Speed is everything. Literally. While our favorite characters duel with each other, could VZ and T quietly ramp up their LTE-A plans? CLWR obviously has the choice global band, band 41, with very desirable contiguous spreads iand can probably get instant converts in each city they launch if priced right. Imagine 100 Mbps down and 15G capacity for $30-40 a month with each additional Gig for $2-$3 more. At least for a year. Then someone like Dish offers you mobility with that same capacity. Take your TV, phone, internet anywhere you want. From all the reports out there, LTE-A can support more users and upto 3X the capacity besides having a whole host of other features like band aggregation, support for small cells, etc. How much longer can they afford to wait?
Capacity-snamacity, your perspective is lobotomized.
Business. Business. Business.
What mindpuck thinks you can leave out the financial picture, the ownership rights picture, the contractual obligations picture, the successful game-plan for an integrated business approach that requires organizational breath, international reach and development, and interplay within a broad sweep of business and government echelons? Once the market has moved on toward broad adoption of IP broadband everywhere, the very nature of the business is naturally on a different scale than prior generation small operators.
What your thinking is mired in is that a Small Play, half-assed business plan could somehow now succeed when it did not in the past and while the business challenges set a much higher bar. Clearwire had one third to 1/2 of he capital they needed last time, now they have debt and a larger challenge for deployments. Even though the result should be 10X+ greater per capital investment, the business challenges require large mobile partners, those with current marketshare that can be easily brought into the high capacity service. SB-S plan to make about a $4 billion investment in the new network and augment that with another few billlions in complimentary development of networks, devices and marketing efforts.
Why do financial analysts consider DISH to be what I've said it was - not up to the task of taking over Clearwire now, in other words their offer is a poker bluff. Ergen has not followed through with substantiation of his commitments because he can't. He can see how locked up Clearwire is.. in contractual terms and in how that impacts the available spectrum. So he is doing what is his primary option.. putting himself at the table with the FCC and DOJ in hopes of a regulated re-structuring of the spectrum allocations.
Ergen has brains as well as bluster.
Verizon and AT&T have not been silent in their LTE-A plans; they plan to deploy FDD LTE-A. Some details are, of course, kept under wraps but the general plans have been disclosed in discourse with the FCC, conferences, and other public information.
LTE-Advanced embraces both FDD and TDD access methods.
It all has to do with number of concurrent users sharing the same medium so it wouldn't buy anything on bandwidth with TDD for either T or VZ considering their large subsriber base. Besides, you won't be getting anymore higher speed with TDD but just a better ratio on upstream/downstream. In fact, FDD has a slightly higher spectral efficiency than TDD when using the same frequency. Therefore, what you are claiming is pure non-sense because it is all circumstantial.
FDD only has higher spectral efficiency with voice....when you can afford to lose some bits. For pure data, TDD is spectrally more efficient because of its asymmetric channels... it can maximize the data pipe while FDD is "stuck" with symmetric pipes and cannot optimize.
In a data only world TDD wins. Voice guys use FDD because it makes sense for voice traffic.
Spectral efficiency is measured in several ways. Link spectral efficiency is a measure of SE based on the modulation efficiency. On that measure, FDD is slightly higher because it requires less signaling overhead. TDD shares the same band between uplink and down-link traffic and must coordinate the timing of signals so that they flow efficiently. FDD flows in one direction in each of an up and down link band, usually equally paired sub bands within the same range. That results in the mentioned lower link-level signaling overheads. However, that is not where the majority of performance gains are now being made: TDD and FDD are both channel access technologies - the traffic direction cops of the overall wireless signaling scheme that tell in which direction and when the packets/symbols of signals can travel without colliding with each other. Digital traffic tends to be sporadic, not symmetrical - that is, the traffic is often greater on the down-link than it is on the uplink by a factor of 2-3 to 1. Since FDD normally divides the spectrum up into equal channels, say 10x10MHz or 20X20MHz for up and down links, on average about half of the uplink channel goes unused/wasted. That results in 'spectral inefficiency' in a gross way.. it does not matter what the signaling efficiency is if only some of traffic lanes on the wireless highway are being used.
Another advantage of TDD comes more into play as wireless evolves to make use of advanced network topologies including small cells using sub-tiers of spectrum or multiple carrier bands using devices that make use of higher order MIMO-AAS. Because of the nature of wireless, some portions of an overall band may experience changes in signaling path reflections, signal absorption/fade such that its like trying to spray your water hose against the wind... it does not get where you want it to go and it may cause other things to get wet (interference with surrounding connections). TDD has a wider band in which to make adaptive use of the spectrum, selecting subchannels that are best between two given points at that time. Since users can be moving and interference can be caused by vehicles, foliage and changing environmental conditions, their can be an advantage in having a wider amount of spectrum as the adapting playground. TDD provides roughly twice as large a field for that and other methods to be used.
This is academic: Clearwire's fate is finance dependent, not primarily/immediately technology dependent. Both FDD and TDD work well. FDD has advantages in simplicity and fits current spectrum in more cases simply because most existing spectrum is set up as FDD. More TDD is being deployed and it will come into its own over the next few years... alongside FDD. In the long, long run, FDD vs. TDD will not matter because wireless will evolve to more adaptively use both. Some relatively simple methods are being explored in EU and elsewhere: allowing for use of a 'breathable' form of FDD in which the channels can be varied depending on use: the downlink channle might be make 30MHz while the uplink is 10MHz for example. If the base station is at a sports arena where users send a lot of videos and pictures up-link to YouTube, etc., then the up-link FDD channel could be varied to be wider.
You have to ask why doesn't CLWR light up some sites and demo what is to come ( which is what China Mobile is demonstrating). I wish Crest or others would make an issue out of this important reason the current price offer is a joke.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Hiding whats going on they need to keep the PPS down sprint is they savour, what they say goes & they say 2.97 is all you are woth to us take or leave it we don't need you HAHA
Watch as soon as they get them, 2 months later the whole usa will be lite up with td-lte but sprint will say they did it not clwr.
this will get heated up once the Gov. investigates Soft Bank . If the deal fails Sprint has major problems now that they could carry Clear Wires Debt @ 50.4% ownership. they will be a open target when they wish to lower their investment in Clear again so it will not show on Books that is if the have Books Left.
Others know this and there is still plenty on time for them to make a play they just looking to see how this plays out with Gov. 1st.