WiWavelength

"Samsung Galaxy Note shows up on Sprint website" http://www.mobilebloom.com/samsung-galaxy-note-shows-up-on-sprint-website/2212496/ AJ

I am puzzled. How did you determine that the consensus was negative? The article states that the EVO 4G LTE supports SVDO. And the table four posts above yours lists all of the simultaneous transmission possibilities. AJ

Actually, neither "needs" AWS 2100+1700 MHz capability. VZW currently holds AWS across only the eastern half of the US and will wait for the SpectrumCo-Cox AWS transaction to shake out before VZW does anything in AWS. And AT&T, while it has released all of its LTE devices thus far with AWS, quite possibly will never deploy anything in AWS. AT&T's AWS holdings have always been overstated. Now, after assigning much of that AWS to T-Mobile as part of the merger break up fee, AT&T has downright little AWS left in the top markets. See my graph: AJ

A 3 MHz x 7 MHz configuration? No, not really. You may be confusing a 10 MHz FDD license with just a 10 MHz single block of spectrum. In actuality, it is 5 MHz x 5 MHz -- uplink and downlink -- separated by an offset. That figure likely comes from comparing LTE 64-QAM (6 bits/symbol) to EV-DO 16-QAM (4 bits/symbol) and LTE 8x8 MIMO to EV-DO SISO on a Hz per Hz basis. Do the math: 6 ÷ 4 = 1.5 and 8 ÷ 1 = 8, then 1.5 × 8 = 12. But that is a highly optimistic comparison; real world performance will not even approach that 12:1 ratio because 64-QAM is usable under only the best radio conditions and 8x8 MIMO will not be available in very many devices ever. A more realistic comparison is LTE 16-QAM to EV-DO 16-QAM, LTE 2x2 MIMO to EV-DO SISO, and LTE 5 MHz to EV-DO 1.25 MHz. Again, do the math: 4 ÷ 4 = 1 and 2 ÷ 1 = 2 and 5 ÷ 1.25 = 4, then 1 × 2 × 4 = 8. That equates to an 8:1 ratio in favor of LTE, but note that LTE requires fours times the bandwidth to achieve that advantage. So, the real spectral efficiency advance for LTE comes largely from multiple spatial channels, ergo MIMO. AJ

Nope. You cannot overlook the size difference. The iPad is a 9.7 in tablet -- not an apt parallel for the iPhone. For example, that a Toyota Tundra can easily tow a boat does not mean that a Toyota Prius can easily tow a boat. AJ

Josh, how will adding LTE capability to the iPhone be "easy"? An LTE iPhone will have to retain all of the GSM/W-CDMA/CDMA1X/EV-DO connectivity of the iPhone 4S plus add 2x2 MIMO LTE 750 antennas for VZW and/or 2x2 MIMO LTE 700/2100+1700 antennas for AT&T. Even if Apple does two LTE models, a la the "new" iPad, it must do so in a phone approximately one seventh the volume of the iPad. Again, how is that "easy"? As for Sprint iPhone LTE compatibility, I would wager a guess that it will be limited to LTE 1900. And, if the iPhone 4S is any indication, it also will not support CDMA1X 800. And that could be a good thing, as it would confine the throngs of iPhonerds to CDMA1X/EV-DO/LTE 1900, leaving more CDMA1X/LTE 800 and/or TD-LTE 2600 capacity free for other users. AJ

Instant oatmeal is a good way to microwave fiber. AJ

Sgt., I do not keep up with standards ratification and equipment availability as much as I should. But, as far as I know, LTE Advanced is not yet ready for prime time. So, LTE Advanced was not an option -- at least, not at the start of the Network Vision sweep, much like LTE was not an option at the start of the WiMAX deployment. On my soapbox, I think that infrastructure vendors stagger their R&D with planned obsolescence in mind. Why sell wireless carriers LTE Advanced directly when they can sell them LTE first, then sell them LTE Advanced a year or two later? Planned obsolescence is one of the most despicable aspects of tech industry capitalism. I believe that is true, but only to a certain extent. So, do not get carried away. For example, Network Vision is a complete overhaul of antennas, base stations, and backhaul. An LTE Advanced sweep, on the other hand, will be a modest evolutionary update, not a revolutionary change. Because, other than carrier aggregation, the biggest changes from LTE to LTE Advanced are on the uplink, so that falls more so on the device manufacturers. AJ

"Deploy" could mean some updates to base station infrastructure. I do not know, as I am not certain that current Sprint LTE hardware supports greater than 2x2 downlink MIMO. Even if an infrastructure upgrade is necessary, there would be little reason to install the hardware for 4x4 downlink MIMO now because only LTE UE category 5 (see table below) devices can take advantage of 4x4 downlink MIMO. But, to my knowledge, all LTE devices thus far have been category 2 (Motorola) or category 3 (most/all other OEMs). So, category 5 devices may not hit the market anytime soon. Furthermore, Sprint's roll out of 4x4 downlink MIMO appears to coincide with its roll out of LTE Advanced; hence, an infrastructure upgrade will be required either way. AJ

No, CDMA1X Advanced is not required for HD Voice, which is technically the EVRC-NW codec. EVRC-NW has greater frequency response, but stronger data compression techniques keep its max voice data rate at the same 8.55 kbps as the current EVRC codec. AJ

The simple answer is that 4x4 MIMO requires four downlink antennas. Some larger handsets may eventually be able to accommodate 4x4 MIMO, especially for higher frequency bands. But, more likely, 4x4 and 8x8 MIMO will be largely limited to tablets and laptops, which have much better form factor for multiple, spaced antennas. AJ

Here is the extracted chart: AJ

Yes, Sgt., that chart in the SAR application is where I found the SVDO revelation. I have extracted the chart for reference: AJ

For what Sprint and Clearwire have planned, TD-LTE 2600 site spacing will not matter. The idea is to deploy TD-LTE 2600 "hotspots" in high Erlang (to use a rather outdated term) cells. TD-LTE 2600, where available, will take offload traffic from LTE 1900/800 but will not need to provide contiguous coverage. AJ

Nate, I was hopeful that someone would post that ERP comparison data because it is ripe for discussion (and it saves me some of the work of doing so myself). That said, you posted Cellular 850 MHz ERP figures. (CEL 0384, 0777, and 1013 are all common CDMA1X/EV-DO 850 carrier channel assignments.) Cellular 850 MHz is not particularly illustrative, as the average EVO 4G LTE will spend relatively little of its life roaming on Cellular 850 MHz. If instead we compare PCS 1900 MHz ERP, the original EVO 4G has max ERP of 25.0 dBm (CDMA1X) and 24.9 dBm (EV-DO), while the corresponding figures for the EVO 4G LTE are 22.98 dBm (CDMA1X) and 18.44 dBm (EV-DO). The EV-DO 1900 ERP difference, in particular, is massive. For CDMA1X, EV-DO, W-CDMA, and HSPA mobile uplinks, I generally consider 23 dBm ERP to be standard, <23 dBm to be low, and >23 dBm to be high. In this case, the EVO 4G LTE falls into the low ERP category in all but CDMA1X 1900. In the next day or so, I will follow up with more ERP comparison data from other devices. AJ

For an example of how/where Sprint might (and I do stress might) deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE, see Seattle in this still in progress PCS license chart: https://docs.google....ZTdhYjdWZk9oLUE Note how the 5 MHz x 5 MHz of the PCS C5 block and the 5 MHz x 5 MHz of the PCS G block form a contiguous 10 MHz x 10 MHz block. AJ

That is generally but not entirely true. Obviously, Sprint is deploying a 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE carrier in its PCS G block 10 MHz licenses. And, in markets where Sprint has sufficient spare spectrum or is able to clear enough spectrum for a second LTE carrier in PCS A-F block spectrum, Sprint will still most likely deploy another 5 MHz x 5 MHz carrier. Two 5 MHz x 5 MHz carriers, for example, will each have half the peak data throughput capability of a 10 MHz x 10 MHz carrier. Together, however, they will have the same aggregate data throughput capability as the twice as large single carrier. That said, in some markets, Sprint also holds the PCS C5 block 10 MHz license directly adjacent to its PCS G block 10 MHz license. In at least those markets, Sprint could potentially skip 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE and go directly to 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE. In one of my first pieces for S4GRU, I wrote about the availability of spectrum for additional LTE carriers. See this spreadsheet in this article: http://s4gru.com/ind...l-lte-carriers/ AJ

No, not through LTE Advanced spectrum aggregation. The EVO 4G LTE is not an LTE Advanced ready device. AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Thursday, April 12, 2012 - 2:55 PM MDT A few weeks ago, S4GRU was the first to bring you the news of the HTC codenamed "Jet" that was recently unveiled as the HTC EVO 4G LTE headed to Sprint this summer. Today, the EVO 4G LTE applications hit the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) database. S4GRU brings you the technical rundown, including some important revelations. CDMA1X + EV-DO band classes 0, 1, 10 (i.e. CDMA1X + EV-DO 850/1900/800) LTE band class 25 (i.e. LTE 1900; PCS A-G blocks) LTE 5 MHz and 10 MHz channel bandwidths 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: 20.43 dBm (CDMA1X 850), 18.74 dBm (EV-DO 850), 22.98 dBm (CDMA1X 1900), 18.44 dBm (EV-DO 1900), 20.01 dBm (CDMA1X 800), 18.75 dBm (EV-DO 800), 19.85 dBm (LTE 1900) Antenna gain: -2 dBi (CDMA1X 850/1900/800), -3.5 dBi (EV-DO 850/1900/800 and LTE 1900) LTE antenna configuration 1x2 (i.e. 2x2 downlink MIMO) Prima facie analysis, no LTE 800 nor TD-LTE 2600 support comes as no surprise. But SVDO is a nice perk, as internal Sprint documents had not indicated its inclusion. Furthermore, SVDO/SVLTE plus simultaneous Wi-Fi tether capability really covers all of the connectivity bases. Most disappointing, however, is the rather low ERP output. While the EVO 4G LTE has a plethora of radio capabilities, it does not look to be a stellar RF performer, perhaps the consequence of the aluminum unibody in place of the polycarbonate unibody used in the more direct members of the HTC One X family of handsets. Source: FCC

I have long thought that the FCC needs a Spectrum Czar -- namely, me. AJ

Sgt., this is not aimed directly at you, though I certainly do want to attend to some of your honest concerns. More so, however, I want to address this to all S4GRU participants so that we can all come to a greater respect for both sides of the content creation/consumption relationship. Robert, the other contributors, and I work numerous hours researching, writing, and now even gathering data in the field. We do it for no pay. In fact, some of us do it for a net monetary loss. I know that Robert has reached into his own pocket to bring S4GRU to everyone, and I plunked down $1700 for a spectrum analyzer in large part for the advantages that it would give S4GRU in field research. So, we the contributors certainly do not do this for the money. Rather, we do this for elucidation and enjoyment -- both yours and ours. With that in mind, please forgive if we occasionally try to build some intrigue and anticipation -- yes, you can even call it a tongue in cheek "tease" -- for our hard work yet to come. That said, I want to propose an idea, something of a compromise. Interspersed among the usual feature length articles, would you appreciate shorter, paragraph length articles that Robert, the other contributors, and I could write more readily and post to The Wall more frequently? For example, the removable SIM card roll out is little more than a bullet point within a date range on the Network Vision Roadmap. Right now, that is about all that we know -- not enough to warrant a full length article. But such could be worked into a paragraph length article about how removable SIM cards should be coming but not in the initial LTE handsets. Robert, Sgt., and all other interested or involved parties, what are your thoughts? (And, moderators, if you want to move this to a more topical thread, feel free to do so.) AJ

No need for anyone to get angry. I have a few rational thoughts to offer on both sides of the equation. But give me 30 minutes or so to formulate them. AJ

Robert and I also know when Sprint plans to deploy a second 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE carrier in PCS A-F block spectrum and to roll out handsets with removable SIMs... AJ

I can find no real world basis for the frequent claim that EV-DO "requires" Rx diversity. If anything, I find more evidence for the contrary. Take the Samsung Illusion, for example, a plain Jane EV-DO 850/1900 handset on VZW. See the antenna block diagram (from the FCC OET filing): Now, unless the Samsung Illusion incorporates Rx diversity within that ~20mm x ~20mm single WWAN Tx/Rx antenna array, then EV-DO seemingly cannot "require" Rx diversity. AJ

irev, in this and your aforementioned previous post, you seem to confuse bands with modes. Cellular 850 MHz, GSM 900 MHz, DCS 1800 MHz, and PCS 1900 MHz are four bands. Band wise, the GSM and W-CDMA distinctions are irrelevant; those airlinks represent only separate modes. So, just four bands are needed to cover the GSM and W-CDMA modes. As for LTE, Lower 700 MHz and AWS 2100+1700 MHz are separate bands. Also, "2100" may indicate IMT 2100+1900 MHz as an additional supported band. While all three are indeed separate bands, they may not, for example, require as many additional antennas (or antenna capabilities) as meets the eye. Lower 700 MHz, yes, requires its own compatible antennas. However, AWS and IMT share essentially the same downlink frequencies, hence can share the same downlink MIMO antennas. Furthermore, since LTE uplink MIMO is not apt to be a reality on handsets anytime soon, a single antenna per uplink band should suffice. AWS uplink corresponds very closely to DCS uplink, while IMT uplink corresponds very closely to PCS downlink. So, those antennas may be reused. Now, that said, all bands do require appropriate power amp modules and filters, so it is still no free lunch. But my primary point is that you inflate the number of bands. For further clarification, see the previous thread: http://s4gru.com/ind...okia-lumia-900/ AJ