Conan Kudo

Upon re-reading, maybe you're referring to unofficial naming nomenclature, like in the way people refer to Cellular as 800, but better described as 850.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. It's partially determined by middle downlink frequency, but not always.

2500 and 2600 are the same LTE Band. LTE Band 41. Some people call or 2500, and others call it 2600. They're pretty interchangeable. EBS is mostly in 2500 and BRS is mostly in 2600, but both are combined into one LTE band.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Wrong. 2600 refers to Band 7, while 2500 refers to Band 41 (according to frequency indication conventions).

The 4x2 MIMO is actually 4x4 MIMO operating in 4x2 mode for compatibility with existing UE. Once UE with 4x4 MIMO support become available, the systems can updated to enable it.

Could someone buy all the channel 51 stations, shut them down and use them as guard bands?

 

Also, how did everyone miss this ch 51 issue? If the FCC knew about it, why even auction A block?

 

Is the FCC doing something about this issue?

In theory, someone could buy the Ch51 stations and shut them down. There are sufficiently few of them that it is possible. However, it would make the FCC very mad. They don't like stuff like that.

The FCC was aware of the issue from the beginning. Lower 700 A block was auctioned at a lower cost (my house costs more than the A block license for my market!) than the others.

The FCC dawdled a bit on dealing with it, before finally freezing applications for Ch 51 in August 2011. They haven't done anything since.

Have you heard of switch filter modules? There was a a lot of these companies that used to make switch filter modules for phones along with duplexer switches etc. The giant sucking sound you just heard is their business getting sucked out of them by the Qualcomm RF360 solution.

Filters/Duplexers are not included in the RF360 solution. The integrated PA switch still requires external filters/duplexers. Most manufacturers use filters/duplexers from Murata. Look them up.

 It depends... I doubt AT&T would be happy, but at this point, Apple is powerful enough to dictate terms to AT&T, not the other way around. 

T-Mobile is powerful enough to dictate terms to Apple in terms of banding support. The agreement was negotiated as an amendment to Deutsche Telekom's global Apple device procurement agreement. Deutsche Telekom is definitely more powerful than AT&T.

The only place where T-Mobile really needs 700 A is rural areas, areas mostly unencumbered by 700 A interference issues.

 

Exactly. And any Band 12 device can support Band 17 through software, since Band 17 is a subset of Band 12. So AT&T LTE roaming would still be possible.

Okay, maybe penta-band. I've been saying that statement since before the noise about 600MHz started.

I worry about 600MHz. There are a lot of technical problems with it.

One major issue is that 600MHz and 700MHz can't be present on the same device with specialized antennas for each, apparently. And using a 700MHz antenna for 600MHz is less than acceptable (though doable).

Another major issue is the sheer number of band plans suggested. I still haven't figured out everything about each band plan that has been presented, but the TDD plans are utterly insane (the power levels required and the amount of RF leakage that would have to be permitted would completely screw over nearby bands). Some of the FDD plans have weird duplexing issues, which means that very tightly designed filters would be needed to ensure that Channel 37 doesn't get blown over. Power levels have to be lower than normally expected, which means that cellular density might be slightly higher than expected for 600MHz or even 800MHz deployments.

I would much rather see T-Mobile buy the 700MHz Lower A block and use that, instead. It would be cheaper than the auction, and it would be far less of a headache than what 600MHz is shaping up to be.

Exchanged change

miniature golf

Nope.  Honestly, I do not get the infatuation with Nexus devices and OS updates.  Give me OEM customized Android with engineering screens any day.  And who cares about OS updates?  That is more about the psychology of the supposed "latest and greatest" than any tangible benefit.  If you ask me, save the next OS version for your next device.

 

AJ

That's very foolish, A.J.

The whole point of OS updates is to patch defects in the software to ensure a good experience. The reason why people care is because there are people out there who want to exploit software defects to do bad things to users. Android updates close those holes in the OS. And sometimes, new security features are put in place.

You don't have to do that. Just flash the older baseband and keep the OS image up to date. Benefits of both worlds.

FYI... http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/101830/000119312513238555/d545797d8k.htm

I'm guessing the Security Director will also be the manager of those critical assets. At least an outright divestment wasn't required. That could have been problematic.

According to this bloomberg article, CFIUS is close to clearing Softbank of all national security concerns. 

 

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-28/softbank-said-close-to-national-security-approval-for-sprint.html

I wonder if the the small subsidiary company would be all of SprintLink? 

Looks like clearance has been given.  Here's the Sprint press release: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sprint-softbank-receive-clearance-committee-113000359.html

Yeah, it looks like SprintLink operations are going to be separated internally for CFIUS approval.

It certainly seems possible to do, according to this Radisys white paper. Of course, they could be trying to sell their VoLTE solution and not have a real clue on how to go about it.

 

http://go.radisys.com/rs/radisys/images/paper-lte-srvcc.pdf

There is a way to hand off voice sessions to an IMS core, but there's no "fast" voice call continuity handover like there is with 3GPP (which is part of eSRVCC). Judging by the specification, it would take too long to hand over unless both ends were using IMS for a 3GPP2 system (i.e. Ev-DO Rev A/B). This makes sense, given that one of the reasons Ev-DO was developed was to offer VoIP service. However, the latency tolerances for IMS Voice make it very difficult to use Ev-DO under normal circumstances.

Unless Sprint wants to use PCS H block, usually no. According to my documents with Samsung and Ericsson equipment, they are dynamically reprogrammable within the radio design spec.

The only one I am uncertain on is Alcatel-Lucent.

However, in order to use LTE TDD, all vendors will have to go back and redeploy again.

It's working great for me

 

The end of Band 12 is news to me.

 

I've heard that USCC was planning to add band 5 to the mix for more coverage and iPhone compatibility but that their current expansion plans have been scrapped is new. Do you have a source?

Band 12 isn't scrapped, mainly because of buildout requirements.

But the priority has shifted for US Cellular. Like most operators in the country with Lower 700MHz A block spectrum, they plan to go the license protection route (like Clearwire+Sprint for WiMAX) to ensure they aren't hit with massive fines.

Since all US Cellular LTE devices support Band 2 and Band 5 for LTE, it's not a problem to build out LTE on there in place of Band 12.

My other carrier, US Cellular.

 

They have a good amount of coverage in the plains area (tons where I live) and intend to build out to cover most of their footprint with band 12 LTE service.

 

The carriers that use band 12 are among the last holdout regional carriers not to be owned by the big four.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

Sadly, this may not be the case anymore. US Cellular is rebuilding LTE on Band 5 this year, with the intent to expand the network on bands 2 and 5 for the remainder of its LTE build out cycles. It appears that Band 12 has become too much of an issue.

I don't even know if Sprint is going to implement VoLTE to CDMA2000 1X handoff through eSRVCC. No clue. If I had to guess I'd say no.

eSRVCC is only for 3GPP systems. It would take a lot of jiggery-pokery to get even SRVCC to work with CDMA2000 1X. None of the CDMA/LTE carriers are willing to commit to that.

In the case of Verizon Wireless, they are increasing the density the 700MHz deployment to PCS levels to support VoLTE. That's in progress alongside the AWS LTE deployment (which is getting the IMT-E spacing treatment along with small cells).

I thought it brought up a lot of good points like how the government would have more oversight with CFIUS involved compared to Dish and how vodafone and DT are both using Huawei equipment overseas. I especially liked how they exposed the ties that dish has to the senators who have been voicing their "concerns".

 

The comments were annoying, but I am sure Ergen has a team of people who just spam his BS fear mongering.

And the problem is those don't matter. Sprint is not a wireless-only company. It is also the only non-Bell company with significant influence in the government, and has works very closely with various divisions of the US military on a regular basis.

Deutsche Telekom was barred from using infrastructure equipment from vendors of certain origin when it bought VoiceStream Wireless Corporation. Vodafone never got a say in anything with Verizon Wireless. There are many things that Vodafone lost the fight on with Verizon Wireless, and CFIUS never imposed anything on Cellco Partnership because Vodafone wasn't the majority owner.

The analysts are also missing the point of CFIUS: the government doesn't want to involve itself to that level. It doesn't want oversight over Sprint. It doesn't want to effectively do what it did pre-Bell breakup. The arguments that analysts keep making are invalid because they are based on the false premise that the government wants to control Sprint. It doesn't.

I have already advocated that Sprint spinoff their Internet backbone division. Too many competitors to make any money in the business. Let them merge with Level 3 and or XO communications who seem to have a lot more metro loops than Sprintlink.

I'd rather SprintLink get spun off and remain a company in its own right. SprintLink has loops in areas that no one else does, and it is a viable option for affordable Tier 1 access.

Good point. Are they going to ban iphones next? After all, they are made in china aren't they?

Oh no. You misunderstand. America has no problems exploiting those countries. They just don't want those countries to get involved in our infrastructure. Don't forget, the government okayed Huawei and ZTE phones, tablets, and data sticks. They put a stop to anything remotely close to network infrastructure for them, though.

Let me reiterate: America (especially Congress) does not care if Europeans invest in our infrastructure. Only if Asians do.

It doesn't help that most people in Congress can't differentiate beyond the Indo/Sino peoples. All the Sino peoples get grouped as "Chinese" even though there's a wide variety of Sino peoples. The Indo peoples are commonly known as Indians, but even those of European descent carry Indo traits because the Indo traits came from ancient Germans who trekked across Eurasia and spread the genes, so to speak. 

However, even when Europeans invest, the CFIUS imposed rather annoying conditions on them. They did the same for Deutsche Telekom's acquisition of the VoiceStream Wireless Corporation as well. However, the government is dead set against Asians having access to infrastructure the government relies on.

Vodafone's involvement in the US is limited to pleading to Verizon Communications to do something with Verizon Wireless, and then Verizon Communications ignoring them. Vodafone has no teeth in the US market. Level 3 has significant backing by Europeans, largely through its Global Crossing acquisition a few years ago. However, Level 3 is a domestic company owned principally by Americans.

Do we value Anglo skinned allies more than yellowish skinned? This is rubbish, IMHO.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

The Western nations have always valued each other over their Eastern allies, even before the 1980s. There's always been a large fear of the Eastern cultures overwhelming the Western ones. And of course, dey turk urr jeebs!

In general, America values the UK and Germany more than it values China and Japan. Remember that Hawaii was admitted to the US (as a territory, and later a state) only out of fear of the Japanese taking it over (through the mass of contract labors entering and immigrating into the Republic of Hawaii).

The government is quite worried about SoftBank gaining 70% equity of Sprint-Nextel Corporation. From what I've read, much of the fuss is not actually over Sprint PCS and Nextel assets (which is collectively known these days as Sprint Wireless). Most of it seems to be over the SprintLink assets, which comprise of a Tier 1 backbone provider for the Internet, IP/MPLS services for enterprises, and Peerless IP for the government.

It's the first and last parts that concern the government. Peerless IP, if you didn't already know, is used to offer an IP network that is totally separate from the Internet, but equally reliable. There is also an entire division of SprintLink that has top secret clearance to manage government accounts and handle sensitive data.

Because of what SprintLink does, it has a permanent seat in security committees that allow it to wield considerable influence in how cyber-security is handled in the United States. Its peers are mainly Level 3, AT&T, and Verizon Communications.

The government does not want this to pass over to a foreign company.

So my question to you all is: How well would Sprint function after yet another divestment? This time, the divestment would be all the remaining parts of its wireline business (SprintLink). Would the Sprint-Nextel Corporation still be able to function and maintain profits? Would it still be desirable to SoftBank (who has never really mentioned SprintLink before)?

Dish is now attacking the SoftBank-Sprint deal through SprintLink. It's talking up the security concerns on yet another website. I won't link to it because I don't want to legitimize it, but it's easy enough to find.

Ugh, Howard Forums tries my patience so much these days. I don't like visiting there, even though I do regularly because sometimes there's that wonderful little gem covered up by the boatload of scum...

I believe Qualcomm 's advantage wasn't cdma since other chip manufacturers made SoCs with cdma for years. Qualcomm was the only one that had a competitive speed and LTE on their soc when the last generation of smartphones came out (evo and s3). I'm not sure if that is still the case.

 

I agree though, the more chip manufacturers in the us market the better we will all be

 

Sent from my EVO LTE

They still used Qualcomm modems. Qualcomm used that to its advantage by making the volume cost of SoC Fusion lower vs pairing Qualcomm modems with non-Qualcomm application processors.

Then, who does "make the best 3GPP modems"?

 

Since W-CDMA is basically 3GPP's spin on cdmaOne/CDMA2000, it contains a lot of Qualcomm intellectual property.  That potentially gives Qualcomm a leg up.  And my take is that if you invented something truly unique (e.g. iPhone does not count), then you should have significant advantages.  So, I have long admired Qualcomm and give it some leeway that I do not extend to other companies (e.g. VZW, AT&T, and Apple) that have dominated their markets.

 

Plus, many AT&T and T-Mobile devices have gone with a 3GPP only Snapdragon SoC.  Since they require no 3GPP2 compatibility, they could have gone with a 3GPP only, non Qualcomm solution, yet they still utilized Qualcomm.

 

AJ

While it does contain a lot of Qualcomm intellectual property, Qualcomm was forced to license it FRAND on the ETSI's terms. This allowed for a lot of other companies to develop 3GPP modems. Some examples of modem manufacturers: Icera (now nVidia), ST-Ericsson, Huawei, Samsung, ZTE, and Infineon (now Intel).

Often, the reason that AT&T and T-Mobile typically get Snapdragon models is that they are cheaper because Verizon and Sprint must get Snapdragon models. That means that the per-unit cost of Snapdragon models are lower than the non-Snapdragon ones.

However, this doesn't always happen. The first Galaxy S differed greatly between CDMA and GSM variants. Samsung highly favors ST-Ericsson for international models of its phones, as did Nokia before Windows Phone. ST-Ericsson sees great success in the international markets for its rather complete support of 3GPP standards. It was one of the first to support GSM, TD-SCDMA, and WCDMA in a single modem, and that was later extended to LTE, too.

After trying out products that have Qualcomm, ST-Ericsson, Huawei, Samsung, and Infineon modems, I've typically considered ST-Ericsson to be one of the best-in-class 3GPP modem manufacturers. Qualcomm is just below it, with Samsung below them, Infineon below them, and Huawei at the bottom. However, YMMV. My experiences will probably not be the same as others.

On the CDMA side, there's just Qualcomm and VIA Telecom. I don't think I have to remind people in S4GRU how bad VIA Telecom chips are. By default, that just leaves Qualcomm.

And A.J., I'm truly surprised that you feel that way about Qualcomm. Just because its IP was used to develop the standard doesn't mean that it is necessarily the best at using that IP. Sometimes being too close to it makes you unable to see better ways to use it. That applies to Qualcomm as much as any other person or company.

I want to see the results on the Tegra 4i before I crown it better or as food as the Snapdragon. As much as I can't stand Qualcomm's cornering of the CDMA market through intellectual property, I must admit they're making better SoC's than NVidia at this point.

The thing is, Qualcomm doesn't necessarily make the best 3GPP modems. However, because the US is really the last big bastion of CDMA (3GPP2), Qualcomm Snapdragon thrives here.