milan03

Let's face it: I'm a network nerd. I need to replenish my stock of SIMs since both my T-Mobile and AT&T prepaid SIMs mysteriously disappeared from my wallet (thank goodness neither are on autopay) but there's one annoying omission: VZW.

 

Actually, I have VZW. But it's in a single-band (for LTE anyway) device: a third-gen iPad. And swapping the iPad's SIM into my Nexus 5, which supports everything Verizon has except Band 13, gives me no signal.

 

Given that situation, does anyone have any ideas about getting a device...and service on said device...that supports VZW on AWS, and actually works with it? I'd get the prepaid JetPack service, expensive as it is, but the device being offered with it doesn't have AWS compatibility yet.

Get UML295 on eBay. You should be able to find it on the cheap side ~$50. Use your existing iPad SIM, you'll attach to both bands as long as AWS is available in your area. It's a Cat 3 USB modem Band 4/13 capable, also B7. That's as cheap as it gets.

Did the cop have his monkey with him?

Maybe in his satchel. He was definitely blending with all the tourists in that area.

Those Verizon sites are likely new AWS sites. Those sites are getting done at the same pace as the Spark sites are on Sprint. Spark has been moving much faster than the initial LTE deployment on PCS because they have high speed backhaul already.

Yesterday I was in Wall Street area, and noticed these new Verizon DAS attached to the light poles. They're CDMA/LTE (B4/13) so I've decided to stand right under and started taking a bunch of photos upwards since my smartphone couldn't adjust the freaking exposure. Cop car pulled over right behind me but I kept doing my thing since I really wasn't doing anything wrong... All of a sudden a guy dressed like a euro tourist with a satchel that looks like Zach Galifianakis' from Hangover approached me asking what am I trying to do. Tried brushing him off and he pulled out his NYPD badge... Took me a while to explain myself, and it wasn't easy. At all. Apparently NYPD cameras are also on that pole way higher above that Verizon's DAS lol...

Anyways, this is the best my phone could do...

I agree that the EBS spectrum would ideal for divestment if all you needed to do was get below some arbitrary amount of Mhz owned/leased. It's leased instead of owned (higher ongoing costs), it's not all contiguous (less useful), it's a huge swath of spectrum (so you could reduce your Mhz held by just canceling a bunch of leases), and not as many carriers will support LTE on it compared with PCS or AWS (less useful asset in roaming deals). I don't think divesting EBS spectrum will help them with the FCC though, which is the reason WHY they need to divest this stuff in the first place. IIRC, EBS doesn't count against the spectrum screen, just the 55 or so Mhz of BRS they own, thus "divesting" that leased EBS doesn't help you with the FCC. (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this). 

 

If just axing a ton of EBS gets you nowhere with the FCC, what other divestment options do you have? Absolutely NO WAY they give up their tiny slice of 800 Mhz spectrum, or the BRS spectrum they own. TD-LTE and 800Mhz are too crucial to their long term goals. That leaves you with AWS from TMUS and the combined PCS spectrum.

 

I'm guessing Sprint would prefer to divest the AWS before PCS. Only because they can integrate the PCS spectrum into NV for less than AWS. They have very similar propagation and international roaming support. 

You do realize that for merger to go through divesture would have to be solidified at the time of the approval or shortly after, which would mean unused spectrum. I get that you'd like AWS to be that sacrificed divesture, but it's surprising to me that you find ok instantly rendering 40Million AWS subs and their UE completely obsolete... 

To me that's even worse strategy than Nextel failure, and would only strengthen AT&T's customer base and drive Sprint to the ground...

There are two issues I see with HSPA/LTE as Sprint's future technology track:

 

1. The 800 MHz spectrum Sprint owns is too narrow for use of W-CDMA. WCDMA and HSPA require 5 MHz chunks. With 800 LTE coming that's 5x5, that takes up all the head room for the 800 MHz spectrum. 

2. Everything is migrating to VoLTE long term anyway, I would rather see Sprint skate to where the puck is going (LTE, TD-LTE, VoLTE) than where it is now (CDMA voice and WCDMA voice). 

800Mhz spectrum is ideal for 1x voice and I'm sure that'll stay spectrum of choice for 1x and LTE. But in quite a few markets Sprint's PCS spectrum is contiguous with T-Mobile's which is a goldmine. Could be repurposed for LTE and in Release 12 they could aggregate B2 with B4 for example. But short term could provide NewCo HSPA+42 in the PCS and free up AWS for 20x20Mhz LTE.

Right now TMUS is running HSPA and GSM in PCS, and running LTE and W-CDMA in PCS. You leave your TMUS sites running during the transition, but you gradually move PCS spectrum from TMUS sites to NV sites as GSM/HSPA traffic declines. In urban areas you will also be able to reduce your site count by thinning out TMUS sites during this stage as more users move to Sprint devices. The AWS LTE/W-CMDA part of the network is the last part you'd shut down. If Sprint's RRUs and base station gear supports it, maybe even keep one W-CDMA block in PCS. If nothing else, I bet they would make good money just on international roaming. 

What do you mean by "if nothing else"? 3GPP is where you'd want this to go, and assuming this merger is to happen Sprint finally has a valid reason to do so. Save on CDMA licensing, collect roaming revenue, simultaneous voice/data, and have a serious fallback HSPA+42 network.

Reducing site count is also valid, but you don't just shut down a site because it's T-Mobile's... You take your time to strategically figure out which sites will provide the best coverage and capacity, how to avoid interference between the sites, and you shut down redundant sites regardless of the origin. Don't forget that 99+% of T-Mobile's HSPA+ sites are fiber fed.

As I mentioned earlier, WCDMA could be easily added to existing Sprint NV sites, so that Sprint's existing WCDMA capable phones can fully utilize it. AWS LTE could follow as well. 

On T-Mobile sites TDD-LTE with 800Mhz LTE could be added since T-Mobile has already met and exceeded their LTE modernization goals.

No, hell no.

 

As I have said numerous times, SoftBank is a weak name.  Plus, it has no cachet in the US.  It sounds like a flaccid place to get a checking account.

 

AJ

Haha I don't like it either, but I think it's likely to happen. 

Softbank US

If this really goes down I hope Sprint uses Milan and retain the entire T-Mobile network team.  Those guys really know what they are doing.  Let them remain in charge.  

Let AJ be the leader, Neal and myself would provide moral support, and Ray Neville will do what we demand

You thin the T-Moblie LTE network because it only offers LTE on AWS and, in many places, is still stuck on GSM/EDGE with no HSPA or LTE at all. Sprint's network will do LTE seamlessly across 3 different bands. By the time Sprint/Softbank gets FCC approval for a TMUS merger, they will have far more extensive LTE coverage than TMUS. You thin it as more and more users move to Sprint devices that support LTE across all bands, not just AWS. 

 

Why would you force T-Mobile subscribers to new CDMA devices if a large number of Sprint's existing devices already support GSM/WCDMA on 1900Mhz band? Not to mention the CDMA chipset licensing that even Verizon is trying to get rid of!

Precisely because Sprint has so much BRS/EBS, and will have significantly deployed in their network it before this merger ever closes. It's also already baked in to newer Sprint phones. Also, getting rid of leased EBS will be less helpful with FCC approval than agreeing to give up AWS.

 

To make this work as a business proposition, they are going to have to thin their combined site count. I'm assuming the network gear and UE that does get scrapped or resold will be the TMUS stuff. They don't have to get rid of all TMUS sites, just eliminate ones with overlap and where Sprint has plenty of capacity, post NV. Once you decide that, then the AWS spectrum is the logical spectrum to divest, especially given its resale value. Lots of regionals would love to have some, as well as ATT and VZW.

Still, it doesn't make too much sense since user equipment currently can't aggregate more than 10+10Mhz. Next year 20+20Mhz will be possible for theoretical peaks of 300Mbps. Let's assume that in 2015-16 frame Qcom figures out how to aggregate three 20Mhz component carriers, that's still under 50% of Sprint's 2.5Ghz spectrum nationwide capacity... By that time 600Mhz auction will take place, AWS-3 will take place, who knows maybe even 3.5Ghz, so if Sprint absolutely HAS TO divest their spectrum, the vacant spectrum is what should be utilized. Verizon has already expressed their interest in it, and I'm sure Charlie would be all over it. Cannibalizing the existing footprint is just not smart.

 

I think there is some confusion. When I say that Sprint would divest the AWS spectrum, they won't have to do it immediately. They will be given maybe 2-3 years to reach agreements to sell it (Just like Verizon was given to sell its lower 700Mhz spectrum as a condition of getting CableCo's AWS spectrum). Here is how I would handle integrating TMUS if I were managing Sprint.

 

Almost immediately:

• Sprint stops selling new TMUS phones. All new UE will be Sprint gear. 
• Sprint makes TMUS LTE (AWS) "native" for UE that supports it. I imagine the iPhone 5S or the Nexus 5 could take advantage of this with a simple software update? (AWS is being used as a "bridge" while the merger and the TD-LTE rollout are completed.

As more TMUS subscribers move to Sprint handsets/UE:

• Sprint gradually repurposes TMUS PCS spectrum for Sprint LTE. 
• Sprint strategically 'thins" TMUS sites, converting selected TMUS sites to NV sites.
• Announce a firm shutdown date for the TMUS network. 
• Reach agreements with buyers for AWS spectrum (maybe they get some immediately the remainder when the TMUS network is shut off)

At the end (about three years from the date of the merger):

• All remaining TMUS sites are shut down
• Remaining AWS spectrum is transferred to whomever purchased it.

 

All of that is unnecessary because Sprint owns 100+ Mhz of EBS/BRS on average nationwide, and if they deploy 60-80Mhz they can still divest 20-40Mhz. That's already an insane amount of capacity! Why would you ever "thin out" fully capable T-Mobile's LTE network that Sprint subs can start benefitting immediately? I don't get it.

What spectrum would you have them divest? If they are going to buy TMUS, they are going to have to give up some spectrum. I think that divesting AWS would be the least painful of all the choices. I'm assuming that the eventual plan is to shut down most of TMUS cell sites.

What's the reasoning behind divesting fully deployed AWS spectrum and rendering 40 million devices obsolete, and how's that less painful than divesting 2.5Ghz spectrum that's barely been deployed which Sprint has in insane quantities?

I hope you realize that there are 40+ million subscribers currently connected to T-Mobile's AWS, whether its their WCDMA or LTE. 

AWS isn't going anywhere unless T-Mobile uses greenfield licenses for trading purposes. 

I'd say adding WCDMA on PCS to Sprint's existing footprint, followed by B41 and 800Mhz on T-Mobile sites is more realistic. 

I can see how this merger would benefit "SprinT-Mobile" on the corporate level. They'd have similar subs base as the big two, by far largest spectrum portfolio, more revenue, etc. But I can't see how's this going to benefit us consumers short to mid term?

Sprint is in the middle of lengthy NV process deploying 800Mhz voice and LTE to every single cell site, ripping the old infrastructure and replacing it with the latest and greatest, upgrading the backhaul. They're serious about fortifying and expanding the existing CDMA footprint, and of course supporting the existing CDMA subs base for years to come.

T-Mobile is putting finishing touches on their network modernization, migrating MetroPCS subs to GSM/WCDMA/LTE handsets, will sunset their CDMA network and repurpose the spectrum by mid 2015. They're also disruptive with their plans and aggressive network strategy, causing other wireless providers to react, driving the overall prices down for all of us.

If they merge, "SprinT-Mobile" may benefit from shared collocated site bills in some instances, but two network have a very different coverage and strategic site footprint at least in my area, which isn't gonna change overnight as that would be a nightmare for engineers. Two networks are fully matured, finely tuned, and any kind of shift in cell site placement especially in topographically challenged urban areas can cause a ton of headache. It's already been mentioned that they'll be running two different technologies for a while, which is redundant. Over time they could eventually all meet at the VoLTE, and consolidate, but near term that's not happening.

By eliminating a Tier-1 provider, consumers definitely aren't benefitting in terms of user experience short-to-mid term, and since Legere is most likely going to be demoted we may not have that consumer friendly disruption in the industry, driving the prices down causing others to react. 

Interesting BusinessWeek article popped up today http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-12-13/verizon-said-to-be-near-agreement-to-sell-airwaves-to-t-mobile

VZW seems ready to divest its Lower 700 MHz A block licenses in as many markets as possible.  Meanwhile, in exchange, T-Mobile might be willing to shed some AWS spectrum across numerous secondary and tertiary markets.  After all, let us be honest -- T-Mobile for years has shown tepid interest in updating those markets.  It seems more than content to be the new "MetroPCS."  And VZW has a much higher proportion of its subs outside of the top 100 markets, so it may need the smaller market AWS spectrum far more than T-Mobile does.

 

AJ

That actually make pretty good sense, assuming those markets still have sufficient amount of left over AWS and PCS so that voice remains uninterrupted and HSPA/LTE service could be deployed. I'd much rather see T-Mobile acquiring 700Mhz A from smaller smaller providers or spectrum holders in those secondary markets for rural deployment, but oh well.

New report that Verizon is open to swapping spectrum for 700 MHz A block.  I see this as an opportunity for Verizon to dominate the AWS spectrum as well by asking Tmobile to swap some of its AWS spectrum in exchange for some 700 MHz A blocks.  I wonder if Tmobile will bite on this.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-open-swapping-spectrum-700-mhz-block/2013-12-11

I don't see how swap could be a solution for T-Mobile since their AWS is all deployed. I can only think of AWS rich market like Dallas where they could shut down their A block and divest to Verizon, but they'll still pay a lot of money for 700Mhz A so not sure if that'd make much sense...

Yes. VZW has some 20 MHz FDD markets. With Cat 4 baseband devices, that configuration can support 150 Mbps peak downlink speeds.

 

AJ

Which makes us wonder if it's the backhaul or software rate limiting us to peak at 80Mbps on a completely unloaded Verizon's 20Mhz FDD layer at 4am on any given day. Should be much closer to 150Mbps with Cat 4 UE.

here they are

Hey I've found this exact OFDMA range a few months ago!

Awesome! 

I wish it was that easy! Apps cannot really pull data out of other apps (engineering mode is just a system app). I don't have anything to test yet.

 

-Mike

No worries, once your Nexus 5 arrives, you'll see how easy it is

I'm totally convinced that you could do it!

The price difference between 225 of backhaul and 675 of backhaul is minimal. Over 150 or 200, just get a GigE.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

Thanks for breaking the price down for us! That totally makes me wonder what's the reason behind their ~80Mbps rate limit on unloaded cells, day or night, city wide. Could be rate limiting, but why would they do that?

For T-Mobile it makes much more sense as their backhaul is still 50Mbps in many markets, which used to be alright in their 5Mhz markets, def not cool in 10Mhz FDD LTE markets.

(150 + 73.6) per sector or 150 + (73.6 per sector)?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

Was referring to two live FDD airlinks they have to support per sector. 10Mhz of Band 13, and 20Mhz of AWS.

I still think they are being modest because we know the speeds that this is capable of. They even talk about aggregating spectrum next year to had 40Mhz and provide over 100 Mbps. Isn't it obvious that they'll need to increase backhaul to achieve this and wouldn't they do this sooner than later to avoid people getting slower speeds than can be delivered? 

 

Ex: Verizon's AWS LTE network in NYC runs at about 80Mbps because of backhaul constraint.

Carriers like to initially under provision their backhaul service until they absolutely have to pay for more bandwidth. Verizon has fiber to pretty much all of their cell sites in NYC, but they're definitely not paying extra $$$ to support the entire 150Mbps + 73.6Mbps per sector, yet. Their 10Mhz Band 13 is constantly loaded, but Band 4 is consistently above their advertised 5-12Mbps, so I guess they're saving money...

T-Mobile is doing pretty much the same. They just went from 5Mhz FDD LTE to 10Mhz FDD LTE in NYC, and peak speeds went from 35Mbps to only ~40Mbps on an unloaded sector. The upload has doubled to about ~20Mbps.

The good news is that it's all scalable and only requires remote provisioning if the equipment is in place. It is an extra expense for wireless operators, but with sufficient backhaul service they're effectively increasing spectral efficiency at their cells by utilizing extra capacity, and potentially shortening data session time at the UE.

I would say no. It'll break compatibility with too many devices (cough Samsung cough) but I daresay that when PCS A-F blocks gets refarmed it'll be another 5mhx lte carrier and the mmbs/bts will automatically swap users between carriers as needed depending on load and other factors. Carrier aggregation may also come into play when sprint uses other pcs blocks.

 

Sent from my Google Nexus 5

Got it. So the real benefit of testing UE for wider than 5Mhz on B25 is future proofing since it will be able to connect to wider channels anywhere between A-F on the PCS, G block stays at 5Mhz, correct?