maximus1987/lou99

I agree. But what's so hard about adding Band 26? It's a superset of Band 5 which the CDMA iPhone 5 includes.

If ALU is good enough for Verizon's small cells, it should be good enough for Sprint http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-taps-alcatel-lucent-ericsson-lte-small-cells/2013-05-21

Canada has crazy-strict foreign ownership rules, right? I bet there's lots of foreigners who'd love to buy WND, Moblicity, and Public and make some nice dough in the worlds highest-priced market. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/08/11/canada-cellphone-rates-expensive-oecd.html

Never underestimate the French when it comes to protectionism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/10033511/France-intervenes-to-block-Yahoo-bid-for-control-of-Dailymotion-as-not-in-French-interests.html If they blocked Yahoo! from acquiring a Youtube site, imagine their stance when hundreds of high-value engineering job are threatened.

No guarantee that Alcatel-Lucent would be around for too much longer (it's dangerously close to folding). Plus, ALU equipment isn't that great, either. Wouldn't it be a good strategic move to give it some business to keep it alive and keep competition going? And are you an engineer? How do you know that ALU equipment "isn't that great"?

Is there a law that would mandate Verizon to allow its own rural towers to be shared at a reasonable cost?

What about Alcatel-Lucent?

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz. Since they are only going to deploy LTE on 600, they pretty much have to stick to LTE 600 spacing and not an equivalent using another technology. And LTE 600 would ideally be spaced on PCS/AWS voice in my mind. So, let's say that Tmo wanted to start service in Rapid City, SD. They would likely colocate on existing sites. There already is an established network of 850 spaced sites or PCS/AWS. Tmo would likely choose to deploy TD-LTE 600 on PCS/AWS spacing. To try to do the 850 Cellular spacing in place would be problematic for voice on LTE. Based on my observations here in New Mexico, Verizon 1x voice on 850 travels much farther than LTE on 750. So it would not be a good idea, in my opinion to try to space LTE-600 on 850 voice. But it could be done with mixed results. Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD What I'm getting at is that one of the mods said VoLTE (or LTE) is usable down to -93db but 1x down to -103db. Assuming TMUS will use VoLTE, wouldn't they want to be a little conservative in their spacing?

No, they can't. That speed is for one user connected to the tower. If there are 10 users, you divide by 10 to get 10Mb/s; 100 users, you divide by 100 to get 1Mb/s.

I meant with the new towers they're going to deploy to expand their footprint using 600MHz.

A licensee cannot just unleash licensed spectrum for unlicensed access. That would make the licensee liable for any improper or illegal use of said spectrum. Plus, as I mentioned previously, almost no one these days wants narrowband, interleaved spectrum. AJ But my point is: it's currently unused now so why not collaborate with FCC to officially declare it unlicensed? Surely someone will find some use for it. Even if its low data rate, something > nothing.

A major reason why Verizon will not be selling LTE-only anything anytime soon is that their LTE tower spacing is horrible. I live next to a major freeway in a well-to-do suburb of Detroit and while on T-Mobile I can get 3-6 Mbps on a 14.4 AWS-only phone, I get no Verizon LTE in my house. Even voice quality in parts of my house is a problem.

I looked at Broadcom's new baseband chip and it looks like they've concluded that CDMA is "dead" and ditto for nVidia's Icera. They're possibly thinking that since Verizon has stated it will start using VoLTE in 2014, by the time their CDMA would have been ready, it'd be too late (for the highend market). Of course, that leaves them out of the iPhone until the one coming out 2015 or later but they realized that even if they did get decent CDMA capability in 2014, Apple would have no solid reason to switch.

If TMUS gets 10 MHz of TDD 600 MHz: 1) will that be 37 Mbps maximum download/upload capacity assuming 50/50 TDD ratio? 2) will they need to put their towers slightly closer because VoLTE drops out at a higher signal level than 1x? 3) how many kilobits/sec does it take for whatever HD voice TMUS will use? 4) how many simultaneous HD voice calls can you fit assuming aforementioned parameters?

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out. People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft" Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW. Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile. Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity? They did it out of economic/marketing necessity. T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back. Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools. Although I do not disagree with your points, it was definitely a strong response to the comment you quoted. Eeek. I would like to continue to support Sprint myself. Because in the current market conditions, doing so helps competition and keeps the duopoly in check. And if and when things occur as you say, I would no longer support Sprint. But rather would support the carrier which will best provide competition. Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk I agree it was strong which is why I included the last sentence. Thankfully, with S+TMUS bulking up, I hope it won't be possible for any 2 to ever get in the same position as before. Sure, ATT+VZW have the "lead" because of sub 1GHz positions but after 600MHz, that initial advantage will fade away. Plus, capacity will be the next selling point and S looks set in that respect.

How did that happen?

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out. People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft" Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW. Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile. Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity? They did it out of economic/marketing necessity. T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back. Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

I guess that's fair and the fact that you took care to state the terms shows you're aware of the possible dangers and are not encouraging abuse.

Ok.

When a Sprint customer roams onto Verizon's 3G, that costs Sprint money directly via roaming fees, right? When a Sprint customer violates the T.C.s and uses an obscene amount of data by using their phone as their primary connection, that "costs" Sprint money by necessitating additional investment in network capacity, right? Well then why are people allowed to discuss how to obtain PRLs that force roaming onto Verizon's 3G? I'm pretty sure modifying your PRL period is against the T.C.s but modifying for the purpose of forcing Verizon 3G roaming is definitely against the T.C.s My point: if you're gonna be indignant about something that "costs" Sprint money, in the form of network capacity, then maybe you definitely shouldn't allow something that costs Sprint money, in the form of roaming fees, to be on your forums and for people to attach PRLs in their posts that directly and instantly costs Sprint money. In this thread http://s4gru.com/ind...zon-3g-roaming/ several mods participated in helping people force Verizon 3G roaming. Huh? And this At least be consistent: either this site is fully in favor of people taking full advantage of Sprint or it's not.

So from here to eternity, it'll be totally useless? If it's totally useless, why doesn't Sprint just open it up for unlicensed service?

Both Sprint and T-Mobile would benefit from 600 MHz, T-Mobile far more so, due to awesome coverage for relatively low capex i.e. the towers. However, extensive rural coverage is more of a necessity in marketing than an actual need, most of the time, and is definitely not the business focus for neither TMUS nor S: TMUS has the huge AWS+PCS holdings and S has huge 2.5GHz. However, as we all know from "there's a map for that", commercials are effective. So, would it make sense for TMUS+S to jointly bid for 10-20MHz and share the associated capacity and costs? Sprint could take care of the actual build-out while TMUS would pay Sprint to be an MVNO on the 600MHz for when one of their subscriber wanders off AWS+PCS coverage. If they buy 20MHz then, assuming the blocks are in multiples of 10MHz, some years down the road, if the relationship becomes less than amicable, they can make a clean break. If they buy 10MHz, they'll get along by necessity. Also, you could say "that's not enough for the both of them" but I'm talking about the rural areas where most of the time, the tower is - I'm assuming - mostly very underutilized. Since TMUS doesn't have sub 1GHz for voice, then they'd have to use VoLTE (assuming 600MHz will only be LTE) but how much does VoLTE even take per person? If there's a location where TMUS or S has a "spike" in traffic, then they'll put up a tower using their own non-600MHz and capacity problem solved.

As long as we're talking about people with a vendetta, what do you guys think of Joan Lappin (on Forbes)? I've read most her articles and she seems REAALLY angry that Sprint might get Clearwire for $2.2bil but it's not only about Clearwire. She'll take any bad news about Sprint, like their impending losses from Nextel http://www.forbes.com/sites/joanlappin/2013/04/24/sprint-in-play-now-itself-sees-losses-mount-in-current-quarter/ and she'll pivot like "and another thing!: Sprint should give me more money for my Clearwire shares!"

Are Sprint's licenses critical to AT&T? If so, could Sprint extract some more PCS or $$$ out of AT&T?

1) How in the world does 900MHz exist here? I thought it was non-North America? I guess it can be used for GSM, correct? Phones always list GSM 850/900/1800/1900 2) Is that 4MHz useful for anything to Sprint? Why doesn't it just sell it and get something out of it. 3) Does it have a buildout requirement?