ericdabbs

I am really interested in playing with the LG Optimus G. The rest of the devices are bleh.

Ouch. Tmobile is coming out with fighting words commenting on Sprint's latest attempt to counter offer the Tmobile bid. Lets just say Neville Ray is less than pleased with Sprint's latest efforts calling CDMA a "dying" technology as well as bringing up how Sprint failed horribly with the Sprint/Nextel merger with trying to maintain 2 different technologies. Also he couldn't help but bring up about the fact that Sprint's spectrum is incompatible with MetroPCS since MetroPCS mainly uses AWS spectrum vs. Sprint's PCS spectrum. Boy I really hope Sprint snaps up MetroPCS. http://www.kansascit...-at-sprint.html

Now that I am working in Salt Lake City temporarily, I would love to see Network Vision here in 2013. I just wish we had more info on 3rd round markets past June 2013. Hopefully Salt Lake City will be on there.

So apparently VoLTE still has a long way to go. MetroPCS announced in March this year that it would be the first carrier to transition over to VoLTE in 2H 2012. However recent reports in September show that VoLTE is just not there yet and MetroPCS has delayed VoLTE deployment until next Spring. This tells me that there are still complications with VoLTE. I hope Sprint doesn't jump the gun on any VoLTE deployment. I hope Sprint waits until 2014 at least once Network Vision is done to start considering VoLTE. Let AT&T, Verizon, TMobile be the guinea pigs and iron the VoLTE bugs. March 2012 article http://www.fiercebro...2012/2012-03-25 September 2012 article http://www.fiercewir...nths/2012-09-20

Actually Cricket announced intention of 1x Advanced deployment in 2012. http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/leap-deploys-cdma-1x-advanced-more-efficient-voice-calling/2012-01-10

If that is possible then yes, Sprint should pursue AWS to PCS spectrum swaps to bolster their PCS holdings. However, I don't see Verizon, AT&T or Tmobile parting with their PCS spectrum since they all use it heavily on their network. AT&T deploys the majority of HSPA+ and some GSM on 1900 MHz, Verizon deploys their EVDO and CDMA networks on 1900 MHz and Tmobile is now going to be relying on its PCS spectrum to migrate HSPA+ from 1700 MHz to 1900 MHz as part of their challenger program. I just feel like it sounds great in theory but practically, I just don't see the 3 other major carriers easily parting their small amount of PCS spectrum they have even for a AWS swap since they still need to support their legacy systems. Since MetroPCS has about 20 MHz of AWS spectrum in a lot of the major cities, I just don't see any of the 3 major carriers swapping 20 MHz of PCS spectrum for 20 MHz of AWS spectrum if we want to be fair. I would much rather have Sprint keep the AWS spectrum and possibly deploy LTE on it in the future. Like I said in my other post that eventually Verizon and AT&T will have to deal with the same problem as Sprint of incorporating LTE support for all their LTE bands in the handset. AT&T would have the most with 5 followed by Verizon with 4 LTE bands. Lets not forget that the FCC is trying to expand the AWS band more so than the PCS band so there is potential growth that if Sprint were to pursue AWS that they can obtain the missing AWS spectrum they need in future auctions which would be lacking from a potential MetroPCS/Sprint deal. While I hope that Sprint can obtain all of the PCS 'H' block spectrum licenses for their footprint, I just find it hard that no other carrier would come in especially AT&T and try to snap up key markets which would ruin Sprint's plan of having nationwide 10x10 contiguous block for LTE of which they need it most.

I am starting to think that Sprint may want to get MetroPCS to get more spectrum even if it is AWS band. Lets just be honest, the PCS holdings for MetroPCS are pitiful. If you are telling me that Sprint is spending all this money to just get 10 million subs which can leave at any time and for PCS spectrum licenses that only benefit maybe 10 cities then that is a waste. However MetroPCS does have a considerable chunk of AWS spectrum enough for a 10x10 carrier in a lot of the major cities including LA, NY, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, SF, San Diego, etc. If Sprint bought MetroPCS, I would keep the AWS spectrum. If Sprint did sell the AWS and is betting on obtaining all of the 'H' block for its footprint and relying on PCS spectrum swaps with other carriers, I think its putting too many eggs in one basket and would be a dumb move IMO. With obtaining AWS spectrum, it is more of an insurance that Sprint has backup spectrum in case it can't obtain all the PCS spectrum it needs from the H block and PCS spectrum swaps from other carriers. Why would you sell any spectrum when it is so hard to bid and win spectrum licenses at auctions and in this case the MetroPCS AWS spectrum are in a lot of major markets in the US which is served to Sprint on a silver platter. Do not waste it by selling it. If anything Sprint should sell all of its WCS spectrum for cash. I don't think its wrong for Sprint to start thinking of adding the AWS band since the FCC plans to expand the AWS band aggressively with new spectrum auctions and not so much the PCS band other than the 'H' block so the AWS band growth potential is there. I know this would add another LTE band to Sprint's lineup of 800, 1900 and 2500 MHz but the fact is eventually every carrier will have need to support multiple bands for LTE so I don't see any problem with Sprint adding AWS spectrum to its LTE lineup. The chipsets are out there in the market currently and it would be all about how to integrate the necessary antennas for all these bands into the handset. We know that all 2012 LTE phones will contain only 1900 MHz LTE support. 2013 LTE phones are expected to add 2500 MHz and most likely 800 MHz support. If Sprint were to obtain MetroPCS, they could add AWS LTE support as soon as 2014 LTE phones depending on how Sprint would approach deploying LTE in AWS band. If you look at AT&T which still have 850 MHz Cellular, 1900 MHz PCS, 1700 MHz AWS and 2300 MHz WCS bands as potential LTE bands and that is on top of their 700 MHz LTE. That would be a total of 5 LTE bands to support. Same with Verizon, they still have 850 MHz Cellular, 1900 MHz PCS and 1700 MHz AWS bands that can be added for LTE on top of their 700 MHz LTE. That would be a total of 4 LTE bands to support which would be the same number of LTE bands Sprint would need to support. All this talk about..OMG Sprint shouldn't do it since it would have to add another LTE band to its lineup is just laughable if you consider that AT&T and Verizon would be in similar situations within the next 2-3 years.

I still don't understand why Sprint is so adamant on obtaining MetroPCS. Their PCS spectrum holdings are pitiful and of no significance. If Sprint did merge with MetroPCS it would only be to obtain AWS spectrum which none of their LTE devices currently use. I am not sure if Sprint really wants to enter into the hot AWS band which all the major carriers seem to be gravitating to start or supplement their current LTE. At least a purchase of Cricket would have much better PCS holdings and a decent amount of AWS holdings. With the missed payment by Cricket recently, they should be able to be snatched up on the cheap. God I hope Hesse doesn't do anything stupid and overpay. I say just let Tmobile and MetroPCS merge. Sprint should be countering by finishing Network Vision, purchase Cricket and Clearwire outright and purchase all of the PCS 'H' block spectrum. By letting Tmobile have MetroPCS, they would have a sufficient amount of spectrum and with the recent spectrum deals of Verizon and Tmobile that should take them out of the running to bid on the PCS H block spectrum which is very valuable to Sprint. With the 'H' block spectrum, Sprint can run a contiguous 10x10 LTE carrier.

I am truly disappointed that Motorola has abandoned efforts for an ICS/JB upgrade after stringing us customers along for a year. This is unacceptable as a company who has many promises and then pulls it out of the rug. They should be ashamed of themselves and certainly has lost a customer in me. I will never buy another Motorola phone even if they make promises of improving updates. Also their $100 offer is only good if you buy a new Motorola device. It is still unclear on whether the $100 is applicable if you buy the new Motorola device at the subsidized price of $200 or at full retail price. If the $100 is only good if you buy a phone at full retail price then the offer is completely useless. Unless Motorola is saying they are giving $100 to all Photon, Atrix and Electrify customers for not getting ICS this offer does nothing for me. Even their current offer does not entice me one bit to jump back in the sinking ship of Motorola.

If Tmobile can execute a nice LTE network they can be a force to reckon with. Tmobile's HSPA+ network is fast and puts EVDO Rev A to shame. I am glad Tmobile is working hard to really execute on their "Challenger" program and if they needed some funds to ensure that they don't run into shortages for LTE equipment (antennas, radios, backhaul, etc) to ensure they launch on time, good for them.

Hopefully LA market goes live by Halloween.

I say Sprint should do a spectrum swap with AT&T. No point of Sprint holding on to WCS spectrum when it doesn't plan to use it. I would much rather have a spectrum swap than a spectrum sale and have Sprint bolster their PCS holdings in any areas where it is delinquent (<30 MHz on avg not counting the G block).

I knew it!!! I told you in my posts to move to Verizon because I knew deep down from the tone of your posts that you were pretty disgusted with Sprint 3G speeds/lack of 4G and weren't willing to wait a second longer. Also you seemed to be really impressed with Verizon's LTE speeds and coverage so it was kind of a no brainer. I knew it was going to be much easier for you to just switch to Verizon and not deal with this Sprint Network Vision mumble jumble and trying to cram all this information which probably won't really help your current situation anyways. I am glad you finally made your decision. Maybe in 2 years you can re-evaluate your decision and of course Sprint will have LTE full deployed nationwide in 800 and 1900 MHz with all of its cell towers/backhaul equipment upgraded.

I am just speaking hypotheticals here BUT...... What if Sprint won most of the licenses for the PCS H Block spectrum (1916-1920 and 1996-2000 maybe 2005 MHz if Dish gets pushed 5 MHz)?. These antennas are only rated for 1855-1995 MHz. Would Sprint have to replace new antennas to support the new H block spectrum? I know it sounds wrong for me to assume that Sprint should have thought about buying antennas that are rated at least in the low 2 GHz to cover any spectrum that they may potentially obtain in the future but I feel like that is what they should have done. I don't think there is anything wrong with getting antennas that contain some additional frequencies that your network currently doesn't support because you never know someday if you will have access to it. Either way great pics of RRUs and antennas up close. Now I understand what Sprint means in that the 800 MHz and 1900 MHz antennas are on the same unit.

Well after owning the Photon 4G, I have given up hope on Motorola. Pretty good hardware with a lack of software updates is totally unacceptable. Just yesterday 9/22, Motorola updated their ICS release schedule for their device and now the Photon 4G changed from a "Q4 2012 rollout" to a "Further plans coming soon" status which to me is a lame way of saying ICS will not be supported. I know that Motorola is trying to make a push to upgrade new devices to JB but I HIGHLY doubt that the 2011 devices that were snubbed out of ICS like the Atrix and Photon 4G are going to get a JB update instead of ICS.

Without any timely software updates, I think my Photon 4g is the last Motorola phone I will buy.

Hopefully the H block spectrum auction is in late 2014/early 2015 while Sprint focuses on completing Network Vision nationwide first. Sprint needs to try to get as many licenses as possible in their footprint.

The more I think about this, the more BS this is coming out of Dish who doesn't seem to be very committed to its LTE network. Waiting until 2016 for deployment?? while holding valuable spectrum that can be used to increase the H block holdings. If the FCC were to do the right thing, they should go with Sprint's suggestion of shifting the MSS band by 5 MHz so that the H block to be auctioned off is with the downlink of 1995-2005 MHz and uplink of 1915-1920 MHz

The fact is that every carrier has their problems/dilemmas even VZN. There is no one "perfect" carrier that suits everyone. For me I stay with Sprint because of the unlimited data and low price. Also I haven't had too many dropped calls on Sprint unlike those on AT&T who have a ton of dropped calls. But I have to say that VZN is well managed in that they were able to convince the FCC to give them near nationwide licenses of AWS spectrum from the SpectrumCo deal and realized that having all low freq for LTE was not a feasible long term plan. A combo of low and high freq is the way to go for any carrier.

Great write up scott. Hopefully this will help snowtrooper in making his decision. Should be simple enough to read and gives a background of each of the 4 major carriers.

Please check this thread please. No need to add more forum clutter. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/212-network-visionlte-deployment-running-list/

Then have you read this thread below? http://s4gru.com/ind...t-running-list/ It says that San Diego is estimated to have LTE launched in January 2013. The information is out there so its not like its a mystery. San Diego is one of the bigger cities in the US. It seems like even January 2013 is a stretch for you so I suggested you move to Verizon and AT&T based on what I read so far but I could be wrong. I thought people have explained it clear enough how Network Visioin works and the potential benefits of faster 3G and 4G speeds. What else did you want to know? I can explain it further. My suggestion to try out Verizon is not really too late. You still have a few days to try it out before the 21st. Of course you will incur some additional fees for having both Sprint and Verizon but you won't really know how Verizon service is like until you try them for yourself. Don't assume that Verizon will be 10x better than Sprint by just assumptions you read on coverage maps. Many people have stated in this thread that Verizon has a spectrum advantage in terms of coverage with 700 MHz. That doesn't mean that what Sprint is using with 1900 MHz is less inferior than 700 MHz. The best combination for LTE for any carrier is a combination of low freq (700 MHz) and high freq (1700 MHz) in Verizon's case and in Sprint's case its low freq (800 MHz) and high freq (1900 MHz). The reason this is the case is because the high freq1900 MHz is good to handle huge capacity to handle heavy traffic with less range and the low freq (800 MHz) is good to handle huge coverage to ensure LTE is everywhere but doesn't have the capacity to handle heavy traffic.

It seems to me from reading your responses and other responses in this thread that you are leaning towards VZW. If anything, why not just do a 14 day trial with Verizon to see it works out for you? Maybe you learn that it is not worth the extra costs for VZW. Don't port your number entirely or else you'll be committed to VZW for 2 years and just use the temporary phone number. Also you claim that you use only 1.8 GB/month but I can tell you that this is only a fallacy because when you start getting faster speeds, you tend to use more data. For example if you only had 300 Kbps internet (Sprint) but then you upgrade to a 10-15 Mbps internet (Verizon LTE), I can pretty much tell you your data usage habits will likely change a bit knowing that you have access to faster speeds. I am not trying to say that you'll use like 15 GB/month but instead of just 1.8 GB/month on Sprint you may use up to 4-5 GB/month on Verizon which means higher costs. I don't see why this is a big struggle. I think its ridiculous how much the cell phone takes over people's lives like its a bigger decision over a house or car. If you don't care to learn or understand about why Sprint is in their current pickle and can't envision what the huge benefits are for Sprint doing Network Vision when its done or can't wait until Network Vision lands in San Diego, then just sign up with Verizon or AT&T and be done with it. Worst case is 2 years from now you can just resign up with Sprint when things get better. Just don't have any regrets. I just don't think people should get some wrapped up about their cell phone. You seem to be in a situation where you don't want to wait so then just switch carriers. Sorry for being really blunt or even rude but i just can't stand it when people obsess over their cell phone like its a life or death situation.

Yes I am fully aware that Verizon had a decent swath of AWS spectrum pre-Spectrum Co deal so yes Verizon could have asked Apple to add the AWS bands for LTE but they didn't. So what do you want them to do now? I mean just move on from it. Why does it matter so much that the CDMA variant doesn't include AWS frequencies for LTE but the GSM variant does. Right now everyone is clamoring about how great 700 MHz is and should be sufficient for the next year or 2. The purpose of Verizon buying more AWS spectrum from Spectrum Co is to get near nationwide licenses for future LTE growth which they don't need to add yet until 2013 or 2014. I don't see what the big deal is here. I am sure the iPhone 6 or 5S in 2013 will contain AWS frequencies for the CDMA variant because most likely in 2013, Verizon will strongly considering adding some LTE to AWS spectrum. To add AWS frequencies to the CDMA variant when AWS LTE will not be launched in 2012 is ludicrous. Yes I know that the additional G block is an additional 5 MHz to both the downlink and uplink but you didn't really explain it that well so I wanted to make sure you understood that the G block is 10 MHz total. You would have to add 5 MHz (1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 Mhz) on both the uplink and downlink to be politically correctly. Like I said, I don't see the big freakin deal that the AT&T iPhone 5 does not have band class 25 when it is only Sprint that will be using the G block. Remember NO LTE ROAMING on ANY CARRIER EXISTS currently. Like i said before the only reason why the Verizon iPhone would also get the G block LTE frequencies supported since Apple is only making 2 iPhone variants (GSM and CDMA). So any carrier that is classified as CDMA (in this case Verizon and Sprint), Apple has included support for those LTE bands those carriers are currently deploying LTE whether that specific carrier supports it or not. If Apple wanted to, they could have easily made 3 different iPhone variants for AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint that contains only their LTE bands that they only support but it didn't make any sense to do so. I think bottom line the reason you seem to be so annoyed about why Apple decided to add certain LTE band classes for LTE is that what you want to do without stating it out loud is that you want to take for example the AT&T iPhone and use it on the Sprint network or a Verizon iPhone and use it on the AT&T network if you switched carriers.

So AT&T has LTE support for AWS bands....so what? Maybe AT&T begged Apple to add the AWS band and paid a lot of money for it because they plan to deploy LTE on AWS really soon even if it is only for part of the country. Verizon on the other hand probably didn't care that the AWS band was not included since their 20 MHz in the 700 MHz band is still sufficient at until next year and didn't want to pay the money to add it. Remember that in order for a band class to be added to that phone, that carrier has to have spectrum in that band so that it can be tested by the FCC and even then its up to the carrier planning to sell the phone on whether they want that band class tested. Now you might say, well why does the Sprint iPhone have LTE support for the Cellular (850 MHz) band if it doesn't have any spectrum to support it. Well that is only because Apple is only making 2 versions of the iPhone (CDMA and GSM) and since Verizon has Cellular (850 MHz) spectrum which at some point, Verizon is going to convert that spectrum to LTE. The G band is an additional 10 MHz, not 5 MHz. Apple doesn't care that they have to make 2 versions of the iPhone since the majority of the carriers in the USA still use CDMA NOT GSM for voice. I am sure what you are asking for has been pounded to death during discussions of whether to make just 1 iPhone or make 2 separate iPhone versions for CDMA and GSM and they concluded that carriers still want 2 different versions of the same phone. If you look at the HTC, Samsung and LG phones, they all have GSM and CDMA variants so why should Apple and the iPhone be persecuted for having 2 versions. It seems to me that you are an AT&T customer that wants the G block support even though if the AT&T version had support for the G block, it still will not be able to roam on Sprint's LTE since NO carrier currently roams on each other's LTE since only such a small amount of spectrum is only allocated to LTE currently. Verizon only has 20 MHz for LTE, AT&T only has 20 MHz in some areas and 10 MHz in a majority of areas for LTE, and Sprint only has 10 MHz for LTE. It doesn't make any sense right now to allow LTE roaming when each carrier is still struggling to supply enough fast speeds for their own network.