Conan Kudo

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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).

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. 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.

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.

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...

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.

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. 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.