Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/29/2017 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Been workin hard! [emoji2] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. 1 point
    I just returned from a business trip to Japan and have some interesting things to report regarding Sprint international roaming on SoftBank. I'm a BYOD customer (aka 1 year free) and therefore my expectations were that I would receive throttled (2G speed data) with the option to purchase 'high speed' data on a daily or weekly basis as needed. On landing and turning on my phone, I received the usual SMS messages welcoming me to Japan and noting rates for calls and texts. However, I also received a message "High-speed data included at no additional cost on this trip!" Hmm... exciting. My trip kept me in downtown Tokyo with a diversion to Yokohama for lunch one day. I definitely did not venture outside urban areas and therefore my experience is not representative as a testimony for the network throughout Japan. In both cities I can attest the network is very dense and I don't recall having a low signal situation anywhere. I was able to use the service just as I use Sprint in the U.S. On my iPhone 6, the hotspot worked great and the speeds were excellent. Towards the end of my trip, I did some speedtests (photos attached) at my hotel and at Haneda airport, connecting to Band 1 and 3. I never did see an instance where I connected to band 41 (but then again I don't have the benefit of SCP and wasn't running around with the field test mode going all the time). I was surprised at the ping times and played around with the servers on speedtest to try and see if there were any changes (nothing) and as you can see whether it was band 1 or 3, downtown Tokyo or the airport, pings were consistently in the ~300ms range (by way of reference the hotel wifi was ~4ms (assume fiber)). Overall it was impressive and considering the usual cost of roaming, the experience was excellent.
  3. 1 point
    You can just set them the same and let devices decide which to use. I do that for my guest network. The reason it's often done is that many devices will pick 2.4 GHz over 5 GHz, or when they get out of 5 GHz range they don't switch back when they come back in range. It's the only way to force 5 GHz to be used. For my personal network I invert the network name, so for example I have "SSID" for 5 GHz And "SSID-2.4" for 2.4 GHz. Better APs like Ubiquiti can try to make clients use 5 GHz (basically disconnect them and hope they reconnect to 5 GHz), but the band selection is completely under the control of the client device. Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
  4. 1 point
    Still occasionally getting blocked despite using latest Tapatalk. Inconvenient, irritating, but able to work around.
  5. 1 point
    Happy New Year! I will be close to home with family and working on S4GRU. Hope to get the new map update posted. Robert
  6. 1 point
    Well things have certainly gotten a lot better in Weston. One of the formerly trouble spots is now a full build that's rocking and rolling. Still one more tower to check, but everything else is top notch. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  7. 1 point
    It's been below freezing the entire time I've been home here in Kentucky. Cold as can be but, hey, I've been getting excellent Sprint band 41 service all over! That should warm the soul!
  8. 1 point
    Still going to have to disagree. What you are proposing is a self-fulfilling prophecy where innovations such as the internet could not exist without government investment. If you are supporting the idea that government has a significant role in innovation and only the government has the economic size to leverage investments into new technologies then your entire argument falls apart. Also, explain to me how the government is dividing up anybody's profits. As I said before, article two leveled out the playing field. In my opinion, this is necessary as long as there is not sufficient competition. What I find interesting is that I have yet to hear anybody propose scrapping the legal cable monopolies. Now that is a case of government control that reaches far beyond article two.
  9. 1 point
    A note. A disclaimer if you will... We will allow this post to stay here. But know that taking apart leased/lent equipment is likely a violation of your agreement, and not advisable. We do not endorse/encourage it. You will likely be liable for damaged and even possibly having your account canceled should Sprint discover it. We have moved this to the Magic Box thread. Robert
  10. 1 point
    Ok. So you are really going to have to spell this out for me because I am having visions of Fields of Dreams right now. Not at all. I want everybody to have access to the internet as it was developed [ed by the government(read people). Kudos to business for building it out BUT and this is a big but, it is provided by companies that are already under regulation for good reason. Replace those companies with unregulated companies in sufficient numbers then I will be all for trashing title 2. Currently, there is a situation where companies can dictate to other companies how much they will pay for access rather than having the same pricing plan for everybody. Case in point.... The streaming video company’s filing provides much more detail about its negotiations with Comcast earlier this year that led it to pay for more direct access to Comcast’s internet customers. “In Netflix’s experience, there are four ISPs that have the market power to engage in degradation strategies to harm OVDs,” Netflix wrote, referring to internet service providers (ISPs) intentionally slowing down traffic from online video distributors (OVDs). “Two of those four propose to merge in this transaction.” https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
  11. 1 point
    Until such time as ISP's are no longer legal monopolies, yes. Just to be clear, I understand that an ISP is not a legal monopoly. However, the companies which provide internet access are mostly legal monopolies or must abide by high levels of regulation due to their core business ie: cable companies and Telephone companies. Until such time that we can introduce enough competition into the arena, consumers should be afforded some level of protection in order to keep the internet a viable economic engine.
  12. 1 point
    Ok, while I am not pro net neutrality in its current form. You really have a massive misunderstanding of what the internet is and how it has been regulated in the past. As well as why some form of net neutrality will be essential in the future. While the DOD did infact create both the original network and standards. Starting in 1988 IANA was formed with Jon Postel at the helm. However, IANA was completely under control of the DOD until ICANN was created in 1998 to help facilitate the transfer of authority away from the Government. This is where Net neutrality becomes more important. Up until 1998 theoretically the Government had the full ability to revoke IP addresses and DNS access. The government handed over full control October 1st 2016. So up until that date the government wielded massive control over the internet via IP addresses and root server access. Furthermore, up until a few years ago ISPs were dumb pipes with no real skin in the content game. Sony entertainment was not a theat Charter's video business. Comcast was not competing for content production rights with netflix or amazon. We now have a situation where the ISP no longer a simple dumb pipe, they now have an interest in what I am using it for. We also have a situation where the peering agreements that created the broader Internet may no longer be the best option for the larger tier one networks. Leading higher capacity networks to charge gate fees. This would essentially end the free and open internet as we know it. Also driving prices in rural areas up. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  13. 1 point
    That's a stretch at best as roads are generally not built specifically for a grocery store but rather for the public at large and commerce in general. The grocery store itself will only exist if demand dictates it. Also, I stand by my statement. The internet was invented by DOD, for the most part. The investment and development was made with public money. Industry picked that up and made the capital investments. Providing internet access is a lot closer to providing electricity then it will ever be to a free market model.
  14. 1 point
    But there is a significant difference. Grocery stores are not a function of government. They are purely free market-based. However, the internet is an invention mostly of government and is largely administered (ISP) by two industries who are heavily regulated and one is a legal monopoly. Telephone and cable.
  15. 1 point
    We don't allow political discussion at S4GRU for good reason. We're bordering on that now. And that illustrates how what Marcelo did was not smart. The tax bill ended up being highly partisan. So joining the bandwagon looks political and alienates millions of customers. Exactly why we insist on staying out.
  16. 1 point
    All taxes in the end are paid by the consumer. The question is how is the burden shifted. Unfortunately, decreasing corporate tax rates is usually a shift to increased taxes to those who can least afford it on the long term as tax cuts often lead to increased deficits. This increase in deficit often means increased taxes on the middle class and cut services in areas that are critical to the common welfare of the people. Mind you that is the primary role of government. While the tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short-term, long-term they are a disaster. Furthermore, they serve to further complicate the tax system at a time when the CBO and IRS have said the best way to increase wealth and investment is to simplify and flatten the tax structure. The way forward should be to take a note from our friends to the north. No foreign corporations, you do business here, you have a HQ here and you pay taxes on income made here. Next flatten the tax rates, corporate, investment and personal income all taxed at the same rate. This gets rid of tax shelters. GST and SST. And if you really wanted to kick the economy into high gear end the religious exemption. Massive amounts of tax dollars are hidden there. Some studies on taxing churches showed we could bring tax rates as low as 7 percent if we taxed churches. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  17. 1 point
    Really? I thought it was pretty good. Perhaps a sense of humor is in order. Sent from my LG G6
  18. 1 point
    Those comments on that tweet are brutal. Someone on Sprint's social media team should help Marcelo navigate landmines like this. Racism is a perfectly acceptable and safe thing to denounce. A partisan issue like the tax bill is clearly emotionally charged and it probably would've been best for him not to comment publicly on it one way or the other. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
  19. 1 point
    Thank God that someone got the joke. Lol. I thought I was the only one. -Anthony
  20. 0 points
    Günther’s passing the baton... https://twitter.com/guengott68/status/946714104038903809 to Joe Meyer... https://twitter.com/SprintNetwk Dr. John Saw will hopefully take this up as well: https://twitter.com/SprintCTO
×