue to be many areas for the foreseeable future where only B41 offers a reliable data connection.

 

The PCS G block is 5 MHz FDD. The original band 25 carrier there basically has to remain 5 MHz FDD -- because of spectrum licensing and device compatibility. So, that is a no go for a 10 MHz FDD carrier.

 

AJ

I thought that all of the Samsung devices that had been previously limited to 5MHz FDD had received Class II permissive changes to support wider bandwidths in B25, all the way up to 20 MHz. They were the trouble brand in that regard from what I can recall, so what other legacy devices would be left that would need the G block carrier to remain @ 5 MHz?

 

That said, licensing is indeed an equal or even greater obstacle, since Sprint doesn't hold the C block in most markets, nor of course the "H block." Chicago is one such market, however, where they should have enough PCS spectrum to add a third 5x5, or widen the existing B block carrier to 10x10, without impacting CDMA services, if they so chose.

 

Instead, Sprint's proposed configuration, which probably will not be implemented for some time yet, would put band 25 as the PCC with band 41 as the SCC. But even that configuration would be used only as a UE started to fall out of range of pure intra band carrier aggregation band 41 -- much like band 41, band 25, and band 26 automatic switching occur today.

 

AJ

Are you saying that PCC/SCC assignment can be switched as seamlessly as a standard band-to-band handover? If so, would it be feasible to also implement the same sort of configuration where B25 downlink is paired with B26 uplink for the purpose of relieving the burden on the B26 downlink, of course done only when B25 signal is weak?

 

I'm curious how complicated such a setup might get in Samsung markets where the second PCS carrier is often noticeably stronger (~4-5 dB) than the original G block one. That may confuse whatever software is responsible for the PCC/SCC switch. Upgrading B25 to 4T4R may be the simpler and perhaps superior solution.

[Conan Kudo]

Are you saying that PCC/SCC assignment can be switched as seamlessly as a standard band-to-band handover? If so, would it be feasible to also implement the same sort of configuration where B25 downlink is paired with B26 uplink for the purpose of relieving the burden on the B26 downlink, of course done only when B25 signal is weak?

 

I'm curious how complicated such a setup might get in Samsung markets where the second PCS carrier is often noticeably stronger (~4-5 dB) than the original G block one. That may confuse whatever software is responsible for the PCC/SCC switch. Upgrading B25 to 4T4R may be the simpler and perhaps superior solution.

He's saying it, but unfortunately it does not work that way. I wish it did, because that would make CA so much more useful.

 

There are two annoying conditions about carrier aggregation:

• Downlink-only aggregation introduces exclusive locks on spectrum, eliminating use for devices lacking CA support by creating dangling spectrum
  • This can be somewhat alleviated if variable/flexible duplex becomes a thing, allowing usage of dangling uplink spectrum to be used with other downlink channels. You'd still be uplink-bound for capacity, since downlink CA is not designed to improve capacity (or spectral efficiency), just throughput for existing users. A two-for-one allocation means that you'd quickly run out of downlink channels to allocate for dangling uplink channels, too.
  • Alternatively, densification can help by having alternating sectors/cells configured without CA support to allow full carrier usage by non CA devices.
• When leaving aggregation areas, the device must reset the connection to reallocate resources properly.
  • To be fair, this usually happens so quickly that most don't notice it. It is a problem if you're streaming something, though.

[S4GRU]

 

He's saying it, but unfortunately it does not work that way. I wish it did, because that would make CA so much more useful.

 

There are two annoying conditions about carrier aggregation:

• Downlink-only aggregation introduces exclusive locks on spectrum, eliminating use for devices lacking CA support by creating dangling spectrum
  • This can be somewhat alleviated if variable/flexible duplex becomes a thing, allowing usage of dangling uplink spectrum to be used with other downlink channels. You'd still be uplink-bound for capacity, since downlink CA is not designed to improve capacity (or spectral efficiency), just throughput for existing users. A two-for-one allocation means that you'd quickly run out of downlink channels to allocate for dangling uplink channels, too.
  • Alternatively, densification can help by having alternating sectors/cells configured without CA support to allow full carrier usage by non CA devices.
• When leaving aggregation areas, the device must reset the connection to reallocate resources properly.
  • To be fair, this usually happens so quickly that most don't notice it. It is a problem if you're streaming something, though.

 

 

But isn't this what AT&T is doing with Band 29?  And also, isn't AT&T Band 29 not paired exclusively with the uplink?

 

Also, Sprint says that they technology of what they are now planning is not supported by LTE releases now.  But would not be supported until future LTE releases after proof of concept, lab trials and perhaps even the FIT level are complete.  So you cannot hold future technology being worked on hard and fast to current LTE release limitations.

[Conan Kudo]

But isn't this what AT&T is doing with Band 29?  And also, isn't AT&T Band 29 not paired exclusively with the uplink?

 

Also, Sprint says that they technology of what they are now planning is not supported by LTE releases now.  But would not be supported until future LTE releases after proof of concept, lab trials and perhaps even the FIT level are complete.  So you cannot hold future technology being worked on hard and fast to current LTE release limitations.

With the way current carrier aggregation works, the "lock" on spectrum is only on the downlink side. Band 29 lacks uplink spectrum of its own, so there's no "dangling spectrum" as a result of doing CA.

[S4GRU]

With the way current carrier aggregation works, the "lock" on spectrum is only on the downlink side. Band 29 lacks uplink spectrum of its own, so there's no "dangling spectrum" as a result of doing CA.

 

When an AT&T device uses B29 downlink, what does it use for uplink?

[Conan Kudo]

When an AT&T device uses B29 downlink, what does it use for uplink?

Either band 4 or band 2 uplink spectrum, depending on what AT&T has decided to set up for aggregation with B29. Band 29 is a very special case for carrier aggregation, as the spectrum resources don't get afflicted by a lock that renders them unusable for devices lacking in CA with B29.

[S4GRU]

Either band 4 or band 2 uplink spectrum, depending on what AT&T has decided to set up for aggregation with B29. Band 29 is a very special case for carrier aggregation, as the spectrum resources don't get afflicted by a lock that renders them unusable for devices lacking in CA with B29.

 

And Sprint can do the same.

[Conan Kudo]

And Sprint can do the same.

Right, but the cost is that the TDD carrier being aggregated can never be used to provide uplink, since the frames are blanked out on uplink time.

[WiWavelength]

 

He's saying it, but unfortunately it does not work that way. I wish it did, because that would make CA so much more useful.

 

I do not think that you understand what I am saying.  I do not have time to elaborate now, so I will have to follow up at length later.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Right, but the cost is that the TDD carrier being aggregated can never be used to provide uplink, since the frames are blanked out on uplink time.

 

Who cares?  Sprint has BRS/EBS spectrum out the wazoo.  If Sprint wants to pursue this band 25 PCC + band 41 SCC carrier aggregation combo, it can leave the 3x band 41 carrier aggregation alone and dedicate a separate band 41 carrier to the process.

 

Or does that bother you, Neal?  Is that poor spectrum management?  Is that an unfair advantage for Sprint?

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

Who cares?  Sprint has BRS/EBS spectrum out the wazoo.  If Sprint wants to pursue this band 25 PCC + band 41 SCC carrier aggregation combo, it can leave the 3x band 41 carrier aggregation alone and dedicate a separate band 41 carrier to the process.

 

Or does that bother you, Neal?  Is that poor spectrum management?  Is that an unfair advantage for Sprint?

 

AJ

I care for a couple of reasons:

1. Sprint may not have 2.6GHz spectrum out of the wazoo forever. Sprint is considering the sale of some of its spectrum. While I personally do not believe anyone would be willing to buy Clearwire leases for a number of reasons and Sprint may wind up selling BRS licenses, it could wind up being a mix of both.
2. It bothers me on a technical level because carrier aggregation as it is done now doesn't really improve capacity. As users become impressed with Sprint's speeds due to CA, the pressure on the uplink spectrum available to support users will increase over time. It's not even just about throughput on uplink, but also the raw resources to support those connections. Ordinarily, this is rather poor spectrum management, but commercial demands and excessive supply of 2.6GHz means that this matters less than it normally would. Poor spectrum management could come to bite them later on, either politically or technically.

Sprint is free to use as much spectrum as the FCC allows them to have. I certainly want them to use what they have. Personally, I don't like that Sprint is effectively monopolizing 2.6GHz (just like I don't like the same situation with AT&T on 2.3GHz), but that's irrelevant in this case. At the end of the day, as long as Sprint manages to provide a decent experience across the board using its spectrum and has relatively pro-consumer policies, then the rest of it doesn't really matter, now does it?

[S4GRU]

I care for a couple of reasons...

 

I think this is not poor spectrum management by Sprint, but rather EXTREMELY GOOD spectrum management by Sprint.  They would be using under utilized uplink spectrum and adding a use for it.  Also, Sprint better uses its TDD spectrum but not allowing half of the uplink sit and go fallow from under utilization like almost all dedicated uplink.  Rather, by using time duplexing, they allocate a more realistic amount toward uplink, allowing for more of each 20MHz to go toward the higher demand uplink.

 

In a FDD scenario, downlink is way more heavily used than uplink.  When a FDD downlink channel reaches saturation, the uplink is way less utilized.  Leaving extra uplink capacity.  This scenario leaves less spectral efficiency since a good portion of uplink is still left under utilized.  If that can be further utilized by CA with another frequency, then that is a gain in efficiency and an improvement in the customer experience.

 

There are a lot of anti Sprint folks who believed that EBS/BRS were going to be awful spectrum assets for Sprint, and they trumpeted that point loudly.  Even were pleased with the fact that they saw Sprint at a disadvantage.  Often trumpeting that Sprint has virtually limitless amounts of unusable and worthless spectrum.  However, Sprint is pulling a rabbit out of the hat with EBS/BRS spectrum, making it work as well as possible.  Likely because of SoftBank.  And they are closing the gap in the performance between 2600 and LTE deployments in AWS and PCS.  This makes the Sprint bashers uncomfortable.  I hope you're not part of that group.

[WiWavelength]

In a FDD scenario, downlink is way more heavily used than uplink.

 

Neal thinks that the downlink heavy paradigm is going to shift.  He believes that the uplink will become just as utilized.  I presume that is through various sorts of self broadcasting -- probably typical Millennial "Look at me, everything I see and do is special" vanity bullshit.  That is not a reflection on Neal, but on Millennials in general. 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Neal thinks that the downlink heavy paradigm is going to shift.  He believes that the uplink will become just as utilized.  I presume that is through various sorts of self broadcasting -- probably typical Millennial "Look at me, everything I see and do is special" vanity bullshit.  That is not a reflection on Neal, but on Millennials in general. 

 

AJ

 

When you consider how wireless data is used, it's hard to imagine uplink and downlink ever getting parity in usage.  If anything the trend has gotten worse since demand of video streaming has gone up, tipping the scales even further.  Maybe one day, people will be streaming up as much as they stream down.  But that is not forseeable anytime soon.

 

And given this is how the wireless world is with greater downlink demand than uplink, things like TDD LTE and aggregating more LTE downlink to fewer uplink assignments will result in greater efficiency of spectrum.  And if one day the tables should turn and uplink starts to increase demand, well, we can address that.  And TDD-LTE can do that easily.

[Fraydog]

Let's take a global, macro level view for a bit. Most of the fastest networks in the world right now are TD-LTE networks. SoftBank, Optus, and China Mobile come to mind. These are networks with metric tons of capacity. Look at the measurements on Ookla, they are very much at the forefront of innovation here. Then the Chinese are ahead on centralized RAN and moving network functions to the cloud. 

 

If anything I'm hoping Sprint moves to category 2 for more aggressive download e-penis spectacularity here, that along with carrier aggregation in TD-LTE would be the fastest way Sprint can gain equivalence to the fastest networks in the US, Verizon and T-Mobile, which aren't as fast as SoftBank, China Mobile, or Optus.  

 

Multiple category 2 channels can aggregate to 225 Mbps. The only way T-Mobile and Verizon can get to those speeds are to aggregate a 20x20, which they don't have in all markets, along with a 10x10. Then we deal with all the other pesky things people mention with carrier aggregation. 

 

Now, I realize I'm dealing with theoretical max speeds here, and that real world speeds will be different, but this is a different Sprint than the Sprint mentioned in the past with WiMax, Nextel, Clearwire, or other past debacles. Sprint is finally in a position where competent leadership can shake all that off. The only way out is through. The technical path to getting even in speed and maybe even ahead is there. All that is left is execution. 

[S4GRU]

I never thought I'd read the term e-penis spectacularity tonight.  Wow.  Just wow.