WiWavelength

What kind of CDMA2000 signal metrics/readouts are you looking for that are not already present in the engineering screens? If CDMA1X vs eHRPD/EV-DO carrier channels, those are readily available in the engineering screens. AJ

No. T-Mobile cannot "walk away with huge amount of spectrum dirt cheap." At every level, this auction has a reserve price. If that reserve price is not met, bids are nullified, and the auction starts again for a smaller amount of spectrum at a lower reserve price. So, T-Mobile may be able to win a little bit of spectrum for a few billion dollars. But it is impossible for T-Mobile to win a "huge amount of spectrum" for a few billion dollars. AJ

That EARFCN means the 5 MHz FDD band 25 second carrier has 0.85 MHz guard bands at its upper ends between it and the license-- but only 0.025 MHz guard bands at its lower ends between it and the CDMA2000 carriers, the lowest of which then has the typical 0.625 MHz guard bands at its lower ends to the bottoms of the PCS band. Very odd carrier placement. I hope that it is temporary, as the second carrier should be shifted up in frequency to accommodate a fourth CDMA2000 carrier or at least actual breathing room between LTE and CDMA2000. AJ

Actually, four CDMA2000 carriers and one 5 MHz FDD carrier could fit within a PCS A-F block 10 MHz FDD (20 MHz) contiguous spectrum market. LTE already has built in internal guard bands, so Sprint needs to trim down the unnecessarily large 0.625 MHz external guard bands for CDMA2000. See the math: 4(1.25) + 1(4.5) = 9.5 That still leaves 0.5 MHz for guard bands against the adjacent licenses and between CDMA2000 and LTE. AJ

Your evidence does not lead to your conclusion -- without making a big assumption about others based upon yourself. Look at the statistics about "cord cutters" and OTA broadcast TV. Many are cutting egregiously rising costs by ditching cable/satellite for just OTA or a combo of OTA and streaming service(s). That bolsters, does not erode the value of OTA broadcast TV spectrum. AJ

Unless my understanding of how a dual SIM device operates is incorrect, it just has two physical SIM slots -- but only one is active at any given time. In no way is the device attached to two networks at the same time. That would require multiple baseband modems, which I do not believe a dual SIM device possesses. Essentially, the inactive slot acts as a carrying case for that SIM and obviates the need to remove and swap between two SIMs. AJ

Unless a statement or release specific to Sprint arises, please keep the general 600 MHz auction discussion in its respective thread, which has been quite active today and near the top of the thread queue in The Forums. AJ

Sure, it does. W-CDMA uses 3-4 times the spectrum bandwidth that CDMA2000 does. That basically means that each W-CDMA carrier requires its own 5 MHz FDD block, much like LTE in a 5 MHz FDD carrier configuration. Thus, W-CDMA can be difficult to deploy -- absent existing massive spectrum resources or new "greenfield" spectrum. Note how T-Mobile was 3-4 years late to the 3G party precisely because of that disadvantage. T-Mobile had to wait on AWS-1 in order to deploy W-CDMA. On the other hand, CDMA2000, at 1.25 MHz FDD, is less difficult to deploy in existing spectrum. AJ

The 802.16e standard allows for greater carrier bandwidths. However, for mobile WiMAX, I am uncertain that any bandwidths other than 5/8.75/10 MHz TDD ever were codified or implemented in infrastructure and devices. And uplink speeds may have been throttled for a variety of reasons. I do not recall exactly what downlink/uplink time ratio that Clearwire utilized, but it is documented here at S4GRU somewhere. More likely, though, the uplink may have been throttled for power management reasons. Remember, all of these early generation hybrid CDMA2000/WiMAX devices incorporated multiple chipsets -- with the emphasis on CDMA2000 and WiMAX as a supplement. Moreover, WiMAX, honestly, was a battery hog. Had WiMAX prospered, maybe Qualcomm would have gotten on board and built multimode chipsets with WiMAX. Some of the shortcomings may have been due to coverage footprint. But I chalk up the weaknesses at least as much to the early generation infrastructure and devices. Even with no changes in site density, WiMAX coverage and performance would have improved with future generation chipsets, especially if they were multimode. AJ

Naw, calling that "wasted" spectrum is too extreme for several reasons. Clearwire had plenty of BRS/EBS spectrum to burn. Its RRUs were bandwidth limited -- each RRU could not have run 160 MHz worth of 10 MHz TDD WiMAX carriers, for example. And by deploying a frequency reuse pattern instead of a single frequency network, Clearwire greatly minimized co-channel interference at sector/cell edge. Had WiMAX survived the LTE onslaught, however, the network would have evolved closer and closer to a single frequency network as infrastructure was replaced or augmented and more carriers were added. AJ

I am quoting just this post for a representative sample of the Clearwire/WiMAX discussion this morning. avb and Paynefanbro made several other relevant posts, but in the interest of brevity, I will not quote them. Guys, be careful with any explicit or implicit comparisons between WiMAX and TD-LTE. WiMAX and TD-LTE have far more in common than in difference. And the empirical idea that WiMAX was like Wi-Fi hotspots, good only while stationary, poor at handoffs is specious. You are comparing circa 2010 WiMAX user equipment and infrastructure to circa 2015 TD-LTE user equipment and infrastructure. That is a faulty comparison. Five years can make a lot of difference. Had WiMAX trumped LTE or even remained competitive with it, WiMAX development and performance would equal or exceed that of TD-LTE today. Back to Wi-Fi for a moment. WiMAX, like Wi-Fi, was standardized by IEEE, not 3GPP. WiMAX is a far more open standard, and Intel, et al., had plans to embed WiMAX chipsets automatically in countless devices, much like Wi-Fi chipsets have been standard for many years now. And as a consumer, you do not pay a premium for, say, a Wi-Fi capable tablet, unlike an LTE tablet. WiMAX should have won out. But politics, economics, and history were not on its side. AJ

Your mileage may vary, but for the time being, chat or a call to customer care may be required to activate the new 3-in-1 SIM. Automated new SIM activation from the "Manage this device" menu in my online account failed to complete both last night and this morning. Additionally, with chat intervention, two power cycles may be needed to complete cellular activation followed by an automatic profile update. The first power cycle acquires LTE signal, but only the second power cycle registers LTE data. However, that last part may be a Nexus 5X quirk. It often requires two power cycles following an inter operator SIM swap (e.g. Sprint to AT&T) of already active SIMs. AJ

No bueno on new SIM online swap. One or two steps time out and direct to call or chat. Probably will be a few days before the online activation is running smoothly. AJ

I misread the date of delivery, not yesterday but today. AJ

And as I have said, I look for 5/10/15 MHz FDD carrier bandwidths standardized, perhaps only in the 1695-1710 MHz x 1995-2010 MHz pairing. The other 10 MHz, possibly limited to 2010-2020 MHz will be for supplemental downlink carrier aggregation. Also, note that the PCS H block uplink at 1915-1920 MHz gets orphaned. But that is just as well. It may have been getting too close for comfort to the PCS A block downlink at 1930-1945 MHz. And Sprint owns a lot of PCS A block spectrum. AJ

Yes. Something PRL this way comes. I received this message yesterday from Republic Wireless: Standard band class 1 CDMA2000 channel assignments all are xxx0 or xxx5. In other words, they end in 0 or 5 I am awaiting some non xxx0 and non xxx5 band class 1 channel assignments in the PRL -- to reduce the 0.625 MHz guard bands and help enable 10 MHz FDD second carriers in PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) markets. AJ

In any data speeds rating algorithm, the downlink coefficient should be 0.67-0.75, the uplink coefficient only 0.25-0.33. To put it more simply, in the calculations, downlink speeds should be weighted 2-3 times that of uplink speeds. Yes, people do upload large photos and videos. Some "content creators" use more uplink data than they do downlink data. But the vast majority of data traffic overall is on the downlink. The proportion is not even close. The data speeds ratings should reflect that fact. AJ

My Sprint 3-in-1 SIM is out for delivery on the UPS truck. I should have it within the next 3-4 hours. Then, I will make the UICC switch online, and that brand new nanoSIM running CSIM from last fall already will get retired. AJ

Poor Sascha. He must be disappointed. AJ

Here is an interesting inter operator comparison -- with results the opposite of what you might expect. In a masonry constructed church basement, I consistently have excellent -90 dBm RSRP Sprint signal. And that even is just band 25, not band 26, probably because there is an oDAS small cell mounted on a utility pole about 1000 ft away. With a T-Mobile SIM in the same Nexus 5X, the result I had one night was less reliable but still usable. Signal drops to no service going down the stairs deep into the basement. Once inside the room, though, it ultimately settles on T-Mobile LTE, around -115 dBm RSRP. Now, T-Mobile, as well as Sprint, is collocated on a macro site about 3000 ft away. However, T-Mobile is the low man on the totem pole on that site. SignalCheck Pro identifies the T-Mobile LTE as band 4, but I doubt it, as we know that T-Mobile GCIs do not follow the predictable band patterns of those of the other operators. T-Mobile is licensed the band 12 Lower 700 MHz A block here. So, I think the Nexus 5X or the network just takes 60 seconds or so to shift to band 12. Unfortunately, until I break out my spectrum analyzer, I have no way to prove band 12. Finally, with an AT&T SIM in my 2015 Moto X, I had no service in the basement room one evening. As I recall, none whatsoever. Not even GSM 850. AT&T is collocated atop that same site 3000 ft away. And for low band spectrum, AT&T is licensed both the Cellular 850 MHz B block and band 17 Lower 700 MHz B and C blocks here. Still, nada signal. Now, that could be a function of the handset. So, my next experiment when in that basement will be to try my AT&T SIM in the Nexus 5X. This is just one underground location, but Sprint > T-Mobile > AT&T. Interesting. I do not have means to test VZW, no VZW SIM, though if I understand correctly, I could pick up a non activated VZW SIM, and it still would work with SignalCheck Pro for around 90 days. AJ

Correlation versus causation, but I doubt that the errors had anything to do with you not being a current subscriber. I had tried several times -- logged in or not logged in to my Sprint account -- and had received errors but with instructions to call. Only the last time I tried -- not logged in -- did my order fully process. It just is one of the quirks of Sprint web sales. Or this also is a very newly offered "accessory," so expect some growing pains. AJ

Note, this is a promotion. The SIM costs $9.99 with currently a -$9.99 credit. That is not likely to last forever. And I fail to see how MVNO users are "going to loot" this deal. The credit card size holder for all recent Sprint SIMs has carried the MVNO logos, too. Any MVNO on the Sprint network is using Sprint SIMs. Lastly, when I ordered, I was not logged into my account. I tried that route, but I could not get all the way through to the point of sale. Sprint could cross reference my supplied phone number to see that I am a current sub. However, I do not think that Sprint cares. Handing out free SIMs even to non subscribers may be a way to entice them to BYOD and port over to Sprint or at least try out Sprint. AJ

Ordered. A Sprint postpaid 3-in-1 SIM will go nicely with my T-Mobile prepaid 3-in-1 SIM. The microSIM Nexus 5 can reenter my rotation with the nanoSIM 2015 Moto X and Nexus 5X. Plus, this suggests that Sprint has consolidated down to one CSIM UICC that will work in all current and future CSIM and USIM handsets. AJ

A Supreme Court 4-4 split decision along partisan lines would uphold the lower appellate court's ruling. AJ

You betcha. VZ, AT&T, Comcast, et al., and their lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets are not going to take this lying down. AJ