S4GRU

You can't get it on the GN2 without a custom PRL. Robert

I'm jonesing for a high quality/high RF performance HTC device. I hope this one is it! Robert

It sounds dirty when you say it. Robert

Are you suggesting we may have some better Tx antennas in devices if beamforming becomes the path forward. That would be neato. I'd love to see beamforming take shape on the Band 41 network. Robert

That was painful to read. Robert

Turbo is just Band 41 sites that have super high speed backhaul that supports 50-60Mbps on every sector. If the Band 41 backhaul is not super-duper fast, it just is yellow. Orange is Band 25/26 without any Band 41 present. Robert

I think you mean TDD-LTE. Robert

Yeah, not surprising. What are they going to say? Please don't count Sprint's spectrum against them. We want them to be able to pick up more spectrum in the future! Robert

Crying Game

I think he is saying that LTE on 2600 will be usable everywhere that LTE on 1900 is. In an equal deployment scenario, 1900 reaches only 30% farther than 2600. So with densification, it is easy to see how on just that alone 2600 will be similar to 1900. However, there is a way to increase the signal propagation. Beamforming. Clearwire and Sprint have rejected beamforming in the past. But it's possible they are rethinking it. Beamforming is expensive, though. I'll explain why. Beamforming is where you deploy several narrow-beam panels/sectors instead of the standard three standard beam panels. If you deployed (9) 33-degree narrow beam panels, you could extend the reach of 2600 significantly. Deploying three separately aimed panels per sector, creating a 9 sector site. This would probably reach even further than 1900. This also increases capacity by an exponential amount! However, there are some drawbacks. Number one is cost. All those additional radios/panels/carrier cards and the associated increase in power consumption and lease costs is a huge multiplier. Huge. In the past, no one has bought into beamforming because there did not seem to be a cost/benefit pay off for doing it. The second big issue is...the uplink. The site beamforms a signal out past a devices ability to use the same spectrum channel to send back. So you will have devices that are capable of receiving the beamformed signal, but not send it back. The solution I have always heard to beamforming uplink problem is by having another Band carry back the uplink. Like Band 25 or 26. But we do not have devices or networks capable yet of downlinking on one band and uplinking on another. And it may be problematic to downlink TDD and uplink FDD. At a minimum it would just complicate things. Robert

We don't have any specific info now about the additional sites. I fear we will find out about them the way we do all new sites and iDEN Conversions. After the fact when they show up on acceptance reports. I imagine they will locate each infill site that is needed in the space between existing sites. Then try to locate an existing non Sprint site in that area, contact the site Owner and see about getting a lease to the site. When this is not possible, it will take sending out requests to tower companies to see who can build a site in their target area. Robert

And look how fast Samsung has done even a larger scope of work in each market in the 4th rounders. Although I think you may have highlighted an Ericsson problem. Tmo did have Ericsson problems too. Ericsson could not pump out the equipment fast enough. Tmo did some scrambling and had to do a lot of LTE GMO's in Ericsson markets. This was a good move and Tmo deserves credit for it. But Tmo had the luxury of doing GMO LTE because they already had backhaul to the sites. But with Sprint's "just in time backhaul" scenario, this was not possible for them. Robert

We don't have access to info about when or why a site is down. I don't know what you expect from me. We are tracking Network Vision deployment. We are skilled at that and have lot of resources we have developed the past 3 years. We do not have access to anything related to Sprint's network management. We can just tell you whether what you heard is plausible. Because sometimes what customer service tells people is plain not true. But in your instance of what you have explained is occurring, what customer service told you is plausible. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

It's something we have been posting warnings about for the past 3 months or so. We only recently updated the rules to reflect the change. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Sounds like Sprint answered your question. And their answer seems plausible. Sure explains why you had a signal off North Sunrise before but now do not. What you decide to do is up to you. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Your premise is true. I agree. But I've also addressed these issues in my posts. We are not disagreeing about anything, except perhaps the timelines. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Band 41 is supposed to be dense enough after complete build out in the Top 100 it should be usable everywhere CDMA 1900 is now. Just basements and deep within buildings not going to get it. Then they can fall back on 25/26. And after a fully dense deployment is complete, even a weak Band 41 connection will likely outperform a strong Band 25/26 connection. There will be no need for the other bands unless you cannot connect to a usable Band 41 signal. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Two 5MHz channels (one Band 25/one Band 26) is enough capacity for probably half Sprint's network. Maybe more. Sprint was only originally planning for just capacity and deploying Band 41 on those other half. As needed. But now Sprint has the resources where it can take Band 41 much further and compete on performance too. If your only concern about Band 41 is capacity, then you need not worry. The bigger problem will be getting Triband device adoption to speed up so people can spread the burden around beyond just Band 25. Band 41 is already capable of removing most of the burden off Band 25 in the 30 cities it's already live. The problem is there are not many Band 41 device owners to relieve the burden. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

The part that is comparable to Tmo is just the NV overlay in the Top 100 markets. Not the entirety of Band 41 deployment. I feel like I did a fair explanation above that shows that they are being done in pretty similar fashion. Sprint should have Band 41 in a complete overlay in the Top 100 markets in only one year from the time they start the NV overlay. And then Sprint is doing something even further than Tmo is doing. They are DENSIFYING their network even further. Beyond Spring 2015, Sprint should only be working on densifying existing WiMax markets with their NV overlay and adding new additional macro sites. Tmo is not adding additional high speed macro sites in between their LTE islands. They just let you fall back on WCDMA. But even on WCDMA, there are tens of thousands of places on Tmo, even in urban areas, where you cannot get any LTE or WCDMA inside movie theaters, large box stores, shopping malls, office buildings, etc. Tmo needs to densify their network. And Sprint is doing that, and will still have Band 25/26 to fall back on too. Robert

The EVO LTE is a decent device. The biggest issue with it is that it will lose an LTE signal at the edge of service much sooner than other Band 25 devices. It also is less likely to have indoor coverage, unless a 1/4-1/2 mile from a site. And when you start to get back into LTE coverage, it will take longer to reconnect. And since the signal is weaker, it is also typically slower than other Band 25 LTE devices. Our members who know what to expect with the EVO LTE get along just fine. But others start getting mad about the Sprint LTE network, when in reality the issue is the device. In contrast, a Nexus 5 (the best RF performer) would have nearly double the square mileage of coverage in the Rochester area than an EVO LTE does. And it will be faster and more usable indoors. Robert

Network Vision contracts require 90ms ping times minimum when tested unburdened. Even at the terminal end of a microwave chain. Sites that cannot achieve 90ms are supposed to be corrected. But a lot of rule bending has occurred to keep things moving. Robert

Nope. We know they have fired NV Contractors. But no evidence yet of them firing backhaul providers. Robert

There are penalties in the contracts. If they were done properly, they would even have the right to hire someone else to complete the work at the expense of the backhaul provider. Robert

Band 41 will be added outside the Top 100 as needed for capacity. Initially, the only Non Top 100 markets that are slated to be upgraded uniformly are just the few smaller WiMax markets like Modesto, Stockton, Visalia, Bridgeport/New Haven, Daytona Beach, Milledgeville, Maui, Eugene, Salem, Reading, Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, Waco, Wichita Falls, Bellingham, Tri Cities Washington and Yakima. However, as the need grows in Non Top 100 markets, it is part of Sprint capex to go and add Band 41 capability to any NV site as needed. They are budgeting and planning for just that scenario when Band 25 cannot have any more carriers added and Band 26 performance is being stressed. Robert

If you remove the GMO sites, Sprint is pretty far along and certainly can be complete with Band 25 build out on Non GMO sites this year. When you consider how long it took Tmo to do its backhaul upgrade, there is nothing noteworthy about how long it is taking Sprint. The problem here is that Sprint had to do it faster than everyone else because they were far behind. And they couldn't pull a rabbit out of the hat and do it faster. When you consider the scope of Network Vision compared to what the other three did, and they are finishing it front to back in about the same amount of time, it is very impressive. But customers don't care about the details. They want a superior network now. They don't care about overlays versus full build outs and backhaul, etc. I get that. But Sprint could not defy reality to do it. So Legere can bend himself over. Tmo deserves the credit for what they did. LTE over almost all most of its WCDMA footprint in 9-10 months was an impressive feat. But Network Vision had to start with Sprint's financial position it had in 2011/2012. Tmo was in a much better position financially when it started LTE deployment, coming off the spectrum and cash windfall of the AT&T breakup. Sprint only recently got cash. And Tmo's scope and footprint of their plan is significantly smaller. Two years ago when NV started, Sprint had no choice but to plan a "just in time" backhaul plan and "just in time" equipment plan, because it did not have the cash to do things in advance. This created a huge problem that if the backhaul slipped or equipment deliveries slipped, it had immediate and painful impacts. Also, all the slippages caused a huge management burden/distraction as well as lost efficiencies all the way down the line. We all watched it snowball. We see how well and how fast the 4th round markets are rolling. Some are really impressive. Most of them are the ones that started as SoftBank took over and Sprint had the finances to run them right from the beginning. West Iowa, the Dakotas and Rochester come to mind. Sprint was limited in the beginning what it could do. It had its hands tied financially. And they probably under estimated how fast Tmo would build out their network. Sprint deserves a lot of criticism. But it needs to be within the realm of what could be done. Most of the criticisms about what it can do now are much more fair though. Superficially, it seems that a Top 100 Band 41 buildout in 2-1/2 years is kind of slow. And the Band 41 build out on Clearwire sites is indeed slow, in my opinion. But let's look at what Band 41 build out in the next 2-1/2 years entails. It is completion of all 15,000 WiMax sites converted to Band 41 LTE. It is adding Band 41 LTE to approximately 28,000 Network Vision sites. And it is building about 16,000 new build macro sites to infill between existing NV/WiMax sites. That's about 60,000 sites in 2-1/2 years. That's almost double the size of just Network Vision. But given it's an easier upgrade scenario, 2 to 2-1/2 years doesn't sound outlandish at all. And it gives them an opportunity to beat their projections. Also, let's keep in mind that marketwide coverage in the Top 100 markets will likely be achieved much sooner than 2-1/2 years. The 71 WiMax markets are supposed to be complete before the end of 2014. Not all 71 are Top 100 markets. Cities like Stockton, Modesto, Abilene, Yakima and Amarillo are going to benefit, even though they are smaller than Top 100. But approximately 50 are Top 100 markets. So there will be ubiquitous coverage in most of the Top 50 markets before the completion of 2014. And those will continue just to get denser and denser throughout 2015 and into 2016. Unfortunately, the Band 41 LTE overlay on Network Vision sites will require planning approvals and permitting in 75% of their locales. I hope they are going full speed ahead on that already. This work is supposed to start next quarter. Hopefully, they will focus this effort on the other Top 100 markets that do not have WiMax/Band 41 already deployed. It shouldn't take but 2 years to do this front to back. So they will be half done in Spring 2015. So if that first half was focused on the non WiMax/Band 41 LTE markets, they would have complete coverage in the Top 100 markets in just one year from its start. The second year would then be about continuing the new infill sites and completing the NV overlay in existing WiMax markets. These just make the network denser and better. Remember, Sprint just five short months ago still was planning on just hotspot Band 41 deployment. To go to a full blown Band 41 deployment is a major stretch. And the scope is enormous. In a market that has a complete WiMax or NV overlay of Band 41 will be miraculous. Even if the Band 41 coverage is thin or missing in between Band 41 sites initially, it will remove a huge burden off the Band 25/26 sites allowing them to work at much better speeds. Who cares if you fall back on a 10-15Mbps Band 25 connection while they are densifying the rest of the market in Year 2? What do you think Tmo customers fall back on when in between LTE sites? The over concern about the 2-1/2 year plan for Band 41 deployment is not warranted at this time. It just needs to be put into perspective. And Sprint does need to execute it on time!!! Robert