irev210

Waiting for eBay No fun... at all...

makes sense

Yeah, the lte tower broadcasting in that area is up the street at downtown crossing (few streets up). There is a 3G tower that's literally right outside boston harbor hotel that hasn't been upgraded yet. All outside of the boston harbor hotel and the entire greenway you'll get 4G. In the lobby, the signal just can't make it and reverts to the tower right outside.

http://www.apple.com/ipad/LTE/ Band 25 supported in both mini and 4th gen

So what's new with the new airave 2.5? Under the new airave 2.5 specs, it says it can hand-off. Old 2.0 and old samsung airave, no mention of handoffs. http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_details.jsp?prodId=dvc6480002prd&deviceSKUId=64800068&ensembleId=AIR25ACQNG&flow=AAL&firstSelection=PHONES&id16=airave&question_box=airave

Thought this was interesting: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=226144&site=lr_cable

Odd, I had 4G LTE at Gillette yesterday. Fairly weak signal up in the nose bleed, but it was there. 5-10mbit speeds. I am wondering if they have just started working on the DAS there... maybe they haven't made it around the stadium yet. My 3G signal was super solid (overpowering 4G).

When using an airave, there is no wifi connection active between the airave and your phone. The airave uses Sprint's licensed PCS spectrum and connects to the sprint network through your home internet connection. The 3.1 max is more a theoretical number. With overhead and other things, the fastest you can realistically expect to get is about 2.65mbit/sec. When you are at home, using 3G is rather silly when you can just use wifi instead.

I have to agree with AJ. PCS spectrum is adequate. Any place that needs supplemental bandwidth should be given EBS/BRS. Sprint's spectrum position (nationwide 7x7 ESMR + varying PCS + 5x5 nationwide G block + EBS/BRS) seems about as perfect as one could want. Sure, it's not as good as Verizon's spectrum plan but it's a heck of a lot better than AT&T's.

haha, that's absolutely comical. Thanks for sharing.

I think given that cable companies are stuck with 6MHz channels, they have no choice but to either go to a higher QAM (more dense) or bond channels. Wireless operators seem to have the flexibility to deploy whatever channel width the standard they are deploying supports.

I just tend to think that by creating smaller carriers, you are creating a more consistent experience for end users (ie, one user can't suck an entire 20x20 channel). If it's not a cost issue, you are only creating more variability in the user experience, which makes no sense. But if you have less hardware, less energy, less capital costs, then the wide channels start to make a lot of sense. Thx for explaining (thx to robert as well)

Interesting post AJ. Another question: Three scenarios 5x5 + 5x5 + 5x5 + 5x5 = 4 channels, 1 RRU, 4 line cards needed? 10x10 + 10x10 = 2 channels, 1 RRU, 2 line card needed? 20x20 = 1 channel, 1 RRU, 1 line card needed? Is this the right way of looking at it? Is this why there is a desire to create such wide channels? A lot cheaper (in terms of hardware needed to deploy)?

And the ironic part is - in downtown Boston, Clearwire overlaid on Sprint's PCS network (except for one location where they setup across the street). The really ironic part is, they didn't even overlay 2/3rds of Sprint's PCS sites. Sprint has 17 "towers" downtown. Clearwire overlaid on 10 of them (11th across the street from sprint). It's just odd that Clearwire would think that this would even be remotely acceptable to customers. For overlaying LTE, it makes sense. For WiMAX, it was idiotic and a giant waste of money.

eHRPD is back in Boston as well. So are my max 3G speeds of 1.85mbit. Makes sense though. Nobody needs to take up an entire EVDO channel.

I don't think it's the sim, either. 4G seems to work fine (where available).

I think it's a provision issue. http://community.sprint.com/baw/message/485099#485099

compare to standard evdoA - it seems like the new network is much more efficient, there should be fewer hops. On a personal note, I am sad that s4gru.com is not hosted with a company that has a direct connection to sprintlink - that would be awesome!!!! Like rackspace (or a bunch of others)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.scan.traceroute&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5zY2FuLnRyYWNlcm91dGUiXQ..

That's great! I am pretty jealous because the eHRPD has far superior routing vs. good ol' cmda. Did you run some traceroutes comparing the routing on CDMA vs eHRPD in NM? I would love to see. On average, latency is cut by about 25ms for me on eHRPD vs. legacy.

Electronic herpes. It's spreading everywhere, watch out.

In Boston, eHRPD is throttled at 1.85mbit down vs. EVDO_A which can hit about 2.6mbit. I've tested this on multiple phones @ multiple locations. Interesting to see different network controls. On another note, eHRPD in Boston is now down. LTE still works, but no more eHRPD, just EVDO (and 2mbit+ speeds )

How can you say that is a waste? They would give up some equity in Sprint to merge the two entities, pay maybe 1.5 billion in cash, and get 10 million prepaid subs that's extremely compatible with Sprint's network that have an ARPU that is 50% higher than Sprint's own prepaid arm with lower churn. They can leave at any time, yet they are, for the most part, growing subs, not losing them. I don't really see how you can't say that from a financial perspective it is a waste. The biggest issue is how much equity would sprint give up - and it's half as much as it was in feb now that the stock price has doubled. While contract customers always have a higher value, it doesn't mean that prepaid customers are worthless. They aren't. Yeah, there is churn issues, but that's the prepaid market... and the prepaid market on a whole, is growing, not shrinking.

To a degree I suppose. But to me, it seems like the larger catalyst is just cashflow that will go straight to the bottom line. We are talking 5 billion in cash that will flow straight to the bottom line every year and only cost sprint about ~2 billion. Basically, it helps justify the massive capex being spent on network vision. The spectrum is nice for the markets that sprint needs additional PCS spectrum, but the fact that operationally, it slots right in with Sprint's other prepaid brands, makes it an operationally attractive target. I hope your analyst on the merger also looks at LEAP. I see leap as a MUCH more attractive target for Sprint. Everything I've seen from Sprint on the PCS deal from management (or consolidation in general) is about scale. When fixed costs are so high, you really want to utilize those fixed costs as much as possible. To justify the capex, you need scale. Eventually, when you get to cell splitting, additional subs are expensive... but that's a different story.

Why does everyone keep looking at this as a spectrum deal? It's 10 million prepaid customers that will cost sprint little actual cash. They need the cash flow. Keep the PCS, sell the AWS to VZN or T-Mobile, move on. Back when Sprint's stock price was in the toilet, the market cap of Sprint was about 7.5 billion. When including the premium to acquire MetroPCS, their market cap would be over 5 billion. The answer was simple - MetroPCS was not worth 2/3rds of Sprint. That's why the board turned the deal down. Today, the picture is a lot different (though not ideal). Sprint's market cap is now 15 billion and so now Metro is only worth 1/3rd of Sprint. In less than a year, we went from a small prepaid carrier being worth two-thirds of sprint down to one-third. It should be less, but it is what it is. My question is - why not just acquire LEAP? For 6 million prepaid subscribers you could pay about a billion instead of paying 5 billion for 10 million prepaid subs. Let T-Mobile have PCS, Sprint gets LEAP, do spectrum swaps and sales and let T-Mobile have the AWS, Sprint have the PCS, and for once in the wireless world, the right people win.