Sprint not participating in the 600 MHz auction (report)

[payturr]

Is that a nationwide solution?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I mean Sprint built their nationwide network on PCS. Most markets they should have at least 20MHz which means a second carrier once they densify in that given area to justify cutting chunks out of CDMA.

[Terrell352]

Sprint still has like 5 years before they start refarming and shutting down pcs. It will be just as hard and the wait will be just as long as 600 anyways. 600 would cover more ground at a much faster rate.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

I would not trust band 41 volte even with densification

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Terrell, when Sprint does get VoLTE implemented/active, it likely will be using densified band 41 spectrum, as that is becoming Sprint's main LTE spectrum. Sure, there is 1900mhz and 800mhz, but those spectrum bands are limited to 5x5 in many areas. Well, with 1900mhz will be less limited once CDMA is shutdown and can be aggregated, though that may be some time, just as VoLTE will be some time before Sprint has it.

 

Anyways, I don't understand why so many people online criticize Sprint for not having VoLTE. Sprint's voice quality is very good, one of the high qualities of my past two experiences with Sprint this year, despite the device and the 1900mhz data connection technical issues I had. Sprint is better off working on improving their network with NGN than worrying about VoLTE.

[payturr]

Sprint still has like 5 years before they start refarming and shutting down pcs. It will be just as hard and the wait will be just as long as 600 anyways. 600 would cover more ground at a much faster rate.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

They already started refarming in many markets, most notably recently including San Diego. With densification to be mostly complete in 2 years (given no problems with equipment), mass refarming can kick off in 2 years. Rumor has it NYC is about to see a 2nd B25 carrier. 600MHz comes with added costs of new hardware and installation, and means some towers get it some don't. Second carriers, on the other hand, are a remote software switch.

[payturr]

Anyways, I don't understand why so many people online criticize Sprint for not having VoLTE.

Lack of SVD. I love the voice quality but damn it I would love to be able to answer a regular iMessage as an iMessage.

[smooth25]

Lack of SVD. I love the voice quality but damn it I would love to be able to answer a regular iMessage as an iMessage.

I prefer VoLTE as well.

 

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[jefbal99]

Voice over lte

Verizon and AT&T can do this in their cellular spectrum, Sprint can do this in eSMR/PCS/EBS/BRS. I don't follow TMobile all that closely, but with a dense AWS deployment, they can do VoLTE.

 

Sunset legacy tech (like Sprint did with iDen and is doing with wimax), then repurpose that spectrum.

 

As a nation, we need to stop bandaid fixing everything, use what we have more efficiently. Until a provider can show the FCC that every bit of spectrum is used as much as possible, no more spectrum should be auctioned. Force carriers to build more cell sites, use more small cells, etc.

 

Sent from Moto X Pure via Tapatalk

[Rasta Cheesehead]

Voice over lte

800 , 1900 and 2.5 can do VOLTE. Network needs to be dense enough for volte no matter the spectrum. VoLte is not gonna save any network let alone Sprint. Why would you want to wait 5 years for something you can achieve in less than 2. 

[tmiw]

While densification will help with Sprint's existing footprint, 600MHz would be nice for quickly expanding rural coverage with little effort/cost in the way of towers (and would help in urban areas with onerous permitting processes too). There would also be decent speeds due to low population density, especially if 10x10 was used. 800MHz/B26 would be almost as effective but would become congested more quickly especially if it spurs more people in the middle of the country to sign up for Sprint.

 

The downside, as others have mentioned, is that it would take years before Sprint could take full advantage. Whereas B26 can be used right now*.

 

*offer void in Southern California

[anthony.spina97]

While densification will help with Sprint's existing footprint, 600MHz would be nice for quickly expanding rural coverage with little effort/cost in the way of towers (and would help in urban areas with onerous permitting processes too). There would also be decent speeds due to low population density, especially if 10x10 was used. 800MHz/B26 would be almost as effective but would become congested more quickly especially if it spurs more people in the middle of the country to sign up for Sprint.

 

The downside, as others have mentioned, is that it would take years before Sprint could take full advantage. Whereas B26 can be used right now*.

 

*offer void in Southern California

But, if Sprint used Band 26 to quickly and cheaply expand coverage in rural areas that wouldn't necessarily offer a very good ROI, and it started to become congested because of more users signing up in those areas, then it would eventually make financial sense to add more towers to better serve those customers. If Band 26 got THAT congested, then it means you have customers in that area, and that means that there is money to be made.

 

-Anthony

[tmiw]

But, if Sprint used Band 26 to quickly and cheaply expand coverage in rural areas that wouldn't necessarily offer a very good ROI, and it started to become congested because of more users signing up in those areas, then it would eventually make financial sense to add more towers to better serve those customers. If Band 26 got THAT congested, then it means you have customers in that area, and that means that there is money to be made.

 

-Anthony

 

True. At the same time, there are always going to be areas where adding more towers is extremely problematic (such as national parks), so 600MHz would provide extended reach and a bit more capacity for those areas.

 

Is it worth it to get 600MHz just for that though? Especially since new phones would have to have support a band that most people will never use? Probably not unless a case can be made for a nationwide allocation.

[Dkoellerwx]

I've made no secret in some of my past posts that I'm not a fan of OTA television broadcasting. However, I understand the importance of it in rural areas where there isn't much choice. Although, the days of that being the case is becoming more rare, as there is the option of satellite in a great many of these places which now even offer internet over satellite, albeit expensive for its limited data allotments in contrast with land based internet service options.

 

To be clear, OTA television is not just utilized by those living in rural areas or in poverty. Plenty of well off people in urban areas CHOOSE to have OTA only television rather than pay out for satellite or cable. 20-30% of viewers in my market still rely solely on OTA signals for entertainment and information. When breaking news or weather happens, TV is still the number 1 resource people turn to for the latest updates. Take away OTA, and 20-30% of our viewers no longer have access to that information. And just so you know, our station owner did in fact pay for the license with which we broadcast. It was not handed to us for free.

[ttwiitch]

Maybe this video will ease the tension on this topic. I came across it not to long ago ????

 

 

Sent from an LG

[Arysyn]

To be clear, OTA television is not just utilized by those living in rural areas or in poverty. Plenty of well off people in urban areas CHOOSE to have OTA only television rather than pay out for satellite or cable. 20-30% of viewers in my market still rely solely on OTA signals for entertainment and information. When breaking news or weather happens, TV is still the number 1 resource people turn to for the latest updates. Take away OTA, and 20-30% of our viewers no longer have access to that information. And just so you know, our station owner did in fact pay for the license with which we broadcast. It was not handed to us for free.

I know OTA still is used somewhat in non rural areas, though I'd much rather there be inexpensive, completely affordable solutions that would replace OTA without needing spectrum. Although, I admit I don't know how much spectrum OTA typically uses, but while I'm not supportive of much spectrum being used for it, some spectrum for emergency/weather/public non-corporately owned news broadcasts is fine, in my opinion.

 

I just don't like the idea of a bunch of spectrum being used for main entertainment and corporate media, when there are satellite and/or land based means of accessing it. Although, prices to access those means certainly are high, which is completely understandable to me why some people would chose to have OTA instead. Those rates need to come down, for sure.

[Dkoellerwx]

I know OTA still is used somewhat in non rural areas, though I'd much rather there be inexpensive, completely affordable solutions that would replace OTA without needing spectrum. Although, I admit I don't know how much spectrum OTA typically uses, but while I'm not supportive of much spectrum being used for it, some spectrum for emergency/weather/public non-corporately owned news broadcasts is fine, in my opinion.

 

You should probably spend more time examining *what is* and worry a little less about what *you think* should be.

 

You greatly underestimate the impact and importance of OTA broadcasts. 

[Fraydog]

I live in an area that is pretty rural and millennials, which I'm at the beginning of pretty much with my age, don't watch much OTA TV. Netflix is a big deal here even in an area where Internet access at the landline level is hit or miss. OTA honestly died where I live when the transition to digital killed off a lot of access that we had to OTA. 

 

If not for the regional sports channel that carries the Cardinals (Fox Sports Midwest), I probably don't carry on a Dish subscription at all. If it were my call, I would move to the minimal tier needed to keep that channel and cut out a bunch of crap I don't watch. I would much rather spend money on content that I like over a bunch of channels I don't watch. 

 

With my rural, far-flung location, one would think I would be in a defined use case for OTA except I'm not. Most of my entertainment usage is Hulu or YouTube.

 

At some point, though, we can't afford to run fiber to every rural location. People are just going to have to move from completely rural locales to in small towns where this country can afford to run fiber. This gives more bandwidth for those who use mobile in rural areas. 

[tmiw]

At some point, though, we can't afford to run fiber to every rural location. People are just going to have to move from completely rural locales to in small towns where this country can afford to run fiber. This gives more bandwidth for those who use mobile in rural areas. 

 

Kinda ironic considering we were able to run electricity to every single household in the US back in the day. There were more people living in rural areas then though.

[Fraydog]

Kinda ironic considering we were able to run electricity to every single household in the US back in the day. There were more people living in rural areas then though.

I'm thinking more of places that have literally no houses surrounding them for miles. Farms and places like that.

[WiWavelength]

You should probably spend more time examining *what is* and worry a little less about what *you think* should be.

 

You greatly underestimate the impact and importance of OTA broadcasts.

 

Meanwhile, inside Arysyn's head...

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about cable and satellite rate plans.  I think they should be priced...

 

 

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

You should probably spend more time examining *what is* and worry a little less about what *you think* should be.

 

You greatly underestimate the impact and importance of OTA broadcasts.

I do know quite a bit about what is, but beyond a certain point I prefer not to bother knowing more or getting more involved with certain things, because I figure I'll just get more upset by it. Alot of my viewpoints I mention that may appear odd to others, especially when I stop writing about a particular issue or giving further explanation, etc., has to do with my own life experiences, which is very difficult for me to convey over the internet.

 

It also has alot to do with my personal frustration of being completely unable to change anything. I can explain my opinions, but I don't go much beyond that, because I don't believe this site is a place for communicating serious personal issues, at least beyond a point of an introductory means, such as when I mentioned that I have health issues and my wireless needs relating to that.

 

Anyways, I did mention that I understand the importance of emergency broadcasts and the like for OTA broadcasting. However, I'm not going to support the use of OTA for entertainment broadcasting where other means of access to that are available, Again though, that is my opinion and I know others may agree or disagree. Not arguing or debating it though.

[Arysyn]

Meanwhile, inside Arysyn's head...

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about cable and satellite rate plans. I think they should be priced...

 

 

 

AJ

AJ, that isn't fair.

 

I come to this site besides learning about wireless needs, because I have serious health issues I try to focus my mind away from by thinking about other things. I seriously don't mind disagreements of opinions, but to make assumptions of what I'm thinking and making light of what I write about, isn't fair and is rather mean spirited.

[Camcroz]

AJ, that isn't fair.

 

I come to this site besides learning about wireless needs, because I have serious health issues I try to focus my mind away from by thinking about other things. I seriously don't mind disagreements of opinions, but to make assumptions of what I'm thinking and making light of what I write about, isn't fair and is rather mean spirited.

I think he was joking. I don't really know, i never get his sense of humor but he put a winky face at the end so i don't think he meant it in a mean way

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Kinda ironic considering we were able to run electricity to every single household in the US back in the day. There were more people living in rural areas then though.

 

Yes, but think of the massive investment that we cost and short term profit that we deprived the corporations and shareholders.

 

Won't somebody please think of the corporations and shareholders?!

 

 

AJ

[Mr.Nuke]

Kinda ironic considering we were able to run electricity to every single household in the US back in the day. There were more people living in rural areas then though.

And in a lot of rural areas that was solely the result of government involvement through Public Power entities in the early 20th century via the Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification Act, both New Deal programs designed to put people to work.

[Fraydog]

There's a middle ground here, right? I don't expect corporations to lose money for the hell of it. Those that do that don't stay out of bankruptcy court. Now is there are lots of problems with short term thinking, treasuring dividends over long-term investment, greed, and pursuing shareholder value over the long-term good. That said, there are points where anything can become economically unfeasible.