bigsnake49

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14037008/1/t-mobile-looking-for-merger-with-cable-company-not-telecom.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo

T-Mobile Seeks Cable Company Merger, Not Telecom

 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

A sugar daddy/mommy, eh?

Yes it can.

 

Read several posts above.

 

It's 4x4 on low band (sub 1 ghz) that's a huge challenge. Hell tmobile is already running 4x4 for B2/4.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I did not think they were running 4x4 on the handset side.

Yeah, let's see this deployed in all of Sprint's sites and no more 1x for data?

You make a statement about Apple being cost conscious and not willing to spend on additional components, but then gave an example of Apple making a version explicitly for AT&T instead of a universal version which would have been more cost conscious.

 

With Apple partnering with Qualcomm (chip maker of Motorola used in demonstration) in the past with no sign of moving towards a total use of Intel chips, and HPUE finalized in December, there's a good chance Sprint has given Apple plenty of heads up to get this going before the usual September iPhone release. Only issue is if Apple wants to limit the Qualcomm chip like they did with the 7/7+

Apple did not partner with Qualcomm, I can guarantee you that . They're suing them for...a billion dollars.

Nope. Available on B25 as well. Plenty of 4x4 enabled sites in Ericsson land. 

 

 

Event was sponsored by Nokia. 

I am not sure that handsets can accommodate 4x4 MIMO on B25. Maybe tablets. I could be wrong of course. I guess I am .

I am guessing that the 4x4 MIMO is only available on B41?

Must be that Motorola phone they testing with that no one can get close to

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

Courtside, Sprint and its partners set up an indoor base station system, similar to an outdoor base station set-up, inside the stadium with three-channel carrier aggregation (CA), which Sprint has turned up in 100 markets, including New Orleans. They used 60 MHz of Sprint’s 2.5 GHz spectrum combined with 4X4 MIMO and 256-QAM higher order modulation to achieve Category 16 LTE download data speeds on a TDD network.

The pre-commercial Motorola device—a flagship smartphone based on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 mobile platform with an integrated Snapdragon X16 LTE modem—is still under wraps and its release date is to be determined, but it was made available to Sprint for demonstration purposes. The device has all the proper antenna and band configurations to support Gigabit Class LTE, including support for High Performance User Equipment (HPUE), a handset-based technology that has the ability to extend Sprint's coverage by up to 30%, including indoors.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/sprint-shows-off-gigabit-class-lte-qualcomm-motorola-new-orleans

How interesting that they chose to demo 4x4 MIMO in a market where they abandoned over half of their 8T8R install permits over the last 2-3 years and are now only installing 2T2R mini macros (which, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't capable of 4x4 MIMO).

You just had to rain on Sprint's parade, didn't you    ? 

Im currently in St. Petersburg.  Network here is solid other than data.  I've been coming a couple times a year for a few years and doesn't seem like much has changed for coverage.  The B41 gear is no longer Clearwire, unless they just changed the name in SCP reporting to Sprint now.  But the load is pretty bad.  I camp on B26 and it's slow.  B41 isn't as often as the coverage map would make you believe.

 

Though the Tampa Zoo for some reason is just 3G/1x.  Other then that, I really haven't had a bad time in Florida.  Even Disney was a dream, and I'll get to reset it this weekend. 

That's the same thing I see in my area.

You mean the unlicensed low power same as you get out of your Wi-Fi spectrum

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

First of all WiFi is not deployed on 3.5GHz. The 5GHz one will have to be shared with WiFi.

Adding small cells adds capacity without needing extra spectrum, and Verizon has been leading the way with small cell deployments.

Not to mention that the other three are getting ready to take advantage of shared spectrum in the 3.5 and 5GHz using LTE-U or LAA.

To fulfill the FCC's buildout requirement. From what I gather from this article:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/iot/dish-to-build-nb-iot-network-to-meet-fcc-s-deadline

They will build an all-IP, C-RAN based network. They are open to partnerships with already existing wireless providers and or cable networks.

Verizon has plenty of users on old grandfathered unlimited plans with no deprioritization with many adding the new unlimited plan. Yet their average network speed as of March 3rd is 24 Mbps for download and 7.2 Mbps for upload. Compared with Sprint's average network speed of 14Mbps down and 3.6Mbps up. Despite all the spectrum claims Sprint is still the slowest while having the least amount of subscribers. Most markets are not suffering from spectrum crunch yet, and Verizon would not make this move if it would tarnish their brand image, just like Sprint would not be showing off HPUE on a global scale if the results were not fantastic. The speed averages really do mean something along with the LTE footprint. There is a tremendous difference in the LTE footprint among the carriers.

In my case what's unnerving is the not the difference between 14 or 24 Mbps. What's the difference is that Sprint falls to 1x when the other 3 are still on LTE.

I appreciate this point of view. Sprint is handicapped by debt and that stranglehold limits options for spending or reducing cash flow. Verizon is definitely being disruptive right now. I think this really highlights why we need four carriers...for competition.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Verizon has a lot of debt also, $105B.

Why?  What would be the advantage of that?

 

AJ

Interference !

Should I tell you to fix your "goddamn" cognitive dissonance?  You know "goddamn" well that Saw cannot print money.  And you acknowledge that the "goddamn" problem is not spectrum, which is Saw's purview.  So, why in the "goddamn" hell are you harping at Saw?

 

AJ

Because he keeps on harping about spectrum. We know all about Sprint's spectrum and potential, they're harping about it for 5 years now. Tell us what you're doing about your network, tell us what concrete steps you're taking to take advantage of the spectrum.

And I like to ask you what the hell do you know about frequency and spectrum engineering, and if your so smart about things instead of being some armchair CEO, why aren't working that field.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

Actually since you asked, I am an electrical engineer and I have experience in wireless both as an engineer and a program manager although my experience is kinda of old. Sprint's problem is not spectrum but money and management. I would think that Softbank would pitch in and help them with the financial part but they do not seem to be interested in that, they seem to be interested in getting rid of Sprint. For Sprint's sake, since I have had them in some way or another since 1999, is that they merge with T-Mobile. it is my belief that the industry cannot support 4 players, 2 of which are not the same size as the other 2. 

Here's Sprint's take on it from this Wireless Week article:

 

Though other carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile have also announced plans to roll out Gigabit LTE in 2017, Saw argued Sprint’s nationwide spectrum depth would be a differentiating factor.

 

“You need to ask them, one, are you using your actual licensed spectrum or are you also adding in unlicensed spectrum as well. Some of them would have to use License Assisted Access, which is using unlicensed spectrum as well. There’s nothing wrong with that except you have less control with the use of unlicensed spectrum,” Saw said.

 

“The other thing you need to be asking is the ubiquity of what they’re trying to do. Can you demonstrate gigabit class devices only in the lab … or are you able to demonstrate gigabit class devices only in certain markets in Arizona and not nationwide?” he continued. “For Sprint we have always been clear that we have a lot of 2.5 (GHz spectrum) nationwide and we have the right technology that is optimized for data, which is TDD. So when we say we’re going to roll out gigabit class devices, I mean all our phones once they can support 4x4 MIMO and 256-QAM will be usable nationwide.”

Saw, just shut up about spectrum and fix your goddamn network! 

Are you saying Verizon is the best in Texas? Because they're not. At&t may have coverage gaps in the hill country and in the small canyons just east of Fort Stockton, but every carrier does as well. Not much can be done about that terrain. At&t is the best carrier along I-10 in Texas.

I have AT&T and I spent almost 3 years in the Austin area. While they covered the area pretty well they really fell down covering the FTM roads. Verizon did cover them pretty well. Both Sprint and T-Mobile were worthless on FTM roads.

Virginia is part of the Mid- even though it is south of the Mason Dixon line.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

Virgina is part of the Mid-Atlantic area same with North Carolina and Maryland. SC is part of the South East.

As far as coverage, Sprint has Verizon beat in all 878 miles of interstate 10 in Texas. From Anthony to Orange, At&t is first, followed by Sprint, then Verizon, and finally T-Mobile. Verizon has a few coverage gaps and has to rely on Sprint and West Central Wireless (formerly of Five Star Wireless) for roaming in the hill country.

 

A few years ago, I would have said Sprint was #1 due to At&t having no coverage southeast of El Paso. All GSM users would roam on Mexican carriers in that stretch of highway before veering off to Sierra Blanca. But it seems they've taken care of that now. Haven't been to El Paso in a while now, but I'm sure T-Mobile has improved as they now show LTE in areas where they had no coverage in the past.

Please don't go by coverage maps. They lie. I have AT&T and I drove all of I-10. They have major gaps.

Ahh. . . 

 

There is a slash not an "and" so those were grouped together as one big area. I-80 is a major road unless you feel like paying high PA tolls and going a southern road due to weather.

I have taken I-80 from Sacramento through Nebraska and also through Pennsylvania to Akron and I-10 from Jacksonville to LA. I-95 from Boston to Miami. Except for Verizon nobody covers the highways well. Well, Sprint for voice through Verizon . AT&T has major gaps in their coverage and so does T-Mobile.

Top of a tower can be great for low band as it has more reach if you can get up and over obstructions.

For high band, like Band 41, height might not be as important.  The signal is not going to go as far anyway.

For band 41, it can be advantageous at times to be lower and blast the signal through buildings. A very high antenna on Band 41 can yield a weaker signal when you are close to the tower but on lower ground.  Each site is different because of the terrain and the amount of obstructions.

Guys there such things as individual antenna element down tilt adjustments. Also send diversity so that you can adjust one antenna element for close and the other for far. Not like it used to be in the 90's.

Sprint has joined the CBRS band group that aims to deploy LTE on 150MHZ of spectrum in the 3.5GHz band. With 80 percent of the data consumed indoors and 95 percent of the radio access network (RAN) capex being spent outdoors, the need to address the indoors is pressing. I see it being deployed in large venues such as malls, stadiums, large box stores and in large office buildings. But it has to be deployed in a carrier neutral manner or it will not succeed. now getting all 4 carriers to agree to share will be problematic but it can be done.

If we assume that it can be successfully deployed in a carrier neutral way it will lead to a depreciation of spectrum. 

The US is completely capable of supporting four players. Sprint is completely capable of turning around with more capital investment. Yet, the chairman, Masa Son, isn't pouring capital in. Banks don't want to SoftBank loaning money to Sprint? Find new banks. Maybe he should look out of Japan to find loaning, or sell part of the Alibaba shares to get $10 billion of capital expenditures into Sprint. Small cells isn't enough, Sprint also needs a more ambitious expansion of the macro grid in both coverage and density. Sprint has to be on one technical track as well. Why should Sprint have 2G/3G networks dragging behind them as they launch 5G networks? Sprint can't repeat mistakes of the past that poured 60,000 macros spread over CDMA, IDEN, WiMax, and LTE. It's time to be on a single technical track. It's also high time Sprint works to minimize the amount of money they pay to Verizon. Verizon isn't putting money into CDMA, they haven't really done that since 2011. They're literally pushing ahead of the pack on 5G. I mean they could get burned if their standard isn't completely compatible with 5G New Radio, but since 5G New Radio appears to be the air interface, they probably won't be that far away.

 

Sprint is capable of turning around without needing T-Mobile to rescue it. If a merger happens, that's because Masa Son wants it.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Masa wants out, period. Whether Sprint merges with T-Mobile or Somebody else, the writing is on the wall. Sprint needed that $5-10B investment from Softbank 3 years ago. The same way DT forgave T-Mobile/Metro $5B with of debt.