WiWavelength

Sgt. that article notes that "Dragon" is merely a temporary codename. So, it does not do much to support your contention. I am not trying to pick a fight, but I am a bit perplexed by the seeming emotional attachment to the EVO name. I had detected that sentiment previously, and it is on full display now that HTC has potentially pulled the plug on branding other than One. Why do some care so much about EVO nomenclature? After all -- and I say this half glibly, half seriously -- no matter what HTC (or Sprint, for that matter) brands your device, you can still call it "EVO" if that is what you like. AJ

Our readers are largely US centric, and that is understandable for a Sprint 4G focused site. But many may not be particularly aware of wireless services and devices outside of the US. To illustrate, few may know that EVO is not exclusive to Sprint, that HTC has released at least one EVO handset in Canada (Rogers), as well as versions compatible with networks in Europe and Asia. http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_evo_3d-3901.php Now, HTC has come out and stated publicly that it wants to release fewer devices and unify worldwide branding under the One name. So, like it or not, the writing is on the wall; HTC prefers One to EVO. And the eventual HTC 4G LTE spiritual successor to the EVOs will not likely carry the EVO name. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5584/htcs-new-strategy-the-htc-one http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=9931 AJ

Using a 10.1" tablet as a phone, you could be the updated version of this guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xut__-uXG8U AJ

Yes, the legacy 1900 MHz antennas will remain mounted during a transition phase. My supposition is that -- even after the new 800/1900 MHz dual band antennas and radios have been mounted -- CDMA1X 1900 will continue to operate from the legacy 1900 MHz infrastructure during at least part of that transition phase. So, the mere presence of antenna mounted radios does not mean that you are experiencing Network Vision enhanced coverage -- yet. But I will leave it to Robert to chime in and confirm or correct my supposition. AJ

Dish's S band spectrum is fully 20 MHz x 20 MHz, but it has some adjacent services issues (though nothing remotely as bad as the LightSquared-GPS debacle). So, Dish will not likely be able to utilize the full 20 MHz in each link allocation. Moreover, Dish's band class 23 is spec'd only to 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE; it does not currently allow 15 MHz x 15 MHz nor 20 MHz x 20 MHz LTE options. AJ

Why would you say that Clearwire's wholesale business is "drying up"? It has the potential for quite a bit of growth in the near future due to the demise of LightSquared. Already, a few former LightSquared wholesale partner have shifted their contracts to Clearwire in just the past week or so. AJ

I disagree on the AWS. Recall that Sprint was a partner with Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox in SpectrumCo, which won nearly nationwide AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum at the AWS-1 auction in 2006. A few years ago, however, Sprint cashed out of the partnership. And now the cable companies are selling the spectrum to VZW. If Sprint had wanted to add AWS to its portfolio, then Sprint should have stuck with SpectrumCo. Furthermore, MetroPCS would bring more than just PCS and AWS spectrum to the table. MetroPCS also controls some Lower 700 MHz spectrum. So, those would add two more to Sprint's growing list of band classes: PCS 1900 MHz, SMR 800 MHz, BRS/EBS 2600 MHz. And, honestly, Sprint has its hands full with its current bands, two of which are essentially unique to Sprint. So, Sprint would be unwise to fragment its spectrum holdings even further. For those interested in MetroPCS' spectrum holdings, I just so happened to compile the top 100 markets a few weeks ago and produced this graph: AJ

digiblur, I think that you are taking a highly polarized, overly simplified perspective on a complicated issue. One, the incentive auctions, if they come to pass, will be entirely voluntary. Broadcasters have to opt in, not opt out. Broadcasters that do opt in may be able to make more money via auction windfall than through continued OTA operation on a dedicated channel. Two, refarming under utilized UHF spectrum is nothing new, has been successful in the past. Prior to the 1980s, Cellular 850 MHz spectrum was UHF TV channels 70-83, for example. Three, broadcasters can opt to share physical channels but operate separately as virtual channels or sub channels. Those that opt to share channels retain all of their carriage rights. Four, besides affiliates of the major networks, many UHF TV broadcasters provide little to serve the public interest; they broadcast the TV equivalent of tripe. The CW, seriously? Five, incentive auction participants will be limited to full power and class A broadcasters. The "church channel" would not be relevant. Six, many cable and satellite providers already receive their broadcast feeds not OTA but by cable or fiber optic feeds directly from the broadcast studios. So, you are condemning incentive auctions based on highly incomplete information. Nothing is quite as black and white as you put it. Keep an open mind. That said, incentive auctions are still controversial -- both for broadcasters and potential wireless licensees alike. Broadcasters may fail to participate, freeing up little or no additional spectrum. Or if the incentive auctions are successful, that available spectrum may create even more band class fragmentation and likely consolidate even more bandwidth in the hands of VZW and AT&T. AJ

I have proposed that wireless carriers create an incentive system to encourage subs to offload heavy data usage to Wi-Fi. Carriers could maintain current unlimited or tiered data options and prices but offer data usage rebates to those subs who would keep their WWAN (e.g. LTE, WiMAX, W-CDMA, EV-DO) data usage below a predetermined threshold. In short, subs would pay their $30/month for data, but subs who kept their WWAN usage under, for example, 1 GB would get $5 or $10 knocked off their bills the next month. I feel very strongly that, because WWAN data is a shared resource, people need to take responsibility for their WWAN usage. Continuous audio/video streaming, heavy downloading/uploading, etc., over WWAN is not okay. And throwing more and more spectrum at the "crunch" is not the answer, as that just leads to even greater band class fragmentation, carrier compartmentalization, and interoperability/competition issues. So, we need to use current spectrum more efficiently, need to utilize heterogenous cellular networks -- a mix of customer and carrier deployed microcells (Wi-Fi and/or LTE, etc.) for indoor high traffic, low mobility environments to take a load off of the current macrocell network. AJ

by Andrew J. Shepherd Sprint 4G Rollout Updates Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - 4:20 PM MST While the name of the bill might seem to suggest otherwise, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 currently working its way through Congress contains several provisions that have direct bearing on the wireless industry. One, it assigns directly to public safety the Upper 700 MHz D block 10 MHz (5 MHz x 5 MHz) nationwide license—which had been intended for a public-private national network partnership but failed to reach its reserve price at FCC auction in 2008—and provides financing for the construction of a national public safety network. Two, it authorizes the FCC to conduct incentive auctions in which UHF TV broadcasters can voluntarily give up their broadcast channels in exchange for compensation so that their spectrum may be repurposed for wireless broadband. Three, it directs the FCC to auction within the next three years additional spectrum between 1600 MHz and 2200 MHz, including the creation of yet another PCS 1900 MHz block, the ostensibly named PCS "H" 10 MHz (5 MHz x 5 MHz) block. See the relevant portion of the draft bill: REALLOCATION AND AUCTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (15)(A) of section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, except as provided in paragraph (4)— (A) allocate the spectrum described in paragraph (2) for commercial use; and ( through a system of competitive bid- ding under such section, grant new initial li- censes for the use of such spectrum, subject to flexible-use service rules. (2) SPECTRUM DESCRIBED.—The spectrum de- scribed in this paragraph is the following: (A) The frequencies between 1915 mega- hertz and 1920 megahertz. ( The frequencies between 1995 mega- hertz and 2000 megahertz. Recall that, in the 800 MHz public safety reconfiguration order, Sprint (Nextel) was awarded newly created PCS G 10 MHz (5 MHz x 5 MHz) licenses nationwide to compensate for the SMR 800 MHz spectrum it gave up in the reconfiguration effort and that Sprint plans to deploy 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in its PCS G spectrum as part of the Network Vision initiative over the next two years. The PCS "H" block would be of particular interest to Sprint and to S4GRU readers because it would be adjacent to the PCS G licenses that Sprint holds nationwide. See a snapshot of the band plan (the PCS "H" block would take the place of the Proposed AWS-2 Block adjacent to the Nextel allocation): Prior to auction, the PCS "H" block would most probably be divided into geographic licenses, and any current or future wireless carrier could bid on one or all licenses. So, Sprint would not be guaranteed to win any PCS "H" spectrum. But Sprint would gain the greatest utility from PCS "H" spectrum because it could be most easily combined with Sprint's existing PCS G spectrum for 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE. Thus, consider this a brief, early look at how Sprint could likely augment its spectrum portfolio in the coming years. Sources: US House of Representatives, FCC, author's notes; special thanks to TMF Associates, Public Knowledge

Guys, keep in mind that there is a huge gap in between possibility and certainty. While the upcoming Qualcomm chipsets do make it possible to support any/many LTE band classes, that alone does not make it certain that devices will do so. Chipsets are one piece of the interoperability puzzle. In fact, they are really the easiest piece to fit because they are small and light, not to mention that adding band class capabilities does not really increase size nor power requirements. To illustrate, the iPhone 4S contains a Qualcomm chipset that fully supports T-Mobile's W-CDMA 2100+1700 (band class 4) airlink and many, many others. See this table (from Qualcomm by way of AnandTech): http://images.anandtech.com/doci/4943/zjWXE.png But, of course, the iPhone 4S as a whole does not support T-Mobile's 3G/4G W-CDMA 2100+1700 network because Apple did not follow up the chipset capability with suitable power amp modules and antenna(s). So, in order to support Sprint's LTE 1900 (band class 25) and LTE 800 (band class 18) airlinks plus Clearwire's TD-LTE 2600 (band class 41) airlink, the multi band chipsets (as I have stated previously) should be easy to source, should not be a concern. However, devices will also need to include appropriate power amps and antennas. On the last count -- antennas -- note that is plural. MIMO is basically a standard feature in LTE devices, hence Rx antenna diversity is also practically a necessity. And cramming dual Rx antennas for multiple band classes into handheld devices while keeping size/weight to a minimum seems to be the real sticking point. AJ

For those who have used or followed Sprint long enough, recall that Sprint plans originally offered no included roaming. Subs could prepay for roaming airtime bundles at reduced rates. Otherwise, all roaming calls were billed per minute (and long distance fees were charged separately). Then, circa 2004, Sprint started offering Free & Clear America plans that included domestic roaming. However, those roaming included plans (which were limited to voice roaming) upped the ante by $10 per month. So, if you want unlimited domestic voice and data roaming, the relevant question is how much more per month would you be willing to pay for it? AJ

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

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 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

I agree. But think of how many of those regional or rural carriers have already directly/indirectly succumbed to the overtures of VZW or AT&T. Alltel, Centennial, Dobson, Midwest, RCC, WWC, and many even smaller carriers -- long gone. Not that many are left, certainly not enough for Sprint to partner with and cobble together a national rural footprint. So, while SMR 800 MHz has even minutely better propagation characteristics than does Cellular 850 MHz, it lacks the 25 years of build out history of Cellular 850 MHz. VZW and AT&T have largely bought up all of that history. Thus, do not expect Sprint to improve significantly its rural footprint solely due to SMR 800 MHz conversion from iDEN to CDMA1X and/or LTE. For what I think is an apt analogy, the domestic wireless market has become like MLB would be if the Yankees and Red Sox had their way. They would face no salary cap nor luxury tax nor revenue sharing. They would sign all of the desirable free agents, would always win, and would run out of business all of the other teams in the league. So, MLB would be just the Yankees and Red Sox playing each other 162 games per season. And they would see no problem with that. AJ

Robert... With regard to spectrum, the Sprint affiliate and Rural Alliance programs operate differently. When Sprint signed up affiliates in the late 1990s to construct and manage secondary markets (e.g. your entire El Paso-Albuquerque MTA market was deeded to Alamosa PCS), spectrum licenses remained firmly in Sprint's hands. Sprint did not even lease the spectrum to affiliates; it merely inked contracts with the affiliates to use Sprint spectrum and operate under the Sprint brand. (The one exception to the above situation was and still is Swiftel. As it is a public utility in Brookings, SD, it ostensibly is legally obligated to control its own spectrum. Thus, Sprint did partition and disaggregate 10 MHz of spectrum to Swiftel.) The affiliate program proved problematic after the Nextel merger when several affiliates sued Sprint over unfair competition from the Nextel iDEN network that overlapped their affiliate markets. Because Sprint had contractually granted them access to Sprint spectrum and brand, Sprint could not just revoke those rights nor just walk away. Essentially, Sprint had little choice but to buy out those affiliates. Now, the VZW LTE in Rural America operates like the Sprint affiliate program did. Correct, VZW does retain control of the Upper 700 MHz C block spectrum but contractually allows smaller carriers access to the spectrum to build out and manage LTE overlay for their benefit and for VZW's benefit. No doubt, this will end much like the Sprint affiliate program did. Sooner or later, VZW will buy out the smaller carriers. But VZW already knows that, accepts that, even intends for that to happen. In fact, I liken the LTE in Rural America program to a VZW "trojan horse." However, I am not sure that the smaller carriers mind. They may be happy just to take a big payout from VZW. Back to the Sprint Rural Alliance, the three primary participating carriers are/were Nex-Tech, United, and Pioneer -- all three in Kansas, Colorado, and/or Oklahoma. Sprint has leased, then partitioned and disaggregated spectrum to all of them. And, until recently, everything had seemingly worked out swimmingly. Nex-Tech and United, in particular, have stellar CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900 coverage in western Kansas. Dare I say, it is even better than VZW (former Alltel) CDMA1X/EV-DO 850 and AT&T (former VZW, former RCC) GSM/W-CDMA 850 coverage in the same area because Nex-Tech and United have committed to erecting a cell site in nearly every little town with population greater than 300. Pioneer is the one of the three that has become the problem. I do not know if Pioneer contractually had the option to bail out on Sprint, if Sprint was unwilling to meet Pioneer's financial terms, or if the dissolution was a mutual decision. Regardless, Sprint's plan to help itself by helping Pioneer worked for six or seven years but has now backfired. AJ

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

I think that I can address that wonderment. Keep in mind that Sprint has previously tried numerous affiliate (e.g. Alamosa PCS, iPCS, Ubiquitel, etc.) and Rural Alliance (Nex-Tech Wireless, United Wireless, Pioneer Wireless, etc.) relationships. The partnerships were advantageous in the beginning but have become somewhat problematic over the past several years. First, at least one affiliate (iPCS) sued Sprint over the Nextel merger because it viewed Nextel iDEN as competition in its market, hence a violation of its affiliate contract. The same competition issues could arise (or could have already arisen) with Clearwire. Second, recall the recent falling out between Sprint and Pioneer -- as Pioneer defected from the Sprint Rural Alliance to the VZW LTE in Rural America program -- and AT&T speciously seized on that to slander Sprint. Sprint partitioned and disaggregated PCS 1900 MHz licenses to Pioneer in exchange for expanded footprint and a pseudo native coverage roaming agreement. Now, Pioneer gets to run off with that Sprint spectrum and go shack up with VZW (priming itself for the inevitable VZW buy out). So, the Sprint affiliate and Rural Alliance initiatives have been decidedly mixed bags. Some relationships have turned out well, others unexpected headaches for Sprint (which does not need more problems than it already has). So, you can imagine why Sprint might be reluctant to pursue further partnerships for expanding what is, honestly, exceedingly peripheral coverage. 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

SprintNYC, Network Vision has nothing to do with WiMAX. Furthermore, Sprint has relatively little to do with WiMAX. Clearwire controls WiMAX, while Sprint holds just an investment in and a wholesale agreement with Clearwire. 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

Hi Eric... It is always nice to read your comments. I, too, stayed on the call through the analysts questions at the end. While I listened in on the brief discussion about Clearwire potentially monetizing some of its excess spectrum by selling it, I did not include it in the blog because, honestly, I am not sure what to make of that possibility. The wealth of BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum that Clearwire controls is both an awesome asset and a huge headache -- the latter because BRS is licensed, while EBS is leased from educational institutions. And, believe it or not, only a minority (73.5 MHz bandwidth) of the band plan is licensed BRS; the majority (112.5 MHz) is leased EBS. View the post transition BRS/EBS band plan here: http://wireless.fcc....S-BandPlans.pdf So, could Clearwire "sell" spectrum that it is not licensed, that it has only leased? And what is to prevent another carrier (e.g. AT&T) from making a better offer right now and leasing EBS spectrum out from underneath Clearwire? I can only presume that Clearwire has wisely structured the lease contracts so that it always has the right of first refusal upon the expiration or renegotiation of an EBS lease. And I suppose that another carrier would have to buy up independently hundreds, if not thousands of leases to gain the national economy of scale that Clearwire can offer. Those are the complicating factors, the reasons why I am not sure what to think of a possible Clearwire spectrum sale. Your thoughts? AJ