bigsnake49

I'm seeing Brighthouse Networks starting to implement WiFi in a lot of places in my hometown. I don't think they are anywhere near as pervasive as Cablevision's.

I have no idea why they feel like they have to stick a quad processor in there. Unless they want to run CPLEX in there. It feels like the PC spec wars. I would rather they concentrated on battery life, RF performance, OS stability, overall quality.

I would much rather have Sprint configure the 1x Advanced 1900 MHz carriers to support 4x capacity so they can shut down more 1x carriers. The towers are located to account for 1900 MHz anyways so its better to max out more voice capacity to free up more spectrum for LTE. Now there are placed like in New Orleans were it makes sense to use the 70% coverage since the towers are not strategically located. CDMA800 no doubt does not need the 70% extra coverage and instead needs to max out 4x capacity especially if its going to handle indoor voice calls.

On top of what Robert said, most suburban/exurban sites have 1 to maybe 2 voice channels. The spectrum reclaimed will not be substantial. As Robert already said, Urban sites will be configured for capacity gains. In my hometown I have rarely seen more than one voice channel. They could probably serve us out of one 1x 800MHz channel every other site. That might not be true in other areas that have more Sprint subscribers per square mile, but I do believe it to be true of our area.

There won't be any coverage gains in areas that are already covered well and were you do not adjust downtilt. There will be coverage improvements in cases were you were on the fringe of usuable signal and now you won't be. There will be an expansion of the "usable" coverage area. RF limits are RF limits and propagation is propagation but usable signal is something all-together. Outward facing sectors on the periphery of a coverage area can have the downtilt adjusted and their usable signal area expanded quite a bit. I also consider the thickening of coverage on the interior of a coverage area a tangible benefit, as in the increase of the percentage of the coverage area in which you get "Good" or "Excellent" signal instead of "Fair". I think that maybe that's what he's talking about. That instead of 50% of a heavily suburban area like Atlanta or Dallas being "Light Green" in the signal maps, only 25% is after NV 1900MHz. Add 800MHz NV and only 5% is light green, all this with no additional sites.

Robert,

I would expect that between the mounting of the radios on the antenna masts and the 1x Advanced up to 70% increase in coverage primarily because of interference cancellation, they might be close to doubling of the coverage area, all other things being equal (downtilt, power, etc). Now if they are not skipping any legacy CDMA sites in their deployment, they probably are turning down the power, thereby cancelling out some of the coverage improvements.

For CDMA800 they are using 1x Advanced's up to 3x capacity improvement and not trading off for distance. If they

One little piece of data from the earnings call:

Further, in the 600 network Vision sites currently online, Elfman said Sprint is seeing a doubling of the coverage range compared with legacy sites, which should help reduce roaming costs. Sprint is also able to repurpose 2.5 MHz to 3 MHz of spectrum on its 800 MHz band from Nextel iDEN service to voice, he said.

I believe Sprint paid 36 billion for Nextel. Keep in mind that the spectrum is done through auctions and if Sprint participated in them, they would not be able to buy up every license for both AWS and 700 Mhz. Im sure Verizon and AT&T would have loved to have done that and use their financial muscle to choke the competition of spectrum.

Well, they actually merged with them, but it's kind of funny money. It's not funny money to Sprint shareholders who lost their shirt. Spectrum money is real money that has to come out of cash or you have to borrow.

And none of that applies to the wireless industry, which has become a de facto public utility and is an inherently closed market with huge barriers to entry. Oh, not to mention, carriers are using our public spectrum.

 

AJ

Yep, some of which got it for free in the beginning!

A big problem with the Nextel/Sprint merger is that they had to buy their affiliates+Nextel Partners, thereby draining them of cash and credit. Would they have had to buy their affiliates if they merged with Alltel? I like to argue that they would not because they could be enticed to host Alltel's 850MHz spectrum and customers. In the worst case they would have saved the $6.5B for Nextel Partners.

Well I guess time will tell. The only good thing out of this merger so far will be the access to the 800 MHz. If you think about it even the nationwide 1900 MHz 'G' block that was granted to Sprint was as a result of the 800 MHz rebanding because of Nextel PTT.

 

Right now Sprint LTE is deployed entirely on "Nextel" spectrum because of the 1900 MHz 'G' block and the next planned 5x5 carrier is on the 800 MHz spectrum. I believe even Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum was originally owned by Nextel as well before the merger. So I guess you can say has played a key role in Sprint's 4G strategy and without the vast amount of Nextel spectrum it would be very hard for Sprint to deploy its own LTE network.

 

On the other hand, I think a lot of people will argue that had they not merge with Nextel, that they would have had funds to participate in the AWS and 700 MHz spectrum auctions in 2006 and 2008.

Just a minor correction. Sprint owned half of BRS spectrum and Nextel (through MCI) owned the other half. Clearwire mainly leased EBS spectrum.

I think that the combination of Alltel+Sprint would have been a great combination. They might have been good enough to entice Nextel to add voice+3G roaming to their IDEN phones. They would let them go through the spectrum reconfiguration and maybe acquire them then. Alltel, pre private equity had very little debt. Sprint+Alltel would have been an player in subsequent spectrum auctions.

Posted similar story here.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...-in-cable-deal/

 

I would need more details on how much spectrum is given up first. But on first impression I am still not sold. There are not or if any small regional carriers that use 700 MHz for LTE. We know that MetroPCS, Cricket, Tmobile, US Cellular are the other major carriers that rely primarily on AWS spectrum that could really use the central to east coast coverage that Verizon currently holds. I would much rather have Verizon divest some its PCS and all of its current AWS spectrum holdings. Verizon can keep the A and B blocks of 700 MHz.

 

I know that both MetroPCS and Cricket have a coverage gap in the central to east coast region that could really use the AWS spectrum from Verizon.

I'm with you on that eric. I want them to divest their current AWS spectrum plus their 700MHz A&B before they're allowed to purchase the SpectrumCo licenses. I would also put a stipulation that the licenses be sold to small players before AT&T has a chance.