GoWireless

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

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).

Looks like the FCC approvals for the GS6 and One M9 just came out... hint hint S4GRU ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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 find it insane that Sprint doesn't support this already since, unlike the iPhone for example, beginning with the mini 2 and the Air, all US carriers have carried the same iPad variant. It's almost like Sprint doesn't want your business. I don't get it.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

Which PCS block does nTelos currently own in Norfolk?

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.

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. 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).

Some clarifications for this thread... This is not a "law", but rather a voluntary commitment by most members of the CTIA (the wireless carriers' trade group) to allow for device unlocking under certain conditions. That said, the CTIA came up with this policy pretty much only after it became evident that if the carriers won't do anything with respect to phone unlocking, congress was going to force them to. The way I understand it, Sprint's implementation of this policy applies to phones released after Feb 10 (i.e., not necessarily "manufactured" after that date). In other words, an iPhone 6 manufactured after Feb 10 for example would not fall under this policy since the model was released before that date (though Sprint may decide to go ahead to allow for unlocking it anyway, but strictly speaking it is not covered under the official policy). Because of Sprint's (relatively recent) commitment to support its rural carriers roaming alliance (many of which operate on bands different than Sprint's), I expect most of Sprint's devices that will be covered under the new policy to be usable under most other US carriers' LTE networks (except perhaps Verizon's due to their unique 700MHz band) once unlocked. Because Sprint's phones also need to be able to roam in the Americas, GSM and UMTS should be unlocked too for domestic use as my understanding is that Sprint will discontinue crippling those phones' ability to use those same frequencies and technologies in the United States as they are able to be used in other countries in the Americas (again, once the phone has been unlocked that is). One thing that is not clear to me yet is what will be Sprint's unlocking policy towards devices purchased at full retail cost (i.e., unsubsidized) while the subscriber has not yet completed their service agreement. The CTIA's rules are not clear about that.

Kudos to Motorola for being the first to release a true, single-SKU device for North America. I hope other manufacturers follow suit. I must say that I really like the Samsung Alpha/Note 4 design concept. Feels nice in the hand. Gone is that cheap plasticky feel of devices past. Next hopefully Samsung will pick up their RF engineering to the next level too. Apple and Motorola have proven it's an achievable goal, even with having to contend with a plethora of multiple band support. Is Sprint supposed to be stocking N6s for display at stores at some point? I stopped by a Sprint store today and didn't see any.