Conan Kudo

Perhaps I missed something, but reading this here:

 

http://bgr.com/2014/09/10/t-mobile-wifi-unleashed-announcement/

 

 

Except for the iPhone, didn't T-Mobile already have this? 

It did have this. The new thing is that seamless cellular/Wi-Fi handover is being re-introduced (using a mix of GAN and IMS technology). Over the next few weeks, most (if not all) T-Mobile Android and Windows Phones will receive updates to support the new version of Wi-Fi calling technology. The iPhone is gaining that feature as part of its implementation of Wi-Fi calling in iOS 8, too.

BGR is kind of stupid...

If you're bootloader unlocked you can use fastboot or recorvery to flash the old baseband from 4.4.2. That's the real issue. Once you re-activate using the old baseband you can update to the current one and everything will work.

Well, I originally activated with the old baseband. I bought my Nexus 5 and activated it on Sprint long before 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 came out.

I had trouble activating Nexus 5's from Google Play for friends on Sprint with stock 4.4.4. No incoming calls would come through and random problems with authentication. Sat with the store manager for hours trying to get it to work.

 

Googled the problem and others were having it as well. The fix was to flash 4.4.2, activate on Sprint, then upgrade to 4.4.4/flash whatever you want. I don't know if its a problem everyone has, but I thought I would throw this out there in case you had similar problems.

I wonder if this might help fix some of the random issues I have accessing the Sprint CDMA network on my Nexus 5 as well. I'll have to try that...

True. Just wishful thinking then?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Since Apple is using a mix of GAN and IMS technology (which is how it's supporting seamlessness), it makes sense that only T-Mobile and EE are capable. T-Mobile USA helped invent the technology along with Orange UK. Orange UK is now part of EE, so they are equipped to support it. Both Orange and Deutsche Telekom are huge proponents of GAN+IMS technology, and they've been working on rolling it out throughout their footprint. I expect to see Telefónica in the future.

It's unlikely that Sprint's brand of Wi-Fi Calling will be supported on iPhones anytime soon. It uses a slightly different protocol, different codecs, and some other mechanisms that are alien to the version used by other operators around the world.

Someone should tweet this to LiARgere.

 

Edit: kinda forgot the img.

Err, Sprint hasn't confirmed this, nor has Apple. In fact, they've said that T-Mobile and EE are the only carriers with it, even now.

That seems kind of fishy. It's a feature in iOS 8 - why would it be restricted to just one carrier in the U.S.? Especially restricted to the carrier with the smallest number of iPhone subscribers?

 

It seems like an awful lot of work for Apple to engineer a Wifi calling option for one network.

 

They did it for GSM/UMTS/LTE networks. T-Mobile US and EE are the first. Orange and Deutsche Telekom are huge supporters of the technology. I expect Telefónica to be next, as they would hugely benefit from it in Latin America.

"Proprietary T-Mobile technology" i.e. frequency bands.

 

The proprietary technology is likely to do with the patents they hold on adaptive traffic shaping for specialized services over non-controlled networks.

I'll say, though. This event was kind of weak. Wi-Fi enhancements are cool, and eSRVCC enhancements to add Wi-Fi radio continuity are nice. The Gogo partnership is good too. But it still wasn't much. Nothing like the earlier events...

Workplace accident

Now that makes a lot more sense! Take that, AJ ...

 

One more question. Why can't D&E be used as the PCC?

It's unpaired. Because it is low-band, some of the issues with TDD are amplified, so it can't be used for that. As such, it is specified as a supplementary downlink FDD band, meaning it's always the SCC in carrier aggregation. You also can't use TDD as a primary band for FDD+TDD CA (it's too ugly and messy for coordination, even though in theory it would be simpler because FDD has dedicated frequencies for downlink).

"And it is standardized for carrier aggregation only with mid band spectrum, totally negating its low band propagation advantage."

 

"Carrier aggregation, done right, should have a low band main carrier aggregated with a mid/high band secondary downlink.  Lower 700 MHz E block may never have that."

 

What am I missing here? Why is it great to have it aggregated with a mid/high band downlink, but not great when done only with a midband spectrum?

Because Lower 700MHz D and E blocks can never be used as the PCC (primary component carrier) for any carrier aggregation, only the SCC (secondary component carrier). There's a big difference when it comes to the way carrier aggregation is done now (DL only). The PCC is the one that handles uplink, downlink, and network signaling. The SCC only handles supplemental downlink capacity as requested.

If you use a low-band FDD PCC with a mid-band or high-band SCC, then you're basically providing "spots" of additional capacity with no loss of coverage. If you move out of an SCC coverage zone, you don't lose coverage. However, if the PCC is mid-band and the SCC is low-band, then you get no benefits in terms of coverage.

Because of the nearness of frequency and the issues with UE radio design, you cannot generally do low band PCC+low band SCC. You also have the same problem in certain circumstances where mid-band PCC is being aggregated with another mid-band that's nearby (such as IMT [2.1GHz] and PCS [1.9GHz] in Brazil).

In general, the preferred carrier aggregation scenario is mid-band PCC with high-band SCC on the same technology type. That is, FDD mid-band with FDD high-band (such as CA {1,2,4}+7), as it provides coverage, additional hotspot capacity, lots of capacity on the PCC and isn't technically challenging to coordinate (like FDD+TDD CA is). Also, FDD+FDD CA (or TDD+TDD CA) lets you aggregate both uplink and downlink, should you want to. Mixed technology aggregation makes this difficult.

My sweeps of the spectrum analyzer disagree with your guesses. An unburdened LTE signal on the spectrum analyzer shows very tall peaks and empty valleys. A burdened one shows very shallow valleys up near the top of the readings near the peak.

 

I am watching the valleys fill in nicely on VZW Band 4 around here. And with a 70 share, that's to be expected.

 

Are you trying to convince yourself or Verizon that they don't needs AWS 3? Because you haven't convinced me that they don't or won't.

Are they using both blocks where you are yet? Do they have all cell sites running AWS?

It will take some time to get AWS 3 ready, usable and deployed. At least they have the band approved in advance. That helps. It will be some time before AWS 3 gets deployed anywhere and have devices able to use it.

 

But I'd pursue it if I was Tmo...in markets where they currently can't achieve 15-20MHz channels now. So they can provide a more consistent experience. Tmo doesn't need to make a big AWS3 purchase. Just a carefully crafted and thoughtful purchase.

 

Besides, popular consensus is that AWS3 is all about AT&T. They are the ones who desperately need it. And I wouldn't be surprised to see VZW make some strategic plays for it in key markets where they may need to bolster capacity soon. Our XLTE speeds are steadily dropping and no longer anything special.

Verizon already has AWS E and F blocks in Pennington, SD, so your capacity drops are due to backhaul, not spectrum. 

While the popular consensus is that AWS-3 will be all about AT&T, I think AT&T itself doesn't care so much anymore, since it has reconstructed so much of its AWS footprint through acquisitions. Of course, AWS-3 would enable AT&T to roll out 15MHz or 20MHz channels, so that is an incentive. But AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile don't have strong incentives to bid nationally on AWS-3. AT&T might if it's easy, but another company could come in and bid nationally fairly easily.

Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) – There are 12 REAGs

Channel blocks are groups of frequencies. The channel blocks for AWS licenses are:

 

A Block: 1710-1720 and 2110-2120 (20 MHz) – issued by CMAs

B Block: 1720-1730 and 2120-2130 (20 MHz) – issued by EAs

C Block: 1730-1735 and 2130-2135 (10 MHz) – issued by EAs

D Block: 1735-1740 and 2135-2140 (10 MHz) – issued by REAGs

E Block: 1740-1745 and 2140-2145 (10 MHz) – issued by REAGs

F Block: 1745-1755 and 2145-2155 (20 MHz) – issued by REAGs

Auctions

 

Those are AWS-1 blocks.

AWS-3 paired blocks are:

G Block: 1755-1760 and 2155-2160 (10 MHz) - issued by CMAs

H Block: 1760-1765 and 2160-2165 (10 MHz) - issued by EAs

I Block: 1765-1770 and 2165-2170 (10 MHz) - issued by EAs

J Block: 1770-1780 and 2170-2180 (20 MHz) - issued by EAs

The FCC mandated full AWS-1 and AWS-3 interop, so existing 3GPP band 10 isn't allowed to be used. A new band is being studied now, and should be defined and declared by the end of Q1 2015. The 3GPP study item is supposed to be complete by the end of this year.

The final end to the last roaming agreement created by the Cingular/AT&TWS merger 10 years ago. 

Thankfully, it was replaced with converted MetroPCS coverage. The whole area is now lit up with HSPA+ and LTE from T-Mobile.

This explains why I get connected to MetroPCS around Los Angeles at times. I thought their CDMA network was dismantled already after the T-Mobile merger.

T-Mobile has only dismantled CDMA so far in markets that are AWS only: Las Vegas and Boston. At the end of this month, another AWS CDMA market will be shut down: Philadelphia. Eventually the entire CDMA network will be shut down, but for now, the PCS CDMA persists. AWS and PCS LTE has been turned off on the MetroPCS network everywhere, and all users were shifted to the MOCN-enabled T-Mobile network for PCS/AWS HSPA+ and AWS LTE (and soon PCS LTE, too).

T-Mobile roams on AT&T, but only in certain, specific, hand-picked areas (on a nearly tower by tower basis). It's usually only allowed in places *far* removed from T-Mobile's own native coverage.

 

AT&T does not usually allow any roaming on T-Mobile, even when they have no native service and T-Mobile does. (This might be different for Business or M2M customers, or in some hand-picked markets -- I don't know about that specifically. But generally, normal lines do not allow roaming of any kind onto T-Mobile.)

 

This isn't always true however.  For instance, during Hurricane Sandy,  AT&T and T-Mobile agreed to complete network sharing temporarily, so that you could switch between them at any time on any device - http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/31/att-and-t-mobile-temporarily-share-their-networks-in-nyc-nj/

 

But acts like that (while always 100% technologically available) are very rare to see in practice.

 

Unfortunately, AT&T doesn't allow roaming on T-Mobile anywhere except in extremely specific circumstances for anyone. However, they are perfectly happy paying Verizon for Unicel GSM coverage even if T-Mobile UMTS roaming coverage would be cheaper and better (this occurred in pockets of North MS). There was a small bit of PacBell bidirectional (AT&T<->TMUS) in-market roaming still available in Northern CA, but that expired earlier this year.

In NYC, Sprint roams on Verizon exclusively. MetroPCS has a presence here but my guess is that Sprint simply has greater signal propagation than Metro so I never encounter their signal.

Since MetroPCS never had a PCS CDMA network in NYC, Sprint would never roam on MetroPCS in NYC. Sprint could only roam on MetroPCS in Texas, Florida, Michigan, and California, where MetroPCS had PCS CDMA.

Running on gprs you'll seek out WiFi when ever you a can.

You won't run on GPRS in most of Europe. You'll have access to HSPA+. You'll just be throttled to 128Kbps of throughput, but still have the latency and reliability of an HSPA+ connection. If you want more throughput, you can pay for a data pass to access the full performance of the UMTS network (HSPA+/DC-HSPA+). Pretty soon, you'll be able to have access to roaming on LTE, too. Deutsche Telekom has been working on it for some time now.

Yep, China and Japan are retarded. Just like the U.S. We are a bunch of retards, the group of us. Don't give up your argument with superlative nonsense. TDD use in 2500/2600 makes a lot of sense, and those who disagree with you are not retards.

 

You'd have everyone be on FDD and the same bands worldwide. That's fine. But just make the case why that would be the ultimate Nealtopia.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

The U.S. band plan was the reason ITU Option 3 existed. Each section of 2.6GHz had different rules on how it could be used, and the divisions of blocks were uneven, making it impossible to sanely lay it out. The FCC rebanded 2.6GHz partially in 2005, but it didn't completely fix the problem.

Flexible FDD/TDD is perfectly fine, provided that the rules actually allow such flexible arrangements. The U.S. band plan and rules do not. Most of the world chose to use 2.6GHz for FDD+TDD in a fixed arrangement because 2.3GHz was set up as a full TDD band. In the U.S., this situation was flipped. 2.3GHz has a fixed FDD+TDD arrangement, while 2.6GHz is effectively a full TDD band. Canada was the same way until it rebanded 2.6GHz again to resolve it to Option 1. Latin America is planning on allocating 2.3GHz as a TDD band like Europe and Asia are.

China and Japan did not choose flexible FDD+TDD like the U.S. They made partial allocations and left the rest of the band as reserved. They reserve the right at any time to realign the band, because unlike most of the world, these two countries still use "beauty contest" style allocation processes for licensing radio frequencies. China does it this way because it owns controlling stakes in all three telcos, and Japan does it this way because it is an effective way for them to control licensing allocation proportions and gain recurring revenue from license fees.

Band 7 FDD is what's being deployed already in Europe and TD-LTE was relatively late in development; until China Mobile wanted it, I don't think anyone really planned to deploy TD-LTE, and even then it was a lagging technology.

 

Canada committed to FDD before it was clear (no pun intended) that LTE was going to win out over WiMax in the U.S. on the 2600 MHz band, which is unpaired spectrum here (effectively forcing Clearwire to go with TD-LTE once WiMax proved to be a dead end). If they had it to do over again, maybe they'd go with band 41 TD instead, but it's too late now.

No one is retarded enough to keep the U.S. 2.6GHz band plan. Canada, Mexico, and other countries that originally had it sensibly switched from ITU Option 3 (flexible FDD/TDD used by FCC due to weird requirements) to ITU Option 1 (fixed FDD+TDD used everywhere else but Japan and China). Even with Japan and China using 2.6GHz they way they are, they've actually left room to roll out FDD too.

In China's current allocation, 2535-2555 / 2655-2675 MHz for LTE band 7 is free. In Japan's current allocation, 2525-2555 / 2645-2675 MHz is free for LTE band 7. And if either country decides to rearrange the currently allocated blocks, then the LTE band 7 allocation could be even larger. 

T-Mobile was just slapped with a $819k fine for hearing aid problems. http://www.fcc.gov/document/t-mobile-fined-819000-hearing-aid-compatibility-violations

It wasn't "just slapped". This fine was originally imposed on T-Mobile four years ago. The company repeatedly tried to fight it for years. In the end, they gave up and accepted the FCC's fine...

Samsung galaxy light it has 700mhz hardware built into it ....yesterday my lte service barely got one bar now I averages 3 or better and my signal dbm is about 80 to 90 dbm ...the software update actually activate the 700 MHz radio and the volte capability

The Samsung Galaxy Light does not have 700MHz Band 12. It supports LTE bands 17 and 4. Most likely, the update erased the cache of local sites in your area, updated the cell selection algorithm, and coincided with a few newly upgraded sites that went live, resulting in better connection quality.

The only Band 12 LTE devices T-Mobile sells today are:

• Samsung Galaxy Avant
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 8.0

It is expected that a variant of the Sony Xperia Z3 will have it, and perhaps the Samsung Galaxy Note 4. The jury is out on whether or not the next iPhone will have it, as the previous iPhone didn't have it even though US Cellular signed on with Apple at the beginning of that year.

As much as I like a number of things t-mobile has done, are you just speculating or is this indeed the case? I could swear that especially with the edge upgrading, it is being done on the cheap with either few back haul upgrades (keeping microwave, etc). The speed tests coming out of newly upgraded edge areas has been not nearly as fast as metro areas.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Upgrades to coaxial or fiber-based connections are generally in progress from the moment a site is identified for upgrade. In the event that neither type is available, T-Mobile will construct a point-to-point microwave link to its closest coaxial/fiber node.

That being said, there are circumstances where upgrading the backhaul takes a ridiculously long time. For example, in Dothan, AL, T-Mobile had DC-HSPA+ online with only 3xTDM/T1 for about two years while it waited for CenturyLink (the only fiber provider in the area) to actually pump up fiber capacity and distribution to reach T-Mobile's sites. Of course, it wasn't supposed to take two years, but this is CenturyLink, after all. This was finally resolved last year, and T-Mobile quickly switched on LTE afterward.

so that means when they flip the switch their hspa + and lte will be nationwide and what about capacity constraints

Generally, T-Mobile is very good about rolling out backhaul to sites. They won't turn on LTE unless backhaul is good enough (though they will turn on UMTS regardless, because of the technological benefits). It doesn't take too long for T-Mobile to get backhaul upgraded to sites that have been modernized.

hey everyone i was wondering of the equipment tmobile was rolling out was multimode hspa+ lte equipement...if the knowledgeable staff would be able to answer i would greatly appreciate it

It's very well known that T-Mobile is rolling out new 2G/3G/4G multimode systems that support GSM/GPRS/EDGE, UMTS/HSPA+, and LTE simultaneously.

Done. I may not like what Sprint has been doing, but I'm hopeful this new CEO can get things on the right track...

If I was running T-Mobile I would sell to Dish. Between Dish's 700 E block and buying the rest of 700 A block you have total of 24MHz of 700Mhz. Forget about 600Mhz auction. Hell if Dish sues to stop the Direct TV/AT&T tie up, they can probably get Block D for cheap from AT&T. Dish is spectrum rich to the point where T-Mobile does not need to bid in any of the upcoming auctions. Not only that but Dish brings some cash flow and video content. It will be a pretty tough combination. Sprint will be left as the only pure wireless play. Everybody else would have some kind of media play.

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile. Selling to Dish would be stupid. First of all, 700MHz E block is pretty much useless, since it is unpaired. A block plus E block doesn't equal 24MHz, it equals 18MHz. Both 700MHz D and E blocks are unpaired, so at best, they could be used for SDL. However, SDL isn't very useful if your customer base is moving toward as much uploading as they are downloading (as Neville Ray has said a few times before).

Dish's video business is slowly declining, but the declines have been accelerating every quarter. The costs of gaining access to content are huge, and they would impair the business significantly for years to come. You don't need to "own" media to make a media play. There are smarter ways to do it that don't impair the business. Partnerships, for example, are what permit T-Mobile TV to not drain the business dry of its money in content acquisition. It's someone else's problem.

Open plan