Sprint quarterly results

[tyroned3222]

Not sure what you're asking. Other carriers have 10x10 LTE channels as well. Different bands, but 10x10 channels. Some have been widened beyond 10x10 though.

Yes, but sprint can only use 10×10 LTE channel in a few cities.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

Yes, but sprint can only use 10×10 LTE channel in a few cities.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

Ah, yes that is correct. At this time, Sprint has room for 10x10 B25 channels in only a few markets. 

[Quantify]

The short answer to that is no. It is an oversimplification that has gotten traction through repetition.

 

 

Somebody or something screwed up -- either in the PCMag testing or in the PCMag testing citation. The iPhone 5S is dual band, not tri band. It cannot hit peak speeds of 42 Mbps on 5 MHz FDD in band 25/26.

 

Regardless, most people will not notice the difference in peak or average speeds between single carrier and 2x CA on band 41. The difference between 121 Mbps and 78 Mbps makes no difference to their usage. In both cases, Sprint "just works."

 

The point is to get tri band handsets into the hands of Sprint users. Any 2x CA is icing on the cake. And that is my point.

 

AJ

I am a bit surprised to hear this. I was reading a Nokia white paper on CA yesterday, and it specifically said that one benefit of CA is the ability to use lower frequency bands on the uplink, where transmit power is an issue, while using higher frequency bands at greater distances for downlink. I understand that b41 wouldn't be exclusively downlink, for example, but sure Sprint would look to use CA to improve coverage reliability?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I am a bit surprised to hear this. I was reading a Nokia white paper on CA yesterday, and it specifically said that one benefit of CA is the ability to use lower frequency bands on the uplink, where transmit power is an issue, while using higher frequency bands at greater distances for downlink. I understand that b41 wouldn't be exclusively downlink, for example, but sure Sprint would look to use CA to improve coverage reliability?

 

You may be misinterpreting me, I may be misinterpreting you, or Nokia may be talking just pie in the sky ideas.  But, no, LTE CA standards do not support the PCC uplink in one band, the PCC downlink in a different band.  The PCC uplink and downlink are in the same band.  The SCC downlink, though, may be in a different band.  That is inter band CA.

 

For example, if AT&T is using band 4 + band 12 CA, the PCC uplink and downlink are both band 4 -- or they are both band 12.  The downlink of the other band is the SCC.  There is no "Hey, let's aggregate just the lower frequency band 12 uplink with the higher frequency band 4 downlink."  Besides, that would be foolish, as it would orphan the downlink in band 12, the uplink in band 4, wasting spectrum.

 

And before anyone asks the question, no, it is not feasible to convert any of these FDD bands to all uplink or all downlink.  By design and regulation, they are paired spectrum bands, and that is that.  Sprint cannot decide to use all of its band 25 spectrum as uplink for CA with its band 41 downlink -- because half of its band 25 spectrum will remain downlink forever unless/until the PCS 1900 MHz band is scrapped.

 

So, for Sprint, the most realistic lower frequency uplink and higher frequency downlink CA combination is PCC uplink and downlink in band 25 with SCC downlink in band 41.  And instead of TDD, some band 41 could be converted exclusively to supplemental downlink.

 

AJ

[Quantify]

You may be misinterpreting me, I may be misinterpreting you, or Nokia may be talking just pie in the sky ideas. But, no, LTE CA standards do not support the PCC uplink in one band, the PCC downlink in a different band. The PCC uplink and downlink are in the same band. The SCC downlink, though, may be in a different band. That is inter band CA.

 

For example, if AT&T is using band 4 + band 12 CA, the PCC uplink and downlink are both band 4 -- or they are both band 12. The downlink of the other band is the SCC. There is no "Hey, let's aggregate just the lower frequency band 12 uplink with the higher frequency band 4 downlink." Besides, that would be foolish, as it would orphan the downlink in band 12, the uplink in band 4, wasting spectrum.

 

And before anyone asks the question, no, it is not feasible to convert any of these FDD bands to all uplink or all downlink. By design and regulation, they are paired spectrum bands, and that is that. Sprint cannot decide to use all of its band 25 spectrum as uplink for CA with its band 41 downlink -- because half of its band 25 spectrum will remain downlink forever unless/until the PCS 1900 MHz band is scrapped.

 

So, for Sprint, the most realistic lower frequency uplink and higher frequency downlink CA combination is PCC uplink and downlink in band 25 with SCC downlink in band 41. And instead of TDD, some band 41 could be converted exclusively to supplemental downlink.

 

AJ

OK. I'm clearly getting this wrong, but I'm not sure where. You need more reading like a hole in the head I'm sure, but here is the passage I was looking at:

 

"Coverage benefits

LTE coverage in the macro cells is uplink limited because of the

lower terminal output power (200 mW) compared to the typical base

station power of several tens of watts. The minimum threshold for

LTE is typically Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) of -120 dBm

before handing over the connection to the 3G network. The minimum

threshold is limited by the uplink coverage, while the coverage could

be even wider if we consider only the downlink direction. Carrier

aggregation can enhance the coverage by using the low band for

the uplink connection while the downlink can still be received by the

device, both on the low band and on the high band. The high band

connection could not be used without carrier aggregation.

The outcome is that carrier aggregation can enhance the downlink

coverage of the high band. Field measurements indicate that the high

band Scell can contribute to the throughput at lower signal levels

down to -130 dBm. Those devices that are closer to the base station

can also use LTE1800 as the primary cell and uplink transmission."

 

Full paper can be found at http://networks.nokia.com/sites/default/files/document/nokia_carrier_aggregation_white_paper.pdf

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Edited January 27, 2016 by Quantify

[dkyeager]

For those who are concerned that we are are off on tangents for a financial quarterly report, be aware that a huge amount of time was spent covering network issues in the conference call and during Q & A.

[Scott]

I think coverage should be the number one first.

I'll agree that B41 coverage is also important. If someone buys an LTE Plus device expecting the speeds Sprint touts but doesn't live in an LTE Plus market, they're probably not going to be happy.

 

I've had tri-band phones since October 2014, but there's still no B41 in my market so having the tri-band device doesn't really benefit me, except for the rare occasion when I travel somewhere that has it.

[avb]

You may be misinterpreting me, I may be misinterpreting you, or Nokia may be talking just pie in the sky ideas.  But, no, LTE CA standards do not support the PCC uplink in one band, the PCC downlink in a different band.  The PCC uplink and downlink are in the same band.  The SCC downlink, though, may be in a different band.  That is inter band CA.

 

For example, if AT&T is using band 4 + band 12 CA, the PCC uplink and downlink are both band 4 -- or they are both band 12.  The downlink of the other band is the SCC.  There is no "Hey, let's aggregate just the lower frequency band 12 uplink with the higher frequency band 4 downlink."  Besides, that would be foolish, as it would orphan the downlink in band 12, the uplink in band 4, wasting spectrum.

 

Based on what you're saying, if Sprint eventually combines B41 and B25 for carrier aggregation, at that point B25 could be used for uplink and the downlink portion wouldn't be wasted, correct?  And since B41 is TDD it could theoretically be configured to use all 20mhz for downlink wouldn't it?

 

Of course if that's the eventual plan it will still be way down the line.

 

***Nevermind you covered it in your last paragraph.  Sorry didn't read - thanks for already answering me haha.

[Ascertion]

I think coverage should be the number one first.

I think both are equally important, but it's best for Sprint to take the T-Mobile approach.  Focus on Metros for growth, then set sights on rural expansion.

[S4GRU]

Sprint has said in the past they are looking at new ways to try to utilize B25 for B41 uplink via a yet uncreated form of carrier aggregation. It could possibly include B41 only aggregated to B25 uplink only. That's one of the things they are trying out in labs. It may prove in testing that they have to aggregate both the uplink and downlink with B41+B25 CA. But that's not their preferred method.

 

It's still a long ways off, at any rate. The B41 network should be pretty mature by the time any B41 CA with other bands is adopted and deployed by Sprint for the purpose of increasing B41 upload speeds. B41+B41 uplink CA is likely to happen first. And may render all this as unnecessary.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[dkyeager]

The key item for Sprint is execution of its network plans.  I believe quicker rollout is partially related to a likely requirement by its financiers to cut costs.

[WiWavelength]

OK. I'm clearly getting this wrong, but I'm not sure where. You need more reading like a hole in the head I'm sure, but here is the passage I was looking at:

 

"Carrier aggregation can enhance the coverage by using the low band for

the uplink connection while the downlink can still be received by the

device, both on the low band and on the high band."

 

From the Nokia white paper, you need to read the above sentence carefully.  The low band PCC and high band SCC function exactly like I said that they do.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Sprint has said in the past they are looking at new ways to try to utilize B25 for B41 uplink via a yet uncreated form of carrier aggregation. It could possibly include B41 only aggregated to B25 uplink only. That's one of the things they are trying out in labs. It may prove in testing that they have to aggregate both the uplink and downlink with B41+B25 CA. But that's not their preferred method.

 

I know that you and I seem to disagree on this, but I do not buy that Sprint is working on aggregating only band 25 uplink + band 41 downlink -- unless Sprint wants to do something stupid.  By the time that Sprint could have standardized and implemented such an aggregation scheme, it will have densified band 41 coverage and refarmed band 25 to 10 MHz FDD or even all 15 MHz FDD.  As I have stated in this thread and elsewhere several times, that basically would waste the 10-15 MHz FDD of the band 25 downlink.  And before anyone suggests it Arysyn style, no, the FCC would be unlikely to allow Sprint to lease/sell just its band 25 downlink.

 

In the end, I believe that the idea of aggregating only band 25 uplink + band 41 downlink comes about from oversimplification in statements that Sprint execs have made.  They really mean that the band 25 uplink would do the heavy lifting, while the band 41 downlink would provide the fast speeds -- but just left out the part that the band 25 downlink also would be part of the equation for signaling purposes and some throughput.

 

AJ

[Quantify]

From the Nokia white paper, you need to read the above sentence carefully. The low band PCC and high band SCC function exactly like I said that they do.

 

AJ

Got it now. Thank you.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

Did anyone see Marcelod interview this morning? The guy who was interviewing him was very biased. He said.... what are you going to do when a company like AT&T can spend 21 billion on network infrastructure per year. Marcelo laughed a bit....

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

I know that you and I seem to disagree on this, but I do not buy that Sprint is working on aggregating only band 25 uplink + band 41 downlink -- unless Sprint wants to do something stupid. By the time that Sprint could have standardized and implemented such an aggregation scheme, it will have densified band 41 coverage and refarmed band 25 to 10 MHz FDD or even all 15 MHz FDD. As I have stated in this thread and elsewhere several times, that basically would waste the 10-15 MHz FDD of the band 25 downlink. And before anyone suggests it Arysyn style, no, the FCC would be unlikely to allow Sprint to lease/sell just its band 25 downlink.

 

In the end, I believe that the idea of aggregating only band 25 uplink + band 41 downlink comes about from oversimplification in statements that Sprint execs have made. They really mean that the band 25 uplink would do the heavy lifting, while the band 41 downlink would provide the fast speeds -- but just left out the part that the band 25 downlink also would be part of the equation for signaling purposes and some throughput.

 

AJ

Why doesn't Sprint just sell its PCS spectrum? [emoji14]

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[WiWavelength]

Why doesn't Sprint just sell its PCS spectrum? [emoji14]

 

Yes, here is what I think.  We should work on a plan in which all Cellular 850 MHz gets sold to VZW, all PCS 1900 MHz gets sold to AT&T, all AWS-1 1700+2100 MHz gets sold to T-Mobile, and all BRS/EBS 2600 MHz gets sold to Sprint.  Oh, and I think that all data should be priced at $1/GB.

 

 

AJ