Certain Phones Won't Work after 7/1/16?

[WiWavelength]

Unfortunately they went with EARFCN 8109 for the whole market.

 

That EARFCN means the 5 MHz FDD band 25 second carrier has 0.85 MHz guard bands at its upper ends between it and the license-- but only 0.025 MHz guard bands at its lower ends between it and the CDMA2000 carriers, the lowest of which then has the typical 0.625 MHz guard bands at its lower ends to the bottoms of the PCS band.  Very odd carrier placement.  I hope that it is temporary, as the second carrier should be shifted up in frequency to accommodate a fourth CDMA2000 carrier or at least actual breathing room between LTE and CDMA2000.

 

AJ

[JWMaloney]

That EARFCN means the 5 MHz FDD band 25 second carrier has 0.85 MHz guard bands at its upper ends between it and the license-- but only 0.025 MHz guard bands at its lower ends between it and the CDMA2000 carriers, the lowest of which then has the typical 0.625 MHz guard bands at its lower ends to the bottoms of the PCS band. Very odd carrier placement. I hope that it is temporary, as the second carrier should be shifted up in frequency to accommodate a fourth CDMA2000 carrier or at least actual breathing room between LTE and CDMA2000.

 

AJ

Your math seems a little off. Unless I'm mistaken, there should be a 250 kHz guard between CDMA and LTE:

 

 

8109 is one of their standard A block configurations, so that's probably why they went with it as opposed to doing something special for this market. There's also the possibility that they could be trying to get back the tail of the A block from AT&T (BR) and T-Mobile (NOLA), but it isn't likely considering both have deployed LTE on it now.

 

I'm also not sure I share your confidence that they could squeeze in a fourth carrier in the real world without running into RF roll-off and PIM issues; but if they can, then they definitely should, because 3G is still saturated even today with their sparse deployment.

[rackhivee]

there is no such thing as lte plus either. Either way it is no secret that Sprint needs more FDD spectrum and I'm glad they are doing something about it.

Isn't LTE plus just a word play on LTE-A (advanced) features? I think Sprint is the only one being close to honest on their LTE branding.

[Terrell352]

Isn't LTE plus just a word play on LTE-A (advanced) features? I think Sprint is the only one being close to honest on their LTE branding.

Every carrier has lte advance. At&t was first with it on a widespread scale but they are not branding it. Sprint was second to the CA race. Followed by Verizon and then Tmobile. Sprint is the only carrier that is branding CA.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

Every carrier has lte advance. At&t was first with it on a widespread scale but they are not branding it. Sprint was second to the CA race. Followed by Verizon and then Tmobile. Sprint is the only carrier that is branding CA.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Incorrect. At least slightly. There is no simple LTE advanced. There are many technologies that make up LTE advanced. Yes, everyone is deploying carrier aggregation but not everyone is deploying high order MIMO, CoMP, designing an SON etc. I'm not saying Sprint is doing every one of these but a good number of these components are in Sprint's short term plans. I think Sprint brands their services the best of any carrier. In my opinion, adding LTE in another band (eg. VZ AWS) or widening a channel that always exists (Tmo Wideband) does not mandate a new name. Implementation of technologies like the ones I described, on the other hand, does warrant a new name, in my opinion.

[rackhivee]

Every carrier has lte advance. At&t was first with it on a widespread scale but they are not branding it. Sprint was second to the CA race. Followed by Verizon and then Tmobile. Sprint is the only carrier that is branding CA.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

So closest to being honest on their branding. Better than Spark anyways. It was undersight that att didn't brand their LTE-A better. Probably cause it's not a full 20+20 CA and the results aren't as noticeable as Sprint.

[Terrell352]

Incorrect. At least slightly. There is no simple LTE advanced. There are many technologies that make up LTE advanced. Yes, everyone is deploying carrier aggregation but not everyone is deploying high order MIMO, CoMP, designing an SON etc. I'm not saying Sprint is doing every one of these but a good number of these components are in Sprint's short term plans. I think Sprint brands their services the best of any carrier. In my opinion, adding LTE in another band (eg. VZ AWS) or widening a channel that always exists (Tmo Wideband) does not mandate a new name. Implementation of technologies like the ones I described, on the other hand, does warrant a new name, in my opinion.

Don't forget VoLTE which is absent only on Sprint. I see your logic though but no other carrier making a big deal about CA like Sprint is and to my knowledge Tmobile equipment is basically better than Sprints 25/26 equipment. Sprint only has the upper hand on 41 equipment. Tmobile has more sites with 4x2 MIMO, Volte and has more sites equipped with LTE-A features than Sprint does yet they see no need for a new naming scheme for LTE.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

Don't forget VoLTE which is absent only on Sprint. I see your logic though but no other carrier making a big deal about CA like Sprint is and to my knowledge Tmobile equipment is basically better than Sprints 25/26 equipment. Sprint only has the upper hand on 41 equipment. Tmobile has more sites with 4x2 MIMO, Volte and has more sites equipped with LTE-A features than Sprint does yet they see no need for a new naming scheme for LTE.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

You missed my point completely ????. Ignoring CA (because everyone has it), Sprint undoubtedly has the upper hand for they are deploying many other LTE advanced technologies that other carriers are not. See my previous post for a few examples.

[Terrell352]

You missed my point completely ????. Ignoring CA (because everyone has it), Sprint undoubtedly has the upper hand for they are deploying many other LTE advanced technologies that other carriers are not. See my previous post for a few examples.

Had to reread. 100% agree.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

 

 

Why put LTE on A and not D?  Sprint could have 7 CDMA/EDVO Carriers if they used the full A block for 3G.

 

Then Sprint deployed CDMA Rev. B and have three EVDO channels to CA. :-P

[caspar347]

Your math seems a little off. Unless I'm mistaken, there should be a 250 kHz guard between CDMA and LTE:

 

 

8109 is one of their standard A block configurations, so that's probably why they went with it as opposed to doing something special for this market. There's also the possibility that they could be trying to get back the tail of the A block from AT&T (BR) and T-Mobile (NOLA), but it isn't likely considering both have deployed LTE on it now.

 

I'm also not sure I share your confidence that they could squeeze in a fourth carrier in the real world without running into RF roll-off and PIM issues; but if they can, then they definitely should, because 3G is still saturated even today with their sparse deployment.

I just got to looking at this and that 2nd carrier placement looks really weird. My market has a similar PCS holdings layout and I always assumed they'd put the 2nd carrier in either the non-contiguous 5MHz block (for the sake of the possible CDMA carrier at channel 100 (300 in Charlotte's case)) or at the bottom of the 10MHz block so it's easy to expand it to 10x10 in the future. I can't think of any reason they'd put it at the top of the 10MHz block.

 

Plus channel 325, found in the top of the 10MHz block, is the universal 1x channel found throughout this part of the southeast on every single site AFAIK, so it'd be weird to throw that out for a second carrier. What's the "universal" channel in that area? 25?

[JWMaloney]

Why put LTE on A and not D?  Sprint could have 7 CDMA/EDVO Carriers if they used the full A block for 3G.

 

Then Sprint deployed CDMA Rev. B and have three EVDO channels to CA. :-P

 

I just got to looking at this and that 2nd carrier placement looks really weird. My market has a similar PCS holdings layout and I always assumed they'd put the 2nd carrier in either the non-contiguous 5MHz block (for the sake of the possible CDMA carrier at channel 100 (300 in Charlotte's case)) or at the bottom of the 10MHz block so it's easy to expand it to 10x10 in the future. I can't think of any reason they'd put it at the top of the 10MHz block.

There are any number of issues at play which may have effected their decision. In New Orleans (where they have the D block), I fully expect them to eventually transition to 10x10 LTE across the entire A block; but for now, they have a consistent 2C configuration across the whole market.

 

I also don't know what CDMA carriers are actually active at this point (I have depicted what would still fit from their "high capacity" band plan used during the RRUS 31 deployment); but I do know for sure that most sites didn't get the full complement of multiple PCS antennas and radios. The sites that didn't would only be able to run 6 CDMA carriers with 2 LTE carriers active.

[dkyeager]

There are any number of issues at play which may have effected their decision. In New Orleans (where they have the D block), I fully expect them to eventually transition to 10x10 LTE across the entire A block; but for now, they have a consistent 2C configuration across the whole market.

 

I also don't know what CDMA carriers are actually active at this point (I have depicted what would still fit from their "high capacity" band plan used during the RRUS 31 deployment); but I do know for sure that most sites didn't get the full complement of multiple PCS antennas and radios. The sites that didn't would only be able to run 6 CDMA carriers with 2 LTE carriers active.

If we could get modem data on cdma channels in SCP that would be great (two big ifs). Then we could have a much better idea of what is actually happening.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

If we could get modem data on cdma channels in SCP that would be great (two big ifs). Then we could have a much better idea of what is actually happening.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Yeah, modem data for CDMA would be awesome. Not to hijack the thread, but has any work been done on that?

[dkyeager]

It was tested and implemented only for LTE. Otherwise checking for EARFCN and channel changes is a rare occurrence.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

If we could get modem data on cdma channels in SCP that would be great (two big ifs). Then we could have a much better idea of what is actually happening.

Yeah, modem data for CDMA would be awesome. Not to hijack the thread, but has any work been done on that?

 

What kind of CDMA2000 signal metrics/readouts are you looking for that are not already present in the engineering screens?  If CDMA1X vs eHRPD/EV-DO carrier channels, those are readily available in the engineering screens.

 

AJ

[caspar347]

It was tested and implemented only for LTE. Otherwise checking for EARFCN and channel changes is a rare occurrence.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

What kind of CDMA2000 signal metrics/readouts are you looking for that are not already present in the engineering screens? If CDMA1X vs eHRPD/EV-DO carrier channels, those are readily available in the engineering screens.

 

AJ

Convenience and logging. The 5X doesn't keep the *#*#33284#*#* screen in the app switcher, so you have to redial to see it again. And automated logging of channels would be really cool, especially since when I'm in an area with diverse channel use (i.e. uptown) I'm usually driving or otherwise in a hurry. I still haven't successfully recorded connecting to all channels present here.

 

That could actually be another reason to get a Sailfish if it gets HTC's awesome engineering screen data.

[WiWavelength]

Convenience and logging. The 5X doesn't keep the *#*#33284#*#* screen in the app switcher, so you have to redial to see it again.

 

Use the engineering screen shortcut in SignalCheck Pro.  And logs will not help much, since your handset always will hash to the same CDMA1X carrier on each respective site.  The carrier changes are not dynamic, unlike with LTE.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-318-can-toggling-airplane-mode-actually-improve-your-3g-data-speeds/

 

AJ

[caspar347]

Use the engineering screen shortcut in SignalCheck Pro.  And logs will not help much, since your handset always will hash to the same CDMA1X carrier on each respective site.  The carrier changes are not dynamic, unlike with LTE.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-318-can-toggling-airplane-mode-actually-improve-your-3g-data-speeds/

 

AJ

Huh. I knew the changes were not dynamic, but you connect to the same 1x channel every time you visit a given site based on your phone number? TIL. I assumed it was time-based like EVDO. (I should go back and re-read your articles. I've learned a lot since I read them the first time.) Can a site put you on a different channel when initiating a call or can it only put you on another band i.e. 1x800?

 

But you can still end up on a different EVDO channel since that's hashed based on time, right?

 

And yes, I guess it's incorrect to say you have to redial to get to the screens. But it would still be nice to have the data right there in SCP if its possible.

[WiWavelength]

Huh. I knew the changes were not dynamic, but you connect to the same 1x channel every time you visit a given site based on your phone number? TIL. I assumed it was time-based like EVDO. (I should go back and re-read your articles. I've learned a lot since I read them the first time.) Can a site put you on a different channel when initiating a call or can it only put you on another band i.e. 1x800?

 

But you can still end up on a different EVDO channel since that's hashed based on time, right?

 

For CDMA1X, the carrier channel hashing algorithm is MIN/MDN or ESN based.  For EV-DO, it is data session based.  With CDMA1X, if your MIN/MDN or ESN hashes to a high Fx, your handset can camp on different carriers a lot from site to site.  My MIN/MDN almost always hashes to F1, sometimes F2 if many carriers are deployed on a site, so my handset does not camp on different carriers very often, since F1 is the first to be deployed on every site.

 

All of the above relate only to idle state, controlled by the handset invoking the hashing algorithm.  In traffic state, though, the network can redirect the handset to any carrier in any band.

 

AJ

[mirskyc]

funny they included Alaska in this graphic. Any update on any native service on Alaska?

[mrknowitall526]

funny they included Alaska in this graphic. Any update on any native service on Alaska?

Also wondering about Alaska. My parents are vacationing there in August and I was trying to figure out what they could do for calls / texts.

 

Sent from my 2PS64 using Tapatalk

[ericdabbs]

I guess Sprint can't ask the other carriers to do PCS spectrum swaps to obtain more of the C block spectrum?  It would be nice if Sprint could get most of the major markets with the C block spectrum so that it can align with the G block spectrum.

[lilotimz]

I guess Sprint can't ask the other carriers to do PCS spectrum swaps to obtain more of the C block spectrum?  It would be nice if Sprint could get most of the major markets with the C block spectrum so that it can align with the G block spectrum.

 

It's a work in progress but as Sprint joined in the spectrum swapping party years after the others began a lot of the juicy big metro areas are already realigned for the other three. 

[ericdabbs]

It's a work in progress but as Sprint joined in the spectrum swapping party years after the others began a lot of the juicy big metro areas are already realigned for the other three. 

 

Once again Sprint was late to the party and missed out on a great opportunity for realignment on their main spectrum band.  I guess I attribute that to the poor Sprint management with Hesse or Claure for not thinking ahead.