WiWavelength

Well, so far, I have had no luck with custom PRL swaps on the EVO LTE. PRL swapping on the handset requires the EPST.apk. But only certain versions of the EPST.apk allow access to the PRL dialer code (##PRL#). For example, I had to replace the stock EPST.apk on my EVO 4G with an older version before I could swap PRLs. I can report that the stock EPST.apk on the EVO LTE does not grant access via the PRL dialer code. My EVO LTE is rooted, so I used Root Explorer to replace the stock EPST.apk with the much older version that enabled PRL swaps on the EVO 4G. Unfortunately, it does not work with Android 4.0 or Sense 4.0 or both. In fact, the old EPST.apk not only does not grant access via the PRL dialer code but also removes access via the programming dialer codes (##DATA# and ##xxxxxx#, in which "xxxxxx" is your six digit MSL). So, the very old EPST.apk that allowed PRL swaps on the EVO 4G appears to be a dead end with the EVO LTE. Back to the drawing board... AJ

Correct, you will not find any PRL entries pointing to the PCS G block, since the PCS G will be solely LTE 1900. The same is true with WiMAX -- nothing in the PRL. Only AMPS, TDMA, and CDMA modes use PRLs. GSM and W-CDMA devices do not contain PRLs nor anything quite like lists of SIDs, NIDs, and channels. Rather, they use LACs (Location Area Codes), which are stored on the network side, not on the device side. Now, unlike the GSM zealots, I do not consider LTE to be GSM; LTE is a new paradigm for both GSM and CDMA operators alike. Regardless, LTE will not use PRLs. It may, like GSM, use network side LACs. Or LTE may use something else altogether -- maybe even IP or MAC address based roaming control. AJ

Yes, that would be the only PRL, since LTE (and GSM and W-CDMA) do not use PRL based roaming controls. But my admittedly anecdotal understanding is that the CDMA/EV-DO PRL is now sequestered away on the SIM. AJ

Reportedly, the PRL is now stored on the SIM and is impervious to tinkering. If that is not the case, do enlighten us. AJ

No, that is no longer accurate. The Viper and previous VZW handsets that support SVDO can do so because they utilize dual Qualcomm modems, typically one MSM paired with one MDM. Typically, the MDM chipset is used for LTE connectivity; however, since the MDM is also EV-DO capable, it opens up SVDO capability. With the arrival of the Qualcomm MSM8960 (and other S4 chipsets), on the other hand, the EVO 4G LTE utilizes a single chipset that supports CDMA1X, EV-DO, and LTE, plus SVDO or SVLTE. AJ

I would expect that nearly all of the successful bidders in the FCC Mobility Fund's reverse auction will utilize Cellular 850 MHz spectrum. The initial Cellular 850 MHz license term is divided into two phases. During Phase 1 (five years, if I recall correctly), a licensee has free rein to construct as much geographic coverage as possible within its respective licensed area. At the start of Phase 2, the extent of geographic coverage that the licensee has constructed becomes the new licensed area, which may be smaller than the originally licensed area. In other words, if the licensee covers all of its originally licensed area within five years, then the licensed area remains the same. However, if the licensee covers only 75 percent of its originally licensed area, then the new licensed area is fixed at that 75 percent. Furthermore, in Phase 2, the uncovered 25 percent becomes Cellular Unserved area that is available (for free, if I recall this, too, correctly) to other applicants. By this late date, essentially all Cellular 850 MHz licenses are in Phase 2. So, almost any Cellular Unserved area is up for grabs. As such, I would expect that -- in conjunction with Mobility Fund reverse auction bids -- some bidders will also put in applications to cover Cellular Unserved area, hence be awarded Cellular 850 MHz spectrum for that area. Likely bidders would be remaining rural Cellular 850 MHz licensees (e.g. Plateau Wireless in NM, Union Cellular in WY, etc.) and license "squatters" (of which ATN's Commnet Wireless is far and away the most notable). Maybe VZW and/or AT&T will use the reverse auction to help improve their rural coverage, but I think that $300 million may be too little funding to entice them. As for Sprint, it could theoretically participate in the reverse auction and use any winnings to deploy LTE 800 in unserved area. That would probably be within the rules of the Mobility Fund, though I am not sure that it should be. Since LTE 800 is effectively proprietary to Sprint, it would not realistically present interconnection opportunities for other carriers and subs. AJ

A decade ago, I sold home audio part time at Circuit City while I was in college. Since I happened to know a little bit about wireless, I also occasionally sold wireless phones. Many of you may not know that, at the time, Sprint devices were sold cash and carry. Walk in. Pay your $200 for the phone. Go home. Call to activate it. Or use it as a paperweight. Do whatever you want with it. Regardless, Sprint did not require a contract, though you could opt to sign an "Advantage Agreement" that gave you a monthly discount and/or free added features. I would like to see one or more of the four national wireless carriers return to all or part of this simpler sales model. Wireless carriers do not need to and should not function as de facto brick and mortar electronics retailers. Leave device sales to third party retailers and, if necessary, the carriers' own online stores. I assume (though I could be wrong) that wireless carriers operate corporate brick and mortar stores at significant net cost. And the stories shared in this thread indicate -- at least anecdotally -- that corporate brick and mortar sales do not generally offer superior knowledge nor service. So, I wonder whether Sprint would ever consider closing all of its corporate storefronts and whether that would result in a notable cost savings. AJ

Hey, this is an all ages forum. You keep it clean, mister. AJ

In some of the deeper EVO LTE menus accessible only via MSL, I noted 310-120. Is that the MCC-MNC that Sprint is using? AJ

As you can see in this case, Sprint has included the Part 90 waiver in the FCC OET authorization. However, the Galaxy S3 authorization was already well in progress by the time that the FCC issued its rulemaking last month revising the Part 90 rules explicitly to allow CDMA1X, LTE, and other broadband operations in the contiguous rebanded ESMR portion of the SMR 800 MHz band. Watch for CDMA1X 800 devices released later in the year. My guess is that the Part 90 waivers will no longer be required with their authorizations. AJ

twospirits, GregSmoov... Both of you are correct about the integrated battery-NFC antenna. And that is why we made certain to include that caveat in the rundown from the FCC OET exhibits. AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Friday, June 1, 2012 - 11:58 PM MDT Update: Sprint has scheduled an exclusive Samsung event for the evening of June 12 in Boston. It looks like the Samsung Galaxy S3 coming out party has been set. Just as the HTC EVO 4G LTE is setting up for its delayed national street date tomorrow June 2, it may sooner than expected be getting another high profile cousin in Sprint's burgeoning line up of Network Vision ready, LTE capable devices. First, word leaked this afternoon that Sprint is prepping landing and pre-order web pages for its version of the Samsung Galaxy S3. Then, this evening, S4GRU uncovered the Samsung SPH-L710 (aka Galaxy S3) exhibits that had hit the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) database earlier today. So, the ball seems to be rolling toward an imminent launch for the Galaxy S3. And, as we did with the EVO 4G LTE a few weeks back, here is an RF focused technical rundown of the upcoming Samsung flagship Sprint handset: 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 carrier bandwidth LTE UE category 3 SVDO and SVLTE support, including SVDO or SVLTE and simultaneous 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi tether Maximum RF ERP: 17.78 dBm (CDMA1X 850), 20.77 dBm (EV-DO 850), 24.05 dBm (CDMA1X 1900), 23.85 dBm (EV-DO 1900), 17.21 dBm (CDMA1X 800), 17.56 dBm (EV-DO 800), 22.01 dBm (LTE 1900) NFC antenna integrated into battery LTE antenna configuration: 1 Tx, 2 Rx (i.e. 2x2 downlink MIMO) All in all, the Galaxy S3 does not present any really big technical surprises. As RF capabilities go, it follows very closely in the footsteps of the EVO 4G LTE. One of the few notable differences is that the Galaxy S3, like its Galaxy Nexus sibling, supports only 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE carriers, while the EVO 4G LTE can do both 5 MHz x 5 MHz and 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE bandwidths. However, Sprint has no definite plans to deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE during the typical lifespan of either of these handsets. And, otherwise, the Galaxy S3 does appear to have the general edge in RF transmit power. Sources: FCC, Inside Sprint Now

ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS > 100 BILLION DOLLARS AJ

Early returns indicate that Leap will sell the iPhone only in its markets that have deployed CDMA1X 1900, not in any markets that are exclusively CDMA1X 2100+1700 (i.e. AWS) (e.g. in Tulsa but not in Oklahoma City, etc.). AJ

Hold on, let Robert go consult Miss Cleo... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWyHiV3l3MA You do know that she is the source of all info on S4GRU, right? AJ

I have come to the realization that iDEN zealots are a lot like the Gelgamek Catholics... http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104227/an-attempt-at-reform Their "needs" are way out there. And what works for them may not work for the rest of us. So, despite their rabble rabble, we may have to just forget about the iDEN zealots for the moment. AJ

You are focusing on coverage in one small area of the country. Yet, you are making assertions about coverage footprint nationwide. Moreover, you are dodging my question. What is the source of your 30 percent nationwide areal coverage difference? Back it up. Or retract it. What merger is this? The Sprint-Nextel merger? The FCC does not consent to a merger, then impose conditions on that merger fully seven years later. So, if you are referring to the Sprint-Nextel merger, that is irrelevant. Additionally, you obviously fail to understand the FCC licensing scheme for the ESMR portion of the SMR 800 MHz band. Markets are defined by Basic Economic Area (BEA). Sprint is not leaving any BEAs. Yes, Sprint may reduce coverage in some BEAs, but Sprint will remain a competitor in all BEAs in which it currently offers service. See the BEA map: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/ea.pdf AJ

You keep repeating this 30 percent areal coverage statistic. Is that just a guess on your part? Or do you have an actual source to corroborate it? If the former, stop it. Your guess appears to be way off. If the latter, please cite a source. Or just use these sources. But the maps do not seem to bear out your 30 percent assertion. 10 percent difference? Maybe. And the native coverage advantage is highly variable. Yes, in some states, native Nextel iDEN has a definite edge. But, in other states, native Sprint CDMA1X takes the lead. http://coverage.sprintpcs.com/images/mapvoicenextelUS.gif http://support.sprint.com/global/images/support/exception_map_v1_en.jpg So, sorry, your complaint for possibly 50,000 subs on a network of about 50 million subs is going to fall on deaf ears. What is good for the whole is far, far, far more important than what is good for those arguably unprofitable 50,000. And, like it or not, that is just utilitarianism. AJ

Take this with a grain of salt, as this is just my conjecture. Since a 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE 800 carrier will occupy nearly all of Sprint's rebanded SMR 800 MHz spectrum, Sprint needed to locate the LTE 800 FIT in an area well away from current Nextel iDEN 800 sites and other ESMR incumbent operations in order to avoid potential interference issues. Most of South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana fit the bill (pardon the pun). But another ESMR incumbent across multiple markets in South Dakota and Wyoming limits Sprint to 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE 800 in those areas and may have made Montana the choice by the process of elimination. AJ

Cricket is selling an unsubsidized, no contract iPhone 4S 16 GB for $500. Does this reveal anything about the $650 "full retail price" that VZW, AT&T, and Sprint are charging for the same iPhone? AJ

The city on Long Island? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauppauge,_New_York AJ

http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2296 AJ

Tell them that LTE stands for "limited edition" and that they better hurry up and get theirs before LTE is sold out. AJ

That seems unlikely -- at least, in the sense of the iPhone 4 "antennagate." The iPhone 4 has external antennas, such that a user's hand can unintentionally bridge or short the antennas, greatly affecting their RF properties. The EVO LTE, on the other hand, has only internal antennas. AJ

No, no, no. This is a Puerto Rican phone... AJ