Yeah, I was less concerned about all of the East and West thinking in that article than I was in pointing out that maybe 1900 MHz isn't a problem in the first place.
Here's the thing about caring about signal loss in buildings as a function of frequency - deciding if high or low frequency is better goes in assuming that all things are being equal.
In theory, you can make all things equal, here's one equation that does it -
Free-space path loss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But in practice, there's more -
Radio Signal Path Loss :: Radio-Electronics.Com
10 Commandments of Wireless Communications - B&B Electronics
Are buildings harder on higher frequencies? Pretty much. Is that the whole story? Not really.
Think about how the inside of your home looks with only moonlight as a source of light in the dead of night. You get a lot of surprising shadows and glowing places as light bounces around. Radio signals are like that. So you may attenuate the signal with building materials, but you are going to create vast changes in nulls and hot spots, too. So you'll possibly experience what you do already in buildings - some spots will be better than others.
And aside from frequencies, we have a few other important factors to consider - the towers and the phones are going to be quite different from WiMAX on Evos.
If it makes you feel any better, 1900 MHz LTE is lower frequency than 2400 MHz WiMax. And I don't think that we're going to get 800 MHz LTE and need to care about that anyway.
In fact, setting aside Clear, Light Squared and Aunt Sally, I find myself staring into a time machine -
I am seeing maps, claims and a whole lot of promises from Sprint et al.
PS to Sauske - the measurement traces tell us that the signal is for real and looking properly broadcast at the test location.
And as twospirits reminded me lately, s4gru.com got a lot right early on about WiMax back when we were all learning to spell Evo, so that's who I'm following for Sprint LTE news these days.