Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 11/29/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I'd rather improved coverage over 6Gbps, I'm fine with 100+Mbps on LTE as is it's just coverage that needs improvement.
  2. 2 points
    Received my new iPhone X today. Damn, this is going to take time to get use to.
  3. 2 points
    Whenever anyone "looses," we all lose a little bit of intelligence. AJ
  4. 2 points
    It's a mix, but I think their biggest concern is taking a hit on their voice reliability scores. That said, I agree they should just open up VoLTE as a 'beta' program which is what they are sort of doing now with Calling Plus. I believe the full VoLTE IMS is already stood up and functioning with some iPhones and Calling Plus. Either way, we are getting closer!
  5. 2 points
    Ah yes, the "I got mine, screw you" argument. When your house in the country is worth $50,000, how do you afford to move into the city, exactly? And if everyone were to move to the city, the value would plummet to approximately $0. Besides, everyone should move into the cities! Who needs food, lumber, or minerals anyway? - Trip
  6. 2 points
    Requirement for the HTC U11 is to dunk the phone in milk first.
  7. 2 points
    And that's the point you're missing, there isn't competition for most ISPs. It's a monopolistic environment. It's akin to saying to switch electric or gas companies, it's not possible. That's why it needs to be regulated just like other utilities. Honestly, I'd take it a step further and prefer the government to own the infrastructure (fiber to the home), and then lease it to companies at a reasonable cost and contract out maintenance. That's how you ensure actual competition. Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
  8. 2 points
    Listen, and listen carefully, folks. You can state that Sprint, according to some third party studies, is measurably more reliable than T-Mobile. And you can state that Sprint has a widespread roaming agreement with VZW, as Sprint does with other operators. Those are facts. But you may not conclude that Sprint is measurably more reliable than T-Mobile -- only because -- Sprint has widespread roaming agreements with VZW or any other operator(s). Notorious Magentan troll, Fabian Cortez, makes that conclusion. If you want to make the same argument, you can take it and stuff it in your turkey. That argument overlooks numerous other possible explanations: Sprint is measurably more reliable with or without roaming agreements, T-Mobile is highly unreliable due to its own decisions and shortcomings, etc. Until you have additional evidence to substantiate one explanation or to discount alternative explanations, any argument for the former is not sound reasoning. In short, it does not pass the critical thinking test. AJ
  9. 1 point
    https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/sprint-hints-at-6-gbps-peak-speeds-over-lte-network That's insanity, even theoretically. Will be interesting to see if they can even get anywhere near that.
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    Where did you get that 63% number from? I have rarely seen any home with more than 3 wires attached to it. Those wires are electric, telephone and cable. There is no effective internet over electric lines so that leaves 2 wired internet providers at most for homes that are wired for both telephone and cable. I live in a suburb of Chicago which is a heavily populated area and there are only 2 wired internet providers both of which have messed with internet traffic in the past. Both of which have low caps for the speed of the connections they offer and where they promote their own content by making it exempt from caps while doing everything they can to limit access to their competitor's content. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or do you not believe the evidence that ISPs effectively have monopolies and have a desire to increase their revenue while disadvantaging their competitors? This fundamental business desire is in conflict with the open internet that has existed for the past 20 years. As they started to put those business desires into practice, Net Neutrality was proposed to make them common carriers. This is not about regulating the internet, it is about keeping it open.
  12. 1 point
    So much competition, ha. My only options are capped plans from mobile providers or satellite. No wired, no wisp, no competition, no options. I live two miles out of town, in a neighborhood, but we can't get the only cable provider to run service down here.
  13. 1 point
    ? Nothing to understand. The only thing I want to understand is Sprint's capex strategy the first two quarters of FY2018.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Looks like VoLTE option removed. They added Wi-Fi calling in the call settings menu.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Is "discussed" a strong enough word? The threats and schemes go back more than a dozen years, at least to 2005... https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5498-2/ AJ
  18. 1 point
    Agree to disagree. People have presented evidence of companies trying to change the internet before net neutrality. You seem to favor the internet not being treated like a utility and I respect that. However, you cannot say that companies have not tried to change the way the internet was handled before Net Neutrality. That is where people are pointing out it HAS happened (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/13/fcc-probes-netflix-isp-fight/10439635/). You can see further what is predicted in this article (http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/). While the Verge is not my go to news source this is a decent article (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16710450/fcc-net-neutrality-fact-sheet-is-total-nonsense). Paid fast lanes (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/). Throttling before net neutrality (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-throttling-bittorrent-was-no-big-deal-fcc-says/). And if you do not think ISPs charge more simply because of competition in the area, I can tell you my cable bill is lower in the NYC area than my parents in CT and in-laws in Ohio merely because my building is a FiOS and Optimum building. The building down the street has higher prices for Optimum because they cannot receive FiOS. So yes you can make the case that prices will not increase with a repeal of net neutrality, but there is evidence that this will not be the case as noted above. The costs of these paid fast lanes will ultimately come down to the consumer. If you think Netflix is going to pay huge interconnect fees WITHOUT increasing their prices to the consumer, then I have a bridge to sell you, especially if their competitors face the same fees. And again companies have been raising the price steadily of the internet over the past few years. This will likely just increase that cost on multiple fronts (content providers like Netflix) and your ISP bill with additional fees. People do not tend to switch ISPs readily, even with price increases. Again, I'm not looking to change your mind, but I do want you to at least notice why people might be nervous/upset about this change. Saying that market will handle it, is not a good argument when most people have to purchase from a monopoly. I am fully aware that you believe the markets can and will respond and I am making the case for a market inefficiency. Whether or not the repeal of net neutrality will actually change the way the internet is handled can be debated for awhile until we actually see changes. I suspect we would see changes within the year. But you cannot use the argument that because it has not been done in the past does not mean it will not in the future. Times change and the way we consume media has drastically changed over the last 5 years. As for price increases: http://bgr.com/2017/10/07/home-internet-service-providers-no-contract-price-2017/
  19. 1 point
    That seems more likely. I don't ever remember expecting to see 4xCA this year.
  20. 1 point
    The press release stated 2018 iirc. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  21. 1 point
    Was that promised for 2017? I don't remember a date being specified.
  22. 1 point
    Sprint does send reminders that the lease is expiring too. It's not like they are hiding the lease end from the customer. Everyone's a victim these days. If you admit that you're too naive or lazy, then you're admitting responsibility and copability...
  23. 1 point
    256 QAM would make the biggest difference given proper backhaul. 4x4 MIMO would be great for urban high capacity sites assuming the need for high capacity CDMA has declined.
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Truth. This victim pedestaling journalism has to stop. One more while I’m at it: BREAKING: Parking tickets for a spot can cost you more than paying the metered pricing.
  26. 1 point
    Exactly that. The victim culture needs to die and die hard. You went into the store signed up for the lease, you need to educate yourself about what it was you were signing up for. If they lied to you that is fraud, if you simply didnt educate yourself that is on you.
  27. 1 point
    “They basically took $140 away from me because I’m naive.” That’s all you need to know about this person/situation. Everybody else’s responsibility but his. In other news: Overdue library item fines can cost you more than the book does. Renting a car at the daily rate for a week can be more expensive than the weekly rate.
×