WiWavelength

No, sorry, you signed on under previous or current circumstances. Sprint does not owe you anything more. No lower plan costs, no network expansion. That is a dose of reality. Maybe the future will be different. But we do not know. And that is my point. AJ

How about no data roaming? Does that sound good? It could happen. AJ

That is on the person. We make no excuses here. AJ

Nex-Tech holds Lower 700 MHz licenses, so band 12 makes sense. AJ

Yes, to follow up again, you or Sprint will need to double check the group and band associations. Nex-Tech Wireless in Kansas holds no Cellular 850 MHz spectrum, so band 5 is out of the question. However, what you show as group 1 has LTE roaming coverage within the Nex-Tech footprint. That cannot be band 5. AJ

How did you come to determine those group and band associations? Did you find some embedded metadata during your map mining process? Regardless, I would take any of the Sprint coverage tool LTE roaming maps with a grain of salt right now. It may take a few weeks or even months to get settled. For example, Rickie posted earlier today that the LG G4 is one of the devices that can be selected and shows LTE roaming footprint now. However, the map is of one of the groups, not the broadest LTE roaming footprint -- even though the LG G4 is a Sprint variant handset and fully CCA/RRPP compliant across all bands. To elaborate a bit further, those handsets that can be selected and display any LTE roaming footprint right now all seem to default to group 4. The differences in Nex-Tech Wireless coverage in Kansas show this quite clearly. So, maybe the only LTE roaming presently accessible is band 2, band 25, or both via MFBI. AJ

New York, Seattle. Milan, Legere. Who cares about anywhere or anyone else? We all should move to where T-Mobile does its best. We should be like them. If not, that is our fault. AJ

When someone appears fed up with Sprint, members or even staff may recommend that the person find a different provider. Occasionally, we do that. And we hope that the grass truly is greener on the other side for that person. But what we do not allow is gloating out of context reports/pics from the other side. That tends to fall under our trolling rules. AJ

Talk to Robert. Per our member rolls, you currently are not a sponsor. If you have been a sponsor in the past, then I am mistaken. However, if so, that sponsorship has expired. To add to my post, S4GRU never kicks anyone out for choosing a different provider. Again, we do not care. And we have plenty of members and sponsors of all levels who presently do not use Sprint. But, to be clear, we do not accept posts declaring that you are leaving for another provider. AJ

Sorry, S4GRU does host public pronouncements that you are leaving. That is not productive posting. We simply do not care. S4GRU does not exist to recruit nor retain subs. Yet, you act like you are gloating, like you are making a smarter move to AT&T. Whatever, we do not care. So, your posts about porting to AT&T are going away soon. You might as well leave now. You can come back. But why would you? If you never became an S4GRU sponsor to educate yourself on Sprint site/deployment suitability for your needs and have left Sprint, you have made your decisions. AJ

People can do whatever they want. But the problem arises when they take personal assessments and make sweeping judgments. "Sprint sucks in Milwaukee -- AT&T is better." But objective testing shows that not to be true. For a different example, someone could live, work, and shop only near the approximately 10 T-Mobile sites in the entire Omaha metro and think that T-Mobile offers great speeds. That is called coincidence. For the entire Omaha market, though, T-Mobile is abysmal. Basically, some people are just lucky with a provider, unlucky with another. And those circumstances can lead to expectation bias, reaffirming positive and negative presumptions. That is why I do not take personal assessments of wireless service quality very seriously. AJ

Yes, band 41 2x CA may be working on the Nexus 6P. But I do not keep track of speed tests, nor do I consider them reliable. Regardless, band 41 can do 75 Mbps downlink on a single carrier. AJ

A remote possibility, albeit one we have to consider, is that some unlocked, third party handsets may not receive all Sprint network features, such as LTE roaming or band 41 2x CA. We certainly have seen some 2x CA concerns among the three unlocked, third party handsets this fall. AJ

Even though rebanded SMR 800 MHz and Cellular 850 MHz are contiguous, I doubt that the FCC would bridge the two with a band plan reconfiguration. SMR 800 MHz falls under Part 90, while Cellular 850 MHz is under Part 22 -- basically, the regulations between the two are significantly different. If Sprint were to wrap up rebanding, untangle the IBEZ nonsense, and acquire every single rebanded SMR 800 MHz license, then maybe Sprint and the FCC mutually could agree to reclassify the rebanded SMR 800 MHz under Part 22 and roll it into Cellular 850 MHz for band plan reconfiguration. But as long as a few other licensees remain in rebanded SMR 800 MHz, their uses may better fit Part 90, since it allows up to 100 W on the uplink. Instead of combining rebanded SMR 800 MHz and Cellular 850 MHz, Neal Gompa and I several years ago came up with a few reconfigured band plans for Cellular 850 MHz. Due to band plan expansion some 25 years ago, Cellular 850 MHz is awkwardly fragmented -- Cellular A Low block 1 MHz FDD, Cellular A block 10 MHz FDD, Cellular B block 10 MHz FDD, Cellular A High block 1.5 MHz FDD, Cellular B High block 2.5 MHz FDD. As the primary Cellular 850 MHz license holders, VZW and AT&T would fight this tooth and nail if they were to give up any spectrum. But with band plan reconfiguration, the Cellular A and B blocks would be shifted yet remain 10 MHz FDD. Then, a Cellular C block 5 MHz FDD license could be created and auctioned. It would make practical sense, as the present fragments worked for narrowband airlinks -- but are increasingly useless in a broadband LTE world. AJ

The Magentan T-abernacle Choir? AJ

At over 10,000 posts, this thread can be almost anything it wants to be. AJ

You want fewer colors? That would mean less delineation, less gradation. Do you actually want less information? You cannot have it both ways. And the colors of the Data coverage map tool are nicely orthogonal -- unlike many of the almost indistinguishable shades of the same color that other operators use to obfuscate their network coverage shortcomings. AJ

I do not know about "bringing" it to you, but I am sure that you could use your Nexus 6P to call in an order. http://www.bigbiscuitrestaurant.com/#/locations/blue-springs AJ

The only really tangible benefit I heard in advance of the firmware update for the Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, or both was T-Mobile VoLTE certification, thus band 12 activation. But if not on T-Mobile, who cares? AJ

If I were Sprint -- and even though it would be only a spectrum hosting deal -- I would not touch Dish's proposed band. Sprint already has enough boutique type bands on its hands. The band 66 spectrum, on the other hand, could be more interesting. It would get Sprint back into the AWS-1/3 ecosystem that it left when it pulled out of SpectrumCo. AWS-1 was not much at that time, just boutique spectrum that probably saved T-Mobile from disaster. But it has since become arguably the primary LTE band in the US. AJ

Those who see that a firmware update is available -- ooh, new and shiny, gotta have it -- I just do not understand. In fact, we happen to have a photo of two of those inveterate firmware updaters: AJ

It is nothing more than a mish mash in my own head, recollections of snippets of Mexican songs from my two years of high school Spanish. Then, "Oy vey" evokes "Ay, ay, ay, ay." AJ

Any AWS-3 licensee will have to use band 66. So, yes, that will include both VZW and T-Mobile. Band 4 likely will live on in MFBI form. AJ

No, that is not an LTE standards issue. It is a device issue. If a device supports band 25, for example, it just as easily can support band 2. All that is required is a bit of additional programming and RF testing. But that does not always happen -- because OEMs or operators may not want it. AJ

Nope, not that significant a guard band when juxtaposing uplink and downlink. Hypothetically, a PCS/AWS-2 H block mobile could be transmitting at 20 dBm on the uplink while just a few feet away a PCS A block mobile could be receiving at -110 dBm on the downlink. That is a difference of 130 dB, such that a 10 MHz duplex gap may not provide sufficient protection for the PCS A block downlink. AJ