CrossedSignals

Thanks.  Informative video in the link.

23 minutes ago, lilotimz said:

No. 

https://networks.nokia.com/solutions/massive-mimo

Is this setup a prelude to massive MIMO in that they would add multiple antennas/RRUs to get to the 64T64R or will there be hexecontatetraport (64 port ) setup at some point?

Is the doubling of the ping time coincidence or a consequence of using the Magic Box?

Exciting news in all respects and thanks to Robert for bringing this to light, especially the project details (that are lacking in the FW story). 

My takeaway is that network expansion will be done to largely accomplish 2 things:  comply with buildout requirements (as AJ has noted in past reports) and, as Robert's story reports, eliminate roaming costs in strategic areas.  While I hope that they eliminate some 'bad actors' (i.e. Swiftel as Robert mentions and nTelos as others have commented on), I believe that capital constraints will economically restrict what they can to and Masa's commitments to work with CCA/RRRP program will politically limit what they can do. (as an aside, I'll be intently looking for statements from Sprint on how these efforts reconcile with the CCA/RRRP program and hope that they have a very synergistic message regarding their expansion and continued commitment to working with smaller carriers in rural areas.)

The other interesting point that could be debated in this announcement is whether these actions signal any sentiment on the probability of the 600MHz auction.  I feel that the buildout requirements and the 

inevitable delays in the auction are driving action more than anything but it could be seen as pessimism that the 600MHz auction will occur, that Sprint will participate, or that Sprint will have the economic means to garner a significant enough portion of spectrum to make a difference.

The balance of the effort in my opinion really comes down to service reliability through densification:  adding sites to make the LTE airlink and Sprint's band classes work with PCS/CDMA site spacing.  While that's certainly important (especially for RootMetrics, et al, rankings), I'm more keen on Sprint achieving overall network size parity with the duopoly. 

Overall, its a continuation of the 'build it and they will come' strategy.  Unfortunately, there are 4 companies building ballparks in cornfields right now.  I just hope that Sprint's field is [insert your favorite MLB ballpark analogue here], not my neighborhood vacant lot where kids play stickball.

Is this really a ramping up of deployment in urban areas (faster time to market) or actually a scaling back of rural deployment (maintain the current pace in urban areas but cancel exurban and rural deployment plans)?

 

That is the real question. I hope we really see an acceleration.

Probably both.  I think there are a lot of elements at play in this decision:

1.  The speed at which Sprint has been able to roll out roaming agreements through the CCA/RRRP is probably driving some 'lets see how much rural coverage we can pick up through agreements rather that buildout'.  This is really a discussion of capital efficiency, which is timely and appropriate for Sprint.

2.  The upcoming 600Mhz auction.  Softbank appeared to be the money behind the proposed T-Mo/Sprint joint bid.  I doubt that money evaporated when the FCC sidelined the joint bidding strategy.  I speculate they will go in aggressively and if possible acquire as much of a nation-wide footprint as is possible.

3.  Marketing:  Sprint needs some marquee markets where the application of B41 can put up some headlines.  In other words, Sprint needs to put the ball over the fence in a couple of RootMetrics, PC Magazine, etc. network evaluations to quell the doubters.  To do that requires a concentrated effort:  concentration on key markets (i.e. big cities, cities that are dominant for one player or another, etc.)

4.  Turning up the offense:  I can foresee certain markets being selected to 'bring the fight to the competition'.  What about building up B41 in NYC (VZW's home town), Dallas (AT&T's home town) and Bellvue/Seattle (T-Mo's home town) so has to put up huge performance numbers in the competition's back yard.

5.  Key markets, based on subscriber numbers:  At the end of the day, the network should be built around the customer and where they are/where they are using the network, etc.  That will turn the tide on customer frustration and the 'pardon our dust' excuse.

This Bloomberg article clarifies some of Marcelo's comments today

Apple's LTE band information for 3 model number variants of the iPhone 6 (and the 3 model variants for the iPhone 6 Plus) now showing on Apple's website do not show support for band 12.  All three model number variants support bands 2,4,5,17,25 & 26;  variants A1586 (iPhone 6) and A1524 (iPhone 6 Plus) also supports band 41 (and is marketed as the C Spire, Sprint, USCC version).

I assume the biggest loser in the band 12 ommission is T-Mobile.

Regarding the moto X, there is an illuminating article on anandtech.com describing some of the engineering features embodied into the phone.  Of particular note to me, and likely to the S4GRU community, are the efforts made in the area of dynamic antenna tuning to improve real-world performance.

See:  http://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/

http://anandtech.com/show/8491/the-new-moto-x-intial-impressions-and-hands-on

We probably will not do a full write up on the Z30, so for those interested, here is a snapshot of the ERP/EIRP figures.  They do not appear as strong as in previous BlackBerry devices.

 

band class 0 CDMA1X/EV-DO 850:  ~20 dBm

band class 1 CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900:  ~22 dBm

band class 10 CDMA1X/EV-DO 800:  ~22 dBm

band 25 LTE 1900:  ~21 dBm

 

AJ

Is there a possibility of an article that compares antenna technologies?  I mention this because the Z30 is marketed as the first BlackBerry that makes use of dynamic antenna tuning technologies developed by Paratek.  I find the topic interesting because ever since 'AntennaGate', a number of novel solutions have been developed:

Apple:  receive diversity, simplex transmit path

HTC (HTC One):  receive and transmit diversity and dynamic antenna coupling (as reported in AnAndtech.com's review)

BlackBerry:  dynamic antenna coupling

I think it's an interesting story in that as more bands are supported by a given phone, there is an engineering question to be answered:  do I put more antennas in the phone or do I tune a given set of antennas to drive and receive a broader set of frequencies?

I'm not an EE, nor do I claim to know more than I read.  I think that it would be an interesting and informative piece that delves into some of the more interesting and arcane elements of cell phone design and I think it's something that will be discussed more and more as technologies such as Qualcomm RF360 and other hardware/software designed radios and power amplifiers are released.