Conan Kudo

According to the information we have about Sprint's VoLTE plan there will be VoLTE to CDMA handoff.

 

"The Sprint VoLTE network will be designed to hand off calls to the existing Sprint CDMA network, including HD Voice calls, via the EVRC-NW codec"

 

"VoLTE calls will not be given QoS Priority on LTE initially. Should LTE capacity constraints be experienced during a VoLTE call, the call will be handed over to the 1x network"

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-368-sprint-is-proceeding-with-a-volte-network-that-focuses-on-interoperability-with-domestic-and-international-volte-carriers/

At this time, that's not possible. I also find it extremely hard to believe that Sprint will be able to do it, especially when no one else has been able to get it to work (or wants to anymore). SRVCC does not support continuous transcoding, which is required for compatibility with EVRC codec family. The roaming mechanism could support it, but it would be EVRC encoding PCM, which doesn't afford any benefits except compressed bandwidth.

If it could be done without unacceptably high failure rates, I think Verizon, KDDI, and others would do it. Since it isn't, they don't want to touch it. It would degrade the quality of the network experience for customers, which they definitely don't want. It's already hard enough to keep customers from leaving to GSM/UMTS operators, they don't want to make it worse by impairing the quality of their voice systems even more.

Is there any way to hand off calls from lte to cdma?

Not without some really messy breakages. Essentially, because the two systems use totally different core network platforms (as opposed to GSM/UMTS+LTE systems), making the two systems establish seamless voice handover is so technically challenging that it is not practical to make it work.

That said, some work was done two years ago to establish a prototype mechanism for it. It works by treating the CDMA network as an visitor network and using the roaming handover mechanism to transfer the call. By doing so, however, the call drops to the lowest common codec: PCM. So HD Voice and all the other stuff is gone. What's worse is that the prototype didn't work very well in testing, with extraordinarily high failure rates (>20-30% of all calls failed to transfer). In the end, the CDMA operators who were driving the development of the idea killed it because of the unacceptable quality. Verizon and KDDI went on to just roll out VoLTE without any form of interconnection with the CDMA network layer.

what do you mean omnipoint

T-Mobile's network in the NY-NJ-CT area was constructed by its predecessor: Omnipoint Corporation. John W. Stanton's VoiceStream Wireless acquired Omnipoint in 1999 and later executed an agreement to take full ownership of American Personal Communications' (marketed under the Sprint Spectrum brand) GSM facilities and spectrum for Washington-Baltimore and Seattle-Tacoma from Sprint PCS, which completed in January 2000.

Edit: Seattle-Tacoma came from CIVS I (Cook Inlet/VoiceStream PCS JV), not Omnipoint

The CCA website has a coverage map that shows nearly the entire state of Iowa covered. If USCC isn't in the CCA whose coverage are they representing?

T-Mobile affiliate iWireless is a member of the CCA. Its coverage is represented in the CCA coverage map.

So with the flex 2 coming out soon will that fall under the unlocking policy?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most likely not, since it was developed before February 11.

I think the answer to your question is Sprint's management would rather not eat into their liquidity position and would rather take on vendor financing to pay for it in the mean-time.

 

EDIT - The liquidity is nice to have when you're entering into a price war.

What liquidity? Sprint has been negative FCF every quarter for some time now. And the operating cash reserves dipped into the red late last year.

I'll rephrase the question: Will Sprint permit their MVNO's to activate an unlocked iPhone 6(+) purchased directly from Apple, as they have done for the Nexus?

 

If they do not, it will be ironic that once Ting launches T-Mobile service next month, the phone will be fully compatible with either network, but only activate on one. Sprint would essentially be turning down that wholesale revenue and allowing T-Mobile to have all of it instead.

Nexus devices are special in that they are intended for developers, and thus are not considered "iconic" devices. Thusly, that very scenario is quite likely.

It will be interesting to see if Ting and the other Sprint MVNO's will now be able to support the iPhone 6(+) without having to wait for the 1-yr BYOD embargo to lift, as is the case with the Nexus 5/6.

Probably not, as it's all still dependent on that whitelisting system.

The Darkness

The Spark

Power Ranger

They will most likely convert the GMO to a full build when 700a is added.

When 700MHz is being deployed, the site is converted to a full build (RRHs and all) with 700, PCS, and AWS on it. AWS LTE, PCS GSM+UMTS, and 700MHz LTE are activated at that time.

Does this thread have anything to do with Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, and Sprint Prepaid phones becoming eligible to be activated on Sprint Postpaid?

 

Thanks

Nope. This is about the GSM/UMTS/LTE portions of Sprint phones becoming unlocked and usable with other domestic GSM/UMTS/LTE carriers that are compatible with the devices.

Does T-Mobile sell any phones that don't support LTE, or volte? If coverage isn't being decreased over the GSM footprint, I still don't see the point in adding hspa.

T-Mobile sells plenty of phones that are GSM/UMTS only. Between MetroPCS and T-Mobile proper, it probably sells around 50% GSM/UMTS/LTE and 50% GSM/UMTS phones. GoSmart sells only GSM/UMTS phones.

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

You're too cynical. It's not hard to get backhaul to these sites. It just takes more planning, which T-Mobile does a good job of, and they've proven themselves well, so far. Even Sprint has done a semi-decent job with many of the exurban sites it has.

Isn't speeds the main reason why Sprint has been falling behind in network testing. They lack the raw speed that the other carriers can produce besides in Spark cities. If you look at RootMetrics they say Speed + Reliability = Coverage. T-Mobile has speed, but not reliability. Sprint has reliability, but not speed. Verizon and AT&T have both of these which is part of why they dominate network testing reports.

 

I hate speed test contests as much as the next guy but ultimately, that's a deciding factor for too many people to ignore.

At the end of the day, since throughput is a significant portion of what makes up quality of service, it's quite necessary to evaluate based on that metric. In fact, as we move toward more simultaneous multiple links along a single connection (hotspot, background data transfer, etc.) and move toward symmetric data usage (user-generated content, user-focused localized publishing, IP based communication, etc.), throughput measurements (aka "speed tests") will matter more and more.

It's fairly well-known by this point that narrow throughput, even with low latency and decent availability, will not suffice. All three components must be at their best. For wireless data networks these days, availability isn't usually a problem, but the other two can be. That's why RootMetrics follows the strategy they use for evaluation of mobile network operator broadband coverage.

Even if he did have all 700a ch51 is problem cause neville ray said they have 188mil pops and half is free and clear so even with 300mil 700a they still have at most 210mil pops free and clear.

What? That's not how the logic works. It differs based on licenses, DTV51 locations, etc. Neville has only spoken about the licenses that they acquired back in January. The proportion could be (and is quite likely) different now.

United Airlines

Thanks for the update - I didn't know that.

 

300 million pops native is very aggressive.  T-Mobile has a history of announcing what us sprint guys view as impossible, yet they always seem able to pull it off.

 

Hopefully this new announcement will really kick Sprint into high gear.

 

Though I start to wonder if pop coverage even matters with AT&T and Verizon's push into mega-expansion of DAS.

They likely already started identifying expansion areas and going through the red tape before the announcement in October about expanding native coverage to 300 million POPs.

With the red tape work going on in parallel to the upgrade work on the existing network (reaching 285 million POPs), they can roll out immediately after they complete the existing network upgrade (which will be complete in June based on current projected estimates, but based on their own ability to execute, it'll likely be done by the end of March to mid May).

The rollout to the additional 15 million POPs will probably be complete by the end of 3Q next year, based on past and current performance on execution. 

A big part of it will be their roaming partners.

 

fiercewireless had an article on it a few months back.

That was before Legere said that they were going to do native footprint rollout to 300 million POPs using 700MHz, PCS, and AWS (which Braxton Carter has explicitly said that it involves geographic expansion at an investor conference, and Legere has reiterated that new towers are going to be constructed for the expansion in the Uncarrier 8.0 event even though he kind of waved it away in favor of talking about low-band spectrum). And keep in mind, this is also part and parcel for meeting those pesky buildout obligations for AWS and 700MHz licenses that they've not yet built out.

baked potatoes

dark shade

Well on debit transactions and.such the account info, like the pin number is encrypted using a code only banks can decrypt. Such during the targ ey breach only cards that used Credit were effected. Many use debit and credit on different trips, so most accustomed the breach to affect debit users as well, that and the whole everyone got sent new cards created mis stories. The chip based cards are a lot more secure.

You don't need the PIN number for ACH transactions, just the routing number and account number of the bank account. MCX's CurrentC doesn't support debit or credit/charge cards. In fact, they specifically request direct access to your bank account and do direct bank charges. Their policies are somewhat disturbing, too. This is a consequence of retailers driving the development of a payment solution, rather than an independent entity concerned with providing a secure platform for micro and macro payments. CurrentC exists for the sole purpose of bypassing credit/charge/debit card networks.

Also, CurrentC is legally dangerous to use (compared to Google Wallet, Apple Pay, Softcard, PayPal, and Amazon Payments), as you lose all fraud and identity theft protections guaranteed under federal law for being credit/charge card users because CurrentC will not support connecting to charge/credit/debit card networks ever, only bank accounts.

What is the big deal for Mobile payments? Im not up to par with it all, but everyone complains about security, and such, and this seems like something that is less secure. Correct me if i am wrong on that. But heck even cards arent as secure, but the more digital these things get, the more opportunities thiefs get at your money.

On the contrary, mobile payments can be far more secure than existing systems when designed properly (like Google Wallet, Softcard, and Apple Pay are). The biggest advantage of these systems is that a tertiary level of indirection is applied with temporal aspects to eliminate permanency in transaction links.

For example, when you write a check or swipe a credit card, your direct account information is recorded. This creates a major problem when retail systems are cracked and databases are dumped. Mobile payment systems solve this problem by generating a temporary transaction specific credit ID (often referred to as transaction tokens) that is used for the purpose of fulfilling a specific transaction. Once the transaction is fulfilled, the token expires. This prevents the retailer or anyone else from using the information for nonconsensual withdrawals or charges.

Of course, this moves the weakness from the retail system to the payment processor. But payment processors have to comply with all sorts of requirements that retailers do not in order to offer their services, so they are generally far more secure.

I'm hopeful that banks will implement this system on chip+PIN based transactions using credit cards, too. That will establish a more widespread means of protecting financial information used for identity theft. However, no credit card issued in the U.S. does this today. You must use a payment processor with NFC payments gain this protection, for now.

PayPal and Amazon Payments provide a similar protection in the digital goods space, as they both use transaction-specific token payment fulfillment schemes.

EA Sports