Jump to content

WiWavelength

S4GRU Staff Member
  • Posts

    18,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    429

Everything posted by WiWavelength

  1. AT&T has never held as much AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum as you might think. It has always been scattershot. For example, even before the transfer to T-Mobile, AT&T held no AWS in New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc. See graph and map linked below: https://twitter.com/...2/photo/1/large http://img.phonescoo...g/a/m/17532.gif And, yes, AT&T divested all of its AWS spectrum to T-Mobile in numerous markets, including Boston, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta, etc. In those markets, AT&T has zero AWS remaining. I believe that AT&T's AWS holdings have been so diminished that it has lost the economy of scale to deploy LTE in that band. AJ
  2. Not gonna happen. Sprint's PCS A/B block 30 MHz licenses and G block 10 MHz licenses are basically at opposite ends of the PCS band, which follows this band plan: A block 30 MHz, D block 10 MHz, B block 30 MHz, E block 10 MHz, F block 10 MHz, C block 30 MHz, G block 10 MHz. Sprint's PCS G block licenses are directly adjacent to only the C block 30 MHz licenses. However, nearly all C block licenses have been disaggregated into C1/2 block 15 MHz licenses or C3/4/5 block 10 MHz licenses because C block licensees (most notably, NextWave) defaulted on their payments and returned half/whole of their C block licenses to the FCC. In short, the C block licenses are spread among so many different licensees (including Sprint itself in a few markets) that Sprint will not likely be able to swap and cobble together any great mass of C block spectrum. AJ
  3. Sprint's biggest play would be to swap/sell its Dallas MEA (which also includes Austin) WCS A block 10 MHz and B block 10 MHz licenses. The WCS A and B blocks are what AT&T and SiriusXM propose to make viable for wireless broadband usage. And Sprint entirely controls that spectrum in the Dallas MEA. The WCS C and D blocks (each of which is 5 MHz unpaired) may end up as guard bands or with heavy restrictions in order to protect the SDARS band, which exists in between what is now the WCS uplink and downlink segments. http://wireless.fcc....ans/wcsband.pdf AJ
  4. Unfortunately, Sascha gets a key fact wrong above, as have many other articles on HD Voice. They assume that HD Voice requires greater bandwidth, hence CDMA1X Advanced. But HD Voice, as implemented via EVRC-NW, does NOT require additional bandwidth. In my research, all references indicate that EVRC-NW operates at max 9.6 kbps -- the same max bit rate as standard EVRC, which Sprint has been using by default for better than a decade. EVRC-NW is simply a newer codec with stronger compression that allows it to encode a wider frequency range in the same effective bit rate. AJ
  5. No problem. To go along with the software defined radios, we just need some software defined antennas and some software defined RF amps. Oh, and Robert requests some software defined chicken. AJ
  6. Some FCC OET filings disclose the location of the GPS antenna, but others do not. They are not required to do so, as the GPS antenna is purely Rx, no Tx. You can see from our Samsung Galaxy S3 FCC rundown that its filing does include a block diagram with the location of the GPS antenna. But the EVO LTE's filing does not. I would suspect, though, that the GPS antenna is located under the plastic casing (which likely functions as an RF window) on the upper third of the back of the handset. AJ
  7. The relevant problem, though, is that many of the professional reviews coming out -- both of Sprint LTE devices and of the LTE network itself now -- seem to carry an unnecessarily cynical vibe, simply because the LTE network will be available in only some markets this year. And that even slightly negative publicity does not bode well for Sprint. AJ
  8. Ah, I do not think that is a solid generalization. AT&T's W-CDMA network gets quite a bit of criticism for being painfully slow in many markets. The difference is that HSPA has the potential for considerably higher peak speeds than does EV-DO. And people, reviewers included, go gaga over speeds that they never reasonably require. AJ
  9. That kid has watched one too many VZW LTE commercials... AJ
  10. If that is reviewers' logic, then why should they give AT&T a free pass? How can reviewers in good conscience recommend AT&T LTE? Has AT&T promised when top 100 markets Seattle, Portland (OR), Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Denver, Tulsa, Omaha, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit, Columbus, Cincinnati, Memphis, Nashville, etc., are going to get LTE? Sprint gets looked at askance because it carries the stench of failure. If that perception does not change, not even Network Vision can save Sprint. AJ
  11. As the saying goes, you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear... AJ
  12. In many markets, Sprint does hold a PCS A/B block 30 MHz license plus the PCS G block 10 MHz license for a PCS total of 40 MHz. But that 40 MHz is not contiguous, so it is not usable for 20 MHz x 20 MHz LTE. AJ
  13. I know that I have changed my tune on the matter, but the PCS/AWS-2 H block is not that strategically important to Sprint. That it is contiguous with Sprint's PCS G block is almost inconsequential because 1) the H block will require yet another band class and 2) Sprint cannot deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE in a hypothetical G+H block combo while many of its current LTE devices support only 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE. AJ
  14. I question the legitimacy of the test. Was PCMag the only third party that was allowed to run tests at that time? Or were multiple outlets all testing the network simultaneously? If the latter, then a bunch of tech journalists all running speed tests at the same time on a cluster of only five LTE sites could generate a network load even greater than the real world average. AJ
  15. Sprint is currently deploying 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in its PCS G block, which is a 10 MHz extension of the PCS 1900 MHz band. So, Sprint will have LTE 1900 from the beginning. Within the next year, Sprint plans to deploy some additional 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE carriers in its traditional PCS A-F block spectrum in selected high traffic areas of selected markets. But Sprint will not likely deploy any 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE carriers anytime in the foreseeable future. And, with its current spectrum holdings, Sprint will never be able to deploy 20 MHz x 20 MHz LTE, as Sprint does not have 40 MHz of contiguous spectrum in any market. AJ
  16. Never judge wireless coverage indoors. No wireless carrier promises indoor coverage from its macro network. And I have found Sprint's CDMA1X/EV-DO coverage maps to be quite accurate, even conservative. AJ
  17. This may make me the killjoy, but I now do not think that Sprint will be overly aggressive in pursuing the PCS/AWS-2 H block. Among its PCS A-F, PCS G, ESMR, and Clearwire's BRS/EBS spectrum, Sprint has plenty of available bandwidth in most markets for the foreseeable future. AJ
  18. The coverage gradients still exist. However, you now have to drill down to the 5.0 scale level. If I recall correctly, the gradients previously became visible at the 25 or 50 level. VZW may routinely kick sand in Sprint's face and steal Sprint's lunch money, but Sprint has a much better coverage tool. The VZW coverage tool is a POS. AJ
  19. About a week ago, I did some LTE testing in KC. The EVO LTE had been running on battery for 11 hours and used for occasional web browsing, a few SMS, and a 15 minute phone call. Even following 400 MB of LTE data transfer tests, the EVO LTE battery was still at 70 percent. The Qualcomm S4 28 nm single chipset design certainly seems to improve power management significantly. AJ
  20. HTC has made a thin yet solid, well built device. If the Galaxy S3 follows in the footsteps of previous Samsung smartphones -- my apologies, Samsung owners -- it will feel like a cheap, plastic dummy phone. If a non removable battery is the price that we have to pay to get HTC build quality in a slim device, then so be it. AJ
  21. No, 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE does not make any rational sense in the PCS G block, as it is a consistent 10 MHz (5 MHz x 5 MHz) license. The peak speeds caveat may be due to limitations on backhaul or differences in infrastructure vendor performance. AJ
  22. Above, you describe two networks. But, as long as my understanding is correct, there will be only one TD-LTE network. And Clearwire will not have any retail subs, only wholesale subs through other carriers. Define "higher standard." What do you have in mind? AJ
  23. WiWavelength

    EVO LTE Heat

    Careful. We have published a comparison of transmission, not reception. Even then, the max power transmission results are a mixed bag. For example, the EVO LTE trumps the Galaxy S3 with ~3 dB higher max ERP for both CDMA1X 800 and CDMA1X 850. So, the EVO LTE may actually be the better handset for holding basic connection in fringe areas of both native and roaming coverage. AJ
  24. Eric, I could be mistaken about Clearwire's intent. However, as I understand it, TD-LTE, unlike WiMAX, will not attempt to be a standalone network. Instead, Clearwire will be essentially a "carriers' carrier," deploying TD-LTE only in areas where its partner carriers' require additional offload capacity. Underlying and outside of those "hot spots," each partner carrier (e.g. Sprint, MetroPCS, Cricket, etc.) will operate its own network separately. The quasi contiguous WiMAX footprint will remain in place for the next few years. However, it will eventually come down, leaving behind just the TD-LTE footprint, which should cover only high traffic areas and corridors. AJ
×
×
  • Create New...