ericdabbs

I am glad to see more triband LTE devices entering the Sprint ecosystem. This Galaxy Mega 6.3 phone is just too big for me.  I played with it at the AT&T store awhile back and the phone is huge!!!  For me personally I think the phone is too big for me not only to hold but for being able to pocket the phone.

For those of you now interested with the Galaxy Mega 6.3 over the Note 3, I suggest you play with the Galaxy Mega 6.3 at an AT&T store to really see how big of a monster phone this is so you can get an idea if you truly want this phone. 

I even have a photo taken side by side between a LG Optimus G Pro and a Galaxy Mega 6.3 so you can see the difference.  If people are interested in seeing it, I can upload it.

Seriously Samsung. Why are they alienating the Note 3 to be single band LTE when the Mega and GS4 mini are triband?

The bigger problem that Sprint and LG may have on their hands is carefully differentiating this handset from the G2.  Otherwise, if both are the same price, why would users opt for the G2?

 

One possibility for Sprint could be that the Nexus 5 gets sold only off contract for $350-400, possibly even through Google Play, while the G2 gets sold on contract for $200 subsidized. 

 

AJ

Well off the bat, the look between the G2 and the Nexus 5 are different.  The camera and power/volume button placement is different between the two phones. Also the Nexus 5 would run pure vanilla Android with the latest software updates while the G2 would run LG's Optimus overlay on Android 4.2.2.  Also the G2 has some unique features such as the "Knock-on", high fidelity and bitrate audio playback, other LG gimmicky features, etc while the Nexus 5 would have none of those features since it just plain vanilla android.

Also I don't believe the Nexus cameras in the past have been known to be top tier even with the Nexus 4 so I expect a lower quality camera on the Nexus 5 than on the G2.  There are definitely some clear tradeoffs between a Nexus 5 and the G2 so I wouldn't worry so much about that.  The key for Sprint is to start selling the G2 ASAP around the same time as the other carriers.

Dude..seriously. .you're complaining?? Unbelievable.

Yes its ok to vent what you are not happy with the phone.  I dont plan to get the phone anyways but you would think that Google would want to pack a beefier battery than a 2300 maH.  At least pack a 2600 maH battery like the GS4.

Sucks that the phone doesn't support SVLTE and the battery is only 2300 maH.  That is pretty weak and is the same size battery as the HTC One.  At least the phone will be triband. 

Thanks for the detailed and thorough response as usual.  As a consumer, I must admit that I'm still frustrated.  I held off on the HTC One because of the lack of SVDO.  I then get excited about Tri-band phones only to find out they will have the same limitation.  Oh well, here's to hoping VoLTE handsets come sooner than later.  Does anyone have a rough timeline for those on Sprint?

 

Thanks again.

SVLTE is not good enough for you?  I mean the HTC One and GS4 both have SVLTE support.  Even if you don't have LTE where you are at currently, eventually it will get to it and you can take advantage of it. Like AJ said, I don't think its worth the money to keep SVDO support.

However I do wish that SVLTE should have been left alone.  I think SVLTE could still be beneficial for everyone including myself which I rarely talk and browse but I can see the benefit of the times I do need to search for something while on the phone.

Thanks Travis for writing this article.  I look forward to reading more on Part 3 of this series.

This is hardly uncommon. It is a limitation of many cellphones. Look at all of the FCC OET articles that I have written. Note in how many devices the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth antennas are shared.AJ

Are there conflicting issues if the WiFi and Bluetooth antennas are shared? I guess in practical use, it shouldn't be a big deal right? Unless you plan to talk with your cell phone via bluetooth and use wifi at the same time?

Hopefully the Note 3 fpr this year, the EIRP will have the CDMA/EVDO 1900 be a higher value than the EIRP at CDMA 800 and that the EIRP at LTE 1900 G block to be higher than the A-F blocks.

Verizon, even before the deal with the cable companies was announced last year, already owned a large swath of AWS spectrum, plus, they knew that there was a chance for them to acquire more AWS spectrum from the cable companies, and they knew that nearly a year ago (in other words, they were actively pursuing additional AWS spectrum for LTE). Therefore, it is reasonable for Verizon to have wished that the AWS band would have been added to the phone (just like AT&T obviously did - even though AT&T too had not yet deployed LTE on AWS). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to wonder why it was omitted from Verizon's variant.

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.

The G-band is an additional 5Mhz to each link (upload and download), located contiguously with the rest of the PCS band on each link direction. If I were to have counted both the upload and download links together then I would have said "add 10Mhz to 120Mhz" instead of saying "add 5Mhz to 60Mhz". in any case , adding 10Mhz to the existing 120Mhz is a rather trivial effort technically, which means that it is not unreasonable to wonder why did Apple not just go ahead and put LTE band 25 in AT&T's version rather than band 2.

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.

Ahmm, yeah, everything you just said might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that the AT&T variant of the iPhone 5 does have the AWS band. So that kind of blows away your theory on that one. Plus, AT&T got support for the AWS band despite the fact that to the best of my knowledge, like Verizon, they haven't even deployed LTE on it yet. Oh, and Verizon already owned a bunch AWS frequencies before the latest FCC action. The "approval" they got was for additional AWS spectrum they purchased from the cable co's (part of which they sold/swapped with T-Mobile).

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.

Why? Because adding the G-band means adding just 5Mhz to the tail end of an existing 60Mhz-wide band. So from a technical perspective it might actually be simpler to go ahead and create one device that covers 65Mhz rather than two devices; one that covers 60Mhz and another 65Mhz - since it is essentially just one contiguous band with no gaps and the addition of the extra narrow band is almost trivial from a technical perspective.I think there are definitely valid reasons behind the observations I made with respect to the iPhone 5.

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.

Some general notes/observations:

• What surprises me even more is that Verizon, with all the hoopla over their acquisition of additional AWS spectrum, didn't get AWS frequencies on the iPhone at all
  

• It's stooopid that AT&T didn't get the G-band included on their phones. I mean, geez, it's only 5Mhz more, can't be that hard to include.
  

To your first bullet point, why should the iPhone 5 include support for LTE at AWS frequencies when the FCC just approved it late last month? Do you understand that it takes months of testing out the antennas for the AWS frequencies and Verizon nor Tmobile has yet to deploy LTE on AWS frequencies so why the rush? Not only does it take months to test out the antennas for AWS frequencies, it would need to be FCC approved at least 2 months before deployment and the iPhone 5 has been in final production for at least over the past month or 2. I don't think you have an understanding at all at how complicated it is and its not just as simple as adding some band classes to a phone on the fly.

To your second point, why should AT&T have PCS 'G' block support for LTE? Sprint is the only carrier that has access to broadcast LTE in the 'G' block and is a CDMA carrier so it makes sense to me that the CDMA version of the iPhone 5 should only have band class support for the PCS 'G' block. I don't understand at all why you think the AT&T phone should have this band class included.

I think you need to do a lot more research to find out more about how band classes and phones work. I don't think anyone on this board is surprised that the observations you posted are not included.

So Kentucky could be on the list as a potential late 2nd round market just like Phoenix, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Missouri, Milwaukee?

It doesn't seem like A/L is capable of meeting the 110 sites per month at this rate based on the low rate of towers being reported as complete. Its looking like its very far fetched that A/L will be able to get as many sites as they would like by September assuming its still the launch date.

Love the video!!! I can't wait to see the new commercials. I wonder if the Sprint marketing team will attack the new Verizon shared everything data plans.

Awesome. Now to get the tech blogs buzzing about Sprint LTE and doing speedtests.

I am surprised pyroscott hasnt commented yet like "OMG FINALLY!!!!"

Tough Pill to swallow... I don't know if I can wait a year for decent 4g coverage on Sprint.. When I ALREADY have decent 4G coverage on Sprint.. It's either leave or jump on the GS2 and ride WiMax for another year which isn't bad but the GS2 is almost a year old already..Edit: Man I just pulled 8200 down and 1400 up in Anaheim indoors not by any windows... I can't go back to 3G

Why not just wait until 2013 to get a LTE phone? You will definitely get a better LTE phone than in 2012. If you are ok with Wimax until LTE comes out that would be the path I would go. I assume by your comment that you are thinking about extending your contract with a LTE phone by I would save that upgrade until next year and pick up a Wimax phone on craigslist if you really need 4G. If you did get a LTE phone, keep in mind that LTE would exist in the LA county area starting Sept. Either way to each and their own.

I think it all comes down to backhaul availbility. That is the biggest driver in deployment schedule. The backhaul install schedule is what it is. So if you're Sprint, what do you do?Do you let the backhaul crews get farther out ahead and you delay the start by 2-3 months and then do 50-60 sites per month? Or do you start as soon as the first 30 sites or so have backhaul and deploy at a slower rate?To me it makes more sense to start as soon as possible so customers see the work is going on and build entusiasm, than to wait until the back end of the market schedule and blow through it all at once. Because either way, with the backhaul schedule being what it is, the finish date is the same either way.

 

Robert

I agree that Sprint should start NV build out ASAP to get progress going and bring backhaul online to those completed sites as soon as its available. I totally forgot the other potential delay was the availability of backhaul which is not the vendors fault in this case Alcatel Lucent.

Wow only 35 sites a month???? Dang I was expecting about 50-60 sites a month. I am disappointed it didnt make a March release.

Great. Glad to see Silicon Valley get in on the Network Vision action.

I have to say.. I love PR and can't wait to go back.. but why the hell is PR getting NV before many many markets in the US?? Sorry PR, I love you.. but need NV in Cleveland first.

Dude just deal with it. Cleveland has been announced to come live sometime shortly after the end of second round markets come live. Honestly why pick on only PR when there are a bunch of other markets which you could also say should not be so high on the second round but they are.

Also like muffinman said there are more people in Puerto Rico than in Cleveland.

Yay update for my area on my birthday! BOO for the delay! I am not surprised about SF proper just because of the fricking NIMBY neighbors up there that make it impossible to get towers up, but they couldn't have started anywhere else in the Bay? It's soooo depressing, and it means San Jose is going to get screwed

It doesn't look like San Jose is that far behind San Francisco launch. My guess will be a March launch time frame for San Jose since Robert is up to January launch markets.

I am disappointed too that SF wasn't able to make it to the Dec 2012 time frame but Jan 2013 isn't too far off considering the huge amount of delays. I am just glad the first round markets are done with.

I can understand why San Jose, Seattle and Portland are pushed so far down the 2nd round list now.

What do you mean when you say 40%? Is the LTE going to cover the Houston area like the horrible wimax does is that what 40% means? Also, how far from a tower can you pick up a good LTE signal because im on a 30 trial with at&t because im about fed up with Sprints poor service in my area.

What Robert is talking about is that only 40% of the total number of towers in that market will have the Network Vision towers upgraded at launch. Obviously the towers that are upgraded with Network Vision by launch date must be spaced out so that it provides sufficient LTE coverage all over the market so you don't get gaps like Wimax .

Don't worry though, Sprint will continue to add towers each week and eventually will complete that market over time. If you read the market update articles for a particular market you can get all the details like how many additional towers are expected to be Network Vision ready and go live each month and when the market will be entirely complete where every single Sprint tower will be converted to Network Vision status.