WiWavelength

Yes, did you even look at the map? Arysyn, you are cherry picking Houston. Not in the green, nor was Chicago, Atlanta, etc. But nearly the rest of the nation is green. So, why not Houston and those other markets? Because... Aerial Ameritech AT&TWS BellSouth Mobility GTE Macro PacBell Powertel PrimeCo Omnipoint Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Sprint PCS VoiceStream Those incumbents and new entrants all wanted PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses, too. Competitive bidding ensued. And just like in any sport, you cannot win them all. Arysyn, in your wireless fantasy land, you want just 3-4 evenly matched national operators to hold all of the spectrum in equal or proportional amounts. But that is not the way it works. And that definitely was not the way it worked in the PCS auctions during the 1990s with the intent to expand the wireless industry. AJ

Uh, Sprint did just that over 20 years ago. Sprint (SpectrumCo, Cox, and PhillieCo) was by far the largest winner of PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) licenses across the country in the first PCS auction. Look at my map. See all of that green: http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/spcs.gif You do not know your wireless history, Arysyn. AJ

I think that "many users" was me. I also pointed out that e/CSFB single radio path means single Tx, not necessarily single Rx. And I am the first to bring up the possibility of SRLTE. AJ

Reduced data speeds? I do not know and have not noticed. But reduced SMS speeds? Yes. That, I have noticed. Because I believe SMS in that situation gets sent over CDMA1X, not LTE. AJ

Here is the SRLTE patent, which is assigned to Apple. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140086209 And if some Android handsets also use SRLTE mode temporarily, then we may shift SRLTE discussion to its own thread. AJ

Yes, I am pretty certain that profile updates get "pushed" just like PRL updates do. But I am not sure how frequently they do. PRL updates seem to roll out fairly quickly. And while a profile update also includes a PRL update, a PRL update does not also include a profile update. At least, that is my understanding. AJ

Mike... You might want to see this post. It could explain the SignalCheck Pro "bug" of simultaneous CDMA1X and LTE signal metrics display on many recent handsets. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/7164-iphone-6s6s-plus-user-thread/?p=477344 AJ

I am more curious about the profile update. I bet Nexus 5X LTE roaming will require a profile update. Alternatively, for whatever reason, LTE roaming just could have been blocked at the Sprint backend. The experiment I described basically would isolate which explanation. AJ

Hmm, an interesting experiment would be for someone with a Nexus 5X to venture into USCC territory. Check for LTE roaming. If none, temporarily return to Sprint coverage and do a profile update. Head back to USCC. Again, check for LTE roaming. AJ

SRLTE. This topic has come up in only one of the almost 500,000 posts in The Forums. And that post was not even iPhone related. I am surprised. But I believe that I have discovered why all Sprint iPhone LTE variants are not affected by e/CSFB problems. We know they do not use e/CSFB. However, they also do not use SVLTE -- no simultaneous CDMA1X voice and LTE data -- which is not affected by e/CSFB problems. Instead, all Sprint iPhone variants appear to use SRLTE. The SRLTE basic operation seems to be that a dual Rx, single Tx antenna design -- as we expect in single radio path handsets -- can use the Tx antenna to register with the LTE network, then use the Tx antenna again to register with the CDMA1X network. At that point, the handset can use one Rx antenna to monitor the LTE network and the other Rx antenna to monitor the CDMA1X network simultaneously. The single Tx antenna remains in LTE priority, switching to CDMA1X operation only periodically to reregister with the network. Paging messages on the downlink to the handset will go out to both Rx antennas. If the paging message is for a CDMA1X voice call, the single Tx antenna gets switched from LTE priority to CDMA1X operation. The handset answers the CDMA1X paging message and apparently disregards the LTE paging message. While this SRLTE paging message redundancy may work well for the handset, it seems not favorable to the networks, since it doubles combined paging channel traffic on the networks. I do wonder, also, if a temporary switch from e/CSFB to SRLTE mode on certain Android handsets could explain the SignalCheck Pro "bug" in which CDMA1X and LTE signal metrics get displayed simultaneously -- usually in low LTE signal conditions. That simultaneous monitoring of both networks supposedly was not possible on e/CSFB single radio path handsets. Maybe SRLTE solves the mystery AJ

T-Mobile has a lot of new coverage on the map -- but some of that coverage is of low density, poor quality. T-Mobile is just tossing up band 12 sites, using a favorable propagation model, and calling it a day for now. That actual coverage does not reach everywhere that the map depicts. However, that is not the real issue. T-Mobile has expanded its footprint and covered millions more people. But if that footprint in actual use is low density swiss cheese, how good is that? Anyway, if Sprint decided so, it could do likewise. Just a few hundred low density, band class 10/band 26 only sites, along with an optimistic propagation model, likely would push Sprint over the 300 million POPs mark. AJ

Neither Sid Caesar nor Sid Vicious? AJ

That is the Chattanooga Choo Choo. Not track 29, but band 41. Get aboard. Gotta keep it rollin'. AJ

Game. Blouses. AJ

For everything HTC 10. AJ

To clarify, those are/were two separate services. To the messaging.sprintpcs.com address is MT-SMS: mobile terminated SMS. Since at least the year 2000, Sprint always has supported SMS. It was only later, circa 2005, that Sprint added MO-SMS: mobile originated SMS. Then, typical SMS functionality worked in both directions. Short Mail was the data based, stopgap solution for mobile originated messaging 2000-2005. Some people at the time complained that it required data access, that it was not actual SMS. The funny part is that we now have come full circle. The likes of Google Voice and iMessage are data based, not actual SMS. AJ

caspar347, you should know that cell tower RF is dangerous. And vaccines cause autism. Beware! And this comes from someone diagnosed with autism. AJ

Oh, I get it. Some people see large cell sites, associate size with strength, and automatically think that massive RF is raining down upon them. But, Trip, you are awesome for referencing the inverse square law. I have been saying the same thing for years now. If you are concerned about RF exposure -- but still use a cellphone -- you want your serving site nearby. Some of these people erroneously seem to think that a small cellphone radiates little, if any RF. The RF comes only from the cell site. Nope. Ah, common people, who have inadequate physics knowledge. The RF radiation issue is the cellphone, not the cell site. The -100 dBm signal may be received by the cellphone, while the 20 dBm signal transmitted by the cellphone is partially absorbed by your head and body. And that 120 dB difference cannot be overstated. The received RF from the cell site is minuscule -- the transmitted RF from the cellphone may be significant. AJ

Obviously, yes, there are ongoing costs with leasing new sites. And I admit that I am glossing over some of those costs. But if the current wireless data usage climate continues, another 5-10-20 MHz FDD of 600 MHz spectrum -- again, assuming that even happens -- is not going to solve the problem. The problem just will continue. People are relying too upon much cellular data, overloading networks. That is my opinion. The solutions are multifold. Put users on tiered plans with caps or usurious overages. They need to limit or their usage and/or offload to Wi-Fi. Or split cells by greatly increasing site density -- and that reduces the efficacy of new low band spectrum, especially if that new low band spectrum is limited bandwidth. Other solutions and ideas are out there. I do not have all the answers. But throwing copious amounts of spectrum at the problem never will be the answer. Address the symptom, not the cure. AJ

Yeah, that was my fault. I really should have qualified the statement. I meant average, sensible, vast majority people. Most of us, post the year 2000, have RF radiating devices in our homes and pockets. We have no problems, no "tinfoil hat" concerns. And I am glad that you mention West Virginia -- because I was going to bring it up. Those with possibly legitimate or just psychosomatic sensitivity to anthropomorphically generated RF, some do move to the National Radio Quiet Zone. AJ

On that last count, no, not likely. For almost two decades now, people have been putting Wi-Fi access points and Internet backhauled femtocells in their homes. That is all infrared RF radiation. No different. People would not complain about health risks. AJ

I am not sure what you mean by that. If you mean 600 MHz spectrum for reliable voice service, that is irrelevant. No "2G" or "3G" voice centric airlinks ever will be deployed in 600 MHz. All voice will be VoIP -- because that is what VoLTE is, VoIP. AJ

And all of this "5G" talk brings into question why we even are conducting an FCC auction for 600 MHz? What efficacy is a 5-10 MHz FDD license in a new 600 MHz LTE band? To peel a page from Arysyn's book, that 5-10 MHz FDD is not good enough anymore, is getting worse by the day. And I do not see 15-20 MHz FDD or greater blocks coming out of this 600 MHz auction. I still hope that it fails spectacularly. So, why spend, say, $10 billion on 600 MHz spectrum -- assuming that much spectrum really becomes available -- if you could use the same money to add, say, 20,000 new macro sites? At that site density -- even in rural areas -- you probably could get similar coverage from your mid band spectrum, which could be 15-20 MHz FDD or more. And your network capacity would multiply exponentially from users being divided among new sectors. Hell, include many, many more much less expensive small cells in that $10 billion, and your network capacity goes through the roof. I just do not get it. This governmental-industrial complex over spectrum has become a fustercluck. Is it free market or is it not? AJ

Kudos that Sascha's article was mostly informative and positive. But, unsurprisingly, he did manage to get in a few digs at Sprint. The funny part -- and I know that I am not necessarily a representative sample -- but I cannot get my handset NOT to camp on band 41 inside my house and around my neighborhood. I guess I must live in a wet paper bag with gaping holes in it. And if T-Mobile successfully had played this longterm Nextel, Clearwire, BRS/EBS 2600 MHz gambit that will pay off with a massive swath of "low band 5G" spectrum for Sprint, you know that Sascha would be practically gushing about how smart and strategic Neville and T-Mobile are. Sascha got "swathe" [sic] wrong, by the way. That is a verb -- to wrap. It is not the noun -- a strip or portion. (NSFW) AJ

That is the nature of the beast. What you want is not technically possible. PRL scans always will favor any available native service over roaming service. To do otherwise, Sprint would have to bring back a roaming only setting on its handsets. People abused this setting, and this is why we cannot have nice things. To save costs, Sprint counts on subs using little, if any roaming. For example, I might roam for a few hours only every other month. AJ