ericdabbs

I can't see NYC being launched this year. Until they can play catch up due to Hurricane Sandy like 100 sites being launched they are still way too far behind to consider it market ready. Smaller cities you can get away with this but cities like NYC and LA this is a huge no no especially if certain areas do not have any LTE coverage at all.

To have areas dense with LTE is one thing which is not an expectation but it is another thing when areas that should be covered under that market do not have any LTE sites within a 10 mile radius.

Went to the Sprint store to check out the LG Optimus G. Not a bad phone at all. It just sucks that it was preloaded with ICS instead of JB. No LTE yet around Hacienda Heights/Rowland Heights area. I checked and all the LTE phones were set to LTE/CDMA mode so it should pick up LTE if any towers were upgraded to LTE.

Kinda surprised that Network Vision hasn't appeared at all in the Pasedena, Alhambra, Rosemead, Temple City, Arcadia, El Monte areas which is still a huge part of LA. Also the edges of Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, West Covina, Whittier have not been shown any Network Vision love. Hopefully Sprint gets to these areas soon since this is a huge part of LA that is not covered which need to be if Sprint wants to declare LA Metro launch ready. Even a few sites in each of those areas would suffice just for now since the expectation is not all Sprint sites will be NV ready at market launch.

I totally agree with you. People who keep saying that Sprint should just buy out Leap or MetroPCS and then keep the PCS spectrum and sell/swap the AWS spectrum for more PCS spectrum are dreaming. You are right in that the 2 major players who are interested in AWS spectrum are Verizon and Tmobile. No idea what AT&T is going to do with their AWS spectrum.

When people say just swap AWS spectrum for PCS spectrum they just assume that Verizon and Tmobile has spare PCS spectrum not being used. Lets see Verizon uses PCS spectrum for its CDMA and EVDO which they can't offload onto LTE until VoLTE and their LTE footprint are nationwide. Looks like Verizon doesn't have PCS spectrum to spare. Scratch Verizon off the list. Lets see Tmobile uses PCS spectrum for 1900 MHz HSPA+ to align itself with AT&T for data and still has GSM on 1900 MHz. Looks like Tmobile doesn't have PCS spectrum to spare. Scratch Tmobile off the list.

This is why Sprint only has 2 options:

1. Either stay put and not buy any of the smaller carriers and not deal with having to divest/sell AWS spectrum

2. If Sprint were to buy a smaller carrier like Cricket then keep the AWS spectrum until the value of its spectrum increases or save it for future LTE deployment. We know that the US Govt wants to expand the AWS and not the PCS band so there are chances for Sprint to get more AWS spectrum. I still would rather have Sprint stick to just 3 bands but having AWS spectrum is not the end of the world.

Remember that with the Softbank cash infusion, Sprint doesn't need to be in a rush to sell any spectrum it acquires...AWS or not since it is not in a cash crunch where any potential proceeds can help pay down debt. Spectrum will only get more valuable in the future so unless there is a strict build out requirement within that next year, Sprint should hold onto it.

Leap has PCS licenses in many smaller markets & world help sprint when they go to deploy more LTE, but they also have AWS licenses, and I'm not sure which ones are the 'unused' spectrum. Ideally they might buy leap, but they would sell the AWS spectrum or swap it for PCS spectrum in areas where they are spectrum constrained.

Leap does have some nice PCS spectrum especially in the C and F blocks holdings. I wish they could do a similar deal to US Cellular where they just buy the PCS spectrum off of Leap.

Wouldn't be so sure on that. If they get PCS H like they want it, they'll probably do 10x10 in G+H. Pretty sure I read that somewhere official from Sprint.

With the injection of funds by Softbank, Sprint should have no excuse to not be aggressive with a PCS H block spectrum auction. Sprint needs to nab as much H block spectrum as it can while it doesn't own Clearwire outright. Once Sprint buys out Clearwire, Sprint will have too much spectrum among the carriers.

It is smart for Sprint to only have controlling interest in Clearwire while this Softbank transaction and US Cellular deals close.

It's all about Chicago. Sprint has been spectrum constrained in Chicago for quite some time. And they also couldn't deploy a 2nd PCS LTE carrier there. This is the only shot at additional PCS spectrum for Sprint in Chicago, realistically. It is worth a lot to them. Also, Fort Wayne is a 10MHz only market for Sprint. They desperately need spectrum there too.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

I agree. After looking at WiWavelength's spreadsheet for the PCS spectrum for markets, Chicago was spectrum constrained at only 20 MHz and Fort Wayne only had 10 MHz. With this deal they add much needed spectrum for both Chicago and Fort Wayne.

Hi,

 

I believe Indianapolis uses Ericsson equipment.

Indianapolis uses Samsung equipment. But I mistook Indianapolis for Cleveland. I knew the other markets besides Chicago that has issues with Samsung equipment were around that area.

I remember Robert or somebody mentioned awhile ago that there were markets out there that had Motorola legacy equipment for CDMA/3G that was having trouble working with the Samsung's NV CDMA/3G/4G infrastructure in terms of voice handoff so Sprint is trying to work hard to complete those markets to avoid massive service disruptions.

From my recollection I remember hearing Chicago and Indianapolis as 2 cities. Are there any other markets that have Motorola legacy equipment? I assume these markets will be high priority on Sprint's list since they don't work well with the new NV infrastructure and want to avoid any massive service disruptions.

Map of the affected USCC markets. I am glad Chicago is included since they only have on average 20 MHz of PCS spectrum so this deal will help them dearly. Too bad its gotta wait until mid 2013 to close this transaction.

Source: http://www.uscellularinfo.com/

Any activity in Hacienda and Rowland Heights?

Strange you said that. The Evo 3D on Virgin Mobile is still branded Sprint.

Really???? I thought when Sprint announced that it was sending the Wimax devices to Virgin Mobile that I saw a screenshot with the Evo 3D rebranded as Virgin Mobile on some tech websites. Anyways regardless if they rebadge the devices to Virgin Mobile (which to me is a waste of time) or not, the point is that Sprint will continue to sell Wimax devices through the end of 2012 which is what the OP was wondering about.

I haven't received the OTA. But that might be because I cannot find my GS3. Seriously. I have so many devices now that I'm losing them. DOH!!!

 

Robert via Samsung Note II using Forum Runner

OMG Im so jelly!!! I wish I can afford to have a "first world problem" of so many devices.

I just went onto Sprint.com to pay my bill and saw an ad for a free SII. Obviously, the SII uses WiMax. I thought Sprint stopped selling WiMax phones?

Sprint said last year at their Oct 7th Network Vision update conference that they plan to continue selling WiMax devices throughout 2012. So from that bit, I presume that come January 1st, 2013, all WiMax phones (SGSII and Conquer) will be yanked from Sprint stores and sent to Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile for rebadging and add to their Wimax device list.

That's doubtful. We're more likely to see a release shortly after the new year.

You are probably right since the Galaxy Note II was released today and the LG Optimus G will be the next major smartphone coming out in November.

I just don't want to see a long delay in the Nexus series phones after release since those are good phones. The Sprint Galaxy Nexus was obviously released way too late but granted Sprint didn't want to release it too early given that they weren't going to have LTE until this past July.

I would really love to see a Nexus phone added to the 2012 lineup when Google announces it next monday.

Dangit...you beat me to it.

 

I wonder how much DC will cost, whether MVNOs will be allowed to use it, and how quickly LTE phones will get it (ahem, GSIII).

It says on the Google Play Store website that it will be $5/month for users that don't have SDC now.

Sure Sprint can do a prelaunch of LA Metro and that would be fine. I guess they can just be in prelaunch mode for a month or two. But my point was realistically LA won't be LTE market ready to provide sufficient coverage for launch until end of December. I just think Sprint needs to be careful of declaring any market LTE ready when it only has 20% of its sites especially since LA covers such a huge area. The first 4 markets launched did not have a prelaunch period that extended more than 1 week.

We all understand here at S4GRU.com that coverage and consistent performance will improve over time as more and more towers get completed but I am trying to put myself as the common Sprint customer or a potential new customer who doesn't understand Network Vision that when a market is launched that not all sites will be ready so don't expect consistent performance throughout the city just yet.

It is almost near the end of October and I highly doubt Sprint is going to declare LA Metro market launch ready since looking at the sponsor maps it appears that Alcatel Lucent has a long way to go especially the eastern suburbs of downtown LA that have yet to have a single tower of NV goodness. Until NV hits in every area including the edges of LA Metro, I don't think it would be wise for Sprint to launch LTE in LA.

I would be willing to wait until the end of December if that meant that by market launch we can see 30-35% of all towers NV complete. But given the current ramp of production and only 19% towers done. I need to see a sites completed update that has over 100 LA sites completed for me in that week to be convinced it has a chance of making it there. Chicago had theirs this week and I hope to see LA and NYC have theirs as well. Sprint really needs to get LA, NYC and Chicago rolling or else they will fall further behind Verizon and AT&T.

I feel like so many NV towers are simply being blocked. For most of the initial launch markets 20% or less was completed. NV production in the city is really starting to speed up and no one said it will be announced day 1. There are 30 days in November. You never know, maybe the tower you are connected to will have 4G.

I understand for the first 4 markets they launched in Texas and Atlanta that under 20% of all NV towers completed was ok at the time to launch. However very quickly there was bad press that in most of 4G LTE launch areas, people were only able to retain LTE for 2 mins before dropping back down to 3G. If you are Sprint PR and you hear those type of things from tech blogs, Sprint customers, your competitors in AT&T and Verizon, this must be irritating and stressful to live up to the proposed 4G LTE coverage maps that they have posted on their website.

In big cities like Chicago, LA, and NYC, Sprint cannot afford to declare any of these big cities as LTE launch ready when only 2 out of every 10 towers only have LTE. I understand as being a heavy follower of this site that coverage will improve over time but first impressions make a huge difference especially if Sprint is trying to draw new customers away from Tmobile, Verizon and AT&T to offer unlimited 4G LTE data that is actually usable for more than 5 mins of driving around. It will be useless if its only usable for a short distance. Smaller cities can get away with the 20% launch and be ok but big cities like Chicago, LA and NYC need at least 30-40% of its towers IMO to be safe for market launch. Chicago does not have this problem since they are well above 50% of all towers launched with LTE but LA and NYC are so far away from being launched that even a mid December might be a stretch.

There is no way that NYC will be ready by end of November. I am thinking a mid to late December release will be better for first impression and overall stability of the LTE network. Looking at the latest update on the deployment running list thread, it has NYC at 14% of all NV towers completed currently which is not enough. I think a minimum of 25-30% launch market policy should be adhered to for the largest market in the US.

The same goes for Los Angeles. I know it says an October launch but due to the wide area that LA covers, I think they should hold off launching the market until mid to late December since they only have about 19% of all NV towers completed currently which is not much more than NYC has.

I'm sure Sprint would love more spectrum in the SMR band but that isn't gonna happen (I always thought they should offer cut-rate service to all existing public safety users in exchange for getting another chunk of SMR... Basically take over the building of a nationwide public safety network, but that depends on the cost).

I wish Sprint could get more spectrum in the SMR band. I would love at some point for Sprint to basically get the entire SMR band would be nice from 806-824 MHz. However I think it is only a pipe dream until all public safety can all be converted to LTE and migrated to the 700 MHz public safety band. If that ever does happen, I think it would be wise for Sprint to go after the 806-816 MHz, 851-861 MHz spectrum to bolster their SMR band spectrum holdings.

Any chance that the ordering of spectrum priority changes through all of this? 2.5->1900->800. Many of us were thinking Sprint wouldn't want to pay Clearwire so the priority would be on Sprint frequencies first.

I really want the spectrum priority to be 2500->1900->800. I don't think that by Sprint simply controlling the Clearwire board that they can amend a contract that was agreed upon by both parties back in Nov.

However with a complete buyout of Clearwire then of course the current deal is off the table and Sprint can prioritize their spectrum as needed for their network while honoring the current contracts for tonnage for the other wholesale providers that Clearwire has signed for LTE access.

I agree with you, except I don't see them deploying LTE on Cellular or AWS in any significant capacity in the short term. AWS just doesn't make sense as they gave it all to T-Mobile. I see it more as a bargaining chip for more spectrum in other areas. Cellular, I see them using as their primary voice platform. It must be able to serve the areas that 2g voice serves today. We have noted that VoLTE might not be able to do that. Those are minor details. however. You are right. AT&T holds a lot of prime spectrum and is having a tough time migrating to 3g/4g technologies. The FCC should not adjust their spectrum positions just because some technologies are harder to migrate from than others.

I agree that AT&T won't be deploying LTE on Cellular frequency band but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability or intention to not do it eventually. Same with Verizon. The way I look at things is whether a wireless carrier has the capability and the intention to eventually deploy LTE and both AT&T and Verizon do plan to deploy LTE on all spectrum bands eventually. Both companies have more than enough of their share of overall spectrum as well as the dominance of < 1 GHz spectrum. They have no right to complain. Just because AT&T is stuck with using the Cellular band for voice and 2G technologies is not an excuse to be able to acquire more spectrum. AT&T has made strides to be able to use 20 MHz of WCS spectrum for LTE which is enough for a 10x10 LTE carrier. It is AT&T's fault for not trying to push people into 3G and 4G technologies sooner and they should have to deal with the consequences. If that were the case then Sprint can easily argue that hey we are taking control of Clearwire's board but we don't plan to deploy all 150 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum in the near future so it should not be a threat to AT&T.

Sprint made a firm stance to shut down iDEN by June 2013 despite a ton of folks in construction that rely on Nextel Direct Connect and decided that the 800 MHz spectrum would make better use for CDMA and LTE.

This is just the beginning of the opposition to Sprint's spectrum position. I think they wont be allowed to easily acquire any other companies and acquiring H will be harder because ATT is butthurt about it's own spectrum position. I bet that Verizon doesn't say much though. The analysts that used to hate Sprint will start bashing their new powerful position like Entner at the end of this article.

 

http://www.fiercewir...ouse/2012-10-16

AT&T has no right to be butthurt about its spectrum position since they'll be able to deploy LTE on 700 MHz, Cellular, AWS, PCS and WCS spectrum. What more do they want? The problem with AT&T is that they still have to support an old 2G GSM/EDGE network that I am sure they would love to convert that into LTE but can't until they have some sort of sunset period.

If I were the FCC, I would ignore AT&T's complaints since they seem to still be very butt hurt about losing the Tmobile transaction. The FCC has been more than generous with them bending rules to give AT&T the ability to launch LTE in WCS spectrum.