Dish's spectrum valued much lower than AWS-3 prices

[bigsnake49]

According to industry analysts Dish's spectrum is now valued at $.80 MHz/POP. About 1/3 of what they paid for in the AWS-3 auction. The lack of interest from the other carriers, densification, small cells, refarming from other technologies give carriers plenty of headroom. I think that their best bet is to let Sprint host their spectrum.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dishs-tv-business-struggles-companys-spectrum-valued-just-080mhz-pop/2016-02-18

Edited February 19, 2016 by bigsnake49

[Deval]

According to industry analysts Dish's spectrum is now valued at $.80 MHz/POP. About 1/3 of what they paid for in the AWS-3 auction. The lack of interest from the other carriers, densification, small cells, refarming from other technologies give carriers plenty of headroom. I think that their best bet is to let Sprint host their spectrum.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dishs-tv-business-struggles-companys-spectrum-valued-just-080mhz-pop/2016-02-18

 

Wouldn't want to be sitting in on that poker game.

[bigsnake49]

As Ergen just announced, Dish is unlikely to build its own network but they have filed to participate in the  600MHz auction. Also that he thinks the spectrum is more likely to be used for greenfield 5G deployments.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dishs-ergen-our-spectrum-could-be-used-5g-were-unlikely-build-out-new-netwo/2016-02-19

[red_dog007]

I imagine people will be interested in another year or two once equipment starts getting deployed that supports their spectrum.

 

Only their 700E could be deployed today.

 

 

Just not sure Dish will see prices for which they paid.

[WiWavelength]

Only their 700E could be deployed today.

 

And that unpaired band 29 is worthless to anyone but AT&T.  Not even that valuable to AT&T.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

Although not nearly as much as I wanted this to happen in the past, I still think it would be a good idea for Dish to attempt to merge with T-Mobile. Although, that isn't looking so likely nowadays. Perhaps T-Mobile might purchase the spectrum when it becomes cheap enough, at least I'm hoping that would happen. I'd like for them to get more spectrum, after all.

[banananuts87]

Although not nearly as much as I wanted this to happen in the past, I still think it would be a good idea for Dish to attempt to merge with T-Mobile. Although, that isn't looking so likely nowadays. Perhaps T-Mobile might purchase the spectrum when it becomes cheap enough, at least I'm hoping that would happen. I'd like for them to get more spectrum, after all.

 

Or SoftBank can purchase Dish and swap their spectrum

[Arysyn]

Or SoftBank can purchase Dish and swap their spectrum

 

I wouldn't mind that happening either, at least in terms of viewing this as many wireless enthusiasts do in hating to see such vasts amounts of spectrum squatting going on over at Dish. Now in regards to the spectrum helping Sprint, while I support Sprint's network improvements, Sprint really doesn't need more mid-band spectrum that Dish has. Well, all except for the continued expansion of its PCS spectrum.

 

Which by the way speaking of PCS spectrum, I often posted here some months ago about how I either wanted Sprint to sell its PCS spectrum for more low-band spectrum, or increase its PCS spectrum holdings similar to T-Mobile's various spectrum swapping actions, due to my negative experiences using Sprint when the signal changed over to 5x5 PCS. Mind you, I loved having fast speeds using band 41, which this was back before 2x ca was available. However, the 5x5 PCS was just terrible for me, enough so I switched both times I tried using Sprint. Yet, I am very glad to hear that Sprint is being very active in getting more PCS spectrum, which 10x10 ought to be just fine. Optimally though, I think Sprint ought to try aiming for 15x15 of it in major markets, 10x10 in low to mid markets, and only keeping 5x5 for very rural areas.

 

Anyways, back to the Dish spectrum issue. I think T-Mobile still is best for that spectrum. They really, really need it most, especially if it turns out that capacity issues were somehow responsible for this recent downtime on its network. The recent reports from Root Metrics also show that T-Mobile really needs the extra spectrum, something which John Legere ought to be more honest about, admit the issues, and deal with this professionally, etc.

[Deval]

I wouldn't mind that happening either, at least in terms of viewing this as many wireless enthusiasts do in hating to see such vasts amounts of spectrum squatting going on over at Dish. Now in regards to the spectrum helping Sprint, while I support Sprint's network improvements, Sprint really doesn't need more mid-band spectrum that Dish has. Well, all except for the continued expansion of its PCS spectrum.

 

Which by the way speaking of PCS spectrum, I often posted here some months ago about how I either wanted Sprint to sell its PCS spectrum for more low-band spectrum, or increase its PCS spectrum holdings similar to T-Mobile's various spectrum swapping actions, due to my negative experiences using Sprint when the signal changed over to 5x5 PCS. Mind you, I loved having fast speeds using band 41, which this was back before 2x ca was available. However, the 5x5 PCS was just terrible for me, enough so I switched both times I tried using Sprint. Yet, I am very glad to hear that Sprint is being very active in getting more PCS spectrum, which 10x10 ought to be just fine. Optimally though, I think Sprint ought to try aiming for 15x15 of it in major markets, 10x10 in low to mid markets, and only keeping 5x5 for very rural areas.

 

Anyways, back to the Dish spectrum issue. I think T-Mobile still is best for that spectrum. They really, really need it most, especially if it turns out that capacity issues were somehow responsible for this recent downtime on its network. The recent reports from Root Metrics also show that T-Mobile really needs the extra spectrum, something which John Legere ought to be more honest about, admit the issues, and deal with this professionally, etc.

 

Buddy, you do realize that there is no free PCS spectrum anywhere to get, right? The carriers are engaged in horse trading, swapping like for like, not giving away candy like it's Halloween. 

 

Sprint's PCS holdings are not broken down by areas like you are envisioning, rather they are market wide holdings. Hell, the name of the company was Sprint PCS because it was created solely on the purchases of PCS spectrum. The cell sites were deployed based on said spectrum coverage.

 

T-Mobile is like that homeless guy I see sitting on the corner by Grand Central Terminal. Dude looks and smells like he's homeless, but is texting on an iPhone. Wants free stuff and is willing to complain when they don't get it.

[richy]

 John Legere ought to be more honest about, admit the issues, and deal with this professionally, etc.

 

Thank you I needed a chuckle today! There's more chance of verizon giving tmobile its entire spectrum holding for free than legere behaving himself. I agree with you, it would be a refreshing change but no CEO wants to get even close to doing a Gerald Ratner and legeres current persona seems to be working, at least until they hit a capacity wall which may be close. Tmobile is a house of cards, they have nearly doubled their number of subs via acquisitions and organic growth but they are again running up against capacity barriers that will cost them 10-20 billion to overcome in auction costs and buildout costs. Its a testing time for them and all the while sprint has again become a viable contender with a huge spectrum trove and a newly refreshed network. 

 

Sprint could in theory swap some of its high band spectrum for lower band but it would need to find someone who would stand to gain from it. Nobody really has low band to spare, midband perhaps but thats Dish and they have about as much use for highband as they do for their own midband. Like for like swaps can occur but by definition they dont add capacity unless it is between different markets. Sprint just needs to continue to get on with it, yes they would benefit from more low \ midband but densification can help with that. 

[Arysyn]

Buddy, you do realize that there is no free PCS spectrum anywhere to get, right? The carriers are engaged in horse trading, swapping like for like, not giving away candy like it's Halloween. 

 

Sprint's PCS holdings are not broken down by areas like you are envisioning, rather they are market wide holdings. Hell, the name of the company was Sprint PCS because it was created solely on the purchases of PCS spectrum. The cell sites were deployed based on said spectrum coverage.

 

T-Mobile is like that homeless guy I see sitting on the corner by Grand Central Terminal. Dude looks and smells like he's homeless, but is texting on an iPhone. Wants free stuff and is willing to complain when they don't get it.

 

Yes,  I do realize there isn't any free PCS spectrum available, which is why I've been very supportive of its trading, among other spectrum, so that the carriers could have wider spectrum available to use. Hence, my support for 10x10, 15x15 and greater, rather than 5x5 in markets greater than rural areas. Chicago is one such market where 5x5 is too weak for this kind of population. I spoke against that here many times, especially as I noticed how it negatively affected my experience on Sprint many times. I absolutely hated when my Sprint devices would drop away from the excellent band 41 to PCS, as it usually resulted in speeds from 15mbps on band 41 to under 3mbps on PCS.

 

However, now that Sprint is swapping for more PCS spectrum, as I had mentioned here they should do so, or else sell/exchange it for  spectrum they could get more of/make money off of helping other carriers PCS holdings that would make enough for Sprint to say, buy 10x10 spectrum in the 600mhz, or buy other mid-band spectrum,etc. Whatever it would be, whatever it would take to improve from the miserly 5x5 LTE PCS. Now, I'm not saying this to upset anyone, and I'm not being critical of Sprint, as I've known for many years about Sprint having focused their business heavily on PCS spectrum in the past. I also know how many long-time Sprint enthusiasts would get upset at my proposals/ideas regarding this. Again, my intention isn't to upset anyone, but merely explain how I see things with Sprint, which is a company moving forward concentrating heavily on band 41 as their priority band.

 

As such, the PCS band seemed to be neglected at one time, which was the purpose of my mentioning these ideas I had, hoping Sprint would do something. So, it seems that they now are, with getting more PCS spectrum through swapping agreements, which I definitely support them doing so. With 10x10 or more PCS, it will help a lot for when/where band 41 isn't available. Although, I think Sprint still ought to keep the focus on band 41, as it gives them the greatest potential to grow and to get rid of the bad reputation that plagues them still in the views of many people. I want Sprint to succeed with this.

[Arysyn]

Thank you I needed a chuckle today! There's more chance of verizon giving tmobile its entire spectrum holding for free than legere behaving himself. I agree with you, it would be a refreshing change but no CEO wants to get even close to doing a Gerald Ratner and legeres current persona seems to be working, at least until they hit a capacity wall which may be close. Tmobile is a house of cards, they have nearly doubled their number of subs via acquisitions and organic growth but they are again running up against capacity barriers that will cost them 10-20 billion to overcome in auction costs and buildout costs. Its a testing time for them and all the while sprint has again become a viable contender with a huge spectrum trove and a newly refreshed network. 

 

Sprint could in theory swap some of its high band spectrum for lower band but it would need to find someone who would stand to gain from it. Nobody really has low band to spare, midband perhaps but thats Dish and they have about as much use for highband as they do for their own midband. Like for like swaps can occur but by definition they dont add capacity unless it is between different markets. Sprint just needs to continue to get on with it, yes they would benefit from more low \ midband but densification can help with that. 

 

I imagine John Legere would love to get all of Verizon's spectrum too, if he could. Although, it likely would make him even more pompous and arrogant than he already is.

 

I think these spectrum swaps are an excellent thing for the entire industry. I've been quite vocal against the way FCC distributes its spectrum through these auctions, and its result in carriers getting different amounts of spectrum in various markets, etc. These spectrum swaps, I believe, is a remedy to the problem, where if the carriers really were to work together closely and contently on this, they could form much better spectrum holdings for themselves. As I just said on my above post, I'm glad Sprint is being proactive on this for their PCS spectrum, and I'm hoping it will help to increase these kind of transactions.

[Deval]

Yes,  I do realize there isn't any free PCS spectrum available, which is why I've been very supportive of its trading, among other spectrum, so that the carriers could have wider spectrum available to use. Hence, my support for 10x10, 15x15 and greater, rather than 5x5 in markets greater than rural areas. Chicago is one such market where 5x5 is too weak for this kind of population. I spoke against that here many times, especially as I noticed how it negatively affected my experience on Sprint many times. I absolutely hated when my Sprint devices would drop away from the excellent band 41 to PCS, as it usually resulted in speeds from 15mbps on band 41 to under 3mbps on PCS.

 

Yes but what you are failing to understand is that it is physically impossible to trade spectrum in larger chunks based on how the band plans were defined and carriers deployed their networks. It's by sheer luck that Sprint and AT&T were able to trade to the extent that they did.

 

What you're also not considering is how PCS G-Block, which is Sprint's core PCS LTE deployment band, came into existence. PCS G is only adjacent to PCS C, which in itself is broken up into sub blocks 1-5. See pictures below:

 

 

See how complex PCS is? Not easy to expand into wider LTE channels. Also something to consider is that T-Mobile started their LTE deployment on their AWS network, essentially greenfield after pruning HSPA+ to create wider channels. 

 

It's a lot easier to deploy on greenfield than it is refarm and retune, something that Sprint is doing full speed in NYC with the freed WiMAX spectrum. We are seeing B41 2nd carriers daily on sites that just last week were overloaded. 

 

As for Chicago LTE deployment, I think you're the only person who would see 3-5mbps on their phone and see it's not enough. Sprint already has started deploying wider B25 LTE channels there, to go along with the B26 and two B41 carriers they already have on-air. 

 

 

However, now that Sprint is swapping for more PCS spectrum, as I had mentioned here they should do so, or else sell/exchange it for  spectrum they could get more of/make money off of helping other carriers PCS holdings that would make enough for Sprint to say, buy 10x10 spectrum in the 600mhz, or buy other mid-band spectrum,etc. Whatever it would be, whatever it would take to improve from the miserly 5x5 LTE PCS. Now, I'm not saying this to upset anyone, and I'm not being critical of Sprint, as I've known for many years about Sprint having focused their business heavily on PCS spectrum in the past. I also know how many long-time Sprint enthusiasts would get upset at my proposals/ideas regarding this. Again, my intention isn't to upset anyone, but merely explain how I see things with Sprint, which is a company moving forward concentrating heavily on band 41 as their priority band.

 

As such, the PCS band seemed to be neglected at one time, which was the purpose of my mentioning these ideas I had, hoping Sprint would do something. So, it seems that they now are, with getting more PCS spectrum through swapping agreements, which I definitely support them doing so. With 10x10 or more PCS, it will help a lot for when/where band 41 isn't available. Although, I think Sprint still ought to keep the focus on band 41, as it gives them the greatest potential to grow and to get rid of the bad reputation that plagues them still in the views of many people. I want Sprint to succeed with this.

 

 

Sprint doesn't want/need 600mhz that will be unusable for years to come. That's like buying a car without having a driver's licence, at the age of 13. Sure it looks pretty in the driveway, but only the pigeons will get to enjoy crapping on it, or the 13 year old sitting in the driver's seat thinking he's like daddy and knows how to vroom vroom.

 

There is also ZERO reason for Sprint to sell any of it's own PCS spectrum. Might as well put up the For Sale sign and close the doors since the customer impact would be substantial if not deadly.

 

B41 will always remain the main band for data capacity, hence the millions upon millions of dollars in investment for the NGN project. Those B41 small cells will be huge in filling gaps in coverage, enhancing the experience for every user.

 

The reason why anyone who's a long time Sprint enthusiast, nay, even anyone who knows the smallest bit on network deployment, gets up with your ideas is that they are so pie in the sky that it can't even be considered wishful thinking. I'm an IT engineer by trade, so I think in terms of reality, and even my wishful thinking is grounded in actual facts and experience. This may seem like a personal attack, but it isn't. You just have to understand that everyone is also entitled to their own opinion, and that they can comment on other's opinions with opinions of their own. 

[Arysyn]

Yes but what you are failing to understand is that it is physically impossible to trade spectrum in larger chunks based on how the band plans were defined and carriers deployed their networks. It's by sheer luck that Sprint and AT&T were able to trade to the extent that they did.

 

What you're also not considering is how PCS G-Block, which is Sprint's core PCS LTE deployment band, came into existence. PCS G is only adjacent to PCS C, which in itself is broken up into sub blocks 1-5. See pictures below:

 

 

See how complex PCS is? Not easy to expand into wider LTE channels. Also something to consider is that T-Mobile started their LTE deployment on their AWS network, essentially greenfield after pruning HSPA+ to create wider channels. 

 

It's a lot easier to deploy on greenfield than it is refarm and retune, something that Sprint is doing full speed in NYC with the freed WiMAX spectrum. We are seeing B41 2nd carriers daily on sites that just last week were overloaded. 

 

As for Chicago LTE deployment, I think you're the only person who would see 3-5mbps on their phone and see it's not enough. Sprint already has started deploying wider B25 LTE channels there, to go along with the B26 and two B41 carriers they already have on-air. 

 

 

 

Sprint doesn't want/need 600mhz that will be unusable for years to come. That's like buying a car without having a driver's licence, at the age of 13. Sure it looks pretty in the driveway, but only the pigeons will get to enjoy crapping on it, or the 13 year old sitting in the driver's seat thinking he's like daddy and knows how to vroom vroom.

 

There is also ZERO reason for Sprint to sell any of it's own PCS spectrum. Might as well put up the For Sale sign and close the doors since the customer impact would be substantial if not deadly.

 

B41 will always remain the main band for data capacity, hence the millions upon millions of dollars in investment for the NGN project. Those B41 small cells will be huge in filling gaps in coverage, enhancing the experience for every user.

 

The reason why anyone who's a long time Sprint enthusiast, nay, even anyone who knows the smallest bit on network deployment, gets up with your ideas is that they are so pie in the sky that it can't even be considered wishful thinking. I'm an IT engineer by trade, so I think in terms of reality, and even my wishful thinking is grounded in actual facts and experience. This may seem like a personal attack, but it isn't. You just have to understand that everyone is also entitled to their own opinion, and that they can comment on other's opinions with opinions of their own. 

 

Looking at the FCC's PCS layout, goes to remind me of how much I dislike how FCC manages the airwaves. Based on how things are, it does seem to be a very difficult situation for Sprint, as well for the other carriers who have PCS spectrum holdings. My hope is that somewhere in the near future, carriers will realize they need to do something about this and get to the FCC about it, along with other holders of spectrum, and come up with a reasonable solution to this.

 

I certainly have my ideas, and I admit some of the may seem far fetched. I tend to think how things could be better beyond the scope of how things could realistically be done, considering how the ways and means of society change so slowly, technically, socially, politically, etc. However, my intentions seriously are for the best of things, something I'm unfortunately unable to personally get involved with actively, due to my health. I'm pretty much limited to saying things that I think online.

 

Regarding my experiences on Sprint with PCS, was before the upgrades to 10x10 on PCS here in Chicago, so I'd imagine it is much better now. I don't hate the PCS band itself, or Sprint having it, and I surely understand its history with Sprint. Just that I'd like for Sprint, as well for all carriers to be able to have the widest available spectrum possible. I'm a major supporter of technology and hate to see it limited in any way. No offense taken on the opinions either. I hope I've made it a bit more clear though from my position. In so many things, I really do wish I could do more than just speak my opinions online. I probably would be doing less of it here, if I had a real-life part in the industry.

[bigsnake49]

Yes but what you are failing to understand is that it is physically impossible to trade spectrum in larger chunks based on how the band plans were defined and carriers deployed their networks. It's by sheer luck that Sprint and AT&T were able to trade to the extent that they did.

 

What you're also not considering is how PCS G-Block, which is Sprint's core PCS LTE deployment band, came into existence. PCS G is only adjacent to PCS C, which in itself is broken up into sub blocks 1-5. See pictures below:

 

 

See how complex PCS is? Not easy to expand into wider LTE channels. Also something to consider is that T-Mobile started their LTE deployment on their AWS network, essentially greenfield after pruning HSPA+ to create wider channels. 

 

It's a lot easier to deploy on greenfield than it is refarm and retune, something that Sprint is doing full speed in NYC with the freed WiMAX spectrum. We are seeing B41 2nd carriers daily on sites that just last week were overloaded. 

 

As for Chicago LTE deployment, I think you're the only person who would see 3-5mbps on their phone and see it's not enough. Sprint already has started deploying wider B25 LTE channels there, to go along with the B26 and two B41 carriers they already have on-air. 

 

 

 

Sprint doesn't want/need 600mhz that will be unusable for years to come. That's like buying a car without having a driver's licence, at the age of 13. Sure it looks pretty in the driveway, but only the pigeons will get to enjoy crapping on it, or the 13 year old sitting in the driver's seat thinking he's like daddy and knows how to vroom vroom.

 

There is also ZERO reason for Sprint to sell any of it's own PCS spectrum. Might as well put up the For Sale sign and close the doors since the customer impact would be substantial if not deadly.

 

B41 will always remain the main band for data capacity, hence the millions upon millions of dollars in investment for the NGN project. Those B41 small cells will be huge in filling gaps in coverage, enhancing the experience for every user.

 

The reason why anyone who's a long time Sprint enthusiast, nay, even anyone who knows the smallest bit on network deployment, gets up with your ideas is that they are so pie in the sky that it can't even be considered wishful thinking. I'm an IT engineer by trade, so I think in terms of reality, and even my wishful thinking is grounded in actual facts and experience. This may seem like a personal attack, but it isn't. You just have to understand that everyone is also entitled to their own opinion, and that they can comment on other's opinions with opinions of their own. 

 

 

Most of the PCS swaps will be with carriers that hold C5 Block spectrum which is adjacent to Block G for a 10MHzx10Mhz channel. In my area. Sprint owns the C5 block so that's a no brainer. But T-Mobile holds both the C4 and C3 blocks. Sprint holds the D block which is adjacent to T-Mobile's A block. So theoretically T-Mobile and Sprint could swap C4 and D blocks and that will give T-Mobile a contiguous 20x20 channel For LTE and then the C3 block (for HSPA) and Sprint a 15x15 channel. Now if Sprint can convince Dish to sell them the H Block and, then they could have a 20x20 block. Since Dish's 2000-2020MHz AWS-4 spectrum is now a downlink, the H block does not have to be power limited as it was before. But that would be a lot of horse trading/spectrum purchases. Yes so Sprint can do a lot of spectrum swaps for mutual benefit with other willing carriers.

[WiWavelength]

Now if Sprint can convince Dish to sell them the H Block and, then they could have a 20x20 block. Since Dish's 2000-2020MHz AWS-4 spectrum is now a downlink, the H block does not have to be power limited as it was before. But that would be a lot of horse trading/spectrum purchases.

 

Yes, that would require a lot of machinations, since the PCS/AWS-2 H block and the AWS-4 flipped downlink would necessitate one or two more 3GPP bands to be standardized.  Long story short, not gonna happen unless/until PCS A-F block spectrum is mostly additional LTE carriers.  And that is around CDMA2000 shutdown -- years from now.

 

AJ

[red_dog007]

Pff... comeone guys.  Who wants stinky icky poo poo AWS4, PCS H, or 700E when the real low hanging fruit is Legado Networks.

[bigsnake49]

Yes, that would require a lot of machinations, since the PCS/AWS-2 H block and the AWS-4 flipped downlink would necessitate one or two more 3GPP bands to be standardized.  Long story short, not gonna happen unless/until PCS A-F block spectrum is mostly additional LTE carriers.  And that is around CDMA2000 shutdown -- years from now.

 

AJ

 

PCS-H to Sprint is mostly wishful thinking on my part . But it's better than just adding it as part of the AWS-4 downlink and leaving the PCS-H uplink orphaned.

[Deval]

Most of the PCS swaps will be with carriers that hold C5 Block spectrum which is adjacent to Block G for a 10MHzx10Mhz channel. In my area. Sprint owns the C5 block so that's a no brainer. But T-Mobile holds both the C4 and C3 blocks. Sprint holds the D block which is adjacent to T-Mobile's A block. So theoretically T-Mobile and Sprint could swap C4 and D blocks and that will give T-Mobile a contiguous 20x20 channel For LTE and then the C3 block (for HSPA) and Sprint a 15x15 channel. Now if Sprint can convince Dish to sell them the H Block and, then they could have a 20x20 block. Since Dish's 2000-2020MHz AWS-4 spectrum is now a downlink, the H block does not have to be power limited as it was before. But that would be a lot of horse trading/spectrum purchases. Yes so Sprint can do a lot of spectrum swaps for mutual benefit with other willing carriers.

 

That would require T-Mobile be willing to trade as well. 

[bigsnake49]

That would require T-Mobile be willing to trade as well. 

 

Yep, you have to have two people that are willing to horse trade otherwise it's called horse stealing !

In this case is it better for T-Mobile to have a 15x15 MHz block and a 10x10 block or a 20x20 block and a 5x5 block? One of the C blocks they are leasing from Verizon, so Verizon might have a say. T-Mobile has been very active in the spectrum trading/purchase area. You have to actually talk to them, though .

Edited February 25, 2016 by bigsnake49

[Arysyn]

Yep, you have to have two people that are willing to horse trade otherwise it's called horse stealing !

In this case is it better for T-Mobile to have a 15x15 MHz block and a 10x10 block or a 20x20 block and a 5x5 block? One of the C blocks they are leasing from Verizon, so Verizon might have a say. T-Mobile has been very active in the spectrum trading/purchase area. You have to actually talk to them, though .

 

You brought up a very good question, which I'm stuck wondering about, as it pertains to the Chicago market, where I live.

 

T-Mobile has been considerably better since they increased their AWS LTE from 10x10 to 15x15. Although however bad I thought 10x10 was at times, it wasn't anywhere near as bad (in my experiences, of course) as Sprint's 5x5 PCS at the time I had Sprint. Of course Sprint now has 10x10 PCS here, which is a major improvement in my opinion, and I'm glad Sprint did this for their customers not to be subject to such a huge drop in quality from their excellent band 41 down to PCS. The transition between those bands ought to be less of an impact now than it was when I had Sprint at 5x5 PCS.

 

So, I'm completely against T-Mobile going down to a 5x5 spectrum arrangement. Yet, the idea of going from 15x15 to 20x20 is important for its own reasons. I really hate the idea of a compromise to this though. I think T-Mobile needs that minimum of 10x10, with their main band at 20x20. Going back down to 5x5, I figure they might as well just get rid of their PCS altogether and see what else they can get elsewhere. It is why I'm not much of a fan of their 700mhz purchases, as it depletes funds they could be using for the 600mhz, where I believe they really ought to attempt to get at least 10x10 of. For low-band, that is just enough. 5x5 should only be used in rural areas though, there being plenty of which T-Mobile ought to have funds for too, in order to increase coverage to new rural markets especially.

[WiWavelength]

Whats sad is that you dont see how bad it make sprint look...

 

What is sad is the quality of your post.  And you needlessly quote the entirety of another, lengthy post.  Lazy.  Pick it up, people.  Get better.  Improve your discourse.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Points for the tengen31 post without quoting it:

 

1. SoftBank, Sprint's parent company, hasn't ruled out a 600 MHz bid.

2. Customers don't really bother with who bids and who doesn't in spectrum auctions, they care about their customer experience.

3. Ookla has Sprint's average speed at about 14 Mbps. Maybe that isn't as fast as they would like to be but it is certainly better than the 3-5 that got cited without a source.

 

I think there are very valid criticisms that can get leveled on coverage, but Sprint is adjusting their network topology to better fit 2600 MHz deployment. With more small cells in the field the chances of in building 2600 MHz get to be far greater.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

Or SoftBank can purchase Dish and swap their spectrum

Sprint needs more spectrum for FDD not Tmobile.

[Tengen31]

Although not nearly as much as I wanted this to happen in the past, I still think it would be a good idea for Dish to attempt to merge with T-Mobile. Although, that isn't looking so likely nowadays. Perhaps T-Mobile might purchase the spectrum when it becomes cheap enough, at least I'm hoping that would happen. I'd like for them to get more spectrum, after all.

Why Tmobile and, NOT Sprint?