WiWavelength

I do not know how or why you jump to that conclusion. The Google MVNO very well could be LTE only. Android devices have long contained a hidden menu that allows an LTE only setting. But a Google MVNO certainly would not have to be LTE only. If I were running the show, I would make it LTE/eHRPD on Sprint and LTE/W-CDMA on T-Mobile. LTE and eHRPD are seamless on the IP side; the same goes for LTE and W-CDMA. I probably would not include CDMA1X and EDGE/GPRS, though. While those airlinks could still be used as last resorts for some light data, they rarely would have the throughput and latency to support VoIP, not to mention the VPN that Google probably will use to knit this all together. AJ

The Google MVNO has no bearing on Sprint VoLTE. I doubt that it will have any relevance to T-Mobile VoLTE either. VoLTE is a voice service. Indications so far are that the Google MVNO will be a data service with some IMS over the top to support VoIP, SMS, etc. My guess is that those over the top services will be handled through Google Voice in conjunction with Hangouts/Hangouts Dialer. AJ

There once was a man from Nantucket... But he got blown away. AJ

Wouldn't it be nice... You know it's gonna make it that much better... AJ

Welcome to Ice Planet Hoth. Enjoy your stay. AJ

You get a sticker... AJ

I may have to go to Dairy Queen for a Blizzard -- because the weather is 60 degrees and sunny here in the Midwest. AJ

Guys, until proven otherwise, this Google dual operator MVNO will be a data only service with IMS for VoIP, etc. It is the only technical solution that makes sense -- especially as Wi-Fi is included in the mix. The devices will be single RF path. They will not be able to camp simultaneously on multiple networks. And cross network e/CSFB from Sprint LTE to T-Mobile W-CDMA or T-Mobile LTE to Sprint CDMA1X is not gonna happen. AJ

I much prefer "bimbogenesis." It is how I create my many ladies in my science lab. AJ

The storm will hit two days before the day after tomorrow. AJ

Why? Because that is the net bit rate after error correction for a 6 MHz channel with 8VSB modulation at a baud rate of 10.76 million symbols per second. And the "latest video encoding"? Not possible. It is MPEG-2. The ATSC standard was set 20 years ago. Are you really this ignorant on this topic? AJ

Uh, that is one of the most technically foolish ideas I have heard in a while. First, each ATSC channel runs 20 Mbps. Second, huge areas of the country would lose all broadcast TV service. AJ

Totally different animal. The UK requires any TV household to pay roughly $200 annually for a TV license, which goes to support free broadcasting. AJ

Straw man argument. So many big network affiliates have retained their VHF virtual channels but moved to UHF physical channels because of a lower noise floor and smaller antenna size. AJ

The revised T-Mobile multi band map is a disappointing half measure. The need to drop a pin on the map in every little town in order to distinguish band 2 LTE and/or band 12 LTE from band 4 LTE smacks of obfuscation. It is the same old same old -- as in the need to drop a pin on the map in order to distinguish "4G" caliber W-CDMA from "3G" caliber W-CDMA. T-Mobile also needs to have a W-CDMA only map layer to depict where band 2 W-CDMA is available, especially where it does or does not underlay band 2 LTE. In all honestly, the current T-Mobile multi band situation is a bit of a mess, since it affects large swaths of coverage across the country. By comparison, the Sprint multi band situation is more stable, as it affects mostly LTE data speeds, not coverage. AJ

That is not the point. It may be a problem for TV broadcasters, as propagation characteristics and interference levels dictate how closely spaced co channel TV stations can be located. AJ

Well, the FCC needs to have a well thought out plan to accommodate translator sites and lower power stations that cover otherwise unserved rural areas. It cannot be left to a market based solution. It cannot be left to some pro bono telecom/spectrum policy wonk like myself to point out a problem. Most importantly, it cannot be left to a Marie Antoinette type response: "Then, let them use pay satellite." All of the above would be unacceptable. I will use my own permanent home state of Kansas and adopted home state of New Mexico as examples. The FCC sets the Television Market Areas, and my two states have two of the largest geographic size TMAs in the country -- hundreds of miles in multiple directions. Not even the most powerful VHF-Lo boomer can even remotely broadcast a contour to cover Wichita as well as all but one county in the rest of western Kansas. The same holds true for Albuquerque and almost the entirety of New Mexico. Instead, much of those hinterland areas get their major network TV served out of Wichita and Albuquerque, respectively, via numerous translator sites and lower power stations. Those cannot just be cast to the winds of change without loss of service. AJ

Yes, activation on Republic Wireless. That is all. AJ

Point taken. But it does not entirely negate my point. Rural areas have many more legitimate translator sites and low power stations than casual viewers know. And those sites/stations still would have to be repacked somewhere, adding to the complexity of the situation. Otherwise, the FCC would be basically eschewing TV's public service mandate and screwing rural citizens. That would be completely unacceptable. AJ

Because of frequency reuse, one third of all RF channels available in a market is a reasonable estimate. And 12-13 RF channels per market may seem adequate in most cases, but it probably is not -- not even in very rural markets, such as the North Dakota example that both Trip and I use below for different reasons. Plus, ATSC is not going to have the 60+ year long life that NTSC did. The transition to ATSC 3.0 and the shift to progressive scan UHD/4K resolution will likely occur in the next 10-15 years. That throws a monkey wrench into RF channel sharing. Personally, I do not like sub channels at all -- they trade quality for quantity, much of which is junk. UHD/4K resolution broadcasting, though, may effect a return to a single channel feed in order to fit eight times the resolution down the same 6 MHz RF pipe. I would challenge the statement that no broadcasters in North Dakota need to be bought in the incentive auction. Counterintuitively, rural areas with low population density often have high RF channel density. Because of the many smaller communities that are outside the contours of even the big VHF-Lo boomers, those rural areas need many translator sites and low power stations to provide service across their very large geographic TV markets. To use the North Dakota example, it has 168 licensed call signs statewide. Of those, I count over 50 call signs -- mostly translator or low power -- that are in the UHF channel 38-51 range, hence need to be bought or relocated. http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=ND&call=&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&asrn=&list=1&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9 AJ

The available channel pool is not that large. It is not quite as simple as you think -- because of frequency reuse. For example, the New York City and Philadelphia markets generally cannot use the same channels. Otherwise, the central New Jersey suburbs in between would get nothing but co channel interference. Thus, that cuts the available channel pool at least in half. AJ

The only current incentive/model is the auction plan that has already been approved. If that does not work, then the auction gets delayed or falters. Any revised plan would take years to implement. So, talk to me again in 2020. AJ

Everyone should be aware of the present plans for reserved spectrum in the 600 MHz incentive auction. The maximum reserve is 30 MHz. Again, that is the maximum. But in markets where broadcasters have relinquished only 60 MHz of spectrum, that reserve shrinks to 20 MHz. And in markets where broadcasters have relinquished only 50 MHz of spectrum, the reserve gets cut again to 10 MHz. In that last case, all reserved spectrum bidders would be competing for only one 5 MHz FDD license block. In other words, Sprint or T-Mobile or both would get shut out of the reserved spectrum in those markets. And that certainly frightens both operators. I keep saying this, but many do not believe me. Barring government use of eminent domain, this 600 MHz incentive auction may never happen -- at least, not in any substantial form. It has all the makings of a stalemate between the FCC and broadcasters. After all, just clearing that minimal example of 50 MHz of spectrum plus guard bands would require taking approximately 10 channels off the air in a given market. I can easily envision markets in which even less than 50 MHz of spectrum would come available for auction. The idea that broadcasters will relinquish upwards of 100 MHz just seems like a pipe dream. AJ

That is a SIM card and back end provisioning issue, not a baseband issue. AJ

Ryan, Sprint's balance sheet is an irrelevant comparison. Suggesting that Sprint persists with similar finances, so T-Mobile can and should stick it out with similar finances, too, is like a parent saying that your brother eats broccoli, so you can and should eat broccoli, too. But, hey, maybe I just do not want to eat broccoli. Moreover, just because Sprint's balance sheet is similar does not mean such is sustainable longterm -- nor desirable. Plenty of Sprint naysayers certainly think its finances signal impending doom. bigsnake49 is right. Deutsche Telekom wants out of this slim margin business. And that is all that really matters. AJ