ericdabbs

Sprint does not have plans to deploy 3G on 800 MHz. For most of the country, Sprint has about 14 MHz of 800 MHz spectrum and 10 MHz which will be used to deploy a 5x5 LTE carrier and a single 1x Advanced CDMA carrier. In certain parts of the country, Sprint will only be able to deploy a single 1x Advanced CDMA carrier and a 1.4x1.4 MHz OR 3x3 MHz LTE carrier due to potential interference issues with Mexico and Canada iDEN networks. There simply isn't enough 800 MHz spectrum to deploy 1x Advanced, 3G, and LTE.

Just curious if you have a buddy that works at Clearwire?

Nice try but Sprint doesn't care about Phoenix.. . . I hope Sprint can start doing 800 MHz LTE FIT testing somewhere soon. It will be nice to hear info on the improvements on coverage and building penetration between 800 MHz and 1900 MHz.

Sacramento hasn't been announced yet in the first and second rounds. The upper Central valley region is very important since it covers Sacramento, Stockton, Reno, etc. My guess is that it will be deployed in the third round which is sometime by mid to late 2013.

Definitely not until mid 2013. Its great that they got FCC approval to deploy LTE at 800 MHz because that was the main barrier that was out of Sprint's hands which they couldn't control. The problem right now is that Sprint is trying to decommission iDEN towers nationwide and actively trying to move iDEN customers to CDMA before they can even think about doing anything LTE related with 800 MHz.

4ringsnbr has moved on to Verizon and not looking back. Of course he is going to be pessimistic about Sprint doing anything right due to the way the current state of Sprint service in NO and BR are currently in. I am glad the FCC was able to recognize how important this spectrum band was to Sprint's future success and to the Network Vision project.

Yeah I am very happy that the FCC finally approved 800 MHz LTE on ESMR because Sprint really needed the extra 5x5 LTE carrier to bolster capacity as well as building penetration . To deny Sprint LTE permission at 800 MHz would have been devastating since they would leave 10 MHz of spectrum (in most parts of the country) unused which is not what the FCC wants. I know if Sprint were denied LTE at 800 MHz they could still use that 10 MHz that was set aside for LTE to bolster its CDMA/EVDO holdings but it doesn't help the wireless industry to move forward towards 4G. Im sure the FCC wants each carrier to maximize its current spectrum holdings before considering new spectrum auctions.

First off how do you know 95% of the nation is only using 10 MHz of PCS spectrum? Also I am totally fine with Sprint starting off with just a 5x5 MHz carrier for LTE. I honestly don't think it will be a big deal if the speedtests are not like Verizon's where its like 30 Mbps. At the end of the day, its all about user experience and I think most of us are just concerned with whether we can stream Youtube HD or Netflix consistently without dropping connection like we do with Wimax at times. If Sprint LTE can provide that with just a 5x5 MHz carrier, then I think most people will be fine with it. Speedtests are only good if you are under a tower but that's about it. For me, I like the fact that Sprint has some spare spectrum in its back pocket that they could deploy LTE at any time. They don't need to go guns blazing with two 5x5 MHz LTE carriers at launch even if it was available nationwide. Just start off with one 5x5 MHz LTE carrier at 1900 MHz and use the 800 MHz LTE carrier to supplement next year.

I am confused by what you mean by 95% of the nation is using maybe 5 MHz x 5 MHz? Are you saying most Sprint towers are using only 10 MHz total for CDMA and EVDO?

I thought Sprint owns 54% of Clearwire but only has a 49.6% voting stake in Clearwire. I believe thats right but someone can correct me if I am wrong. I agree that Clearwire should be bought out by Sprint eventually but not now. Sprint needs to remain focused on Network Vision. They have a very long way to go especially since they don't even have 1000 NV sites up yet. Even with an all stock transaction, its still not a good deal since Sprint's stock price is so depressed still. I would love Clearwire to keep focused on working on the TD-LTE standard and actually deploy LTE sites. I am very eager to see the performance of Wimax towers with LTE overlay with fat 20 MHz pipes.

Why would Tmobile protest against AT&T when it is Verizon that is trying to obtain the SpectrumCo AWS spectrum? I am sure Tmobile would have protested against the same cable company deal if it was with AT&T instead of Verizon. Now Tmobile wants Dish Network to sell half of its spectrum to the smaller carriers in case Verizon or AT&T swoops in and offers a very attractive price for the 2 GHz spectrum. It will be a real test to Dish Network if they were really serious about entering the LTE market or just trying to pump up the price of their spectrum to flip it for a nice profit.

Lets just hope that Google and Motorola can make a Nexus phone. I am tired of seeing Samsung always getting the rights of the Nexus phone. I know Google is trying something new this year where they are trying to contract out multiple Nexus phones to different manufacturers in order to speed up the adoption process of the latest Android software.

Tmobile and MetroPCS filed a joint complaint to the FCC about Dish Network not using their spectrum for their LTE network until 2016. Tmobile and MetroPCS want Dish Network to give up half (20 MHz) of its total spectrum (40 MHz) in fear that Verizon or AT&T may swoop in and buy the spectrum in case Dish Network may be bluffing to drive up the price of the spectrum. It seems like Tmobile is trying to get into too many battles at this point with the opposition to the Verizon cable deal, this Dish Network spectrum complaint as well as executing their Challenger plan deploying LTE and moving HSPA+ to 1900 MHz. I am still one of those hopefuls that wish for a Sprint/Dish network hosting deal on its 2 GHz spectrum. I would like to see Dish Network hold onto all 40 MHz of its 2 GHz spectrum if a network hosting deal were to happen. I just hope that those discussions are some how on the table next year. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/metropcs-and-t-mobile-want-dish-to-give-up-half-of-its-spectrum/#disqus_thread

You're correct. Sprint is not ending the 22 month or 20 month early upgrade. The 14 day thing is an additional perk which is not really a big deal.

Problem is that Tmobile is the main opposition for the cable company deal. Verizon should be going after them and trying to appease them to get approval. Sprint is guilty by association since they are part of that group who is against the deal but they have not been attending the meetings to discuss about this issue. Sprint's stance is that the FCC look at the spectrum assets that Verizon to see if they have enough and making the best use of it. Sprint hasn't officially said they oppose the Verizon deal unlike Tmobile. So I think it would not be smart for Verizon to attack Sprint about Clearwire when Sprint does not own them 100%. Until that day where Sprint acquires Clearwire, Verizon has no case.

straw hat

Clearwire at $1.05 right now. I still don't get the huge move downwards recently on Clearwire. I get the market sentiment in general has been negative but stocks like Clearwire have been heavily depressed so 5-10 cents downwards every day is huge. Do investors have that little confidence in Clearwire despite 1) Lightsquared going bankrupt making Clearwire the major player in wholesale LTE and 2) Clearwire still maintaining revenue on Wimax with Sprint prepaid Virgin and Boost Mobile.

Clearwire does provide home internet service. The only problem is that Clearwire would need to expand its footprint tremendously in order to serve a huge amount of customers for internet. The problem is not whether Clearwire has enough spectrum to support home internet service but rather the funds needed to have a thorough buildout on 2.5 GHz spectrum which is costly.

I completely disagree that the AWS spectrum is less useful than the 700 MHz A and B blocks. The 700 MHz A and B blocks are not very attractive especially the A block which is adjacent to TV channels which can interfere with LTE. The 700 MHz A and B blocks are not even nationwide are only in some of the big markets. If Verizon is able to pull this off and offer this as a concession to obtain FCC approval, then Verizon got the better end of the deal did a really good job and fooled the FCC. I used to think that all higher frequencies were considered "less useful" until I understood the trade offs between building penetration and capacity. The ever so increasing data problem in the future like 5 years out will not be building penetration but rather capacity and I think the AWS spectrum (1700/2100 MHz) is a good balance between building penetration and capacity. The reason why AWS spectrum is more useful IMO is because even though AWS spectrum does not have as good building penetration and requires more towers than 700 MHz spectrum, AWS spectrum is able to handle more users in the same exact amount of area due to the increased amount of towers it will need to cover that area.

I believe Verizon says that they throtte its LTE customers at 5 GB since they would be considered the highest 5% of the data users. If this is already becoming a problem for Verizon then you know AT&T will follow suit. Hopefully someone can confirm the Verizon part..

You mind as well put a big sign on your head and call yourself 411 because that is what it sounds like.

Of course not. The CEO still has animosity towards the FCC for the failed Tmobile merger and even claimed that cell phone rates would go higher as a result. AT&T started the trend of tiered data and I wouldn't be surprised if they followed Verizon's lead since they gave them the idea. I just hope customers would be pissed and flock to Sprint and Tmobile.

Ah...you're right. I guess I meant to say that you could allocate more time to the downlink instead of uplink since they don't have to be symmetrical.

Alright you financial gurus out there, I don't know if many of you guys have been paying attention to Clearwire's stock price (ticker: CLWR) but it is quickly heading to $1 (currently trading at $1.11). If Sprint were to buy out Clearwire if it falls to $1, how much would it have to pay to buyout the remaining 46% stake in Clearwire? Ideally I want to see Clearwire survive on its own for a couple more years until Sprint can lock up some more PCS spectrum (ex: PCS H block) and Sprint's balance sheet to improve until it bought them out. I am curious to find out what Sprint is going to do if Clearwire gets near delisting status. Any financial gurus out there want to chime in on their thoughts?

I really do not want Clearwire going anywhere near Lightsquared. Just let Lightsquared die already. Lightsquared to me is tainted by Mr. Falcone and Clearwire does not need this especially when it is trying to turn its image around. All Clearwire needs to do is focus 110% on bringing LTE to as many towers as it can to alleviate Sprint towers as well to its Wimax overlay so they can start charging its lined up wholesale customers. I think once the network is up, the former Lightsquared customers will flock over.