WiWavelength

Well, I will continue to tease this a bit. AT&T LTE handsets, as with all AT&T 3G/4G handsets, do support simultaneous voice/data. But, as stated previously, I do not know of any GSM ecosystem LTE devices that support the equivalent of SVLTE. Do you note the subtle distinction? Again, discuss, and I will return to clarify and/or string this along a bit more.

AJ

autoprime, Nextel iDEN does not use SIDs, as iDEN is more closely aligned with the GSM ecosystem, which relies on MCCs, MNCs, and LACs.

But it appears that Nextel was assigned SIDs for its PCS "G" block licenses years ago, maybe even prior to the merger. And you just uncovered a treasure trove. Congratulations, great find! You are going to get name credit in the next update to this article.

AJ

Guys, I will let you in on a dirty little secret from the GSM/W-CDMA side of things. As far as I know, no GSM/W-CDMA/LTE device supports the equivalent of SVLTE. Now, let that sink in. Discuss among yourselves, and I will be back later to follow up with some important ramifications.

AJ

VZW LTE handsets are able to support SVLTE (and some SV-DO, too) because they utilize two separate modems: one for CDMA1X/EV-DO and one for LTE. The two modems are required for simultaneous connectivity (e.g. CDMA1X + LTE or CDMA1X + EV-DO).

Upcoming Sprint LTE handsets will almost certainly do likewise. For example, consider the HTC Jet. We know that it utilizes the Qualcomm MSM8960 CPU + modem chipset. That is the modem that will likely be used for LTE, but the Jet will also have to incorporate a second modem for CDMA1X/EV-DO connectivity.

Apple may not be willing to incorporate that redundancy because of iPhone size and power consumption concerns.

AJ

autoprime, both CDMA1X and EV-DO are 3G. CDMA1X carries voice and SMS, while EV-DO carries data (though CDMA1X can also carry data if EV-DO is not available).

At this time, Sprint has no plans to deploy EV-DO in SMR 800 MHz. So, in essence, data will remain on PCS 1900 MHz.

AJ

Jeff, SouthernLINC coverage is hyperlinked in the article (about halfway down).

AJ

Robert, I heard that Laurie Partridge can pick up LTE on her braces.

AJ

Without an LTE phone, or hot spot, how can you detect if there is a 4G signal nearby?

Just whip out your trusty RF spectrum analyzer, and set the range to 1990-1995 MHz. You do have an RF spectrum analyzer, right?

AJ

HTC site says the One X is a 1.5GHz quad core - why would the Jet spec drop to dual core? http://www.htc.com/w...tc-one-x/#specs

The Nvidia Tegra 3 quad core chip is just a CPU, not a modem. And, for some reason, it is not currently compatible with LTE. So, only the non LTE international version and possibly a non LTE domestic T-Mobile version of the HTC One X utilize the Tegra 3 quad core. The LTE variants coming to AT&T and Sprint use the Qualcomm MSM8960 dual core because it is a CPU + modem that internally supports LTE. And, no, it is not a "spec drop." Please read all comments following the article, as we addressed the quad core vs dual core argument already.

AJ

S4GRU has made the front pages this morning of both CNET and Engadget:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57399848-94/htc-one-x-could-be-sprints-first-lte-smartphone/

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/19/htc-one-x-could-be-coming-to-sprint-on-june-10th/

AJ

I wonder if it would be possible for HTC & Sprint to get Qualcomm to speed up the Quad-core S4 chips to get them to market quicker...Maybe get it into this device?

The dual core CPU in the Jet is locked in by this point. The reason for this is that the MSM8960 chipset contains both CPU and wireless modem. And Sprint has already started vetting the Jet -- both in the lab and in the field (Network Vision FIT areas).

AJ

If you have not already, be sure to to check out AnandTech's MSM8960 benchmarks (linked in the article). The 1.5 GHz dual core "Krait" CPU leaves in the dust most other dual core hardware on the market.

Better yet, the MSM8960's performance is competitive with or superior to that of even the quad core Tegra 3, which is used in the non LTE international version of the HTC One X.

http://www.anandtech...nvidias-tegra-3

So, it may be debatable, but Sprint seems to be getting the better CPU with the dual core MSM8960 in the HTC Jet (and another device to be named later).

AJ

Think of it this way, why hasn't AT&T and Verizon added LTE support in the AWS frequency bands when its obvious that is where they plan to deploy additional LTE carriers. Its simple...its not ready yet.

Eric, AT&T LTE devices actually do include band class 4 (AWS 2100+1700 MHz), even though AT&T has not to date verifiably launched any LTE outside of band class 17 (Lower 700 MHz B/C blocks).

AJ

This is kinda old news now.

Agreed, this news is not a great revelation; it comes as no surprise. I do not know of anyone nor any entity (not even AT&T) that thought SMR 800 MHz wideband operation would be rejected or could be prevented. More a formality than anything else, approval was always just a matter of time.

That said, do not discount that official approval via a proposed rulemaking is finally imminent. As you note, Sprint has been testing band class 10 CDMA1X under FCC waiver and/or STA in the following call signs: WPLM660, WPLM661, WQNX442, WQNX443, WQNX444, WQOQ770, WQOQ771, WQOQ772, and WQOU823. The docket has been dragging out for nearly a year and could have gone on unresolved for much longer. But now the proposed rulemaking is out for public comment, then ready for publication in CFR 47 Part 90. The end is nigh.

I would expect a couple EVDO carriers in ESMR as they make room (by slowly phasing out iDEN channels).

You frequently bring up the likelihood of band class 10 EV-DO carriers. But Robert has been very forthright; Sprint Network Vision 3G documents indicate no plans to deploy EV-DO 800. So, unless Sprint changes those plans or classifies EV-DO Rev B as "4G" (hence it falls under Network Vision 4G plans), there will be no EV-DO in SMR 800 MHz, just CDMA1X Advanced soon, followed by LTE later.

The device certifications for EV-DO 800, honestly, do not indicate very much. Sprint has a precedent of including then ignoring certain capabilities in its branded devices. For example, band class 14 PCS G block CDMA1X/EV-DO support has been incorporated in numerous handsets over the past few years, but that capability will remain dormant, will never be commercially realized now.

AJ

So, If I tether with AT&T 3G then plug this device into the tethered laptop (set up to share the connection) can I create Sprint coverage using AT&T coverage?Cellular Inception :oI think I'll give it a go at my cabin.

You just blew my mind. BWONG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXLDv-fUINM

AJ

I see the Sprint branded space heater in the photos, but where is the Airave?

AJ

Robert, this blog post is top notch. So thoroughly detailed, it may be your best article yet.

AJ

Sgt. that article notes that "Dragon" is merely a temporary codename. So, it does not do much to support your contention.

I am not trying to pick a fight, but I am a bit perplexed by the seeming emotional attachment to the EVO name. I had detected that sentiment previously, and it is on full display now that HTC has potentially pulled the plug on branding other than One.

Why do some care so much about EVO nomenclature? After all -- and I say this half glibly, half seriously -- no matter what HTC (or Sprint, for that matter) brands your device, you can still call it "EVO" if that is what you like.

AJ

While HTC might be narrowing the amount of hardware it's releasing, but that doesn't mean that the carriers are going to change how they name or market the device to their customers.

Our readers are largely US centric, and that is understandable for a Sprint 4G focused site. But many may not be particularly aware of wireless services and devices outside of the US.

To illustrate, few may know that EVO is not exclusive to Sprint, that HTC has released at least one EVO handset in Canada (Rogers), as well as versions compatible with networks in Europe and Asia.

http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_evo_3d-3901.php

Now, HTC has come out and stated publicly that it wants to release fewer devices and unify worldwide branding under the One name. So, like it or not, the writing is on the wall; HTC prefers One to EVO. And the eventual HTC 4G LTE spiritual successor to the EVOs will not likely carry the EVO name.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5584/htcs-new-strategy-the-htc-one

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=9931

AJ

digiblur, I think that you are taking a highly polarized, overly simplified perspective on a complicated issue.

One, the incentive auctions, if they come to pass, will be entirely voluntary. Broadcasters have to opt in, not opt out. Broadcasters that do opt in may be able to make more money via auction windfall than through continued OTA operation on a dedicated channel.

Two, refarming under utilized UHF spectrum is nothing new, has been successful in the past. Prior to the 1980s, Cellular 850 MHz spectrum was UHF TV channels 70-83, for example.

Three, broadcasters can opt to share physical channels but operate separately as virtual channels or sub channels. Those that opt to share channels retain all of their carriage rights.

Four, besides affiliates of the major networks, many UHF TV broadcasters provide little to serve the public interest; they broadcast the TV equivalent of tripe. The CW, seriously?

Five, incentive auction participants will be limited to full power and class A broadcasters. The "church channel" would not be relevant.

Six, many cable and satellite providers already receive their broadcast feeds not OTA but by cable or fiber optic feeds directly from the broadcast studios.

So, you are condemning incentive auctions based on highly incomplete information. Nothing is quite as black and white as you put it. Keep an open mind.

That said, incentive auctions are still controversial -- both for broadcasters and potential wireless licensees alike. Broadcasters may fail to participate, freeing up little or no additional spectrum. Or if the incentive auctions are successful, that available spectrum may create even more band class fragmentation and likely consolidate even more bandwidth in the hands of VZW and AT&T.

AJ

Think: How many areas of rurual america is sprint going to have 800mhz spectrum in , once nextel is gone, that they won't have the towers or the money to expand service? Thats prime real estate and would surely be ripe for a few tiny rural carriers to use.

I agree. But think of how many of those regional or rural carriers have already directly/indirectly succumbed to the overtures of VZW or AT&T. Alltel, Centennial, Dobson, Midwest, RCC, WWC, and many even smaller carriers -- long gone. Not that many are left, certainly not enough for Sprint to partner with and cobble together a national rural footprint.

So, while SMR 800 MHz has even minutely better propagation characteristics than does Cellular 850 MHz, it lacks the 25 years of build out history of Cellular 850 MHz. VZW and AT&T have largely bought up all of that history. Thus, do not expect Sprint to improve significantly its rural footprint solely due to SMR 800 MHz conversion from iDEN to CDMA1X and/or LTE.

For what I think is an apt analogy, the domestic wireless market has become like MLB would be if the Yankees and Red Sox had their way. They would face no salary cap nor luxury tax nor revenue sharing. They would sign all of the desirable free agents, would always win, and would run out of business all of the other teams in the league. So, MLB would be just the Yankees and Red Sox playing each other 162 games per season. And they would see no problem with that.

AJ

Robert...

With regard to spectrum, the Sprint affiliate and Rural Alliance programs operate differently.

When Sprint signed up affiliates in the late 1990s to construct and manage secondary markets (e.g. your entire El Paso-Albuquerque MTA market was deeded to Alamosa PCS), spectrum licenses remained firmly in Sprint's hands. Sprint did not even lease the spectrum to affiliates; it merely inked contracts with the affiliates to use Sprint spectrum and operate under the Sprint brand.

(The one exception to the above situation was and still is Swiftel. As it is a public utility in Brookings, SD, it ostensibly is legally obligated to control its own spectrum. Thus, Sprint did partition and disaggregate 10 MHz of spectrum to Swiftel.)

The affiliate program proved problematic after the Nextel merger when several affiliates sued Sprint over unfair competition from the Nextel iDEN network that overlapped their affiliate markets. Because Sprint had contractually granted them access to Sprint spectrum and brand, Sprint could not just revoke those rights nor just walk away. Essentially, Sprint had little choice but to buy out those affiliates.

Now, the VZW LTE in Rural America operates like the Sprint affiliate program did. Correct, VZW does retain control of the Upper 700 MHz C block spectrum but contractually allows smaller carriers access to the spectrum to build out and manage LTE overlay for their benefit and for VZW's benefit.

No doubt, this will end much like the Sprint affiliate program did. Sooner or later, VZW will buy out the smaller carriers. But VZW already knows that, accepts that, even intends for that to happen. In fact, I liken the LTE in Rural America program to a VZW "trojan horse." However, I am not sure that the smaller carriers mind. They may be happy just to take a big payout from VZW.

Back to the Sprint Rural Alliance, the three primary participating carriers are/were Nex-Tech, United, and Pioneer -- all three in Kansas, Colorado, and/or Oklahoma. Sprint has leased, then partitioned and disaggregated spectrum to all of them. And, until recently, everything had seemingly worked out swimmingly.

Nex-Tech and United, in particular, have stellar CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900 coverage in western Kansas. Dare I say, it is even better than VZW (former Alltel) CDMA1X/EV-DO 850 and AT&T (former VZW, former RCC) GSM/W-CDMA 850 coverage in the same area because Nex-Tech and United have committed to erecting a cell site in nearly every little town with population greater than 300.

Pioneer is the one of the three that has become the problem. I do not know if Pioneer contractually had the option to bail out on Sprint, if Sprint was unwilling to meet Pioneer's financial terms, or if the dissolution was a mutual decision. Regardless, Sprint's plan to help itself by helping Pioneer worked for six or seven years but has now backfired.

AJ

Separate, I've long wondered why Sprint doesn't seek out more rural affiliates in markets that they hold considerable spectrum but choose not to deploy based on subscriber potential.... for the number of customers they have here, it could be cheaper or less troublesome just to let someone else have us , use the spectrum, and beef up what the rest of the markets see as "native" coverage.

I think that I can address that wonderment.

Keep in mind that Sprint has previously tried numerous affiliate (e.g. Alamosa PCS, iPCS, Ubiquitel, etc.) and Rural Alliance (Nex-Tech Wireless, United Wireless, Pioneer Wireless, etc.) relationships. The partnerships were advantageous in the beginning but have become somewhat problematic over the past several years.

First, at least one affiliate (iPCS) sued Sprint over the Nextel merger because it viewed Nextel iDEN as competition in its market, hence a violation of its affiliate contract. The same competition issues could arise (or could have already arisen) with Clearwire.

Second, recall the recent falling out between Sprint and Pioneer -- as Pioneer defected from the Sprint Rural Alliance to the VZW LTE in Rural America program -- and AT&T speciously seized on that to slander Sprint. Sprint partitioned and disaggregated PCS 1900 MHz licenses to Pioneer in exchange for expanded footprint and a pseudo native coverage roaming agreement. Now, Pioneer gets to run off with that Sprint spectrum and go shack up with VZW (priming itself for the inevitable VZW buy out).

So, the Sprint affiliate and Rural Alliance initiatives have been decidedly mixed bags. Some relationships have turned out well, others unexpected headaches for Sprint (which does not need more problems than it already has). So, you can imagine why Sprint might be reluctant to pursue further partnerships for expanding what is, honestly, exceedingly peripheral coverage.

AJ

How come Network Vision is active here in Manhattan when the coverage has gotten worse?. Heck even 4G Wimax has gotten worse. I used to get over 5 megabits down indoors , and now I can't get not even .50megabits.

SprintNYC, Network Vision has nothing to do with WiMAX. Furthermore, Sprint has relatively little to do with WiMAX. Clearwire controls WiMAX, while Sprint holds just an investment in and a wholesale agreement with Clearwire.

AJ

Hi Eric...

It is always nice to read your comments.

I, too, stayed on the call through the analysts questions at the end. While I listened in on the brief discussion about Clearwire potentially monetizing some of its excess spectrum by selling it, I did not include it in the blog because, honestly, I am not sure what to make of that possibility.

The wealth of BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum that Clearwire controls is both an awesome asset and a huge headache -- the latter because BRS is licensed, while EBS is leased from educational institutions. And, believe it or not, only a minority (73.5 MHz bandwidth) of the band plan is licensed BRS; the majority (112.5 MHz) is leased EBS. View the post transition BRS/EBS band plan here:

http://wireless.fcc....S-BandPlans.pdf

So, could Clearwire "sell" spectrum that it is not licensed, that it has only leased? And what is to prevent another carrier (e.g. AT&T) from making a better offer right now and leasing EBS spectrum out from underneath Clearwire? I can only presume that Clearwire has wisely structured the lease contracts so that it always has the right of first refusal upon the expiration or renegotiation of an EBS lease. And I suppose that another carrier would have to buy up independently hundreds, if not thousands of leases to gain the national economy of scale that Clearwire can offer.

Those are the complicating factors, the reasons why I am not sure what to think of a possible Clearwire spectrum sale.

Your thoughts?

AJ