Conan Kudo

I am just not buying it, Neal.  You honestly need to produce some solid evidence backed by accepted numbers to get this to stick.

 

Economy of scale quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns, so 50 million is much different from 5 million but not so different from 500 million.  Thus, if OEMs have issue producing the appropriate 3GPP2 band class devices for a carrier the size Sprint, they deserve to be told to go screw themselves.

 

AJ

Then Sprint would be left with ZTE, Huawei, and Kyocera. The rest would be told "go screw yourselves".

Ok. But what rules means that B26 an B5 are forever separated?

 

None, but most operators in the US will only do interoperability as far as it benefits them to do so. Sprint should be using Band 27 instead of Band 26 for its ESMR LTE, but it won't. In fact, Sprint should have pushed for 26 and 27 to be combined into a single band, but it didn't, because it wanted to keep its competitors out of the space.

For power output?

So does this mean that Apple will never be able to include only B26 but also separately include b5 on different RF path?

No parts were available for Band 26 from various suppliers until March 2013. Development started on power amplifiers and duplexers just after the Part 90 (SMR) rules were amended.

I thought you said Sprint will keep CDMA on ESMR until 2020.

 

 

Also, AJ said that Sprint will only get rid of CDMA when the current equipment starts failing which I'm guessing is not not gonna be a mere 3.5 years.

 

 

Looks like the ublox-Sprint M2M deal wasn't worth jack, huh? cause ATT also plans to shutdown their 2G by 2017. Though Sprint could, like you said, keep 1x on ESMR but the modem mentioned in below article doesn't have ESMR.

 

http://www.u-blox.com/en/wireless-modules/cdma/fw75.html

 

 

 

Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown

 

 

Read more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2aGZulvlo

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 

I did say that, but Sprint made those announcements prior to SoftBank acquiring them. I think SoftBank will leave ESMR CDMA alone (as it can service Assurance Wireless customers, M2M, and legacy customers). But it will aggressively work to get Sprint to switch PCS A-F to 3GPP from 3GPP2.

G block is suspect because there are no other players. Canada has G block open and auctioned off, but the company Public Mobile went with CDMA2000 instead (and has to buy specialty devices for its audience). Sprint really hasn't tried to push the Band 25 ecosystem to those who use PCS LTE. It's been quite content being the only provider of Band 25 LTE services.

C Spire is an unusual aberration that was caused by C Spire's need to get devices quickly, and no one could provide Band 2 PCS LTE or Band 12 700MHz LTE devices at the time C Spire wanted to launch. But C Spire has no G block spectrum, and it only uses Sprint devices rebranded. No unique devices at all.

I doubt A.J. will particularly like my reasoning, but I've talked to enough people to confirm that the problem exists. But this is a game of economic and technological scale, and Sprint doesn't have it. Like it or not, these are real problems that Sprint has.

Apple will support LTE BAND 41 , simple answer is SOFTBANK.. This is what the Sprint/ Softbank merger is all about making it easy to get devices and network gear. 1st and #1 iphone carrier in Japan and the #3 iphone carrier in the US , apple would lose out on a lot of money not supporting one of its largest customer. They are the same company now.

SoftBank and Sprint combined, which have a subscriber total of ~88M, are dwarfed by the combined strength of Vodafone (450M), Airtel (266M), SingTel (265M), América Móvil (252M), Telefónica (250M), Orange (230M), VimpelCom (215M), TeliaSonera (160M), Telenor (150M), and Deutsche Telekom (130M). All of those operators participate in the GSM/UMTS/LTE ecosystem, and all of them are doing GSM/LTE or GSM/UMTS/LTE with LTE FDD and LTE TDD with Bands 7+38 instead of Band 41 LTE TDD. That is an ecosystem of 2368 million (~2.4 billion) subscribers.

Unfortunately enough, SoftBank can participate in this ecosystem and get good pricing on handsets with a swap to Band 41, but Sprint cannot. This is because SoftBank's handsets involve a simple filter swap on GSM/UMTS/LTE devices that support Band 38 to widen to Band 41 (and not include the Band 7 PA, which nearly all Band 38 devices currently do not have anyway). Also, since SoftBank uses bands for UMTS that are the same as the rest of Asia and Europe, there is a higher degree of reuse. This dramatically cuts the cost.

Sprint has several counts against it in the ecosystem. While it uses PCS A-F spectrum (which is widely used for UMTS service), it provides CDMA2000 service on that band instead. It also provides CDMA service on ESMR, with plans to provide LTE service on the band soon, too. Additionally, its PCS G block has not yet been auctioned elsewhere because the viability of the ecosystem is considered suspect, so the PCS G LTE network is considered "unusual". While it is true that most power amplifier parts are multi-mode, the procurement of CDMA devices and infrastructure is much more expensive because of the vastly reduced market for it. It doesn't help that Verizon's planned exit of the user device procurement market for CDMA/LTE devices will cause an ecosystem crash (it cuts the size of the CDMA/LTE market by more than half). Sprint will have to spend substantially more per device, which means Sprint has less money to spend on infrastructure.

3GPP infrastructure will be much cheaper for Sprint to acquire now, since it can use the combined strength of Sprint and SoftBank, but 3GPP2+3GPP gear will continue to get more expensive. That is why SoftBank wants to convert Sprint to 3GPP-only by 2017. It doesn't want to fund what it considers to be a waste (which it does consider the 3GPP2 gear to be that).

However, if Apple were to add TD-LTE support for China Mobile, why wouldn't it be relatively easy to add TD-LTE support for Sprint?

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1138601-china-mobiles-td-lte-technology-expanding-fast-where-to-invest

Apple does not deal with China Mobile currently, and it's not likely it ever will, since Apple would have to incorporate GSM, WCDMA (with CA for HSPA+), TD-SCDMA, CDMA2000, LTE TDD (with MIMO and CA), and LTE FDD (with MIMO). That makes the iPhone impossibly expensive for China Mobile's audience. And unlike China Unicom and China Telecom (who both have customers that actually sign contracts and pay a lot of money), China Mobile's customers are almost entirely prepaid with demands for cheap devices.

Except one huge difference, adding 800smr support was relatively easy.

Correct. SMR and ESMR are adjacent to Cellular band, and use the same duplex gap. Thusly, the Cellular band can be easily extended to cover the frequencies. That's how Band 26 exists.

Why should it be hard to implement FDD and TDD together? As far as I know the chipsets are designed to allow them to coexist easily and all chipsets support both.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

 

The problem isn't the baseband chipset. It's the RF frontend components. TDD components are vastly more expensive and require different techniques to properly implement than FDD. Also, smaller phones make it much more difficult to implement both modes. Effectively, a completely separate radio chain is required for TDD. That's also why SV-LTE goes away with Sprint LTE FDD+TDD phones.

Are you saying that Apple will most likely never support band 41 and 7+38? What if they make a different model sans 7+38 but include B41?

 

 

Sent from my Sprint iPhone 5, not the old one (using Tapatalk 2).

It wouldn't be worth it for Apple, but it might. I suspect that Apple will content itself with Bands 25 and 26, since LTE TDD might be a bit too hard to implement alongside FDD in the iPhone. Remember, Apple prefers to develop unified devices, and I wouldn't doubt that Apple has been working to develop a single GSM/CDMA2000/UMTS/LTE device to cover most of the world. It's currently possible to support 8 bands on one device, so I could see this happening. As long as LTE TDD is left out, Apple could pull it off.

business card

True. I'm just going to say the next year iPhone will support Triband. By then LTE should be (hopefully) deployed nationwide and most of the major markets are above 60% competition

Maybe, but it's unlikely. Normally supporting Bands 7+38 automatically makes it impossible to support Band 41 (they are currently mutually exclusive). And Apple will definitely support those bands before Band 41, because they're being used EVERYWHERE except Japan and the US. Even Canada uses Band 7 right now, with Band 38 being auctioned sometime next year.

Is Sprint gonna get its ass in gear? If it's trying to be number 1, this isn't how Sprint should be behaving.

I believe Sprint's current systems still tie the user identity to the phone identity, which makes it very problematic to offer SIM-only plans. Now that Sprint technically offers removable SIMs (as part of device sales, though), it should be working on that (or have already done so, mostly).

It took a lot of work for Verizon to redo its entire system to be able to do that, and part of that work resulted in the Share Everything plans. When you use a Share Everything plan, the newer account management scheme is used, which decouples the device identity from the user identity in the line on the service account. Of course, you don't really see the difference, because it's a backend change.

AT&T and T-Mobile have had these capabilities in their systems for years, as they needed to support them for international and prepaid users.

Why is Sprint LTE absent?

Because unlike Sprint LTE, Google doesn't need Verizon's permission to get it working on the network. Verizon is mandated by law to accept it (which is why there's no CDMA, which doesn't follow this rule). Also, Sprint doesn't offer SIM cards by themselves like GSM/UMTS/LTE operators (and Verizon) do. 

Thus, it would be pointless because Sprint doesn't have the facilities to enable that. However, it could be easily upgraded in the future, since Bands 2 and 5 are already present. A simple manufacturing swap on the duplexer/filter for PCS would allow Band 25, and another swap on Cellular would permit Band 26 support. I think Google is waiting for Sprint to have the capability to support SIM-free devices. I'm not sure Sprint ever will in its current state.

But the article?... Sprint says it's keeping 1xRTT for years, certainly more than the 3 years that you're claiming. Even ATT is keeping GSM for 3 more years.

The US isn't the whole world, and there are certainly exceptions. Sprint plans to retain 1xRTT on ESMR through 2020, and T-Mobile plans to retain skeleton GSM allocations on PCS through 2020 as well. Most Asian operators are in the process or have already replaced 2G networks with UMTS and LTE, though. European operators began that process this year and will continue to do it for the next several years. Latin America will straggle a bit, but I imagine that it'll get there fairly quickly, too.

Incidentally, Sprint and other CDMA operators aren't really experiencing a good level of take-up on this. Most M2M product developers realize that it would be a poor decision to use CDMA in their products. No one wants to go through the "OnStar hell" with their customers.

But ublox and Sprint just signed an agreement BECAUSE 2G is cheaper and M2M users don't want or need 3G M2M.

 

"M2M customers have historically gravitated to 2G modules because their data needs have been minimal and 2G modules have been significantly less-expensive than 3G modules."

 

Read more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2ZucHvj6G

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Except the cost of the individual module makes up less than 15% of the total cost of the connectivity. And because 2G networks aren't well-designed to handle data, it actually costs more to deliver 2G data than it does to deliver 3G data. As a result, 3G M2M rates are usually lower than their 2G counterparts, even though the module itself is more expensive.

Additionally, 2G networks have a very short shelf-life right now. CDMA and GSM networks are being phased out globally over the next three years as refarming to UMTS and LTE occur. UMTS, however, is expected to be around for another 20 years, as it will replace 2G networks as the lowest level technology globally.

So do you think TMO will implement WCDMA+? If they are, shouldn't they begin requiring it on their phones NOW?

 

WCDMA+ isn't ready yet. It's not even a study in the 3GPP, much less a spec for proposal.

What's the point of scalable UMTS? You need new equipment and new phones so why not just use LTE 1.3 MHz FDD?

 

Because it is theoretically possible for scalable UMTS to offer greater downlink+uplink performance than a 1.4MHz LTE FDD carrier. The techniques being used to scale the carrier sizes aren't expected to affect the actual downlink/uplink throughput, so that could make it much more desirable. And there are regulatory environments where LTE is simply not permitted, but UMTS is.

When's it gonna start this 700 MHz densification?

 

According to Robert, and my own cousin's Droid, Verizon's LTE is plummeting; her Droid got 1.5mbps.

Pretty much now. As reports come into Verizon, they'll go in and start doing the good work.

If Tmobile is smart they would focus only on LTE at this point.  Tmobile is already behind the other major carriers in the LTE game and they really need to catch up and LTE will be the default technology of choice among all US carriers.  According to the Qualcomm presentation, WCDMA+ won't be available until 2016 which by then VoLTE should be at the stages of beginning of mass deployment after all the carriers deploy LTE Advanced capable networks.  WCDMA+ seems to be an improvement on reducing resources for voice to free up resources for HSPA+ data and some improvements for HD voice.  WCDMA+ looks to have similar benefits as 1x Advanced in that it uses less spectrum resources for voice and increases voice capacity while freeing up these extra resources for data.  I think its a waste if Tmobile intends to keep HSPA+ alive.  ATT seems to be going all in on LTE now.  ATT didn't even bother to waste spectrum resources on deploying DC-HSPA+.

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile then. There are a number of advantages with keeping up with UMTS, not the least of which is that it is becoming the new target for M2M globally because some of the most important countries are either shutting down 2G networks or switching to UMTS as the primary network technology underneath LTE.

WCDMA+ is being developed as a way to reduce the spectral requirements of the voice channels being multiplexed in. This doesn't have as much of a benefit for 5MHz WCDMA carriers as it does for 2.5MHz and 1.25MHz UMTS carriers (which is an upcoming 3GPP Release 12 feature). While these smaller UMTS carriers don't eliminate voice+data multiplexing (and in theory, the techniques used to make this possible shouldn't reduce performance), it would be advantageous to improve the link budget allocated to data for these smaller carriers.

That's true, IIRC Verizon only has LTE on approx a 3rd of it's sites in the 700 Mhz frequency? 

In a mid-band CDMA market, that's the case. In a low-band CDMA market, Verizon uses about half the cell sites initially, and converts the other half on a capacity basis. It plans to move closer to an overbuild style on 700MHz to better support handover and reduce experience on cell edge (which offers terrible performance vs UMTS).

I would usually go LoS (Loss of Signal) where phone calls or texts couldn't reach me. A spot that I noticed this was in my local movie theater. I know they say to silence your cell phone but T-Mobile did for me. Lol

 

 

This is definitely fun! I love proving to people that Sprint can compete. Their reputation has been pretty bad for awhile now and I feel like I'm one of the very few people that brag about being on Sprint. Rofl

 

Verizon has 10mhz carriers whereas Sprint has 5mhz. Not to mention Verizon has LTE on the 700 MHz band which means it'll work much better indoors than Sprints 1900 LTE. The advantage we have is less people burdening the towers on Sprint. Verizon has a lot more customers on their network at a given time.

It doesn't help that Verizon actually has a lower cell site density than Sprint/T-Mobile because of the 700MHz band (though that is changing very quickly in order for them to move to LTE-only offerings).

Are you talking about 6k Metro DAS? I posted above article stating TMO is removing 10k out of 12k Metro cell sites and keeping its 6k DAS. Why didn't TMO select more vendors?

No. I'm referring to the 6K Metro cell sites they are keeping in place of T-Mobile redundant 2G cell sites in metro markets. Most of these cities MetroPCS has PCS in are markets where T-Mobile maintains separate cell sites for 2G and 3G/4G. The densification of the 3G/4G network will result in much greater performance and capacity, with no loss in GSM capability. In fact, since many of them are SunCom/Powertel markets, GSM capabilities will be greatly improved, as the fallback will no longer be GPRS (like in many parts of Florida).

It's cheaper because the backhaul is better at the MetroPCS sites over the T-Mobile GSM ones.

If memory serves me correctly, those are legacy Lucent infrastructure markets.  So, it only makes sense to keep them in the Lucent fold.  Think of the many problems that legacy Motorola infrastructure market have in transitioning to Samsung.  Would you really want the potential for more such problems in many more markets?

 

AJ

 

That's correct. However, it could horribly backfire now, if Alcatel-Lucent decides to exit the wireless infrastructure market.

As for AT&T/Verizon, Alcatel-Lucent isn't providing new cell site gear. The agreement merely allows ALU to bolt on LTE to existing Lucent cell sites.

Samsung?

According to the oft-neglected Samsung Networks website, the Smart MBS platform (of which Network Vision Samsung markets use), supports GSM, UMTS, and LTE. So, Samsung would be a good vendor. Also, since Samsung has developed a Band 12 LTE solution and a Band 5 GSM/UMTS/LTE solution, Samsung could provide for the two special markets, as well.

The alternatives aren't that great, unfortunately. Alcatel-Lucent has been doing very poorly in keeping up in wireless. It has been largely the CDMA business with rural/regional operators in the US has been keeping the wireless business afloat and Alcatel-Lucent is expected to shut it down or divest it (to a company that's not likely to be considered approved for the US market) in the next 6-12 months in favor of becoming a wireline/data center/backbone network specialist. That's why T-Mobile is replacing all legacy Lucent and Alcatel-Lucent gear in its network with Nokia's gear. Huawei would not be permitted. ZTE would require significant wrangling that isn't worth the effort. No other vendors exist in this market. Most of them are dead or merged.

The potential shut-down of the Alcatel-Lucent wireless business does not bode well. Of course, ALU's gear is the least advanced of the three vendors in Network Vision, which is why Sprint gave them the smallest physical footprint. However, this is going to screw over the entire rural/regional operator community, because nearly all of them depend exclusively on Alcatel-Lucent.

The issue is backhaul. Robert said (above somewhere) that unless they started last year (or two), then it's gonna take them 2 years to get fiber backhaul to all 14k rural i.e. 2015. But yeah, if they get all 52k + 2k (metro) LTE, that'll be an insane density. Sprint has 39k sites and it covers about-ish (AJ) area of TMO.

Well, T-Mobile actually has started the process of upgrading backhaul in many of the non-upgraded areas in 2011. It's  a difficult challenge. Additionally, T-Mobile actually did begin upgrading rural areas to HSPA+ in the last year or so (admittedly on an opportunistic basis). As cell sites break down (as 15-20 year old cell sites are wont to do), T-Mobile has been replacing them with new multi-mode ones. That's why the POPs count actually went up in the last four months. T-Mobile has been expanding the HSPA+ coverage, just not strategically right now.

Also, T-Mobile is receiving grants from the government to upgrade several rural regions to HSPA+/LTE this year, and that coincides with the ending of the 37K cell site upgrade (now expanded to 40K out of 62K). The problem in the past was that Nokia Networks and Ericsson have over-promised and under-delivered in terms of physical equipment, making it very difficult for T-Mobile to upgrade everywhere. It is my belief that T-Mobile needs a third vendor that can handle the remaining cell sites.

Ericsson and Nokia Networks are stretched very thin right now. As a result, I'm not sure they could keep up enough to meet T-Mobile's goal of having 3G/4G all over the native footprint by early 2015. If T-Mobile were to get a third vendor, then perhaps the upgrade goals could be met in time. Nokia Networks is especially stretched thin, because it's going to be replacing the Alcatel-Lucent gear T-Mobile inherited from MetroPCS next year. That's around 6K cell sites right there (mostly in the MetroPCS PCS markets). Ericsson, as the vendor for everyone, can't keep up. It's failing to meet orders and is continually negotiating for substitutes with T-Mobile. For example, all of NYC is supposed to use the new AIR 21 system. But Ericsson can't produce enough for T-Mobile, so Ericsson negotiated for a hybrid deployment.

I just hope Neville Ray realizes this and gets a third vendor to complete the upgrade of the native network...

All of these "new" options are the equivalent of rent to own furniture and the same thing that keeps America hooked on subsidies.  Promise me the goods I want, don't worry about driving up my credit line, I can pay it off later.    Its the same concept that caused customers to love the ability to charge devices to their sprint account and exactly why people screamed when sprint did away with the ability to charge devices to your account.  

 

To participate, all require the device you have to be traded in.  There will be a gray area around condition, I suspect.  Some stores will refuse trades based on cosmetic damage, corrosion seen or evidenced somewhere on the device, etc. 

 

I'm just not sold on it. But sure, why not come up with something that matches the others?  

I don't look at JUMP! the same way I look at AT&T Next or VZ Edge. For one, T-Mobile's JUMP! includes phone insurance. I look at it like the ultimate insurance plan, protecting you against pretty much everything (including when you don't want your phone anymore). I also pay for phone insurance because my little brother (who is starting college, so he's not a child or anything) is pretty accident-prone. It doesn't cost me much more to do this, and this way, my bacon is saved because I don't have to shell out $600 for when he breaks it. And if he dislikes it, well, there's an option for that too.

Look, most people are deeply fickle, and some consider phones disposable. Because T-Mobile now administers its own phone insurance system, it can actually be flexible enough to offer a way to cater to these people. 

AT&T Next and VZ Edge only copy one aspect of JUMP!. Not only is it not worth it because you're paying for the phone twice over, you're also not getting more value out of your service for doing so.

I need an update on everyone's spectrum. lol

Here's the bands everyone has (using Name+3GPP band numbers)

T-Mobile US

Cellular+B5 | PCS+B2 | AWS+B4 | 700MHz+B12 (perhaps AWS-E+B10 or a new one for AWS-3 in the future)

Sprint

ESMR/Cellular+B26 | PCS+B2 | PCS+B25 | IMT-E_TDD+B41 (eventually new band for PCS to add PCS H will be added)

AT&T

Cellular+B5 | PCS+B2 | AWS+B4 | 700MHz+B17 | WCS+B30 | 700_SDL+B29

Verizon

Cellular+B5 | PCS+B2 | AWS+B4 | 700MHz+B12 | 750MHz+B13 (perhaps AWS-E+B10 or a new one for AWS-3 in the future)

Dish/Echostar

AWS-4+B23 | 700_SDL+B29

These are only the Big Four and Dish, but USCC basically has the same bands as TMUS.

Currently, T-Mobile's MetroPCS division is working on constructing 700MHz Band 12 operations in the Boston BEA to meet the FCC buildout requirements. T-Mobile currently uses Cellular in one area, the Myrtle Beach CMA in South Carolina.

I listed PCS twice for Sprint because Sprint treats PCS A-F and PCS G (and PCS H) as separate bands internally.

I'm also worried that in order to cram all that LTE in there that some of the GSM/UMTS bands will be sacrificed (like they were in the HTC One). Right now the only other CDMA model of the S4 that also supports GSM is VZ's, and that's just dual-band LTE. Quad-band GSM/UMTS/HSPA+, tri-band CDMA/EVDO, tri-band LTE, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc seems like a bit much to cram in, but I hope for all you waiting that they can do it!

 

There's no real "cramming" for multiple technologies anymore, especially with Qualcomm radio chains. The RF frontend of most CDMA2000 devices can be tweaked in software to work for UMTS. The only extra RF part required is a quad-band GSM PA if you want GSM support. While UMTS/LTE and UMTS-only RF frontend parts exist, these days no RF frontend parts exist for CDMA2000 that don't support UMTS. And the only CDMA2000 baseband that doesn't support UMTS is the VIA Telecom one. Qualcomm basebands support both just fine.

It is truly the operator's fault you don't have UMTS enabled out of the box on your CDMA2000 phone.

breaking bad

Unfortunately in this day and age, it is too much to ask. With the explosive growth of data, new bands and blocks are being added all the time for all carriers. This is not unique to Sprint. If you want a device that works on all possible bands and blocks at all times, you will need to buy a new device annually.

 

I just had to buy a new hotspot for Verizon so I could use AWS LTE, even though my other hotspot is only one year old. Such is life.

 

I could have just kept the old one, without much impact. But I wanted access to the new band. It was a personal choice. And that preference cost me money.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I'm edging toward getting a new Verizon hotspot myself, but I'm waiting for a global model with AWS LTE onboard and active.

The "good news" on Sprint's front is that unless Sprint decides to bid on AWS-3 spectrum too, Sprint's spectral portfolio will remain the same for at least 24 months after the AWS-2 auction.

I recently spent a day in the Columbus and Bloomington, IN area. My phone lasted longer on LTE than it ever has on EVDO, and I was even using it much more often. I'm pretty excited to finally have LTE here.

 

I don't really have any observations as far as building penetration though. I had fairly good signal everywhere I went, so I had fairly good signal inside as well.

Somewhat surprisingly, the latest generation of Sprint handsets have been designed for GSM+UMTS+LTE operation, rather than CDMA2000 1X+EVDO. Consequently, battery drain on LTE is lesser than that of CDMA EvDO. Also, the latest generation of LTE basebands incorporate some UE-side R9 features that help reduce the number of "wakeups" required to communicate. This lessens the power drain to activate modes of operation, and allows LTE to idle with minimal power usage.

3GPP likely started the standardization process before AT&T had to dispose of much of its AWS. Additionally, Canadian operators will likely aggregate band 29 with band 4.

 

 

The difference between an 1800 MHz uplink and a 1700 MHz uplink is negligible. The same holds true for a 1900 MHz downlink and a 2100 MHz downlink. Furthermore, PCS and AWS service rules are practically the same.

 

AJ

AT&T requested the Band 29 supplemental downlink standardization just before the AT&T/T-Mobile deal was announced. It started the process right after that. It was completed just before AT&T announced it was withdrawing its bid for T-Mobile.

In terms of the 3GPP standardization of RF characteristics, PCS and AWS are very similar. Both use rules derived from DCS and IMT.