WiWavelength

We need to get Arysyn in on those planning discussions. He is the hypothetical rate plan guy and would be like a kid in a candy store. AJ

Article is on The Wall... http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-412-the-rf-evolutionrevolution-of-the-htc-2016-nexus/ If you have not donated to S4GRU recently, as a show of thanks for the requested article, consider giving a little bit to help cover monthly site hosting expenses. AJ

Like it or not, wireless operators clearly value multi line accounts more than they do single line accounts. I know, as I never have been on a multi line account, always have paid for my own single line account. But it is what it is, probably because multi line accounts are more entrenched, less susceptible to impulsive churn. Ensuring that multiple people are set up with new SIM cards and/or new devices as well as satisfied with a new plan and different coverage on another provider can be an impediment, more so than it is for one person. Furthermore, by increasingly discounting the charges for adding a second line and so forth, wireless operators try to incentivize single line accounts and multi line accounts to add lines and become increasingly entrenched. AJ

Yes, we happen to have photo evidence of you... AJ

And by that rationale, Sprint knows what it is doing. All four national operators do. They pay experts so that they make no miscues. We should not question nor second guess their actions. AJ

Geez, guys, do not get your panties in a bunch. Upon opening the latests posts in the thread, they looked misplaced, like someone mistakenly had posted about the Nexus 5X without reading carefully the title of the thread. That is why I asked the question. AJ

Why is this posted in the Nexus 5 thread? AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Friday, August 19, 2016 - 2:04 AM MDT Earlier this week, the two HTC 2016 Nexus handsets -- codenamed "Marlin" and "Sailfish" -- were caught in the net of the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) authorization database. While Google has yet to reveal them officially as Nexus handsets, that HTC is the manufacturer of choice this year has been a heavily leaked secret the past few months. And the circumstantial evidence now is overwhelming. The FCC grantee code, NM8G, appends a "G" to the usual NM8 grantee code for HTC branded devices, and the user manual declaration document posits that the final draft manual will be available publicly on the Google web site in the Nexus support section. Neither handset has been identified or named individually, though the 2PW4100 likely is the larger "Marlin," the 2PW2100, the smaller "Sailfish." Both are at least the domestic variants with airlink support across the board for VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. No international variants have passed through the FCC OET. Unless international variants do get authorized in the coming days/weeks, the two HTC Nexus handsets could end up in uncharted waters as single variants for the world, covering all supported international LTE bands, too. Full disclosure, however, probably will have to wait until the Google announcement event when accompanying tech specs are published. In the meantime, the domestic RF uplink test results and declarations are out in the world. S4GRU will not run down every last RF capability. But, just to confirm, some of the highlights are... LTE bands 2/4/5/7/12/13/17/25/26/29/30/41 VoLTE bands 2/4/5/12/13 (for VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile) Downlink 2x/3x CA Dual, switched WWAN Tx antennas 0 and 1, bottom and top 802.11ac 2x MIMO The primary purpose of this article is to present a retrospective on the uplink RF powers of the current 2013-2016 era of 3GPP/3GPP2, Sprint compatible Nexus handsets as well as two recent HTC handsets. Those domestic variant Nexus handsets and the Sprint variant HTC One A9 and HTC 10 are the RF and design forebears of the 2016 Nexus handsets. So, how do the new kids on the block hold up to their predecessors? S4GRU culled relevant data across all eight handsets from thousands of pages of authorization documents in the FCC OET. For the radiated power figures, the usual clauses about lab testing versus real world performance and uplink versus downlink always apply. The figures represent best averaged and rounded estimates of maximum uplink ERP/EIRP test results provided to the FCC OET in the authorization filings for the domestic variant Nexus devices and Sprint variant HTC devices. See below: The numbers can speak for themselves. The LG, Motorola, and Huawei manufactured handsets generally are more powerful. The HTC handsets are not blatantly deficient -- though the One A9 comes uncomfortably close -- but the 2016 Nexus do spec out typically average or slightly below. Source: FCC

Nobody cares. I-15 is closed. AJ

Somebody needs to get all of those sectors aligned. The proper orientation is N/SE/SW. As it stands, that tower looks like a first grader put it together. AJ

Hurt it is feelings? I can has cheezburger? AJ

That is one fugly, ramshackle looking tower. AJ

Many S4GRU members have moved on. Some are not wireless aficionados, just casual users. With significant Network Vision upgrades finished, Sprint now meets their needs. They do not care to keep up with the minutiae. Others require a regular dose of updates to stick around. No news means no continued patronage. And for some, they decided that Sprint does not meet their needs and probably never will. So, they have left for nifty shit from T-Mobile, MetroPCS, and Cricket or boring stability from the Twin Bells. AJ

These things can make phone calls? You learn something new every day. I thought that they were just handheld, wireless data computers. AJ

S4GRU is honored at the request, and we appreciate the praise. However, an FCC OET tested RF article probably is not forthcoming. For several reasons, the article series largely has been put to bed. Our FCC OET articles used to attract easily over 10,000 readers. That number has since dropped by around 75 percent, making the time and effort put into the articles seem less worthwhile. And then on certain articles, people have gone on to say that we are "wrong," that handset X has strong or weak real world performance. S4GRU cannot control the uplink RF figures submitted to the FCC. To have people argue with them or dismiss them based on their personally biased experiences questions the reasons for writing the objective articles in the first place. Finally, the gist of the RF measurements and capabilities (e.g. 3x CA, VoLTE, etc.) usually gets written into a preview or user thread anyway. AJ

Uplink RF for both 2016 Nexus handsets looks just fair, nothing special. Low band max ERP generally runs about 17 dBm, mid/high band max EIRP around 20 dBm. AJ

The issues with rigging a spectrum analyzer out of a digital TV tuner stick are threefold: RF electronics, antenna, and software. The weaknesses seem to be in the latter two. The antenna is omnidirectional. That proves problematic -- unless you can get really close proximity to the sector under measurement. Otherwise, signal from other sectors is polluting your measurement. Then, the RF analysis software is amateur freeware. For basic frequency domain graphs, it looks decent. But other analysis as well as fine adjustments may be outside of its scope. AJ

On price, yes. But on capabilities, a resounding no, says my relatively inexpensive $1500 pro spectrum analyzer. AJ

Nope. Sorry. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 categorically is not authorized for uplink 64-QAM, nor is there any evidence that it supports downlink 256-QAM. So, as that slide references those capabilities, it is not officially referring to the Galaxy Note 7. AJ

This is not CDMA2000 spectrum refarming, per se. The spectrum in question was not in widespread, if any use in the subway system, which is like an enclosed lab -- the RF underground is isolated from the RF in the outside world. So, this is more akin to greenfield spectrum deployment. AJ

Yeah, I pay gas and property taxes. Why do roads and sidewalks not run everywhere I want to go? AJ

To that, I say the most powerful word in the English language, "No." Employees need to stand up for themselves and tell penny pinching, profit mongering asshat corporations a collective, "No." In this case, relying on employees' personal devices inside the office but denying them access to the corporate network is unacceptable. Or, in my case, my employer wanted me to install Google Apps Device Policy on my personal smartphones. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.enterprise.dmagent&hl=en That would enable organizational push e-mail -- but also allow admin control of remote lock, wipe, etc. I think you know what I said to that... AJ

No, nothing has been proven. And I am surprised at Tin and Milan getting giddy and jumping all over this as confirmation of 4x4 downlink MIMO capability. They should know better. Inclusion of a firmware menu hardly is proof positive. And the FCC OET authorization documentation makes no mention of higher order downlink MIMO, nor provides an antenna diagram. So, we will have to take a wait and see attitude. For further reading, this already is being discussed in two other threads today. AJ

Okay, review your previous post: So, let me get this straight. Your employer de facto "requires" business use of your personal smartphone. And this is while inside the corporate offices. Yet, it bars your cellphone from the corporate Wi-Fi network? That is an example of poor management. Your employer sounds dysfunctional and is the problem here. AJ

No, what is sad is that old broken record negator Johnner1999 has to come along and quote an entire multi paragraph post for a needless, short response. So, bye bye, Johnner1999 post. It will live on only inside this quote. AJ