ericdabbs

I was referring to t mobile and I m waiting for sprint to upgrade that tower and near me so I can switch to them and I m just waiting on t mobile to deploy 700 which won't happen for a while

Whoops, I read your previous post incorrectly.  Sorry...my fault.  Yeah hopefully B12 LTE deployment in LA is deployed quickly.  Tmobile is going to need all it can get if it wants to meet that 300M POPs goal by end of 2015.

don't they have the a block license for most of California

I am not talking about Sprint.  I am talking about Tmobile now that they got the green light to deploy 700 MHz LTE in the LA/OC counties.  Tmobile actually have most of CA with the 700 MHz A block license.  What I would like to see is Sprint and San Bernardino make some stinking progress on clearing PS so that Sprint can finally deploy 800 MHz LTE in the LA/OC counties.

https://spectrum-gateway.appspot.com/t-mobile-700-mhz-spectrum.html

I thought it might be one of the first sightings for Los Angeles, that's why I posted about it.  I'll post pictures next week.  I might have to PM you the address... not sure what rules apply to the T-Mobile section here.

 

It looks like the crew finished the installation in one day.  It was a small army of 6 techs plus several guys from AT&T to upgrade the fiber to the site.  They took down one panel from each sector and put up one 700Mhz to replace each of those.  The new panels have separate RRUs.

 

UPDATE:

Here's a bad image I took with my phone:

 

I can't wait to see LA filled up with 700 MHz LTE.

Wow this sucks.  I just checked my upgrade eligibility and yes it changed from 6/1/14 to 10/1/14.  This is such BS.  At least Sprint should honor their commitment 2 years ago when I was still under the 20 month upgrade cycle policy.  I understand the rules have changed to 24 months but this should ONLY be applicable on new 2 year contracts going forward.

I hope all these rumors are incorrect about some type of curvature for the body of the phone.

 

I'm not sure I follow your meaning. Sprint's LG G2 received HD Voice last year in QTR 4 of 2015. I've had it since and it's been functional and don't see why any future OS updates would take it away being it's a carrier firmware.

See this excerpt about one of the top features of Android 5.1. There are few things you are misunderstanding about Android 5.1 HD voice and Sprint's HD voice. What Android 5.1 is proposing is that calls between any Android users with devices using Android 5.1 is that their calls will be HD voice and they specifically call out Verizon and Tmobile getting upgrades being able to take advantage of this. Sprint's HD voice is limited to only calls between Sprint customers with HD voice capable devices. That is a huge difference in that the former applies to a larger pool of Android users while the latter applies to only Sprint customers. This has nothing to do with Sprint stripping out the HD voice capability BETWEEN Sprint customers...of course that will remain.

My point was why doesn't the article list Sprint as being able to take advantage of Android 5.1's HD voice support especially when its cell towers are able to support HD voice?

http://www.androidcentral.com/whats-new-android-51-some-big-and-small-changes-updated-lollipop-release#slide3

Though we've heard reports of HD voice already working for some folks on T-Mo — and occasionally experienced it for ourselves on some European networks using the Nexus 6 — Android 5.1 makes it nice and official, and built into the OS. Nexus 6 users on T-Mobile and Verizon (when that version of the phone launches) will be able to enjoy higher-quality voice calls when the 5.1 update arrives.

Looks like google just release Android 5.1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2015/03/10/google-releases-android-5-1-introduces-essential-feature/ with "stability and performance improvements". I wonder if they'll upgrade us directly to 5.1 if it really fixes most/all the issues people have been reporting with 5.0?

My hope is that the current ZVF build in testing for Android 5.0.2 fails and that they migrate to Android 5.1. Android 5.1 adds some nice features and I am willing to wait a few more months to have those features incorporated. Since Xposed for Lollipop is still in testing, I don't really care for Lollipop at this point.

The weird thing is that one of the main features for Android 5.1 is the ability of HD Voice but the article only mentions Verizon and Tmobile being able to take advantage of HD voice; What happened to Sprint? Sprint is actually deploying 1xAdvanced so I would expect that they would be able to use HD voice in Android 5.1.

But my expectations of the OEM and carrier are really low so in reality I don't expect them to abandon Android 5.0.2 baseline and will fix any bugs necessary for the Android 5.0.2 baseline.

you are right IF the PRO 2 was released here.....as for the flex....ewwww hate the way it feels in my hand... it is for sure a niche type phone....

 

sammys are sammys and quiet frankly the note 4 is over priced, i have had sammys from the original galaxy with the slide out, and I think they have gone the way of the i-phone and almost make it so you have to use their crap...KNOX and all...

 

and I thought about the nexus 6 and then the price point jumped to high for my liking (as i am sure others) 

 

so after using the G2 for a few mths and liking it, and now with the G3, improving on things....I am excited for the G4 and its 5.5-6 screen...

 

if you want a smaller version, wait for a G4 vigor       

Don't even bring the Vigor phone garbage into this conversation  .  Its a slap to the face since that phone sucks.  The specs on the LG G3 Vigor are sooooo bad. 

Been wondering if wifi calling is included. Saw only two hits on wifi directly.

I doubt it.  That ship has sailed since the LG G2 phone was released in 2013.  I think all 2014 Sprint LTE phones have wifi calling built in.

i have the G3 the wife G2, and after using the G3 and then using hers on occasion, it feels tiny.... the G3 with the thin bezel feels nice, and I even have small hands, plus i have a bulkier case on it....Flag ship phones need to be slightly on the bigger size, in hopes of not needing a tablet as a add on.... 

What I would say to that is there are phones out there that meet your criteria of larger screen sizes in the Note 4, LG G Flex 2, Nexus 6, etc. Making the LG G4 about the same size as the LG G Pro 2/LG G Flex 2 is absolutely unnecessary and just cannibalizes sales of the other 2 phones.  While some people prefer the larger phones (5.5 in and up) there are still plenty of folks who still would like to see the 5.1-5.3 inch range.  The LG G Flex 2 has all the latest and greatest specs in the Snapdragon 810 chip and quad HD display.  If you are looking for 1 device that satisfies both functionalities then either of the 3 devices out there in the market are available.  It would further make my argument if the LG G Pro 2 was actually released in the US.

Its a bummer that the M9 wasn't tested for UMTS so that the phone can't be unlocked and used on AT&T or Tmobile.

5.5-6 is the perfect size....

AHHHHHHHH...actually I respectfully disagree on the 5.5-6 in screen size.  For their main flagship phone they should appeal to a wider audience and IMO the LG G4 should reduce their screen size back down to be between 5.1-5.3 in screen size just like the LG G2.  I have the LG G2 and I think its the perfect size at 5.2 inch.  Any bigger than that in screen size for this class is a bit too big.  LG does have the LG G Pro which I would think should appeal to your taste for a 5.5-6 in screen size.

Prayers have been answered....Just posted an update to the RDF site. 5.0.2!!! Congrats G2 Folks!

 

http://device.sprintpcs.com/LG/LS980-SPRINT/latest

Wow thanks for the update man!! However I read now that an Android 5.1 baseline is going to be released soon so I would expect that to provide a lot of useful features.  Hopefully we don't get shafted in features for Android 5.0.2 baseline.

I wondeer when the LG G2 will get the Lollipop update.  I check the RDF page and it still says 4.4.2.  LG has already released the LG G3 Lollipop update so I don't see why there is a hold up still.

I am surprised that Sprint didn't list anything down for the LG G2 and HTC One (first generation).

Does this mean that we can unlock our Sprint phones and use them with another major carrier now?  Sprint has not been compliant with this in the past.  I am hoping this new policy means that we can use Sprint phones on Verizon, AT&T and Tmobile.

Maybe instead of 5mhz fdd it'll be 3mhz fdd.

 

Also the tv station in Lansing Michigan filed a petition to relocate. Same site. Fcc petition is available.

3 MHz FDD is still better than nothing.  As long as Tmo customers start seeing some low band LTE in the LA/OC area, that is a step up from zero.  Eventually if the 600 Mhz auction occurs, KXLA could permanently relocate to another channel and then the entire 5 MHz will be freed up.  Now only if they can get Chicago, Boston and NYC to do the same.

According to this map, it seems like Tmobile and the KXLA tv station in Los Angeles on 1/13/15 has come to an agreement to allow Tmobile to broadcast 700 MHz within its vicinity.  I am not sure what this means in terms of when it will be effective for Tmobile to begin deploying 700 MHz LTE and how this affects any Ch 51 interference.   Either way this is good news for LA Tmobile customers if they can begin to deploy 700 MHz LTE.

https://spectrum-gateway.appspot.com/t-mobile-700-mhz-spectrum.html

Exactly how much cheaper would sprints phones become? If this were a REAL issue then softbank would synchronize its phones and sprint phones to be identical. But they don't do this. Because they wouldn't save money.

HUH  ?  This has nothing to do with syncing Japan handsets with Sprint handsets.  The only band class that Sprint and Softbank share is B41 for LTE.  It would be completely useless to support another countries' band classes just because of that and not only because it would be silly because it will rarely/never be used but the FCC wouldn't be able to approve the use of it in the US anyways since they wouldn't be able to test Japan's UTMS and LTE band classes since those frequencies probably overlap other band classes.

 The US carriers are not synced on LTE with any parts of the world due to the way the US breaks up their spectrum. I am talking about if the major US carriers like Tmobile, Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint all support the different superset bands for the flagship phones it could make phones cheaper to make for everyone as well as support all the different LTE networks in the US.  Right now Tmobile, Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint each need to have their own model of the same phone because of the unique LTE band classes that they support.  It would be a win-win for all carriers and the OEMs since the OEMs don't have to make 4 or 5 models of the same phone for just the US like they do now.  The hardware could be the same for all carriers but just the software would be unique to support each carrier's bloatware.

Does anyone know if the FCC will require it to all be under one band like 600?

Not sure but I think it would only be in the best interest for everybody to have just a single AWS LTE band class. That way it would be easier for the carriers to just add that 1 LTE band and have coverage for the entire AWS range. I hate all these obsolete LTE band classes which have constraints.  The 600 MHz better be a single LTE band class as well.

Band 10 will no be used. A new band will be created for aws1+aws3

Oh ok...that makes sense.  Oh yeah I guess on further research it is being used in Latin America.  I guess they run AWS in a similar range which is why I got confused.  I guess that LTE band process won't be done until the auction is over.

Quick question about AWS-3 spectrum.  The main AWS-3 spectrum of interest being auctioned is 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz (not counting the unpaired blocks).  Can someone explain why LTE Band 10 only consists of 1710-1770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz.  Why doesn't Band 10 include the frequency range of 1770-1780 MHz and 2170-2180 MHz  I know the FCC is planning to auction the 1770-1780 MHz and 2170-2180 MHz spectrum as a single 10x10 block according to FierceWireless.  I don't think it would make sense to make an entire new LTE band just to support the 10x10 block. Was this a typo on the 3GPP's part?

The AWS-3 auction will have two sub-bands, each with its own band plan:

• One of the sub-bands consists of one unpaired 5 MHz block (1695-1700 MHz) and one unpaired 10 MHz block (1700-1710 MHz), licensed in Economic Area (EA) geographies.
• The other sub-band consists of paired spectrum. It includes one 5x5 MHz block (1755-1760 and 2155-2160 MHz) licensed in Cellular Market Area (CMA) geographies, and two 5x5 MHz blocks (1760-1765 and 2160-2165 MHz, and then 1765-1770 and 2165-2170 MHz) licensed in EA geographies. And finally there is one 10x10 MHz block (1770-1780 and 2170-2180 MHz) licensed on an EA basis.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-sets-rules-105b-aws-3-auction-t-mobile-dish-denied-request-split-spectr/2014-07-24

I was thinking about this in a discussion on fierce a few days ago. This is probably the reason Sprint hasn't yet all phones unlocked when they started using LTE the way VZ did. Sprint phones are (and were, with the notable former exceptions of B17/12 and current/future exception of B13 LTE) actually almost universally compatible with other carriers with bands 25 and 26 being supersets of 2 and 5, and the recent OEM requirements for B4 and 12. If Sprint made their phones domestically unlockable now, the other carriers could just enabled MFBI and they could let anyone bring in their old Sprint phone and enjoy full access to the networks (the exception is obviously big red and B13). The problem for Sprint is that the reverse is not true. In their typical anticompetitive manner, the other carriers opt to include only their specific subsets in their carrier versions of their phones. Sprint phones would work on other networks, but other network phones would not work on Sprint.

 

I wish that the FCC would just require all future certified devices to include supersets of any subset they support (I could see AT&T and Verizon only including bands 2, 4, 17 or 13 in their carrier varients as a way to sort of bypass the new unlocking laws), but thanks to radio tech advancements and OEMs starting to do single-SKU flagships, this might not actually be an issue going forward.

 

TL;DR If they don't plan on doing LTE roaming and want to be anticompetitive a-holes, they might use band 5. But hopefully that won't happen.

I totally agree that any supersets of several LTE bands should be the ones to support regardless if their network actually supports. This benefits all carriers since it increases economies of scale that supports all the different LTE networks that are being deployed out there.  Also your observation that Sprint handsets seem to be compatible to other carriers while the converse is not true is spot on.

I hate the fact that Sprint has some odd LTE bands like B25, B26 and B41.  For B41, I understand since Sprint has pretty much exclusive rights to the 2.5 GHz spectrum so the other carriers have little interest in it.  For B25, I wish VZ, AT&T and Tmobile would support that band since they will eventually convert their PCS spectrum band to LTE.  As for B26, it only makes sense for VZ and AT&T to support this band since they dominate the 850 MHz Cellular spectrum.  If at least the other major carriers support B25 and B26 that would help with economies of scale and also create a standard set of LTE bands that should be in a handset. 

When Verizon and AT&T finally decides to deploy LTE at 850 MHz, is there any reason for them to add support for B5 over B26? I know if more carriers support B26 devices that would increase economies of scale and lower costs. Yes I know Verizon and AT&T don't have ESMR spectrum but does that really matter? Carriers have to abide by the spectrum that they are licensed to anyways so I don't see a problem with this. I guess the only issue I see is if they have rural partners who already have B5 devices already released and want to be compatible with them. I just think any sort of superset LTE bands should be preferred over the constrained set. Maybe I am totally off.

Perfect example is B17 and B12. AT&T was supporting B17 for the longest time but is now supporting B12 to increase economies of scale so it is compatible with both AT&T and Tmobile. Now Sprint is joining that group to support B12 due to the CCA/RRPP. Also after the AWS-3 auction, I see Tmobile, Verizon and AT&T will start to support B10 for the AWS LTE since it is a superset of B4.

Turbo is probably where you'll hit peak speeds at, and regular spark is just B41 coverage.

I hate the label of Spark Turbo in addition to Sprint Spark and 4G LTE.  There is enough confusion already as it is.  Just have the Sprint Spark and 4G LTE labels and it gives the customer enough information on what to expect.  Its unnecessary to single out the specific towers that have upgraded backhaul to support 8T8R because to be honest even a 2T2R B41 LTE site upgraded is already faster than a B25 or B26 LTE carrier and can be proven via a speedtest.  

Also I will continue to say this that Sprint really needs to completely revamp their coverage maps.  I don't like that tiny ass rectangle and have to constantly scroll in order to see any decent amount of area.