WiWavelength

Yes, this is a highly plausible rationale. CDMA2000 carriers in the CCA gotta stick together. Good thinking. The reason that Apple has not been willing to make a band 12 LTE (rather than subset band 17 LTE) iPhone can be summed up in three letters. Not three words. Three letters. A-S-S. Or A-T-T. Same thing. AJ

But you did not fire it up and check out the engineering screens??? I am a little disappointed in you... AJ

Many licensees in the past have voluntarily forfeit all/part of their spectrum licenses or had them confiscated. Per the current rules and regulations, though, VZW, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all utilizing their spectrum. So, forfeiture/confiscation would not apply to them. So what that would really accomplish would be to move the secondary market into the hands of the FCC. How would that be an improvement? It would also require that the FCC return some of the secondary market proceeds to the affected licensees. If not, the revenue gained at initial spectrum band auctions would decline because of the risk of loss of that spectrum. Not to mention, many largely rural licenses could go unsold. AJ

If it indicates anything at all, Hesse's statements suggest that Sprint LTE devices will add band 12 LTE 700 for roaming, alongside band 25 LTE 1900 for native/roaming and band 26 LTE 800/850 for native/roaming. It does not suggest, however, that Sprint will acquire Lower 700 MHz and/or Cellular 850 MHz spectrum or that Sprint will pursue greater than a tri band LTE deployment. AJ

Even though C Spire has a disparate mix of Cellular 850 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, AWS 2100+1700 MHz, and Lower 700 MHz spectrum, all LTE deployed thus far is PCS, according to Neal Gompa. So, if a reciprocal agreement is in the offing, Sprint devices already support C Spire LTE. AJ

What you are advocating, dedub, is taking away spectrum from licensees that have paid for it, then giving it away (for free?) to interested parties in rural areas. Your argument is seemingly based on the supposed fact that said licensees are not "utilizing" the spectrum. Ah, but they are. They are meeting the requirements set forth in the rules and regulations established before they acquired the spectrum. That they do not offer service over every single square mile of licensed area does not mean they are not effectively "utilizing" their spectrum as intended. As for the secondary market (i.e. spectrum sales/swaps) argument, anyone who knows my posting history recognizes that I am hardly a capitalist free market apologist. If anything, I am far closer to a flaming socialist liberal. But the secondary market firmly exists, is relatively vibrant. That larger carriers hold spectrum "unutilized" in rural areas, yet interested parties have not come forward and acquired that "unutilized" spectrum, well, that shows -- to at least some extent -- that feasible business models may not exist for that "unutilized" spectrum in those markets. AJ

Joe, you are posting from a position of ignorance. It is as if you did not even read my previous response. The FCC has already provided a mix of different license construction requirements so that the requirements suit the particular spectrum propagation characteristics and that licensees can choose the particular spectrum and requirements that fit their business models. Below are the construction requirement bases for the major spectrum bands currently in use... Cellular 850 MHz: geographic area PCS 1900 MHz: population SMR 800 MHz: population AWS 2100+1700 MHz: population Lower 700 MHz: geographic area Upper 700 MHz: population Cellular 850 MHz and Lower 700 MHz are "use it or lose it" based on geographic area. But it would be infeasible to apply the same to higher frequency spectrum, such as PCS and AWS, especially as those individual licenses often cover multiple states. So, your inaccurate example of Sprint and T-Mobile demonstrates that you do not understand the FCC licensing schemes, nor the balance that must be struck between allowing a wireless carrier to assemble a competitive footprint and enabling a wireless carrier to hoard spectrum. As I said before, put your money where your mouth is. Assemble a workable business plan for serving rural areas. Sprint, for one, will almost certainly be happy to sell you partitioned and disaggregated spectrum, as it has with other rural carriers. Thus, your assumption that rural carriers cannot get access to spectrum that national carriers hold but do not use is proven false. AJ

Okay, but if you New Mexicans want to claim El Paso, you also have to take Ciudad Juarez in a package deal. Good luck with that. Hope you brought your nunchuks and Kevlar. AJ

When ordering the HTC One at Sprint.com, did anyone else at checkout notice this disclaimer? So, I think we have our answer regarding how removable SIMs will function on Sprint for the foreseeable future. AJ

The info I have read is that Sprint will be allowing inbound LTE roaming from C Spire subs. So, barring further info, do not view this as a reciprocal LTE roaming agreement. AJ

Yeah, you have only marginal signal. For CDMA1X and EV-DO, anything -100 dBm and below is relatively poor signal strength; anything above tends to be fine. AJ

I heard that Dan Hesse's wife is an interior designer, and she was the one who really pushed for all new cabinets. AJ

The Phone information screen in the Testing.apk displays your IMEI and phone number right at the top. Those should be redacted. Or post a screenshot of just the Testing menu, not the Phone information screen. AJ

The first arrival is also free to start the HTC One users thread, as this preview thread has served its purpose and basically run its course. AJ

Guys, as your handsets arrive today/tomorrow, will one of you please confirm that the internal Field Trial (##33284#) and Testing (*#*#4636#*#*) apps are present in the final shipping ROM and accessible via their dialer codes? Screenshots would also be appreciated. Thanks... AJ

Well, your IP address range, for one, has changed. And your data is no longer hitting the Internet at a 4G core. AJ

You know, I think I have a picture of you trying to recognize carriers on cell sites. Yeah, here it is... AJ

To explain myself a bit further, I do not resort to insults, but I do speak my mind, quite bluntly at times. And jamesinclair raised my ire to a breaking point. He cherry picked one six week old post, disregarded my further elucidation in the thread, and called my analogy "terrible." His choice of words was poor and, I believe, driven by ideological disagreement, not rational disagreement. As I explained it, my example was quite relevant. But, from what I have witnessed, this is a pattern of posting with jamesinclair. He brings to the table a lot of negativity about Sprint, WiMAX, Network Vision, etc. And I think that misplaced at a non profit Sprint enthusiast site staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers. So, as Robert has articulated above, I do not expect agreement from everyone. We have disagreements among the staff, as any well functioning, critically thinking staff should. I welcome informed dissent, and I enjoy a good debate. But what I do not appreciate is rampant negativity here at S4GRU. AJ

The Church Lady is appalled. After all, you cannot spell "the devil" without LTE. AJ

My opinion is that we are increasingly reaching the saturation point in terms of spectrum. There is plenty of existing bandwidth out there -- it just needs to be utilized. Adding a fourth, fifth, or sixth band to a wireless carrier's roster becomes potentially more trouble than it is worth from an infrastructure and device standpoint. If further auctions (e.g. AWS-2, AWS-3, 600 MHz) actually do take place, I would not be the least bit surprised if the results are underwhelming, particularly if VZW and AT&T are restricted from hoarding more auctioned spectrum. AJ

That would require a silver bullet or an oak stake? AJ

Well, that site is for the Sprint corporate network. Even if upgrades were taking place in Sioux Falls, I am doubtful that map would depict them, since Swiftel, not Sprint controls the market. AJ

Are you offering to run over Charlie? AJ

The problem is that, in your market, you are not truly Sprint subs. You are Swiftel subs. And Swiftel is not like other Sprint affiliates in that Sprint actually had to partition and disaggregate spectrum to Swiftel. So, Swiftel controls not only its network infrastructure but also its spectrum. Thus, Sprint has less sway over the situation, and the decision to upgrade ultimately lies with Swiftel. AJ

The scales have already tipped irrevocably in that direction. The FCC allowed T-Mobile and VZW to acquire between the two of them most/all of the AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum in numerous markets (e.g. in Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, et al., T-Mobile-MetroPCS and VZW now control the entire AWS-1 band). Letting T-Mobile and/or VZW buy out the rest of AT&T's diminished AWS spectrum holdings would not affect the balance of power -- that has already been firmly established. AJ