cdiao

I found this link in the Trib article which is video of Azzi interview describing the "seam" which we all know is the problem of hand-off between new Samsung NV equipment and adjacent legacy Motorola cell sites in the Chicago NV deployment. http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/72106446/Business/Sprint-upgrades-network At least they are coming out of the closet with it and trying to manage the PR to explain it better to the public to manage expectations. Hold on Chicago, you will have LTE maybe even before the Bears clinch NFC Central Division! ;-) Me jealous.

Chicago Tribune this PM -- the Sprint PR crew seems to be on overdrive lately. http://www.chicagotr...0,3787175.story this is the first public statement by Sprint that confirms that Chicagoland is on the near-term road map for Sprint's LTE market launch... although I believe that Robert's schedule had estimated the market being elligible for "launch" sooner, maybe October. But that may have been a function of overall percentage of completion estimates based upon number of NV sites cut-over (40%-50%) but given how Chicago market is being rolled out, in waves from outside into the loop, perhaps this will push the actual official "launch" closer to end of year. of course it could be that Azzi was simply sandbagging in the article (under-promise and hopefully over-deliver) given the difficulties that Samsung has had in the Chicago market in deploying NV.

saw this article across the news about Baltimore speedtest by Computerworld up to 15mbps down. good to have some positive press for Sprint network finally. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230454/Sprint_expands_LTE_to_Baltimore_downloads_measured_at_15Mbps

Haha, CSR's blaming everything on NV now. reminds me when i was traveling through pakistan and india after college, and the whole world was transfixed about Skylab falling to earth. It seemed that everything was being blamed on skylab, as "we dont have the room ready", or after taking so long for our dinner order to arrive, it was always "because of skylab" -- then I realized the whole staff was watching tiny television in the back waiting for Skylab to fall from the sky and end human existence as they knew it. Luckily Network Vision is less dramatic impact. So it is now with Network Vision when you call Sprint customer care -- every possible network problem is because Network Vision work is being done. I guess if it works to get folks off the phone. For me I just move to a different spot to use my Sprint phone,...or even use my wireline phone sometimes. :-)

AJ, what will be required to support CDMA 1x 800? WHy would it be difficult since the radio and antenna that already serves 850mhz should be within range to access the 800mhz band? Wouldn't it be fairly trivial and depend whether the components are in broad supply? Given that HTC, Samsung, Motorola, LG, et. al. are already sourcing components that are SMR800mhz capable for CDMA, as well as the 850mhz band (since Sprint roams at that freq), why would Apple not want its purchasers of IPhone 5 to experience the improved coverage and in-building penetration offered by Sprint's new CDMA on 800mhz? I had assumed or taken this for granted but wish to get the opinion of folks here who actually know the technical constraints that will affect the next iPhone 5. Similarly, besides CDMA 1x voice, if iPhone 5 will have radios and antennae that serve the 700 band 850band, 900band, 1800 band, and 1900 band (you seem to suggest no 1700/2100 AWS band at all), what is the constraint on provisioning LTE at 800 band? Is not the LTE comm processing capability separate from the RF definitions in the radio that defines which frequencies? Just curious.

well i just replaced my Blackberry Bold for a Sammy Galaxy S3 in the hopes that NYC will be NV LTE live by October/November. Still have my old Epic to access WiMax until then (to be replaced by iPhone 5 presumably). Keep telling myself be patient, be patient. Hopefully all the initial "connection issues" will have been well resolved by the time NYC gets some LTE love from Sprint.

i was wondering about this, now that 800Mhz SMR frequencies on CDMA is becoming a reality. Is there a running list of which Sprint smartphone handsets are SMR 800Mhz capable?

wow, is this the first sighting of 800MHz SMR on CDMA in the wild? that's like finding Big Foot!!!! Congratulations! :-) So glad that 800Mhz CDMA finally becoming "real" for Sprint after 7 long years since the merger completed. 800mhz will dramatically improve coverage and in-building penetration for Sprint customers (those lucky enough to be on new handsets). makes me want to go out and get S3 for my back-up phone even before we get LTE.

that i did not know. on seasonal suspend, I believe that the upgrade elligibility stops tolling. Since he was already upgrade elligible before he deployed. we had bought a stop-gap device on eBay while awaiting for Sprint to announce iPhone. It worked out well when he returned in january, it was perfect for belated XMas present. Thank you for serving.

Sprint does still have "military suspend" but as you mentioned, I had to get copies of my son's orders, and he was a bit difficult to reach in Helmand Province, and frankly I wasn't exactly sure that he would have access to fax machine at camp, nor would they probably allow him to fax his orders due to operational security. So I paid the $9 bucks per month for "Seasonal suspend" instead. While it was good to know that Sprint did offer such programs for military families even though I couldn't avail myself, it wasn't lost on me that the monies that they collect from me in essence to reserve a DID number on Sprint's switch was a very high margin revenue stream for Sprint (for not using its network during that period). So I think Sprint probably owes me one. :-)

yeah i put my son's phone on seasonal standby when he got deployed to afghanistan (safely returned) but Sprint does limit the duration but I dont know how long. I also put another line on standby because I thought that I lost it but now that I found the phone, I'm just letting it roll until LTE is lit up in NYC so that I can justify buying a new handset. it's a decent policy for keeping your number "warm"

i just went through the various market deployment updates on this site -- seems like Boston, and DC are likely candidates, and LA is doubtful given how huge that market is (more likely October) and also linked with Orange County's deployment.

did they say which markets other than Baltimore? Robert, besides Chicago and Austin, which are the most likely candidates for the "end of August" launch time-frame?

This was what I was wondering about. Given the discriminatory results, there seems clearly to be more of a connectivity problem (LTE threshold settings perhaps) with HTC handsets. I was intrigued with the author's results for the S3 and Nexus and the seeming differences given that both are made by Samsung so that does seem strange but suggests there is something in the settings and or software that's affecting connectivity. I recall other postings from Nexus owners who say they were getting good results but yet EVO LTE owners complaining otherwise. S3 probably too new to have much of a user population. Can others confirm this?

Robert, to be fair, none of the existing Sprint devices will access CLWR's TD-LTE network if it lights up by mid-2013. I have not seen a product roadmap but I doubt any of the products shipping this year (including the new iPhone) will support either 2.5ghz or TD-LTE, and you probably wont have any new devices until some time in 2013 at earliest that will seed the installed base with TD-LTE capable handsets. Do you have insights otherwise or earlier device launch from your contacts at Overland Park?

I believe that the footnotes are incorrectly notated and that they should be switched between footnote 2 and footnote 3. note that a major element of "efficiency" in this powerpoint is comparing capital with opex in that CLWR in this example is using digital microwave for backhaul (vs leasing fiber). Besides potential QoS issues related to DM such as weather or foliage, the comparison itself is self-serving because both carriers can elect to employ identical backhaul (it is not some inherent advantage of WiMax). The tower rent differential is somewhat specious because it is premised on CLWR negotiating better site rents than legacy cellular carriers. This isn't some great "efficiency" inherent in WiMax and at most reflects smaller footprints of later generation technology cell site equipment used by CLWR when compared with the legacy systems of cellular carriers (remember their equipment also support voice carriers), which the latest generation cell sites such as Sprint's NV would also have similar size and power attributes as CLWR's WiMax. This page is part of the "spin" that the company used to entice the investment community, who didn't know any better. CLWR is building its LTE "overlay" on its existing footprint by cherry picking sites that are high volume network "hot spots" - that is why it chose not to piggy-back Sprint's NV build by co-locating on Sprint's cell sites (at least for the initial build) since CLWR enjoys operating "sunk costs" from its existing WiMax sites (tower rent, power, and backhaul). So until it turns its WiMax dark, perhaps in the 2015 time-frame, it is unlikely to reduce its ongoing operating cost to keep the network up and running, and even then only by the reduction in those WiMax only sites that it has chosen not to deploy LTE at (i.e. those sites that were originally built for "coverage" and otherwise not economically viable when viewed purely on a usage-demand basis). Hopefully CLWR can match the inevitable decline in WiMax revenues with some reduction in network opex by pruning the WiMax network, while simultaneously grow revenues from its TD-LTE hot spot capacity shaving business sufficiently to pay for the network opex that will remain. It's seems like a tricky path to navigate and not without some financial execution risk (it's not the technology but CLWR's ability to secure revenues from its commercial relationships). The bet is that the other carriers will be desperate for capacity off-load by then or otherwise will value CLWR's exceedingly fat pipe. I hope that's the case because I would love some of that 40Mhz TD-LTE wideband pipe.

Just curious, it seems that a lot of people have EVO LTE and that required some OTA update. Out of the 4 Sprint devices that are LTE capable: LG, HTC EVO, Nexus, and S3, I am curious whether you see any patterns on these connection issues. Reading all the rants, I don't recall anyone having issues with the LG Viper LTE for example (but maybe that's because no good geek here would be caught with the Viper). :-) I'm trying to understand whether on these connection fails, there are any patterns that are device dependent. Just curious.

I think this is an issue that this site is not intended as a "complaint board" and was intended for forum participants to keep track of the NV deployment. if it was asked in the fashion "hey I have problems staying connected, anybody else have the same problem, and what may be possible solutions?" rather than "hey Sprint get your act together. Sprint salesperson lied to me. I'm leaving now". I for one find the former constructive (and informtive) while the latter is a waste of my time to read. Many of us not in those initial LTE markets are super jealous that others are already starting to experience Sprint's LTE network and NV on voice, even in its not fully-completed form, while we still have to wait for the deployment to reach our markets. So I agree with Robert that this website (read the mission statement) isn't intended as a whining forum or a general complaint board, but a forum for nerdy folks ("Sprint wireless enthusiasts") to share information and knowledge about Sprint's NV/LTE development.... and to enjoy vicariously from those who are experiencing it first hand.

just get a prepaid phone from Tracfone or StraightTalk (on Verizon) as "back up" to bridge the 3-4 months..

it was "exclusively" because it would require it to use WiMax given the big feature of the New iPad was "4G" -- both parties figured out that didnt make sense. Besides, over 80% of iPad sales are WiFi only -- this may start to change as VZW and T introduce plans with shared bucket bundles to share among multiple devices. Sprint really doesn't actively promote tablets (and they are very data consumptive so the "truly unlimited" plans are not applicable to tablets), but maybe that changes once its LTE network is up and running. Frankly it may be a better deal to enable the hot spot feature on your Sprint smartphone and then connect your tablet via WiFi tethering to your smartphone (which I did for awhile with my Epic using WiMax, but then I realized that I really did not use my tablet away from the home, or away from any other WiFi accessible area, to justify the additional $30 per month).

It's valuable as a means to supplement an existing network by offloading capacity needs in high traffic areas, so-called "hot spots", but as a means to build a de novo network that requires ubiquitous coverage (both geographic breadth and depth in terms of in-building), 2.5ghz is a poor choice. In most recent FCC report on the AT&T -T-MUSA merger, FCC stated that it would take 7x the number of cell sites to provide comparable coverage using >2 ghz spectrum as it would take AT&T/VZW using their 700mhz/850mhz spectrum. The value for CLWR's BRS spectrum is in urban hot spots and high usage traffic corridors, and is now finally being deployed in a fashion that is suitable for its use -- unfortunately, that may not make it a viable independent company, as it needs to price its capacity as "first use" in order to efficiently off-load traffic, rather than "last-use" if it is usage-based pricing as how CLWR is trying to price its capacity for TD-LTE.

Because 2500 first makes a lot more sense, ultimately the placeholder usage-sensitive pricing deal that exists currently will need to change. As we've seen with propagating WiMax to Boost and Virgin, because Sprint now enjoys fixed-cost "owner's economics", CLWR benefits if Sprint actually wants to use the CLWR network (because it will end up creating a longer revenue tail for CLWR) rather than having Sprint view the CLWR network as the bandwidth of last resort.

ClWR's frequencies not suitable for wide-area coverage. Only useful for hot spots to off-load capacity from G-block. Depending upon the commercial arrangement between Sprint and CLWR - let's asume it is a fixed price per site rather than usage-sensitive per GB pricing, then when multi-modality FD/TD-LTE devices are availalbe, they would search for the 2.5ghz freq first in order to off-load traffic from the 1.9ghz band, and if you are not covered by that "hot spot", then you ride the 1.9ghz band that's now presumably less congested based upon the off-load of heavy traffic to 2.5ghz. This architecture will not work if CLWR insists on usage-sensitive pricing because it turns the economics upside-down for Sprint, and it is exactly counter to the strategic capacity advantage that CLWR's "fat pipes" would offer, but CLWR has chosen to pursue dumb paths before, so who knows.