Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2


lilotimz

Recommended Posts

Uh, Sprint did just that over 20 years ago.  Sprint (SpectrumCo, Cox, and PhillieCo) was by far the largest winner of PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses across the country in the first PCS auction.

 

Look at my map.  See all of that green:

 

http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/spcs.gif

 

You do not know your wireless history, Arysyn.

 

AJ

 

Then why are there people on S4GRU saying otherwise about areas such as in the Houston market? Keep in mind too, I haven't been following Sprint for many years, unlike many here who have. I admit I don't know as much about Sprint as others here do, and for what I don't know about it, I rely on here. Earlier others were commenting about how the Houston area is lacking in PCS, which is something I'm curious why Sprint didn't get more of there, and anywhere else that might be lacking in PCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine Sprint paying that much more for backhaul than T-Mobile.

 

What people are forgetting is that Sprint also owns their own fiber network, Sprintlink which provides Global MPLS services as well as public IP services.

 

https://www.sprint.net/network_maps.php

 

All of Sprint's phone traffic runs on their own internal wireline network, pretty amazing actually.

While Sprint has an existing MPLS and IP network, that's not being sold in the last mile. They still require last mile at minimum in terms of backhaul to reach the core, if not requiring middle mile transport to get to your Sprint POP.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile's backhaul costs should not be all that different. The big cost is in last mile construction and leasing. And middle mile is an aggregate pipe back to the core.

 

T-Mobile and Sprint are likely leading similar pipe sizes. ~500-600 Mbps for a standard 3 sector site with 20 MHz of LTE and probably 2-3 UMTS carriers plus GSM. Sprint with 2x 5 MHz (B25 and B26) plus 2-3 B41 carriers should consume ~600 Mbps on link budget.

 

This is all conservative math, it's likely closer to 700 I'd bet. But they should be roughly the same, other than the fact that T-Mobile didn't incur the same construction costs in the LTE cycle as they moved from TDM to IP in their UMTS cycle for a good majority of sites, MRC should be roughly similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Sprint has an existing MPLS and IP network, that's not being sold in the last mile. They still require last mile at minimum in terms of backhaul to reach the core, if not requiring middle mile transport to get to your Sprint POP.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile's backhaul costs should not be all that different. The big cost is in last mile construction and leasing. And middle mile is an aggregate pipe back to the core.

 

T-Mobile and Sprint are likely leading similar pipe sizes. ~500-600 Mbps for a standard 3 sector site with 20 MHz of LTE and probably 2-3 UMTS carriers plus GSM. Sprint with 2x 5 MHz (B25 and B26) plus 2-3 B41 carriers should consume ~600 Mbps on link budget.

 

This is all conservative math, it's likely closer to 700 I'd bet. But they should be roughly the same, other than the fact that T-Mobile didn't incur the same construction costs in the LTE cycle as they moved from TDM to IP in their UMTS cycle for a good majority of sites, MRC should be roughly similar.

A bit off for sprint.

 

Each b41 carrier requires approximately 100 Mbps. 3 sectors 2 carriers is 600 Mbps alone. 5x5 b26 is 100. Pcs 5x5 is 100, 5x5 + 5x5 or 10x10 = 250, and the rare 5x5+10x10 =300.

 

With the third carrier live In quite a few markets, we're going easily to 1gb+ requirements. High capacity ones add up to 3 additional b41 carriers so 2gb requirements on some sites even.

 

That's a lot.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are there people on S4GRU saying otherwise about areas such as in the Houston market? Keep in mind too, I haven't been following Sprint for many years, unlike many here who have. I admit I don't know as much about Sprint as others here do, and for what I don't know about it, I rely on here. Earlier others were commenting about how the Houston area is lacking in PCS, which is something I'm curious why Sprint didn't get more of there, and anywhere else that might be lacking in PCS.

 

Did you even look at the map!?! Look at Houston! That will answer your question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Sprint has an existing MPLS and IP network, that's not being sold in the last mile. They still require last mile at minimum in terms of backhaul to reach the core, if not requiring middle mile transport to get to your Sprint POP.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile's backhaul costs should not be all that different. The big cost is in last mile construction and leasing. And middle mile is an aggregate pipe back to the core.

 

T-Mobile and Sprint are likely leading similar pipe sizes. ~500-600 Mbps for a standard 3 sector site with 20 MHz of LTE and probably 2-3 UMTS carriers plus GSM. Sprint with 2x 5 MHz (B25 and B26) plus 2-3 B41 carriers should consume ~600 Mbps on link budget.

 

This is all conservative math, it's likely closer to 700 I'd bet. But they should be roughly the same, other than the fact that T-Mobile didn't incur the same construction costs in the LTE cycle as they moved from TDM to IP in their UMTS cycle for a good majority of sites, MRC should be roughly similar.

 

That is a lot of technical info there.  In general, their backhaul costs should be similar but Sprint probably pays more for roaming cost because of liberal roaming allowance.  But that does not explain why Sprint's cost of service on their income statement is about $1 billion more every quarter.  I have been looking all over but still could not figure out why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, Sprint did just that over 20 years ago. Sprint (SpectrumCo, Cox, and PhillieCo) was by far the largest winner of PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses across the country in the first PCS auction.

 

Look at my map. See all of that green:

 

http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/spcs.gif

 

You do not know your wireless history, Arysyn.

 

AJ

That's a nice map AJ. It's cool to see the history of what Sprint had when they began. Of course, Chicago is no longer interrupted 20 MHz, but it should give people an idea of how Sprint has grown their spectrum portfolio over time.

 

Any idea how Sprint dug itself out of the hole they began with in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina? It looks like they only had enough spectrum for voice in rural areas (which is all they needed when they began).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a lot of technical info there. In general, their backhaul costs should be similar but Sprint probably pays more for roaming cost because of liberal roaming allowance. But that does not explain why Sprint's cost of service on their income statement is about $1 billion more every quarter. I have been looking all over but still could not figure out why.

I'd take a WAG that far reaching Verizon roaming, including in-market, is not inexpensive. Couple that with T-Mobile's extremely surgical and conservative roaming footprint and limits, as well as much more inbound roaming usage compared to Sprint since inbound CDMA roaming isn't nearly as plentiful as it is on the GSM side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a lot of technical info there.  In general, their backhaul costs should be similar but Sprint probably pays more for roaming cost because of liberal roaming allowance.  But that does not explain why Sprint's cost of service on their income statement is about $1 billion more every quarter.  I have been looking all over but still could not figure out why.

Their cost of service includes the operation of the Clearwire network as well... I bet that inflates numbers a bit. It should come down at least by some as Clearwire is decommissioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even look at the map!?! Look at Houston! That will answer your question.

 

I did look at the map, though it would be nice if some of the icons on the left side of it were bigger so I could actually see the print next to them. They are very small on the browser I'm using.

 

Although there really ought to be a thread here with a market by market listing of the total spectrum counts of every frequency band Sprint uses. That way no one can get confused of how much spectrum Sprint has in a given area. Apparently, I'm not the only person that got the Houston spectrum wrong, if I even am. The people who originated the information regarding the Houston spectrum haven't stepped in to correct themselves which tells me I should still be suspicious of this.

 

Anyways, the point I was making wasn't to unfairly criticize Sprint. Like I've said, most of what I know about Sprint I've learned from people here. When I quote or refer to something specific as I did here from them, that is something they ought to be corrected on also, not just me.

 

Edit correction, I opened the map on another browser where a magnifying option is given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are there people on S4GRU saying otherwise about areas such as in the Houston market? Keep in mind too, I haven't been following Sprint for many years, unlike many here who have. I admit I don't know as much about Sprint as others here do, and for what I don't know about it, I rely on here. Earlier others were commenting about how the Houston area is lacking in PCS, which is something I'm curious why Sprint didn't get more of there, and anywhere else that might be lacking in PCS.

Did you even look at the map!?! Look at Houston! That will answer your question.

 

Yes, did you even look at the map?

 

Arysyn, you are cherry picking Houston.  Not in the green, nor was Chicago, Atlanta, etc.  But nearly the rest of the nation is green.  So, why not Houston and those other markets?  Because...

 

Aerial

Ameritech

AT&TWS

BellSouth Mobility

GTE Macro

PacBell

Powertel

PrimeCo

Omnipoint

Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems

Sprint PCS

VoiceStream

 

Those incumbents and new entrants all wanted PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses, too.  Competitive bidding ensued.  And just like in any sport, you cannot win them all.

 

Arysyn, in your wireless fantasy land, you want just 3-4 evenly matched national operators to hold all of the spectrum in equal or proportional amounts.  But that is not the way it works.  And that definitely was not the way it worked in the PCS auctions during the 1990s with the intent to expand the wireless industry.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did look at the map, though it would be nice if some of the icons on the left side of it were bigger so I could actually see the print next to them. They are very small on the browser I'm using.

 

The map image is huge, 3300 x 2549.  You need to view it at actual size.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their cost of service includes the operation of the Clearwire network as well... I bet that inflates numbers a bit. It should come down at least by some as Clearwire is decommissioned.

Yeah I was going to say, wasn't there an article or a post that said that the Clearwire network was costing Sprint something to the tune of half a billion dollars or so (give or take a hundred million) a quarter to run?

 

-Anthony

 

EDIT:

 

Found the post. I overestimated a little bit.  200-250 million a year.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/7240-its-the-wimax-countdown/?p=450176

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, did you even look at the map?

 

Arysyn, you are cherry picking Houston. Not in the green, nor was Chicago, Atlanta, etc. But nearly the rest of the nation is green. So, why not Houston and those other markets? Because...

 

Aerial

Ameritech

AT&TWS

BellSouth Mobility

GTE Macro

PacBell

Powertel

PrimeCo

Omnipoint

Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems

Sprint PCS

VoiceStream

 

Those incumbents and new entrants all wanted PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses, too. Competitive bidding ensued. And just like in any sport, you cannot win them all.

 

Arysyn, in your wireless fantasy land, you want just 3-4 evenly matched national operators to hold all of the spectrum in equal or proportional amounts. But that is not the way it works. And that definitely was not the way it worked in the PCS auctions during the 1990s with the intent to expand the wireless industry.

 

AJ

Aj, I wasn't cherry picking Houston. As I've mentioned a few times, I made my comment mainly based from what I've read here on S4GRU after a few people here mentioned there being less than 10x10 contiguous spectrum in the Houston market. Unlike in the past where I admit to being very critical of Sprint's PCS positioning, here I initially meant to make a general comment relating to it, though like I said, this primarily was my thinking based what I read here regarding the Houston market. I know there are several other areas where Sprint has better PCS spectrum standing, and I'm grateful for the person (I forget who it was) who responded to me several months ago during my initial PCS discussions where I was giving my opinions of Sprint's PCS spectrum heavily based from my experiences between the excellent quality of band 41 in contrast to the lackluster times I had on PCS. The person who responded to me, did so politely and with respect, rather than using the hostility I and a few others here on S4GRU often get from some people here when taking offense to certain opinions.

 

Using terms like "wireless fantasy land": is disrespectful and insulting, which could be taken as bullying if continued similar statements are made, AJ. Rather, you could have been decent just by saying that my opinion is not realistic, which I understand how it isn't because of how it is setup and all the disputes that would come about by trying to change it. Still though, that does not change nor alters my opinions of what I believe ought to be done regarding the spectrum situations in the wireless industry, the FCC and what not. The only thing that could make me think differently about some of my ideas is if they were not technically possible. In regards to the person I mentioned who had responded to me politely back then, informed me that Sprint had more PCS spectrum than what was being used for LTE, such as for voice service. I knew Sprint uses PCS for voice, though I wasn't aware it was separate spectrum from that which is allotted for LTE.

 

I have never ever, and again I mean never ever not even one time ever stated here on S4GRU that I'm a technical wireless expert. I have never been arrogant, egotistical, self-centered, or anything even remotely similar to those attitudes about myself here or my position of knowledge regarding such topics talked about here. I don't even remember ever stating here on S4GRU of me posting facts. I don't want to deliberately act here as I'm trying to educate people here. I pretty much just like to share my opinions of things and learn from others opinions, and sometimes even factual information when its given respectfully, without arrogance, disrespect, and furthermore especially without ego. I find that quite often in life (not trying to specifically pinpoint S4GRU here by this statement) that people who frequently just give facts about things on a regular basis without regularly sharing opinions on things, just as often end up being very unpleasant people to talk with as the knowledge of so many facts and very little opinion seems to make them arrogant, ego-driven, and rude, especially when they do try giving an opinion which quite often is hostile. I've experienced this primarily from teachers I've known in the past.

 

So, I try to be the opposite of that. I hate arguments and rough debates over facts or what people think to be facts, as it brings out a lot of hostility, and often forms new hostility. Differences of opinion is perfectly fine though, so long as people are respectful in that, which I admit plenty of people here on S4GRU have been respectful of me in their responses of differing opinion, and even alerting me of certain faults in my thinking of issues where facts are important to maintain a certain perspective. Responses to example here such as since I believe there ought to be three carriers in the U.S., and each carrier ought to be given a certain amount of spectrum which I've stated I believe ought to be a minimum of 30x30. I'll revise that a bit by saying that optimally what I'd like to be done though not realistic in terms of social/political realities and what not ("not realistic" being a respectful way of disagreeing, rather than using insulting statements such as "wireless fantasy land"), is for each of the three carriers (I'd like there to be an AT&T/T-Mobile just a bit more than a Sprint merger with T-Mobile, as Sprint I'd prefer to merge with U.S. Cellular and the other remaining regional/local CDMA-based carriers, then leave Verizon as is, since Verizon already is made from several older companies merged together to form Verizon) to get 45x45 spectrum on low-band and another 45x45 on mid-band, and then the equivalent of 90mhz each on TDD high-band I'd like to see established as an alternative to FDD on the other bands.

 

Although, since already this is quite a long post, I'll save the details for another, but much shorter post. I wanted to have this post as a response to what seems to be hostile of my opinions, again having to explain myself and defending my right to post non-attacking, non-threatening, non-personal even opinions over wireless spectrum here as long as I'm a member who is not banned. Again, I mainly was addressing information posted that appears to be in error to an extent, although those people who posted regarding the PCS spectrum have yet to clarify their statements, nor are they even being called out for it. Yet, here I am being targeted for referring to their posts in making a generalized opinion regarding Sprint, something that I often do, as I'm not here to be seeking attention from others out of my knowledge of wireless. I'm here to learn and discuss opinions, not to revel in fact sharing debates to boost some pretend, imaginary forming around a smug sense of self-importance. I don't need bragging rights, but nor do I deserve disrespect. I haven't been disrespectful towards anyone here and I maintain politeness towards everyone here who is not hostile towards me.

 

Again, differing opinions is not necessarily hostility, nor am I claiming it is. However, how those differing opinions are presented may or may not be. Yours AJ often are hostile and I know I'm not the only person who believes this. You do have great technological knowledge of wireless, AJ and I'll freely admit that it is more than my own knowledge of wireless. However, it would be really nice if you'd try to change your tone in wording your differing opinions towards others in being less hostile sounding and a bit more respectful towards others' opinions. Use your knowledge to shape the tone of your responses and people will learn a lot from there, rather than responding with the harsh tone you often sound like your coming from having ill will towards those you respond to using that tone. You don't need to sound like that to make a point. There have been posts you've written in disagreement towards me that are respectful, which is great in contrast with those hostile responses you've written. I've even "liked" those polite disagreement posts you've written, as you sound fine when you just write from your knowledge and respectful non-personal relating opinions. That polite handling of your knowledge in those particular respectful posts is what separates you from so many other very knowledgeable people who can't seem to be anything but rude, snobbish bullies. At least during those times when you're being respectful, I've learned a lot from those posts by you, and not anything learned that is negative., only positive things which is a refreshing change from the hostility in your other posts. Please keep that in mind.

 

To everyone else, I apologize for the length of this post. Hopefully this will be the last time I need to explain and defend my writings against unfairness and hostility. I say this sincerely, and as always with politeness and respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read that the FCC is shooting to clear between 42 to 126Mhz of spectrum for the auction. 

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-sets-126-mhz-spectrum-auction-clearing-target/156063#.VyN05N1ILB0.twitter

 

But already its looking like a huge market LA/SD is going to be a fail for 600Mhz.

 

https://twitter.com/WaltBTIG/status/726066926024286208

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using terms like "wireless fantasy land": is disrespectful and insulting, which could be taken as bullying if continued similar statements are made, AJ.

 

I wasn't inclined to read your wall of text, but this caught my eye.  I am someone who quite regularly disagrees with AJ and even finds his posting style to be somewhat terse at times, but I definitely did not find that phrase to sound like bullying.  Many of your posts do stray off into, paraphrasing, "this will never ever happen, but..." followed by several paragraphs of things we've read before that have been shot down as entirely infeasible.

 

Yes, we all want to live in a perfect world.  I would love a world where I got free wireless service at unlimited speed, with no caps, and with perfect coverage in every unpopulated cow pasture in rural Wyoming, all while getting a new device whenever I want.  However, we do not live in that world.  (Call it a "wireless fantasy land", if you will.)  While it's fine to think about these things and maybe even to comment on them in passing now and then, they aren't very constructive or conducive to discussion of the world as it is, which is something S4GRU prides itself on. 

 

While I'm not someone who will call many ideas "bad" out of hand without study, the bigger problem is that your ideas aren't practical.  If they will never come to be, why not expend your energies on ideas that could actually happen?  You say you're not an expert, so why not spend time reading up on those things so that you can have a discussion among equals?  You talk about lowering costs, but you never talk about what kind of cost-benefit analysis or anything else that went into those discussions other than what you would prefer, which is not how businesses make decisions.  Why not read up on the financials of the companies you follow?  Or perhaps you're interested in the technical side; why not read up on the technologies and learn how to use the FCC or other websites to look at spectrum holdings? 

 

I'm an engineer, and engineers look at things like this as problems to solve within the constraints given by the world as it is.  But that's what most people do in business or even in the world at large, not just engineers.  And it's what people on S4GRU try to do.  I think that's why you run into so much headwind on some of the things you say, because they're not based on the world as it is.

 

- Trip

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't inclined to read your wall of text, but this caught my eye.  I am someone who quite regularly disagrees with AJ and even finds his posting style to be somewhat terse at times, but I definitely did not find that phrase to sound like bullying.  Many of your posts do stray off into, paraphrasing, "this will never ever happen, but..." followed by several paragraphs of things we've read before that have been shot down as entirely infeasible.

 

Yes, we all want to live in a perfect world.  I would love a world where I got free wireless service at unlimited speed, with no caps, and with perfect coverage in every unpopulated cow pasture in rural Wyoming, all while getting a new device whenever I want.  However, we do not live in that world.  (Call it a "wireless fantasy land", if you will.)  While it's fine to think about these things and maybe even to comment on them in passing now and then, they aren't very constructive or conducive to discussion of the world as it is, which is something S4GRU prides itself on. 

 

While I'm not someone who will call many ideas "bad" out of hand without study, the bigger problem is that your ideas aren't practical.  If they will never come to be, why not expend your energies on ideas that could actually happen?  You say you're not an expert, so why not spend time reading up on those things so that you can have a discussion among equals?  You talk about lowering costs, but you never talk about what kind of cost-benefit analysis or anything else that went into those discussions other than what you would prefer, which is not how businesses make decisions.  Why not read up on the financials of the companies you follow?  Or perhaps you're interested in the technical side; why not read up on the technologies and learn how to use the FCC or other websites to look at spectrum holdings? 

 

I'm an engineer, and engineers look at things like this as problems to solve within the constraints given by the world as it is.  But that's what most people do in business or even in the world at large, not just engineers.  And it's what people on S4GRU try to do.  I think that's why you run into so much headwind on some of the things you say, because they're not based on the world as it is.

 

- Trip

 

Trip,

 

Your post was very constructive and respectful, which is what I'd like to read as differing in opinion and viewpoint, as it is fair enough.

 

I do want to respond in clarifying I definitely agree there never is going to be perfect coverage, just as they'll never be a perfect device. While many of my ideas can easily be seen as unrealistic, I definitely never want to portray them as being completely unattainable. I believe sincerely that my ideas I've written about can be done, just that it would take some major changes to how things work. That is also why I'll never write crazy ideas regarding technological changes to the wireless technology itself, like some sci-fi writer. I've also been practical on the issue of unlimited data. I accept its existence as the fact of it being available and am on an unlimited data plan.

 

However, I don't abuse it nor even advocate for its abuse. I'd much rather there be inexpensive, reasonable per gb data prices that I don't believe can be realistically afforded by the carriers, yet also give them enough money to develop the networks. That I've come to realize why prices are as they are, and therefore have ideas how to give them more capacity and other support methods I've mentioned, so that customers can have these reasonable per gb pricing plans that are more fair in the whole wireless market where prices are high for those using less data and too much is being given away quite often to unlimited data plan abusers.

 

Prior to my finding S4GRU, I got the notion that most of the wireless community from reading TmoNews, HowardForums, among others were just a bunch of data abusers with people bragging about using tons of data. Certainly people here on S4GRU are much more sensible about that, and I've learned about the reasons for why that is, how unlimited data can be harsh on networks. From there, I've learned a lot here about the specific technical details about networks, among how less technical though more political or "arranged" spectrum is dealt. I've certainly formed my opinions on how I believe those less technical aspects can be changed, all while refraining from thinking too much on what really is fantasy (perfect devices, perfect networks, that sort of technical stuff. Although, I believe some technical advancements could be made faster if not hindered by political and social issues.

 

Anyways, while I'll continue reading more about how things are and realistic progressions, I'll also try to better balance out my posts with that in mind while trying to manage my opinions more appropriately. Please understand though I'm not trying to be offensive by what I say in my posts, or to annoy anyone. I have a natural inclination to think how I do in making things better, because admittedly I know my life is in such bad shape as I've explained here in the past. I really do have only good intentions here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trip,

 

Your post was very constructive and respectful, which is what I'd like to read as differing in opinion and viewpoint, as it is fair enough.

 

I do want to respond in clarifying I definitely agree there never is going to be perfect coverage, just as they'll never be a perfect device. While many of my ideas can easily be seen as unrealistic, I definitely never want to portray them as being completely unattainable. I believe sincerely that my ideas I've written about can be done, just that it would take some major changes to how things work. That is also why I'll never write crazy ideas regarding technological changes to the wireless technology itself, like some sci-fi writer. I've also been practical on the issue of unlimited data. I accept its existence as the fact of it being available and am on an unlimited data plan.

 

However, I don't abuse it nor even advocate for its abuse. I'd much rather there be inexpensive, reasonable per gb data prices that I don't believe can be realistically afforded by the carriers, yet also give them enough money to develop the networks. That I've come to realize why prices are as they are, and therefore have ideas how to give them more capacity and other support methods I've mentioned, so that customers can have these reasonable per gb pricing plans that are more fair in the whole wireless market where prices are high for those using less data and too much is being given away quite often to unlimited data plan abusers.

 

Prior to my finding S4GRU, I got the notion that most of the wireless community from reading TmoNews, HowardForums, among others were just a bunch of data abusers with people bragging about using tons of data. Certainly people here on S4GRU are much more sensible about that, and I've learned about the reasons for why that is, how unlimited data can be harsh on networks. From there, I've learned a lot here about the specific technical details about networks, among how less technical though more political or "arranged" spectrum is dealt. I've certainly formed my opinions on how I believe those less technical aspects can be changed, all while refraining from thinking too much on what really is fantasy (perfect devices, perfect networks, that sort of technical stuff. Although, I believe some technical advancements could be made faster if not hindered by political and social issues.

 

Anyways, while I'll continue reading more about how things are and realistic progressions, I'll also try to better balance out my posts with that in mind while trying to manage my opinions more appropriately. Please understand though I'm not trying to be offensive by what I say in my posts, or to annoy anyone. I have a natural inclination to think how I do in making things better, because admittedly I know my life is in such bad shape as I've explained here in the past. I really do have only good intentions here. 

 

I think you've sort of missed the forest for the trees.  First, I was making a point about many of your posts being pie-in-the-sky.  Not that I actually think or expect there will ever be perfect coverage.  As you may know (I certainly repeat it often enough) I grew up in and my parents continue to live in an area where only US Cellular has service and there are large areas of poor or no service even with them around.  I'm definitely someone who knows these things.  But that wasn't my point.  My point was that while the things you say aren't necessarily physically impossible, they're impossible given the realities of the world or country that we live in.  Perhaps my exaggeration hid the point too much.

 

Do you know why the FCC auctions spectrum today?  The FCC auctions spectrum because until the late 1980's, spectrum was allocated in basically the way you say you want it to be.  Everyone came to the table, made their case for why they would be best to get the spectrum in question, and then the FCC would pick a winner or winners.  The term that is commonly used today, a bit derisively, is that they were "beauty contests."  And the reason for that is that they didn't work well, and that's basically what they were.  It was basically a contest of who could promise the most.  And then once someone's spent millions of dollars to deploy something but otherwise broken those promises, what can you do, as the FCC?  If you revoke their license, then their new customers are left in the dark while a process taking probably years allows someone else to win a follow-up beauty contest and build their own system years later, presumably while also breaking their promises.

 

Auctions force companies to put their money where their mouths are.  I agree with you that it's not a great solution, because that money that could be spent on deployment is instead spent on spectrum, but it's aimed at preventing people from abusing it.  If I give you something for free, will you value it as much as something you spent your hard-earned money on?

 

Some of your other ideas are similarly flawed.  It's not so much that they can't happen because the laws of physics prevent it, so much as the realities of the situation won't allow it.  And it's tiring to read through your sometimes very long posts about things that are already discredited or which are so off the wall that they can't happen given the way things are in the world.

 

I don't believe anyone here thinks you are here maliciously.  Even AJ.  ;)  But it does get tiring, and I'm sure you've observed people run out of patience with you.  Like I said, do some reading.  Ask questions around here even; plenty of people here are glad to either link you to resources or answer directly.  S4GRU is here in part to educate people who want to learn, and there's a forum full of people who will help you every step of the way. 

 

It's one thing to have opinions, but quite another to have, if you'll pardon the use of the word, fantasies.  A bit of research and careful consideration, as I suggested above, would likely lead you to more of the former and fewer of the latter.  And you'll have a much better experience here as a result.  Opinions are welcome.  Fantasies... less so.

 

- Trip

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Sprint has an existing MPLS and IP network, that's not being sold in the last mile. They still require last mile at minimum in terms of backhaul to reach the core, if not requiring middle mile transport to get to your Sprint POP.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile's backhaul costs should not be all that different. The big cost is in last mile construction and leasing. And middle mile is an aggregate pipe back to the core.

 

T-Mobile and Sprint are likely leading similar pipe sizes. ~500-600 Mbps for a standard 3 sector site with 20 MHz of LTE and probably 2-3 UMTS carriers plus GSM. Sprint with 2x 5 MHz (B25 and B26) plus 2-3 B41 carriers should consume ~600 Mbps on link budget.

 

This is all conservative math, it's likely closer to 700 I'd bet. But they should be roughly the same, other than the fact that T-Mobile didn't incur the same construction costs in the LTE cycle as they moved from TDM to IP in their UMTS cycle for a good majority of sites, MRC should be roughly similar.

 

Yep I know, Sprint sold off their last mile services when they spun off Embarq in 2005. What I was saying is that there is a significant cost associated with running a Tier 1 IP and MPLS network. I did read somewhere that if Sprint were to spin off their wireline network, the revenue alone would put the new company in the Fortune 1000 list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a lot of technical info there.  In general, their backhaul costs should be similar but Sprint probably pays more for roaming cost because of liberal roaming allowance.  But that does not explain why Sprint's cost of service on their income statement is about $1 billion more every quarter.  I have been looking all over but still could not figure out why.

 

Do you have that information somewhere in terms of cost of service between Sprint and T-Mobile?

 

Also, the roaming isn't THAT liberal, 100mb on new plans and 100 minutes. Pretty good if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take a WAG that far reaching Verizon roaming, including in-market, is not inexpensive. Couple that with T-Mobile's extremely surgical and conservative roaming footprint and limits, as well as much more inbound roaming usage compared to Sprint since inbound CDMA roaming isn't nearly as plentiful as it is on the GSM side.

 

I think what people forget is that with T-Mobile, you're more likely to find "no service" rather than roaming, while Sprint is fair enough to still give their users service, even if it isn't their own.

 

Of course the $1 billion spent in roaming which gets tossed around a lot could be based on data from a bunch of years ago, prior to the 90% 800mhz 1xA deployment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did look at the map, though it would be nice if some of the icons on the left side of it were bigger so I could actually see the print next to them. They are very small on the browser I'm using.

 

Although there really ought to be a thread here with a market by market listing of the total spectrum counts of every frequency band Sprint uses. That way no one can get confused of how much spectrum Sprint has in a given area. Apparently, I'm not the only person that got the Houston spectrum wrong, if I even am. The people who originated the information regarding the Houston spectrum haven't stepped in to correct themselves which tells me I should still be suspicious of this.

 

Anyways, the point I was making wasn't to unfairly criticize Sprint. Like I've said, most of what I know about Sprint I've learned from people here. When I quote or refer to something specific as I did here from them, that is something they ought to be corrected on also, not just me.

 

Edit correction, I opened the map on another browser where a magnifying option is given.

 

That would take a million years to put together, and would have to be continuously updated with transactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC.

 

Talk is, in NYC, T-Mobile is deploying 3 band carrier aggregation now that they are refarming PCS for LTE. According to Milan, there are sites which are broadcasting B12, B4, and B2 LTE aggregated.

 

Have to say that it's pretty impressive. Their network here in NYC is actually very usable, and suffers less from the B41 pocket effect that we do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC.

 

Talk is, in NYC, T-Mobile is deploying 3 band carrier aggregation now that they are refarming PCS for LTE. According to Milan, there are sites which are broadcasting B12, B4, and B2 LTE aggregated.

 

Have to say that it's pretty impressive. Their network here in NYC is actually very usable, and suffers less from the B41 pocket effect that we do.

They're deploying 5x5MHz band 2 in a ton of markets right now. I see a new post about it almost every day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When all they need is a new LTE DU card in the base station and software upgrades, it typically foes pretty fast especially in Ericsson markets.

 

Nokia markets is a bit more work with a flexi band 2 radio needed but easy leery overlay.

 

More competition is great. Keeps everyone on their feet and off their Butts

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...