WiWavelength

What type of channel numbers? CDMA2000, WiMAX, or LTE? ARFCN conversion varies by band and airlink tech. AJ

With your closest sites that far away and somewhat equidistant, you probably should not rely on unassisted wireless for inside coverage at your house, neither before nor after Network Vision. Use a landline or get an Airave (IP backhaul femtocell). AJ

You want me to pass Josh a note in study hall? Tell him that you think his phone is cute. AJ

Whenever we refer to wireless bands by frequency (e.g. 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, etc.), keep in mind that those are only approximations for swaths of many, many frequencies. Thus, the expressed frequency may be just the nearest multiple of 50 or 100, and the band itself may not even contain that specific frequency. For example, the SMR 800 MHz band does not actually include 800 MHz. In the case of the EU, its 800 MHz band will come from refarmed broadcast TV spectrum and is called (at least colloquially) Digital Dividend 800 MHz. Digital Dividend 800 MHz has an inverted frequency duplex (i.e. its uplink is higher in frequency, its downlink lower in frequency) and a 41 MHz duplex offset (i.e. separation between uplink and downlink). Both of those FDD characteristics make Digital Dividend 800 MHz incompatible with SMR 800 MHz, Cellular 850 MHz, and other compatible 800/850 MHz bands around the world. And that is a general principle: if a band has an inverted frequency duplex or a different duplex offset, then it is not compatible with other bands. AJ

I will just about bet my bottom dollar that the next iPhone will be partly but not fully compatible with Sprint's Network Vision plans and/or Clearwire's TD-LTE overlay. Basically, it will lack something, be it CDMA1X 800 or LTE 800 or TD-LTE 2600. And I am okay with that, even silently hopeful for that, since it would give the rest of us a potential network refuge from the iHordes and the congestion that often comes in their wake. AJ

Dare I even broach the subject, but there probably will be some kvetching now that the Sprint variant Galaxy S3 does not support LTE 800 but surely could have done so. Sprint variant: USCC variant: AJ

The Aviator was a nice harbinger, but the Galaxy S3 really drives the point home. USCC, a regional carrier, has been able to get Samsung to build a custom version with fully three CDMA2000 band classes and four LTE bands yet brings it in at the same size and subsidized price as the Galaxy S3 variants of the national carriers. So, when the time comes, rest assured that Sprint will be able to get LTE 800 and TD-LTE 2600 aboard, no problem. AJ

Here is the antenna block diagram for the USCC version of the Galaxy S3: AJ

Only partly correct. In full, it supports both 5 MHz x 5 MHz and 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE bandwidths in bands 2/4/5/12 (i.e. PCS 1900 MHz, AWS 2100+1700 MHz, Cellular 850 MHz, and Lower 700 MHz). Other than the LTE channel bandwidths, the LTE bands covered are the same as in the Aviator. AJ

The USCC Galaxy S3 was later than the other carrier variants in hitting the FCC OET. I tried to search it out a few days ago, but the authorization was uploaded just yesterday, apparently. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=945591&fcc_id=%27A3LSCHR530%27 AJ

Hey, those were your words. I did not add a thing. AJ

Wow, look at Robert's ringing endorsement: AJ

Achtung, Robert says "der Sturm und Drang." AJ

Lynyrd, you need to drop this diatribe. It is based on your perception, not grounded in reality. The supporting force of your argument carries little weight. To illustrate, I have pulled Clearwire's FCC filed substantial service map for your BTA. The few license protection sites in the Tulsa BTA (as well as in surrounding BTAs) are centrally located in order to maximize POPs covered within each 8.35 km radius service contour. See below: AJ

And I see a "trend" involving LTE and Nazarenes in the KC metro. But my example assertion is just as logically flawed as is your claim. Regardless, Scott already covered this. Those "ghettos" have higher population density than do the upper/middle class suburbs. POPs covered. Simple as that. Do I really need to pull the Required Notifications (i.e. buildout filings) from the FCC ULS in order for several of you to understand the rationale for these protection site locations? AJ

My post above, which mentions the Nazarene Church, so happens to be my post #666. Hmm, jump to a conclusion about that. AJ

The contentions here seem to arise from making deductive inferences based on certain characteristics (e.g. license protection site locations) of one market (e.g. Detroit). But this kind of reasoning can be highly problematic. For example, in the KC metro, the bulk of Sprint's early LTE deployment has been in the suburb of Olathe. Olathe is a hotbed of the Nazarene Church. Does that mean then that Sprint favors Nazarenes or that Nazarenes are really keen on LTE? The lesson is that we should not jump to conclusions from mere correlations. AJ

No. License protection sites are basically "set and forget." AJ

You are missing the point. In unofficial markets, WiMAX network usage is/was irrelevant; BRS/EBS 2600 MHz license protection was paramount. And Robert will have to refresh my memory. But, if I recall correctly, Sprint does not compensate Clearwire on a total usage basis but on a per sub basis. AJ

Alternatively, Carly could do some black & white Sprint commercials like Dan has done. See... AJ

What appears to be "true" to you is not always logically so. Answer this question: does the covered eastern portion of the metro have a higher population density than does the uncovered western portion of the metro? AJ

So that everyone can at least be informed on the matter before making assertions or passing judgment, see the official BRS/EBS 2600 MHz construction requirements from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47: And, no, the CFR does not actually contain a " ." That is just an IP.Board smiley run amok. AJ

Generally speaking, FCC license construction requirement standards are inversely proportional to frequency (i.e. the lower the frequency, the greater the buildout requirements, and vice versa). Also, licensed bands <1 GHz (e.g. Cellular 850 MHz, Lower 700 MHz) are more likely to have geographic area based buildout requirements, whereas licensed bands >1 GHz all have population based buildout requirements. In my opinion, these are largely well designed regulations. AJ

His name is Hesse, not Hoover. AJ

How about a compromise? Dan Hesse would remain the Sprint spokesman, but he would wear the pink dress. AJ