iansltx

Sounds like Clearwire's getting desperate. That, or they're bound by a condition attached to some of their EBS licenses. In either case, I should drop one of my nonprofit buddies in CO a line; he might appreciate the cheap 'net access, assuming Clear reaches his home office.

In all serious-ness, if we have enough S4GRU-ers in a region, it might be worthwhile to have an informal meetup. For example, Austin would be a somewhat central place for folks in TX to meet up (if people didn't want to have smaller meetups in HOU, SAT, DFW, etc.). Maybe have something in KC (so everyone can drool over AJ's SA), plus something in Baltimore. All within driving distance of potential meet-up-ers.

Nor is anyone willing to break the news to them, since it would necessitate admitting that even Sprint's (or T-Mobile's) 4G networks could crack under load. In an ideal world, widespread FTTH (fiber to the home, like FiOS or, better, EPBFi from Chattanooga's Electric Power Board) would provide users with a good reason to offload: their home WiFi would be faster than the cell network, even on 4G. Is it Sprint's fault that this isn't so? No, but it's a contributing factor to this issue, with expensive cable and slow DSL. What's entertaining is that this ideal world exists in France, thanks to free.fr. Their service is cheap, urban-focused (T-Mobile anyone?) and uses custom set top boxes such that a Free mobile subscriber can get WiFi in a ton of places. I hear the next revision of the STB will include a femtocell. But apparently being both a FTTH provider and a wireless company isn't in vogue in the US...

...and for what it's worth, if anyone here is abusing Sprint's network to the point that it makes life uncomfortable for other subs...and Sprint is losing money on that subscriber (i.e. they have to add another LTE carrier to a site due to that one subscriber), Sprint will figure out a way to kick that sub off the network due to an AUP violation. If they're on Clear WiMAX, Clear will magically throttle the sub and won't tell why. All this only really becomes a problem when someone decides to absolutely thrash the cellular network in an area that's expensive/impossible to add capacity into, and can't be gotten rid of easily. Pulling down 6GB in a month ain't gonna be that tipping point.

Sounds like a plan to me. I have no issue with offloading if I'm compensated for the inconvenience I would contend, however, that if the bell curve was too far in the direction of network abuse, Sprint would be doing the cost-benefit analysis and, as a result, offering some other data package than it does now. I would say that they could offer 4GB, including tethering, for the effectively-$30 per month that they charge for data, but then they couldn't use tethering as a profit center for folks like me. Though $30 for 4GB is a very reasonable amount from a carrier profit perspective; I have a friend who has just that plan on VZW, thanks to Double Data several months back. But instead, Sprint has chosen to run the unlimited gambit and play the numbers game. They (and T-Mobile) are better able to do this since cell site densities are greater (so heavy users on one site don't impact as many users overall) so I suppose it's the right engineering + marketing decision for them. Just like it's a solid decision for a local cellular company to offer slow (1 Mbps for $40, 2 Mbps for $60), uncapped fixed service using Airspan pre-LTE gear on what I'm guessing is their 700MHz lower-B license, using the same backhaul network that they just rolled out to support both that and a CLR-band HSPA/+ network.

...which is still at the top ed of VZW's "loaded network" speed promises: 5-12 Mbps. If Verizon allows speeds to decrease below 5/2 in a given area, then we know we're really in trouble. But for now the network is performing to spec.

Which is why Sprint has, as its price ceiling, whatever VZW charges. Which, mark my words, will decrease as time goes on. As for overall coverage, Verizon does indeed have the largest 3G footprint of anyone. However Sprint has enough 3G that it isn't relegated to the bargain basement of providers like CricKet and MetroPCS. And Sprint will have LTE on nearly every /tower/ in its network when it is done, versus Verizon who merely promises to cover every /area/ with LTE that has 3G now. The difference being that VZW will have a lot fewer towers...and thus, lower capacity, versus Sprint, all else equal.

When EvDO first came here, I was able to get ~1.1M down, 100k up (r0). At the time my ISP offered 384/128. In some areas I can still get 1.5-2 Mbps down and 500-800k up. Now LTE is in town, though it needs to make it to a couple more towers (give it a month) before I can get those speeds reliably inside my parents' place, rather than outside. Their connection will remain at 1.5 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. I can already beat the upload speed half the time on 3G, and 4G leaves it in the dust. On the download side, 1.5 Mbps assumes that no one else is using the DSL connection. If one person is watching YouTube, the remaining bandwidth is comparable to 3G...and way less than 4G. Also, I'm a bit confused by: What point are you trying to make here? What (A) has better performance than what else (?

The catch is that, if Sprint decides to implement higher pricing (on a lower cost basis, I might add), then the competition had better follow suit. T-Mobile is already less expensive than Sprint ($70 + phone subsidy for unlimited everything, with phone subsidies topping out at $20 per month), and T-Mobile will in all likelihood deploy LTE very quickly next year, since they already have the requisite backhaul to the vast majority of their cell sites. When that happens, I wouldn't expect Verizon or AT&T to take notice, but Sprint (and everyone smaller than them) will be forced to do so. Also, now that Verizon and AT&T have set up Share Everything/Mobile Share, they can't raise prices on anything without getting a ton of public flak. They can grow revenue as people use more data, but if Sprint is going to stay cost-competitive they have to prove that, for the average Joe, they still offer a less expensive product. Because, like it or not, Verizon will continue to have more LTE coverage than Sprint for awhile yet, so they're the ones with pricing power, not Sprint.

Have you used anyone's LTE network yet? Or T-Mobile H+? None of the above are overloaded, provided you can get a bona fide LTE or H+ signal

Parents' DSL is 1.5M down, 384k up. It's the fastest speed possible given line conditions (sometimes it gets slower due to weather issues etc.). It's not terribly expensive...$35 or so per month plus a $20 landline...but it's all they can get. Satellite...don't get me started. We *might* be able to get 2M down, 384k up service for $60 per month here, but that's uncertain and seems overpriced compared to what they're paying now (also, no more upload speed). The other wireless ISP in the area wants $100 for 2M, which I'm pretty sure they can't deliver anyway. What's your response in this situation? Not everyone has access to $55-per-month 10Mbit cable.

Counterpoint: 3G, let alone LTE, is faster than the home internet that anyone can get at my parents' location, or farther out from it. The wireless ISP here has as much capacity for their whole system as Sprint has for one cell site. Maybe less. I'm not advocating tethering without Sprint's tethering plan. However there's a company called Millenicom that sells "unlimited" Sprint 3G (50+ GB will get a call from them wondering what's going on). It's $70 per month. There's also Sprint tethering, which I have no remorse on using instead of parents' WiFi. It's $1.70 or so per day (prorated; I remove the feature when I am not using it). Then there's unlimited data available on my phone, which is faster than what's available (at any price short of bonded T1s) via a traditional ISP. In this case I'll tend to keep WiFi off on my phone (I turn WiFi off when I'm out and about, turning it on only when I know I'll be in an area with a hotspot), pushing web traffic over the cellular network. This is for use on my phone and my phone only...and I'm not slamming the network while doing it...so I figure that this is reasonable behavior. To put things another way, if you're going to go with the argument that unlimited is only unlimited for those who limit their usage...on a network that has as much capacity as a cable network had four years ago (when Comcast sold service with a 250GB cap), you might as well tell people to go another carrier with a capped plan, since that way they pay for what they use. Less angst for everyone, since apparently my usage on a single cell site dozens of miles away from where anyone else on here lives congests the network for everyone and causes Sprint to kill unlimited data. Oh wait...Millenicom's still around. Personally, I like T-Mobile's approach to the data dilemma: unlimited on-phone data is $20 per month. That's more expensive than 2GB of data for $10, and less expensive than 5GB of data plus tethering for $30. So obviously T-Mobile has a reasonable expectation that its subscribers to that plan, while not worrying about their wireless usage, will use somewhere between 2GB and 5GB on average. They have this expectation because they've run the numbers and, with their cost structure, they are willing to take the risks associated with offering an unlimited plan...and the rewards (more customers) of doing so. I know a friend whose family switched to the unlimited data plan on multiple lines of service, grabbed a new phone or two,(including his HTC One S) and saved some money in the process. Thing is, they'll continue to be profitable for T-Mobile despite having a fast network, unlimited data and probably very low WiFi usage... Why do I say very low WiFi usage? Because, for the average Joe, unless they're beaten over the head with WiFi related messages (like many phones do nowadays...if WiFi is turned on), they won't bother connecting to their home wireless network unless the cellular network is too slow for them. Which is fine, because those users (my mom included) aren't doing data-intensive stuff on their phones (500MB of usage per month or so for my mom). Again, it's all a numbers game, and those users are factored in with the numbers. Also, for what it's worth, if a company doesn't want its subscribers to use a lot of data on their unlimited network, they shouldn't advertise functionality that chews through data. But apparently newer networks can take the bandwidth beating that online video dishes out...which is going to be used mostly away from home anyway, because I'm probably the only one who will curl up with his phone and watch a couple episodes of Dr. Who on it, instead of reaching for a device with a larger screen

No update here yet. I'll upload the update.zip if I get it before anyone else does. The better LTE searching power would be appreciated.

Lol...you can get a "laser keyboard" for any Bluetooth compatible phone, but the lack of fact-checking on this is...breathtaking.

FWIW the phone is $49.99 on-contract at AmazonWireless. $400 off-contract at Sprint. This would actually be an excellent phone for Ting to pick up...and according to what they tweeted me earlier, they're working on it...

In a similar vein, the iPhone 5 doesn't support the 700MHz lower A block (band class 12). That's another can of worms that only obliquely concerns Sprint, so my rant...er...musings on that whole situations will occur elsewhere. The short version: AT&T doesn't want to pay LTE roaming revenue to anyone, and will hamstring its customers' phones (and its competitors' ability to buy phones) in order to avoid setting the precedent, or even the possibility of setting a precedent, on 4G roaming.

The phone may have GSM/WCDMA capabilities, however I didn't see them mentioned in the Sprint FCC certification. I'll look again prior to writing the article tomorrow. As for BC10, that's an open-and-shut case of shoddy reporting. There's an entire certification document set specifically for that band (look up the phone on PhoneScoop, then go from there to the FCC by clicking on its FCC ID). Including, of course, a doc including ERP etc. at SMR on CDMA. EDIT: Oh, and the phone definitely supports EvDO Rev. A. Shoddy reporting it is. Too bad...I used to use pdadb on a regular basis for Handsrping and Palm PDAs (like my old TX, IIIx, Visor Pro or VII, most of which I got used).

The big deal is that the iPhone 5 can't do this on networks that run voice over anything other than WCDMA.

I'll answer that with a resounding "maybe." Previous iPhones have had baseband updates. However enabling VoLTE might require recertification by the FCC, since Apple specifically said that the functionality was not supported. If recertification is required, it probably isn't worth it for Apple to go through the process. If not, maybe it'll show up...