ericdabbs

I think u are reading the post wrong. It says that sprint wouldnt spend the resources to work on a concurrent operations agreement, not Tmobile. Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I reapectfully disagree. Tmobile knows that 700a in memphis is useless at this point due to Ch 51 issues. Tmobile knows sprint is not going to spend the capital to buy 700a equipment just for 1 market nor sprint will waste the resources to work with the tv station for a concurrent operations agreeement. Tmobile could just wait it out just like they are for the chicago market from Leap. Also even if they were to trade the spectrum away to tmobile, i couldnt see more than 1 market getting more PCS spectrum since they know there was a timeline and its not deployment yet. Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Good I am glad that C Spire withdrew their application for the 700A license. At least now Magenta can buy it and actually make use of it. What was Sprint going to do with that license anyways. I am all for any carrier to make full usage of spectrum regardless of who it is. Tmobile needs the license to expand their low band network.

Has anyone seen any new 1x800 sightings in the eastern to southern part of LA county?

Yeah San Bernardino needs to get its butt into gear. I sure hope they don't wait until Jan 2017 to be 100% cleared of the 800 MHz spectrum so that LA/OC county can finally deploy CDMA 800 and LTE 800. For now even consistent CDMA 800 would be nice.

I wonder if Sprint phones in 2017 for the engineering menus will be updated to state "Primary Serving Cell", "Secondary Serving Cell", and "Tertiary Serving Cell"

Doesn't it have a default program assigned to it and it should open that program first? Like if you are looking at Yelp for a restaurant and then click on "Get Directions" it will prompt you to select a Map application whether that is Google Maps, Waze, etc. Lets say you select Google Maps and then it should give you a prompt that says that Google Maps will be used as the default application for this function. I guess what you can do is go through all the different player apps and clear any default applications. Then on your phone just make sure Google Play Music is the default app and I think it should always open up Google Play Music.

Yes technically they are 6x6 blocks since that is what TV channels were allocated as but are commonly referred to 5x5 just because 5x5 is a standard LTE carrier size that is deployed. Just like no one really cares that ESMR is technically 7x7 block but just that they know only a 5x5 LTE carrier can be deployed.

Leap just owns the 700 MHz A-block which like all the other A-block licenses nationwide which is just a 5x5. It doesn't vary between markets.

What?? That would be strange news indeed. What kind of source do you have that informed of you this proposed change? I think it will be bad to make it mandatory.

Does anyoneknow if the newer ALU RRUs for B25 significantly outperform the older ALU (Panasonic) B25 RRUs? I am hoping Sprint eventually replaces all the old Panasonic B25 RRUs at all sites.

Lets just hope these execs don't get cut within the next few months. Its not like Sprint has the best job security out there with all the recent cuts over the past year.

Ok lets steer this thread back to discussing the 600 MHz auction.

According to the app page on the Google Play store below, it does not require root. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ospolice.packagedisablerpro&hl=en

What does Package Disabler Pro do?

It doesn't matter at this point. The whole initial process and news from the FCC won't come out until May at the earliest. Broadcasters have until March 29th to submit their application to be part of the incentive auction and then the FCC will reassemble the blocks of spectrum so that they can provide the full picture of the amount of spectrum that is up for bids. I don't know if there was an official deadline that has already passed on applying to participate in the 600 MHz auction. I think Softbank is probably two things regarding the 600 MHz issue. First I think they trying to gather finances in preparation for a potential bid of 600 MHz airwaves and second I think Softbank wants to understand how much spectrum is really available for bidding. The full 600 MHz band is 126 MHz but I doubt that will be available because that would assume 100% participation nationwide. IMO if 100+ MHz will be available for bidding then I think we will see Softbank bid for some 600 MHz hopefully at least a total of a 10x10 block. http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/600-mhz-incentive-auction-primer-who-will-bid-when-it-will-happen-how-it-wi

Is 3xCA going to be a reality within the next 2 years to be freaked out about it? Sprint is still in the process of trying to turn up 2xCA due to the Wimax shutdown and backhaul availability to support those speeds so I doubt that 3xCA will be a reality within the next 2 years which is about the typical lifetime of a new smartphone. Like others have said, the average user will not know the difference and by the time 3xCA can become a reality will probably be more 2017 than 2016. The VoLTE feature seems like a nice thing to have but I am not sure what Sprint's stance on their VoLTE deployment schedule. If its not going to be deployed for another 2 years then it seems kinda weird to add it to the G5 and not the GS7 if they really want to test it out.

Sprint has been making some weird choices for the GS7 and G5? Why make the G5 VoLTE capable but not the GS7 while at the same time make the GS7 3xCA capable but not this one. I guess if 3xCA won't be a widespread reality until 2017/2018 then its not really a big deal. 2xCA is pretty fast enough but it would be nice if Sprint kept things more consistent with their flagships. I am not curious what the HTC M10 will provide. Hopefully it contains VoLTE capabiltiy and 3xCA capability.

I sure hope not but I read that Samsung will be issuing a 2nd Verizon Marshmallow update to correct those issues. If it happens with Sprint and the other carriers then I am sure they are on top of it already. It just sucks that you would think after all this time that they should get it right.

Hindsight is 20/20. Back when PCS/AWS spectrum was auctioned off there was no such thing as LTE which required a minimum of 10x10 MHz blocks of spectrum. CDMA/EVDO/GSM/EDGE all did not require wideband operations and at most they needed 5x5 MHz blocks. It sounds silly but given your way of thinking you will definitely say 20 years from now why didn't the FCC auction off the 600/700/PCS/AWS spectrum in 30x30 blocks instead of 5x5 or 10x10 blocks. Also keep in mind that auctioning off larger blocks with the same given amount of spectrum, the lesser amount in proceeds the FCC receives for the airwaves. Therefore by auctioning them off in smaller blocks (5x5 vs. 10x10) it will net more proceeds since carriers will have to pay double price to get the full 10x10 spectrum.

Actually I wouldn't blame the FCC. The FCC fielded the propositions for the band plan for comments to all the major carriers on how the spectrum should be auctioned. If anything you blame the smaller carriers for wanting smaller blocks for the spectrum auction. Verizon and AT&T would love to see 10x10 blocks but of course Sprint/Tmobile and the other smaller carriers argued that by having 10x10 blocks Verizon and AT&T could easily swoop up a huge chunk of the available 600 MHz spectrum (i.e each buy a 10x10 block) Remember keep in mind that at that point or even now we still don't know the total amount of 600 MHz spectrum available for auction. Lets say the FCC was only able to clear a total of 60 MHz (30x30 MHz )for the auction nationwide. If you have all 10x10 MHz blocks (total of three 10x10 MHz blocks) and Verizon and AT&T each scoop up a 10x10 block and call it quits because they can easily outbid the smaller carriers, then Sprint/tmobile would be left with trying to bid for the remaining 10x10 block which isn't good for Sprint and Tmobile. So I respectfully disagree with your assessment that 5x5 blocks auctioned in this manner is worse off for the carriers because it helps the FCC regulate the low band spectrum screen if its auctioned off in 5 MHz blocks. If Verizon or AT&T is only allowed to buy a max of 5 MHz block in a certain market because they have too much low band spectrum already then that can be accomplished. With 10 MHz blocks its either you bar them from buying (not a good idea since that will prove "picking favorites") or you let them have the 10 MHz block and allow them to go over the low band spectrum limit. Either way you don't win with 10 MHz blocks. Also I think the main reason for 5x5 blocks is to account for if certain broadcasters refuse to relocate their frequencies, it is much easier to section them off with a 5 MHz carrier than with a 10 MHz carrier.

God I hope not. The way that the 600 MHz spectrum is being packaged as 5x5 paired blocks tells me that the FCC plans to auction it off for FDD LTE operation. I don't even know if the FCC would allow them to deploy TDD since it would mean that one of the sides of the 5x5 block (5 MHz) would be transmitting downlink and uplink which would cause interference. Sprint's proposal plan for the 600 MHz I believe was to provide supplemental downlink for the entire 600 MHz band which would allow TD-LTE operation to work.

Could it be? Softbank might bid for 600 MHz spectrum instead of Sprint. Hopefully this is true so that Sprint can have the opportunity to get it from Softbank if needed in the future. I think this would be a good move since by the time NGN is largely complete the 600 MHz spectrum should be mostly relocated and be almost ready for deployment. Or if anything this can be a great bargaining chip to be able to do some further spectrum swaps down the road. http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/softbank-rumored-mull-bidding-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-spectrum-auction/2016-03-11

So I guess there are some outstanding bugs with the Verizon marshmallow update that Samsung is going to release a 2nd version of the Android 6.0.1 update. If these are truly issues then I am glad Sprint, AT&T and Tmobile held off on their Marshmallow updates. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/139908/20160310/samsung-galaxy-note-5-android-marshmallow-issues-wi-fi-problems-battery-drain-and-more.htm

It seems silly that it takes so darn long for the carriers to whip out a Marshmallow update.