WiWavelength
-
Posts
18,133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
429
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Everything posted by WiWavelength
-
FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]
WiWavelength replied to JThorson's topic in General Topics
I am surprised that no one has posted this yet. Washington DC appeals court upholds FCC Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification -- so far. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html?_r=0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/14/the-fcc-just-won-a-sweeping-victory-on-net-neutrality-in-federal-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/ http://www.cnet.com/news/whats-everyone-saying-about-net-neutrality/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4o1oia/net_neutrality_and_title_ii_win_in_court_as_isps/ AJ -
Underground utilities or not, neighborhoods still need streetlights. I can post a photo of a local small cell mounted on the side of and an omni antenna on the top of a streetlight -- or maybe it is a traffic signal. Either way, neighborhoods have those. Now, unless this small cell is not yet active, it does not seem to be a Sprint small cell, not AT&T nor T-Mobile, for that matter. I think it is VZW, though I would have to get it on my spectrum analyzer to know for certain AJ
-
Who needs utility poles! Flimflam! Back in my day, we didn't have electricity, telephone, and cable television on these poles. We had oil lamps for light. For entertainment, you'd stare at the lamp until your eyes burned. If you wanted to talk to someone somewhere, you'd yell at the top of your lungs. Maybe they would hear you, maybe they wouldn't. And we liked it! AJ
-
Are we talking macro sites or small cells here? A 70 ft pole would be a macro site. That is not a 70 ft pole, by the way. It is a Sprint DAS small site in a hilly/valley area that otherwise would be a dead spot for LTE. Would that installation really offend your aesthetic sensibilities? AJ
-
Mike... In displaying "W-DAS," what/how is SignalCheck Pro detecting DAS? I see this occasionally, often just fleetingly on AT&T band 17 and band 4. I do not think that I have caught it on AT&T band 2. AJ
-
T4GRU.com is unavailable on my end. It could be a temporary IP.Board issue. But my guess is that T4GRU is no more. The members there did not support the site with content and donations the way that the members here have done. AJ
-
The Myrtle Beach CMA is the "white elephant" market in the entire country for T-Mobile. The only Cellular 850 MHz market. Maybe acquisition of low band, Lower 700 MHz spectrum elsewhere has lessened that anomaly. But since the fallout from the Cingular-AT&TWS merger, Myrtle Beach long has been a T-Mobile oddball. AJ
-
Are you secretly Ralph Nader? To use an imperfect but decent analogy, what you write above is akin to saying that all hotels nationwide should have similar number of rooms or proportional number of rooms according to demand. And they should provide similar level of experience -- staff, pillows, bedsheets, swimming pools, etc. Nope. Hey, a Best Western in Peoria, IL may be the best, yet a Best Western in Peoria, AZ may be the worst. The only consistency is inconsistency. That is the nature of both business competition and human experience. So, caveat emptor. This is why we have subjective and objective rating services, such as the likes of Yelp, TripAdvisor, and for wireless, RootMetrics. To continue to tie this back in with wireless, most people honestly do not move around that much. As Deval has pointed out, most wireless users are on the same dozen or so cell sites day after day. Does my current network give me reliable service around home, work, school, grocery store, etc.? Most people do not care or should not care if the same network does likewise in Kalamazoo or Timbuktu. Even if wireless operators were awarded certain, appropriate amounts of spectrum per market, that would not ensure consistent experience from market to market. Not even within the same market. Why does Bob get 40 Mbps -- while you get only 1 Mbps? Because Bob is a block from the serving site -- while you are a mile from the same serving site. As in real estate, location, location, location. Other factors are in play, too many factors. AJ
-
Hindsight is always 20/20. Try second guessing some decisions that you made, circa 2004. No matter. Would you have preferred that T-Mobile have no marketshare, no network, nor even any spectrum presence in California? That was the reality, circa 2004. Not in Southern California. Not in Northern California. Two huge markets. How would that have made T-Mobile appear as a "national" operator? So, that was the reasoning behind the network sharing/spectrum swapping agreement with AT&T nee Cingular. As for nationwide spectrum licenses, no way. Not in a country of this size. Arysyn, what you want is to lock in the big 3-4 operators as our national networks in perpetuity. Why? What is your interest? Somewhat ironically, you bring up New York City and Los Angeles, yet I have never heard you talk of going outside of Chicago. Should you not want Chicago to have as many competitors as possible? You could have service in Chicago from a local operator that might not have a lot of spectrum, but it could have great site density and relatively few subs, hence those fast, faster, fastest data speeds that you crave. AJ
-
Over a decade ago, T-Mobile gave up 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) of its PCS spectrum in New York City to AT&T nee Cingular -- because T-Mobile had no network in California, and Cingular had no network in New York City. Quid pro quo. AJ
-
Socialism will work if there is just one infrastructure entity for all wireless providers. If you even want to call that socialism. It would be fierce competition, hundreds to thousands of providers buying capacity and selling services over the top. What should not happen is what Arysyn wants -- for VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or T-Mobile-Sprint to be deemed basically our national networks, then handed appropriate amounts of spectrum per band, per market. Why should the government dignify those 3-4 private corporations? Just because? It would shut down and shut out all other competitors forever. I already hate that my electricity provider is both a regulated monopoly and a private corporation. It should not be a private corporation in the first place. Nationalize these damn utilities. Or screw it, and just let the free market run amuck. AJ
-
Beep, beep, beep. I am sorry, but you did not pose your response in the proper form of a question. Mr. Connery, you have the board. AJ
-
Should we really hold up NYC -- or Seattle, for that matter -- as a representative sample of T-Mobile? After all, NYC was Omnipoint's major market 20 years ago. It focused on NYC. And slicked back Legere splits his time between residences in NYC and Seattle. He does not drive in between. He just flies in between. Is it any surprise that NYC gets some priority? Heck, I am not going to argue with you that Sprint is great everywhere just because it kicks ass in Kansas City. And it does, despite the high market share here. As for NYC, I had problems with T-Mobile band 4 LTE at Yankee Stadium when I was in town two weeks ago. W-CDMA worked better. Sprint/Clearwire band 41 LTE was no great shakes at just 1-4 Mbps. But it worked. Unlike T-Mobile. AJ
-
Yes, great marketing slogan. For a corporation located in Kansas. During the height of severe weather season. Blow the roof off. It could happen. Literally. Severe thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes are common occurrence around these parts. AJ
-
In the past, Sprint typically did not NEG certain SIDs, though VZW frequently did. Looking at the list above, I think many/all of those operators are traitors who have switched over to the 3GPP side. They still may operate skeleton CDMA2000 networks, though. That could be the reason for the NEG tags. Sprint now supports various levels of LTE/W-CDMA/GSM international roaming. The NEG tags could ensure that the roaming does not fall on the barebones legacy CDMA2000 networks instead. AJ
-
Winning the battle -- but losing the war? Maybe. I will give you that. However, as long as Apple continues to use Qualcomm Snapdragon baseband chipsets, which Apple has used exclusively for the past, what, 8-10 generations of its cellular devices, Qualcomm will be fine. The Qualcomm processor business could be in jeopardy. But, for things non iOS, Qualcomm does provide the advantage of being able to put top notch processor and baseband both on SoC. No one else offers the same. And what is this "Pyrrhic victory" of which you speak? Me no smart. AJ
-
Those that got canceled are entire SoCs -- systems on chips, including processors, at the very least, possibly baseband modems, too. Intel wants into the mobile processor game, but it may have missed the boat. Apple always is going to use its own ARM processor -- even though that requires a separate baseband. Qualcomm Snapdragon CPUs capture nearly the rest of the market. Other processors, such as NVIDIA Tegra, tend to be niche or low end. That said, Intel still has the 3GPP baseband intellectual property that it acquired from Infineon, which was one of the early Apple iPhone part suppliers, when the iPhone had no CDMA2000 capability. And I was not aware that Intel had bought the 3GPP2 intellectual property of VIA Telecom. Thanks to Ryan, though, I do now. If Intel totally is giving up on mobile chipsets, including basebands, it ought to sell or write off that baseband intellectual property now. AJ
-
If spectrum is "too expensive," then it should not be auctioned/sold/leased in the first place. It should be assigned to one and only one infrastructure entity to deploy -- anybody else can buy capacity to sell services over that spectrum. Otherwise, spectrum will cost whatever the market will bear. And the FCC has a Congress mandated fiduciary responsibility to the US Treasury. AJ
-
Who said that T-Mobile is "overvaluing" this spectrum? Only that T-Mobile is paying a pretty penny, close to half a billion dollars. Good. Get out the checkbook. Do you know what Sprint paid for its entire first tract of PCS 1900 MHz spectrum? PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) spectrum that covered most of the country. Take a look... Sprint was bidding as WirelessCo -- for those who are unfamiliar. But just a little over $2 billion. Well played. The online peanut gallery commenters like to crap on Sprint all of the time. Sprint never does anything right. Wrong. During the Bill Esrey CEO era, Sprint came out of the first PCS 1900 MHz auction with a treasure trove of spectrum that still is its core to this day and would be almost impossible to assemble to that breadth and depth today for any price, let alone, just a little over $2 billion. AJ
-
It varies. BRS/EBS spectrum holdings can be 160 MHz total in some markets, much less in other markets. So, I cannot answer your general question. And I no longer am doing that level of spectrum tracking for free. Too much work. I already have contributed enough pro bono over the past dozen years. AJ
-
And, for the record, VZW paid $152 million for the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block when it was first sold at FCC Auction 73 in 2008. I would say that T-Mobile paid the piper. If you want to see 700 MHz spectrum valuations today compared to those of 2008, you can view the auction results. http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73 AJ
-
That Reddit thread indicated from the spectrum holding company press release that the purchase price is $420 million -- double what Leap Wireless paid in its acquisition of the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block a few years ago. Good. Pay through the nose, T-Mobile, pay through the nose. You want low band spectrum? You have to pony up the cash. And you deserve all of the financial pain that you can bear -- because you want people actually to believe that you can be a little man's VZW or even the equal of AT&T in the span of just a year or two. Not to mention, some of your executive team conduct themselves like such frat boy asshats. AJ
-
Any Sprint variants will not use an Intel baseband. Unless Apple wants to double up on the chipsets and also throw in a Qualcomm baseband -- because that is the only way to get CDMA2000 support. AJ
-
Yeah, it is the band 12 Lower 700 MHz A block from AT&T/Leap Wireless. Who knows how much T-Mobile had to pay for that chunk of spectrum, though? Financial terms were not disclosed. And do not expect any usable deployment until late this year or early next year. https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-secures-new-spectrum-to-deliver-extended-range-lte-to-chicago-area.htm AJ
-
"Oh, Atlanta is a beautiful city. Many consider it the jewel of The South. You know, it's in Georgia." "Hey!" AJ
