milan03

Is this historic thing gonna show up or should I just go to sleep... Love the media overhyping these "blizzards" all for the sake of boosting the economy. Tired of it tbh...

Not aware of any changes to WNJN.  Until about two weeks ago, I had a TV tuner I could remote access at my grandma's house in Fair Lawn.  Two days after she left for a two-month vacation, the computer it was connected to stopped responding.  If it was still working, I'd have a look for you.

 

Since you say the change was in August, my data covers that much.  I don't see any changes in signal level during that time.  http://www.rabbitears.info/tvdx/signal_graph/10343612/tuner1/WNJN

 

- Trip

Ah thanks for the link. Is it even technically possible to reduce the transmission facing east (towards NYC), and is there a technical explanation why it became impossible to access WNJN in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn. We still have access to PBS on Ch 13 WNET.

 

Thanks again! 

There has to be an empty channel between wireless and TV because the relative power difference between the two is huge.  If you're near a TV transmitter (up to 1000 kW) then the TV signal will stomp on the wireless transmissions (up to 1 kW/MHz from the base station, I think, but usually much less, and not more than a few watts max on the phone side).  The reverse is also true if you're far away from a TV transmitter; the wireless transmission from the phone will be so much higher in power than the received power level of the TV signal that the TV receiver won't be able to handle it.

 

As for TV-to-TV, there doesn't necessarily have to be an empty TV channel between the two as long as the stations are geographically close together.  In your area, WOOD is on channel 7 and WWMT is on channel 8 without issue.  Where there is a problem is when there is distance between the two stations such that areas exist where one station will be more than about 30 dB stronger than the other, causing receivers to be unable to decode the weaker signal.

 

- Trip

By any chance, do you have any idea if Ch 51 WNJN out of Montclair, NJ has reduced their broadcast footprint? The reason I'm asking is because many of us in NYC can access it OTA anymore, leading us to believe that they've worked out some kind of an agreement with T-Mobile.

 

Since August, on WNJN's own website viewers have been complaining that they can't access their OTA broadcast anymore. WNJN is still present on cable/FiOS.

 

Thanks!

Pick a T-Mobile exec and send him an email. I doubt that anyone here will have all the answers to your questions.

But any modernized tower will have 4/12 so for the same reason you wouldn't see b12 only areas.

That's a logical assumption, but we still don't know for sure how will they deploy into these new areas. They could decide to cut as much cost as possible, and go with Band 12 Only, as most of these ares are tertiary markets.

For what it's worth, the map does contain logic to show Band 12 700mhz LTE, and to alert you if you need a Band 12 device to use it.

 

It also has a device page for it - http://www.t-mobile.com/optional-services/coverage-phones-700.html

 

I haven't found an area that triggers it yet. But if/when that happens, there's logic in the map, today, to support that.

Typically where Band 12 is deployed, Band 4 is also available which could explain why you can't find the areas that trigger Band 12 device alert.

That should change in the second half of 2015 when they start expanding into the areas of no coverage potentially using only Band 12.

 

We still need some clarity on whether they'll expand the coverage with Band 12 only or Band 2/4/12 since it's going to require new RRUs anyway.

Maybe, maybe not.  That 8-10 Mbps may become the norm.

 

With mobile users consuming so much data -- too much data, in my opinion -- do not count out the other three major operators' LTE average speeds regressing back toward the pack, as VZW's, AT&T's, and T-Mobile's LTE average speeds have already yo yo'd or decreased.  In many cases, they have already fired their big guns for the next few years.  This is especially true of VZW with Upper 700 MHz and AWS-1 and T-Mobile with "wideband" AWS-1.  AT&T has some as of yet untapped potential with its massive PCS holdings in many markets.  Sprint, though, seems best positioned to improve its LTE average speeds in the next year or two, since the PCS G block and SMR were not its big guns.  BRS/EBS is the weapon of choice, and a single carrier is now coming online in many places -- with the potential for multiple carriers soon.

 

AJ

 

I'd just add that both Verizon and T-Mobile's backhaul provisioning still has room to grow. Very rarely their backhaul capacity maxes out their air interface at the cell site. By observing my NYC market, I've concluded that most Verizon sectors are capped at 80-100Mbps backing 40MHz FDD LTE aggregate radio capacity (10MHz B13 + 20MHz AWS +10MHz PCS), while T-Mobile's 15MHz FDD LTE gets either 50Mbps or 80Mbps provisioning per sector depending on the location and traffic.

 

I'm thinking that fronting the bill on the backhaul will be their last resort, but it's there as an option.

There is no video

"On the sidelines of the DLD conference in Munich Germany"

Exactly, it's simply unbelievable to me that a global corporate leader would completely dump on one of his own CEOs and internal strategies, and not get fired. Unless there is something else going on there.

That was very bold of John to respond like that to his boss. He's outspoken which is nothing new but there's a time and place and definitely not your boss. Well let's see what happens in the coming days after that comment. Probably nothing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd still like to see the actual video of that interview as I simply can't believe that Tim Hoettges, the leader of a major global wireless corporation would make such a rookie public statement. He's basically dumping on his U.S. CEO and everything his U.S. team has been doing over the past two years. The guy is totally out of sync.

In the U.S. corporate environment, this type of statement would get you fired in no time.

And a better question is why are the even shutting down GSM if it's not taking up any LTE or Wcdma space?

Seems like it's a luxury they can afford (to have 2g available)

They could swap that spectrum with Verizon for contiguity in different markets, plus decommissioning the 2G they're lowering the Opex and moving one step closer towards the leaner "all-LTE" network.

How many MHz paired do they have for gsm today?

Well, in markets like NYC they only run 3MHz of dedicated GSM in the CLR, and the rest is GSM stuffed in the WCDMA guard band. Meanwhile they're running three WCDMA carriers two in CLR and one in the PCS.

 

That's all.

Vzw has like 10mhz paired not fdd in most of its markets. Att not sure. I think they'll get huge boost when they shutdown 2g dec 31 2016 and refarm to lte.

Huge boost? Definitely not as they've had GSM down to a minimum for years.

HSPA+ will still be around past 2017, with at least two carriers in major urban areas addressing fallback voice/data.

Leasing new sites -- absolutely. They'll need lots of new sites.

 

Building new sites -- I'm not sure about that. There's a surprising amount of underused, PCS-spaced sites in "rural-ish / small town" areas, according to what their sales reps show me on the American Tower / Crown Castle location tools.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if T-Mobile builds zero new sites, and just leases all of the new sites they need. There's a lot of them already out there, and the rural / small town ones are surprisingly cheap.

Don't forget that T-Mobile may very well avoid usual suspects like American Tower / Crown Castle and go with many small "built to suit" tower companies instead, that will build exactly what T-Mobile's asking for, front the cost, and then lease it long term to T-Mobile.

 

Obviously on the surface co-location sounds like a logical move, but it's not always ideal nor the cheapest.

T-Mobile is made up of what used to be regional carriers. Omnipoint was one of them.

I've been with T-Mobile since the Omnipoint days. I definitely feel old haha!

It includes MetroPCS, most of which is now up and running save for some urban DAS installations. T-Mobile is also working on small cells, they have a test installation in conjunction with NSN at Arlington Heights, IL. I think T-Mobile is just keeping a lot of their small strategy private at this time.

T-Mobile has literally a few SmallCells. That's it. In addition to 60,000+ sites, they do have 12,000 MetroPCS DAS nodes in dense urban areas they're keeping according to Neville Ray, as of yesterday. And obviously, they're expanding the overall footprint this year, and that's additional site count. It's unclear what's going to be the total amount.

 

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/citigroup/imt2015/67205536707.cfm

 

"- I mean if you think about, my biggest goal this year is the footprint expansion, the 300 million pops of LTE. From capacity perspective, I've done that work for '15. So our capital profile is not going through incremental intensity for capacity because of the density that we have, the sites that we have... I'm not running around saying that "we're adding thousands of SmallCells", I have a couple. Literally, right? Because I have such a strong macro network in the ground already today and I'm pouring spectrum on top of it, I'm filling the rain barrels of capacity that we have out there. So my major goal is on footprint expansion, not so much on the capacity piece. And again, you've got to think how the other guys are playing, their invests are around capacity and how to catch up. We've already built that asset."

 

"- If you look at the density of the cell network that we have because we've only had mid-band assets, combining that with MetroPCS 12,000 nodes of DAS, we've combined where it really makes sense to drive cell density and capacity. We're adding more and more spectrum."

Something to ponder.

http://bgr.com/2015/01/08/t-mobile-vs-att-vs-verizon-network/

But then again, it is BGR, and it looks like T-Mobile is serious about expanding that LTE network footprint already.

One thing is for sure, once your customers leave because of the network issues, it is really tough to get them back.

That's because many Sprint customers are on legacy Unlimited plans from before 2010. Additionally T-Mobile got rid of Unlimited and had to bring it back. Sprint has been pushing share plans much more heavily than Unlimited whereas nearly everything that T-Mobile has been marketing has been Unlimited or has something to do with unlimited.

It's Sprint's wholesale business that's heavily based on Unlimited.

Sprint claims it's net port positive against T-Mobile, and T-Mobile claims it's 2.2 net port positive against Sprint (according to FierceWireless from the call).

 

However, in the actual released results, Sprint claims 0.03 million postpaid adds and T-Mobile claims 1.30 million postpaid adds.

 

I'm inclined to believe T-Mobile's port ratio is probably more accurate, based on the actual numbers from Sprint's Press Release vs T-Mobile's, unless some new information comes to light.

Marcelo seems to be talking about prepaid port ratio. Not postpaid.

Listening to the webcast from yesterday, Marcelo said they (Root Metrics) don't want their name used. Not sure if this changes their future marketing or not.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't RootMetrics, because he mentioned them a few times on Chicago example. 

That independent research he was talking about is a mystery.

1. He did not only tweet it, he said it many times throughout the year.

2. Legere has has 907k followers, that's marketing!

3. No one said only Sprint customers like Unlimited, however the Unlimited value proposition is obviously attracting more customers from Sprint than the duopoly. Unlimited data is no longer seen as a must have feature since Verizon and AT&T started doing tiered data and share plans years ago. Their customers have grown accustomed to the tiered data layout and aren't in a haste to switch to Unlimited anymore. Whenever my friends complain about using data and I tell them I have Unlimited data, they just shrug it off.

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/citigroup/imt2015/67205536707.cfm

 

T-Mobile's CMO Mike Sievert take on Sprint earlier today:

 

We are not a price leader in the industry, we have a great value btw, but we don't play on the price. We don't have to. What we offer is already a great value, the customers love it. We've done eight big industry changing moves that have very little to do with changing our prices, because our prices are great, people love the value we are offering. And they are paying us more than they've ever paid us before in our history.

 

When it comes to Unlimited, we offer it opportunistically. We are really proud of the deal, it's unbelievably simple, customers love it. Our customers do use more data than any of our competitors' customers, so they're highly interested in the internet. But it's not our point of differentiation. UnCarrier is our point of differentiation. In stark contrast to let's say Sprint, who really is got nothing but price. I mean nothing but price! And their first big move in the Fall when they started to show some signs, is to slash prices!!! That was their first move. What's the second move when your first move is to slash prices?! That's a tough spot. 

And so their business model is absolutely wholesale addicted to unlimited.

Apple will replace your phone with whatever you have. So I would think a Sprint locked model will be replaced with a Sprint locked model. But probably won't know 100% until somebody tries it.

 

There isn't a locked and unlocked replacement iPhone model at the Genius Bar. There is a single unactivated model which during the activation process receives either unlock or lock policy from the iTunes activation server. That's it.

This is pretty cool, but I'm not totally sure where I stand on carriers, especially the big 4, using unlicensed spectrum. Technically it is allowed, but what happens if hypothetically all 4 are using multiple channels of 5Ghz in the same area? Would interference between carriers and consumer/business routers be an issue? I know 5Ghz unlicensed is a huge band, but like 900 and now 2.4 it will eventually become saturated.

 

Anyone else? Am I crazy for thinking this?

 

Ericsson RBS6402 picocell solution will be able to consistently sweep the unlicensed spectrum within it's individual RF environment, and adjust the connectivity (attach) to a vacant 5GHz on the fly. This way each SmallCell radio within any given indoor environment could be attached to a completely different WiFi channel, while the IMS core takes care of the rest.

 

Small cells can be fully powered off of a single PoE cable? That's incredible! (Is this a new thing? Or am I getting excited about something that's been around for awhile?)

The concept of Ethernet as a single feed has been around for a while, but in the U.S. market, there hasn't been any significant commercial deployments of SmallCell. LTE-U or LAA is a brand new concept. Hopefully this year we'll see more of these launches from different vendors.

looks just like what each carrier has already but this one looks like it supports all carriers so you dont have to have carrier specific one....

Can you name a single US operator that already has this type of LTE-A SmallCell solution commercially deployed.

http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/unleashing-lte-potential-integrating-new-spectrum.htm

 

Looks like they'll be starting 5GHz work this year and are aggregating 700 with PCS/AWS.

 

I don't see the point in aggregating band 12 with bands 2 or 4. Sure it'll improve speeds a little, but it will also destroy speeds for people who are not in range of 2/4 and can only receive band 12.

"Coincidentally", Ericsson today also announced indoor RBS 6402 Picocell solution, capable of aggregating cellular transmission with up to 20MHz of unlicensed WiFi (LAA) for improved peak rates and indoor coverage. http://www.ericsson.com/us/ourportfolio/products/rbs-6402

 

It seems to be a very cost effective SmallCell solution, $2,000 a pop, fully capable of leveraging SON capabilities and requiring only Ethernet for both power and bandwidth.