WiWavelength

Blasphemy! Now, if you do not mind, I am very busy. I have to get back to watching YouTube, streaming Pandora 24/7 in the background, and downloading my Microsoft service pack updates -- all over the Sprint network. Unlimited rulez! AJ

See both GoWireless' and my comments above. The Note 2 is very likely quad band GSM 850/900/1800/1900 and at least dual band W-CDMA 1900/2100+1900, but the FCC OET docs are not required to reflect those other transmit modes because they are not licensed in the US. This is not unique -- it is very typical of many other FCC OET authorization filings. AJ

Another nail in the coffin. Down with VoLTE. Death to VoLTE. Voice and data should be kept separate but equal. AJ

Okay. How many rural carriers do you seriously think are prepared to undertake that endeavor? AJ

This is a good point. The FCC OET authorization filing is required to disclose only those transmit modes that are licensed here in the US. For a Sprint handset, W-CDMA 1900 capability is mostly useless. It might work for roaming on those turncoats Bell and Telus in Canada, but domestic roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile certainly will be blocked. However, the inclusion of W-CDMA 1900 (band 2) is probably indicative of the inclusion as well of W-CDMA 2100+1900 (band 1), the most commonly deployed W-CDMA band outside of North America. I would not be shocked if W-CDMA 900 (band 8) were also on board. As for the W-CDMA/SVDO tradeoff, that is certainly debatable. Quite likely, greater than 95 percent of the Sprint users who carry the Note 2 will never leave the country during that time. International roaming capability is largely a red herring that preys on what idealistic people think that they might do but rarely ever do. AJ

Clearly, Dick Van Patten was wrong. Eight is NOT enough. AJ

As I detailed in my article this summer, part of the problem is that LTE RSSI almost always gets inflated compared to CDMA1X RSSI because LTE carrier bandwidths are almost always greater. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-308-rssi-vs-rsrp-a-brief-lte-signal-strength-primer/ This is especially true with current VZW LTE, which has a 10 MHz carrier bandwidth, compared to CDMA1X, which always has a 1.25 MHz carrier bandwidth. Even if all other factors were the same, VZW LTE carrier RSSI would measure ~9 dB greater than CDMA1X carrier RSSI because signal strength is a measure of field strength integrated over bandwidth (and VZW LTE is ~8x bandwidth of CDMA1X). What that does is create a mirage, making LTE signal strength appear greater and more usable than it is in actuality. If you want to convert LTE RSSI to a more CDMA1X RSSI centered measurement, subtract 9 dB from VZW LTE RSSI (or subtract 6 dB from Sprint LTE RSSI). Lo and behold, that VZW LTE -93 dBm RSSI drops to -102 dBm RSSI. AJ

4G is so passé. I am waiting for the ∞G networks. AJ

Yes, there is a limit to the amount of data that can be passed through a given bandwidth at a specific signal to noise ratio. That limit is often called the Shannon bound and can be calculated using the Shannon-Hartley theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem As an aside, I used a PNG of the Shannon-Hartley theorem as the entry image to two of my engineering focused articles this summer. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-308-rssi-vs-rsrp-a-brief-lte-signal-strength-primer/ http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-318-can-toggling-airplane-mode-actually-improve-your-3g-data-speeds/ AJ

I just want to say that I disavow any knowledge of that activity. Though I have lived in Kansas for many years, I have never flown into or out of ICT. As for my experimental cellphone usage into or out of other airports, I can neither confirm nor deny those rumors. AJ

Data itself is effectively unlimited. It can be created at will. But the means to convey that data is limited by physics and infrastructure. I liken data to driving (if gasoline were free) and wireless data networks to highways. Highways can be continually built and widened only so much. At some point, the highway department has to say, "ENOUGH!" "We can't cost effectively increase highway capacity any greater than we already have. You people drive too much. Start working and shopping from home more. And for those of you thinking about moving here, we can't stop you, but know that you're just going to make the problem worse for yourself and everyone else here." The parallels to data and networks are many... AJ

The other day, Odell was posting something about The Merovingian. But I think that Robert must have met The Keymaker somewhere at the Sprint call center. AJ

I am not a degreed engineer, but I disagree with Parklands' "Engrish" explanation. Propagation/penetration is not the issue as much as is the very nature of the airlink. CDMA1X is a great airlink for transmitting a small data rate spread across a much wider bandwidth. That makes it ideal for voice, which is always a small data rate. Furthermore, that spreading ratio allows CDMA1X to operate to very low signal levels. And that, along with soft handoff, helps greatly in rural areas with low site density. On the other hand, much empirical evidence, thus far, has shown that LTE is an airlink best suited for providing high data rates with high site density and strong resistance to multipath. In other words, it is a great urban area airlink. And be assured, providing service to urban areas is what is driving the transition to LTE. Rural areas are peripheral. If they experience some collateral damage, so be it. At least, that seems to be the LTE attitude. AJ

The key is in the Sprint call center restroom. Until you unlock that, you will be stuck without eHRPD. AJ

GSM certainly is not the winner. It is just living out the last of its days in the old folks home. But, yeah, LTE is the long term winner for data. For voice? In the long term, yes, probably. In the medium term, that remains to be seen. Because the W-CDMA operators bought into a Eurasian-centric standard that requires an ungainly amount of spectrum per carrier, they have greater incentive to move to VoLTE. They cannot really justify operating a fully 10 MHz W-CDMA carrier or two just for voice alongside LTE. But the CDMA2000 carriers have options, since a 2.5 MHz CDMA1X carrier requires a quarter of the spectrum of a W-CDMA carrier. And for those like you, Ryan, who live in more rural areas, you should hope that CDMA1X sticks around for a good long while. VoLTE may be a boon to operators but will likely be a step down for rural subs, who may come to miss the gold standard consistency and reliability (soft handoff for the win) of CDMA1X voice. AJ

Sascha Segan has written a good article on why NewCo would be forced to operate 10 MHz x 10 MHz (T-Mobile) and 5 MHz x 5 MHz (MetroPCS) in parallel on AWS for the first several years. Why? MetroPCS LTE devices, like many Sprint LTE devices, do not support LTE beyond the 5 MHz FDD configuration. http://www.pcmag.com...,2410644,00.asp AJ

The Note 2 article is finished and will be up on The Wall this afternoon. Yes, I completed two articles today. AJ

In most markets, T-Mobile has more spectrum, especially following its AWS transactions this year with AT&T, Leap, VZW-SpectrumCo-Cox, and C Spire. MetroPCS, in my opinion, would push T-Mobile over the top to AT&T like excess, particularly in PCS, in many of the affected markets. The only way that Sprint has greater access to spectrum would be to count Clearwire and its holdings under the Sprint umbrella. AJ

No, I tried to be clear in the article and spreadsheet that they reflect only PCS A-F block spectrum holdings. I specifically excluded the PCS G block for several reasons. It is compensatory spectrum that Sprint received for its SMR 800 MHz spectrum given up in public safety rebanding. It is effectively proprietary to Sprint and requires a separate band/band class, so it is of lesser value to other carriers. And it contains no 2G/3G operations, while this discussion is largely about how much PCS A-F block spectrum is needed to manage a transition from CDMA1X/EV-DO or GSM/W-CDMA to LTE. AJ

Some of MetroPCS's PCS 1900 MHz spectrum would be a "huge win for Sprint. But I would not want Sprint to acquire all of it because then Sprint would have, for example, 50 MHz of PCS A-F block spectrum in Atlanta and Miami. And as I chide NewCo a little bit in this article, the shoe would then be on the other foot. Sprint would have far more PCS spectrum than it honestly needs. AJ

I disagree. MetroPCS' PCS 1900 MHz holdings are hardly "pitiful." Sure, that PCS spectrum is limited to a select few markets. But MetroPCS cherry picked them as some of the largest markets in the country. And as I detail in my article, Sprint happens to need a bit more PCS spectrum to round out its holdings in several of those markets. So, that "pitiful" PCS spectrum could actually be highly valuable to Sprint. AJ

AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Friday, October 5, 2012 - 2:00 PM MDT Earlier this week, the Samsung SPH-L900 authorization filing hit the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) database. Judging by the handset's expansive 150 mm x 80 mm dimensions, S4GRU firmly expects this device to be the upcoming Sprint version of the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 "phablet." In keeping with our previous articles on the HTC EVO 4G LTE, Samsung Galaxy S3, Motorola Photon Q 4G, and yet to be released LG Eclipse, here is an RF focused breakdown of the presumed Note 2's FCC disclosed tech specs: CDMA1X + EV-DO band classes 0, 1, 10 (i.e. CDMA1X + EV-DO 850/1900/800) LTE band 25 (i.e. LTE 1900; PCS A-G blocks) LTE 5 MHz FDD carrier bandwidth LTE UE category 3 W-CDMA/HSPA band 2 (i.e. W-CDMA/HSPA 1900) GSM/GPRS/EDGE 850/1900 GPRS/EDGE multislot class 10 (i.e. max 4 downlink, 2 uplink, 5 total timeslots) 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi SVLTE support, including SVLTE and simultaneous Wi-Fi tether (2.4 GHz only) SVDO support absent Maximum RF ERP/EIRP: 20.03 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 850), 24.46 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900), 20.25 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 800), 28.35 dBm (GSM 850), 25.05 dBm (EDGE 850), 29.44 dBm (GSM 1900), 24.13 dBm (EDGE 1900), 21.41 dBm (W-CDMA 1900), 19.63 dBm (LTE 1900) NFC antenna integrated into battery cover CDMA1X/EV-DO Rx antenna diversity Antenna locations: (see FCC OET diagram below) Besides the incorporation of GSM/GPRS/EDGE 850/1900 and W-CDMA/HSPA 1900 capabilities, the most notable feature of the Note 2 is the lack of SVDO capability. That absence appears to be related to the inclusion of W-CDMA/HSPA, which coexists on a transmit path with LTE. In typical SVDO capable handsets, CDMA1X/EV-DO has one transmit path, but EV-DO has a second possible transmit path that it shares with LTE. That is not the case with the Note 2, as can be seen in the antenna locations and simultaneous transmission paths diagrams: Within each transmission path, only one airlink can be active at any given time. This is a hardware restriction that precludes SVDO but allows SVLTE. Additionally, some other simultaneous transmission scenarios that are technically supported by the hardware (e.g. CDMA1X voice + W-CDMA data) are locked out in software. For all of the possible and permissible simultaneous transmission scenarios, see the included table from the FCC filing: In conclusion, if SVDO truly was sacrificed in order to include W-CDMA, that is a curious compromise, especially for a handset otherwise geared (e.g. band class 10 CDMA1X, band 25 LTE) specifically for Sprint. Source: FCC

Ferret or marmot? AJ

Sir, that is ALL that you can eat. Now, please leave, and do not come back... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/restaurants/9581559/Pair-banned-from-all-you-can-eat-restaurant-for-eating-too-much.html AJ