WiWavelength

Uh, do you understand the words that are coming out of John Legere's mouth? AJ

To keep things simple, let us just refer to band 2 PCS and band 4 AWS. T-Mobile has refarmed some of its band 4 AWS for LTE, moving some W-CDMA over to band 2 PCS -- but not everywhere across its network. The fallback on a device without band 4 W-CDMA will be somewhat compromised on T-Mobile. AJ

Band 1 is 1900+2100 MHz and has been for about 15 years. AJ

What and where? AJ

No, my comments were not "off base." However, your comments are. Who said that there was an "obligation"? Bar none, though, operators do develop handsets in collaboration with OEMs. There is even an acronym for the list of requests/requirements that operators put forth to OEMs. I cannot recall the acronym -- Neal Gompa knows. Regardless, this is how Sprint gets WiMAX capable, EVO branded handsets; how VZW gets SVLTE and band 13 capable, Droid branded handsets; and how AT&T gets band 17 capable handsets -- that specifically exclude band 12. An exception does not make a rule. And you should know that. The above is just poor argumentation. Using the One PlusOne as your counterexample is like the guy on HowardForums using the Nexus 5 as his counterexample to my point about the inequity that unlocked Sprint handsets generally include T-Mobile compatible band support -- but that T-Mobile unlocked handsets generally do not include Sprint compatible band class/band support. If the One PlusOne or the Nexus 5 were the only handset out there, or if they even constituted large portions of the installed user base, then you and the HowardForums guy would have solid arguments. Instead, they are little but niche handsets in the US market, rendering the support for your contentions weak, at best. Without Sprint procurement, how many CDMA2000/WiMAX handsets do you think OEMs would have developed of their own accord? Moreover, how many CDMA2000/LTE handsets that support 3x carrier aggregation in band 41 would be forthcoming? Face it, Sprint has a bunch of boutique band classes/bands. Some think that Sprint is stupid or even doomed -- because it has followed such a different path from VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile, not to mention, the rest of the world. But if Sprint did not have band class 10 CDMA1X, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE, Sprint already would be dead in the water. Sprint has no choice but to go forward with this path, and that generally means getting OEMs to build handsets specialized for Sprint. Unless the FCC steps in and and mandates handsets be universally unlocked and fully compatible with all domestic operators -- and pigs fly -- anybody who wants that unlocked, open, independently developed handset ecosystem should go on over to T-Mobile. As I show above, I am "very sharp on this [sic] sorts of subjects." My points are on target and well supported. AJ

In the pics, where is the mobile hotspot device? All I see is some sort of Apple TV/Roku thing. AJ

First, an LTE roaming agreement is the linchpin. But, assuming that, yes, MFBI can be used by a network to "advertise" -- in a behind the scenes, RF signaling kind of way -- that it is compatible with multiple superset/subset bands. AJ

No, not necessarily. Even though we are talking superset/subset, band 26 compatibility does not guarantee band 5 compatibility. If both bands have been FCC tested, then yes. But if band 5 has not been tested, then any band 5 network must also implement MFBI for band 26 devices to attach. AJ

Absolutely, the network operators do "develop" handsets with their contracted OEMs. If you want a Sprint example, if Sprint were otherwise not involved in device procurement, no handset would ever include the amalgam of band class 10 CDMA2000, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE. Let us not play dumb about this, okay? AJ

Maybe, but not really. For W-CDMA, few countries other than the US use band 4 AWS-1 1700+2100 MHz. Most hitched their wagons to band 1 IMT 1900+2100 MHz. AJ

Tell AT&T and T-Mobile to develop all of their handsets to be compatible with VZW and Sprint. That is two way, fair play. But they would use a similar excuse -- "no technological process." Oh, it would be "extremely easy." But "they refuse to implement one." AJ

This presumed Sprint variant LG G Flex 2 does not support band 4 W-CDMA 1700+2100. So, outside of LTE coverage, it will not be fully functional on the T-Mobile network. AJ

No, that would not be carrier aggregation. That would be multi band load balancing, which is how Sprint is employing its tri band network. AJ

But do they drink alike? Presently, I am having iced tea. AJ

I find it interesting that the New York teenagers are the first ones "liking" my post. What are you boys drinking? AJ

Just have a Redhook IPA or three…and you will stop worrying about such trivial things as IKEA and LTE. AJ

RF signal is weak at any IKEA. To make it stronger, you have to assemble all 5-20 MHz yourself. AJ

The RF Explorer is a nice little truly handheld unit. I keep intending to pick one up for convenience. But I do find its resolution to be somewhat lacking compared to my slightly larger portable spectrum analyzer with directional antenna and USB connection to dedicated software on my laptop. Basically, airlink identification can be a bit tricky with the RF Explorer. Now, if your handset is camped on CDMA1X band class 0 channel 242, then USCC almost certainly is running at least two CDMA1X carriers. For the Cellular A block in band class 0, the primary channel is 283. In all my years, I have yet to find any CDMA2000 operator without a carrier channel centered at 283 as F1. So, at channel 242, your handset most likely hashes to F2. If you would like more background on the hashing process, I wrote up an article: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-318-can-toggling-airplane-mode-actually-improve-your-3g-data-speeds/ AJ

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a (male chauvinist) pig…but he is still John Legere. AJ

Standing wave ratio. It relates to the resonant length of the antenna. AJ

Why am I not surprised that these pissant little LTE 1900 ground mount rural sites work well? Of course, they work well because... Every little thing she (John Legere) does is magic. Everything she (Neville Ray) do just turns Magentans on. Meanwhile, everything Sprint does is wrong or inferior -- or so we are told. AJ

How can you tell that someone is in college? He/she is carrying around a cracked screen iPhone. It is both funny and sad. AJ

Sprint may eventually have 3GPP capability for FDD+TDD carrier aggregation. But that will not happen right out of the gate. The only plans for the first few years are for 2x/3x TDD carrier aggregation in band 41. AJ

I think some people like to point to the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and other mass spectacles -- in which uplink traffic is competitive with or even exceeds downlink traffic. Ideally, they want their wireless networks bulletproofed for those situations. But that is flawed thinking. If wireless networks were designed with Super Bowl type situations in mind, they would be compromised for the other 99 percent of common usage -- in which downlink traffic trumps uplink traffic by many multiples. AJ

Sheesh, not this again. Can we put the flagellation over SVLTE to bed once and for all? Here are the issues: Single RF path was not as much of a "business decision" as it was an engineering choice. It performs better and allows the designs of nearly all other handsets in the world also to be used for Sprint. SVDO is gone. EV-DO is not a simultaneous possibility -- because it shares the same RF path with CDMA1X or LTE or both. For SVLTE, VZW requires specially designed handsets that limit performance and selection. However, not all VZW handsets support SVLTE. Many do not. Most people do not notice simultaneous voice and data capability (or lack thereof). Finally, if you MUST have simultaneous voice and data, you DO have options: use Wi-Fi, use VoIP, wait for VoLTE, or go find another provider. AJ