WiWavelength

The downside to this is that Sprints "new phones" will be months old releases in reality.

 

I really don't know why they don't go ahead and sell some LTE phones now. They sure didn't have any problems selling wimax phones in places that were never going to get wimax.

Be careful. Your logic is flawed on several levels.

One, Sprint did not intentionally sell WiMAX devices "in places that were never going to get WiMAX" because Sprint did not control the WiMAX roll out. That was Clearwire's responsibility, and Clearwire botched it in many, many markets.

Two, numerous Sprint subs who bought WiMAX capable devices were exceedingly unhappy that WiMAX deployment was delayed, limited, or non existent in their home markets. Why in the world would Sprint want to risk that customer relations nightmare again with early release of LTE devices?

AJ

So with that said Clear deploying LTE at 20MHz is still technically on hold till the FCC approves it?...

The issue, per se, is not actually 20 MHz channels. While it may be tempting to interpret the proposed rulemaking to indicate that Clearwire requires FCC approval to expand bandwidth to 20 MHz per TDD channel, that is not truly the case.

Recall that BRS/EBS is divided into 5.5 MHz or 6 MHz license blocks. And Clearwire currently operates WiMAX in 10 MHz TDD channels. So, Clearwire already spans adjacent license blocks with its 10 MHz WiMAX channelization. Thus, adherence to established license block channelization is not the concern.

Rather, the issue is the "emissions mask," which limits the out of band power levels that could potentially interfere with adjacent services. (Think of this as similar to but not even remotely as controversial as the LightSquared-GPS interference affair.) That said, BRS/EBS base stations (i.e. cell sites) do not have problems adhering to the current emissions mask because base stations are not particularly space nor power constrained regarding amps and filters.

As a result, base stations transmitting on 20 MHz channels is also not the problem. So, that narrows down the issue to mobile stations (i.e. mobile devices), which do tend to be space and power constrained regarding amps and filters. Because it is difficult to design mobiles to transmit on 20 MHz channels yet meet the current emissions mask, Clearwire, et al., seeks to have the emissions mask relaxed somewhat.

In the meantime, Clearwire can deploy 20 MHz TD-LTE channels, no problem. And Clearwire can even test 20 MHz TD-LTE services, as long as the testing devices (which can be bulkier and less power efficient than will be the eventual commercial devices) adhere to the current emissions mask.

AJ

The FCC has not yet released an order regarding 20 MHz BRS/EBS channel widths. The most recently released FCC document is the proposed rulemaking that the Sgt. references. Here is the original document (in far more readable form):

http://apps.fcc.gov/...w?id=7021686918

And this is the entire docket (which, you might note, dates all the way back to 2003):

http://apps.fcc.gov/...nmks&name=03-66

The second document that the Sgt. links above pertains to expanded channel widths in microwave backhaul that Clearwire utilizes in various bands >5 GHz. So, it is not relevant to BRS/EBS spectrum that Clearwire uses for direct mobile service.

AJ

I don't see why we can't take some of the Clear spectrum and convert it to FDD-LTE. That would unlock some of the hidden value in Clear. Especially if that FDD corresponds to Europe's 2600 band. Can't the Feds just assist and move EBS and BRS government users into the TDD channels that corresponds with Europe's?

But I don't want to give up spectral efficiencies for interoperability. Europe should consider TDD for their 2600 spectrum, if anything. And being TDD aligns us with China, India and many other parts of the world. So we aren't in a go-it-alone strategy. It will be Europe that will be the odd duck in this spectrum.

I am not terribly concerned about TDD/FDD interoperability, and there is no need to convert to FDD mode, as Qualcomm has stated that its nascent chipsets will support both TDD and FDD modes of LTE operation. If that proves true, interoperability will be more a matter of band class than TDD/FDD. And Clearwire is in good position with its BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum (or what analysts seem to be calling worldwide 2.6 GHz).

For traditional FDD operation, 2600 MHz is LTE band class 7. For TD-LTE, 2600 MHz is band class 38 or band class 41. But all are included within the same range of spectrum (2496-2690 MHz). And, already, numerous carriers in Europe and Asia have launched LTE band class 7 and/or TD-LTE band class 38 networks. So, 2600 MHz is going to be one of the hotbeds of LTE deployment worldwide.

As long as Qualcomm is correct about its chipsets and TDD/FDD support, then I am fairly confident that Clearwire's TD-LTE band class 41 capability will come along for the ride on any handsets that aspire to LTE global roaming. In other words, 2600 MHz band classes should actually be very common on LTE devices worldwide. As such, I am not worried about Sprint's/Clearwire's ability to source compatible devices.

AJ

The Ipad has an aluminum backplate also There are no WiFi issues there

Au contraire. The iPad models that have full aluminum backplates do have Wi-Fi performance notably inferior to the iPad 3G models that have plastic RF windows sectioned out of their aluminum backplates.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4225/the-ipad-2-review/11

Additionally, the coming 1920 x 1200 version of the Transformer Prime adds a plastic RF window for improved Wi-Fi/GPS reception. So, Asus acknowledges the issue.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5348/eee-pad-transformer-prime-tf700t-hands-on-with-asus-1920-x-1200-tablet-running-ics-403

Now, admittedly I am biased, but I highly recommend the HP TouchPad. For $150, I have a tablet with nice (but not outstanding) build quality, IPS screen, 32 GB storage, 1 GB RAM, and 1.2-1.7 GHz dual core Qualcomm SoC -- running dual boot WebOS and CM9 Android 4.0 ICS.

AJ

Not to rain on the Transformer Prime parade, but it does have some issues with wireless performance. The aluminum shell is a double edged sword. On one hand, it makes for an attractive, well constructed tablet. On the other, metal reflects/absorbs RF. In the case of the Transformer Prime, it reduces Wi-Fi range and renders GPS almost unusable.

Read the AnandTech coverage of the Transformer Prime. AnandTech is a great site for tech and device reviews. It does not review everything, but what it does review gets put through the paces with a thorough set of test bench measurements and benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5163/asus-eee-pad-transformer-prime-nvidia-tegra-3-review

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5178/an-update-on-transformer-prime-battery-life-wifi-issues

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5175/asus-transformer-prime-followup

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5285/asus-eee-pad-transformer-prime-gps-issue-explained

AJ

Fear not, Sprint has added spectrum in Central Illinois more recently than what is reflected on my old map. In 2008, Sprint acquired (from USCC) additional 10 MHz blocks of spectrum in the BTAs in Central Illinois that had been previously limited to single PCS D block 10 MHz licenses. See below:

Bloomington-Normal, Peoria, Springfield, Decatur-Effingham, Mattoon: PCS E block 10 MHz

Galesburg: PCS C block 10 MHz

Jacksonville: PCS F block 10 MHz

So, across all of Central Illinois, Sprint holds PCS A-F block 20 MHz of bandwidth plus the PCS "G" block 10 MHz licenses.

AJ

No, the elimination of site based coverage determination affects Cellular 850 MHz (sometimes referred to as 800 MHz), but not SMR 800 MHz.

To this point, Cellular 850 MHz licensees have had to register the cell sites and their service contours that form the Service Area Boundaries (SAB) of their Cellular Geographic Service Areas (CGSA). More or less, this is a vestige of the AMPS days.

For example, here is an FCC ULS map of my home CMA with the VZW Cellular A-side registered sites marked:

http://wireless2.fcc...s+%28VAW%29+LLC

(The ULS-GIS is notoriously slow to load, so give it a few moments.)

Additionally, here is an actual SAB and CGSA map that VZW filed with the FCC prior to a modification of its Los Angeles CMA Cellular B-side license. The image quality is not great. But, again, note the registered sites marked on the map:

http://people.ku.edu...52118079408.gif

(Oddly enough, when I ran a Google image query on "CGSA," the map image that popped up was one that I had posted to Howard Forums six years ago. How is that for unintended self reference?!)

Parts of the Howard Forums thread containing the map above are also a good read about SAB and CGSA determination:

http://www.howardfor...76&page=4&pp=15

Finally, here is the FCC notice of proposed rulemaking released today:

http://transition.fc...FCC-12-20A1.pdf

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 5 February 2012

I am curious why everyone is so agog over VoLTE. Certainly, the prospect of ubiquitous mobile VoIP is, at least technologically speaking, an interesting paradigm shift. But do we really expect an enhanced end user experience from VoLTE? CDMA1X spreading gain, soft handoff, and noise suppression make it almost ideally suited to moderate bit rate voice transmission. So, VoLTE has a high standard to follow.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 28 January 2012

I could make a cogent argument that the iPhone is one of the worst things (as contrarian as that might sound) to ever happen to the overall well being of the domestic wireless industry. It would likely make my worst five (in no particular order):

• iPhone
  
• VZW-Alltel merger
  
• Cingular-AT&TWS merger
  
• sunset of the spectrum cap
  
• elimination of the Cellular 850 MHz cross interest rule
  

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 18 January 2012

I think the big GPS makers are going to keep dumping money into lobbying against this. This may be another story of corporate greed and corruption squashing innovation. I hope it gets approved, nothing wrong with lots of LTE spectrum out there...

 

No, I think that any conspiracy theories are unfounded. GPS manufacturers have nothing to gain nor lose if LightSquared truly can ameliorate the ATC interference issues. But this is a legitimate and serious technical problem. And if LightSquared cannot prevent interference beyond a shadow of a doubt, then LightSquared has no choice but to abide by the original regulations of its L band satellite spectrum.

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 28 January 2012

I would not be surprised if the remaining iDEN traffic is significantly shunted to SMR 900 MHz now, though I would love to know the current ratio of SMR 800 MHz to SMR 900 MHz iDEN channels on a market to market basis.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 15 January 2012

I would be careful not to extrapolate too much from the iPad 3. Chipset support for multiple band classes is not really the issue; most Qualcomm MSMs, MDMs, or SoCs already support far more numerous bands than are ever enabled in any one device.

Rather, antenna support seems to be the sticking point. Handheld devices that strive to be compact have only so much space available for cellular antennas, which grow in size and/or number to support additional bands. LTE further complicates matters, since it is MIMO enabled. And, as far as I know, all LTE devices released on VZW or AT&T thus far support 2x1 or 2x2 MIMO, thus they require two Rx diversity antennas.

As this pertains to the iPad 3, it is a tablet, so it should have far more space available for multiple antennas than will the eventual iPhone 4S successor. Additionally, if the iPhone 4S replacement does gain LTE capability, I would not be surprised if the current convergence to a single inventory iPhone 4S global model does not last, and Apple is forced to return to a multi inventory system just to support the innumerable LTE band classes being deployed worldwide.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 13 January 2012

Yes, I have long wondered this myself. Many think that Sprint overpaid for access to the iPhone for the next several years. So, for that huge outlay, what does Sprint get in return? As unlikely as it seems, an exclusive iPhone could be the return on that investment, could be the card up Sprint's sleeve.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 10 January 2012

I suspect that we will know for certain the supported LTE band class(es) only when Sprint's first two Samsung and LG LTE handsets hit the FCC OET authorization database. Hopefully, those authorizations will come through in the next several weeks.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 10 January 2012

I am uncertain how much market "pre-seeding" we will see with LTE devices.

Keep in mind that current VZW LTE devices support only LTE band class 13 (Upper 700 MHz C block 22 MHz). So, if the VZW-SpectrumCo-Cox AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum transactions gain approval, even VZW will require a whole new set of LTE band class 4 capable devices.

Also, Sprint did "pre-seed" the market with CDMA band class 14 (PCS "G" block 10 MHz) devices. Of course, CDMA band class 14 now will never see the light of day in the US, as Sprint has decided to use that spectrum for LTE instead. Hence, all of that "pre-seeding" proved pointless.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 10 January 2012

In an interview with Phonescoop.com, Sprint spokesperson David Owen confirms that Sprint will launch LTE this year in only its PCS 1900 MHz spectrum. So, do not expect anything beyond CDMA1X Advanced and/or EV-DO Rev B in SMR 800 MHz spectrum until at least 2013. The interview also seems to suggest that initial Sprint LTE devices will be LTE 1900 only, though that point is somewhat vague. But future support for LTE 800 and/or TD-LTE 2500-2600 in the first go round of Sprint LTE devices may be doubtful.

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 28 January 2012

pyroscott, an interesting companion to this thread would be the obvious "Where would Sprint be today if it had not merged with Nextel?"

Many seem to feel that the Nextel merger and its negative fallout caused Sprint to miss a prime link up opportunity with Alltel (after Alltel had solidified itself as the rural roaming carrier with its 2005 acquisition of WWC). Had Sprint been able to hook up with Alltel, then both VZW and AT&T (because of the WWC GSM roamer network) would have had to come to Sprint for roaming agreements, giving Sprint an advantageous negotiating position that is has rarely had. And, anecdotally, some say that Alltel CEO Scott Ford was practically begging then Sprint CEO Gary Forsee to make an offer before private equity first, then VZW second came in and took Alltel off the market.

Care to start another thread? Or keep the discussion here?

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 28 January 2012

Robert, hindsight is always 20/20, of course. But if Sprint had fully known earlier to what extent 800 MHz reconfiguration was going to be such an albatross and how ungrateful Nextel subs would unfairly blame Sprint for all ills and defect en masse, then Sprint should have just shut down iDEN within two years of the closing of the merger. Sprint could have given the iDEN subs an ultimatum (since most of them ended up leaving anyway) and used the iDEN retirement by 2008 as a means to expedite the 800 MHz rebanding process, followed quickly by a CDMA band class 10 roll out. Had Sprint done all of above, we could have had CDMA1X 800 overlay on the national network by 2010.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 27 January 2012

My guess is that VZW would have been enticed by Nextel's then strong class of business users plus PTT technology and acquired Nextel not long after Sprint did, say by 2006. In fact, though I can now find little support for this, so it may be just a figment of my memory, I recall hearing rumors circa 2004 that VZW was readying a bid for either Nextel or Sprint. Hence, Sprint had to beat VZW to the punch because 1) Sprint wanted to acquire Nextel and 2) Sprint feared for its own independence.

Regardless, I strongly believe that Nextel would not have remained a standalone carrier for very long. No WiDEN, FLASH-OFDM, nor 6:1 vocoder was going to be enough to solve Nextel's coming 800 MHz reconfiguration, capacity, coverage, and obsolescence issues. Those problems were already baked into Nextel when Sprint arrived. Unfortunately, most subscribers were unaware of the impending storm. And, in classic post hoc fallacy fashion, they blamed Sprint for everything bad that happened to Nextel and iDEN after the merger. For that reason, I have long thought of many (but not all) Nextel subs as a bunch of ingrates who did not understand that Sprint tried to throw them a lifeline to get off their sinking ship. That so many Nextel subs, largely out of spite, have since churned from Sprint without realizing that it was really their former Nextel leadership and their beloved iDEN technology that put Nextel on the path to ruin, well, that is just sad.

AJ

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 28 January 2012

If the two options for Sprint were 1) to use its BRS 2500-2600 MHz spectrum (as the FCC merger consent required) and WiMAX was the only viable option at the time or 2) to hold out for LTE (or UMB) and risk having its BRS licenses terminated, then, yes, WiMAX was not only a good decision but also the right one.

AJ