Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[RAvirani]

No. Band 29 may not be supplemental downlink carrier aggregated with band 26 or band 12.

 

AJ

Not today, no, but if T-Mobile or Sprint were to acquire B29, they could and probably would have CA with B12/26 standardized.

[WiWavelength]

Not today, no, but if T-Mobile or Sprint were to acquire B29, they could and probably would have CA with B12/26 standardized.

 

Again, no.  Band 29 cannot be aggregated with band 12 or band 17.  If it could, AT&T would have used that supplemental downlink carrier aggregation combo.

 

You are making claims beyond your expertise.

 

AJ

[Tengen31]

I don't support Merger with T-Mobile. We need 4 carriers not 3. I thought Softbank would have paid to expand coverage thought that was the point. Sprint is atleast trying. Channel wideing B25 swapping spectrum to get more contiguous spectrum. I wish they could swap in my area. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen. Att is 20x20 looks like TMobile has contigous. Not sure about VZW.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

Again, no. Band 29 cannot be aggregated with band 12 or band 17. If it could, AT&T would have used that supplemental downlink carrier aggregation combo.

 

AJ

I was aware that CA between B12 and B29 was not currently standardized although did not believe it was not possible. Could you explain why this is?

[WiWavelength]

I was aware that CA between B12 and B29 was not currently standardized although did not believe it was not possible.

 

Go take a look at the Lower 700 MHz band plan.  See where band 29 lies in relation to band 12/17.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Go take a look at the Lower 700 MHz band plan. See where band 29 lies in relation to band 12/17.

 

AJ

Got it - my bad. B26+B29 CA is possible though, right?

[Arysyn]

I don't support Merger with T-Mobile. We need 4 carriers not 3. I thought Softbank would have paid to expand coverage thought that was the point. Sprint is atleast trying. Channel wideing B25 swapping spectrum to get more contiguous spectrum. I wish they could swap in my area. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen. Att is 20x20 looks like TMobile has contigous. Not sure about VZW.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

I think what is going to happen is there will be three carriers, but they still will be quite competitive. If AT&T gets Time Warner, and Verizon merges with Comcast eventually, I can see the Sprint/T-Mobile and possibly Dish going after one of the other huge media groups, perhaps such as Disney, and there will be huge competition in bundle deals and layered offers that will make up, if not exceed the current level of competition in wireless.

[WiWavelength]

Got it - my bad. B26+B29 CA is possible though, right?

 

Well, band 5 + band 29 supplemental downlink carrier aggregation already exists.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Well, band 5 + band 29 supplemental downlink carrier aggregation already exists.

 

AJ

It would just be a matter of standardizing…

[WiWavelength]

I think what is going to happen is there will be three carriers, but they still will be quite competitive. If AT&T gets Time Warner, and Verizon merges with Comcast eventually, I can see the Sprint/T-Mobile and possibly Dish going after one of the other huge media groups, perhaps such as Disney, and there will be huge competition in bundle deals and layered offers that will make up, if not exceed the current level of competition in wireless.

 

You know, Arysyn, your boundless posting capacity would be better served if you used it not to gush over imagined mega mergers, but to protest against excessive vertical and horizontal integration.  Because massive consolidation will not get you what you want, just the opposite.  We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by a media-network complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

You know, Arysyn, your boundless posting capacity would be better served if you used it not to gush over imagined mega mergers, but to protest against excessive vertical and horizontal integration. Because massive consolidation will not get you what you want, just the opposite. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by a media-network complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

AJ

That isn't necessarily true. Have you heard of a concept called return to scale? Can you think of many industries that has as large fixed cost as wireless and wireline? If an industry has high fixed costs you actually get lower prices and better quality with fewer players.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

You know, Arysyn, your boundless posting capacity would be better served if you used it not to gush over imagined mega mergers, but to protest against excessive vertical and horizontal integration. Because massive consolidation will not get you what you want, just the opposite. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by a media-network complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

AJ

I've mentioned this in the past how I understand my viewpoints on mergers appear as if I'm in favor of mergers in general. Actually, I wouldn't mind there being more wireless carriers if there were a shared system between networks and spectrum, as in all carriers sharing the same space and same access to that space.

 

The problem I have with the current system is how customers must investigate several different factors in what is important to them and which carrier they think meets the most of their important needs, often sacrificing other needs in the process. However, its not that I think every carrier should be the same, and I think its fine that carriers have different prices, different devices, different bundled services, etc.

 

Yet, the other problem I also see is with different network experiences between markets that aren't always in the carrier's control, or the carrier has to choose building their networks or getting more spectrum, or neither - saving money instead. This is why I support there being these mergers, based on how things are. Although again, I'd support the opposite if there were at least some form of standardization in the network and/or spectrum.

[Arysyn]

That isn't necessarily true. Have you heard of a concept called return to scale? Can you think of many industries that has as large fixed cost as wireless and wireline? If an industry has high fixed costs you actually get lower prices and better quality with fewer players.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I agree with you, utiz4321.

 

That is one of the major issues I see with the system wireless carriers have, being they have such high costs, yet still have too many to compete with in scale. It would make sense for all of them internally, to be a three carrier market.

[WiWavelength]

The problem I have with the current system is how customers must investigate several different factors in what is important to them and which carrier they think meets the most of their important needs, often sacrificing other needs in the process.

That is the nature of a free market system.  Buyers must inform themselves.  Otherwise, sellers hold all of the advantages, causing the the checks and balances of the free market to fall apart.  Additionally, buyers and sellers alike must make compromises, prioritizing certain needs/wants, sacrificing others.

 

Yet, the other problem I also see is with different network experiences between markets...

Who cares? Why care?  Almost no one requires consistent wireless service nationwide, statewide, or even citywide.  Say that I live in Chicago, but I might go to Montana someday?  Probably not tomorrow, possibly not ever.  So, most people need/want consistent service in a relatively small area where they live, work, and play.  Because wireless service is about 90 percent local about 90 percent of the time.  Concern over consistency or lack thereof in other markets is little more than an academic exercise.

 

AJ

[greenbastard]

What doesn't sound right? Do you have more information he doesn't? If so, let us know.

Well, it seems like you were right after all in a way. In a broad sense, this is just a minor modification to allow Wi-Fi calls over cellular data. This is exactly what you described, which isn't true VoLTE.

 

This is according to reddit, so there is always a chance of this being inaccurate. But if it's correct, then this is a bold strategy for Sprint. This method may lead to dropped calls, lag build up, and missed calls in congested areas. Why not just go full VoLTE???

 

I will be interested to see if these VoIP calls can be carried over to EVDO since they aren't true VoLTE.

[Arysyn]

That is the nature of a free market system. Buyers must inform themselves. Otherwise, sellers hold all of the advantages, causing the the checks and balances of the free market to fall apart. Additionally, buyers and sellers alike must make compromises, prioritizing certain needs/wants, sacrificing others.

 

 

Who cares? Why care? Almost no one requires consistent wireless service nationwide, statewide, or even citywide. Say that I live in Chicago, but I might go to Montana someday? Probably not tomorrow, possibly not ever. So, most people need/want consistent service in a relatively small area where they live, work, and play. Because wireless service is about 90 percent local about 90 percent of the time. Concern over consistency or lack thereof in other markets is little more than an academic exercise.

 

AJ

AJ, I understand what you mean for people who don't plan on traveling what does it matter to them what another market might be like if they are not going there. However, it does matter to a lot of people what their local market is like, and if they find out that the carrier they want or need to be with has a market significantly better in terms of perhaps the network itself, spectrum, usage statistics, etc., that often leads to disappointment, or frustration, particularly if they have issues where they are, yet find out from others their market is fine, good, great, etc.

 

I know you're right about the free market, and most people just accept that. Of course there are people who really don't like it, and they go to protest, etc. Personally, if I was physically able to and I didn't have the problems I've had, I would have loved to be able to go through the processes of becoming a politician, and perhaps make it to the FCC, hopefully to influence some sort of change. However, that hasn't and isn't going to happen, so I am left with general discussion of my viewpoints with people online.

 

Anyways, I do agree with those here who discuss things as they are, that carriers would be better to not just go all out on nationwide coverage regarding sites. While I think its important to have a spectrum standard (my opinion), I understand the greater focus should be on populated areas. Especially on those further behind in comparison to other populated areas.

[lilotimz]

Well, it seems like you were right after all in a way. In a broad sense, this is just a minor modification to allow Wi-Fi calls over cellular data. This is exactly what you described, which isn't true VoLTE.

 

This is according to reddit, so there is always a chance of this being inaccurate. But if it's correct, then this is a bold strategy for Sprint. This method may lead to dropped calls, lag build up, and missed calls in congested areas. Why not just go full VoLTE???

 

I will be interested to see if these VoIP calls can be carried over to EVDO since they aren't true VoLTE.

 

It's called VoLTE lite and we were told of such an implementations many many moons ago and I hinted it here. 

 

It has the aspects of VoLTE but there are minute but very important backend differences. 

 

Voice calls go over LTE and can seamlessly transfer between VoWIFI to and from it.  Like Verizon, voice calls hard drop once LTE or VoWIFI drops due to no CDMA fallback. It is not just another VOIP solution. 

[RAvirani]

It's called VoLTE lite and we were told of such an implementations many many moons ago and I hinted it here.

 

It has the aspects of VoLTE but there are minute but very important backend differences.

Could you elaborate on some of the backend differences?

[Tengen31]

I was aware that CA between B12 and B29 was not currently standardized although did not believe it was not possible. Could you explain why this is?

I've seen pics of B29 CA with any of their hands.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[Deval]

On another note, was in DC this week and picked up B25 CA quite often. EARFCN 8165 and 8665

[Tengen31]

On another note, was in DC this week and picked up B25 CA quite often. EARFCN 8165 and 8665

Is 8165 5x5 or 10x10?

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[IamMrFamous07]

Is 8165 5x5 or 10x10?

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

 

5x5 boyyeeee

[Terrell352]

5x5 boyyeeee

8665 is 5x5.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[IamMrFamous07]

8665 is 5x5.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

8165 is 5x5 in my area.

[Terrell352]

8165 is 5x5 in my area.

Why is mine 8665? Is there different blocks being used?

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk