WiWavelength

If you are 20 years old, I bet that facial expression is your reaction to a lot of references beyond your years. AJ

No, let Tears for Fears "Break It Down Again." AJ

No, I am fairly certain that I left my car at the airport in LTP-A 4E. AJ

That makes my skin crawl. Sir, consider yourself reported to PPS -- Phone Protective Services. AJ

Normally, when we think resolution, we think high resolution (e.g. 1920 > 1280). But RBW is the inverse. The smaller the RBW, the greater the resolution. The reason for this is that RBW represents the FFT bin size or swept filter passband. Without going into the discrete math -- trust me, you do not want me to -- the smaller RBW takes a closer look at the RF involved. It makes actual peaks and valleys more defined. Now, that said, you may not need that resolution/definition for site spotting and carrier hunting. If you know, for example, that 1990-1995 MHz will be Sprint LTE or nothing, then it is either there or not. If it is there, then you know it is Sprint LTE. But if you are running a sweep of the Cellular, PCS, or AWS bands and want to know what airlinks are being used, then you need greater resolution. With my spectrum analyzer and my settings, I cannot necessarily distinguish CDMA1X from EV-DO, but I can certainly differentiate CDMA1X and EV-DO from W-CDMA and LTE, as well as W-CDMA from LTE and vice versa. AJ

Is that supposed to mean "Soooooooooooon" or Masayoshi "Sonnnnnnnnnnnn"?! AJ

To get off the stand up comedy stage and return to digiblur's observations from the field, a primary limitation of the RF Explorer seems to be its inability to adjust sweep time. Whether an FFT or swept filter based analyzer, two things affect the detail in an RF sweep: resolution bandwidth (RBW) and sweep time. The smaller the RBW, the greater the detail. The longer the sweep time, the greater the detail. To illustrate, as I did on Twitter for Milan and Neal, look at two sweeps from my analyzer that I took a few seconds apart. These are from inside my house, but fortunately, I have a VZW site located on top of a university residence hall just a few hundred feet from my backyard. Both sweeps are set to an RBW of 30 kHz, but the first has a sweep time of 200 ms (to emulate the RF Explorer), while the second has a sweep time of 3000 ms (which is my established default). Note how much better defined the VZW LTE 750 carrier is in the second sweep than in the first sweep. AJ

If we continue down this path, Robert is not going to need a spectrum analyzer. He is going to need SONAR. My time is up. Thank you, folks. You have been a great audience. Goodnight... AJ

Now, that sounds like a more convincing sales pitch. Plus, con puerta de oro gratis. AJ

The school district should have gotten Facebook and Twitter to pay for it. AJ

Yeah, but lakefront property in New Mexico just does not have quite the same ring to it as does oceanfront property in Arizona... AJ

But put a nice big dam on the Rio Grande, and we could measure your property in acre-feet. AJ

She probably did not understand because you were getting her name wrong. She is known as NANA or MEEMAW, not MIMO. AJ

400 MHz duplex. 2110-2155 MHz. AJ

People can have the iPhone in any color -- so long as it's black. -Steve Henry Ford Jobs AJ

That is unlikely. GPS would be running far too often -- a definite battery drain. AJ

This statement... ...is widely misinterpreted. Even with SoftBank money, Sprint has no chance of pulling even with VZW coverage breadth in five years, let alone two years. The sensible translation of that statement is that Sprint will *try* to match VZW coverage and speeds in major markets within two years. AJ

Sprint will not match the VZW footprint. That is a pipe dream. VZW bought that footprint. Sprint would have have to build most of it. Not gonna happen. AJ

Brian, sorry to be the bearer of reality, but Sprint could have no native service at all in little, rural McAlester, and that would not matter to Sprint as a whole. So, be happy for what you have. Yes, SMR 800 MHz will expand coverage. But if that does not work for you, then do not complain. It will get you nowhere. Just find an operator that does work for you. AJ

MIMO may also be the issue. MIMO essentially requires multipath to to provide multiple, distinct paths from one antenna to another. If right in front of a site, that is practically a free space situation. And my understanding is that MIMO is not effective in free space unless the antennas are widely separated -- a condition that smartphones cannot meet. AJ

Move away from New Mexico to a swinging 70s pad with shag carpet where you and your devices can cavort freely. AJ

Unlicensed 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi has become a logjam. Interference is rampant, reducing range and speed. If interference were basically eliminated by a move to licensed 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi, then range and speed would be greatly increased. From reading a few FCC docs on the matter, that is the initial intent that I gather. AJ

Just do not drop your devices on them... AJ

Greetings, I am son of Eric the Red. I do not grant birthday wishes. I am too busy sailing the North Atlantic and managing the Sprint network. Signed... Leif Ericsson

That is not a SignalCheck limitation. That is an LTE signaling limitation. LTE sites do not broadcast latitude/longitude. AJ