GoWireless

Just a quick question...

If my Sprint HTC M8 were to be unlocked, would it work on a GSM network?

As the image below shows, there seem to be Mobile Settings for GSM in addition to the CDMA and LTE.

Yes, except that for the best of my knowledge, Sprint doesn't intend to include the M8 in the pool of devices eligible for a domestic unlock. Also, even if you could unlock it then because (and unlike the iPhone or devices coming out this month or later) previous Sprint devices had very limited support for other carriers' LTE bands, meaning your experience on other carriers might not be that great.

Unless it's a penis measuring contest, raw speeds are nothing if a depressing thing to brag about.

 

Also, a 10x10 would require contiguous spectrum, adjacent to G-Block, which Sprint does not have nationwide.

...

A couple of things...

If by 10x10 you mean combine 5Mhz in the F block and 5Mhz in the G block to form a 10Mhz wide block, well, I don't think that would work (at least not without deploying another 5Mhz LTE block somewhere else in A-E). The reason being that I believe some of Sprint's earlier handsets could only do 5Mhz BW on LTE and if there isn't a 5Mhz block deployed somewhere in B25 then those handsets couldn't do LTE on B25 at all.

As for the ePenis measuring contests... You are absolutely correct. The vast vast majority of people out there care about their overall experience, not max throughput. Assuming reasonable latency, for most folks, 3-4Mbps for web browsing and 5-6Mbps for video is plenty sufficient.

Please be careful with your assertions.  "Band 12 devices are supported on AT&T on band 17 since AT&T started using MFBI" implies that AT&T has band 12/17 MFBI everywhere.  The deed is done.  But "begun implementing" suggests that the rollout of MFBI is still in process.  Unless you are willing to stake your name that a band 12 device can operate fully on AT&T now, you should qualify your claim.

 

AJ

OK, you're right, they are still deploying but they are moving very fast. I talked to someone a couple weeks back who said it's already deployed in many places all over the country and they are moving quickly. They are also turning it on independent of their VoLTE rollout. The quicker they can get it turned on the quicker they can accept band 12 devices from other providers on their network.

Band 12/17 MFBI is the plan, but has AT&T actually implemented it yet?

 

AJ

Not only has AT&T begun implementing it, but they will soon start selling band 12 devices themselves as part of their lower 700 band interoperability agreement with the FCC. AT&T's GS6 is actually a band 12 device!

I suppose with these new devices it will even be technically possible for Sprint to roam on AT&T or TMO LTE, especially if they can implement some kind of VoLTE with these carriers.

No band 17 on the Sprint variant. Not compatible with AT&T.

Incorrect. Band 12 devices are supported on AT&T on band 17 since AT&T started using MFBI.

I'm disappointed that they are still making carrier specific models, especially with the new unlocking policies. Why would anyone buy a six hundred dollar phone that can only be used on a certain carrier's LTE network. All manufacturers should be following the iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 and support all domestic LTE bands.

Well, the at least the good thing about the Sprint variant is that it is essentially fully compatible with AT&T and T-Mobile's networks (except a couple of minor things: the lack of UMTS1700 which I would no longer consider a concern and VoLTE which hopefully Sprint will some day enable in the S6 via a firmware update).

Just wanted to mention that it looks like Sprint has lit up B26 and B41 all over Hampton Roads recently. There now seems to be MUCH improved in-building LTE coverage in various problematic areas I experienced before. 'bout time! I can now say that Sprint is a worthy wireless contender in this market... Finally!

This map is definitely a significant improvement over the one that was on the site just yesterday.

There will be some serious dodging of the rules with this. It's a he said she said thing as of now. This supervisors's supervisor said they're playing off a different policy that the customers don't have access to. I reminded her how illegal that was. She didn't care.

Sent from my iPhone 6+

This was exactly what I was afraid of (as you can see in my prior posts)... That Sprint will have a hard time dealing with devices purchased at full price while the subscriber is under contract or installment plan for another device.

That said, if you read Sprint's new policy carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't actually say that they are obligated to unlock devices purchased at full price. I guess they are just set on continuing to piss off their customers with respect to unlocking.

There will be thousands of scenarios where this phone and that phone work with this network and not that network. Or will work with this or that network, but not certain bands or technologies. Sprint is smart to stay out of it and just give a standard disclaimer. Can you imagine, based on the average competency and training of Sprint CSR's (and now foreign call centers) if Sprint tried to give info about how or where your specific unlocked device can be used outside Sprint? That would be a certified disaster.

 

This is the best you can expect from Sprint under the circumstances, IMHO. It's not like you got Comcasted.

True, however, since most DSU phones will also happen to be CCA capable, plus will need to allow for roaming in the Americas on GSM and UMTS networks then one would think they would, by definition, also be fully compatible with AT&T and T-Mobile here in the U.S. at least.

Let's hope but I wonder how it would work in my case because I'm under contract with a 5s but bought my 6 outright. Probably would need to show proof.

That question was asked in the reddit thread. It looks like Sprint doesn't have an answer for that (no big surprise there I guess ). The guy from Sprint couldn't even conceive of this situation happening (someone on contract purchasing a device outright while they are still under contract on another device).

it does not matter. If Nextel Mexico/AT&T Mexico use the same spectrum band they have to coordinate with each other how to best minimize interference.

I am not sure that Mexico uses the exact same frequencies since I don't know if they went through an SMR rebranding effort and therefore their in-use iDEN frequencies may extend below 814Mhz, making it potentially incompatible with B26.

For all of you who are advocating that Sprint will bring back simultaneous VoLTE and data: There has been no definitive evidence of such guarantee that it will happen. Sprint can lock it down and not allow it to happen with QoS. If you really want voice and data at the same time, use VOIP. I happen to like using Facetime Audio for that very reason.

If the other 3 carriers allow simultaneous voice and data throughout their networks then in the long run it will be very difficult for Sprint to hold out on this feature.

What about the customers that don't have smart phones. The ones on feature phones that are 3G that sprint still sells. People keep forgetting about that part of the public.

Well, if half the band is free then refarming the unused half shouldn't affect customers that don't have smartphones anyway.

Model A1549/A1522 is the AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon model as it is lacking Band 25/26/41 support that sprint needs. If you buy it "unlocked" or "full price" from the apple store, it will be unlocked. It will work on all three carriers (if you buy the AT&T/T-Mobile version, Verizon support is "limited").

 

That is not entirely accurate. The Tmobile/AT&T/Verizon model DOES have bands 25 and 26. These two bands are stubs of the existing cellular and PCS bands and therefore are relatively simple to implement in devices which already support the celluar and PCS bands. Band 41 however is a different animal - spectrum-wise it's located nowhere near any of the commonly used cellular bands in the US and it also uses a different LTE broadcast scheme (TDD instead of FDD). Both are unique only to Sprint in the US.

As for this whole argument regarding who's supporting the other carriers' systems... I don't think there is some grand consipracy here. It's simply a function of two things: The popularity (or lack-thereof) of CDMA, coupled with the roaming needs of the carriers. The US carriers want to put capabilities in their phones for their customers to be able to roam internationally. Due to the relative lack of popularity of the CDMA standard outside of the US, Sprint and Verizon need to put GSM and UMTS capabilites in their devices so that their subscribers can roam outside the US. Since other countries use the same frequencies as the US, that means that those phones are by default also compatible with US carriers using those same frequencies and technologies - namely AT&T and to a somewhat lesser extent, T-Mobile. By the same token, given the wide availability of GSM based technologies outside the US, AT&T and T-Mobile don't have a need to put CDMA in their phones in order to give their users good romaing capabilities, which, in turn, means that those phones also won't support Sprint and Verizon.

Interesting minor development: It looks like Apple started selling today the iPhone 6 model A1586 and 6+ A1524 (i.e., the Sprint variants) unlocked when purchased at full price. They come without a SIM card and Apple specifically indicates that you can activate them on Verizon or Sprint (which means that Sprint must be whitelisting these units), as well as any of the GSM carriers.

This is the first time Apple has sold an "official" 6/6+ unlocked model in the US. Previously if you wanted to purchase an unlocked iPhone 6 you had to buy the T-Mobile version, which did not include the TD-LTE bands.

I just don't see why sprint locks their phones to begin with even with the start of them using sim cards. I can understand if your under contract or your installment billing is not paid off. But if you have satisfied one of the two why not let the user do as they please with the phone. They officially own it now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I imagine the folks at Sprint think that it reduces churn... if they lock the device such that it cannot be used on another carrier then a customer might be less likely to jump ship since they would have to get a new phone with the other carrier.

That said, the practice of intentionally crippling fully-paid-for devices in this way infuriates a lot of people, and rightly so. So much so in fact, that the government was indicating a law would be passed at some point to prohibit this practice. Sniffing the winds of change, the CTIA (i.e., the carriers' trade group) decided to pre-empt this move by announcing the voluntary policy change agreed to by the 5 largest US carriers - before the govt. made them do it. I guess they figured better implement this under their own terms and conditions rather than have to acquiesce to whatever rules congress might come up with.

Note that the new policy covers both post paid as well as pre-paid devices. Sprint however has yet to indicate what actual steps customers would need to follow in order unlock devices covered under the new policy.

...Sprint's policy specifically indicates that the devices must be "developed and released" after February 11. The "developed" bit can be interpreted to allow Sprint even more time to keep things the way they are, since device development processes are around a year long. Whether or not they'll do that, I don't know.

...

With the deadline now fast approaching, I really hope Sprint doesn't try to wiggle out of the commitment for phones released after Feb. 11 date by claiming that development started prior to that date. The CTIA's policy regarding the new unlocking commitment didn't just drop out of the sky all of a sudden. It was announced in late 2013 - more than a year ago. In my opinion it would be highly disingenuous of Sprint to use the "development" excuse to postpone this any further as they have had PLENTY of time to give manufacturers the heads up to get ready for the the policy change that will be taking place on February 11, 2015.

Is it possible to see band information on the new iPads?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think that's an iOS limitation on all iPads - as far as I know, there's no access to field test mode on any of them (like on the iPhone for example). Very annoying!

Honestly, this is a head scratcher. Why T-Mobile? Why not Sprint? Per my spreadsheets, both Richmond and Norfolk are PCS A-F block 20 MHz markets, which have little flexibility in spectrum refarming for additional LTE carriers. Only $56 million would have been chump change for Sprint to shore up its spectrum situation in the Tidewater region.

 

AJ

Won't be the first time Sprint ignored this market. Hampton Roads/Tidewater was also the largest metro area on the Eastern Seaboard where WiMax was never launched.

It is a disaggregated portion of the former PrimeCo PCS license for the Richmond-Norfolk MTA.  Because of the spectrum cap at the time, VZW could not retain the entire license.

 

AJ

BTW, in this area, Verizon owns the entire cellular band since the Alltel merger. That seems patently uncompetative to me.

Which PCS block does nTelos currently own in Norfolk?

Nevermind... It looks like they own the lower 2/3rds of the B block (with the rest owned by Verizon).

Honestly, this is a head scratcher.  Why T-Mobile?  Why not Sprint?  Per my spreadsheets, both Richmond and Norfolk are PCS A-F block 20 MHz markets, which have little flexibility in spectrum refarming for additional LTE carriers.  Only $56 million would have been chump change for Sprint to shore up its spectrum situation in the Tidewater region.

 

AJ

Which PCS block does nTelos currently own in Norfolk?

Hmm, I stand corrected on the law. However, I'm still concerned with Sprint's wording of its policy...

 

That said, you're correct about GSM/UMTS/LTE locks. The 3GPP part of the baseband for locking is generally an all-or-nothing scenario, and even if it wasn't, Verizon wouldn't be allowed to cripple the devices in such a manner because of the rules in the Upper 700MHz C block spectrum that prevent crippling. The problem is bringing GSM/UMTS/LTE devices that lack CDMA to Verizon. The only way to have voice, SMS, and MMS services without CDMA is VoLTE, and it's currently not designed to allow unbranded devices to automatically configure and support the service.

 

For example, Sony's unbranded Xperia Z2 supports GSM, UMTS, and LTE. It supports all major bands for GSM, UMTS, and LTE except band 12. It even has band 13. However, when connected to the Verizon network, it cannot support voice and texting services because VoLTE cannot be fully configured from the ISIM application in the Verizon SIM card.

I agree with you with respect to CDMA. It was, is, and will be problematic, at least until VoLTE becomes ubiquitous I suppose. (Is the VoLTE incompatibility you speak of expected to remain forever?) In any case, I prefer to look at the glass half full I guess Even just being able to use unlocked Sprint devices on AT&T or T-Mobile would be great.

Why would there be a service agreement if a handset is paid in full? They only exist to recoup a subsidy.

...

This is for a person who wants a new phone but is not eligible for an early upgrade yet and is willing to purchase the phone outright and without extending their contract (say for example because they intend to sell their existing phone and use the cash towards another phone which they will buy at full cost). In the past Sprint has often been reluctant to even international unlock devices in this status. I remember reading posts from quite a few pissed off customers on xda about this inane policy ("but I bought it for full price and now these $@#&ers won't [int'l] unlock it!).

The CTIA's regulations don't really address this sort of situation.

Actually, the voluntary commitment was codified into law.

 

...<snip>...

 

Verizon is also protected, to an extent. VoLTE isn't designed to be fully authenticated and configured from the ISIM application on the UICC, so you wouldn't be able to use voice service over LTE on unbranded 3GPP-only device. I hope this changes soon, but there's no indication that anyone wants to fix it.

No, the law you are talking about has to do with the legality of device unlocking by individuals owning those devices, not forcing carriers to unlock devices. The CTIA's unlocking policy which goes into full effect on Feb. 11 is an unrelated set of rules which ensures that carriers will unlock their customers' devices under certain circumstances.

With respect to Verizon, I don't think that they have a separate lock for LTE and for GSM/UMTS, and because all of their LTE devices are already sold unlocked this discussion is already moot for them - they are already unlocked anyway (at least as far as GSM/UMTS/LTE is concerned).