CrossedSignals

Probably both. I think there are a lot of elements at play in this decision: 1. The speed at which Sprint has been able to roll out roaming agreements through the CCA/RRRP is probably driving some 'lets see how much rural coverage we can pick up through agreements rather that buildout'. This is really a discussion of capital efficiency, which is timely and appropriate for Sprint. 2. The upcoming 600Mhz auction. Softbank appeared to be the money behind the proposed T-Mo/Sprint joint bid. I doubt that money evaporated when the FCC sidelined the joint bidding strategy. I speculate they will go in aggressively and if possible acquire as much of a nation-wide footprint as is possible. 3. Marketing: Sprint needs some marquee markets where the application of B41 can put up some headlines. In other words, Sprint needs to put the ball over the fence in a couple of RootMetrics, PC Magazine, etc. network evaluations to quell the doubters. To do that requires a concentrated effort: concentration on key markets (i.e. big cities, cities that are dominant for one player or another, etc.) 4. Turning up the offense: I can foresee certain markets being selected to 'bring the fight to the competition'. What about building up B41 in NYC (VZW's home town), Dallas (AT&T's home town) and Bellvue/Seattle (T-Mo's home town) so has to put up huge performance numbers in the competition's back yard. 5. Key markets, based on subscriber numbers: At the end of the day, the network should be built around the customer and where they are/where they are using the network, etc. That will turn the tide on customer frustration and the 'pardon our dust' excuse. This Bloomberg article clarifies some of Marcelo's comments today

Apple's LTE band information for 3 model number variants of the iPhone 6 (and the 3 model variants for the iPhone 6 Plus) now showing on Apple's website do not show support for band 12. All three model number variants support bands 2,4,5,17,25 & 26; variants A1586 (iPhone 6) and A1524 (iPhone 6 Plus) also supports band 41 (and is marketed as the C Spire, Sprint, USCC version). I assume the biggest loser in the band 12 ommission is T-Mobile. Regarding the moto X, there is an illuminating article on anandtech.com describing some of the engineering features embodied into the phone. Of particular note to me, and likely to the S4GRU community, are the efforts made in the area of dynamic antenna tuning to improve real-world performance. See: http://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/ http://anandtech.com/show/8491/the-new-moto-x-intial-impressions-and-hands-on

Some interesting information on how they plan to harmonize device acquisition: http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2014/03/apkudo-cca-partner-device-hub-rural-carriers http://blog.apkudo.com/

I'm curious how the members of the hub will reconcile roaming usage on partner networks. Since the networks are of differing sizes, the small network partners might enjoy a larger benefit than larger network partners. In other words, I suspect there is some level of correlation between network size and the probability of roaming and therefore the roaming benefit received. Will the partners simply keep tally and reconcile on some system like 'USCC: your customers used x mins and x GB of data on my (sprint) network and my customers used y mins and y GB of data, you owe me z/min and z/GB of data used over what my customers used? Will they simply say 'it's not the incremental network load or cost that matters and therefore I'm not going to meter the data/minutes between partners'? Will they come up with some amount of 'free roaming' (that mirrors what customers receive) that partners agree to? There are also a lot of intangible benefits for smaller operators: * Possibility of increased device selection * Increased coverage, particularly if it's done in a way where the consumer isn't worried about roaming *Access to additional sprint's spectrum to add or build out LTE where the small operator is spectrum constrained or needs access to a core network. I think there's also a reality that's being addressed: Sprint is unlikely to have an LTE roaming agreement with VZW (just as Tmo will unlikely have an LTE roaming agreement with T) because, quite simply, the big guys now have networks big enough not to need a reciprocal roaming agreement and therefore have created 'walled garden' LTE networks as a means of differentiation and competitive strategy. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but it would be a boon for everyone if they could configure this to work in a way where it appeared to the consumer to be a single network. I think that it would also offer small independent wireless Telco's a way to remain independent. Son speaks about the size gap between S/Tmo and T and VZW but compare that to Cricket, USCC, and some of the others and Tmo. This is truly an alternative to marginalization and consolidation for smaller operators.

Another relevant point with regard to Sprint and carrier aggregation: From the linked article below: "Yet, while a 40 MHz pipe in Band 41 would certainly go a long way toward solving the capacity strains caused by rising video consumption, Alston noted that Sprint is not planning to pursue further capacity gains via complicated inter-band non-contiguous CA between the TDD and FDD flavors of LTE [emphasis added]. He said, however, that the concept is worth contemplating." Read more: Sprint exec: Clearwire spectrum is our priority for LTE carrier aggregation - FierceWirelessTech http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/sprint-exec-clearwire-spectrum-our-priority-lte-carrier-aggregation/2013-04-21#ixzz2vJV8uk8G http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/sprint-exec-clearwire-spectrum-our-priority-lte-carrier-aggregation/2013-04-21

Also, check out : http://www.nextel.com/phones_plans/states/florida/downloads/equipment.xls. $5 for web plan. How far we've come ( and how far providers have come in monetizing data)

The closest thing I could find to answer your question: http://www.nextel.com/phones_plans/states/florida/phones.shtml The ETF at the time was $200, so rough guess is 200 over retail price for ' no contract ' price.

I should have mentioned that I transcribed that statement from a vzw commercial that ran on the Esquire network this evening. I did see the the statement "prior to December 5, 2013" referenced in the same commercial. The next frame of the commercial contained the statement I quoted. For reference, it's the commercial where several people are asked and the "correct" answer queues the band to burst through the illustration of the carrier maps. The maps appeared to match the ones in (edit: post 22).

The caveat on Verizon's commercial is: "based on indoor and outdoor testing using smartphones of national carriers' 4G LTE from January-June 2013. Based on July 2012 U.S. Census data. Verizon's 4G LTE service is available to more than 305 million people across 500 markets in the U.S." Obviously they chose a very favorable set of circumstances that don't take into account for recent launches and favor the propagation/building penetration of 700MHz.

A late reply to this topic, but in case the OP is still looking for a booster, Wilson introduced a new 'all band/all air interface' booster at CES: http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/uploads/files/229_Wilson_Announces_DT4G-FINAL-FINAL.pdf http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/store/display/243/45/dt-4g-coming-soon Downfall is that it's a small space/single room solution (gain figures 23.7dBm to 24.9 on the uplink and -1.0 to 6.1 on the downlink) and it doesn't cover band 41 (25 is covered and most of 26)

Looks like a nice phone at a very good price. From the Motorola web site, it looks only the global GSM and U.S. GSM are currently available (the original U.S. Release date was in January but they've since moved it up --looks like by offering a variant of the global GSM model). A little disappointing that its HSPA+ 21 only. I hope that the CDMA version magically acquires LTE before release in January but am not hopeful. There would be little reason to choose the Moto X over this (unless you want customization). A great kids phone or a phone for someone who isn't too concerned about data speed.

Try www.solidsignal.com. They have a pretty good selection of Wi-Ex and Wilson Electronics boosters. Also might want to try eBay for used equipment.

I read the quoted reply a couple of times trying to figure out why they would put a timer on BYOD activations. I can only guess that they (Sprint) want to prevent someone from signing up for the latest and greatest phone, cancelling service, paying the ETF and then immediately taking it to Ting. Given the potential cost savings, the break-even point for some (low data use) customers moving to Ting is quick. It will be interesting to see if they do indeed do the same with the Nexus 5, especially if the phone is not offered directly for sale by Sprint. Given that the Nexus 4 purchased from T-Mobile was in no way a deal vs. purchasing direct from Google, I speculate that the N5 may only be offered for sale by Google and therefore the beginning of a real effort to drive BYOD handset sales. Also, if the rumors are to be believed, the N5 may be the first handset to cover all of the LTE bands utilized by T-Mo, Sprint, & AT&T. A 'network agnostic' device would be ideal for a BYOD centric model.

Is there a possibility of an article that compares antenna technologies? I mention this because the Z30 is marketed as the first BlackBerry that makes use of dynamic antenna tuning technologies developed by Paratek. I find the topic interesting because ever since 'AntennaGate', a number of novel solutions have been developed: Apple: receive diversity, simplex transmit path HTC (HTC One): receive and transmit diversity and dynamic antenna coupling (as reported in AnAndtech.com's review) BlackBerry: dynamic antenna coupling I think it's an interesting story in that as more bands are supported by a given phone, there is an engineering question to be answered: do I put more antennas in the phone or do I tune a given set of antennas to drive and receive a broader set of frequencies? I'm not an EE, nor do I claim to know more than I read. I think that it would be an interesting and informative piece that delves into some of the more interesting and arcane elements of cell phone design and I think it's something that will be discussed more and more as technologies such as Qualcomm RF360 and other hardware/software designed radios and power amplifiers are released.

It appears that the SoftBank/KDDI support embodied in iPhone 5c/5s models A1456/A1453 is for bands 1 & 8. On the whole these two SKUs appear to have decent global roaming capability (if Sprint enables). The notable ommissions are Band 7 for Europe and Band 28 for Oceania. Otherwise, it covers the most pervasive LTE bands worldwide. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks and https://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/ to cross-reference which band is for what operator.