cyclone

https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

To anyone reporting failing at 20% during the initialization phase, think about what this unit is and how it works and you'll be better able to understand the problem and how they are most likely not defective units. This is a box that acquires all info from a signal broadcasted from a macrocell (think of it like a satellite box). If your box is unable to acquire that signal, it will not receive any information. Receiving that fail at 20% is a likely indicator that your unit is simply not able to get signal from a nearby tower to set up the unit. Anthony stated in a previous post that his unit even advised him to try another location  To anyone not able to get past that 20% milestone, you should try a new location. If you can't find a place for the unit where it acquires signal (or you're in a known lack of B41 or B25), then you might consider returning your unit.

Not sure if that's true. Pixel and Pixel XL work perfectly on B12. If it didn't, why were they paying users to bring their Pixels to T-Mobile?

 

http://www.spectrumgateway.com/compatible-phones

 

https://madeby.google.com/phone/specs/

 

Weirdly, Verizon doesn't advertise B12 support for their Pixel even though it's the same model as the Direct-From-Google one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/help/google-pixel-xl-vs-verizon-pixel-xl-t3482958/amp/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As was stated, the Pixel is physically capable of B12 however T-Mobile doesn't have it listed as compatible on their own website

https://www.t-mobile.com/optional-services/coverage-phones-700.html

All these acceptance calls/emails from people without B41 are a little discouraging when I'm in San Antonio with moderate to decent B41 available and I was denied guess I'll wait and try again later when they are more available

I'm restarting my phone at the moment. As of now I can't call, text, or get data unless I'm on wifi. My phone doesn't show that it's on WiFi-Connect, but after making and receiving test calls I can confirm that it is working. Once I switch off wifi, it all disconnects. After doing a reset, I am back to normal operations. That was weird

Anyone having service issues this morning? I'm showing a signal, but not able to make/receive calls, texts, or data. I've put my iPhone on wifi and it won't even switch over to WiFi-Connect

Not surprised. This must be the fall-out from the Qualcomm-Apple lawsuits. It's going to be a great once CDMA is finally gone. All the major smartphone makers can finally dump Qualcomm and substantially improve the performance of their phones.

Maybe Apple has been testing Iphones with gigabits chips and the battery performance sucks. 

The article is speculating on the availability of gigabit LTE based on Apple choosing to source chips from both Qualcomm and Intel. One company has the technology currently available while the other does not. No lawsuits involved or battery performance testing. Just an assumption based on Apple's history of lowering the capabilities of one chip to not allow an unfair batch of iPhones. The article even discusses how minor an issue this is due to the lack of gigabit LTE networks and with Apple making yearly iPhone upgrades

For one. There is spectrum gaps around 2568-2572 and 2614-2618 that kills continuity. The hodgepodge of EBS and BRS spectrum means that a market may have 100+ mhz of spectrum but how much of that is contiguous and usable for 15 / 20 MHz carriers? 

 

Sprint is deploying B41 carriers on B41HL (2500-2570 or 2620-2690) with small cells taking up the L or H (--> 40 MHz) portions depending on what the macro cells are deploying. Let's just say sprint has a contiguous 120 MHz from 2500-2560 and 2620-2680. 60 MHz is taken up by macros and 40 MHz is taken up by small cells. Then add in high capacity 2.5 sites which may broadcast up to 120 MHz from one radio antenna setup. 

 

So where do you get the spectrum needed to create the substantial guard bands which the white paper theorized? 

 

In addition in 3GPP Rel 14 36.300, this is stated, "For TDD CA, the downlink/uplink configuration is identical across component carriers in the same band and may be the same or different across component carriers in different bands."

Any TDD configurations must be identical or separated enough that it doesn't cause catastrophic interference.

 

You cannot run adjacent tdd carriers using different frame configurations without substantial interference.

 

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Mixed with the continuous reminder on the current contingencies for carrier aggregation, your first point almost argues against the ability for carrier aggregation at all with your mention of a lack of contiguous spectrum. There are already locations that have valid 2CA and 3CA operating. The discussion was in regards to changing the configuration of components in those areas from 1 to 2.

The scenario you set up is asserting that small cells are currently present. That is a perfect example of where this can NOT work, yes, but is also heavily dependent upon small cells being present and currently they seem to be an exception rather than the rule for several markets. Now each of my posts has stated this is all "theory" and "conceptual", yet instead of discussing the possibilities you have merely demonstrated why it is currently not capable in your example. Is this thread not "On path to gigabit LTE..."? Interestingly, I see you also edited your previous post to remove your suggestion to look up white papers on the coexistence of TDD. There has been a more recent one done by GTI that discuses the path towards dynamic TDD, found below. An advantage brought up that I've never thought of is how switching to a configuration highly favoring uploads (most likely at night) allows the site to lower its power consumption.

http://lte-tdd.org/Resources/rep/2016-09-06/9424.html

6.2.1 BS–BS coexistence in case of unsynchronized LTE-Advanced TDD systems:

Unsynchronized LTE-Advanced TDD systems may co-exist in adjacent spectrum blocks by applying one or more of the following measures to reduce interference between base stations:

•Frequency separation: Interference into the networks of adjacent operators may be decreased by introducing guard bands. In this report it is not studied in detail how large such a guard band would need to be, though it is clear from previous studies (Reports ITU-R M.2146 0 [12], and ITU-R M.2113 0 [15]) that if this is used as a stand-alone solution, a large amount of spectrum would remain unused.

•Additional filtering and appropriate guard band: Additional filters may substantially reduce interference by decreasing the unwanted emissions from the transmitter and improving the selectivity on the receiver side. A guard band between spectrum used by adjacent operators is then necessary to allow for sufficient filter roll-off. The required size of such a guard band would depend on the necessary additional isolation and the ability of the filter. According to the analysis in this report, such filters would need to provide additional isolation in the range 36-73 dB, depending on the interference scenario (propagation environment and isolation available because of other considerations than the filter e.g. site-coordination, antenna characteristics).

•Co-ordination among network operators: Site engineering techniques such as transmitter antenna tilting, selection of antenna direction and careful deployment planning may reduce interference. However, it could be very difficult to implement practically as different operators may have different user distribution patterns, growth patterns, business and operational plans.

•A combination of the above

6.2.2 UE–UE coexistence in case of unsynchronized LTE-Advanced TDD systems:

The analysis indicates that interference may occur when the UEs are in close proximity but that for most scenarios this interference will occur rarely. For UEs, additional filters are not a realistic means for reducing interference.

 

 

Looking at the High Band Spectrum Depth map, Sprint owns 148-186MHz of high band spectrum in most major urban areas. Looking at the report I found on the study of "Coexistence of two time division duplex networks in the 2300-2400MHz band", using the same frequency separation practices, wouldn't Sprint be able to use some of the excess spectrum as guard bands to reduce the interference between a PCC (Config 1) and the SCC(s) (Config 2)? Using the current practices of the synchronous TDD-LTE system, each surrounding PCC would already be synchronized to each other and the SCC(s) would be synchronized as well to each other. This wouldn't need to be a nationwide concern as rural and most suburban settings could switch as a whole from Config 1 to Config 2 without introducing the asynchronous interference problems.

I realize this is all conceptual and spectrum would need to be contiguous (as pointed out above), but with the current use of 3CA it's evident that there are cases of that existing. Assuming the spectrum puzzle pieces align allowing multiple CA, would this scenario not be a viable option? Also, would HPUE help mitigate some of the UE-UE interference due to a wider flexibility of power output?

https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-M.2374-2015-PDF-E.pdf

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/2017-how-much-low-mid-and-high-band-spectrum-do-verizon-at-t-t-mobile-sprint-and-dish-own

The keyword would be adjacent, right? Couldn't they in theory break them up to not be adjacent? They do own up to 120MHz able to be broken up into 20MHz chunks. Have Chunk A be PCC with Chunks C and E be SCC1 and SCC2. This would give them all a 20MHz gap inbetween

Edited to ask additional question. Couldn't the secondaries actually go from Chunks C, D, E, and F since they would all be the same time configuration not needing to be guarded from interference?

D = Download

S = Guard

U = Upload

What are the odds of Softbank getting involved in this?

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/globalstar-said-to-be-shopping-around-spectrum-worth-more-than-2b

Hmmm.... interesting....

 

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/855997936320348160

 

"Coming in next couple of weeks."

Did this ever turn into anything?

At least for me, the issue seems to only affect incoming calls which would help rule out a general congestion issue as both incoming and outgoing calls would be affected

On occasion I will answer a call to hear very digital sounds/static or even a weird phenomenon where it sounds like every half second is cut out like I'm talking through some large industrial fan. Hang up and immediately redial out to them and no problem. This has only happened on incoming calls and it's happened from people on ATT, Verizon, and Virgin

Yep. The full list of plans is here under the question labeled "Is Sprint Global Roaming limited to certain plans?"

 

https://support.sprint.com/support/article/FAQs_about_Sprint_Global_Roaming/8fc1976f-831b-44a4-ab93-d1b3c36c39a3

Has anyone noticed that the Unlimited LTE, Talk, and Text in Canada and Mexico has disappeared from the Global Roaming page and the FAQs? Does this mean it's been removed altogether?

How is this different than the Unlimited Freedom plan that was already offered (after the promotional periods ends)? The pricing looks to still be the same, and still contingent on a $5 autopay discount. More or less, this appears to be all the redlines removed from the plan after the battle between Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint changed HD streaming and mobile hotspot allowances. I was really hoping this would be Sprint's response to the tax/fees included move by T-Mobile.

This is what they told me

 

"Thank you for taking my call. Once you're cancel within the billing cycle , it's require that you still pay for the entire month of service. Apologize for the inconvenience. Sorry that you're no longer with us, you're welcome to join us back anytime you chooses. Thank you for your service with us in the pass. Sprint Cares. AC"

 

That sounds like I am paying forward a month. My cycle ended on March 7th. I ported out on March 10th. This is my final bill. They aren't comping me three days of service.

They should stick to copy and pasted transcripts, that is some horrible grammar. As I and another have explained, this bill that you have is most likely your bill for the FULL CYCLE up to March 7th. You should then have a discounted bill (or be able to get it discounted if it's not) coming to you for the three days of March 8-10.

I know I am post paid but I think they bill a month in advance for the monthly recurring charges.

 

Anyway, I just got off the phone with one of their dumber reps and they told me that since I cancelled after my billing cycle ended I will have to pay for an entire month of service despite being only three days into it. Nice.

Monthly recurring charges as in your service plan? That you would be paying in advance? That would make you a pre-paid customer...in which you wouldn't have a monthly recurring charge...unless you kept pre-paying for the service month after month. I am pretty sure you would be able to get the bill cut down to only amount for the time it was used. This isn't a Sprint issue, this is a general Customer Service issue that is found in pretty much any retail industry

You are a post paid subscriber. This means just like a utility bill, you get billed for the usage AFTER that cycle has ended

I caught this along Bandera Rd near the entrance to OP Schnabel. It's the same earfcn that Rackhivee found on the east side. Y'all are saying this is just an added mini-macro and not a change out to the clearwire antennas? I will say I'm excited either way because I've gotten a Speedtest over 80mbps since these changes have been made. Now if we can get sprint to put antennas or small cells over six flags/la cantera

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome! That could explain the erratic data connections too. It was really bad yesterday along Bandera. I'm hoping areas still using clearwire hardware will be among the first to get the 64T64R radios like used in New Orleans

I wasn't aware you could change your server on the speedtest app. I've noticed some good speed increases lately so maybe there's just some new installs or optimizing going on. Will keep a lookout through the week to see if it's persistent

Has anyone been having issues over the weekend with data connections stalling on the NW side? I've had texts randomly take up to 2 minutes to send or data sessions seem to buffer. I've even tried running speed tests that fail to initialize a ping test. I just started a new cycle on the 9th so I know it's not deprioritization.

Apple is notorious for being cost conscious and doesn't include unnecessary components.

 

For example, there was a specific model of the iPhone 6s for AT&T which supported Band 30. This required additional components, but since none of the other carriers needed support for it, Apple didn't include it on the model for Sprint/Verizon/T-Mobile.

 

Apple also has a notoriously long design cycle for its devices, so it all depends when Sprint told Apple about its HPUE plans.

 

It also depends on how willing Apple is to build in a domestic carrier-specific feature for Sprint, and the costs involved in doing so. Perhaps if HPUE is implemented globally, that will help with the cost/device equation.

 

We'll see what happens this fall.

You make a statement about Apple being cost conscious and not willing to spend on additional components, but then gave an example of Apple making a version explicitly for AT&T instead of a universal version which would have been more cost conscious.

With Apple partnering with Qualcomm (chip maker of Motorola used in demonstration) in the past with no sign of moving towards a total use of Intel chips, and HPUE finalized in December, there's a good chance Sprint has given Apple plenty of heads up to get this going before the usual September iPhone release. Only issue is if Apple wants to limit the Qualcomm chip like they did with the 7/7+