bigsnake49

Heck it's almost impossible at the site level.

I have also advocated using Band D&E as uplink. But I think it is better for Dish to trade it's Band E holdings for AT&T's 600MHz holdings. Also get hold of Comcast 600Mhz holdings in some kind of arrangement so that Comcast can roam off Dish's 600Mhz after WiFi and 3.5GHz CBRS. Then horse trade some of that abundant urban spectrum to T-Mobile for a nationwide 5MHz slice for the rural areas to add to its already existing 5Mhz for a respectable 10MHz nationwide and much more in the cities. I also don't believe that Dish wants to deploy its' network for IOT. There is no money in IOT certainly not enough to deploy a $10B nationwide network. I believe that Dish wants to appeal to cord cutters and sell them skinny bundles or even ala carte video. Will its midband holdings be enough even though they're very decent? Maybe in the beginning but in the end I would think that a partnership between Sprint and Dish makes way too much sense. Dish's deployment cost will be cut substantially if they partner with Sprint. Sprint gets access to Dish's midband and low band spectrum and content. Dish gets another outlet for their video offerings and can offer triple play for their customers.

Band 29 is already supported by phones as far back as the LG G3 and iPhone 6. According to Fiercewireless: "AT&T is quietly deploying a 10 MHz block of 700 MHz spectrum in New York and other markets, according to Walter Piecyk of BTIG Research. And that could position it to swing a spectrum deal that would benefit Dish Network. The deployment is being used for increased capacity and faster data speeds, supplementing AT&T’s PCS and WCS spectrum. It’s a combination of two adjacent 6 MHz blocks of spectrum D and E, Piecyk noted in a blog post. AT&T owns both blocks in some markets, covering one-fourth of the population in some of the nation’s biggest cities." https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-s-band-29-deployment-sets-up-potential-spectrum-deal-dish-piecyk Later on in the same article Piecyk supports a spectrum swap between AT&T and Dish of AT&T's 600MHz winnings and Dish's 700Mhz Band E.

If it is used as a supplemental downlink to AWS and PCS then the primary band in that aggregation scheme will be the AWS band or PCS band. I would use it as downlink for coverage at the coverage edge (exurban, suburban, rural). Have it deployed with 700Mhz spacing. Use it when you're farther from the site or inside a concrete bunker. In this way it will be used only where needed. AJ also forgot that Dish won nationwide licenses in the 600MHz auction. Now granted some of them won't be available for a while (2020?).

Now granted it's only 5x5 in the vast majority of the country except around cities.

It could be used for uplink with a midband downlink. It can also be used as a supplemental downlink.

I still think that Sprint can use some of Dish's mid and low spectrum capacity. Hopefully they can partner on Dish's deployment.

Between Dish, Comcast and AT&T you might be able to assemble a nice little trove of 600MHz spectrum particularly in urban areas. If Sprint was not so cash strapped...

Plus 10+ of 600MHz

For some reason neither Verizon nor T-Mobile had those problems with their small cell deployments. It's what happens when you go with the low cost bidder.

I believe that working with cable cos to implement strand and pole mounted small cells is the way to go forward. But yeah they cannot substitute for well spaced macros.

Meanwhile, DT chairman has left open the possibility of merger: FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE) left the door open to a merger of its T-Mobile US business (TMUS.O) days after the collapse of a deal between its U.S. business and Sprint Corp (S.N). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/deutsche-telekom-raises-guidance-collapse-061452645.html

One thing that Marcello talked about is that the small cell strategy while successful in some areas was not as successful in others and that basically forced the pivot to traditional macro sites. “The last year and a half, two years have been a great learning experience. We’ve tried to disrupt the way networks get built. We’ve been successful in certain areas and, to be fair, we haven’t been successful in others,” he conceded. “So we’re going to go toward a more traditional network build-out. Our friends at the tower companies I think are going to be very happy.” http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-s-claure-tower-companies-going-to-be-very-happy-our-capex

I would settle for any coverage on I-80.

Sprint needs to finish densifying and expanding their coverage. They also need to refinance their debt with lower interest dates and pay some of it off. 5G can wait for a while...T-Mobile and Sprint can always l merge their networks and give them scale so that 5G won't be such a drain on resources.

If Dish and T-Mobile get together they will probably have to give up some of the 600MHz spectrum or allow roaming at very low rates.

At some point or another, Sprint needs to approach Dish about hosting their spectrum beginning with the 600MHz spectrum. Maybe not right away but if they want to be a truly nationwide carrier they need to reduce their roaming expenses and at least cover the highways.

Yeah, it's a confusing message.

I wonder what the hold up was with Comcast and Charter about signing a comparable agreement. Strand and pole mounted small cells are a wonderful way to densify a network. I am thinking that the companies are looking to 3.5GHz carrier neutral small cells for the first layer of their wireless network with the Verizon MVNO network as a backstop too they can minimize their roaming costs. No reason why they can't accommodate both 2.5GHz and 3.5GHz. The only problem I see for the 3.5GHZ strategy is that once the incumbent and licensed users of the spectrum get their fair share of the spectrum there might not be a lot of spectrum left for the unlicensed users. Unless they decide to bid in the future 3.5GHz auction, I see the reliance on the unlicensed option to minimize the roaming cost on the Verizon network failing.

I get it, cable has basically been operating like it is still the 90s. But the great conflict between content providers and cable providers is coming. All cable has to do is to increase the bandwidth available to the cable modem so that people can stream different channels over the internet and hopefully from the cables cos own video servers. Something like Apple does with AppleTV. Apple takes a percentage off the top with no risk. The risk lies with the content providers. Heck they can partner with Apple or Roku or Amazon or Netflix. Provide access to content over wireless or cable.

There's a lot of synergies between a cable company and a wireless company. Strand mounted small cells and WiFi is one. Backhaul and fronthaul for another. Integration of fixed and mobile telephony. With cord cutters, a chance to capture some of the cord cutting crowd by offering them OTT choices. A way to pressure content providers to offer ala carte channels.

I am pretty sure that they did not put anything on hold because of the merger. Plenty of people available to plan expansion and network improvement.

I am not sure if upload CA is released and in the field yet. There was also the possibility of using Band 25 for the upload.

Verizon's sites are probably 85-90% generator backed up. You get what you pay for.

Makes sense! Dish's spectrum might be attractive to T-Mobile. Actually its 600Mhz spectrum might be attractive to Sprint or some other spectrum holding company associated with Softbank .