WiWavelength

No, that is incorrect. APC was limited to the PCS A block license for the Washington-Baltimore MTA that it was awarded prior to auction as part of the FCC's Pioneer's Preference program. The one license was the full extent of APC. In Seattle-Tacoma, which is a BTA, not an MTA, you may be thinking of Cook Inlet or WWC. Those are T-Mobile's PCS 1900 MHz spectrum forebears in the market. AJ

No, not exactly. APC dba Sprint Spectrum got rolled into Sprint PCS. Only some basic infrastructure was sold off to Omnipoint. And Sprint's foray into wireless in 1995 was not its first. It previously had a few Cellular 850 MHz markets around the country that it spun off so as to pursue a national PCS 1900 MHz footprint in the FCC auctions that began in 1994. AJ

Uh, it does include CCA/RRPP bands: bands 4/5/12/25(2). Those are the LTE bands that matter to USCC and CCA/RRPP partners. Just because this USCC variant does not support bands 26/41 is no cause for concern. If anything, that is good news. Roamers should not be allowed on band class 10, nor on bands 26/41. Those should be reserved for actual Sprint subs. AJ

I am not worried. USCC has gone its own way on handsets for the past few years and has had seemingly little trouble procuring the band class 0/1 and band 2/4/5/12 variants it needs for its network. The CCA/RRPP "hub" likely matters more to the truly small, rural operators -- whose subs are measured in thousands, not millions. AJ

You may be missing the point. This discussion has turned to a USCC variant handset, not a Sprint variant handset. The issue here has no bearing on roaming agreements, only on roaming capabilities for a specific device -- which, again, is a USCC variant. The Sprint variant is fully CCA/RRPP compliant. AJ

Too bad for USCC. But how should this be any concern for Sprint? Are we to cry tears for USCC subs? AJ

No. Band 17 is effectively AT&T's creation. AJ

AJ

The Nexus 5 supports band 17, not band 12. AJ

My intuition is that Sprint needs to hoard BRS/EBS like gold. The spectrum has gotten the knock -- especially from trolls and other provider fanboys -- for being too high frequency, for having poor propagation characteristics. But here is the irony. Compared to what is coming in the future, BRS/EBS is relatively low in frequency. Envision the BRS/EBS band as the lowest frequency large plot of undeveloped land remaining. And the future will not stop at just 20 MHz FDD/TDD bandwidth. Much as Wi-Fi has expanded to 40 MHz TDD, then 80 MHz TDD, now 160 MHz TDD, LTE will see larger bandwidth carriers. We cannot think 3x 20 MHz TDD carrier aggregation in band 41 is the end of the road. If anything, it is just the beginning. To deploy larger bandwidth carriers, other operators will have to jump up to band 42/43 (3500 MHz) or LTE-LAA (5800 MHz). Yet, if Sprint retains as much BRS/EBS as it can, it will be able to deploy those future larger bandwidth carriers in band 41, turning the tables and giving Sprint a propagation advantage. AJ

Guys, here is the deal. Provide some substantive evidence. And do not give anecdotes from Chester, IL or western MI. Who cares? To illustrate, T-Mobile is shit in Omaha, but nationally, nobody cares. What I want to see is that VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile have significantly greater site density than Sprint does -- in overlapping markets across the country. I do not believe it, though I am willing to be convinced. That is the "white elephant" everyone wants -- site locations and deployment dates on all four major operators. S4GRU has kicked ass in that regard. Nothing similar is available for the other big three. Do you have that data? But if Sprint already greatly lags the other three in site density, then mark my words. Sprint is lost. The damage is done. The major domestic operator landscape will be down to three or even only two by 2020. AJ

Yes, we have known that for years -- or something. Also, someone said your post lacks relevance. AJ

Whether you like it or not, it is political. Look at the recent history, and tell me that it is not political. The Republican controlled FCC during 2000-2008 eliminated the spectrum cap and the Cellular 850 MHz license cross ownership rule. Accordingly, it approved the Cingular-AT&TWS merger and the VZW-Alltel merger, both of which resulted in massive CMRS spectrum agglomeration and Cellular 850 MHz monopoly in numerous markets. The Republican motto is basically, "Let the free market sort it out." But where is the "free market" in this industry, which is an oligopoly and practically a public utility? So, do not make excuses. Period. Instead, ask questions -- especially of your chosen political persuasion. AJ

I apologize. I had no idea that Sprint had already launched 2x or even 3x 20 MHz TDD carrier aggregation in band 41 but that it proved no significant e-penis advantage to speeds on VZW XLTE or T-Mobile "wideband" LTE. Or maybe I just rebutted your argument... AJ

Here are the problems with a potential BRS/EBS 2600 MHz sale, folks... The FCC approved the entire Clearwire acquisition -- with no divestment. That was not a big surprise, but it was still a spectrum coup. The 600 MHz auction may never happen anytime soon. Do not count on it. It also may prove too pricey for anyone but VZW and AT&T. Do not sell your assets and save your pennies for a day that may never come -- or never come your way. Sprint cannot compete with the Twin Bells on overall native footprint. That ship sailed with Republican influenced FCC decisions 2000-2008. Currently, Sprint can barely compete with lowly T-Mobile on overall data speeds. Right or wrong, those are the metrics that presently drive the industry. If Sprint lets go of some of its spectrum treasure trove, that may be akin to letting the Trojan horse inside the gates. If AT&T, for example, can acquire 40 MHz of BRS/EBS spectrum and run 2x 20 MHz TDD carrier aggregation, Sprint loses most of its competitive advantage. AJ

It was not obvious -- "2 carriers of 20+20" sounds like two 20 MHz FDD carriers or two rounds of 2x 20 MHz TDD carrier aggregation. Please just be careful with your verbiage. AJ

Something may have slipped your mind. This is TDD, not FDD. There is no "2 carriers of 20+20" that is "2x the capacity of T-Mobile's 'wideband' LTE." AJ

How do you guys know what are the average speeds inside the park? It sounds like you are running frequent speed tests. Here is some strong advice: STOP RUNNING SPEED TESTS. Do you have Sprint LTE signal? Check. Does the network respond to your TCP/IP requests in a reasonably timely fashion? Check. If so, then have fun and get on with your life. When you are running speed tests, you are just pumping roughly 50 MB each time through the network. That is 400 Mb. Do the math on how that increases network loading and congestion each time -- the very same network loading and congestion that you seem to be trying to diagnose. It is like using a potent carcinogen to detect cancer. AJ

Sprint has to consider the "value" of keeping nearly all of the massive BRS/EBS 2600 MHz bandwidth to itself and away from competitors versus selling, profiting, and letting those same competitors help Sprint grow the band 41 domestic ecosystem. AJ

Yeah, I am scared. Leroy Brown is a bad, bad song. AJ

Well, it is the South Side of Chicago. So, maybe the stadium could just be marginally renamed "The Jail Cell." AJ

Are you from the future? AJ

This is 2015 now. Inflation has increased that amount to eleventy billion dollars. But, okay, we will let it slide during this first week of the new year. AJ

I believe you answered my question. You do not understand -- or, at least, listen to -- the words coming out of John Legere's mouth. Now, I have actual paid work to do. I will let others chime in to tell you how you are wrong. AJ

You mean "better than nothing." But, remarkably, one month data rollover is better for a month, then nothing. AJ