WiWavelength

 

 

Isn't the new Evo supposed to have both 1900 and 800 LTE? http://www.gsmarena....4g_lte-4665.php

Nope, our article is correct. GSMArena is wrong.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-159-htc-evo-4g-lte-tech-details-revealed-in-fcc-oet-filing/

In fact, GSMArena does not even get the CDMA1X 800/850/1900 specs correct. Then again, are you really going to trust CDMA2000 device specs from a web site called GSMArena?

AJ

http://www.tgdaily.c...-wimax-lte-chip

 

there are more as well.

 

Beceem? Do you really want a device based on a Beceem LTE/WiMAX modem? Like Qualcomm or not, the top devices use Qualcomm chipsets. And Qualcomm, to my knowledge, does not produce any LTE/WiMAX chipsets.

 

Furthermore, even with a Beceem (or something else of that ilk), a device would also require a CDMA2000 modem and an application processor. Thus, that would necessitate at least two, maybe even three total chipsets. Nope, no sale.

 

Now, compare that to the just released EVO LTE. Just one chipset, the Qualcomm MSM8960, runs the whole show -- CDMA2000, LTE, and the application processor. Not to mention, it is a 28 nm process SoC. All of that adds up to huge power consumption savings.

 

AJ

Which chipsets support both WiMAX and LTE?

 

AJ

BB store customers who paid $0 should not be more important thant Sprint corporate store customers who paid $50.

 

Maybe I am grossly mistaken, but Sprint has no control over Best Buy's inventory. Sprint orders devices from HTC, just as Best Buy orders devices from HTC. As such, Best Buy can do whatever it pleases with its allotment from HTC. Your comparison between Best Buy customers who paid $0 and Sprint Store customers who paid $50 is not at all relevant because those are customers of two completely separate point of sale vendors. Do you think that Sprint has the power to take away from Best Buy's shipment so that Sprint can fill more of its own orders?

 

AJ

None of us really should be complaining. We are all victims. Including Sprint. And of course, that is my opinion.

 

To use one of my favorite phrases of late, we definitely have a "first world problem" on our hands. The $200 high definition microcomputer phone that some people want to replace their current microcomputer phone has been delayed by a few days, maybe even a few weeks. And do remember that the phone was originally slated for a mid June release, so it is still currently ahead of the original release schedule. But that matters not. Oh, how will those poor souls ever manage the interminable wait?

 

AJ

In your opinion, do customers on store DWLs have a reasonable cause for complaint?

 

I am not sure what a "DWL" is other than some sort of waiting list. Did those customers prepay for their devices? If not, no, they are on a list and nothing more. They, too, do not have any really reasonable grounds for complaint.

 

Preorder customers, on the other hand, were billed in advance -- at least, in my case, the ~$200 charge hit my credit card statement even before the customs delay was announced. So, preorder customers deserved to receive the first devices, as they already had bills of sale.

 

AJ

But eHRPD is only available at NV sites. As AJ points out above that eHRPD is connected through new backhaul to new NV 4G cores. So only NV sites will have eHRPD.

 

Robert, are you sure about that? I am under the impression -- quite possibly mistaken, though -- that eHRPD resides deeper in the network than the BTS. If so, eHRPD could still connect through non Network Vision backhaul.

 

Unfortunately, I still have some irregularity on my account that prevents me from activating a new device via the online activation tool. So, I cannot yet run any tests on eHRPD, as my EVO LTE sits here powered up but not activated.

 

AJ

I wish I had pre-ordered and was given bogus information by a salesperson at a corp Sprint store (if you have issues with the phone, you have to mail it back in & not bring it into a store). I took the information as golden and did not pre-order.

 

I am sorry that you feel left in the dark. But, honestly, if you did not place a preorder, then you really have no standing in the matter, hence no reasonable cause for complaint.

 

As for your experience with Sprint Store worker, you have learned lesson number one. Do not take as gospel any non verified info you receive from salespersons, call center reps, even managers, etc. Many of them know next to nothing about the wireless industry other than what they are told. They are not experts. Like so many working schlubs out there, unfortunately, they are largely just rank and file employees who are just doing their rather unsatisfying jobs.

 

So, if you want solid info, come to S4GRU, where people are passionate and knowledgeable about wireless of their own accord, not because they are getting paid. Those are the best kind of resource people.

 

AJ

Thanks for this. Was really confused how some people at xda were getting such good speeds there compared to the 3S in areas that NV hasn't started to he deployed really...

 

By no means is my hypothesis about eHRPD and data speeds automatically correct. But if it is, then it reveals something interesting about Sprint's data network congestion. The slowdown may be due to bottlenecks in the EV-DO core network as much as it is lack of airlink and backhaul capacity.

 

To illustrate, eHRPD uses the same airlink and backhaul as EV-DO but uses the LTE core network instead of the EV-DO core network. If the airlink and backhaul are the same but eHRPD produces significantly higher data speeds than does EV-DO, then the LTE or EV-DO core network is the primary independent variable, hence likely responsible for the observed differences.

 

AJ

1) I've been reading alot of forums lately about the EVO LTE... I've seen many reports of people getting better 3G speeds on the new EVO then their previous phone.

 

2) another thing I saw that was interesting was in regards to the cdma only vs cdma/lte setting:

http://androidforums...30-post124.html

http://androidforums...54-post131.html

 

Anyone noticing either of these two things??

 

The LTE/CDMA setting uses eHRPD (if available), while the CDMA only setting may fall back to traditional EV-DO. If so, that could account for the difference in data speeds.

 

AJ

I stand vindicated in the face of 4ringsnbr's overdone pessimism:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/742-sprint-800-mhz-lte-set-for-launch-in-2014/page__view__findpost__p__12127

 

AJ

All the Antenna's are located in the removeable plastic piece.

 

No, some of the antennas are located at the base of the handset. We included the antenna diagram in our article about the EVO LTE's FCC certification last month.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...fcc-oet-filing/

 

AJ

Even with handsets side by side, comparisons of reception are not very scientific. This is especially true at 1900 MHz, as wavelengths are only ~6 inches long, hence Rayleigh fading can be highly localized and variable.

 

That said, I have the EVO and EVO LTE side by side at home right now. For CDMA1X, both are idle on the same PN offset and carrier channel (both crucial for any remotely accurate comparison). In Rx power, the EVO beats the EVO LTE, on the average, by 3 dB. And that may be just about as expected, since the EVO's PCS 1900 MHz antenna gain is 1 dBi, while the EVO LTE's PCS 1900 MHz antenna gain is -2 dBi.

 

AJ

I know, until last year they only had 1 1x channel and 1 EVDO channel in the majority of cities I visited,

 

How are you determining carrier channel assignments? Unless you do so diligently, you can easily miss one or more carriers, especially on the EV-DO side, as EV-DO channel hashing is more complex than is CDMA1X channel hashing.

 

AJ

Which brings me back to my question: Why is Sprint not doing the same for 1900PCS? In 95% of the nation they are not using but maybe 5Mhz+5MHz of their spectrum. Are they waiting for carrier aggregation? They could still have two 1900Mhz channels even without carrier aggregation. Does carrier aggregation require new hardware?

 

I do not quite have the energy tonight to organize this response into a coherent whole, so I will try to string together just a series of bullet points.

• Due to guard bands, 10 MHz of deployed spectrum allows for only three carriers.
  
• Sprint's internal data on deployed spectrum does not bear out your "95%" figure, which seems a gross exaggeration. In the Kansas market, for example, approximately 225 out of 600 sites have four or greater deployed carriers.
  
• The smartphone revolution on Sprint started in earnest only two years ago with the release of the EVO 4G. Prior to that, Sprint did not need greater than one or two EV-DO carriers per site.
  
• Sprint expected WiMAX to absorb much of the increased smartphone data demand, but Clearwire badly dropped the ball.
  
• Sprint has been trying to clean up Clearwire's mess by deploying additional carriers even in advance of Network Vision roll out. If you are watching carrier channel assignments, you will notice carriers added on many sites over the past year.
  
• Sprint has ~10 MHz of available PCS A-F block spectrum in many markets and plans to deploy a second 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE 1900 carrier on high traffic sites by next year.
  

AJ

Hey, Google, go ogle some other web site.

 

AJ

Little Bo Teat uttered; "Her udders utterly hang down to her feet!"

 

I was udderly disappointed when I found out that she was stuffing her bra.

 

AJ

Stand in line like cattle at the farm and hook up your utters for your yearly milking.

 

Is "breasts" the word that shall not be uddered?

 

 

AJ

Can anybody confirm whether or not the iPhone 4s will be capable of picking up the ESMR Bc 10? I've spoken to at least 3 different "high-level" sprint representatives that have all told me that it will be able to receive the signal, but I've searched high and low on Google only to find speculative but conflicting reports.

 

No, the iPhone 4S supports Cellular 850 MHz (band class 0), not SMR 800 MHz (band class 10).

 

Sprint reps are generally just call center workers. Do not even bother with them for accurate tech info.

 

AJ

I would call this more "news" than actual news, as AT&T announced over two months ago that it would be taking some GSM 1900 out of service in New York in order to deploy at least one additional W-CDMA carrier.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-looks-refarm-2g-spectrum-urges-customers-upgrade/2012-03-05

 

Furthermore, AT&T has already refarmed some Cellular 850 MHz spectrum in many markets. In fact, see my RF sweep below in which two W-CDMA 850 carriers now occupy ~10 MHz of the downlink, while GSM 850 has been pared down to the remaining ~2.5 MHz of the downlink:

 

 

As for "history of the other carriers and how they built out their networks," please elaborate. I am uncertain what type of information you are seeking.

 

AJ

whole lot of nothing

 

 

AJ

Brian Klug also confirmed that HTC's Field Trial apk (including a new LTE engineering screen) carries over to the EVO 4G LTE. See a few screen caps below:

 

 

 

 

AJ

So right now it's just a financial issue?

 

I would call it a cost-benefit issue, but I suppose that is, at heart, a financial issue.

 

Because iDEN offers so few roaming opportunities, it is largely an all or nothing proposition -- native Nextel coverage or nada. For that reason, Nextel has had to apply a different cost-benefit analysis to footprint build out, and that has led Nextel to construct coverage in some rather marginal locations where Sprint has not, as Sprint can utilize more cost effective roaming instead.

 

AJ

Unfortunately I don't think Sprint is going to change its mind; since Nextel's towers are spaced for 800 MHz...

Although rural iDEN sites are spaced on 800...

 

Guys, one misconception is that iDEN 800 has an SMR 800 MHz propagation advantage. But that is not really true because iDEN uses 16-QAM modulation, which requires higher C/I ratio. In other words, iDEN's higher order modulation scheme is more fragile, hence requires stronger signal for reliable reception. So, rural iDEN 800 site spacing -- if it is to create contiguous coverage -- is actually quite similar to CDMA1X 1900 site spacing.

 

AJ

Another difference between LTE and LTE Advanced is the uplink structure. Both LTE and LTE Advanced utilize an OFDMA downlink. However, LTE uses an SC-FDMA uplink, while LTE Advanced switches to an OFDMA uplink, which enables MIMO on the uplink. WiMAX already uses OFDMA on both uplink and downlink.

 

AJ