WiWavelength

And USCC should be fine with band 5. In so many of its rural markets, a Cellular A/B block 25 MHz license is plenty of bandwidth for CDMA1X, EV-DO, and up to 5 MHz FDD LTE. AJ

No, a "traffic channel" generally refers to a cdmaOne or CDMA2000 voice channel. Technically, that could carry data instead, but we are talking voice here -- pardon the pun. I did some further testing this morning and was able to see that soft handoff is not the issue. Even after all PNs from the originating site dropped out of the active set, hence were definitely not in soft handoff, the originating site was still listed for the BSL. No, neither the BID nor the BSL change. You are using the SID/NID/BID for geocoding the BSL, correct? If so, that would make sense why the BID and BSL changes -- or lack thereof -- are inextricably linked. AJ

Maybe digiblur will chime in here, as he is our resident PRL guru. But you have to be careful with those band class settings. Some have been known to preclude normal roaming behavior -- until you do a hard reset. And that may be your best option at this point. You also need to be careful with alternate PRL usage. Doing so within your monthly roaming allotment is mostly okay. Doing so to exceed your monthly roaming allotment is unethical and a violation of your Sprint Ts and Cs. AJ

What are you trying to accomplish? The EVO LTE does not support any UMTS (W-CDMA) roaming, so any settings there should be superfluous. Honestly, it sounds like you may have caused some problems with your handset by mucking around with it too much in QPST. Often, you are better off leaving well enough alone. AJ

Nope. AJ

I find it nearly impossible to believe that VZW has a better network in Tulsa than Sprint does. One, Sprint entered the market a good decade before VZW did. In fact, all of Oklahoma was basically a black hole for VZW until roughly 2006. Two, VZW in Tulsa is operating a PCS 1900 MHz network, just like Sprint. So, about the only things that VZW could have going for it in Tulsa are that it may have a less loaded network due to late entry and smaller market share and that LTE is in Lower 700 MHz spectrum and further along in deployment. I used to think the same way. But then the SpectrumCo acquisition came around, including cross marketing deals with Big Cable. Now, VZ, Comcast, and TWC are basically agreeing to cooperate and limit infrastructure deployment by selling each others' services. As if wired broadband had insufficient competition already, VZ and Big Cable just lowered the bar even further. And in doing so, VZ arguably has trumped AT&T as public enemy number one. Thus, in my opinion, you and yours should cancel VZW, suck it up, and go with Sprint or T-Mobile. Otherwise, as I stated in another thread, you are being small minded, short sighted consumers, and you are just enabling the offenders. AJ

Uh oh, an exclamation point competition has broken out... http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3880-happy-memorial-day/ AJ

Greg, welcome to S4GRU. You will come to realize that staff and members here have more solid info about Network Vision deployment than Sprint's own marketing department does. So, do not bother with the Sprint coverage maps right now. They are imperfect. Become a Sponsor, and you can view our completed site maps, which are updated several times per week. Also, you will soon understand that larger metros do not get priority over smaller cities and rural areas. Network Vision deployment is about efficiency, not population density. In order to complete Network Vision as soon as possible, sites that can be overhauled more quickly are finished first. AJ

For someone as interested in broadband deployment as you are, I do not fathom how you could countenance giving VZ any money. That is basically sleeping with the enemy. AJ

Mike, I did some testing tonight and can confirm that the base station location does not function properly while on a CDMA1X traffic channel. I ran three tests, driving from cell A to cell B, from cell B to cell C, and from cell C back to cell B. In all cases, the BSL field remained stuck on the location of the site where the traffic channel originated. At first, I wondered if this could be an SVDO related limitation, as the site in cell A has not yet been deployed with LTE. But both of the other sites have long had LTE, and even with SVLTE, the BSL stayed stuck. The issue may be soft handoff. I can run some further tests to see if I stayed in soft handoff with the originating site in all cases, as that could help to explain why the BSL did not update. However, I am certain that my primary active set PN did flip to the second site in each instance, and that PN site location is really what the BSL is designed to display. So, if it is not possible to fix this, you may want to null out the BSL field while the handset is in traffic state. AJ

Yeah, most of us would have to *steal* someone else's balls to do that job. AJ

Hmm, "X," "box," "revealing," and "video" in the title might tag this thread for people who are searching for another kind of content. AJ

Okay, so you are selling out by continuing to give money and market power to a company that is trying to litigate Net Neutrality and open access requirements into oblivion. Not to mention, VZ is doing its damnedest to make the US look like the broadband laughing stock of the developed world by halting fiber expansion and seeking to scrap its existing copper network -- all to serve its shareholders rather than the public interest. Well, congratulations, you are just another small minded, short sighted consumer. AJ

Very few. VZW dual band LTE devices did not start showing up until this year. And, even then, some new devices are still single band LTE 750. The dual band LTE 750/2100+1700 handsets are currently limited, I believe, to the Galaxy S4 and Lumia 928. AJ

Seeing the ABQ abbreviation, an odd question popped into my mind: has any enterprising restaurateur yet opened "ABQ BBQ"? AJ

Uh, Roy Williams would say that is spelled "D-O-O-K." AJ

Good idea. Consider it done. For anyone coming new to this discussion, FYI, it was extracted and moved from another thread, hence the posts about it being off topic. AJ

Yeah, right...you actually wrote that on the wall in a truck stop restroom. AJ

It is interesting that the tower climber proceeds, even though there is potentially questionable weather on the horizon. Of course, if Josh were that climber, the forecast would be for a 100 percent chance of golden and brown showers down at the base of the tower. AJ

Long ago, I made my signature file on HowardForums the following... AJ

Yeah, I would not count on T-Mobile LTE in Cincinnati anytime soon. Because of Cincinnati Bell, AT&T, Aloha, and Leap (Cricket) all controlling AWS spectrum in Cincinnati, that is arguably T-Mobile's most spectrum constrained remaining major market. Even SpectrumCo was shut out of Cincinnati -- a rare occurrence -- such that VZW's acquisition of SpectrumCo still gave it nothing to swap with T-Mobile in the market. So, on the AWS side, T-Mobile is still stuck with just the AWS E block 10 MHz license. That is used for a single W-CDMA carrier. And even though T-Mobile holds 30 MHz on the PCS side in Cincinnati, W-CDMA cannot be flipped to that side because many T-Mobile devices do not support W-CDMA 1900. Thus, T-Mobile has no spectrum available for band 4 LTE. In the end, T-Mobile will have to strike a network sharing deal with Cincinnati Bell or a spectrum transaction with AT&T, Aloha, or Leap. Otherwise, Cincinnati will remain a red headed stepchild market -- one where it sucks to be on T-Mobile. AJ

maximus, as a polite request, can we slow down with the "20 questions"? None of us here get paid. In fact, many of us pay out of our own pockets to keep S4GRU up and running. That said, I feel obligated to address questions. But there is a practical limit to what I can or am willing to manage. Here is the problem. Adding more and more spectrum bands has tended to compartmentalize carriers into their own little fiefdoms: VZW -- band 13, AT&T -- band 17, Sprint -- band 25, T-Mobile -- band 4, USCC -- band 12, etc. That is basically anti competitive, anti interoperable, and anti public interest. Instead, a healthier scenario would keep the number of bands down to a minimum, would force all major operators to utilize basically the same bands and deploy small cells for capacity. That would have manifold positive effects: increasing the value of limited spectrum for the Treasury, impelling operators into interoperability by sharing the same bands, multiplying capacity geometrically by using small cells to put sites closer to where users are located, not to mention, bringing fiber deployment to greater density to support small cells. And that last point could also help to counter the chicanery that VZ, AT&T, and Big Cable have engaged in to reduce CAPEX and appease the short term goals of asshat capitalist shareholders, who have done a whack job on the broadband infrastructure in this otherwise first world country. AJ

What if you were caught live in a big net at the bottom? AJ

AT&T should just rename itself DD&D. Dividend Dividend & Dividend. That is what matters most to Randall and company. AJ

That must be market or vendor dependent, maybe even Chicago (or CDMA1X 800) specific. In Kansas City, we are definitely still on SO00003, which is good old EVRC. As for bit rates, EVRC adjusts dynamically on a frame by frame basis among full rate, half rate, quarter rate, and eighth rate. Correct, full rate is 8.55 kbps. I do not know the nitty gritty details of EVRC-B, but my guess is that it allows the network to limit the number of full rate frames based on capacity needs. By comparison, EVRC seems to encode basically all speech frames at full rate, falling back to eighth rate during silences -- mostly, bouncing back and forth between full rate and eighth rate. Hmm, that was an interesting, temporary glitch. Roamers on the Sprint network can typically force 13K QCELP, but native Sprint subs have not been able to do so on the Sprint network since roughly 2000-2001 if I recall correctly. AJ