WiWavelength

I am grasping at straws here - but could Sprint do that with Clearwire's ERS/BRS spectrum (e.g. 5MHz x 45MHz)?

Yes, you will see that I have long proposed just such a carrier aggregation supplemental downlink strategy for Sprint and Clearwire. But Clearwire seems to prefer TD-LTE, as it is a simpler transition from WiMAX, and Clearwire can sell TD-LTE offload capacity to other carriers but could likely sell supplemental downlink to Sprint only.

...another solution is to allot greater bandwidth to the downlink. And that is exactly what the supplemental downlink enhancement does -- it kicks in additional unpaired spectrum on the downlink on a dynamic basis. For a real world example, AT&T has supplemental downlink plans for the Qualcomm former MediaFLO unpaired Lower 700 MHz D and E block spectrum that AT&T is currently trying to get approval to purchase.

 

Now, surmise that Sprint deploys LTE 1900 in a 5 MHz x 5 MHz configuration in its PCS "G" block spectrum, as I stated in a previous post. For typically light data activities, the standard 5 MHz downlink would be more than adequate. But for intensive data activities, imagine that the network can aggregate that standard 5 MHz downlink with a 20 MHz supplemental downlink from the large pool of BRS/EBS 2500-2600 MHz spectrum. Sprint LTE would be, by far, the fastest 4G network in the nation.

 

An added benefit of using 2500-2600 MHz spectrum as supplemental downlink is that it would ameliorate some of the propagation concerns in that band. Path loss is a far greater issue on the uplink because mobiles are exceedingly power limited. Base stations, on the other hand, can transmit at power levels of hundreds of watts. Supplemental downlink would keep the uplink in the PCS 1900 MHz band for stronger propagation, would lighten the load on the 1900 MHz downlink for better balancing, and would put the heavy lifting on the 2500-2600 MHz supplemental downlink(s).

AJ

They said they would deploy lte in the vast majority of the top 50, but I do not remember them saying how many or how much spectrum, and they only mentioned that they would deploy 20mhz in 75% of the top 25 markets.

In my opinion, T-Mobile is a bit too optimistic. The PCS 1900 MHz from GSM to W-CDMA will not come easily nor quickly, especially in 20 MHz PCS markets, such as New York, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. And T-Mobile still has numerous top 50 markets where it has no spectrum in which to deploy LTE. In short, T-Mobile still needs many years and more spectrum -- particularly AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum, as the T-Mobile-Leap transaction is just a band aid -- to pull this off.

See my established work on T-Mobile top 100 market spectrum holdings:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArY31Mr219-ydG15eGR2aTR3ZDJ4ZW5GSGhza0FUQnc

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArY31Mr219-ydDQwQjNrR0R5eGlYV1FRQzhMd1gzMmc

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArY31Mr219-ydE92UVdnR3JGTlpPZWtYdk9pcGFYb1E

AJ

It looked to me like they might try to do 700mhz uplink then 850 downlink as a carrier?

Their Cellular spectrum is already paired - wouldn't really make sense to do that?

The Lower 700 MHz D/E block 6 MHz unpaired licenses cannot be used for uplink, only downlink. And Cellular 850 MHz spectrum is inherently paired -- it already has both uplink and downlink that cannot be changed. So, carrier aggregation supplemental downlink could, for example, bond Lower 700 MHz unpaired spectrum to Cellular 850 MHz downlink spectrum to form an asymmetric uplink x downlink pair (e.g. 12.5 MHz x 18.5 MHz).

AJ

I just assumed that ment TD-LTE + FD-LTE via LTE-Advanced. From the sounds of it, they are doing the exact same thing Sprint is doing. The difference is, Sprint has clearwire with 150MHz+ of spectrum in the largest markets, AT&T has 6MHz nationwide and a handful of markets with 12MHz (D+E) to run TD-LTE.

 

I dunno, maybe I don't know AT&T's plan... but not sure what else they could do besides TD-LTE with mediaflo spectrum.

No, LTE Advanced carrier aggregation supplemental downlink should not be confused with TD-LTE; it is still entirely LTE FDD.

AJ

I hate bugs and love animals. Bugs are gross.

 

I'm not an animal racist.

Try this parallel, Josh...

"I hate Eskimos and love people. Eskimos are gross.

I'm not a racist."

Really?

AJ

This is inaccurate. I wish Apple would correct it. The iPhone 4 and 4S do not support 800 SMR, irregardless of what they keep saying. They only support 850 Cellular band, and they incorrectly label it as 800.

It is not so much inaccurate as it is ambiguous. For many years, Cellular 800 MHz, CDMA 800, TDMA 800, etc., were all accepted nomenclature. But the ascendance of iDEN 800 and the creation of the GSM 850 standard about a decade ago led to a clarification in terminology from Cellular 800 MHz to Cellular 850 MHz. That said, many do still reference Cellular 800 MHz in some way, shape, or form. While that is not entirely wrong, as there is established precedent to deem it 800 MHz, it certainly does lack absolute clarity.

AJ

SO 33 is 1xRTT-- your phone must not support RC11/RC8 (1xAdvanced). At least it should work fine. I'm a little disappointed with the -84 dBm signal... you're either a good 2 miles from that tower or there's alot of downtilt (as I would expect in a dense urban environment).

I would not worry about that -84 dBm RSSI. But look at that -3.0 dB Ec/Io. That is stellar -- no doubt, a completely unloaded carrier. Even with a strong signal, typical Ec/Io in a moderately loaded cell is roughly -7 dB.

AJ

None in NM. Yay!

Hey, alright, you get to keep all two of your Best Buy stores.

AJ

wouldnt it be better if sprint could have phones that could talk and surf at the same time that would be a phone i would buy like the iphone on at&t

Let me reenact someone talking on the phone and surfing at the same time: ". . . . . . . . . . . uh huh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uh huh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uh huh . . . . . . . . . . uh yeah, I'm listening."

AJ

What ants? I slaughtered them all.

Poor birds

Are you an animal racist, Josh?

AJ

I have always wanted to try Cinnabon.

Your ants would love a Cinnabon.

AJ

Phil Goldstein at Fierce Wireless is a little bit behind the times:

"Presumably, this cell site will receive the hardware and software cards necessary for LTE, since Kansas City has been named as one of Sprint's first LTE markets."

http://www.fiercewireless.com/slideshow/touring-sprint-network-vision-cell-site?img=2

AJ

This is the same exact site (KC60XC009) at Black Bob Park in Olathe, KS that AJ visited when he filed this article for S4GRU!

I am shocked that Sprint did not show off Network Vision in Olathe by taking reporters to see the completed site "down by the tracks."

AJ

And the use of modem and radio are kept separate on another forum I'm accustomed to, where the actual radio chips are discussed separately, but that's just my mileage varying.

In our forum, the problem with discussing modems and radio transceivers separately (if applicable) is that many of our lay readers already have a difficult time understanding that chipsets, power amps, and antennas must all work in concert for devices to contain certain RF capabilities. So, we try to find a balance between technical correctness and reasonable comprehension.

AJ

Is she from Chattanooga?

Also, I would not rule out the possibility that "she" might actually be Gary Busey.

AJ

I had someone PM me today and tell me they follow every post I make around the forums to see what I say.

Is she from Chattanooga?

AJ

I believe that it's a common myth that Qualcomm SoCs contain radios. When considering the RF that must be managed to deal with bus crosstalk within the SoC (system on (a) chip), adding raw antenna inputs and managing to that would drive costs through the roof.

No, actually, it is not a myth. Qualcomm QSC family chipsets include both modem and radio transceiver on the same chipset, while other Qualcomm chipsets interface with a separate radio transceiver (e.g. WTR1605). That said, "radio" is often colloquially used synonymously with "modem," as separate radio transceivers do not get a lot of discussion.

AJ

I can't believe I paid almost $300 for a phone that would be almost totally worthless in 2 years. Oh well.

Par for the course, Josh. You just described practically every cellphone manufactured in the last 10 years.

AJ

Does anyone know if the Evo Shift is SMR 1x capable?

Negative. The EVO Shift is approved for CDMA1X 850/1900 + WiMAX 2600.

AJ

fubka, the "CDMA 800" capability in that 10 year old Samsung is what we now refer to as CDMA 850. In other words, it is the Cellular band, not the SMR band.

AJ

I would also add that I noted in a recent FCC filing that LTE band class 26 (superset of 800/850 MHz band classes 5, 6, 18, 19) has been ratified as of March 1. Sprint's initial batch of LTE handsets, though, were already locked in by that point.

AJ

I also might guess that sprint might be waiting for LTE-Advanced capable handsets before supporting 800MHz (maybe Robert knows?)

This is the most compelling hypothesis about LTE 800 device support (or lack thereof). And, to corroborate the hypothesis, the Sprint Network Vision roadmap has LTE 800 and LTE Advanced carrier aggregation coming online at approximately the same time. Coincidence or not?

AJ

I wonder what the cost difference is for mounting the RRU up on the tower is vs. on the ground.

If it is on the ground, then it is no longer an RRU.

AJ

Until the FCC approves LTE in ESMR (if it ever does)...

You do everyone a disservice with your insistent pessimism about broadband operation within ESMR of the SMR 800 MHz band. On the contrary, the wheels are already in motion for FCC approval. Please see the article that we published a month ago, the FCC proposed rulemaking, and the two relevant FCC dockets:

http://s4gru.com/ind...band-operation/

http://transition.fc...FCC-12-25A1.pdf

http://apps.fcc.gov/...iew?name=11-110

http://apps.fcc.gov/...oro7&name=12-64

Take this to the bank: the FCC will approve ESMR broadband operation (which inherently includes LTE), and it will happen this year.

AJ

I wonder if Clearwire ever intends to max out their spectrum holdings for LTE-Advanced. They have ~140MHz per market, maybe do a full blown 20+20+20+20+20 config(since LTE-A Rev.10 only supports up to 100MHz).

Most/all LTE Advanced UEs will be carrier aggregation limited to two or three carriers. So, 40 MHz, maybe 60 MHz is likely to be the largest practical downlink.

AJ