ericdabbs

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.

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.

Great summary as always AJ on 2 of the flagship phones for 2015. As for me, I am going to wait until the LG G4 comes out and hopefully it provides some better numbers/features than the S6 and M9.

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.

Does this mean that Sprint could expand their coverage to Alaska?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ehh IMO Sprint urban city coverage needs a lot of help too. I think in a lot of areas, the coverage is not dense enough. I think for now, Sprint should just rely on 800 MHz CDMA/LTE deployment and CCA/RRPP partners to help with rural coverage. Sprint is losing its customers in the urban cities of major markets because the voice/data coverage has been piss poor so I think the strategy on focusing on urban cities to improve both of these things is what is needed to stop the bleeding.

I definitely agree that Sprint needs to do a better job at making its network more dense. I just wish Sprint took all the Nextel sites that were not co-located and did full NV builds on them. I can identify a few Nextel sites which would have made perfect NV sites to provide coverage and capacity located in shopping malls which badly need the coverage and capacity.

Yes!!!! I hope all 2015 Sprint LTE phones contain LTE bands 2, 4, 5 and 12 to be compatible with AT&T, Verizon and Tmobile networks.

Why would this news suddenly imply simultaneous voice and data? . By the way, the Note 4 was already released in 2014.

Don't be silly...the G2 is not "too old" to support lollipop update. The specs can easily support the next 2 android versions if it wanted to. Not getting wifi calling has nothing to do with whether the phone will get the lollipop update. The G2 should get the lollipop update but it won't be until later on this year.

I wonder why. Is it something technical about the LG G2 that prevents wifi calling to be added or does Sprint think the device is "too old" to even care about wifi calling?

I really wish Sprint would add wifi calling capability to the LG G2. I don't know why its taking them soo long to get this done. Maybe the Android 5.0 Lollipop update will finally bring this much needed capability. With Sprint needing to conserve spectrum resources to take loading off of its cell towers you would think that providing wifi calling capabilities to any available capable handset would be a high priority just to give customers more choice.

At this point I want Sprint to just deploy 8T8R RRUs and antennas for the remaining Clearwire sites and Sprint NV sites. Sprint is not deploying anymore dual Wimax/LTE B41 RRUs since Wimax is shutting down in Nov 2015. Hopefully by end of 2015 a decent amount of B41 LTE coverage is present in LA/OC.

I am liking what Tmobile is doing in snatching up more 700 MHz A-block markets. They still need to snatch up the Chicago license from Leap and buy out all the 700 MHz licenses from AB License Co LLC, Cavalier License Group LLC, and Continuum 700. How is the wideband LTE coverage in NYC?