iansltx

Was thinking the same thing. If they gave a new-customer-price upgrade every year or less (say, an upgrade credit every 8-10 months) to users of the $110 plan, I could see myself shelling out the dough for it.

Also, to be clear, Sprint has a little over 39k CDMA sites (growing slightly on a monthly basis), not 38k. I'm just a bit taken aback by the number of T-Mobile sites that will be sitting on AWS HSPA+ or worse for the foreseeable future. 14k sites...some of which are doubtless deployed for capacity and not just coverage. It's not immediately clear how many of those 14k still have H+, and aren't going LTE due to lack of AWS spectrum, and how many are EDGE or worse with no recourse.

Remember that MetroPCS was for the longest time (still is in some cases I think) 1x + LTE, not 1x + EvDo + LTE. They don't have much spectrum to work with.

My guess on why T-Mobile has more sites than Sprint for a smaller coverage footprint (it *is* smaller in square miles) is that they have a denser network. Remember that in some areas (e.g. NYC) T-Mobile was spectrum-constrained on the PCS side for years, particularly with GSM reuse patterns. To get the capacity they needed, rather than whining about more spectrum availability, they just built more sites. In my area of town, T-Mobile's site map looks closer to Clearwire's than Sprint's, despite RF propagation being comparable to (or slightly less than with AWS) Sprint. MetroPCS was in a similar situation. Even fewer markets than T-Mobile, but probably even denser, because any given site didn't have a ton of capacity (not much spectrum in many areas). And the average MetroPCS and T-Mobile customer used (at one time) more voice (higher capacity requirement) due to things like the 1000 minute, $40 plan that T-Mobile had back in '06 or so, or unlimited voice on MetroPCS. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if CricKet has similarly high site densities in the markets it serves.

Alltel, not Verizon. Alltel's agreement is more permissive...reciprocal roaming that includes 3G data. I'm sure Verizon roaming will stick around as long as Verizon has a 1x network to roam on.

Have a good (well-deserved) vacation! Make sure to turn on your Nexus 4 every once in awhile; 10x10 LTE (which is live in at least some parts of the Denver metro...personal experience) is fun while we wait for 20MHz TD

Areas that are WiMAX-only right now will, I'm sure, get TD-LTE turned on before WiMAX is phased out. Which means that tri-band LTE phones will be out in force...as will at least PCS LTE...in those areas by the time WiMAX phones get relegated to 3G-only (which itself will be improved due to NV; wouldn't be surprised to see 1.5/800).

Hopefully Sprint ends up with a competitor to Jump/Edge/Next that looks more like Jump than Next. I don't mind paying money up front for a new phone, but it would really be nice to roll that into insurance (and yes, that would mean that I'd get the early upgrade program for no more than I'm currently paying). Upgrade Now is the same sort of thing, but you get a bit of a raw deal on trading in phones under the current buyback model. My S III would net me $100 or so...before the early upgrade charge. Though I suppose the net cost at this point would be $125 plus the cost of the new phone, so the same $10/mo over a year that T-Mobile is charging for Jump. Except I have to pay on top of that for insurance.

In memory... "Please wait while the Nextel subscriber you are trying to reach is located..."

Just tweeted at Ting asking whether I could get a tri-band MiFi by buying outright and activate it on them via BYOSD. I won't do this until I see LTE in SMR active near where I am, but my guess is that that will happen before tri-band phones are available (otherwise I'd just do a full-price buy-up to a tri-band phone).

Yes, it's useful. One of the other forum folks can chime in as to what it all means, but you're showing similar information to what's available in Engineering Mode on some Android phones. Looks like you have a poor 1x voice signal in the PCS band (band 1) from the screenshots though.

If you're okay with no roaming, Voyager Mobile might work for you. Or Ting if you don't mind limited data. Otherwise you'll need to sign a contract unfortunately. But yeah, particularly with the enhancements Sprint is making, I don't mind signing a contract...the only downside is delayed reduced-price phone upgrades (I wish something existed now that mirrored SunCom's old $5/mo or whatever phone discount).

I agree. Though more than 50 MHz of AWS or 50-60 MHz of PCS should probably be divested.

I decided to do an analysis of a market near and dear to me: San Antonio. Currently... AT&T has both Cellular licenses, 5x5 of PCS, and what looks to be no AWS; I'm guessing the duplicate 1735-1740 license goes to T-Mobile in this case. Plus 12x12+6 of 700. So, discounting unpaired 700, 84MHz of spectrum they can use right now. Verizon has 15x15 of contiguous PCS, plus its usual 700MHz license, plus 10x10 of SpectrumCo AWS. Sprint has 15x15 of contiguous PCS, though this PCS isn't contiguous with the G block. They also have BRS/EBS, but I don't feel like doing those calcs. T-Mobile has 10x10 + 5x5 of PCS, with no hope of getting that contiguous through reasonable spectrum swaps. They also have 10x10 + 10x10 of AWS. CricKet has 10x10 of PCS (5x5 ex-Pocket Communications, who itself bought it from AT&T Wireless...I mentioned on StopTheCap that this was a divestiture requirement of AT&T + Cingular but it might have just been AT&TWS selling spectrum to keep afloat back when you didn't need tons of spectrum to be viable), plus 5x5 of AWS. I don't think they actually deployed 5x5 LTE on that spectrum...and I'm not sure how to use my Optimus Regard to check...but overall not a bad position. Aloha, a spectrum speculator of some sort, has 10x10 of AWS below Verizon's block. So, if AT&T is unscathed by divestiture requirements in San Antonio, they'll end up with 10x10 + 5x5 of PCS and 5x5 of AWS. A spectrum swap apiece in PCS and AWS would give AT&T 15x15 contiguous in PCS while boosting T-Mobile to 20x20 contiguous in AWS, without any other contiguity changes. On the PCS side, T-Mobile would swap its 1895-1900 uplink PCS disaggregation for AT&T's 1885-1890 block, re-aggregating the 1895-1910 block. On the AWS side, AT&T's new 1740-1745 block would get swapped for T-Mobile's 1730-1735 one. Since AT&T owns so much CLR spectrum in San Antonio, they could then choose to run all non-LTE operations in CLR without any fear of capacity issues (since they're pretty much doing that right now), and hit a 15x15 FD-LTE channel in PCS (which devices like the iPhone support). And they'd still have AWS to add a little bit of capacity for devices with AT&T's initial 4 + 17 LTE band support. And of course that would mean that T-Mobile could continue to run DC-HSPA+ in PCS, and eventually hit 20x20 FD-LTE in San Antonio, with a smooth transition from 10x10 to 15x15 to 20x20 as their subscriber base gets phones that support LTE in AWS and/or HSPA+ in PCS. And in the mean while, GSM will sit on TMo's lonesome 5x5 PCS block for as long as it needs to. As a side note, I expect Verizon to buy up Aloha's AWS license to San Antonio within a year or two, allowing them to run 20x20 FD-LTE in town potentially before T-Mobile does, and almost certainly before AT&T hits 15x15 in PCS. But not before Sprint launches TD-LTE in BRS/EBS, considering that carrier's market share in SA, how far NV has come there, and how much the area is blanketed by Clear WiMAX.

I'm on SERO-P with my S III. I didn't have to pay any more (though it did require a plan code change) to go from my Epic, though insurance rates went up. If Sprint decides to make a break point on SERO-P, it'll be with tri-band phones. Not the S 4.

Let's go over some facts: 1. I'm opposed to this acquisition. Mostly. But... 2. AT&T on the LTE side synergizes with CricKet, because CricKet has a fair amount of AWS spectrum. AT&T needs that AWS spectrum to make putting LTE in AWS worthwhile. AT&T needs LTE in AWS because their 700MHz holdings are, unlike Verizon, not nationwide. 3. CricKet LTE phones support PCS and AWS bands. Probably PCS A-F though. So you don't necessarily need to keep CricKet's AWS network running if you're Sprint and you buy them. Though you would need to add an LTE carrier below PCS G (not too difficult) to shut things down. The CricKet purchase by AT&T goes to the almost exact same tune as T-Metro. Except AT&T doesn't need a way to make its stock public, and network synergies aren't nearly as much there. The 2G/3G tech is incompatible, but all AT&T has to do is rebrand its AiO service (or push people to AiO) and people will leave CDMA for WCDMA phones pretty quickly. The 4G tech is compatible...all AT&T LTE phones support band 4, but no CricKet phones support 700MHz of any kind. And AT&T doesn't have much AWS LTE at this point. Which means that CricKet LTE will stick around, unchanged, for awhile. So...maybe there's less network synergy than I thought. We aren't talking Nextel here, but at this point on AT&T's side it's not too far away. And, no matter what, CricKet LTE phones will have less coverage than AT&T LTE phones on the merged network. If I were AT&T, despite all of the above, I'd deploy AWS LTE on every site I could within the CricKet market in advance of the transaction being approved. Or PCS LTE, since some of my phones support that. And then bite the bullet and pay MVNO rates to Sprint or Verizon in exchange for shutting down the CDMA network earlier, because I need the spectrum worse than T-Mobile does. All that said, I hope that, at least, the transaction gets slapped with a requirement that AT&T sell off much/most/all of CricKet's PCS spectrum. CricKet has enough AWS to still make the transaction worth AT&T's while, and AT&T can sell the PCS on the condition that the buyer continue to operate a CDMA network in the band (though maybe not that block) to they can get legacy CricKet roaming for free (again, so they can shut down CricKet's network sooner). One thing's for sure: this transaction, even if it's relatively small, shouldn't be allowed to just pass through because it's just strengthening the trending-toward-duopoly in US wireless. So let's say the deal doesn't go through. CricKet will immediately look for Sprint, T-Mobile or Verizon to pick it up. Verizon doesn't really want CricKet, so they're out...probably. T-Mobile wants CricKet, but probably can't afford the price at this point, though they've certainly got the ability to migrate customers (they're doing it already with MetroPCS). But the concentration of spectrum at that point might cause some FCC consternation...maybe a PCS selloff to Sprint would be in order. Sprint, as I've mentioned before, could buy CricKet, spin off its AWS spectrum to T-Mobile, add an LTE carrier in PCS A-F in CricKet markets, then take CricKet's network offline market by market in favor of Sprint native with a PRL change or two. They might have to wait a year or two before there's 5x5 available for LTE in PCS A-F in some markets if CricKet is AWS-only in those markets (e.g. Las Vegas and Chicago), and they may also need to wait until their network is broadcasting more LTE than CricKet's, but even with those caveats Sprint could probably shut down CricKet's own network and sell off the AWS in a shorter time frame than T-Mobile will take to digest MetroPCS. Also, the point about AT&T trading Sprint's WCS for PCS is quite valid. Sprint doesn't have enough scale to realistically deploy something there, but AT&T does. Sprint needs all the PCS it can get, and AT&T doesn't quite as much. So maybe that's how a forced PCS divestiture goes if AT&T goes through with the transaction. Lastly, mark my words, Sprint and T-Mobile will be one company three to five years from now. Probably including C-Spire, probably not including Ntelos (to Verizon), probably including part but not all of US Cellular (the rest will go to Verizon or maybe AT&T). Adding one LTE band to a phone (and that's all that would need to be done to gain network compatibility) isn't a big deal. Though at that point...God forbid...all three big carriers would have LTE on PCS and AWS, meaning that they'd look downright silly if they didn't allow roaming on each other's LTE networks.

Just to throw this out there, it sounds like Sprint reserves the right to throttle video streaming etc. to 1 Mbps. They don't guarantee that stuff will be throttled. So maybe if you're on a BRS cell...or a less-congested PCS one...you've actually got nothing to worry about.

Wow, that is a bit disingenuous. I wonder how much T-Mobile paid Verizon to borrow that 10x10 swath for the length of the presentation and then some. What's funny is that you won't hear T-Mobile taking on Verizon directly in so many cases because, well, they got a nice chunk of spectrum from that carrier.

Maybe Sprint has had a better time at getting roaming deals than T-Mobile? Which by the way can't leverage its MetroPCS base for better roaming deals, because those deals are all on CDMA. I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T, despite the mandated roaming agreement with T-Mobile post-merger-breakup, still charges the carrier plenty per minute, SMS and MB, such that prematurely terminating below-3G site licenses in rural areas in favor of roaming agreements wouldn't be a cash-positive move. Plus, if you're roaming on AT&T you're probably using AMR-NB Half Rate, which sounds atrocious. Whereas T-Mobile uses Full Rate on its network, which is why it sounds better than AT&T, generally speaking.

Re: band 12, keep in mind that there's not a ton of spectrum there to play with, when you consider that AT&T has 6-12 MHz on uplink and downlink in most markets. So you end up with a patchy bunch of 5x5 channels, which isn't horrible, but you could do better in 600MHz. More on point, Sprint's plan optimizer tool is down in anticipation of the new plans, which are mentioned by name in the status message. It says it'll be back up on the 17th. I think we've got a go date for when things are definitely live, if we didn't already.