WiWavelength

For that matter, Google really should have chosen Sony, or even Blackberry. I know that could really help Blackberry's business, who would do anything to make the perfect Nexus, if given the opportunity to do so.

That is a two way street.  Google does not point a finger and, voila, it just selects a Nexus OEM.  The OEM has to accept or submit an RFP.  Not every OEM is going to do so.

Think about it.  What does an OEM gain by making a Nexus device?  A generally low margin, niche device with primarily Google branding, not OEM branding.

To make matters even more attractive, that Nexus device could compete in the same product space as one of the OEM's own branded devices.  See the Nexus 5 and the LG G2.

In short, I highly doubt that Sony and BlackBerry were in the running this year or ever will be considered to be a Nexus OEM.

AJ

I wonder if Sprint phones in 2017 for the engineering menus will be updated to state "Primary Serving Cell", "Secondary Serving Cell", and "Tertiary Serving Cell"

The "Tertiary Serving Cell"?  I am looking forward to the "Triassic Serving Cell," not to mention the "Jurassic Serving Cell."  Those raptors can build intelligent networks.

AJ

Ok. I was hoping one of the engineering screens would show this but so far I haven't found anything.

For that, you need a Samsung or an Apple.

AJ

Any way I can tell the BW I am connected to? I am using SignalCheckPro on a Nexus 5X.

Nope, not really.  The EARFCN may give a clue as to carrier bandwidth, but it is not definite.

AJ

Oh, OK. So, I would assume that this would have necessitated a firmware update at some point in order to enable and Sprint has had those released to the affected handsets by now, correct?

No, as far as I know, firmware updates were not distributed, were not necessary.  The hardware always was capable of carrier bandwidths other than 5 MHz FDD.  It just was not tested and authorized for those other bandwidths -- because they were not expected to be used.

FCC authorized handsets contain latent capabilities out the wazoo.  Remember the Nexus 4 from three years ago?  It was supposed to be a GSM/W-CDMA only handset, but band 4 LTE worked, though it was not tested and authorized.

AJ

Is the thinking here to expand the G block into the C block but without necessarily setting up another 5Mhz carrier somewhere else in the PCS band? I ask this becuase early on Sprint sold some 5MHz BW only LTE devices. Without a 5Mhz carrier somewhere in the PCS band those devices will be SOL.

No, those early single band LTE devices that seemed limited to 5 MHz FDD always were capable of at least 10 MHz FDD.  They just were not tested and authorized for other LTE carrier bandwidths.  Since then, all have received Class II Permissive Change filings in the FCC OET database.

AJ

Awesome article! So I gather the plan is shifting from "get a second 5x5 up where we can" to "swap for C5 and widen the existing 5x5 to a 10x10 where we can"? Does this mean we may see some markets become 10x10-only?

Yes, most/all of these markets will not add a band 25 second carrier.  Instead, they will expand the band 25 first carrier to 10 MHz FDD.  It will be the only band 25 carrier.  The other carriers will be all band 26 and/or band 41.

AJ

Surprised to see Glens Falls on the list. I live just outside of GF so I'll be on the lookout for the new EARFCNs and report it in the thread if/when I notice them.

Marketwise, it is largely a matter of location and circumstance -- where AT&T has spectrum that benefits Sprint and vice versa.

AJ

One net effect of having one universal device would be the resale value going forward. Having a universal device that is able to move around different carriers adds a significant value to a second hand device. This could have been influenced by the advent of the leasing model. Second hand devices would no longer be technically limited to one carrier.

A few thoughts on the matter...

We do know that the hardware in the "US" variant will be centralized across all domestic operators.  S4GRU staff even has discovered more recently in the FCC OET a "KOR" variant -- ostensibly intended for South Korean operators.  Samsung seems to be standardizing its handset hardware platforms across all operators within certain countries/regions.

What we do not know is how Samsung will handle separate firmware per operator.  Though I doubt it, the customized firmware could be temporary and tied to the SIM card in use.  Pop in an AT&T SIM, that activates the "A" firmware.  Pop in a Sprint SIM, that activates the "P" firmware.

More likely, barring hacker intervention, the firmware locks could be permanent.  A Sprint "P" variant, for example, always may be set up for Sprint, thus not particularly usable on VZW.  From a sales volume standpoint, Samsung benefits more if those who are switching providers have to obtain new handsets.

AJ

Where are we at as far as VOLTE progress goes?  Are there any phone hardware considerations for that which are starting to appear yet?

No VoLTE.  The article mentions that.

AJ

Samsung could easily flex it;s muscles to keep the carriers away from the software and device models like Apple does but I don't understand why not. At this point I'm sure no carrier wants to say no to carrying a Galaxy phone

Quite likely, the operators requested customized firmware versions.  And Samsung is there to serve the operators -- not the other way around.  Samsung benefits from economy of scale by consolidating down to one "US" hardware platform per handset.  But Samsung does not benefit from strong arming the operators into one all band firmware platform.  If anything, Samsung may charge the operators based on the number of airlinks and bands activated.

AJ

This would help the resale value of these devices because each device could be used on any US network.  No need to go hunting for a carrier specific version.  Smart move by Samsung.

Sorry, folks, but Phonescoop is reporting that the single "US" variant will be limited to just the hardware.  Separate, operator specific "V," "A," "T," "P," and "R4" variants will be defined by firmware that locks out certain airlinks and bands.  The "P" variant for Sprint, for example, will have enabled the usual CCA/RRPP compliant bands 2/4/5/12/25/26/41.

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=17201

AJ

The picture may be misleading, but that looks like a very rural location for a B41 small cell.

 

Is there a variation of this setup that would use B41 as wireless backhaul, but the relay would be B25/B26?

No, in the Boston metro, that looks to be a suburban area.  It probably is a spot with low LTE signal on the macro network, thus one prone to drops to eHRPD.  As long as there is at least one band 41 donor cell reasonably nearby, an LTE UE Relay small cell could be just the fix needed to cover, say, a half mile stretch of road and neighborhood.  In well deployed markets, most low LTE signal spots are small and sporadic.

AJ

Obviously data is a ripoff in America then. Why are they charging $150 per gig? There is logically no explanation for why they wouldn't charge the same amount or lower than they charge on their regular plans, or something on the order they charge their MVNOs. Technically roaming should be treated as if each respective company was an MVNO of the other company, so we could roam onto whatever network and be charged the same as if we were a customer of said network. Ultimately the reason roaming data is probably priced high if it is (citation needed) .. Its because of anticompetitive practices and piss poor FCC regulation.

You sound like an industry inside shill honestly with nothing but excuses for why the industry in America sucks and is overpriced.

People use their phones like laptops these days and many webpages are huge .. That's why you come across huge multiple hundred megabyte webpages. I browse using Android and I use only desktop browser rendering and website versions.

First of all, watch your mouth.  If you think that I am an "industry inside shill," you are way off base.

I am not going to provide you with a citation on data roaming costs.  But the info is out there.  I have seen it published online and/or in the public record.  For example, T-Mobile openly has complained about its data roaming costs.  You, too, can find that info.

Network operators are required to provide data roaming on FRAND terms.  That said, the FCC does not set the data roaming rates.  It is a balance between competition and anti competition.  To use T-Mobile as an example again, if it could data roam on competitor AT&T at much lower costs, then T-Mobile effectively could be on par with AT&T.  Standing on the shoulders of a giant, T-Mobile would have little incentive to build out its own network.

In the end, if you are complaining about data roaming quotas because you are loading 30 MB web pages while mobile, that comes across as ridiculous.  I have little sympathy for that.  Some web pages may be of bloated size, but most people while mobile are not loading web pages that large.  You are an edge case.

AJ

It's interesting that Us Cellular treats Sprints network as native for roaming but not the other way around for Sprint customers on USCC. If I could get native USCC roaming I could do Sprint.

No, that is not correct.  All reports are that USCC has a roaming data quota -- and Sprint is not exempt.

AJ

roaming. how I wish it were nicer and more plentiful.

 

. . .

 

I'm pretty sure 100MB easy sucks up with just background services, or even just a few page loads of my website homepage (my website homepage is 30MB per webpagetest by itself; just in JPEGs, PNGs, and HTML. in theory, one could reload the home page of my website only about 3 times before the 100MB cap was reached).

 

. . .

 

Sprint if you're hearing this please .. please consider adding more roaming data to the plans. For the rate I was paying, $95 for unlimited service, unlimited data, on one line, customers really deserve more.

 

Roaming in America unfortatunely sucks. The appeal of it is high because as a customer we will have data and voice in more areas, whereever a partner has service.

 

2-5GB of roaming data would be nice just to get us by when roaming IF roaming occurs at all.

 

. . .

 

​a question has to be asked; why is data so expensive in the United States? in the UK they sell a goodybag with 6GB LTE and unlimited 256Kbps LTE for $25 USD!!! pre-paid SIM. https://www.giffgaff.com/goodybags/20pound-goodybag

 

tell me why roaming in America isn't always-on and at least a couple of gigs of full speed LTE?

The simple answer is that data roaming in the US is expensive.  Though costs vary, operators oft charge each other on the order of $0.15/MB.  That means roughly $150/GB.  At that price, you are not getting your wish of 2-5 GB of roaming data.  Not gonna happen.  Your $95/mo rate plan that you think deserves more probably would not even cover the costs of 1 GB of roaming data.

Up next, the comparison to the UK is spurious.  I will not get into the UK geographic size and population density differences -- except to say that if Sprint had to serve only Southern California with twice the population, it would have a killer network.

But the greater issue is that you are illogically comparing roaming data allotments/prices in the US to native network data allotments/prices in the UK.  To expand upon your example, you are not going to buy a prepaid SIM from Vodafone for $25 for 6 GB of LTE, then go use that as roaming data on EE.

And here in the US, if you want about 6 GB of LTE on a prepaid SIM, you can get that for around $25.  Plenty of operators or MVNOs offer prepaid plans in that range.  Likely, though, they will be limited to native network data.

So, that brings me to my next point.  If you need more roaming data, port out to the operator on which you are roaming.  Or you can stick with your present provider -- and just buy a prepaid SIM from the other operator for your periodic data needs when/where you otherwise would be roaming.

I do have one or two final questions.  I would not load a 30 MB web page on a handset even on native network data, let alone roaming data.  It would be a waste of data and battery, not to mention, probably would take 30 seconds.  So, why is your web site homepage a whopping 30 MB?  And why do you need to load it while mobile?  That seems like a problem of your own creation.

AJ

It still annoys me immensely that the standard was designed that band supersets aren't automatically able to connect to the band subsets that they are compatible with without MFBI. I understand that if for band 17 to connect to band 12, for instance, MFBI would be required, but the other way around doesn't make since to me. I feel it should have been deisnged so that bands 25, 26, and 41 compatible phones should be able to connect to band 2, 5, and 38 (along with others that are compatible) without MFBI

No, that is not an LTE standards issue.  It is a device issue.  If a device supports band 25, for example, it just as easily can support band 2.  All that is required is a bit of additional programming and RF testing.  But that does not always happen -- because OEMs or operators may not want it.

AJ

I experienced this when I was traveling on I-29 from Omaha to KC area around middle of November.  It said Sprint on my Moto X Pure the whole entire way down on my signal Check Pro and I got at least EV-DO the whole entire way except for a few pockets which was nice so I could get streaming radio on my drive home!  Although I suspected it was roaming on USCC now I know for sure! This is some awesome progress that Sprint is making in terms of expanding its network (via partners or internally).  

Sprint has full native coverage along I-29 between Kansas City and Omaha.  That was not roaming.  If it were roaming, SignalCheck Pro would have indicated the roaming operator.

AJ

So with the X8 and X10, when is Sprint going to enable 3x2CA??

I am unsure what you meant by "3x2CA."  Did you intend to write 3x CA?

The X8 LTE modem does not support 3x CA.  The X10 LTE modem does, but it is unlikely that any of the current round of Snapdragon 808/810 handsets have the requisite hardware for 3x CA.  Rather, that will come with the next round of handsets utilizing the Snapdragon 820 with X12 LTE modem.

AJ

Is there any reason to question the FCC's testing if there is that much of a varience between the multiple models?

The FCC does not do the testing.  The manufacturers or their contracted labs do the RF testing.  If HTC thought the results were in error, it would not submit them to the FCC.

AJ

The 12-13-17 results have to be disappointing for the people on the other big carriers in the US. Otherwise, it's not a bad RF performer. Great write up as usual AJ. 

Not really disappointing, just average.  Low band ERP of 17-18 dBm is pretty much average.  Only if it starts to drop below that range, say 14 dBm or worse, does it become disappointing.  On the flip side, low band ERP at or above 20 dBm is very good.

Look at the iPhone 6S, which is an RF powerhouse in many bands.  But my figures show that its low band 12/13/17 ERP is right there in that average range at 17-19 dBm.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-397-apples-new-iphone-6s-has-band-41-lte-2x-ca-on-board-for-sprint-and-you-could-win-one/

Also, keep in mind that ERP is a different measurement from EIRP, putting ERP at about a 2 dB disadvantage.  So, to compare roughly to EIRP in mid and high band, add 2 dB.

Plus, path loss plays a role.  Low band generally has at least a 7-15 dB advantage on mid and high band.  Thus, you can add that to the equation, too.  For a back of the napkin math example, band 12/13/17 at 18 dBm could be about equivalent to band 2/25 at 30 dBm.

AJ

Thanks for the article. The best write-up I've seen on the 6P!

Thanks for the superlative.

I am sure that there are a lot of great hands on articles about the Nexus 6P, reviewing the body, screen, processor, camera, etc.

But with our FCC OET RF testing articles, S4GRU tries to fill a niche that goes unfilled elsewhere.

AJ

Based on your information the Nexus 6p should include CA 4+12 but official specs say otherwise (Googles Listing) anyway to confirm your specs or is it just based on the FCC listing and normally supported bands from the hardware.

The tested and/or listed specs in the FCC OET authorization filings are the "official specs." The Google specs are in error -- or the band 4 and band 12 CA combination has been disabled in firmware.

AJ

I've got an M8 as well, so I'm interested in the same info, since that'll be my likely upgrade path:

 

Band: M8 vs 6P

25: 25.42  vs 21-22 dBm

26: 18.59  vs 18-19 dBm

41:  21.65 vs 21-22 dBm

 

So... conclusion... when you upgrade, it'll be worse with B25, but about same for B26 and B41.

Possibly worse on band 25, possibly the same on the others.  But I would wait for real world performance reports.  Unfortunately, many recent HTC handsets on Sprint have something of a reputation for being flakey on LTE -- even though their tested performance has looked at least average to great on paper.

AJ

Sooo despite packing an 808 it's still only got a cat 6 UE? No cat 9 X10 modem?

No, technically, it is a Category 9 modem.  The Snapdragon X10 LTE baseband on die on the Snapdragon 808 chipset is inherently Category 9.  But as implemented with a single RF transceiver upstream, it is limited to Category 6.

AJ