WiWavelength

Coverage is Coverage.LTE or otherwise.

No, you are way off. Nothing in this announcement nor deployment affects WiMAX coverage. Feel free to ask questions, but please refrain from making woefully inaccurate assertions.

AJ

Used a friend's GS3 last night on ATT and downloaded speedtest app on his device. Pulled down an astonishing (at least, to me) 54 mbps down. And this was in a very tightly packed Piedmont Park in Atlanta where many simultaneous connections were occuring on the same tower. Very impressive.

You inflate the impression. When you ran the speed test, not that "many simultaneous connections" were active, as AT&T 10 MHz FDD LTE with 2x2 MIMO is capable of ~75 Mbps, tops.

AJ

No fighting. Joplin is a part of the Missouri market deployment.

I think I understand the consternation. Joplin people are Royals and Chiefs fans. They do not want to be lumped in with those Cardinals and Rams fans, no matter their teams' *short lived* successes.

AJ

Joplin is extreme SW of Missouri, I can't see how that is related to St Louis any more than Kansas City was.

Joplin is part of Sprint's Kansas City MTA PCS A block license and uses Sprint's Kansas City SID 04139. But not all market definitions match up. And Joplin, like Springfield, was an affiliate market -- first Roberts Wireless, then Alamosa PCS.

AJ

Nothing a spectrum swap can't solve, AJ. T-Mobile USA has a proven record of swapping spectrum to better their efficiency. I'm sure they'll look at way to deal with any discrepancies you or anyone else may raise. They can trade excess spectrum in any of those markets for spectrum in NYC. Boom, done.

I would not count on that, Ryan. I know that we are focusing solely on NYC to the exclusion of other affected markets, but NYC really is a poster child. And the way that the spectrum holdings lay out in NYC, I am not at all confident that a voluntary spectrum swap could be worked out.

To explain, T-Mobile in NYC holds 20 MHz of contiguous PCS spectrum, split between the PCS A and D blocks. The only two carriers that could offer T-Mobile an additional 10 MHz contiguous to its current 20 MHz are AT&T (PCS A block) and Sprint (PCS B block). As I listed in my response to Milan, though, both AT&T and Sprint have 30 MHz of PCS A-F block spectrum in NYC, and neither would be likely to reduce its holdings to only 20 MHz.

So, as before, that would leave only VZW as a potential spectrum swap partner and would raise a few issues, namely that the rich kid, VZW, would get even richer in another market, such as Atlanta, where it holds only 10 MHz of PCS spectrum but 25 MHz of Cellular 850 MHz, 22 MHz of Upper 700 MHz, 12 MHz of Lower 700 MHz, and 40 MHz of AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum.

Also, I don't know about the validity of shutting down AWS DC-HSPA until you have a while to replace those phones that only support DC-HSPA on AWS with LTE handsets. That's going to take a while.

Yes, that would be a problem if the problem were to actually exist. It does not. Even though T-Mobile started offering DC-HSPA+ devices before it publicly announced plans to refarm PCS spectrum for W-CDMA, all of its DC-HSPA+ devices are already dual band AWS/PCS.

AJ

I like the proposal, but lets not forget about PCS constrained T-Mobile markets with the huge amount of POPs like NYC. I'm pretty sure T-Mobile would much rather agree to swap than sell, unless its forced to.

I can appreciate that T-Mobile *feels* PCS 1900 MHz spectrum constrained in some markets. But I can offer a fairly persuasive counterargument.

First, in NYC, the big four carriers control all 120 MHz of the traditional PCS A-F block band. Here is the PCS spectrum holdings hierarchy:

VZW: 40 MHz

AT&T: 30 MHz

Sprint: 30 MHz

T-Mobile: 20 MHz

Sprint has no spare PCS spectrum to swap T-Mobile in NYC. If Sprint did, then Sprint would be the one left with 20 MHz. Most likely, T-Mobile would have to look to VZW.

However, the PCS spectrum holdings look reasonably proportional as they stand now. By significant margin, T-Mobile is the little guy among the big four. It should not require as much as spectrum as the larger carriers do. So, the 40:30:30:20 split right now is not out of line.

Furthermore, keep in mind that T-Mobile (via NewCo) would control 50 MHz of AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum in NYC. That is over half the AWS-1 band. So, T-Mobile would not be spectrum shy overall in NYC.

That T-Mobile might desire but lack specifically more PCS spectrum is, in many ways, a problem of its own doing. To go into detail about those many ways is beyond the scope of this short response, but a brief listing of those reasons would include sticking with the Eurasian centric 3GPP ecosystem, transferring PCS spectrum in NYC to Cingular to break up their GSM joint venture, and realigning its network in a desperate attempt to attract unsubsidized iPhones.

Lastly, the most compelling point of my counterargument is this parallel. If one person is hungry, overfeeding another person does not counteract the first person's hunger. T-Mobile may wish for more than 20 MHz of PCS spectrum in NYC, etc. But amassing 60 MHz of PCS spectrum in Atlanta, 50 MHz in Miami, 50 MHz in San Francisco, etc., does not help T-Mobile in NYC. Instead, T-Mobile (via NewCo), still the little guy, just ends up with an excess of PCS spectrum in those markets. And that does not benefit anyone.

AJ

Funny that not as many people complained with the Verizon SpectrumCo AWS.

The wireless element of the VZW-SpectrumCo-Cox deal was less controversial because, unlike the AT&T-T-Mobile merger, it did not remove an actual competitor from the market. The wired side of the deal that basically formed a cabal between VZ and Big Cable got plenty of opposition, rightly so.

AJ

If it is using the Exynos processor, instead of the Qualcomm S4. I don't think the Exynos supports SVDO on CDMA.

Samsung's Exynos is just a processor, not a full SoC with modem. So, it has nothing to do with SVDO.

AJ

If the goal was to make this a world phone, I'm curious as to why they didn't go with quad band GSM/GPRS/EDGE and at least tri-band W-CDMA. Very odd specs on this phone.

See both GoWireless' and my comments above. The Note 2 is very likely quad band GSM 850/900/1800/1900 and at least dual band W-CDMA 1900/2100+1900, but the FCC OET docs are not required to reflect those other transmit modes because they are not licensed in the US. This is not unique -- it is very typical of many other FCC OET authorization filings.

AJ

I'm going to assume that this handset also supports GSM900/1800 and UMTS2100...

This is a good point. The FCC OET authorization filing is required to disclose only those transmit modes that are licensed here in the US.

For a Sprint handset, W-CDMA 1900 capability is mostly useless. It might work for roaming on those turncoats Bell and Telus in Canada, but domestic roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile certainly will be blocked.

However, the inclusion of W-CDMA 1900 (band 2) is probably indicative of the inclusion as well of W-CDMA 2100+1900 (band 1), the most commonly deployed W-CDMA band outside of North America. I would not be shocked if W-CDMA 900 (band 8) were also on board.

As for the W-CDMA/SVDO tradeoff, that is certainly debatable. Quite likely, greater than 95 percent of the Sprint users who carry the Note 2 will never leave the country during that time. International roaming capability is largely a red herring that preys on what idealistic people think that they might do but rarely ever do.

AJ

Also, there's no need for soft handover with the network infrastructure of LTE. Not that much of a loss by this point.http://parklands-wir...r-exist-in.html

 

Now if you deploy like Sprint and have a RRU, I would think that coverage on VoLTE would equal CDMA 2000 on the same spectrum without a RRU.

I am not a degreed engineer, but I disagree with Parklands' "Engrish" explanation. Propagation/penetration is not the issue as much as is the very nature of the airlink.

CDMA1X is a great airlink for transmitting a small data rate spread across a much wider bandwidth. That makes it ideal for voice, which is always a small data rate. Furthermore, that spreading ratio allows CDMA1X to operate to very low signal levels. And that, along with soft handoff, helps greatly in rural areas with low site density.

On the other hand, much empirical evidence, thus far, has shown that LTE is an airlink best suited for providing high data rates with high site density and strong resistance to multipath. In other words, it is a great urban area airlink.

And be assured, providing service to urban areas is what is driving the transition to LTE. Rural areas are peripheral. If they experience some collateral damage, so be it. At least, that seems to be the LTE attitude.

AJ

Why not just have a three way merger, and commit to GSM/LTE as the long term winner in Sprint's technology path?

GSM certainly is not the winner. It is just living out the last of its days in the old folks home.

But, yeah, LTE is the long term winner for data. For voice? In the long term, yes, probably. In the medium term, that remains to be seen.

Because the W-CDMA operators bought into a Eurasian-centric standard that requires an ungainly amount of spectrum per carrier, they have greater incentive to move to VoLTE. They cannot really justify operating a fully 10 MHz W-CDMA carrier or two just for voice alongside LTE.

But the CDMA2000 carriers have options, since a 2.5 MHz CDMA1X carrier requires a quarter of the spectrum of a W-CDMA carrier. And for those like you, Ryan, who live in more rural areas, you should hope that CDMA1X sticks around for a good long while. VoLTE may be a boon to operators but will likely be a step down for rural subs, who may come to miss the gold standard consistency and reliability (soft handoff for the win) of CDMA1X voice.

AJ

It omits the G block. Sprint has PCS G and SMR in addition to PCS A-F and T-Mobile has AWS. Guess which has more spectrum?

In most markets, T-Mobile has more spectrum, especially following its AWS transactions this year with AT&T, Leap, VZW-SpectrumCo-Cox, and C Spire. MetroPCS, in my opinion, would push T-Mobile over the top to AT&T like excess, particularly in PCS, in many of the affected markets. The only way that Sprint has greater access to spectrum would be to count Clearwire and its holdings under the Sprint umbrella.

AJ

AJ does this article include the PCS G block.

No, I tried to be clear in the article and spreadsheet that they reflect only PCS A-F block spectrum holdings. I specifically excluded the PCS G block for several reasons. It is compensatory spectrum that Sprint received for its SMR 800 MHz spectrum given up in public safety rebanding. It is effectively proprietary to Sprint and requires a separate band/band class, so it is of lesser value to other carriers. And it contains no 2G/3G operations, while this discussion is largely about how much PCS A-F block spectrum is needed to manage a transition from CDMA1X/EV-DO or GSM/W-CDMA to LTE.

AJ

Wouldn't the accumulated 1900 MHz PCS spectrum be a huge win for Sprint since that's what they're deploying their LTE on?

Some of MetroPCS's PCS 1900 MHz spectrum would be a "huge win for Sprint. But I would not want Sprint to acquire all of it because then Sprint would have, for example, 50 MHz of PCS A-F block spectrum in Atlanta and Miami. And as I chide NewCo a little bit in this article, the shoe would then be on the other foot. Sprint would have far more PCS spectrum than it honestly needs.

AJ

One interesting thing to note (as I mentioned in another thread) is the potential for Sprint to extract some additional roaming revenue from Verizon iPhone users thanks to the inclusion of the SMR band (assuming Big Red doesn't disable it on its iPhones). That could be an interesting turn of the tables as far as these two carriers are concerned, especially in rural areas.

Obstacles to roaming tend to be as much or more political as they are technical. VZW wants to rid its PRLs of as many Sprint SIDs as possible and has done so for years now. I will eat my shorts if VZW adds Sprint SMR 800 SIDs and ACQ indices to its PRLs. That would be a huge reversal of direction.

AJ

i equate this with sprint getting rid of the customers that called customer service too much a few years back.

Correct. The customer is NOT always right. Some customers just are not worth the trouble. Let them go be another carrier's problem.

AJ

...and I see today that the charge for 4G has decreased to $8 a month, instead of $10.....smells sketchy to me.

Geez, not this again. You are misinformed or undereducated. Sprint does not assess a "4G" charge. It is a "premium data" charge for unlimited smartphone data usage. Whether the data usage is EV-DO or WiMAX is irrelevant.

AJ

When will Seattle, WA have the 4G LTE coverage?! The only metro in the NW should have LTE sooner!

Now, now, calm down, Veruca...

Any S4GRU member who complains like a diva about Network Vision and/or LTE availability needs to be met each time with this video clip.

 

"I want it NOW!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ju56c5qX5w

AJ

GoWireless, this is not an FCC issue. The FCC creates different spectrum band plans with different purposes, rules, etc., but the FCC does not create different bands/band classes. Engineering bodies (e.g. 3GPP and 3GPP2) are responsible for those distinctions. And 3GPP is working to consolidate some LTE bands into superset bands. For example, when Sprint deploys LTE 800, it will be band 26, which is a roll up of bands 5, 6, 18, and 19.

AJ

I work a stones throw from woodfield mall in Schaumburg and my 3g speeds are always horrible (network congestion, sub 300 kb). I've been toggling airplane mode today, however I always get channel 325 for EVDO. Could it be that such a congested tower would only have one carrier? 1x is on 350. Is anyone familar with what channels Sprint is able to deploy in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago (Schamburg, Elgin)?

Sprint has two PCS A-F block licenses in Chicago: PCS D block 10 MHz and PCS E block 10 MHz. That allows Sprint six potential CDMA2000 carrier channel assignments: PCS 0325, 0350, 0375, 0725, 0750, and 0775.

Whenever I visit a different market, I try to track typical CDMA1X and EV-DO deployed carriers, and I was in Chicago about eight months ago. The carrier channel assignments that I noted around the city were as follows:

CDMA1X: 0350, 0375, 0775

EV-DO: 0325, 0725

The only available carrier channel assignment that I did not encounter while I was in Chicago was PCS 0750, so I cannot say whether it is typically deployed as CDMA1X or EV-DO.

Regardless, Sprint is somewhat limited in the number of carrier channels -- especially EV-DO carrier channels -- that it can deploy in Chicago. A good rule of thumb seems to be that a site in Chicago will have no greater than three EV-DO carrier channels, and many will have only one or two.

Now, in the case of the Woodfield Mall area in Schaumburg, Sprint has no fewer than four sites surrounding the mall. Chances are, jman, that your EV-DO serving site -- likely, your closest site -- has only one EV-DO carrier channel deployed.

AJ

For surveying LTE/PCS signals do you find that you need one of the external amps for the Spectran? Thanks!

Are you referring to the optional preamp? I do not have it and, for my purposes, do not feel that I need it. I typically sweep individual sites/sectors, so I set up within a quarter of a mile of each site. At that distance, signal levels are well above the stated -135 dBm/Hz floor of my Spectran unit. Plus, I am not particularly concerned with amplitude accuracy. I primarily want to examine spectrum utilization. Thus, if I can see occupied bandwidth, that fulfills my purposes.

Let me know if you have any other questions...

AJ

With Sprint planning to implement DO Advanced, will this in theory keep a a user on the best available tower/carrier?

Yes and no. CDMA2000 base stations already have the ability to redirect a mobile from one CDMA1X carrier channel to another (or, seemingly more rarely, one EV-DO carrier channel to another).

To illustrate, your handset may hash to PCS 0025, so it idles on that CDMA1X carrier channel. Your handset cannot choose to move to another CDMA1X carrier channel simply because PCS 0025 is heavily loaded. However, when a base station sets up a traffic channel for your handset, the base station can determine to set up the traffic channel on PCS 0050 and redirect your handset to that carrier because PCS 0025 is already heavily loaded.

This is a CDMA2000 network management capability that is rather old. In fact, it predates CDMA2000 and goes back to cdmaOne. But its implementation may certainly be vendor and/or network dependent.

Now, you might wonder why mobiles do not simply search for the best carrier channel on their own. This is for several reasons. Mobiles already have their hands full continually searching for the best cell site sector. Adding carrier channel search would slow the process and degrade battery life.

Furthermore, both the BTS and MSC expect the mobile to hash to a specific carrier channel, so all paging and traffic are directed to the mobile on only that channel. If the mobile were constantly, unpredictably switching carrier channels, the network overhead required to keep track of the mobile would increase significantly.

Lastly, consider the tragedy of the commons. If every mobile of its own volition were actively to seek out the best carrier channel, then numerous mobiles would quickly converge on that best channel, likely rendering it no longer the best channel, as loading had just greatly increased. So, mobiles would then swarm like locust to the carrier channel that had become the new best carrier channel. And the process would oscillate out of control. Instead, the hashing algorithm averages out mobiles across available carrier channels and prevents this problem.

AJ

I always thought the Site told the phone which channel to use on the evdo side as I have tried removing some channel scans from the evdo side of the prl. I understand why our channel 100 sucks all the time in the places where the towers have 2 carriers..The nearby sites don't have 100 so the phone is hanging on to the channel at the very low signal.

So, in the New Orleans market (or, at least, in Baton Rouge), EV-DO F2 is PCS 0100, correct? What is EV-DO F1? PCS 0075?

Regardless, removing or negating an EV-DO carrier channel assignment in the PRL should not have much, if any effect. As long as you keep the local EV-DO F1 carrier channel assignment in the PRL, then your handset will locate EV-DO. Once it does, it will still see the multiple EV-DO carrier channels in the channel list message, so will still invoke the hashing algorithm. As such, you still have about a 50/50 chance of ending up on EV-DO F2.

Basically, the PRL controls only system acquisition. But once a native system is acquired, the PRL is set aside and the hashing algorithm determines the carrier channel on which the mobile will idle.

AJ

Hey, if someone else is your dealer, you can probably get hashish. But if S4GRU is your addiction, we can definitely supply you with the lowdown on the hash.

AJ