Making Sense of Sprint’s Network Vision
Apr 7th, 2012 by Dan Lampie

A little over six months ago, Sprint-Nextel laid out its strategy for revamping its wireless network and called the plan “Network Vision.”  If you have read any of my previous articles about Sprint, you would know that Sprint has not had any real network strategy since purchasing Nextel back in 2005.  Today Sprint still has numerous sites where they have yet to combine their iDEN, CDMA/EVDO, and Clearwire’s WiMax network which has resulted in poor coverage and high maintenance and real estate costs.  Well this is all about to change with Network Vision.  After seven years without any true network plan, Sprint-Nextel has something that actually makes sense.

Sprint Network Vision Tower (Alcatel-Lucent Equipment)


Here is a brief overview of what “Network Vision” entails.  The website,, has some excellent detailed information on what “Network Vision” really means from a technical perspective.

- Consolidate its cell sites, by removing sites that are not needed.  Sprint currently has 68,000 sites and will reduce this by 44% to eventually remain with 38,000 sites.

* AT&T claims they have 55,000 cell sites so once Network Vision is completed its nationwide coverage will still lag behind that of AT&T.

- Shutting down iDEN and reusing the spectrum to support at least one 800MHz CDMA 1X Advanced carrier.

* Deploying a 1X carrier in the 800MHz spectrum will greatly improve the voice performance along with coverage for Sprint, especially inside buildings.

Frequency plan for new 1X advanced carriers. Source:


- Deploying a LTE carrier in a 5x5MHz channel configuration in their 1900MHz (PCS) spectrum.

* LTE is the future and this will give Sprint the opportunity to have a nationwide LTE network.
* 5MHz channels will offer only half the data speeds of the 10MHz channel that Verizon Wireless uses.  Still it will be vastly faster than EVDO with 50ms latency.
* Deploying on the 1900MHz spectrum will mean that Sprint will not have as good coverage or indoor penetration as either Verizon Wireless or AT&T which are using 700MHz.

PCS Band Plan. Source:

- Using Remote Radio Heads (RRH) for their existing CDMA/EVDO network and upcoming LTE network
* RRH moves the base station amplifier from the bottom of the tower to the top of the tower.  This eliminates the attenuation of long runs of coax cable up the tower.  According to this spec sheet from Andrews, 100FT of 1 ¼ coax has a loss of 1.6dB at 1900MHz, or a power loss of 31% at the top of the tower.  Thus going with the RRH solution should yield 30%+ more power output along with a 30% increase in receive power over today’s coax solution.
* This should improve coverage and performance of Sprint’s existing CDMA/EVDO network.  The combination of the 800MHz spectrum and RRH should really help Sprint’s voice coverage.

Sprint is using three RRH per face (1 for 800MHz CDMA, 1 for PCS EVDO, 1 for PCS LTE)


At the end of the day Sprint will have a CDMA/EVDO/LTE network, just like Verizon Wireless.  By consolidating its cell sites and turning off iDEN, Sprint will save a ton of money on operating expenses.  It is interesting that Sprint is investing a lot of time and money upgrading CDMA/EVDO instead of just focusing on deploying LTE.  Additionally, with MetroPCS, AT&T, and Verizon Wireless all committing to VOLTE it is interesting that Sprint is planning on deploying CDMA 1X Advanced for voice calls.  Sprint must have believed that its CDMA/EVDO networks could be greatly improved with Network Vision and that both these technologies will be around for some time.  Sprint has been successful at finding ways to monetize its old networks, such as offering Boost Mobile prepaid service over its iDEN network.  As postpaid customers move to LTE, Sprint could offer competitively priced but slower data services overs its CDMA/EVDO network to maximize its investment.

The one element that was left out of Network Vision is Clearwire which Sprint owns 54% of the company.  If Clearwire partnered with Sprint, like Lightsquared attempted before all their GPS interference issues, Clearwire’s network consolidation could save a great deal of money for the small carrier.  Clearwire will be upgrading its network to LTE, but it will be based on TD-LTE technology instead of FDD-LTE that all the other US carriers are using.  Clearwire’s 2.5GHz spectrum limits its usefulness to urban areas and the high cell density needed for good coverage makes network expansion expensive.  Clearwire is hoping to sell extra LTE capacity to the major wireless carriers, but using a different LTE technology and a separate frequency band than everyone else will make this difficult. While Sprint’s issues with Clearwire remain, Network Vision is a huge step in the right direction for Sprint.  One complete it will offer much greater voice coverage, improved EVDO performance, and most importantly bring Sprint into the LTE game.

A single dual band antenna supports all three technologies

4G LTE Battle: AT&T vs Verizon Wireless
Sep 18th, 2011 by Dan Lampie

Today AT&T launched its 4G LTE network in five cities.  While this is a big step for AT&T, its main competitor, Verizon Wireless, already launched its 4G LTE network almost ten months ago.  Verizon’s 4G LTE network now has service in 143 markets and covers over half the US population.  Wireless carriers that utilize EVDO technology for 3G services such as Sprint-Nextel and Verizon Wireless have been the first to move to 4G technologies as EVDO offers slower theoretical speeds than the competing HSDPA+ technology.  A single EVDO rev. A channel’s theoretical speed is 3.1Mbps in the downlink and 1.8Mbps in the uplink while a single HSDPA+ (not utilizing channel bonding or MIMO) channel can offer 21Mbps in the downlink and 5.8Mbps in the uplink.  In real word applications the speed advantage for HSDPA+ is much less because HSDPA+ carries voice calls over the same channel which reduces the data speeds.   Verizon Wireless and AT&T have always used different network technologies with Verizon choosing the CDMA (3GPP2) path while AT&T electing the GSM (3GPP) route.  While both technologies offer their share of advantages and disadvantages, going forward both companies will use the same network technology – Long Term Evolution or LTE.

LTE is not a one size fit all technology, but instead a technology that allows for a variety of different configurations which greatly impact how it is deployed and its performance.  Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless utilize frequency division duplex (FDD) mode which means that the upload and download channels are on two separate frequencies.  LTE also offers the capability to use time division duplex (TDD) which allows for both the download and upload channels to use one frequency with the download and upload being allocated different time slots.



Another similarity between AT&T and Verizon Wireless is that they are both utilizing 2×2 MIMO antenna technology.  While LTE supports MIMO is an extremely complicated topic, but basically it allows double the amount of data to be transferred in a single channel by utilizing two transmit and receive antennas instead of one.


LTE release 8 supports the options for one, two, or four antenna configurations where the highest performance is achieved utilizing a 4×4 MIMO solution.  Almost all wireless carriers are choosing the 2×2 MIMO route as it offers the best performance/price ratio.  To go with a 4×4 MIMO solution over that of 2×2 MIMO means that double the number of antennas and amplifiers are needed along with more powerful processors in mobile handsets and base stations to decode the additional data streams.  Additionally according research by Ericsson Communication, MIMO only provides performance improvements when a receiver has a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of approximately 10dB or better.  This means that MIMO is most beneficial when a user is close to the cell site, which for most cell sites is only a small percent of the users.

Source: Ericsson


The main difference between AT&T’s and Verizon Wireless’ 4G LTE network is the bandwidth that each channel uses, and this is based on the spectrum allocation that both companies own.  AT&T is using a mixture of 10MHz and 5MHz channels while Verizon Wireless is solely using 10MHz channels.  In areas where AT&T uses 5MHz channels, Verizon Wireless’ network will theoretically offer double the performance of that of AT&T’s. Theoretically a 10MHz channel utilizing 2×2 MIMO supports peak downlink data rates of 73Mbps while a 5MHz channel will only support 37Mbps.   As with any wireless technology reaching anywhere near these theoretically numbers is extremely unlikely.  AT&T knows that its 5MHz channels will put it at a large capacity and speed disadvantage compared to Verizon Wireless, so in markets where it has both 700MHz and AWS spectrum it will try to utilize two 5MHz channels instead of just one.  The two channels become beneficial when a large number of users are on the network and the load is distributed across two 5MHz channels instead of crowding everyone into one 5MHz channel.  Currently, these two channels can’t be bonded for higher throughput, but this technology will come available in LTE Advanced and is known as carrier aggregation.



The final difference between the two 4G LTE networks is the base station radios used.  A growing trend in the wireless industry is to mount the base station’s radio and amplifier at the top of the tower.  This is known as remote radio heads (RRH) and this technology minimizes the cable attenuation experienced by an antenna system.  In traditional base station deployments, the radios and amplifiers are mounted on the ground, where they can be easily upgraded and repaired, and thick coax runs up the tower to the antennas.  The issue with this is that long runs of coax cable experience attenuation.  According to this spec sheet, 100FT of 1 ¼ coax cable has a loss of 1.6dB or roughly 31% less power at the top of the tower compared to when the signal left the amplifier.  Clearly reducing the antenna’s output power by 31% not only reduces coverage and degrades downlink throughput, but it also affects the uplink.  The antenna at the top of the power sees 31% more power from the mobile handset that what actually makes it to the base station.  This result in decreases coverage, reduced uplink throughput, and diminished battery life for handsets.  By mounting the radio and amplifier at the top of the top the 1.6dB cable loss is practically eliminated, greatly improving performance over traditional base station deployments.  Instead of running thick coax up the tower, a much thinner combined fiber optic cable and power cable are run to each remote radio head.


Clearwire’s 4G WiMAX network was the first wireless operator to solely use RRH and they can be easily spotted by the large boxes connecting to the antenna.  AT&T is following in Clearwire’s footsteps by primarily using RRH for its LTE deployment.  Currently RRH can only support one technology and frequency band, so with AT&T dual frequency (700MHz and AWS) LTE deployment this means two RRH are needed for each face of the tower (most towers have three faces).  Most of the  Verizon Wireless tower I have observed do not have any RRH mounted, so it is probable they are going with the conventional base station deployment model with the radios and amplifiers mounted at the bottom of the tower.  The benefit of this solution is that equipment can be quickly and easily repaired and upgraded while staying protected from the outdoor elements.  When a RRH goes bad or needs to be upgraded it requires someone to climb the tower which is time consuming and can become very costly.  Given that RRH technology is still very new, it will take time to see whether the performance gains of RRH make up for the limitations in repair and upgradability.

Overall, the technology is similar for both Verizon Wireless’ and AT&T’s LTE networks.  While the technology might be similar, Verizon Wireless is the clear leader already having half the US population covered compared to just five cities for ATt&T.  In the end regardless of whether one chooses Verizon Wireless or AT&T, US consumers are the true winners having access to multiple advanced 4G LTE networks.

Clearwire’s Deploying 4×4 MIMO & Beamforming
Oct 7th, 2010 by Dan Lampie

Clearwire has been building out its 4G network for the last two years and during this time wireless technology has greatly evolved.  Clearwire originally deployed Motorola based WiMax base stations which supported the 802.16e WiMax standard along with 2×2 MIMO.  People in New York City, one of Clear’s upcoming launch market, have reported higher throughput than seen in the earlier launch markets.  This begs the question what is Clearwire doing differently?  We now know the answer from a video on Sprint’s Youtube channel.  Clearwire is deploying the Samsung U-RAS Flexible WiMax base station along with dual cross polarization antennas that can support 4×4 MIMO.   4×4 MIMO isn’t supported in 802.16e, but Samsung’s product specs list the U-RAS Flexible as supporting 4X4 beam forming and also being software upgradable to WiMax 2.0.  This means that Clearwire is most likely using beam forming technology in the New York City market which will offer improved capacity and performance.  Additionally, once WiMax 2.0 becomes commercial available these Samsung base stations might only need a software upgrade to support the new standard.  LTE Advance is a long way off, so WiMax 2.0 with Clearwire’s large allocation of 2.5GHz spectrum could result in Clear offering vastly superior speeds than its competitors.

Sprint-Nextel’s Network Confusion
Oct 1st, 2010 by Dan Lampie

It has been widely agreed that Sprint’s acquisition of Nextel was one of the worst mergers in recent history.  Five years after the merger, Sprint’s CDMA and Nextel’s IDEN networks are still not consolidated.  This means that at a typical cell site, Sprint will have its own equipment located in outside cabinets while Nextel has its equipment in a large indoor enclosure.  Additionally, Sprint and Nextel don’t share any of the same antennas or coax runs meaning for all practical purposes it is paying double in leasing costs for each cell site compared to its competitors.  Even worse is the fact that Sprint and Nextel aren’t always co-located meaning that each network has vastly different coverage.  Where I live Sprint has no service and so its CDMA customers roam onto Verizon Wireless.   Not surprising, less than a ¼ mile away from where I live is a cell site where Nextel is located.  The issue of not consolidating the CDMA and IDEN networks has resulted in lackluster coverage and additional operating costs for both services.  Now that Sprint-Nextel is using Clear to launch its 4G WiMax network the issue of network fragmentation is only becoming worse.  At many sites Clear is not co-locating with either Sprint or Nextel meaning additional leasing costs at each cell site.  Additionally, Clear’s all IP fiber and microwave backhaul is not being used to replace the expensive and outdated T1 lines that are used to power Sprint’s CDMA and Nextel’s IDEN networks.  If Sprint-Nextel utilized Clear’s backhaul it could means millions of dollars of savings while providing better performance to its subscribers.  Unless Sprint-Nextel makes some major overhauls in its network design, it will soon be supporting three different networks, each based on technologies that are not compatible with each other.  If Dan Hesse is to turn the company around he needs to consolidate the networks and ensure network inter-compatibility, just like the rest of the wireless industry.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa