iansltx

Yep, we could.

No offense taken. No sarcasm meant either. I actually composed that reply on my phone without fact-checking, but I guess my gut instinct was right I'll try and use <sarc> tags (why aren't they an HTML standard?!?) if I'm being completely ridiculous.

Didn't realize GPS was spread over a wide bandwidth. Silly me.

To put things another way/explain the RSSI difference, we're gonna need some calculus. Fortunately it's calc 1 RSSI is the integral of signal strength over the entire bandwidth of whatever you're receiving. Signal strength is measured in dBm, which is a logarithmic scale (2x the signal is 3db more, 4x is 6db more, 8x is 9db more, 10x is 10db more, 100x is 20db more). So,, all else equal, a 5MHz wide signal will have 4x (6db) more RSSI than a 1.25MHz wide signal. As an aside, WCDMA channels are actually 3.84MHz wide, and CDMA 1x/Ev channels are slightly less than 1.25MHz wide if I remember correctly. However that doesn't modify our calculations here too much. Getting back on topic, this is why RSRP is a better indicator of signal strength for LTE than RSSI; RSRP levels will be lower (because...AJ correct me if I'm wrong...it's the average of integrals over single 15MHz reference subcarriers rather than the integral of all subcarriers in the LTE channel) but you'll get a number that you can do something with without knowing whether your channel width was 1.4MHz, 5MHz or 20MHz. Getting back to the comparison between WCDMA/HSPA+ and CDMA 1x/EvDO, T-Mobile's high-end (DC-)HSPA+ system uses 64QAM modulation in areas of good signal to pack more bits into each Hz of bandwidth (LTE actually uses that same modulation scheme, but with a few enhancements that I won't cover here). The catch with using a more complex, data-heavy modulation is that you need a significantly "hotter" signal to pass data at that rate without getting tons of errors. It's the same reason the WiFi on your computer drops connection speed (say, from 130 Mbps to 78 Mbps) as you get farther away from your router/access point. CDMA and EvDO use simpler modulations to transfer their data, so you can get away with a much lower signal on those platforms and still maintain reliable service (hence why a number of rural carriers went with CDMA gear years back, I believe). As for building penetration, it's harder for a wideband signal to make it through an obstruction intact than for a narrowband signal to do so, particularly if the narrowband transmitter can put the same output power behind that narrow signal as they did on the wide one (increasing RSSI). Particularly if that wideband signal carries a lot of data (high modulation). And, in terms of cell networks, WCDMA is wideband compared to pretty much everything else (remember that LTE is broken into narrow subcarriers). As for frequency differences increasing or decreasing coverage, T-Mobile now has their HSPA+ network on two bands, depending on where you are: AWS (2100/1700) and PCS (1900). PCS is rarer, though some places are covered pretty well by it. At any rate, the downlink of AWS (tower to phone) is on the higher frequency piece of the spectrum, since the limiting factor for transmit power is your phone and not TMo's base station. This means that you're looking at a WEAKER signal, all else equal, FROM the tower, but a STRONGER signal back TO the tower. That said, T-Mobile's NV-esque recent rollouts (except that they already had heavy-duty backhaul to most of their urban sites) are pushing HSPA+ to PCS, decreasing the propagation difference and removing that difference when comparing them to Sprint. One last thing: if you're comparing four EvDO carriers (5 MHz of bandwidth) with one HSPA+ carrier (for these purposes 5MHz of bandwidth) the HSPA+ carrier will win, given near-ideal signal conditions...HSPA+ is a much newer tech than EvDO, ans 21 > 12.4 (4 x 3.1). However I have yet to see a single HSPA+ channel net me more than 15 Mbps in real life, and I've seen EvDO hit 2.6 Mbps in the past. So you're really talking about 15 Mbps vs. 10.4 Mbps of capacity. The difference is that you can't get all of that 10.4 Mbps at once (unless your network is set up for EvDO Rev. B, but in the US it isn't). Hence the move to wider channels. Any more questions? P.S. If I sound like I'm down on either Sprint or T-Mobile, keep in mind that I'm the reason my entire immediate family's phone use Sprint (Ting for them, Sprint proper for me)...and I have a Nexus 4 running on T-Mobile.

This morning Sprint added the Samsung Galaxy Victory to Virgin Mobile's lineup, for $299.99. The significance? It's the first time Sprint has allowed an LTE phone onto one of its wholly-owned prepaid networks. I'm not completely sure about this, but I think that this is the first time you can get an LTE phone on any prepaid provider...outside Ting...that isn't an iPad, and that will get LTE service. Anyway, plan pricing has not changed with the new phone; plans are still $35/$45/$55 depending on how many voice minutes you need. $15 per month extra buys you sanctioned tethering. This puts Virgin Mobile at $15 per month less than Sprint As You Go monthly cost-wise for more or less the same thing; Sprint will potentially throttle VMo users above 2.5GB but my bet is that that won't happen on LTE for awhile. Though you also lose roaming, assuming Sprint As You Go allows roaming. If you can live with these caveats though, Virgin Mobile will save you money pretty quickly over picking up the same phone with a comparable plan on Sprint As You Go. As for Boost, it's getting two phones: the HTC One SV ($300) and the ZTE Force ($200). There's only one plan option, and it doesn't allow tethering, but it starts at the same price as Virgin's unlimited offering and goes down from there every six months, bottoming out at $40/mo after 18 months. So your average monthly bill over 24 months is $47.50. Hopefully the new prepaid unlimited options will allow Sprint to pick up some more customers without having to subsidize phones much/at all. Or maybe just move 3G-only or WiMAX customers to LTE since the LTE network has better capacity. My hope is that Sprint will move enough phones through these secondary channels that the price of a phone with LTE in PCS G will drop to $150 or so, ubsubsidized. It's a bit of a pipe dream, sure, but I'm betting ZTE will make it happen at some point in 2013.

No voice and 3G at the same time. Voice and LTE will work just fine. SVDO was mainly a stopgap while Sprint built out their LTE network; since they're pretty far along in many places, the inconvenience of not being able to do voice and data on EvDO at the same time is a bit smaller now.

Business class cable has its place. But LTE backhaul should never run over an HFC network...there are too many variables if you're running on the same plant as other HFC users, and it's inefficient if you're the only customer on the plant. Better to just run fiber. As for TWC 100 Mbps service, I'll pass, unless it comes with more than 5 Mbps up. 50 Mbps down is plenty, and while I could probably take advantage of a faster connection every once in awhile the upload speed is what's holding me back. Not to mention the fact that TWC doesn't have 100M (or even 75M) here in Austin yet.

One thing's for certain: my next Sprint phone will have SMR and BRS LTE support. If the S IV has it, I may upgrade. If not, I'll be holding off. As far as whether you should hold off on getting a Sprint phone until SMR and BRS LTE are included, the answer is "probably not". The potential exception being if you're in an area with good WiMAX service and have a WiMAX phone. But maybe not even then...case in point: my jump from the Epic to the SIII.