WiWavelength

Maybe, but that is hardly unique. All Sprint LTE handsets support SVLTE -- the lone exception is iPhone 5. Are you thinking of SVDO? AJ

Yes and no. If/when SVLTE goes the way of the dodo, you will need to hope for VoLTE, use VoIP, or switch to a network that has CSFB to W-CDMA. AJ

Might be, SVLTE might be going away soon due to too many bands and transmit paths required. And keep in mind that basically no 3GPP only handsets support SVLTE. AJ

Simultaneous CDMA1X 800 + LTE 1900 will be no big deal, but it will be limited to handsets that support SVLTE. AJ

Maybe. SVDO was very short lived as a handset capability. SVLTE may go away soon, too. AJ

I understand, evancg, I hope you understand that I am not at all impugning you or your unfortunate situation, which has been resolved, thankfully. And I can fully see that you support Sprint and want Network Vision to succeed. You are a valued sponsor. Thank You. I am just worried by a growing number of customer service issue threads that S4GRU is potentially becoming the go to site for all things Sprint. One on hand, as something of a stakeholder here at S4GRU, I am honored that new arrivals, members, and sponsors alike think this now maybe the best source for all Sprint questions. But, ironically enough, those questions bring into appropriate question the mandate of S4GRU -- both its charter as a wireless network "nerd" focused site and its non profit status. Maybe this is just me drawing the line in the sand with this thread, but I am a bit concerned... AJ

And I will beg your pardon if I did not make my point clear. BBQ discussions and the like add to the spice -- pardon the pun -- of the site. But customer service issue threads do not. One, they go against the charter of S4GRU, against what I signed on for as a valued contributor. Two, they drag a site down, attracting the malcontents. Just look at HowardForums, SprintUsers, and Sprint Community for examples. If that is the route that S4GRU is headed, then Robert needs to make some executive decisions -- namely, to cash in, take the site commercial, and pay staff and contributors. Customer service issue threads will grow and the negativity rampant within them will eventually overwhelm the mission of S4GRU. I did not come here for that. As for the technical issues underlying your situation, Sprint apparently does not flag bad ESN devices unless they are deactivated, then tried to be reactivated. So, a device activated that is subsequently flagged as a bad ESN does not get detected as long as the account remains in good standing. It is not a perfect system. But, clearly, the seller of your device is the one who fraudulently tried to take advantage of that loophole. AJ

I dislike these general customer service threads on a web site that is/was supposed to be devoted to wireless network discussion. To add fuel to the fire, I am almost certain that others in this thread will vehemently disagree with me. While I am sorry for your plight, the problem does not reside with Sprint. It resides with you and the seller of the handset that you purchased. If Sprint chooses to go against its own standard fraud prevention policies and offer you remedy, then that is quite generous. If Sprint chooses not to do, then you should not hold it against Sprint. Instead, your legal recourse should be to pursue action against the seller. If you are unable to do so, that is unfortunate. But bad things do happen. AJ

Hindsight is 20/20. Playing that is like playing Monday morning quarterback. It is too easy and divorced from reality. AJ

Washington-Baltimore was the only affected market. It had operated as a GSM market under the brand Sprint Spectrum, not Sprint PCS. Circa 1998, Sprint retained its spectrum but transitioned from GSM to CDMA and rebranded Washington-Baltimore to Sprint PCS. Then, Omnipoint, which had not obtained its own spectrum in Washington-Baltimore until FCC auction in 1997, reportedly took over the Sprint Spectrum GSM infrastructure. AJ

Ask Qui-Gon Robert when the next S4GRU Council meeting will take place. AJ

No, I am correct. I say this half jokingly, half seriously, but there may not be another person on the planet who has a more encyclopedic knowledge of FCC spectrum licenses than I do -- especially on the PCS 1900 MHz side of things. It may be a trivial title, but one that I wear proudly. The former Pac Bell PCS B block 30 MHz license for the San Francisco MTA got partitioned and disaggregated about as much as I have ever seen of any PCS license. But Cingular did retain quite a bit of PCS spectrum in Northern California. In fact, Cingular retained the original PCS license call sign. See what I have pulled from the FCC ULS to prove my assertion: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseMarketSum.jsp?licKey=8886 Furthermore, at FCC auction in 1997, AT&TWS had already obtained its own PCS D/E block 10 MHz licenses across its Cellular 850 MHz markets. So, AT&TWS also brought to the table its own PCS 1900 spectrum. Again, see below the San Francisco BTA license that I have pulled from the FCC ULS: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseMarketSum.jsp?licKey=9928 So, to say that it was all Cellular 850 MHz is incorrect. AT&TWS was already operating a dual band, dual mode network -- both Cellular 850 MHz and PCS 1900 MHz, both IS-136 TDMA and GSM. As for Cingular "Orange" and Cingular "Blue," check the HowardForums archives. Unless my memory is truly failing me, those Cingular subs who had unacceptable coverage on "Blue" (AT&TWS network) could be homed to "Orange" (Pac Bell network sold to T-Mobile) during the transition period. AJ

Wait, is that an Apple MagSafe power connector port in the upper lefthand corner? AJ

I think you mean "constantly searching to go back to 1900." And it would not affect your battery life to any great degree because it would not be a constant search. It would be a periodic scan. AJ

To ease approval of its merger with AT&TWS, Cingular sold off the entire former Pac Bell GSM 1900 network to T-Mobile. But Cingular did not divest all of that PCS 1900 MHz spectrum in California. Instead, Cingular did retain a fair amount for itself, while T-Mobile got the rest of it. Then, during the transition period, Cingular subs had to choose between Cingular "Orange" (Pac Bell network) and Cingular "Blue" (AT&TWS network), if I recall correctly. AJ

Are you sure that you did not read it incorrectly? SID 1643 is USCC. AJ

Did you work for AT&TWS or Cingular? Either way, nine years ago, were you actually dealing with W-CDMA? If not, GSM and IS-136 TDMA do nothing but hard handoffs. AJ

In my recent TDD reading, one possibility that I came across is a slight degradation to WiMAX performance because of TD-LTE deployment. If WiMAX and TD-LTE are deployed in adjacent spectrum, then their TDD downlink:uplink ratios and guard periods must be closely synchronized. Otherwise, the WiMAX base station could be transmitting while the TD-LTE base station is receiving (or vice versa) -- the out of band adjacent channel emissions causing major interference. To prevent that, syncing up their TDD downlink:uplink ratios and guard periods is relatively doable, but it may require a compromise in which the WiMAX carrier goes prematurely quiet each cycle, thereby cutting down its capacity. AJ

Yes, we have a default video clip for any "I want it now!" folks. It also includes the correct response to them: "Can it, you nit!" AJ

In CDMA1X, inter frequency handoffs, let alone inter band handoffs, are always hard handoffs. By definition, soft/softer handoff is limited to the same carrier channel. AJ

Noticing a difference is not legitimate proof of anything in this regard. Placebo effect can be very strong. So, you would need to show before and after screenshots of your slot cycle index setting, demonstrating that the network did not override your setting. AJ

A few thoughts... Your slot cycle indices are correct. A slot cycle index 2 indicates a handset wake cycle every 5.12 seconds, while a slot cycle index 0 is every 1.28 seconds. But that is a wake and "listen" to the paging channel cycle, so it does not increase network loading -- unless the device also needs to respond on the access channel. What it does do, though, is decrease incoming call and messaging latency at the expense of standby battery life. Additionally, you can try to change your slot cycle index setting. But the network is free to override it, and slot cycle index 2 is almost always the network mandated default. So, any change in setting will likely yield no actual change. AJ

Network Vision is not a "slow rollout." It is basically unprecedented in its scope and speed. As for coverage, that has not changed. If you were not happy with Sprint coverage prior to Network Vision, then you are guilty of choosing an operator that does not have the coverage you need/desire. AJ

Sprint had MT-SMS (mobile terminated SMS) from roughly 1999 onward. The service was great, not to mention, free and worked very well for notifications of new e-mail. It was almost like "push" e-mail via BlackBerry, Microsoft ActiveSync, or Gmail, but long before any of you had a smartphone. Sprint did not incorporate MO-SMS (mobile originated SMS) until circa 2004-2005. In between, Sprint had PCS Short Mail, which was a Web based version of SMS. You would receive messages via SMS; however, you had to go on the Web to originate messages. Oddly enough, I recall Nextel had a similar service. AJ

No, prophead is located in a Shentel affiliate market. So, it would be Shentel's fault. Or, depending upon where he is located, it could be a handoff from Shentel affiliate to Sprint corporate. AJ