WiWavelength

Show me. 3GPP bands are not trade secrets. AJ

You can keep saying so, but nobody is going to standardize nor deploy a 25x5 MHz FDD or 30x10 MHz FDD band. The only way either of those combinations happens is via supplemental downlink carrier aggregation. AJ

Huawei Nexus 5 2015. Discuss... AJ

Check or chuck that with the woodchuck. AJ

How many cells would a small cell sell if a small cell could sell cells? AJ

On vinyl, eh? Was that on vinyl LP? Or was it on 8-track left sitting on the vinyl seats of your T-top Camaro -- while you went inside the salon to get a trim and perm for your mullet? AJ

Our article was just posted to The Wall: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-383-summer-of-69-samsung-and-htc-rock-out-with-their-flagships-for-the-season/ AJ

Our article was just posted to The Wall: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-383-summer-of-69-samsung-and-htc-rock-out-with-their-flagships-for-the-season/ AJ

No, Sprint would have cut off AT&T, not VZW. Largely because of its AirTouch nee US West legacy across about half of the geographic area of the country, VZW already had a nearly nationwide constructed footprint prior to the Alltel acquisition. Alltel just filled in some roaming gaps here and there. But AT&T was the one with the gaping hole in the Great Plains and Intermountain West. Luckily for Ma Bell, divestments of overlapping markets fell right into its lap. Now, that I would not have minded -- keeping non American GSM sparse and poor across most of the rural West. Only those aforementioned divestments allowed AT&T massively to expand its GSM/W-CDMA footprint. Before the fallout from the Alltel acquisition, CDMA2000 ruled low band spectrum west of the Mississippi. AT&T and T-Mobile had to live off the scraps of the former WWC GSM roamer network. Those were sweet times. AJ

Many early Sprint variant single band LTE devices received Class II Permissive Change filings for additional carrier bandwidths. I do not recall if all affected devices were ultimately covered, though. You would have to ask our FCC OET Reporter, MacinJosh. Regardless, for handsets already in the field, Class II filings do not magically make it so. Unless the undisclosed wider carrier bandwidth capabilities have always been lying there latent -- and that would be an FCC violation -- the handsets still require software patches to open up the wider carrier bandwidths. That is a problem. AJ

The PCS F block is not contiguous with the PCS G block. The PCS C block, more specifically, the PCS C5 disaggregation is adjacent to the PCS G block. AJ

We seem to rehash this revisionist history fantasy every few months. Maybe we are just wireless industry masturbators. Okay, well, lather up and go to town. If given a choice, would Sprint have been better off now with Nextel and its nationwide portfolio of SMR 800 MHz spectrum plus substantial contributions of BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum or with Alltel and its rural/select major market collection of Cellular 850 MHz spectrum? And do not say both Nextel and Alltel -- because it probably could not have been done. The choice is exclusive. AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Thursday, March 5, 2015 - 12:15 PM MST I got my first real smartphone. Bought it at the five and dime. Browsed S4GRU 'til my fingers bled. Was the summer of 6&9. Spring has not quite yet sprung for a few more weeks. But with the annual Mobile World Congress just wrapping up today in Barcelona, new smartphones that likely will dominate the mobile landscape through most of the summer are starting to sprout. Germinating at the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) over the past few days have been authorization filings for the Sprint variants of the Samsung Galaxy S6, Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, and HTC One M9. Get ready for the summer of 6&9. S4GRU started a tradition of FCC OET authorization articles right around this time in 2012 with the debut of Sprint's first LTE devices. So, to celebrate the third birthday in our long running series, let us take a look at the cellular RF capabilities of this latest threesome of Samsung Galaxy and HTC One handsets. To begin, all three devices follow what has been for the past 18 months the standard Sprint variant configuration: tri band LTE, non SVLTE, single RF path with e/CSFB. No surprises there. On top of Sprint tri band LTE, the three handsets also cover the CCA/RRPP LTE bands -- with one possible caveat for the One M9. More details on that later. As an aside, Qualcomm is changing up its baseband modem branding and numbering schemes. Previously, branding was Gobi and numbering was, to use one example, MDM9625 for standalone modem chipsets. Then, many Snapdragon processor chipsets also included the same modems on die -- a la the Snapdragon 800, aka MSM8974, which integrated the same stack as in the standalone MDM9625. Branding is now changing universally to Snapdragon and numbering, to use just one example again, will follow the X10 LTE pattern. That last example is the Snapdragon 810's brand new LTE category 9 modem, which has no standalone modem precursor. But other rebranded and renumbered examples with their standalone precursors include the Snapdragon X5 LTE (MDM9625), Snapdragon X7 LTE (MDM9635), and Snapdragon X12 LTE (MDM9645). That Qualcomm background is useful as we will start the rundown with the One M9, which incorporates the Snapdragon 810 with X10 LTE chipset. To cut straight to the chase, below are the tested ERP/EIRP figures: Band class 0: 20 dBm Band class 1: 25 dBm Band class 10: 20 dBm Band 2: 25 dBm Band 4: 23 dBm Band 12: 18 dBm Band 25: 25 dBm Band 26: 17 dBm Band 41: 23 dBm For reference, and this will pertain to the ERP/EIRP figures cited later for the Samsung devices, too, the above figures represent our best averaged and rounded estimates of max uplink ERP/EIRP -- with uniquely Sprint frequencies receiving heavier weighting in band class 10, band 25, and band 26. Of course, the usual disclaimers about lab testing versus real world performance apply. Now, to provide some analysis, RF output looks relatively healthy, somewhere in the better than average range. And it generally, albeit minimally trumps that of its HTC One M8 predecessor -- see our S4GRU article from last year. The aforementioned caveat about CCA/RRPP bands is that the FCC OET filing for the One M9 does not include separate testing of band 5. Now, that may not indicate omission of band 5 -- because band 26 is a superset of all band 5 frequencies. But we cannot guarantee that the One M9 will attach to band 5 roaming networks without MFBI for band 26. Two other omissions are worthy of note. First, the FCC OET documents offer no mention of band 41 carrier aggregation capabilities. This may or may not be cause for concern. Current carrier aggregation is downlink reception only, not uplink transmission. And FCC OET testing is just the opposite -- uplink transmission only, not downlink reception. As such, the testing is not required to include carrier aggregation. We do know that the Snapdragon 810 with X10 LTE supports up to 3x 20 MHz FDD/TDD carrier aggregation, so we expect that 2x or 3x band 41 carrier aggregation is on board. S4GRU will follow up if more info becomes available. Second, the One M9 was not tested, thus is not authorized for domestic GSM/W-CDMA bands. Rabid phone unlockers under the new Sprint domestic unlocking policy, consider yourselves forewarned. Finally, the One M9 docs suggest VoLTE support at launch. But Sprint has no established timeline for VoLTE, so take that with a grain of salt. It could be just a latent capability. Moving on to the galactic federation, Samsung has split its Galaxy S6 offerings in two this year, offering a separate Galaxy S6 Edge as a step up version. With one possible exception, both Galaxy S6 handsets have the same RF capabilities. However, their ERP/EIRP figures are not identical, so they are broken out separately below: Samsung Galaxy S6: Band class 0: 17 dBm Band class 1: 23 dBm Band class 10: 17 dBm Band 2: 22 dBm Band 4: 23 dBm Band 5: 16 dBm Band 12: 21-17 dBm (declining with increasing carrier bandwidth) Band 25: 22 dBm Band 26: 16 dBm Band 41: 16 dBm Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge: Band class 0: 18 dBm Band class 1: 22 dBm Band class 10: 18 dBm Band 2: 22 dBm Band 4: 24 dBm Band 5: 17 dBm Band 12: 17 dBm Band 25: 22 dBm Band 26: 17 dBm Band 41: 19-11 dBm (declining with decreasing center frequency) As for analysis, both Galaxy S6 variants are about average -- with the Galaxy S6 Edge holding generally a 1 dB "edge," pun intended. Neither, though, holds up to the tested RF output of the One M9. Some surmise that Samsung's much debated shift in handset materials this year from largely cheap feeling plastic to more premium metal and glass has had a detrimental effect on RF design and performance. We cannot jump to that conclusion, but the RF falloff does become even more apparent in comparison to last year's Samsung Galaxy S5 -- again, see our article. In particular, band 41 EIRP is disappointing. A higher frequency band should precipitate higher RF output. But that is not the case this year, as the band 41 uplink maximum for both Samsung handsets drops 4-7 dB below that of the One M9 and fully 6-9 dB below that of the Galaxy S5. Also, the band 41 extreme frequency differential in the Galaxy S6 Edge is disconcerting. It is up to 8 dB better in high BRS spectrum than in low EBS spectrum. Meanwhile, multiple band 41 center frequencies in BRS/EBS spectrum will vary from market to market, so performance will also vary. If using the Galaxy S6 Edge on band 41, you better hope for EARFCN 40978 or greater. Alright, that less than good news out of the way, let us move on to more positive things. The Samsung Galaxy S6 handsets are LTE category 6 -- with explicitly noted support for 2x band 41 carrier aggregation. More on that, too, later. They also have been tested and authorized for domestic GSM/W-CDMA bands, so unlocking in the future for use on other domestic operators may be possible. VoLTE, though, is noted as not supported out of the box. It is, however, on board other Galaxy S6 variants, thus could be added later with a Class II Permissive Change filing and potentially a software update. Now, back to LTE category 6. In addition to its material design change this year, Samsung has also broken lockstep with Qualcomm, choosing to forgo the 64 bit, octa core Snapdragon 810 processor in favor of its in house 64 bit, octa core Exynos 7420. S4GRU does not traffic in application processor chipset holy wars -- there are plenty of other sites for that. But this chipset change has other ramifications. Unlike the Snapdragon 810, the Exynos does not have a baseband modem on die. Thus, Samsung has had to include a separate modem chipset. And, unfortunately, the full identity of that modem remains a mystery. We know of another Samsung in house chipset -- the Exynos Modem 333 or SS333 -- that could provide the category 6 LTE connectivity, possibly even full 3GPP connectivity. However, for Sprint, that still leaves lingering 3GPP2 (CDMA2000). Is it provided by a second modem, meaning a third chipset? Could it be a reappearance of the notorious VIA Telecom CDMA2000 modem? S4GRU sincerely hopes not. Or maybe Qualcomm is still on board, not in the processor, but in its aforementioned Snapdragon X7 LTE (MDM9635) category 6 LTE standalone 3GPP/3GPP2 baseband, which supports the same 2x 20 MHz FDD/TDD carrier aggregation. Time will tell. Well, that is a wrap for this set. If you are young and restless with the Samsung Galaxy S6s and HTC One M9, will you wonder what went wrong? Or will the summer of 6&9 be the best days of your mobile life? Discuss in the comments. Sources: FCC, Bryan Adams

Neal thinks that the downlink heavy paradigm is going to shift. He believes that the uplink will become just as utilized. I presume that is through various sorts of self broadcasting -- probably typical Millennial "Look at me, everything I see and do is special" vanity bullshit. That is not a reflection on Neal, but on Millennials in general. AJ

Please be careful with your assertions. "Band 12 devices are supported on AT&T on band 17 since AT&T started using MFBI" implies that AT&T has band 12/17 MFBI everywhere. The deed is done. But "begun implementing" suggests that the rollout of MFBI is still in process. Unless you are willing to stake your name that a band 12 device can operate fully on AT&T now, you should qualify your claim. AJ

Yes, that is a nice idea, one that I fantasize about, but it is a pipe dream. Neither the FCC nor the FTC would ever be able to get all domestic handsets to support a "set minimum" of GSM, W-CDMA, CDMA2000, and LTE modes/bands. Simply defining that "set minimum" would be a firestorm. And, as Robert and I point out, the "set minimum" is increasingly all bands and capabilities -- if you want a "pleasant experience." AJ

Band 12/17 MFBI is the plan, but has AT&T actually implemented it yet? AJ

A "pleasant experience" is an ambiguous term. It has variable meanings to different people at different times, present and future. Also, the unlocked handset street tends to be one way -- away from Sprint. A Sprint handset may provide a "pleasant experience" for some on other operators. But another operator's handset generally provides a zero experience or notably compromised experience on Sprint. AJ

Who cares? Sprint has BRS/EBS spectrum out the wazoo. If Sprint wants to pursue this band 25 PCC + band 41 SCC carrier aggregation combo, it can leave the 3x band 41 carrier aggregation alone and dedicate a separate band 41 carrier to the process. Or does that bother you, Neal? Is that poor spectrum management? Is that an unfair advantage for Sprint? AJ

I do not think that you understand what I am saying. I do not have time to elaborate now, so I will have to follow up at length later. AJ

No, that last statement is not true. The iPhone 6, for example, is not compatible with Lower 700 MHz band 12 nor WCS 2300 MHz band 30 -- both of which are included in the just recently disclosed AT&T variant Samsung Galaxy S6. And the Nexus 6 supports band 12 but not band 30. Additionally, both the iPhone 6 and the Nexus 6 lack BRS/EBS 2600 MHz band 41 carrier aggregation -- though they support carrier aggregation for other bands. In the end, there are simply too many bands and too many carrier aggregation combinations in use -- and continually expanding -- for a single SKU to rule them all. Maybe that will happen someday, just do not expect it for several years. So, an unlocked handset may possess base capabilities for use on any domestic network, but it probably will not be truly a jack of all trades. It will be missing certain bands or carrier aggregation capabilities that are needed for an optimal network experience. AJ

Yeah, you have made that abundantly clear -- multiple times. The FCC instituted Net Neutrality via application of Title II. We are aware. So, shut up about it. Or take your disgust elsewhere. Got it? Good. AJ

The SCC signal metrics are very nice. I was concerned that engineering screens would not be updated to display carrier aggregation. AJ

Your take sounds reasonable, but it is specious. "Content" is the reason for "channel" in the first place. No content, no channel. Now, channel wants a cut of the content action. Channel does not want to be effectively a "dumb pipe," but that is exactly what the public expects channel to be. There is your consumer good. So, channel can acknowledge that maybe it chose the wrong side of the equation if it wanted content profits. But it can still accept moderate yet predictable profits -- especially long term. Or channel can get the hell off public property and exit the market. AJ

A most appropriate parallel, perhaps, is professional sports free agency. Teams are not required to tender follow up contract offers to their free agents -- and they certainly are not required to offer those soon to be free agents new contracts before their current contracts have expired. Instead, teams do so at their own discretion. AJ