Conan Kudo

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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'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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.