Develop Bugs

FCC says no to Lightsquared - Samsung Epic 4G Touch

This does not look good for sprint's partnership
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/210745-fcc-moves-to-kill-lightsquared

Yup, read this this morning...
I'm definitely a little sad about it...Falcone has a couple of options, as do the investors who have bought their debt.
Sprint should be fine, though it would have been nice to have that $9 billion. Having already extended their options with clearwire looks like a shrewd move in light of this.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.

KCRic said:
This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
we are rolling out our own LTE network, light-squared was more of a way to expand our coverage, all my knowlagents say mid 2012

I need a little clarification I thought the LTE we were planning to roll out was lightsquared so how and who will be the maker/supplier of our LTE network, isnt LTE that is the source of the gps interference?

LightSquared was going to be hosted on Sprint's new Network Vision towers in exchange for cash and access to the new network for resale to Sprint subscribers. It would have effectively given Sprint 20 mhz (or so) of extra LTE capacity on the 1500 mhz band. However, Sprint has plans to roll out LTE on its own spectrum in the PCS (1900 mhz) and ESMR (800 mhz) bands. This decision by the FCC will not impact the coverage of Sprint's LTE, but it will reduce the total capacity of the network by about 50%. The effect will be most noticeable for users outside the range of PCS LTE, because now the more spectrum constrained 800 mhz band will have to take on all of these users.
There is hope however, because Sprint still has Clearwire. Clearwire holds a ton of spectrum in the 2500 mhz band. In many urban areas, they hold over 100 mhz of spectrum, or enough for ~1 gbps (!) to be shared between the users of each sector of each cell site when using LTE-Advanced. They're the current provider for WiMax, and they're planning on overlaying LTE on the most stressed parts of their existing network. Recently, when LightSquared was first running into trouble with the FCC, Sprint and Clearwire agreed to a system much like the current one with WiMax, where Sprint would be able to resell their 4G to its subscribers. However, since Clearwire is pretty short on cash, they won't be able to invest much into network expansion in their current state. Their future LTE coverage will be even further behind their disappointing WiMax coverage.
However, Sprint holds a majority stake in Clearwire, and if they decided to buy them out (see here), they could potentially use their spectrum on their Network Vision towers, and completely alleviate the possibility of slow data speeds due to spectrum scarcity. Now that LightSquared has failed to come through for Sprint, there is a good possibility for this (or an agreement that accomplishes something similar) to become Sprint's next course of action.

As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.

postq said:
As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.

Sprint is rolling out its own LTE network. They were going to be paid $9 billion to roll out Lightsquares for them.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

schwab002 said:
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're fine using something that's that fallible? Remember that stealth drone that Iran captured? You know how they did it? They blocked it's GPS signal which put it into autopilot. Then they sent their own "GPS" signal - stronger than the one the military was using and told it to land inside their country at a known spot.
Hmm... seems GPS isn't all it's cracked up to be. How would you like to be on a flight and have that happen? Imagine a night flight where the pilot can only rely on instruments and GPS. Mainly GPS. Someone sends a signal telling the receiver that it's climbing when in truth it's not. Guess what the pilot will do? Or the signal could just tell the receiver that it's off course, then the pilot flies into the middle of the ocean, runs out of fuel, and crashes. I don't pretend to be a pilot or know what goes on in that cockpit but if they can't see anything they must rely on the GPS.
The government knows GPS is just a huge crisis waiting to happen but they are too worried about other 'more important' issues to deal with it. Remember when Americas infrastructure was the best in the world? Neither do I but my grandparents and parents do. So I say they should let LS build the LTE network. If GPS fails that badly then it was worthless to begin with and needs to be retooled.

In terms to that GPS on the drone. GPS is a lot more secure than you think...

Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.

lifyre said:
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That being said both sides are at fault....GPS should not be infringing on said frequency ...And too bad ls could not make it work for their purpose...
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.

gharlane00 said:
GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:

tx_dbs_tx said:
The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do know that Lightsquared was not apart of Network Vision? Sprint is on budget and still will meet its goal. Lightsquared neither speed up the process nor slowed it down.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Yes I'm pretty sure Sprint has been planning ahead and not relying on Lightsquared for quite some time. The gps issue has been known from the get go. I was just speaking on actual ''business'' side of things with the potential income that sprint needs. So technically yes this LS deal getting shut down does impact Sprint's potential cash flow but its not going to affect current network vision upgrades.

Epix4G said:
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, not true in any meaningful sense.
Almost every (read: any that aren't scientifically calibrated and tuned every 3 to 6 months) receiver is sensitive to signals outside the target range. This goes for the antennas in your phone, your WiFi unit, your car, and your TV. When two closely spaced signals are similar in strength this is easily remedied and the filtering is relatively simple, and can often be done in software. When one of the signals is in the range of millions of times stronger than it's neighbor (100W ground stations for L^2, 10^(-16)W average surface signal strength for GPS) this is neither easy, cheap, or small and often is virtually impossible. Especially since signals do not have a hard edge... They're more like a flashlight than a laser.
You can observe this yourself using an old television if you're curious. Except those signal strengths would only be hundreds of times different in strength at worst.
The key to lightsquared losing was that they tried to re-purpose spectrum that has ALWAYS been designated for sat to ground communications. When they bought it they were told satellite only, they tried to change that and failed.

Related

So, recently I saw a post that clear/sprint wimax/4g coverage suddenly appeared in toledo ohio. a couple days later I saw the coverage (although still minimal) had almost doubled. I lived in seattle and now chicago, and not too far from downtown in either place, yet I happened to have an apartment within 4g coverage that was "best outside" meaning that short of setting my phone on a window sill with the window open, I couldn't get a signal. I suppose that's beside the point, but what I'm wondering is... What is sprint thinking? I know sprint owns a significant portion of clear, but do they actually intend to switch to lte eventually? Are they currently deploying their new unified towers and don't mind adding wimax with them? Are they throwing money at clear, who I thought was nearly bankrupt? Can these wimax towers quickly and easily be converted to lte, or have lte added? What does clearwire do besides sell modems and annoy me at the mall? How long does it take and how much money does it cost to put a wimax tower somewhere? Will holes in chicago and seattle ever get patched or is indoor signal lower priority than new markets? Why does there not seem to be any information or leaked roadmap about their plans?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

Well For 1
I would be pissed if they discontinued clear/wimax expansion, it's the reason I bought my evo, with that being said I've seen articles that state they will be working out a way to carry lte and wimax, via tower conversions, which some people say isn't possible, others say anything is possible. There are many opinons, but just like any new technolog, money must be invested, and pushed forward. Plus maybe clear/sprint plan on selling the wimax off at a later date, or subcontracting the towers or something like that. If they fail to continue pushing wimax or fail to develop it then that outcome would be much harsher then pushing a technology that may be adpapted or replaced all together. But to push 4g so hard then discontinue wimax development would be suicidal for both companies

Yeah, I can see how they would need to stick with it now, it just seems to be very secretive. I know you want an upper hand on the competition, but if I were a stockholder id want to know the plan. If sprint wants to go hard with 4g, why not just throw several million at clear, give people some jobs, and put a ton more towers up. I guess I don't understand why, if theyre pushing wimax, they don't have a lot more towers popping up a lot more quickly then they are. Even with a recent appearance of a lot of new markets, you'd think they could tell us the next dozen cities, or light it up more quickly.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

wrb123 said:
Yeah, I can see how they would need to stick with it now, it just seems to be very secretive. I know you want an upper hand on the competition, but if I were a stockholder id want to know the plan. If sprint wants to go hard with 4g, why not just throw several million at clear, give people some jobs, and put a ton more towers up. I guess I don't understand why, if theyre pushing wimax, they don't have a lot more towers popping up a lot more quickly then they are. Even with a recent appearance of a lot of new markets, you'd think they could tell us the next dozen cities, or light it up more quickly.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that this is the reason why all plans are getting the extra $10 charge for data. The added income will allow Sprint to throw more money at Clear and get more 4g towers up more quickly. More money means more workers which means more towers more quickly. Plus that'll give more money to the research and development team to get us quicker 4g.
It all makes sense to me. I think stockholders need to decipher current events and figure it out instead of making the company hold their hands through everything.
If they go LTE I'm going back to T-Mobile. I do not want LTE ever.

What's wrong with lte? I know lte in itself isn't dependent upon a certain spectrum, but i also heard sprint could possibly decommission its iden/nextel frequency and use that for something, and if lte and wimax are approximately the same speed, and there is adequate coverage, who cares what technology is behind it? using the lower frequency for lte and phasing out wimax (or having them coexist) would be fine with me if it meant a lower frequency for better indoor reception. I think google and intel should throw some of their extra money at clear... or are they regretting having invested?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

If you haven't read before, ltd gives carriers the ability to control data 100%. If they want they can make you pay to gain access to things like YouTube.
Sent from my evo 4g

Is there a page somewhere that states what areas are on the waitlist for 4g?

Sprint is planning on using new white space to penetrate into buildings. But I'm sure we will see the wimax / lte combo soon. Especially since Verizon wants to stop sprint from roaming on their census towers.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

There is a new technology that condensed 2G, 3G, and LTE into one base station and antenna ......and it's the size of a rubrics cube. Perhaps they would use those to add LTE.
more Info on phonescoop
Sent from my Evo using XDA App

WiMax can be fairly easily switched to LTE, with a "software update and push of a button" from what I've heard. So putting out new WiMax means they're putting out the infrastructure for LTE later.

wrb123 said:
What's wrong with lte? I know lte in itself isn't dependent upon a certain spectrum, but i also heard sprint could possibly decommission its iden/nextel frequency and use that for something, and if lte and wimax are approximately the same speed, and there is adequate coverage, who cares what technology is behind it? using the lower frequency for lte and phasing out wimax (or having them coexist) would be fine with me if it meant a lower frequency for better indoor reception. I think google and intel should throw some of their extra money at clear... or are they regretting having invested?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Outside of carrier controlled data (one of my greatest fears, as I use my wireless tether rather sporadically and for various reasons) I would have to go with that my Sprint phone doesn't have a LTE chip in it. If sprint switched to LTE exclusively then our Evos would drop back to 3g and we'd still have to pay for 4g. Or, if they switched to LTE/wimax combo, it would give them almost no incentive to upgrade wimax anymore and our speeds would be stuck where they are now.
Also, I've always been a huge fan of company competition. Sprint/Clear vs Verizon/LTE vs Tmobile, ATT/HSPA+ (if it did stay that way) would mean a plethora of options for us, the consumer. This would keep things like data rates low. What would stop all 4 carriers from charging $50 for data if they all ran off the same network?

I'm also curious if they're working at all on expanding coverage in markets that have some here and there but not all over. For instance Austin has it in a lot of the metro area but it is nowhere near as covered in residential areas.

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2011/02/10...s-to-give-up-retail-without-giving-up-retail/
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

From what a sprint rep told me was that they plan on having 4g to all their markets sometime early 2011. At first I thought she meant major markets but Ive noticed up here in Indiana even some of the smaller cities like Kokomo etc have weak 4g in some spots.

neopolotin75 said:
up here in Indiana even some of the smaller cities like Kokomo etc have weak 4g in some spots.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kokomo, Indiana has 4g? fml

a lot of subscribers would be very upset if they dropped wimax.
the lawsuits would be destructive to sprint.
my bbb complaints would get me free service for life.

tgrgrd00 said:
Kokomo, Indiana has 4g? fml
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea believe it or not......you can get a test signal....its not full blown but its there....

I'm in a best indoor/outdoor coverage area near Tampa, FL and can't even get 4G outside in the wide open.
Was quiet the letdown getting my Evo and smashing the 4G button excited that Sprint finally had 4G in my area and getting 'Poor' signal and then disconnecting shortly after.
Verizon shows solid LTE around here, that's next on my list to try. Even if I have to pay out the ass for it.

cutthroatamft said:
There is a new technology that condensed 2G, 3G, and LTE into one base station and antenna ......and it's the size of a rubrics cube. Perhaps they would use those to add LTE.
more Info on phonescoop
Sent from my Evo using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i heard about those, and they seem cool, but i only want wimax. i just want to get it where i live (LA county) so i can use it on my evo. i don't care what they do anywhere else. also how much does it cost to upgrade a tower to 4g? if the richer ppl (myself somewhat included) using sprint donate some $$$ can we get 4g faster? then they get more people joining sprint because they got more 4g, and we got some of our $$$ back? i just wanna get 4g out here ASAP. rumors going around that it's coming out here in march, anyone know where i can check? about to call sprint later and ask.

I tried a T-Mobile hspa+ phone inside my apartment where 4g is mysteriously absent (bad frequency and bad building penetration) and on T-Mobile 3g it got 3000kbps+ consistently! really considering going to tmobile before the end of the day and getting a free g2, just paying the sprint etf and selling the evo.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

Official Sprint Answer:
Sprint is committed to delivering the highest quality network experience. Our Network Vision plan will improve your network experience, but it does not include any EVDO Rev B launch. Sprint has evaluated EVDO Rev B and chosen to go directly to 4G connections. Since we are not launching EVDO Rev B, none of our handsets supports EVDO Rev B.
It looks like maybe no Rev. B after all. Hopefully they'll push 4G LTE and keep going.

FINALLY! Thank goodness. Let's stick a fork in this horse.
BTW, where is your source? (I know others will ask)

Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not surprising that a Sprint rep would say that..unfortunately, the truth seems to be just the opposite in the real world, based on everything I have read about Verizons LTE, and my friends who have it say the same thing..makes Sprints non sense look lame compared to it..

and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting your info from a sprint rep is like getting info from sarah palin about the economy....

Neither the LTE that's being rolled out by Verizon and ATT or sprints current Wimax meet the international standard that 4g is supposed to be.
But the LTE technologies being rolled out are a step in the right direction.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

spencer88 said:
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word! I'll take any form of 4G in San Diego, even if I have to follow a donkey around with a WiMax tower, built by a few guys behind a 7-11 with straws and Big Gulp cups, strapped to its back.

corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply idiotic. It makes no sense.
Sprint's WiMax implementation sucks. Putting LTE on those same frequencies would also suck. Maybe worse.
It's not the protocol it's the spectrum. Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is on a handful of razor-thin bands on high frequencies. It's not surprising that it sucks so much and the word "WiMax" has nothing to do with it.

imtjnotu said:
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
Haha right. All that bull**** about rev b and the **** ain't even happening. U said it correctly. The people who returned their phones based on that are IDIOTS
sent from my DAMN phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.

Concise and all encompassing. I couldn't have said it better my self. Meaning I actually do not have it in my own capacity to say it better, or even as well, myself.
Your presence in our forum is an asset. You truly know what's up.
That said, I couldn't agree more...lol

I talked to a sprint from corp in lisa angeles he told me lte and wimax have almost the same speeds and lte can go further
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.

F that true 4g stuff. They are the 4th major data network type for their respectable providers
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clears coverage could be the exact same as Verizon's LTE and it would still be garbage due to the frequency its on.
---------- Post added at 05:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------
Tuffgong4 said:
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think consumers give a damn about this? Honestly...

bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very nicely put even though I am quite sad about no rev b which I think would be a good idea to help with speed and capacity they are applying 1x advanced which will help capacity issues and enable simultaneous voice and data which will be nice. But the combined tower spectrums once phones come out with chips that will take advantage of it it should increase data speeds and coverage greatly the problem now is the wait they need to hurry up and get every one off Nextel, and start the conversion.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

I would be more than happy if they just fixed Rev A to work at a reasonable speed like 1.5-2M (which is what Verizon is providing in my area).
As to "true" 4G, I don't think anybody really cares, they just want something that works, not some experiment where you turn it on to run speed tests and brag to your friends, then turn it off because your battery will die or because you don't get signals indoors.

Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.

AbsolutZeroGI said:
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Quoted for the truth"
LOVE the "Baby Boomers 2G analogy"!
I guess all the BS marketing hype by the phone carriers has actually worked on the mindless lemmings that walk among us..

For the many of you that don't understand/don't "believe" in network vision...
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/

mattykinsx said:
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.

daneurysm said:
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've talked to Sprint technicians that are working on the project and they truly believe this will bring them inline with, or better than, the big two.
And that seems very likely.
Lets just hope they keep unlimited data and don't turn into At&t and Verizon.

I've had Sprint for able 6 years, my family has had it for I wanna say 15+, they've had their ups and downs but I believe it's a stable cell phone provider. I can't ever picture myself without it loving my speeds, loving my service (I currently live in the country AND getting 4G) I'll always be a loyal sprint customer and this link you posted makes me happy haha

Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?

Oh wow...I knew Network Vision was supposed to give them a boost but I didn't think it'd be this much of a boost.

cds0699 said:
Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...

Still impresses me every time I see it, thanks for the reminder of what's to come.
It burns when I tapatalk...

I've learned over the years to believe it when it is done rather than believe the powerpoint.
There are always caveats like, coverage is factoring in 800MHz, but some phones aren't FCC certified to work at 800MHz even though they might be otherwise capable (Photon comes to mind)
Are they running both the 1xAdvanced voice and EVDO carrier at 800 in every market on just the voice carrier or only augmented 800 in select markets? If some markets only get LTE on 800, then that won't help our phones out.
Conceptually Network Vision is the right thing to do, but there can be a significant difference between the design and implementation. The latter is where they usually see the unanticipated issues.
So yeah, it looks good on paper, let's see it in action.

Beejis said:
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much.

Hopefully Sprint does not have too much trouble raising the additional $3 billion needed to complete Network Vision.

I just went on an ADD fueled wikipedia/internet spree because I realized as I was reading that article that I knew nothing about sprints actual network or network at all. I had to keep looking up each term, staring further down Sprint's rabbit hole. I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
I cannot wait for this upgrade to come to my area soon enough.

My area:
Past 6 months: 3 data speed upgrades
Planned: 4 data capacity upgrades
Nice!

doesn't Verizon use a 700mhz wavelength for lte which would make better
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g

bluefire808 said:
Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.

sfhub said:
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was just the info i needes. I had also wiki'd it and saw that too. But i like your real world explanation. Yup 2Mb/sec on verizon rev0 and 1.2Mbsec on sprinta revA. Eh o well. Thanks again for getting back to me. Big props to you brother!
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g

iSkylla said:
I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have a wider bit of spectrum down there at 700mhz at a much lower wavelength. WiMax and LTE are pretty much just protocols. Verizon's LTE would suck on that thin slice of 2.5gHz and Sprint's WiMax would kick ass at 700mHz....roughly....and that's not taking into considering signal propagation and obstruction penetration.

My 3G speeds suck... but who cares, 4G has gone through the roof down here.
3mb/s -> 9mb/s in my living room
5mb/s -> 18mb/s in my friend's house
I'm gonna go drive all over and run speed tests now.

Orrr... they are showing the map like that because there won't be any buildings in 2013 to penetrate.
Food for thought gentleman.
PS. Jk
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

I keep hearing that gps conflict is messing up the lte deployment for Sprint. Does this mean all of Sprint's lte plans are delayed or do they have Clearwire also backing them up? I don't fully understand Sprints situation.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

No. SPrint has their own LTE. They wanted Lightsquared spectrum so they could expand the network wider and faster.
Didn't mean to hit thanks on your post.

Sprint is building out its own network and was gonna lease from third parties like light squared. Sprint already gave them till like June to figure it out or they are gonna lease from another or build out its own network in the places it was gonna use it
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.

So sprints own LTE wont be just 'outdoor' (like wimax... ****.)... Hope they build something with reasonable wall penetration...

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch. Sprint liked the sound of this as it would be a great financial opportunity and offered a partnership with the company. At Lightsquared, they were allocated a very small range of spectrum by the FCC, and their technology has been finely tuned to operate within the limits of said spectrum. Unfortunately, their spectrum is directly neighboring the spectrum for common GPS frequencies. Back in the day, since no one was using what is now Lightsquared's spectrum, GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions. This frequency fluctuation caused some older devices to commonly operate outside of the legally allocated GPS spectrum, and with Lightsquared now testing their network those older GPS units would begin to malfunction. As a few of the FCC board members have large financial interests in the GPS industry, they are taking sides with those manufacturers and demanding Lightsquared fix their technology to not interfere with the devices squatting outside of the legal limits.
As of current, Lightsquared is still contesting the rulings stating that their service is not safe for use. Should Lightsquared not succeed, Sprint will still continue to build out their LTE network by using the Network Vision goal of re-purposing iDEN towers. It will just end up being more costly and a slower roll-out than using a satellite based service to cover almost the entire US population with outdoor LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.

What friggin good is "outdoor" lte. I want to be able to use LTE inside my home, work, etc. I'll be damned if I'm gonna step outside every time I wanna use LTE on my cell phone.

sfhub said:
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're way off base on this. The plan is a hybrid of both satellite and terrestrial (tower) coverage, and sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
The upside for sprint is 1. They get paid to do it, and 2. They get first dibs on some wholesale chunks of lightsquareds LTE (since lightsquared isn't planning on being an ISP, but a network wholeselling to ISPs)
postq said:
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/9565/2/
http://m.androidcentral.com/lightsquared-claims-government-testing-rigged-gps-industry-insiders
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

squshy 7 said:
sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?

sfhub said:
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, because that's what my uppers told me we were doing? Lol, go back to the network vision announcement, it's spelled out pretty clearly. Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
The main selling point behind it, and why it makes sense, is that it greatly helps offset the cost of the iPhone, considering sprint is getting paid somewhere between 2-7 billion for it (i don't remember the figure off the top of my head) over the course of the construction.
Now, will sprint convert some existing infrastructure? Sure, if it's cost and network effective, that only makes sense.
The only issue is that lightsquared's frequency isn't part of sprint's multi-modal tower design, so lightsquared towers will likely be stand alone. So, in this case, i view converting and constructing as effectively the same. Though without the whole construction part. But yes, for sure, lightsquared will own the towers.
I do apologize though, as i slightly misinterpreted your comment
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

newalker91 said:
It was an exaggeration, simply meant to mean that it would be a hell of a lot faster in its roll-out than what Sprint could do. According to their website, though, a lot of it actually would be satellite based. Not just satellite frequencies switched for ground purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared got their L-band spectrum from Immarsat and SkyTerra. It was originally for satellite, then FCC allowed SkyTerra "ancillary" terrestrial transmitters, now the terrestrial component is becoming the dominant component and the satellite component much smaller part of the picture.
This is a good history for Lightsquared
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...ones-lightsquared-faces-enemies-on-all-sides/
The FCC allowed “ancillary” ground-based transmitters in 2003 to help L-band carriers get better coverage, and in 2004 the GPS industry’s main lobbying group endorsed SkyTerra’s plan to build a combined satellite/terrestrial communications network.
...
The FCC also licensed him to increase the power of his ground stations to 15 kilowatts, the same as conventional cell towers.
...
Then in November LightSquared asked the FCC to allow its wholesale customers to sell “terrestrial only” cellular plans.
...
As you’d expect, Verizon and AT&T filed objections to LightSquared’s plans, saying it represented a “major” modification of the original satellite communications license. AT&T, which sells a competing dual-mode phone for $799, declined to comment on the filing. Verizon said it is concerned about the GPS systems in most of its phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rest of the industry didn't really pay attention to what Falcone put together because they assumed it would cost Lightsquared more to provide the dual satellite/terrestrial network.
They started paying real close attention when Lightsquared applied to sell terrestrial-only cellular plans (effectively taking their L-band spectrum and competing directly with traditional cell companies) Sprint was contracted to build the terrestrial network using Lightsquared spectrum. Sprint was only too happy to do this since it fit in very nicely with their NV plans.
It would be minimum effort to add LTE support for Lightsquared spectrum during NV expansion. It would be more effort to go back and do it afterwards. This is why Sprint is putting time limits on Lightsquared to get their ducks lined up.
---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------
squshy 7 said:
Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.

sfhub said:
]
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

squshy 7 said:
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would know better than me, but I was under the impression Sprint "outsourced" all the tower maintenance to Ericsson, and Ericsson basically just hired the Sprint people that used to be in charge of that stuff to kick start everything.
According to this article the Sprint deal with Lightsquared was to have Sprint host Lightsquared's terrestrial LTE network:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389312,00.asp
On Thursday morning, Sprint announced a lucrative agreement to host LightSquared's proposed, and extremely controversial, independent LTE network for 15 years—provided LightSquared gets Federal Communications Commission approval to operate despite known GPS interferences..
You may be forgiven if, at this point, you've never heard of LightSquared. The Virginia-based company has been providing satellite services for over a decade, but was acquired last year by NYC-based hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners. This group proposed using LightSquared's spectrum to operate a much more lucrative terrestrial LTE cell phone network for local consumers.
But instead of selling directly to consumers, LightSquared's customers would be small retail carriers that can't afford to build LTE networks to compete against current behemoths Verizon and soon, AT&T. LightSquared's multi-billion dollar proposal received conditional FCC approval in January, but after reports surfaced that its proposed architecture might cripple nearby GPS bands, its future is in question.
With today's deal, LightSquared will pay Sprint $9 billion in cash—$290 million upfront—over the course of 11 years, and offer Sprint $4.5 billion in LTE and satellite purchase credits. Sprint will also have the option to buy up to 50 percent of LightSquared's expected 4G capacity.
The agreement is two-fold for LightSquared. As a result, the network provider will be able to borrow from Sprint's 3G spectrum and offer its customers both 4G and 3G data services. LightSquared will also join Clearwire in renting shelf space from Sprint's multi-mode base stations (what? see point #4 below), called the Network Vision initiative, for its potential 4G network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the article got it wrong, but it sure seems like Sprint towers are what were being proposed to host Lightsquared's LTE network.
If Sprint (via their contractors) was really building brand new towers for Lightsquared, I can't see the uproar from Verizon and ATT as it would take forever for them to get coverage going through local governments for new tower approvals. Piggybacking on Sprint's network, they would be a nationwide competitor in the same timespan as Sprint's LTE network.

Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?

Overstew said:
Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/Sprints-N...eployment-details-emerge-for-Chicago/blog.htm

dtm_stretch said:
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Phonearena.com and phonescoop should have the news if you look for it
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!

And the gps issue and the fcc is correct .. It's only been in the news for a while now. Surprised so many didn't know this already.. Sprint was relying on lightsquared.. Fcc is giving them issues.. Sprint doesn't even have 4g in phoenix, so lame. Who cares if people outside the limits of gps can't use it. lightsquared should be able to use a spectrum not previously used if you asked me :-(
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!

squshy 7 said:
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?

postq said:
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are saying that I can buy a radio station at say 98.7 and broadcast all the way up to 100.6 and down to 96.9 ..... well of course not the GPS manufacturer should have used what frequency they could and not infringe on others who bought their frequency too
The ones in the wrong were the GPS manufacturer and the regulatory FCC for not making sure it was right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Starts-Whining-About-Sprint-SoftBank-Deal-121688

AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

I don't think AT&T were whining at all. They never once said the deal would be negative. They said it would change the competitive nature of the wireless marketplace. Basically, they're telling the regulators to start being more lenient for the entire industry, including them. They're saying that there's no more risk of any monopolies now that a third competitor is gaining ground.
This wasn't a jab at the Sprint deal. It was a jab at the regulators. They want to get the FCC off their backs next time they want to buy spectrum or another company. This letter was very carefully worded to send that exact message; no more, no less.

ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.

tft;33024684
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mrg02d said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
before LTE sprint was already dumping money into 4G before any other carrier (WiMAX/Clearwire) IIRC they started building out Wimax in 2008 or earlier. the problem came when they decided to switch LTE technology, basically they started from scratch again. most think the reason for the switch was marketing and they didn't want to be the only WiMax "odd-ball". if it wasn't for this switch they would of had the most 4G coverage out of all the carriers.
anyway, once sprint fully rolls out LTE and LTE advanced using overlapping 800Mhz antennas,etc. and eliminating a lot of dead spots, they will have the most coverage compared to the rest.. Sprint probably has more towers than vzw and ATT combined.. the key is how quick they'll get all those Nextel antennas converted to CDMA/LTE.

tft said:
ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.

Nevell said:
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:

tft said:
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte

I remember cingular. What att bought and merged with there network. I do feel all in all that sprint will come out on top. Yes we all are waiting but i feel in the end we will be laughing at the others
Sent from my phone

I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app

dayv said:
I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't want to stop this deal. They want it to go through because it gives them leverage next time they want spectrum or if they happen to want to buy up another company. As it stands, they are too large compared to Sprint and T-Mobile for the FCC to just give AT&T a free ride. But if Sprint can gain more ground on AT&T and Verizon, then the FCC can't play the antitrust card like they did with the T-Mobile deal.
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.

EndlessDissent said:
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think AT&T cares what country either. But I do think AT&T aware that there are enough xenophobic national protectionist people in this country to try and play that angle to get something out of this.
And believe me the spectrum that Sprint has is going to be a huge asset come sometime around 2016 (not that it isn't a huge asset now, it is just the value of this asset is going to go way up). The spectrum carried by the other telcos is dwarfed in comparison. And this spectrum is the big reason Softbank is interested in Sprint.
Hopefully Sprint and Softbank will take this opportunity and grow Sprint 's network. The big downside for us the average consumer would be if the only thing of value they see is the spectrum and they don't do anything other than a token upgrade wait for the value of the spectrum to grow and then just sell the spectrum off in chunks.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app

jbadboy2007 said:
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They stopped because all the Cable companies Lost a huge percentage of their customers and this was the first time DirecTv has lost customers, which was a fraction of what cable lost.
US homes drop pay-TV as DirecTV, Comcast, Time Warner lose subscribers
Meanwhile, UK officials recommend eliminating broadcast TV entirely.
by Jon Brodkin - Aug 2 2012, 8:15pm EDT
Information Technology
Large numbers of US homes have dropped pay-TV services, with big losses for satellite provider DirecTV, and cable companies Time Warner and Comcast. Rounding up the latest quarterly earnings results issued by major TV providers, Reuters reported today that Comcast lost 176,000 subscribers, Time Warner lost 169,000 customers, and DirecTV lost 52,000.
While Reuters said these losses total about 400,000 American homes dropping pay-TV service since the beginning of the year, it's still a small minority. Time Warner Cable has more than 12 million customers, for example, and many customers simply switched services, as Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-verse added 275,000 subscribers in the second quarter. The second quarter is traditionally weak because of people moving before summer and college students leaving campus.
But this quarter's losses were stark for DirecTV, which lost customers for the first time ever, and for Time Warner, who lost customers for the tenth straight quarter and lost more than analysts expected. Comcast's loss of 169,000 customers was actually an improvement over previous quarters. The losses were chalked up more to the economy rather than "cord-cutters" dropping TV service entirely.

As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.

Dalmus said:
As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.

JBakey said:
AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice pun.

hayzooos said:
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.

Dalmus said:
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.

EndlessDissent said:
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're both right. 20MHz in the Chicago market, and 10MHz in the St Louis market for a total of 30MHz.
I wonder if this was the deal that my Sprint Rep at work was referring to, or if there is something else in the works?