WiWavelength

What are you talking about? #unprofit AJ

No, you are not going to argue with me. I am in no mood to argue this morning. I am also in no mood to pittypat around. That is why I am being direct. That is not faulting you. Thank you for reporting your experience with a Motorola purchased Nexus 6. But you asked for advice. I gave it. As long as you supplied the accurate IMEI to Sprint and it is not white listed, then the handset is ineligible to be activated on Sprint. There is no workaround. So, you can return the handset to Motorola. Or you can activate it on another wireless provider. AJ

You asked for advice. That is what I factually provided. If you are looking for some Jedi mind trick to get Sprint to activate a non white listed device, you are not going to find it. AJ

You were forewarned about that possibility in this thread. If the IMEI is not white listed, then you will not get the handset operational on Sprint CDMA2000. That is just the way it is. You probably ought to arrange a return with Motorola. AJ

Come on. If they could, many here at S4GRU and elsewhere would perpetually lock their handsets to band 26 -- simply because they psychologically want the greater signal strength from 800 MHz propagation -- whether or not that signal strength is even necessary. That is not "load balancing." In fact, it actively goes against network directed load balancing. I think that you are letting your urban Boston experience unduly color your opinion. The network is not overburdened on any band and is working just fine in many markets. AJ

And the US wireless market is unlike that of any other country -- historically, geographically, demographically, and economically. So, your comparisons/criticisms do not hold much water. AJ

Robert ate them all for their wings. The buffalo, not the Sioux. AJ

Can you reference that post? I am not sure why I would have stated that slotted mode was the cause of the iPhone CDMA1X 800 issue -- because basically all CDMA2000 networks and mobiles operate in slotted mode. AJ

All of the po' people in the TmoNews comments section are up in arms -- because they now cannot afford to get their latest flagship smartphones. AJ

Correction: Oklahoma Joe's is no longer. It is now Joe's Kansas City. Even with the name change, Arthur Bryant's and Gates far better represent the legendary Kansas City BBQ tradition. For better, for worse, Oklahoma Joe's and Jack Stack are BBQ for suburban white people. AJ

It is a Magentan conspiracy to keep the Sprint man down. Face it, so many of the tech press are Pinkos. AJ

Shame on you. Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again. At least, that is what George W. Bush thinks they say in Texas and Tennessee. AJ

Not really. Not that nice. Many of you would abuse it. And this is why we cannot have nice things. AJ

To some extent, you guys are cherry picking locales where Sprint is not the best -- and probably never will be the best. In fact, Sprint may never be better than mediocre in those locations. Now, you may happen to live in or at least frequent those places. If so, consider another provider. But realize that the shoe is on the other foot in plenty of other places. VZW and AT&T are not the end all, be all. They have plenty of locales where one or both provide subpar service. If they truly have fewer such sore spots, that is largely a product of their quarter century history of oligopolistic mergers and acquisitions. And nothing in the next decade is ever going to equalize that. AJ

So, lots of people in those markets can just attach their microwave popcorn bags to the ends of long poles and hold them up in the air? AJ

Transmission, not reception. AJ

The article is published on The Wall: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-380-cellular-cornucopia-a-sort-of-sprint-holiday-shopping-guide/ AJ

The article is published on The Wall: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-380-cellular-cornucopia-a-sort-of-sprint-holiday-shopping-guide/ AJ

The article is published on The Wall: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-380-cellular-cornucopia-a-sort-of-sprint-holiday-shopping-guide/ AJ

To my knowledge, not a single North American handset has ever supported uplink carrier aggregation -- not for DC-HSPA+, not for LTE. Only downlink carriers may be aggregated. And I do not see that changing soon. Uplink carrier aggregation, since it would affect uplink transmission, would just be a big battery drain on handsets. AJ

No, that is incorrect. The Sprint variant Galaxy Note Edge does not support CCA/RRPP roaming bands. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6538-galaxy-note-edge-smn915p/?p=382930 AJ

I am not sure where you got the idea that the Sprint variant Galaxy Note Edge supports CCA/RRPP LTE roaming bands. It does not. It is just a typical Sprint tri band handset. In that regard, it is no different from the Sprint variant Galaxy Note 4. AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Friday, November 14, 2014 - 7:46 AM MST 'Tis the season for turkey and tablets, pumpkin pie and "phablets." So, whet your appetites, and get ready for a movable feast -- or should I say, a mobile feast. Welcome to the first annual S4GRU holiday shopping guide. This may be nothing more than a one year tradition. We shall see. But we have definitely fallen behind this fall on publishing articles following FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) authorizations of notable devices headed to or at least compatible with the Sprint network. Playing catch up, here is a quick rundown on the RF capabilities of the Motorola Nexus 6, Samsung Galaxy Edge, and cellular variant HTC Nexus 9 -- all of which have passed through the FCC OET and been released in the past few weeks or are to be released in the next few weeks. Not the purview of S4GRU, but all of the processor, RAM, screen resolution, and other specs are already out there on the Interwebs. If you need that info, refer to those sources. Thus, these brief looks at two "phablets" and one cellular tablet will be focused on their tested/projected RF performance -- particularly as that pertains to the Sprint network. To begin, the Motorola Nexus 6 ends up being the first fully CCA/RRPP compliant LTE handset -- supporting domestic LTE bands 2/4/5/12/25/26/41 -- and, for good measure, adding in LTE bands 7/13/17 for use in Canada, on VZW, and on AT&T. S4GRU first reported that CCA/RRPP band abundance of the supposed Sprint variant 2014 Motorola X a few months ago, but for unknown reasons, that handset never saw the light of day after it passed through the FCC OET. Its Motorola brother, which suffers from the hormonal disorder gigantism, though, picks up that slack and then some. Yes, the Nexus 6 represents a gigantic increase in size and price -- a curious decision if there ever was one. But it does appear to hold up its very large end of the bargain in RF prowess, maxing out in the roughly the 20-26 dBm range across all supported LTE bands. That is pretty good performance, particularly for band 41, which appears to enjoy an approximately 3 dBi antenna gain. This projects to be the strong performer that many had hoped for based on Motorola's RF reputation. Next up, the Samsung Galaxy Edge is truly on the cutting edge. And that refers not to just its curvy edged screen form factor. It is the first North American handset to support band 41 carrier aggregation. See the FCC OET filing table below: In fact, it is the first North American handset known to support LTE TDD carrier aggregation and intra band LTE carrier aggregation -- rather than inter band carrier aggregation, as we have seen in several AT&T variant handsets this year. That said, it is limited to two carrier aggregation with a maximum total bandwidth of 40 MHz TDD. Three carrier aggregation devices with a maximum total bandwidth of 60 MHz TDD will not make an appearance until sometime next year. And that is basically the good news. The rest of the news is not as good. The Galaxy Edge supports none of the additional CCA/RRPP bands -- not even bands 2/5, which are just subsets of bands 25/26, respectively. Moreover, the LTE ERP/EIRP is not very impressive. Fortunately, it looks hardly as poor in that regard as last year's VZW variant Galaxy Note 3 -- maybe the worst that we have ever seen in a flagship caliber smartphone -- but it averages just 17-20 dBm max output across bands 25/26/41. And, for reference, that runs about 2-3 dB worse than that of its recent Sprint variant Galaxy Note 4 sibling. The news could be worse, however. To conclude, just look at the cellular variant HTC Nexus 9 tablet. On the bright side, it, too, is a fully CCA/RRPP compliant device -- bands 2/4/5/12/25/26/41 -- also adding bands 7/13/17 like its Nexus 6 cousin. That band 12 tablet inclusion trumps even all Apple iPads for likely the next year. But the bright side does not extend beyond that in terms of actual RF. Originally, Google proclaimed the Nexus 9 to be a 3GPP/3GPP2 device. Since then, Google has pared that back to a 3GPP only device -- with the odd inclusion of EV-DO. The latter is almost assuredly yet another proofreading error, as the FCC OET authorization docs show no support for 3GPP2. Furthermore, reports are that the Nexus 9 uses a non Qualcomm baseband modem. Not good -- especially for a device that now rivals the iPad in price. For those who want the shorthand explanation, the cellular variant Nexus 9 looks to be compatible with Sprint -- but only Sprint LTE. It will have no support for Sprint CDMA2000. Additionally, the ERP/EIRP leaves much, much to be desired, averaging only 15-19 dBm maximum across all LTE bands. We generally expect more from antenna design in tablets because of their added size. However, that is certainly not the case with the Nexus 9. In summation, if you are making your shopping list, checking it twice, everything new in the Sprint stocking this holiday season is at least partly naughty, nothing entirely nice. Too big, too expensive, too focused on form over function, and/or too weak RF. Take your pick. Happy Thanksgiving? Or Bah Humbug? Source: FCC

You will still be in line behind Edward Furlong, Steven Tyler, and some green guy. AJ

Unless optimization has yet to occur, I highly doubt that increasing base station ERP/EIRP would have the desired effect. Remember that wireless coverage is not about broadcasting a downlink signal but rather about balancing a link budget between downlink and uplink signals. In coverage areas where Sprint LTE signal is weak, I also typically see my handset slamming up against its 23 dBm conducted power limiter. At that point, increasing the downlink ERP/EIRP would not help the uplink, which is already at the verge of failure. Like it or not, LTE is a fragile airlink. And that is true for all operators and bands. For example, VZW has overlaid its entire network with band 13 LTE 750. That is a lower frequency band than any of VZW's CDMA2000 band classes, hence has path loss advantages. But take a sample of VZW network discussion somewhere online, and note how many users post about where they still fall back to "3G." Absent higher EIRP at both the base station and the handset, the only fix for that fallback "problem" is increased site density. AJ