Jump to content

WiWavelength

S4GRU Staff Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,133

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    429

 Content Type 

Everything posted by WiWavelength

  1. WiWavelength
    No band 26. Still, no bueno... AJ
  2. WiWavelength
    Moto X Style = 2015 Moto X Pure Edition = no bueno on Sprint? Moto X Play = 2015 Moto X = no bueno in US? ??? This is all no bueno... AJ
  3. WiWavelength
    This naming convention is scatterbrained. But I guess that Motorola did not want to release just a "Moto X" for the third year in a row. Somebody should post a succinct rundown of what is what. AJ
  4. WiWavelength
    I would not compare the current price of a nine month old handset to the current price of a new handset. Compare the starting prices of both. AJ
  5. WiWavelength
    Not so fast. Motorola or Phandroid may end up with egg on its face over this one. Bar none, the "UC2" variant is not authorized for band 13 nor CDMA2000. Unless it gets a Class II Permissive Change filing or the "UC1" variant also ends up as a Pure Edition, both parties are at least partly wrong. The only accurate part is that there is a Moto X Style that is compatible with VZW -- it just may not be the Pure Edition. And, just to be clear, Moto X Style is what the 2015 version is being called, right? AJ
  6. WiWavelength
    Most/all of those others bands are non US. FCC OET authorization documents typically do not include them, as they are not the purview of the FCC. And band 29 is a supplemental downlink only band -- meaning reception, not transmission. So, band 29 is a special case, a very odd case. AJ
  7. WiWavelength
    Very different price points, though. This Pure Edition is being sold at $399, correct? AJ
  8. WiWavelength
    The band 41 support is important to some international operators, so there is that explanation. But I suppose when Motorola knew at some point that the Pure Edition was going to include band 29 supplemental downlink for AT&T and never going to land on Sprint, it was not worth any added expense to include band 26 and test CDMA2000. AJ
  9. WiWavelength
    Tim basically covered all of this in our article on The Wall three weeks ago and our discussions prior to that in the staff FCC OET thread. What we can add to that now is the "UC2" variant will be sold as the Pure Edition. But there is absolutely no chance it is usable on Sprint. The Pure Edition does indeed lack band 26. It is a curious omission, since it includes band 5 and covers all other Sprint LTE bands. Additionally, it supports 2x CA -- just not on band 41. Most damningly, the Pure Edition specs from Motorola claim CDMA2000 support, but that was never authorized in the FCC OET testing. The CDMA2000 is just a latent capability of the Snapdragon X10 modem on board the Snapdragon 808 chipset. So, in a nutshell, the "UC1" variant is the only one for Sprint. And it also covers VZW -- should VZW not have its own Droid version this time around. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-389-teaser-hello-moto-x/ AJ
  10. WiWavelength
    But I guess that you are on T-Mobile now, yet you are still here. AJ
  11. WiWavelength
    And this will not solve that problem. You are trying too hard to sell this as a solution. That plays into the cult of T-Mobile -- everything it does is smart, progressive, and consumer friendly. But many of us are not buying that or this. Apple, Google, and BlackBerry are not going to make RCS, joyn, or whatever the hell this is the default messaging client. They already have their own OTT messaging in place. So, that basically takes iOS devices, Nexus devices, and BlackBerry devices out of the loop. Hmm, you just lost a huge chunk of users, so that one stop messaging utopia never materializes. Except for SMS and MMS, which we already have and work just fine. If RCS ever takes off, it will be 5-10 years from now. Do not hold your breath. AJ
  12. WiWavelength
    See the second post. You were probably camped on Strata Networks (aka UBET Wireless). Will your data usage be counted as pseudo native, though? The latest PRL update seems to suggest so. But I would take a wait and see attitude. AJ
  13. WiWavelength
    Leather tanning often involves metallic elements. I wonder if that is the explanation behind the weakened RF performance. AJ
  14. WiWavelength
    Let the sex guru jokes commence... AJ
  15. WiWavelength
    Milk, milk, lemonade. The other side is where fudge is made. AJ
  16. WiWavelength
    Your Galaxy S6 may have better reception, but it does not have better transmission. That is what the ERP/EIRP figures show, and they do not lie. AJ
  17. WiWavelength
    With the Nexus 5, not the VZW network. It is off the table. AJ
  18. WiWavelength
    I also made a mistake in reading the article -- even though I did so on a laptop. I failed to notice that the initial set of graphs is not a compendium from all 50 airports. It is just from ATL. Four other links in a horizontal row bring up the results from LAX, ORD, DFW, and DEN, respectively. Anyone who has not viewed all of those results should do so. Sprint does not fare so badly after all. Sprint finishes second at three of the five airports. It never finishes first, but it tops VZW, AT&T, and/or T-Mobile several times. And where Sprint does poorly, so does at least one of the other operators. That tells us airport service is not easy for any of the big four. AJ
  19. WiWavelength
    Some DAS is third party, operator agnostic. Other DAS is operator exclusive. And yet other DAS is operator owned but non exclusive. In other words, the situation varies. AJ
  20. WiWavelength
    Pardon me? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I addressed a misconception that JonnygATL made in interpreting the RootMetrics results. He incorrectly interpreted that Sprint had no service at 19 of the 50 top airports. Now, you are moving the goalposts to data speeds. However, if you want to know why the other three have faster data throughput at airports, it is because their primary LTE is low band and/or mid band. For Sprint, its "big pipe" is high band, band 41, and that is going to take some time to get into airports. No, the data throughput is not "terrible." That is hyperbole. Sprint may be in fourth place, but 6.8 Mbps downlink, 3 Mbps uplink is very usable service -- especially for being in such high traffic settings as airports. Sure, the data speeds can be improved, and they will be improved. Finally, your last several posts are unduly negative, bordering on trolling. I suggest that you chill out. AJ
  21. WiWavelength
    No, you are misreading that stat, somewhat understandably, as the writing is vague. Because of FAA regulations, underground areas, RF unfriendly construction, and mass passengers, airports are difficult to serve. But some level of Sprint service definitely is available at all 50 top airports. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. At 31 of those airports, the Sprint connection rate is greater than 97 percent. At the other 19 airports, the Sprint connection rate is less than 97 percent. That is what the quote actually stated/implied. Look at the included graph. What does 26 + 16 + 8 equal? What does 41 + 9 + 0 equal? 50. AJ
  22. WiWavelength
    Yeah, well, you have a picture of Belichick as your avatar. Somebody definitely is watching you. Heck, Belichick probably is watching you, too. AJ
  23. WiWavelength
    On Twitter, T-Mobile claims to have won the All-Star Game data speed wars... https://twitter.com/TMobile/status/623543294430089216 If statistically true, T-Mobile must have driven a whole herd of COWs to its spectrum pathetic Cincinnati market. Do note, however, the embedded video clip included no comparison to Sprint, just VZW and AT&T (or Cricket). AJ
  24. WiWavelength
    Fire in the hole! …or just article on The Wall. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-393-even-more-guardians-of-the-samsung-galaxy/ AJ
  25. WiWavelength
    Don't cry for T-Mobile, sbolen The truth is Chicago has ample spectrum AWS 30 MHz contiguous PCS 30 MHz contiguous Refarm for band 2 There is the solution AJ
×
×
  • Create New...