Jump to content


S4GRU Staff Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by WiWavelength

  1. Because of the high volume traffic of utiz4321's posts arguing against Net Neutrality, his posts are being hidden for the time being -- until such time that utiz4321 can reach a mutually beneficial, private financial agreement with S4GRU. Said arrangement will allow for utiz4321's posts to be displayed without delay, while also accounting for the greater burden placed upon S4GRU staff to monitor his volume of posts, enabling additional investment in S4GRU infrastructure costs, and opening up new, innovative ways for S4GRU to deliver services to its members. This is a required disclosure message of any newly implemented blocking/throttling policies at non neutral S4GRU. AJ
  2. Give me a fucking break. Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit. This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/ AJ
  3. Hmm, what industry lobby funds and helps write anti municipal broadband legislation? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/ AJ
  4. It is a chicken or the egg scenario. Free marketers questionably believe that regulation is the overwhelming impediment to investment in the last mile broadband sector, that extreme deregulation inherently will lead to innovation from incumbents and competition from new market entrants. Never mind other barriers to entry -- entrenched incumbents, high startup costs, largely fixed market size -- that are characteristic of near, if not absolute natural monopoly, such that innovation and competition are not guaranteed to arise or may take an unacceptably long time to materialize. AJ
  5. Not solution, but protection. Consumer protection -- precisely because of the lack of last mile broadband Internet competition. AJ
  6. Yes, absolutely, it will. Bigly network investment. And to quote utiz4321, it also will build castles in the sky. Lots of them. AJ
  7. Well, not all opinions are created equal. I supported mine. You did not. So, as it stands, your opinion is unsubstantiated and/or ignorant. AJ
  8. I hope that you have better critical thinking to offer than the above. It is more or less analogous to the "Obama supported it, so I am opposed to it" attitude. Net Neutrality is not a partisan, us vs them issue. It has significant support across the aisle. Those who are opposed to Net Neutrality tend to be few and fall into one or more of these camps: ISP entrenched interests who hope to maximize profits from anti neutral actions anti government and/or free enterprise zealots who believe that the market inherently produces the best or deserved solutions people who are ignorant of or have been misled about the actual tenets of Net Neutrality comment spam bots Lastly, characterizing Facebook, et al., as "the Oligopolies" comes across as mildly ironic, since the real concern of Net Neutrality is the oligopoly or even monopoly hold that ISPs have over so many home broadband consumers. AJ
  9. No, guys, did you not read the article? The 5 MHz is licensed spectrum, band 25, probably the PCS G block carrier. The unlicensed spectrum, which is of unspecified carrier bandwidth, is 5 GHz. AJ
  10. Again, for technical reasons, that uplink is not going to happen. The Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks were licensed as unpaired broadcast spectrum -- first UHF TV, later mobile broadcaset -- and that basically is how they shall remain. AJ
  11. No. Lower 700 MHz D/E block unpaired spectrum cannot not be used as uplink, only as supplemental downlink. Look at the band plan. You cannot shove uplink spectrum in the duplex gap between uplink and downlink. AJ
  12. In mobile, low/mid/high band is defined by uplink, not downlink. Lower 700 MHz D/E block band 29 has no uplink. AJ
  13. Yeah, I have blocked off that abomination from memory. We did not need even more mobile spectrum thrown at an already overly convoluted set of bands. And the way the auction wrapped up was a big disappointment. AJ
  14. Dish has no low band spectrum. And before anyone says Lower 700 MHz E block or band 29, that is not low band. AJ
  15. [0.125 MHz][1.25 MHz][13.5 MHz][0.125 MHz] = 15 MHz AJ
  16. For people who bemoan the limited coverage of band 41, many of you are irrationally gung ho over 256QAM, which has a usable coverage radius much smaller than that of band 41. AJ
  17. CDMA1X 1900 does not necessarily have to go away completely either. A PCS A/B block 30 MHz license is 15 MHz FDD. But an LTE carrier occupies only 90 percent of available bandwidth -- 15 MHz FDD actually is 13.5 MHz FDD. And a CDMA1X carrier is 1.25 MHz FDD. Thus, do the math: 13.5 MHz FDD + 1.25 MHz FDD = 14.75 MHz FDD. AJ
  18. Unless running SMR 800 MHz RRUs and antennas in dual mode involves any compromises to LTE, no. No gain. Nobody with any sense wants an additional 1.4 MHz FDD carrier in place of CDMA1X 800. AJ
  19. You "know" that 256QAM helped both reliability and speed on T-Mobile? How? Reliability, it did not, just the opposite. AJ
  • Create New...