maximus1987/lou99

That's only because they don't want to have a repeat of the "there's a map for that". During the T-Mobile merger, it came out that they were considering not expanding LTE past 250 million. http://www.broadband...5d840ff/DOC.pdf It would've cost them $3.8billion to expand LTE from 80% to 97% (pg. 2, top) but they were willing to pay $39billion to buy T-Mobile and that somehow would've allowed them to expand LTE to 97% cheaper than the $3.8billion. http://en.wikipedia....e_USA_by_AT%26T reference 22 I'd like to see an AT&T commercial with those 6-yr olds: "So what's less: $3.8 or $39?" The PDF is a good read, lots of information on LTE tower count, etc. Some more usesful stats: 1) going from 80% to 97% pop coverage: a) increases land coverage from 20% to 55 % (pg. 2, bottom) b ) doubles cost per person compared to just 80% (pg. 3 top)

Yes I agree but isn't POPs proportional to geographic coverage?

So what's the new current projected POPs buildout for LTE? I keep reading from Sprint 250M, not 277M.

You're right; here's a nice little graphic from FCC http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/wireless-communications-service-wcs And one more article http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/131316-att-and-sirius-xm-propose-rules-to-allow-lte-on-wcs 2x10 at 2.3GHz spacing should be sweet. Looks like they solved their capacity problems. Do you know why they went for FDD instead of TDD? Would it cost them more to deploy TDD or is it because their not familiar with TDD? Also, who owns the other WCS?

When do you think WCS phones will be out? WCS will only be 2x5 cause they're conceding 2 5MHz blocks as guard bands for sat radio, right? So any capacity gains will be simply as a result of closer tower spacing.

Then why is ATT doing this? http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/04/net10-caps-att-data-at-1-5gb-per-month-t-mobile-remains-unlimited/ I guess this may have been in preparation for them launching AIO wireless?

On page 16 on the PDF, there's a Venn diagram with LTE, WiMAX overlap. In the left one, the numbers work out but in the right one: it says 277M LTE but on the same page, it says 250M LTE; which is it? Also, whichever number it is for final LTE coverage, is that coverage with or without 800MHz LTE meaning, will some of Sprints currently planned LTE pops only be covered with 800MHz and not PCS LTE?

Any idea how much Sprint charges Straight Talk per minute and per megabyte?

Regarding VZW's LTE 750 density, it really sucks. I'm friends with a married couple, with <1 yr old VZ LTE phones, and neither can get LTE signal at all in most of my house. I know it's only 1 example but I'm right next to a freeway and in a dense suburb; with T-Mobile AWS-only 14.4 Mbps phone, I get 3-6 mbps inside my house.

T-Mobile's network is already fast cause they have so few subscribers. "Speeds increased since 2010. Bandwidth claim based on T-Mobile's network spectrum per customer versus AT&T's." http://t-mobile-coverage.t-mobile.com/ (bottom of page) Unless they lower their prices $20/month, I don't think people will accept having such bad geographic coverage. This UNcarrier stuff is mostly smoke-and-mirrors; if you buy a smartphone every two years, there's literally no change (as was mentioned many times on this forum).

A mod posted, somewhere, a proposed rebranding of 850 band to make room for a third 850 license; happen to know where that post is? Also, what are the technical and political hurdles to getting that done?

Can you post a link to a tutorial on sectors and panels?

That's what HSPA is, right? I'm not too sure.

T-Mobile getting 850 MHz licenses would be golden! GSM iPhone (secretly) supports LTE in Band 5 and of course it supports HSPA+42 in that band also; very flexible.

It would be impossible. http://www.phonescoo...php?a=187&p=229 The only bands that would be useful are the lower B,C blocks because those are band 17 which is available on T-Mobile iPhone (and ATT&T iPhone which are now the same thing). Verizon+ATT own most but after Verizon was approved to buy AWS from Spectrum Co. - the cable companies - it sold off lower A,B,C licenses; AT&T bought ALOT. http://www.extremete...for-1-9-billion Furthermore, they've very recently declared that they'relooking toward 600MHz for next boost in coverage and they're stopping footprint expansion with AWS+PCS. I actually listened to the entire 40min webcast last night and I think the CTO is delusional. He thinks after they finish 200mil LTE expansion, they can taper their CAPEX and "have a really nice cash flow profile" http://jpmorgan.meta...php?ticker=TMUS and wait it out until the 600 MHz is available. My guess is they're trying to preserve the value of DT's 74% share- until lockup period expires - by not loading TMUS with more debt. I'd love to see their free cash-flow profile when people realize in mid-2014 that even Sprint has more geographic coverage. It's funny cause during the audio webcast, the interviewer explicitly asked "since you're the lowest cost provider and have the iPhone, why do you think people are STILL going to VZW+ATT?" and Mr. Ray starts BEEEEE-SSSSSING, totally avoiding the whole coverage thing.

"One familiar - but odd - name in Auction 73 was MetroPCS. It bought a large A-block license covering Boston... and that one license is all it bought, which is what's odd. It didn't participate in auctions 44 or 49, either. To have one lone city that uses a completely different frequency band from the rest of your network is generally not a good idea. MetroPCS felt sure enough about it to spend over $310 million on that license, though, so we assume it has some kind of plan." http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=187&p=233

"Show me the 600 MHz band plan and the 3GPP 600 MHz LTE band." Are you saying that by this time last go-around, the 600MHz band plan existed? "Many UHF TV broadcasters are not keen on the idea at all." Uhhgggggggggg. I've thought of my previous posts on this topic, refined my opinions some - since I did receive good back and forth - and I think the following should be done: eminent domain! The Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London (2005), stated that government could seize private property, provide just compensation, and transfer said property to another private owner if the new owner can provide higher economic value. "the governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment." Hmmmmm . . . I wonder if this situation is applicable; let us count the ways. 1) Private property - Kelo allows private property to be seized so how much more valid if it's public property (the spectrum) 2) Just compensation - provide enough money to the broadcasters to replace their equipment to move to a different band. 3) Furtherance of economic development - Duh! Why color me brown and call me Harry! I do think we've satisfied the requirements of Kelo v. New London!!! Because this is a Supreme Court decision, Congress can't do anything to overturn it but pass constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen so FCC+DOJ, start kicking ass! FYI: I was against this decision when it came out but because the broadcasters never paid for their spectrum, I'm perfectly ok in using it.

Why? Auction at 700 MHz was in 2008 and VZW launched commercially December 2010; is there something different at 600 MHz?

Does anyone have an article that states when 600 MHz will actually be cleared and ready for use?

T-Mobile has officially declared that they are not expanding their "footprint" until they get 600 MHz. "Ray said that the company is not currently looking to expand its network footprint and is eagerly awaiting next year's scheduled incentive auctions of 600 MHz broadcast TV spectrum. He said using such spectrum is "a far more effective way to go and build those opportunities out" http://www.fiercewir...pops/2013-05-15 This doesn't mean that they won't expand their planned LTE past 200 million - though they probably won't even though they currently cover 225 million with HSPA+ - but that any additional coverage past 225 million will only come about using 600 MHz. So, if you buy a T-Mobile LTE phone now then you won't have their 600 MHz coverage and be limited to "urban islands". One thing I wonder: where will they start building out their 600 MHz? In my opinion - boy is it fun to play armchair CEO! - they should start building it out where they do NOT have coverage with their AWS+PCS. Then, once they reach their target coverage, such as 290 million with 600MHz+other combined, they should double back and cover their current PCS+AWS. Why? 1) They don't gain anything by covering areas already covered with PCS+AWS. They already have coverage there so what's the point? In building? That's not their problem; rural coverage is. 2) More importantly, there won't be handsets for many months even after the network equipment is available. So, if they start covering current 225mil first, people will have to get new phones to take advantage of the 600 MHz. Yes, the previous statement will be true even if they do rural first but at least TMUS will have a marketing point: "We have 300 million covered! *New phone required" Hey. It's better than doing urban buildout first and having no marketing points besides: "If you buy a new phone, then in one year you'll be able to have coverage out of urban islands!"

What's "FIT"?

ATT is also already active there with LTE, right? I always wondered: are ATT+VZW building LTE in AK for ROI or for advertising points?

What about this: TMUS and Sprint jointly buy 20-30MHz of 600MHz auction and build out to 300mil+? FCC and DOJ would certainly be ok with it; T+VZW will whine. That way, they can share costs+risks and they won't be at a constant advertising disadvantage regarding rural coverage. TMUS would definitely benefit more from this arrangement - it has no sub 1GHz - but Sprint still benefit: having 600 MHz means capacity on their 2x5 LTE 800 (or less) wouldn't become an issue until much later. So, more time until they need to deploy LTE 1900, if ever, and the associated closer tower spacing. Of course, at this point it becomes necessary to get some actuaries to see which is more expensive: more 600 MHz or more PCS-spaced towers? Since, as is (probably) true, Softbank cares about deriving ROI from the high-capacity 2.5GHz band, they might not look at 600MHz sharing as a competitive concession. Rural ROI is low but not having rural coverage means constant advertising ding. Hopefully, Softbank doesn't make the same mistake as Deutsche Telekom and only build out super-dense network for cities+suburbs, ignoring rurals, and assume that if it works in Japan - where population density is CRAZY high just like Germany​ - it'll work here. If they try that, they'll get clobbered by T+VZW but I hope Softbank will have learned from DT's mistake and listen to Hesse's advice.

Why doubtful and what particular regulatory rules would discourage it? Coverage is a major advertising point: there's a Sprint internal letter somewhere on this forum that states Sprint is rolling out LTE to small markets first to get the market count up quickly. What incentive would TMUS and S not have to expand to 300mil?

Do you think TMUS and Sprint will build out their 600MHz to cover 300 million like ATT and Verizon have with their 700 MHz?