supert0nes

How about starting with all of Sprint's bands and going from there?

1. Yes

2. 3g/4g

3. Most likely.

I believe it's still in all likelihood a NV upgrade / back-haul issue. This should be resolved when the back-haul is hooked up and more Network Vision towers are upgraded. They have enough towers in that area, and that is right at the edge of where Network Vision upgrades are happening.

I was really encouraged to know that as a second round market, they should start mobilizing Minnesota in the next couple months! This is ahead of a ton of other markets in the country.

Minnesota will also be continuing to get band aide fixes in the mean time. Also I feel coverage there is better than most other places in the country for Sprint.

The limiting factor will probably be distance from the tower, not congestion. I don't really see a need for caps with their new back-haul and existing tower density.

Just because this is out on the interwebz and should fuel some discussion. RDF Document found for Sprint Note II

Samsung SPH-L900 (New Unannounced Samsung Device - CONFIRMED as Galaxy Note 2!) http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=1872352

Great info. Thanks for going through this history. It clears up a lot of details regarding how they got PCS in MN and their current situation in Chicago.

My opinion is that this is just how Samsung wanted to deploy their first market from the start. Sprint has given free reign to the contractors to complete markets as quickly as possible.

Absolutely. I think that you can rest easy that USCC will buy VZW's Lower 700 MHz A block 12 MHz license. One, while DTV channel 51 is still active in the Chicago market, the adjacent channel interference issue has not scared off USCC in other markets. Two, AT&T wants to have nothing to do with the A block -- even if it is only to save face because of the (A block excluded) "boutique" band 12 that it created.

 

The biggest obstacle is that VZW already has a pending transaction with Leap Wireless (Cricket) for the A block in Chicago. But I am not sure that Cricket really wants to get into yet another band/band class. If USCC does not get the A block, then USCC will likely go head to head with AT&T over the B block, which VZW also holds in Chicago.

 

 

 

No problem. We can put you on a monthly payment plan. Or I could just be kidding, alluding to those professional wireless analysts who publish white papers at several grand a pop. It is a lucrative business. If S4GRU sticks around a while, maybe we can get into it.

 

AJ

Is that the license LEAP just got? http://www.phonescoo...cle.php?a=11042

Edit: Leap press release: http://leapwireless.mediaroom.com/2012-08-28-Leap-Announces-Closing-of-Spectrum-Transactions-with-Verizon-Wireless

There's a lot to how much bandwidth is needed. Sprint is deploying on 1900mhz frequency with 1900mhz tower spacing, which doesn't travel as far as Verizons 700 frequency on 850 frequency tower spacing. There will be more customers on Verizon's network because of this and the fact that Verizon is the largest national carrier.

As you know Sprint will be deploying LTE in 800 and 2600, but they don't currently have any phones that use either of those spectrums, so those networks will be less congested for a time, especially if the next Iphone doesn't include them.

Verizon is in the same situation with their AWS 1700/2100, no phones and we don't know if the Iphone will support it.

My last point is that AJ has done plenty of analysis and in most markets Sprint will be able to add another 5x5 1900 LTE carrier if needed. So both networks should be able to grow with demand quite nicely in the short to medium term.

Sprint just needs to keep deploying as many towers as fast as they can. Eventually the negative reviews will turn around. It also seems like they need to get back to under promising and over delivering.

I would argue that Sprint doesn't have any work to do outside of what was planned in the first place. Upgrade all the towers with Network Vision and then assess and adjust for the poor coverage areas.

1900 LTE 5x5 requires many more towers to be deployed before there will be 'great' coverage.

Don't worry about Chicago, at 22 sites in 2 weeks there isn't much to talk about. Maybe they are formulating a huge plan for the city still.

I live in the Bay Area and their HSPA+ coverage seems only slightly better than Sprint's Wimax, and ditto for building penetration. Is that thanks to the 2100mhz part of AWS, or just bad network management?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

Both, 1900 and 1700/2100 is not a good combination long term for spectrum. They have a lot of towers to maintain and upgrade and you don't get the benefits of 2.5 fat pipes or distance of 700/800/850. This is where T-Mobile is really hurting, they really need low end spectrum, but cant afford to buy anything. If they had the money, first thing they would need to do is a nationwide Network Vision type project.

Their spectrum situation will leave them paying At&t a lot of money for many years to come for roaming, whereas Sprint will be able to reduce a lot of their roaming payments to Verizon with Network Vision and SMR Spectrum.

This sounds expensive to fix. Is Oakland just the first of many markets to report this? AT&T is not having a good year.

You are the only person outside of my parents that I've ever heard call something cool 'trick'. I'm guessing it comes from the ZZ Top / hot rod days. It's a phrase that actually sounds pretty cool and I wish more people would say.

Haha I'm just tossing in a little extra cash since I've been a member for a while and I read these forums/maps close to daily. I would have donated before the Minneapolis / Madison information started coming as well. It just seemed like a fun time to bump up my contribution. Thanks for the info though!

Hey this site provides straight gold for information and a little entertainment here and there! Keep up the good work!

Thanks for explaining the full situation. It's always more complex than I like to think it is. I was hoping to see them out of the AWS game and proffit from it, but, unfortunately, it's their only option for LTE in those markets. Thanks also for the link to the Barat Wireless news.

I was looking at the USCC Galaxy S3 FCC filing and it doesn't look like antennas need to be spread all over the phone for the added frequencies. Maybe this will keep costs down and they can continue to host such a heterogeneus network. Maybe the support of 1700 will even allow them to do some sort of LTE roaming partnerships.

I think the one thing I did get right, is that they have to get the Chicago 700 A block, and they also hold spectrum in so many places they don't serve yet, that maybe it would be beneficial to use as trade bait.

That price of information might have two more 0's than I can afford though.

LTE is widely perceived to save network operators costs because it gives greater coverage than older technologies, cutting down on the number of cell sites, towers, antennas and base stations with routers and other gear needed as usage increases. In addition to offering greater in-building coverage

Seems like an inaccuracy in the article. More efficient use of spectrum, yes, more coverage, no. Seems like they are confusing coverage and capacity, which seems to happen a lot.

Verizon might need to hand over another market or two, or cash to make this fair, but I'm calling this as a real possibility.

Maybe US Cellular can trade their (IMO useless to them) AWS-1 E block spectrum in the south for Verizon 700 A block in Chicago. The Government probably wont like Verizon gaining more spectrum, but it's in the best interest of both parties.

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=10986 -Verizon Says Scores Of Companies Want Its Spectrum

My main takeaway point, US Cellular needs that 700 A block spectrum around Chicago. It is vital to their LTE plans, and longevity.

Build-out timelines gave us Wimax. Do you guys think that Verizon and AT&T are going to leave their AWS / WCS spectrum unused? The clock just started on both of these, and my guess is that they start building antennas and capable phones in the next 6-12 months.

People love to include AT&T as sitting on unused spectrum, but to me, they are as in need of spectrum as anyone. Their 700 build-outs will also definitely increase if they buy from Verizon.

My favorite quote on this

Reports are that VZW is deploying LTE 750 for coverage breadth first, density second. So, only some sites get LTE overlay the first go round. If that is true in a given area, then LTE to EV-DO cannot be an apples to apples coverage comparison -- at least, not yet.

 

That said, my expectations for LTE have tempered somewhat from empirical observation of VZW's and Sprint's LTE roll outs. LTE does seem to be a more fragile airlink than does EV-DO. And that is almost to be expected, as LTE is made up of hundreds of small subcarriers that, individually, are not as robust as is a single spread spectrum carrier.

 

Now, maybe the disparity is a function of devices that are still relatively early in the LTE development cycle. After all, EV-DO development is going on a decade, is now very mature. So, newer LTE devices may continue to improve radio performance. But I do think that we have to consider the real possibility that Sprint's LTE 1900 will usably cover only 80-90 percent of the underlying CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900 footprint.

 

AJ

Regional carriers are another story, but they are just fighting for table scraps.