WiWavelength

Okay, I am not trying to criticize you, just to curb your enthusiasm. I appreciate your curiosity. Keep in mind that I am the tech editor here at S4GRU. I am as curious about the wireless industry as anyone and have been for about 15 years. But band 41 carrier aggregation, right now, is more of a novelty than anything else. Even in markets where 2x CA has been deployed, it is not on all sites. So, do not feel like Cleveland has been left in the dark ages. And we will spare the Cleveland jokes/videos in this post... AJ

Easy there, fella. Right now, carrier aggregation is more about winning RootMetrics awards than it is about actual usability. Carrier aggregation or not, a single band 41 carrier is perfectly usable. And I am sorry to break the news to you, but your Nexus 6 will never get an update to support carrier aggregation on Sprint. It does not have the requisite RF transceiver and baseband hardware. AJ

No, they are not bad. They are what I would call average. I just doubt that the 2015 Moto X will live up to the RF performance standards set by the 2014 Moto X and the Nexus 6. Keep in mind that 2-3 dB differences may not seem like a lot, but if you look at the figures in mW instead, the differences become apparent. For example, 20 dBm is 100 mW, while 23 dBm is 200 mW. AJ

Folks, I can appreciate running a few speed tests because 2x CA is a novelty right now. But do not be running numerous speed tests in attempt to get those super cool, bragging rights speed test results. That is just e-penis wanking, wasting available data capacity. And any speed test result proves nothing. If you want to know for certain that 2x CA is active, access the engineering screen. That is the definitive proof. AJ

You asked for a comparison -- you got it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EVoM9I5cC0kFucQZ_H2YF22EBZX4fzQOmLm50QokRg8/edit?usp=sharing AJ

Counterpoints: the $350 2013 Nexus 5 and $400 2015 Moto X. AJ

Yeah, that possibility crossed my mind, too. Fortunately, we will know for certain at some point. Since the 2015 Moto X is operator agnostic and exclusively sold unlocked, AnandTech surely will do an extensive review, including a breakdown of the RF components. In the meantime, staff here is working on putting together a side by side comparison of the FCC OET RF testing figures for the 2015 Moto X, Nexus 6, and 2014 Moto X. AJ

I doubt that will happen much -- for several reasons. The PCS C block is highly fragmented. It started as the PCS C 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) block, but as it was aimed at small businesses, many ended up with licenses that they could not afford. So, in an amnesty program, many licensees returned some/all of their spectrum to the FCC. When the PCS C block was resold, it was as the PCS C1/2 15 MHz (7.5 MHz FDD) blocks or PCS C3/4/5 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) blocks. The only spectrum contiguous to the PCS G block, then, would be the PCS C1 or C5 blocks. Sprint would have to find willing trading partners specific to those blocks. Additionally, the combination of the PCS C1 + PCS G block would result in an awkward amount of contiguous spectrum: 25 MHz (12.5 MHz FDD). I suppose, though, the excess could be used for a couple of CDMA2000 carriers. But the real sticking point is why other operators should swap PCS spectrum places with Sprint. The other primary PCS spectrum holders would be AT&T, T-Mobile, and VZW -- in that order. Unless Sprint can offer trades mutually beneficial to them, they are not going to be altruistic and help Sprint. And any reciprocal swaps likely would entail Sprint disaggregating its PCS A/B 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) block licenses. Thus, the LTE future of those licenses would be cut down from 15 MHz FDD to 5-10 MHz FDD after CDMA2000 shutdown. Sprint has to think about that future, too. In the end, as the PCS G block is mostly isolated, I would not be surprised if Sprint is not a buyer but a seller. A few years from now, once band 26 rebanding issues are sorted out everywhere, additional band 25 carriers are deployed in all markets, and band 41 is more mature, I would not be shocked to see Sprint sell off the PCS G block to Dish -- or whatever operator actually ends up deploying the adjacent PCS/AWS-2 H block. AJ

Every Sprint LTE device from the beginning has been at least Category 3, so any 5 MHz FDD bandwidth limitation was not hardware related. Instead, the firmware did not allow bandwidths other than 5 MHz FDD and/or the FCC authorization lab did not test bandwidths other than 5 MHz FDD. AJ

Possible but not probable right now. In those other markets where Sprint holds the adjacent PCS C5 block, it does not hold as much other spectrum in which to redeploy a 5 MHz FDD carrier. AJ

Never? Poppycock. Maybe, maybe not. VZW's PCS holdings are the least important of its entire spectrum portfolio. Across most markets, VZW has around 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) of PCS. Not that much. Mostly in exceptional markets -- New York, Dallas, Miami, etc. -- where it holds no Cellular spectrum or has accumulated significant PCS capacity spectrum does VZW have great swaths of contiguous PCS spectrum that are truly valuable for LTE. AJ

If you are not always looking at the phone while you are driving, then you are not a real wireless nerd. AJ

This may also require less, if any reprogramming in terms of load balancing, since the primary carrier remains the same GCIs -- just expanded to 10 MHz FDD. AJ

Soon™. AJ

That is a very good question. The spectrum was available, as Sprint holds the upper two thirds of the PCS C block plus the adjacent PCS G block. And, notably, 15 MHz FDD is in the realm of possibilities for the future. But my understanding from the Columbus tracking group is that the GCI of the 10 MHz FDD carrier is the same as that of the previous 5 MHz FDD carrier. And that may have been the intent. Moving it completely would have required a new GCI. AJ

Do not be too hard on the Beaver, Ward. He is only a boy. And he is a genius! AJ

Any of the additional Sprint LTE 1900 carriers fully outside of the PCS G block could use MFBI for band 2. Yes. But it may not happen. AJ

You have a Samsung handset. Just use its generic, non Sprint specific engineering screen: *#0011#. EARFCNs and carrier bandwidth right there. AJ

The ridiculously large direction things are headed, that "included" TV is the same device. It is a 24 in screen that also doubles as a phone. AJ

No Bolivia! Where is Bolivia? Marcelo demands Bolivia! Club Bolívar! AJ

The simple answer is no. In 3GPP2, the PCS G block requires band class 14, while the PCS A-F blocks require only band class 1. We saw at least trace support for band class 14 in some of the WiMAX handsets. Maybe Sprint was leaning that direction if WiMAX became its future. However, I am not sure that there was ever any actual FCC OET authorization of band class 14 on Sprint handsets. To my knowledge, Public Mobile in Canada was the only operator ever to deploy a band class 14 network. And while Public Mobile still exists as a brand under the Telus umbrella, that band class 14 network is now defunct. AJ

Basically, all Sprint LTE devices. They were never limited to just the PCS G block -- they covered all of band 25. As stated in the article, a Class II Permissive Change filing may be required for some older single band devices. But all tri band devices going back almost two years now have been 10 MHz FDD capable from the beginning. AJ

Thank you, Columbus area members. We could not have written the article without your valued work and contributions. AJ

Not Spook Peterson. His shorts do not even cover his nuggets. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/dirtball-burnout-convention/2860908 AJ

Yes. It is the PCS C block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) license. But thoughts of refarming it to "wideband" LTE are years off. All GSM and W-CDMA operations will have to be eliminated. It is the same as saying that across most of the country where Sprint holds a PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) license, Sprint can convert it to "wideband" LTE. True, but nobody is talking about that -- because it is not relevant until CDMA2000 is shut down. AJ