WiWavelength

2 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

Is B&M a shell company possibly affiliated with TMo to look "interested".

Campus to headquarters.

AJ

Photographed last week Thursday 7/20/2023.  Site live today Monday 7/24/2023.

AJ

AJ

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

29 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here.  Nice Try though. 

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

4 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices? 

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

1 hour ago, caspar347 said:

...but then why the need to repeal net neutrality RIGHT THIS SECOND before you solve those local issues?

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

26 minutes ago, kg4icg said:

For the life of me I can't figure out how people were thinking net neutrality was going to solve a municipality granting exclusive rights to a single isp...

Not solution, but protection.  Consumer protection -- precisely because of the lack of last mile broadband Internet competition.

AJ

2 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

Repealing it is going to add additional players into the market?

 

Yes, absolutely, it will.  Bigly network investment.  And to quote utiz4321, it also will build castles in the sky.  Lots of them.

AJ

2 minutes ago, though said:

You have your opinion sir, I have mine. I'll leave it at that.

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

2 hours ago, though said:

In general I am against what the Oligopolies want, particularly, Facebook.

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

2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

...to offer ala cart TV.

AJ

7 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Didn’t see this coming from T-Mobile:

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/tmobile-uncarrier-tv.htm

More Un-neutral Un-novation from the Un-carrier.

AJ

6 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

Sprint achieved 120-140MHz using just 5Mhz of 3.5GHz spectrum using LAA in conjunction with SpiderCloud. LAA is in Sprint's long term plans.

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

5 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

I have also advocated using Band D&E as uplink.

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

On 12/6/2017 at 10:13 AM, bigsnake49 said:

It could be used for uplink with a midband downlink.

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

On 12/6/2017 at 4:16 AM, Trip said:

If 700 isn't low-band, then other than 600 (which they also hold), what is?  FM?  Shortwave?  Except for 600, there's nothing lower than 700 even licensed to cell companies.

In mobile, low/mid/high band is defined by uplink, not downlink.  Lower 700 MHz D/E block band 29 has no uplink.

AJ

On 12/5/2017 at 6:09 PM, SprintNYC said:

They won a nationwide license in the 600MHZ auction.

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

Dish has no low band spectrum.  And before anyone says Lower 700 MHz E block or band 29, that is not low band.

AJ

11 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

I’m asking because your math doesn’t make sense, at least to me.

There wouldn’t be 1.5 MHz of contiguous spectrum to put a 1x carrier in, as your math would suggest. Did you read my post at all?

[0.125 MHz][1.25 MHz][13.5 MHz][0.125 MHz] = 15 MHz

AJ

3 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

But the guard band for a 15x15 LTE carrier is 0.75 MHz on each side, right? Wouldn’t that mean that one guard band would have to be outside of the licensed block to allow for a 1x carrier?

No, see the math above.

AJ

3 hours ago, Terrell352 said:

This!! Its software and doesn't require backhaul upgrades so I don't know what the problem is. Every other carrier has it live to some extent.

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

54 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

I think 1x800 will be Sprint's last CDMA position. The 1x1900 will be farmed over to LTE for VoLTE no sooner than several years out.

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

1 hour ago, red_dog007 said:

Would shutting down 1x800 result in any gain for Sprint?

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

AJ