Sprint and Clearwire possible LTE network update info

[bigsnake49]

This is interesting. I wonder why Sprint is giving up on the wifi offload strategy so soon? I think its still a great strategy to have wifi offloading with the sprint optimizer too. I get that Sprint wants to offload excess capacity to Clearwire but I'll be honest with you...with only 5000 sites initially upgraded to TD-LTE by June 2013 and possibly up to 8000 sites upgraded shortly afterwards, I don't think Clearwire has enough of a TD-LTE footprint nationwide to supply Sprint with enough capacity offloading capability that Sprint desires. Even if they filled up all of Clearwire's 16000 Wimax sites with a TD-LTE overlay it would NOT be enough since it still doesn't cover a lot of the major markets.

 

IMO, Clearwire at some point will need to go out and create more small patches in the downtown areas of these bigger markets they missed in the Wimax rollout like San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, etc to provide capacity relief and would bring in a lot of money to Clearwire. Maybe this won't happen until Sprint buyouts Clearwire but it does need to happen.

 

They don't need to have coverage nationwide, just in places that Sprint needs it. Between their "G" block, other possible 1900PCS blocks and 800MHz they will not need additional capacity for a little while.

[marioc21]

They don't need to have coverage nationwide, just in places that Sprint needs it. Between their "G" block, other possible 1900PCS blocks and 800MHz they will not need additional capacity for a little while.

 

No they don't need it nationwide. See this article below:

 

http://www.fiercewir...reas/2012-07-18

 

According to the article 70% of Sprint's data traffic comes from 30% of Sprint's cell sites. However, you would think Sprint would still want to offload traffic onto wifi everywhere else to keep the strain off it's 3g network. Or will lte and the backhaul it requires provide enough capacity that wifi offload won't be necessary?

[ericdabbs]

They don't need to have coverage nationwide, just in places that Sprint needs it. Between their "G" block, other possible 1900PCS blocks and 800MHz they will not need additional capacity for a little while.

 

Of course they need to add some coverage. Are you telling me those major cities that I mentioned don't need capacity relief in the downtown metro areas? I am not talking about a small town in Kansas right now nor was I talking about full blown deployment. I am just talking about adding a smaller deployment in the downtown metro areas. Talking about offloading capacity to TD-LTE is kinda useless if some of the major cities that I mentioned do not have the capability to use TD-LTE offloading. Did I not mention that Clearwire is only going to put TD-LTE in only 31 markets nationwide which means there are a ton of major cities that are being left out. Even the Clearwire Wimax network contains 77 markets nationwide.

 

I heard at one point that Sprint and Clearwire have some special agreement where they are targeting high traffic Sprint cell sites nationwide to add TD-LTE capacity that may not be on the Clearwire Wimax footprint but do we really have confirmation on that? I am just saying if Sprint is truly going through with using Clearwire as their sole capacity offloading tool for data traffic relief, don't you think that some of the Wimax cities that were left behind need to equipped to offer that TD-LTE offloading capability?

[supert0nes]

Any audio of this out there?

[xcharles718]

Any audio of this out there?

http://cc.talkpoint.com/well001/071812a_hr/?entity=1_X5JEDJ6

[sparky222b]

My dream announcement - "From here on out we will be putting LTE 800 and 2600 in every phone we make, especially those 5 Nexus phones you keep hearing about for the fall. Apple, however, will not be supporting LTE 800 until the Iphone 6".

 

I'll second that as my dream announcement with the following addition:

"Also, we purchased 20 MHz of 700/800 spectrum from ATT/VZW/whatever and it's getting aggregated to the 1900 with LTE-A which launches RIGHT NOW!"

[sparky222b]

On a more serious note, does anyone know which sites Clearwire is thinking about putting TD-LTE radios on? I assume they're using their existing (pre)/wimax towers, no? Considering the lousy penetration of 2500 and the fact that these sites are mostly separate from Sprint towers, won't that be a pretty lousy blanket of 2500 TDLTE? Seems like even with that, Sprint's LTE on 1900 will be doing the heavy lifting..

[xenadu]

Not completely wrong, but here are some corrections:

 

1. The iPhone doesn't support AWS. At all. Yes, this means that in some CricKet markets they can't sell the iPhone. But the iPhone currently has no AWS support.

2. VZW is keeping their upper-C 700 block. They paid a ton to get the same frequency across the entire country, so they're holding onto this competitive advantage. That said, any iPhone that has LTE on their network may not have LTE on lower 700 or SMR, since my guess is that Verizon will never allow LTE roaming on low frequencies except onto participants of their LTE in Rural America program, where they make the rules. AWS is a different story, but then again VZW won't have LTE on AWS for a while yet...none of their devices support it and none will until they get the SpectrumCo spectrum.

 

My bad... I forgot about that. The next iPhone *could* support AWS; I just assumed it did because there is a bit of overlap between AWS and European carriers (by FCC design). The WTR1605L definitely has enough ports.

 

Of course you can't predict what Apple will do. They could very well tell Qualcomm that they want the WTR chip plus switches to support even more frequencies on the available ports for the same price. I don't know what impact the switches have on battery life but if it doesn't affect it that's an option. Or maybe they are going to build a custom chip that supports more frequencies. Apple has enough cash these days to outright buy Qualcomm or even hire their own engineers so who knows. One thing we can be sure of is the spectrum fragmentation issue will continue to get worse and worse over the entire world so building one phone that works everywhere will get harder and harder.

 

 

I am assuming that the PCS G block can be serviced by the same path as the existing PCS frequencies since it is next them. Would be nice if Sprint could get the FCC to give them another block next to the G block, which would give them a nation-wide 10x10 LTE band. The FCC seems to be sympathetic to the two smaller nationals in the interest of preserving competition... of course not to get political but if MR wins the next election I expect all future M&A activity to be rubber-stamped, including allowing ATT/VZW to buy up all available spectrum. That seems to have been the policy in all other areas under the ®s, eg: allowing Comcast to buy NBC, allowing Clearwire to buy up all media everywhere, etc. And to provide a balance point the (D)s seem content to allow the banks to run wild so we seem to be getting screwed from both ends.

 

 

edit: they just claimed that Japan uses the 800 SMR band... that makes me think SMR support is more likely since Japan is such a large market. (listening to the playback of that presentation)

[marioc21]

On a more serious note, does anyone know which sites Clearwire is thinking about putting TD-LTE radios on? I assume they're using their existing (pre)/wimax towers, no? Considering the lousy penetration of 2500 and the fact that these sites are mostly separate from Sprint towers, won't that be a pretty lousy blanket of 2500 TDLTE? Seems like even with that, Sprint's LTE on 1900 will be doing the heavy lifting..

 

From the sound of it it's going to be wherever Sprint tells them they need excess capacity coverage. After that I guess it's up to Clearwire.

[S4GRU]

I heard at one point that Sprint and Clearwire have some special agreement where they are targeting high traffic Sprint cell sites nationwide to add TD-LTE capacity that may not be on the Clearwire Wimax footprint but do we really have confirmation on that? I am just saying if Sprint is truly going through with using Clearwire as their sole capacity offloading tool for data traffic relief, don't you think that some of the Wimax cities that were left behind need to equipped to offer that TD-LTE offloading capability?

 

It's not a special agreement. It is in the Sprint/Clearwire LTE agreement. It is referenced in one of my docs. I can quote it when I get back from vacation, but I am not going to release the document. I am guessing that Sprint pays 100% of the costs when they request and have Clearwire deploy TD-LTE 2600 on Sprint Network Vision sites outside a Clearwire coverage area.

 

Clearwire is focusing its LTE deployment in its markets first. However, Sprint can request Clearwire add additional TD-LTE coverage anywhere it needs. Since Clearwire is going to make money on LTE based on usage, they will want to be wherever their wholesale customers (like Sprint) need them to be. Anywhere they are adding capacity for Sprint is instant revenue for them, because Sprint is only asking for coverage where they need to offload real traffic.

 

On a more serious note, does anyone know which sites Clearwire is thinking about putting TD-LTE radios on? I assume they're using their existing (pre)/wimax towers, no? Considering the lousy penetration of 2500 and the fact that these sites are mostly separate from Sprint towers, won't that be a pretty lousy blanket of 2500 TDLTE? Seems like even with that, Sprint's LTE on 1900 will be doing the heavy lifting..

 

TD-LTE on EBS/BRS will be better than WiMax was. WiMax drops off at a much lower signal strength. TD-LTE is useful for almost -15dBm higher. This provides more coverage areas for Clearwire LTE than WiMax. Additionally, TD-LTE is being deployed in 20MHz TDD carriers, over 10MHz WiMax carriers. This means, even with a very low signal, you will still likely get 10-20Mbps speeds. So, not only will the coverage area be greater from LTE 2600 over WiMax 2600, but low signals will be more useable.

 

On top of all that, the LTE 2600 carrier doesn't need to 100% cover the entire LTE 1900 cell. If you broadcast LTE 2600 and LTE 1900 from the same site, the LTE 1900 signal will cover approximately double the area of the LTE 2600 signal. So, if the one LTE 1900 carrier is filling up and a LTE 2600 carrier is added, you could reduce the burden on the LTE 1900 carrier by 50% immediately. There are far more details to consider, but this is a basic explanation.

 

There isn't a need for most sites to need LTE 2600 capacity over an entire LTE 1900 cell. It just needs to be able to take enough burden off it to keep it within acceptable performance tolerances. Verizon is going to be doing the same exact thing with their LTE AWS coverage. They aren't going to do a wall to wall LTE AWS overlay over their entire network. They are going to identify LTE 700 cells that are nearing capacity and they will add a LTE AWS carrier. It will only cover 50% of the LTE 700 cell, but that's OK. It doesn't need to cover all of it. The existing cell doesn't need to drop to 0% capacity. A 50% capacity cell is a happy cell.

 

In the worst case scenario, Sprint (or Verizon) may have to add another macrocell or microcell in that outer 50% of from the over capacity site to add more capacity. It happens all the time. Populations shift, demand grows in certain areas. There will be network management involved forever. But the hotspot solution is a great idea and will work well. It just needs to be managed well. But what network doesn't?

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

A 50% capacity cell is a happy cell.

 

In one pithy statement, this sums up why so many of us are here. Put this in the running for S4GRU quote of the year.

 

AJ

[sparky222b]

There isn't a need for most sites to need LTE 2600 capacity over an entire LTE 1900 cell. It just needs to be able to take enough burden off it to keep it within acceptable performance tolerances.

 

Didn't think about that...good point. Here's hoping for a speedy NV and Clearwire rollout.

[gopher_otis]

Are the iden towers being gracefully dismantled or are they just being torn down? If its the former, I see Clear getting some slightly used infrastructure in the next few years..

[iansltx]

Are the iden towers being gracefully dismantled or are they just being torn down? If its the former, I see Clear getting some slightly used infrastructure in the next few years..

 

Clerwire doesn't own any of its towers. The stuff that's being ripped out on the iDEN side is radio equipment and the racks of stuff that powers said equipment. None of which is useful to Clearwire.

 

On a different topic, as Robert and others have said, the point of Sprint+Clearwire LTE from the Sprint perspective isn't to blanket /anything/ in Clearwire LTE. It's just to bring LTE macrocell (1900/800) utilization down to a reasonable percentage of capacity. WiFi offloading could do this in theory as well, but power output limits mean that a WiFi network has to be much more dense than even a Clear TD-LTE network, and at that point you're also fighting with everything else on the 2.4 band...interference gets high and speeds go down. In contrast, Clearwire can pump out a more powerful (watts or tens of watts instead of hundreds of milliwatts) signal in spectrum where they are the only potential interference source, allowing them to deploy onto Sprint towers at half coverage, versus on top of every single light pole like you'd need to do with WiFi.

 

Using Clearwire for offloading also has the side benefit that users don't need to turn WiFi on and go through its network selection process (or be annoyingly prompted to do so by something like the Sprint Connection Optimizer...which is turned off on my phone!) in order for WiFi offloading to work. The phone just switches bands, seamlessly, to the higher-frequency LTE network when it needs to, and the user is none the wiser (unless they're a power user, lol). Network crisis averted...with zero user input required.

[Josh]

That's nice, but it would be pretty sweet if there were no Iphone users on 800. They already crippled the legacy network. I think the benefits for the end user definitely outweigh the costs. Cell phone radios are some of the cheapest parts of the phone anyway. It's not about the most antennas. It's about coverage where you need it like 800 can deliver. I don't really have any reason to upgrade phones every 2 years and Sprint knows exactly what they are going to do wit that spectrum. Might as well future proof them as much as possible.

 

The unlimited data from all phones helped cripple the BACKHAUL for sprint. They were still relying on T1 lines in many cases, and it was never meant to video chat and watch youtube on... The 800Mhz band will be a great addition to sprint's portfolio, and will really improve their service in their native coverage areas, and should vastly improve their image... And as much as I am not an Apple fan-boy, I would not try to shun those customers from having a positive mobile experience. (Plus the new qualcomm chip has been ordered for the next iPhone according to another site, using the new 28nm process and supporting 7 frequencies, everyone should be able to use any frequency on any phone that comes out after this fall)

 

If you go check out the Sprint Investor area I believe it is listed as a webcast.

 

Sprint should keep the iPhone users happy - they paid $$ for the subsidies, if they don't improve the network for those folks soon it will end up being a waste of money.*** Fortunately that is happening right now... I just tested at the grocery store down the street and I get 2 Mbps on whatever tower I'm connecting to over there. Still get <100kbps at my house. The wife was trying to download a song as we were driving today and it was hilarious to see the estimated time to complete as we went in and out of NV tower range... 1 minute to 10 minutes remaining to 15 minutes back down to 1 minute.

 

Apple and Google (Motorola) are the only ones who earn money post-sale via App Stores and Apple much moreso via the iTunes store (Google is trying to catch up via Play). Apple also continues to sell their older devices as the low and no-cost options. So both have at least some incentive to support older devices even before you count things like goodwill and brand reputation.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone else to give a crap... once the hardware leaves the shelf, pushing updates is nothing but pure un-necessary expense to most of the handset makers. Apparently Microsoft agrees because none of the current Windows Phones will be able to run Win Phone 8 either.

 

 

 

*** We know from Qualcomm filings that their new WTR1605L has some additional ports to support more frequencies. Three <1Ghz ports, three 1Ghz-2Ghz ports, and one 2.5Ghz port. We know the iPhone currently supports AWS and PCS and AWS has a range that overlaps the US and Europe so that's two medium ports taken. Where the third goes doesn't matter to the US, maybe it does to other countries.

 

The high port seems like a natural fit for Clearwire - no idea what else it could be used for and I think Clearwire is the only one deploying anything significant on that band world-wide right now, so it seems highly likely that the next iPhone will support Clearwire LTE TDD which fits with Sprint's offloading plan quite nicely.

 

Of the low ports, one is going to 850Mhz Cellular A/B no question - that's ATT and VZW (and I think a bunch of places worldwide as well but I can't recall). We can also assume that one is going to to the lower 700Mhz band where ATT is deploying LTE.

 

The interesting thing is VZW trying to dump their upper 700Mhz blocks... it makes me wonder if Apple was shopping that last low band port around and Sprint paid the 20 billion to secure it for 800 SMR instead of upper 700, which would also make sense as to why VZW suddenly wants to dump it in favor of AWS. They paid a lot for it and there must be some reason they want to dump it.

 

Just my own theory mind you - I could be completely wrong.

 

A few points that I would like to make on your post:

 

First, updating hardware is tough when the specifications from all phones is different. When the new version needs more ram, faster processor and is designed for a larger screen... an old middle to low tier phone literally cannot handle the new software.

And as for the Windows Phone 8, it is designed with the NT kernal from the desktop version and not only needs better specs from the hardware, but the processor has to be compatible as well... the current phones do not/cannot support the NT kernal, and that is why they are only getting an update to 7.8, which is similar in looks but lacks the additional functionality of 8.

 

Secondly, Qualcomm's new chip is an LTE only chip if I am not mistaken (which has happened once before, lol) so we don't need to worry about the spectrum that is not currently approved for LTE operation... That (currently) only leaves 700Mhz for AT&t and VZW, SMR 800Mhz for Sprint, AWS for At&t/t-mob/vzw, PCS for Sprint, and 2600Mhz for clearwire and china... Now I would imagine that these are not set in stone and could be modified for each carrier, as that is not something I am familiar with, but it would seem that there are enough to support all current LTE in the US and with minor tweaking the rest of the world.

 

Lastly, VZW already is using their lower 700Mhz block for their 10x10Mhz nationwide LTE coverage, the other 700Mhz spectrum is only 6Mhz wide and I do not believe it is nationwide. For them (and almost any other carrier) it is not worth developing that resource because there is little they could deploy in that spectrum and it would not even be used by all their customers. They want to be able to deploy at least 5X5 carriers in AWS spectrum to offload some of their traffic from their current LTE network but they probably won't even take that over every tower as they have them spaced further apart in the rural areas which would not work with AWS spectrum.

When Sprint merged with Nextel, they did not see the problems with the spectrum that eventually resulted in the government re-banding program that left sprint with 14Mhz in 800 and the PCS g-Block that they are now deploying LTE on. Plus at the time there was not auction for the old TV spectrum yet, and therefore seemed like a better decision than it turned out to be.

I was confused why they never made the nextel phones dual mode and able to connect to CDMA as backup for voice and for 3G data. It also would have resulted in them being able to shut down the iDen network earlier and not loosing as many customers as they would be able to fulfill their contract without loosing service on their current devices.

 

Now I PERSONALLY would not be opposed to sprint purchasing upper 700Mhz spectrum if it were able to run voice data on unpaired spectrum (I know it is not how it is currently handled) As long as it was nationwide. I say this because I believe they could Send all voice data to the 7-800Mhz range, there would never be a dropped call due to their cell site density, and they would not have to pay as many roaming fee's to big red. The SMR LTE that will be deployed will also have good propagation characteristics, and it will allow to then transition more of the PCS band to LTE from EVDO.

 

Ideally, they will be able to participate in future auctions that might even be in lower bands as broadcasters sell their spectrum, and other options present themselves.

[iansltx]

Quick corrections: VZW's 10x10 LtE is in the UPPER C 700 block. VZ has holdings in the lower A/B blocks but they are hit or miss coverage wise. Now those bands are apparently just bargaining chips to get them more AWS.

 

Also, Sprint has "PowerSource" phones that used CDMA for voice and data and iDEN for PTT. Motorola's ic series of phones, to be precise. The ic902 even supported EvDO.

[twospirits]

Dailywireless.org has an article on the Wells Fargo Investor event and has provided a few videos worth looking at.

 

TS

[Rawvega]

It's too bad Clearwire doesn't have the deep pockets of China Mobile. I wonder what kind of coverage they could achieve here in the states with 200,000 TD-LTE base stations.

[Josh]

I remember reading that it would take over 120,000 sites to blanket sprint's coverage area with 2500-2600 MHz spectrum, and the problem is not just how deep their pockets are.

 

Each base station not only requires the capital to be put up, but also maintained. This is the electricity, rent, backhaul, etc... and with it covering less than half the distance of a site with a lower frequency, then there will be fewer people paying money to support that tower. With the amount of people that are currently using the network, it would not be economically feasible to even maintain that many towers. On the other hand, China has a MUCH greater population and the ability to really leverage that to their advantage. Economically they can deploy the sites even closer that what wimax was deployed in the US and turn a good profit off of it. It isn't fair to try to compare the US to China, at least in terms of population density and what that means to wireless spectrum abilities.

[Feech]

My thoughts are they should be future proofing phones. I'm not sure they make a bunch off phones anyway. I thought it was about the accessories and service

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

My thoughts are they should be future proofing phones. I'm not sure they make a bunch off phones anyway. I thought it was about the accessories and service

 

Right or wrong, one argument against "future proofing phones" is that subsidized upgrades equal contract renewals. And the more predictably that devices become effectively obsolete, the more subsidized upgrades that follow.

 

AJ

[irev210]

I really liked the "mock site" capabilities that are built into the standards.

 

I remember rumblings of how it was impossible to have handoffs between Clearwire TD-LTE and Sprint FD-LTE due to different networks, etc.

 

They really make it very clear that they can have handoffs in the milliseconds even though they are on different networks.

 

Pretty darn cool.

[Conan Kudo]

It's not hard to do handover (I know it's called hand-off officially, but handover is more accurate) between FD and TD LTE. The way LTE handles handover is very efficient and designed to work well with mixed FD/TD environments.

 

As for the Qualcomm chip, there are a few issues. In the United States alone, the following frequencies are being used for LTE by various operators: BC25, BC4, BC26, BC12/BC17, BC13, BC14, and BC41.

 

Europe is using BC3, BC7, BC20, BC38, and BC42. Asia is using BC1, BC3, BC26, BC40, and a totally new band plan for 700MHz that isn't defined yet.

 

Since BC26 encompasses BC5 (UMTS band V) and BC6 (UMTS band VI), the US, South Korea, and Japan would be covered. Japan doesn't use ESMR, it uses a subset of BC5 that was standardized as BC6. BC26 covers all of these.

 

We're screwed on TDD, and we're semi-screwed on FDD.

 

The optimal FDD configuration for breadth of coverage on LTE would require a device supporting BC1, BC25, BC3, BC4, BC12, BC13, BC20, BC26, and BC40. This is not possible. That's four super-1GHz frequencies and four sub-1GHz frequencies. Only the one TD frequency is possible, and it's not even Clearwire's band. Clearwire is using BC41, not BC40 of Asia. BC40 is important because China and India use this frequency.

[ericdabbs]

It's not hard to do handover (I know it's called hand-off officially, but handover is more accurate) between FD and TD LTE. The way LTE handles handover is very efficient and designed to work well with mixed FD/TD environments.

 

As for the Qualcomm chip, there are a few issues. In the United States alone, the following frequencies are being used for LTE by various operators: BC25, BC4, BC26, BC12/BC17, BC13, BC14, and BC41.

 

Europe is using BC3, BC7, BC20, BC38, and BC42. Asia is using BC1, BC3, BC26, BC40, and a totally new band plan for 700MHz that isn't defined yet.

 

Since BC26 encompasses BC5 (UMTS band V) and BC6 (UMTS band VI), the US, South Korea, and Japan would be covered. Japan doesn't use ESMR, it uses a subset of BC5 that was standardized as BC6. BC26 covers all of these.

 

We're screwed on TDD, and we're semi-screwed on FDD.

 

The optimal FDD configuration for breadth of coverage on LTE would require a device supporting BC1, BC25, BC3, BC4, BC12, BC13, BC20, BC26, and BC40. This is not possible. That's four super-1GHz frequencies and four sub-1GHz frequencies. Only the one TD frequency is possible, and it's not even Clearwire's band. Clearwire is using BC41, not BC40 of Asia. BC40 is important because China and India use this frequency.

 

Nice summarization of the BC's for some of the major continents. There was no mention of South American, African and Austrialian continents though. It just seems like a really tall order to ask for the entire world to agree upon certain BC's to globally roam on and deploy LTE in those BC's and finally to have devices to support all those globally BCs. You are right in that Clearwire uses BC41 while Asia uses BC40 so how would they be able to roam on each other.

 

Also your comment reminds me of the recent Verizon commercial where it shows a guy travelling all over the world using LTE roaming and back at his work office the manager and the secretary are wondering how he is getting his work done. Then Verizon shows in the commercial how their LTE supports LTE roaming in different countries. How is this possible if the current Verizon LTE phones cannot support the European LTE BC's?

[Conan Kudo]

Nice summarization of the BC's for some of the major continents. There was no mention of South American, African and Austrialian continents though. It just seems like a really tall order to ask for the entire world to agree upon certain BC's to globally roam on and deploy LTE in those BC's and finally to have devices to support all those globally BCs. You are right in that Clearwire uses BC41 while Asia uses BC40 so how would they be able to roam on each other.

 

Also your comment reminds me of the recent Verizon commercial where it shows a guy travelling all over the world using LTE roaming and back at his work office the manager and the secretary are wondering how he is getting his work done. Then Verizon shows in the commercial how their LTE supports LTE roaming in different countries. How is this possible if the current Verizon LTE phones cannot support the European LTE BC's?

 

Australia follows Asia (which is actually called the Asia-Pacific and Oceania region). The Middle East and Africa are using a mix of European and Asian frequencies, so it's a little more complicated. The Americas are using largely the same frequencies, so the US frequencies largely apply to Canada, Mexico, and nearly all of South America (except Brazil, which uses European frequencies too). The exception continent wide is with 700MHz. Just like Asia, most of the Americas will use a different band plan. From what I've heard, the Lower 700 band class 12 will be preserved, but the other bands won't be. I'm hoping that Asia will do something similar, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

 

Nearly all Verizon Wireless LTE handsets support global GSM/WCDMA roaming[1].

 

[1]: http://www.extremete...ility-with-them

Edited July 23, 2012 by Det_Conan_Kudo