maximus1987/lou99

1xAdvanced also has the ability to be configured for 3x coverage of traditional 1x or 4x the capacity.

 

 

800 at the edge of sprint service will likely be configured for coverage, while urban sites/PCS site will get configured for capacity.

 

 

Sprint will not need as many PCS 1x channels as before, but I do not believe they have had many deployed.

Do any phones now have 1xA?

You don't need to be on Clear's frequency to get a better network experience.  Everyone else who is on Clear's frequency means that they're not on the Sprint tower you're connected to and overloading the tower.

Sprint's towers ARE at PCS spacing, and are projected to provide sustainable 4-8 Mbps performance on the 1900 PCS band once they are built-out to LTE. (Keeping in mind that theoretical performance =~37Mbps.)

 

The 2500 LTE band will provide very-high-bandwidth overlay capability in densely used areas (read: cities), so that you will be shifted from 1900 to 2500 where your 2500 signal is strong enough, and 1900 capacity is heavily used. I don't remember the expected speeds, although someone has posted them somewhere.  They are FAST.

 

Then, add the 800 SMR band LTE capability (even though it will not be on 100% of towers), and you will get yet another layer of overlay for those situations where you are out of range of 2500 and getting a weak signal on 1900.  Again, I'm not sure of probable speeds.

 

If Sprint is able to carry this strategy to completion, Sprint subs with the right handsets and hot-spots will have an LTE experience at least as good as on any other carrier, and probably significantly better.

That's all good but what about building penetration? I've never had a WiMax phone but all forums are filled with complaints about signal strength.

My point was that 2.5GHz will only be useful outside.

I'm not sure why you ask questions such as this as it seems you know the answer already.  It's also been said that VoLTE will be a long ways away.  1X isn't going anywhere and definitely the PCS ones are not going anywhere for quite a while. 

I didn't know. Maybe Sprint is going to have VoLTE soon? Maybe you or another mod was going to respond "I saw NV schedules with VoLTE mentioned"; I don't know. Anyway, even if I did know, there's plenty of people here who don't know this was even an issue.

The key is Clear. 

 

I think people are underplaying how badly Sprint needs that. 

Yes, but, Sprint's towers are at PCS spacing, right?

So even if Sprint eventually puts 2.5GHz on all its 38k+ towers, it's gonna be an uneven experience.

I only see the opex as an issue on post-NV sites that have enhanced backhaul.  I am curious how much telcos will charge when they want to go from 100-300mbps of service to 1gbps of service.

 

The telcos that are providing access are probably drooling at the opportunity to charge more since it's essentially pure profit for them.

If backhaul OPEX starts becoming an issue, Sprint has its own fiber backbone which it could, over time and starting at the sites most expensive to least fiber, connect to their own towers.

Sprint would do the math:

1) cost of monthly fiber access to ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc

2) loan to fund direct Sprintlink connection to sites + interest

See where the breakeven point is - how many years before Sprintlink option is cheaper -  and make a decision.

Their backbone is not directly connected to their 38,500 sites. And it would cost billions and take years to try and connect them now.

 

Robert via Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

In the longterm, if Sprint keeps just 1 1xRTT carrier on PCS, then assuming the PCS licenses are multiplies of 5MHz FDD, will it add a 3MHz FDD LTE carrier or just fill the rest of the 2x5MHz block with more 1xRTTs?

As Sprint starts removing PCS EVDO carriers, will it still keep the same number of PCS 1xRTT carriers?
Or will it rely on 800 1xRTT?
A mod said that Sprint will not deploy LTE-800 on 15-20% of sites - urban ones where spacing is too tight - so the same logic would apply to deployment of 1xRTT on 800.

Therefore, with the greatly reduced voice capacity on 800MHz compared to PCS (since Sprint will only have 1-2 1xRTT carriers on 800), it'd seem that until Sprint gets VoLTE, it has no choice but to keep the same number of PCS 1xRTT carriers that it has now until VoLTE arrives.

It is believed that Sprint will upgrade all full build sites to include LTE 800 except in places where they do not have the spectrum available.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

Do you mean that they will only put LTE-800 where they have the full 2x7 MHz?

I thought they would deploy 2x3 where they can?

Please point me towards that direction.

Heard of Google? "s4gru clearwire"

Hmmm the argument that shifting spectrum from EVDO to LTE would adversely affect EVDO users is certainly valid and by all means correct. However, the EVDO experience is already unusable in many places regardless so would the loss (potentially indistinguishable) be worth the reward?

 

I'd have to guess it to be worth it considering how much more efficient LTE is. Even if they only setup a 3x3 carrier.

 

Just my thoughts...

You can't use EVDO speeds pre-NV as the baseline for "what's gonna happen if they decide to remove an EVDO carrier".

From my reading of this forum, backhaul is the primary (?and only?) reason why EVDO speeds on Sprint are horrible.

Once they add fiber backhaul to every site, then you can say "well given current EVDO speeds, if they removed an EVDO carrier . . ."

But even if EVDO speeds continue to be "unusable" after NV, which they won't, if Sprint was able to actually survive having unusable 3G speeds and no LTE, I think they'll think it worth the sacrifice to maintain usable LTE speeds and unusable 3G.

 

 

 

Adding a second carrier wouldn't improve peak speeds but it would double average speeds.

 

 

Unless Sprint has spectrum sitting in a market unused, that would potentially harm EVDO/CDMA by taking away carrier from non-LTE users.

They're gonna do it eventually even if it does harm nonLTE users.

I expect they'll hold off until the average goes below the 6-8mbpa they're advertising.

An additional carrier would provide more capacity, IE if the G block 5x5 carrier is filled up, a 2nd A-F block carrier is available.  Similar to the current EVDO setup with multiple carriers from a tower to spread load.

Adding a second carrier wouldn't improve peak speeds but it would double average speeds.

Consider who you are citing. Roger Entner is one of the biggest shills for the duopoly and its spectrum agglomeration.

 

Plus, the MHz per million (or, as I prefer, Hz per capita) calculation that gets bandied about is one of the most misleading metrics in wireless. It has been debunked numerous times because it acts as if there is just one sector for an entire population. It completely disregards cellular reuse, which is the basis of cellular networks.

 

As a counterexample, look at Wi-Fi. If we take the total spectrum in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and divide that by the US population, we end up with a Hz per capita figure around 1. That is only ~1 Hz per person. But, hey, that is a specious measurement. Because of cellular/spatial reuse, I have 60 MHz all to myself at home with my dual band Wi-Fi network.

 

AJ

So would spectrum per unit pop density be better?

Only apps you need are SignalCheck Pro, Sensorly, and LTE Discovery.  Done.

Only Sensorly is available on iOS; any alternatives?

When will Sprint add a second 2x5 LTE carrier in PCS?

It makes more sense to keep building smaller cells for capacity than to keep adding spectrum and bands.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Is that cheaper for carriers? They're gonna look for cheapest.

And while I understand the concept of small cells, how small are they going to be exactly?

There is a ton of Spectrum out there already

Not per person

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/entner-lte-and-us-consumers-are-king/2012-10-19

It's not because the carriers aren't trying: the Supreme Court had to step in to make sure things wouldn't get bogged down even further.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-uphold-fcc-power-cell-tower-disputes-144027871.html

Local municipalities aren't making easy.

Who should share with whom?

So wouldn't someone make money off hosting his network? If not Sprint then T-Mobile?

Adding more and more bands becomes a logistical headache and reduces economy of scale for each band.  

Yes, I agree but if the alternative is slower data speeds, won't phone consumers accept the costs? It's not as if we're talking about doubling the price of a phone.

I'd definitely like to see that article.

Aren't those solutions intended for alleviating congestion in relatively small locations like a mall, stadium, etc.?

I'm thinking at the macro level at which point peppering cities with small cells might be more expensive than adding another spectrum band.

Also, you're assuming antenna technology won't advance much. I know absolutely nothing about antennas. 

What about 

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/qualcomm-rf360-front-end-solution-product-brief.pdf

It does look like the solution's not optimal so maybe it's meant more as a "we're coming!":

http://blogs.strategyanalytics.com/RFC/post/2013/03/19/Does-Qualcomms-RF360-Mean-The-Demise-of-GaAs.aspx

 

 

What do you think is going to happen to the spectrum these two hold?

 

Eventually, it's gonna be used by someone.

 

 

Maybe, or it may just end up underwater, like a lot of foreclosed homes during the housing crash.

 

I have long been saying that we are unnecessarily flooding the market with so much new spectrum -- AWS-1, AWS-2, AWS-4, BRS/EBS, SMR, Upper/Lower 700 MHz, WCS, 600 MHz -- that the spectrum bubble could burst any day now.

 

AJ

How would it burst? Mobile usage-stuff is increasing, right? And America has ?second? highest data prices?

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-sprint-dish-held-talks-spectrum-hosting-deal/2012-12-10

 

 

 

 

Dish - they never asked Sprint to host their network.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok fine.

Since they're not gonna be bought by Dish ... resume thread.

There...fixed your quote.

What do you think is going to happen to the spectrum these two hold?

Eventually, it's gonna be used by someone.

If AT&T "built" a band from scratch using WCS, why wouldn't it also want to use DIsh's 2x20 in 2GHz?

Seems like they've been down that road already.

Dish - they never asked Sprint to host their network.

Lightsquared - they're trying to share some spectrum with (NOAA)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57582692-94/finally-some-good-news-for-lightsquared-and-its-4g-hopes/

Eventually, Dish and Lightsquared will need a network to host their spectrum (assuming they don't sell it).

As Sprint's network is currently planned out, will it be able to host Dish and/or Lightsquared spectrum?

http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/135045-what-is-lte-advanced/4

What are the possible issues?
Backhaul?
Tower spacing?
Competitive issues?

Maybe Robert should have a FAQ session. So that I won't need to ask every question you have wrote before.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3700-ev-do-rev-b/

Maybe you could do a search