WiWavelength

No. I will stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that LTE bandwidth capability and UE category are related. The max bandwidth that LTE (i.e. non LTE Advanced) devices support is 20 MHz. So, max throughput capability is expressed as a function of 20 MHz downlink x 20 MHz uplink. However, that does not mean that all category devices in the field support 20 MHz bandwidth. In fact, very few seem to have FCC authorization beyond 10 MHz. As an aside, VZW has some lesser LTE UE category 2 devices (I am looking at you, Motorola). But all disclosed Sprint devices seem to be category 3, not surprisingly, since most so far are based on the superb Qualcomm MSM8960. AJ

Simple. VZW is just bolting LTE on to its existing, aging network. Sprint, on the other hand, is rebuilding its network "from the ground up." AJ

I might not call it ironic in the most literal sense, but USCC in Chicago is spectrum constrained (20 MHz PCS), and it is one of USCC's newest markets. In fact, USCC long did not have a wireless presence in its hometown and might not still today if the merger consent agreement that created VZW in 1999-2000 did not entail that PrimeCo PCS in Chicago go independent, then be sold to USCC a few years later. USCC's parent company, TDS, also owned Aerial Communications, before it merged with VoiceStream. Aerial won PCS A/B block 30 MHz licenses in Tampa, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Houston. I would have to go back and check the bidding in the very first PCS 1900 MHz license auction in 1994-1995, but I would bet that Aerial did bid on the Chicago MTA but lost out to AT&TWS and PrimeCo. AJ

Yes, that is correct. Now that it has given approval to the VZW-SpectrumCo transaction, the FCC has also given the go ahead to the much smaller VZW-Leap transaction. However, the question remains: will Leap do anything with an isolated Lower 700 MHz A block in Chicago or just turn around and sell it off to USCC? AJ

Yep. This just reinforces my axiom #1: Do not think that the entry level workers of a massive corporation (50 million customers!) can provide you with more accurate info than what you can find from other sources (e.g. S4GRU). In other words, do not call Sprint unless you have no other option to complete your task. AJ

I appreciate scientific investigation. Looking forward to your measurements/observations. AJ

A license protection site is the condom of the wireless world. It does not offer much wireless pleasure, but it gets the job done. AJ

Try cavalierly yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater in Colorado Springs and see how that so called 'freedom of speech' works out for you. (And, yes, the fire/Colorado Springs pun is intentional.) AJ

Hopefully, my rudimentary picture itself of the VZW PCS "bridge" across a Cellular license boundary will speak a thousand words. But please do ask questions. AJ

I may stand vindicated. AJ

Unfortunately, if past history with cdmaOne/CDMA2000 is any indication, Samsung is the least of the infrastructure vendors. Plus, Samsung is replacing Motorola legacy -- a double whammy -- in many markets. AJ

Here you go, Veruca, sweetie... AJ

As a glutton for accuracy, I have to clarify. The PCS C5 10 MHz block is contiguous with the PCS G 10 MHz block. Sprint does not hold much PCS C block spectrum anywhere -- as it was intended for small business entrants (cough, NextWave, cough) -- but Sprint does hold the PCS C5 block in at least the Seattle and Austin markets. So, Sprint could technically deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE in those markets. I detailed this possibility in a very early article that I wrote on The Wall back in February. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-27-spectrum-analysisdoes-sprint-have-more-options-for-additional-lte-carriers/ The insurmountable problem for the next few years is, as Scott notes, that some Sprint LTE devices (I am looking at you, Samsung) do not support 10 MHz channel bandwidths. AJ

Yes, I could see that -- the vibrate mode triggers the "male size enhancement." AJ

Folks, just FYI, Ethernet is a protocol (thank you, Bob Metcalfe), not a physical medium. While twisted pair (e.g. 10/100/1000BASE-T) may be the most familiar, Ethernet can travel over other media, such as coax (e.g. 10BASE2/5) or even fiber. AJ

Also, no one outside of Olympians and Europeans wears Speedos. So, you should be aware that the EVO 4G LTE will not work in Europe. AJ

I thought you did that because the 4.7 in screen provided you "male size enhancement." AJ

kckid, your EVO 4G LTE called and left a message for you. What was it? Oh, now, I remember. It was rather hostile and said for you to "Get bent!" AJ

A "Sprint only tower" with three different sets of panels? Nope, try again. AJ

To add yet a few more thoughts, Sprint could have mobiles all camp on CDMA1X 800 with selective traffic channel redirection to CDMA1X 1900 on a market by market basis. For example, digiblur's Baton Rouge former Gulf Coast PCS affiliate market -- with its wildly optimistic site spacing -- would be a great candidate to have mobiles idle on CDMA1X 800 at all times. Sprint could accomplish this by way of new PRLs or via idle mobile redirection. Speaking of idle mobile redirection, if anyone is interested, ask me about the PCS 1900 MHz "bridge" that VZW engineered, using idle mobile redirection to CDMA1X 1900 across a boundary between two VZW Cellular 850 MHz A block and B block licenses. It was an idea that I formulated years ago but have found realized only once. Also, as this discussion is running far afield from Chicago, we may want to "redirect" it to a new thread. Or it might warrant a technical article on The Wall. AJ

To continue where I left off last night, Sprint might -- and I do stress might -- decide to have all mobiles idle on SMR 476 (or SMR 526 in markets with other ESMR incumbents). Even though voice traffic is not the primary focus that it once was, voice traffic could still overwhelm the single CDMA1X 800 carrier. So, when setting up a traffic channel, a Sprint BSC could use open loop power estimation (e.g. 800 MHz > 1900 MHz by ~7 dB) to determine if a particular mobile would have sufficient signal strength to support the traffic channel on CDMA1X 1900 instead. If so, the BSC would redirect the mobile to a traffic channel on one of several CDMA1X 1900 carriers. Conversely, if the mobile would lack sufficient signal strength to carry the traffic channel at PCS 1900 MHz, the BSC would set up the traffic channel on the single CDMA1X 800 carrier. Why might Sprint do this? Psychology. Most subs judge signal strength not by actual ability to make/receive calls but by number of signal bars on their idle handsets as they move about during their daily lives. If Sprint were to push out new PRLs and have all band class 10 capable handsets idle on CDMA1X 800, that would be an immediate booster shot for signal strength -- whether measured by signal bars or dBm -- and could help to improve Sprint's perception as a carrier with strong coverage. AJ

You do not need anything close to 20 Mbps for mobile streaming. In fact, no one really *needs* 20 Mbps for any WWAN use. Speeds that high are more about the size of your e-penis than anything legitimate. AJ

While carrier channel redirection is fairly standard network management, I am just thinking aloud how Sprint might apply that to CDMA1X 800. What I suggest could be way off. I will elaborate further in my next post. AJ

It says that Korean "enginerrs" are not great at English spelling. Not to mention, the choice of handwritten style font is terrible. AJ

Some of the South Carolina markets were among those where Sprint listed Alltel EV-DO as native in Sprint PRLs. Since Owen is located in the Palmetto State, I have to wonder if this is just a vestige of that relationship. AJ