mozamcrew

Well they can't just get rid of it, they will eventually have to put up the new antennas or move to a new site (or sites). The sites on either side of town aren't going to provide adequate coverage in town.

You must have updated to the new OS that we can't get with an over the air update? I'm still on Android 4.1 software 3.17.651.4.

The 3G upgrade has been completed but there is no LTE yet, I'm assuming it's because the backhaul wasn't installed when it was 3G upgraded. It doesn't have new NV antennas though, so no 800Mhz CDMA or LTE will be coming from this site until it gets new NV antennas or if they decide to move to a new site.

Are you running the stock software? What version?

You know, I really like sense UI, except I have one big gripe with my EVO 4G LTE. You can't set the SMS/MMS app to vibrate only when the phone is on vibrate. You either have to let the phone vibrate for messages even when you haven't set the ringer to vibrate, or you shut vibration off completely. This little detail drives me nuts. My old LG Optimus S did this just fine.

Everything is Fergus Falls has been 3G accepted, but no LTE yet. I assume they are waiting on backhaul. The tower in the middle of town appears to still be using the legacy antennas. I was hoping they'd put then new gear a block away on the empty tower in the Century link parking lot. You'd think getting backhaul to that would be pretty easy! Also, you would be able to sit the antennas higher which might improve the coverage in certain areas. That or move to two sites instead, one on the west end of town and one further east.

I assume they will handle this similarly to current VoIP providers, by making sure the voice traffic has a higher priority on the network. If other downloads have to wait a little to make sure calls are consistent, then that's what will happen. ANY real-time service should work that way.

What they need to do is make sure triband phones drop back to 1x when on wifi as well, just like it drops from LTE to make calls, it should park on 1x when it already has a wifi data connection.

That's the whole point of VoLTE. Instead of having a path for voice and a path for data, they both travel over LTE. Right now Sprint is using 1x for voice and 1x, EV-DO, or LTE for data. So doing data and voice at the same time currently requires multple simultaneous tx/rx paths (since 1x can only do data OR voice at a time), which is costly and inefficient. VoLTE is really about moving from switched circuit voice over 1x to Voice over IP. When you do that, voice/phonecalls are just one more kind of data.

Given this, I think we will see EV-DO carriers reduced faster than CDMA 1x carriers. Once the bulk of data traffic moves to LTE (when bands 26 and 25 are both deployed on a site, I can see them going down to a single EV-DO carrier on a site just for fallback and older non-LTE phones/roaming.

While updates in Minneapolis are not complete, this sounds awfully bad. You might want to consider backing up your phone and resetting it to factory and seeing if that improves things. It is possible that you have a lemon, and not just issues with the network. There is a difference between your phone and you wife's iPhone, her phone isn't triband.

I'd like to see per market restrictions on how much sub 1Ghz spectrum can be held by a provider in a given county/market. If a provider already owns one of the Celluar licenses and 10Mhz or more of 700Mhz spectrum, then they need to be restricted from acquiring too much of the 600Mhz spectrum in a given market. Also, no provider should be allowed to own both sides of a Cellular license in a market. That should have long ago been an FCC condition for ANY merger or participation in any spectrum auctions.

I think they have to pay big $$ to license the Virgin brand though.

Shoot, I was hoping i29, i94, US hwy 2, 83, and 85 would all be covered. At least between Dickinson/Williston and Minot to Bismarck.

Same in Fergus Falls? Maybe an issue at the MSC?

I wouldn't say it's any more popular than any other spectrum. The reason we are talking about 1900Mhz in this thread is because that's what this H block spectrum being bid on was, 1900Mhz.

I don't mean they can't deploy it at all, I just meant that in the densest areas they might be forced to skip some sites because of how well 800Mhz propagates.

I would expect that Sprint is trying to keep the 800Mhz carriers available for people who simply can't get a signal on PCS. Given the density of sites in NYC, I would imagine it is pretty rare not to have a PCS signal unless you are in a basement or deep in a building like you said. Also, it has less effective capacity/Mhz in dense urban areas, since it can't be deployed as densely as higher frequency spectrum (it propagates TOO well).

Since you were over 37 Mbps, I'd almost guarantee you were on band 41 "Spark" and not the single 5x5 of PCS LTE that Sprint originally rolled out.

One of the other problems you see as sites near their capacity is bufferbloat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat

I was going to check and see myself, but the reports aren't up on Yahoo Finance yet.

Also, it depends on the amount they are divesting. Most executives recieve stock grants as part of their compensation, and thus can accumulate quite a pile of company stock if they don't periodically sell some of it to balance out their portfolio. I would only be concerned if they are divesting a significant share of their holdings (over 10%). To me that would mean they expect the stock won't be seeing any upside in the near future. If it's only a small percentage, then it's probably routine rebalancing.

As someone who uses a Mac on a regular basis but sometimes wants to run windows software on it. http://www.codeweavers.com/ Download the demo and see if it works for the RRU, and anything other windows software you might want to try.

Are they 3G complete as well?

Oh, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that officials who would choose to cut long-term exclusive deals are dumb. A city would be STUPID to tell a provider no if they really want to overbuild and compete with the incumbent cable provider. The economics of network building will almost always prevent the nightmare that city officials and urban planners imagine, twelve different providers festooned through every conduit and pole. That bad ROI is exactly what prevents the number of entrants from becoming too large and discourages competition. Right up until new technology gives a newly built network some kind of cost/performance advantage over the existing players. Once a potential entrant sees that a new network will have a durable advantage over the existing players, then they can consider entering the market.