WiWavelength

AJ

No, as Neal also responds above, that does not compute. In carrier aggregation, the PCC provides the uplink and downlink, while the SCC provides only the downlink. If band 41 were the PCC aggregated with band 25 as the SCC, such would gain only the band 25 downlink, not the uplink. Instead, Sprint's proposed configuration, which probably will not be implemented for some time yet, would put band 25 as the PCC with band 41 as the SCC. But even that configuration would be used only as a UE started to fall out of range of pure intra band carrier aggregation band 41 -- much like band 41, band 25, and band 26 automatic switching occur today. AJ

How is it a change in the contract? Early upgrade eligibility is a perk, not a contractual obligation. AJ

Sprint quite possibly made this move to bring contract expiration, upgrade eligibility, and device unlocking policy all into sync.

I would say doubtful. For LTE, intra band carrier aggregation is rare. Nearly all carrier aggregation is inter band. AJ

The specs in question are for the international variant. Remember, that site is called GSMArena. I would not reference it for anything Sprint. AJ

No, you cannot get "your upgrade" back -- the operative word being "your." Any upgrade before your contract has been completed is a perk, not a possession nor a right. And Sprint can change that perk at any time. Whether that is a wise business decision for Sprint, though, is debatable. Regardless, people, we have had this conversation before. When you sign a two year contract, you are not accruing actual earned eligibility toward your next upgrade. You are only paying down your current subsidy. And sometime in the coming years, many subs mid contract will have their upgrade eligibility disappear entirely -- because Sprint will cease to offer any new contract subsidy plans. The future is non contract, non subsidy. Upgrade at full price or in installment payments whenever you want. AJ

The PCS G block is 5 MHz FDD. The original band 25 carrier there basically has to remain 5 MHz FDD -- because of spectrum licensing and device compatibility. So, that is a no go for a 10 MHz FDD carrier. Instead, Sprint would have to deploy two band 25 carriers: 5 MHz FDD in the PCS G block and 10 MHz FDD in one or more of the PCS A-F blocks. And that would be in addition to the 5 MHz FDD band 26 carrier. It would seem possible in some markets with at least 15 MHz FDD contiguous PCS, but I would deem it unlikely. AJ

AJ

Are you against expurgating stupidity? AJ

Yes, for once, you got it. The real problem is lack of effective broadband competition. And, sadly, if you read many of the public comments in support of Net Neutrality in the FCC docket, a lot of people think that the point of Net Neutrality is to give them additional competitive options. Among an uneducated populace, transparency and democracy are not all that they are cracked up to be. That is why my deep down hope is that Title II will prove to be a nuclear option. It will stifle capitalist investment -- a la Verizon with DSL and FiOS. The FCC will continue to raise the minimum broadband bar. Legislators will impose deadlines and penalties on incorrigible ISPs. For those ISPs that will not comply, give them 90 days to remove their infrastructure from public right of way and cease operations in public spectrum. But that is highly unlikely. So, if there is never going to be healthy broadband competition because of capitalist oligopoly in this industry that has become a necessary utility, Net Neutrality at least gives consumers and content providers some protection against ISPs, which would otherwise have them both over a barrel. AJ

So, everyone should have the freedom to be ignorant and incorrect on the Internet. The problem with that for a man of learning, such as Vinton Cerf, is undoing misinformation becomes more difficult than teaching sound information in the first place. AJ

You are not gaining any ground from the sources you cite. You are living in an echo chamber of free market zealots, fossil fuel promoters, and climate change deniers, maximus. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Commitment http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/02/10557/nonprofit-profile-american-commitment AJ

No, maximus is not a lobbyist. And he is not so much anti FCC -- though that may come with the territory -- as he is anti Barack Obama. He and the likes of Berin Szoka, who is effectively a right wing lobbyist, are using eight year old statements made by then Senator Obama as means to further their negative agendas -- despite the fact that those eight year old statements are immaterial to the Net Neutrality issue at hand. Even though I already described in brief how the FCC operates, and Trip then offered a wonderfully detailed rundown of the publicly accessible rulemaking process, maximus persists with his vendetta. AJ

If you need to hurry for the promo, go get your Cricket SIM now. You can have the SIM activated for a few days before you are able to pop it into your iPhone. AJ

Do you think that a statement made eight years ago by someone who was a senator then but is president now is necessarily relevant today? Could circumstances, responsibilities, and perspectives have changed? But if we are just posting hit pieces about people and their actions, here is a far more topical, nuanced, and recent article -- from an actual journalistic establishment, too -- about Berin Szoka and his "non profit think tank:" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05/opponents-of-net-neutrality-have-begun-some-grassroots-organizing-of-their-own/ AJ

You did not answer my questions, maximus. You just returned with more questions of your own. Surprise, surprise, surprise. A leopard cannot change its spots. AJ

Your citation comes from a noted right wing "think tank" blog. And the author is Berin Szoka -- the less I say about that guy, the better. View the piece through that filter. AJ

Let me my invoke my inner "60 Minutes" Mike Wallace... Really? Just the small ISPs? All of them? And none of the big ISPs? AJ

The full order has not yet been officially released. It is nowhere to be found. But if you can, go ahead and provide a link to it. S4GRU is all about total information. And the dissenting statements -- as party line as they are apt to be -- have not yet been disclosed either. Otherwise, they would have been included in the news release. That is standard FCC practice. AJ

Everyone, here is your assignment. Read the official FCC release and commissioners' statements: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet AJ

Cue the kicking and screaming from some ISPs any moment now. Well, here is a message to those ISPs. If Net Neutrality will stifle your investment -- because you cannot further monetize your network with non neutral practices for short term profit -- then you are free to leave at any time. Exit the business. Just drop off your public property of easements and spectrum by the door on your way out. Other forward thinking, less short term profit obsessed ISPs, as well as municipal utilities, co-ops, etc., with an interest in the public good and a long term focus on ROI will fill the void you left. AJ

For link estimation and power control, TDD is generally superior. It can use an open loop approach, since both uplink and downlink are the same frequency and experience the same path loss -- this, of course, assumes zero or low mobility. But if we use 5 ms as a frame of reference, even a vehicle traveling 60 mph moves only about 5 inches during that time. In other circumstances, FDD and closed loop power control can be more effective. AJ

Before publishing his article yesterday, Robert bought several hundred thousand shares of S. Pump, pump, pump! Now, dump, dump, dump! AJ

If Train A leaves Bugtussel at 1pm traveling 50 mph and Train B leaves Hooterville at 2pm traveling 70 mph... AJ