Thomas L.

Oops, I failed to add to my post, I was thinking of "quantum Internet"

 

Intro Article:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/electromagnetically-induced-transparency-could-create-a-quantum/

Recent Articles:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/quantum-encrypted-internet-los-alamos/

 

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/5/6/4306188/quantum-network-los-alamos-2-years-transmit-video-realtime

 

I've forgotten what I was going to summerise all of this with.

 

I have a migraine.

 

What I wanted to get at is if "sub-space" communication is actually feasible. Warp drives are feasible.

 

So, are unjammable forms of communication possible, or not?

 

I mean, you gotta' love those Cylons right?

 

How is Resurrection possible without some form of communication that isn't capped at the speed of light?

That works on the assumption that subspace exists, and we don't know if it does or not. The warp drives that are being theorized about now would not work by pushing a ship out of normal spacetime into something like subspace, but rather by manipulating existing spacetime to propel a ship by expanding/contracting the spacetime around the ship. A communications signal isn't accompanied by any energy source or device that would manipulate space, so it would be stuck at the speed of light.

A wormhole could act as a gateway for signals just like it can for matter, but that's contingent on the existence of a wormhole with openings at the right points and exotic matter, which we theorize to exist but which has yet to be proven in the real world.

Quantum entanglement on the other hand is a real, possible solution. We've seen it in action but because we don't understand the underlying mechanics of it, it's hard to say what the limitations are and how it would be used in faster than light communication. Something that I don't know the answer to, as I'm not very informed on the topic, but might be out, is whether or not two particles have to be 'born' - or created together for them to be entangled. If that's the case, then for this to be useful as a communication device, the two entangled particles would have to be created in one place, Earth for instance, and another placed on a vessel, which could then theoretically travel anywhere in the universe and instantly be able to communicate its change in state to its partner on Earth. With enough particles and the direction of the spin indicating a binary like 0/1 system, it could be used for communication, and this is how current quantum computers work (I believe). The issue with that is that it wouldn't allow for direct faster than light communication with other vessels or planets (at least that hadn't been visited) because they wouldn't necessarily share entangled particles. This could be overcome, however, if a communication were sent, for example, via quantum entanglement to Earth, then relayed via a communication system to various relay stations, with perhaps the final transmission being made by conventional means, kind of like FTTN - using fiber for the majority of the journey but old fashioned copper for 'the last mile'

Tommy

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Nope. The panels that are being installed in our area are not capable of broadcasting 800 MHz. So unless sprint deploys all new panels at every site when Canada gives the ibez(800 MHz exclusion zone) the all clear, we may not ever see 800 MHz here in this part of michigan.

Really? I had thought they installed the same panels but in some cases not the RRUs. It seems short sighted of them not to install 800mhz panels along the IBEZ.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

I have unusable data in fidi SF during the day. LTE is completely useless while 3g is just slow. I called Sprint and they told me to reset my iPhone which did nothing. They also opened a ticket number which will hopefully fix my problem but we'll see. I did notice that certain parts of downtown are better than others so perhaps I'm just unlucky. I get back to work next week and will cross my fingers.

I was going to reply to you in the how good is NV really thread but it got locked - I looked over the maps of financial district and it is not totally built out yet, none of SF is. I would expect your service to get better once all the towers there are upgraded. I just wanted to give you some hope and let you know that you're not experiencing completed NV, not even completed LTE 1900 NV. Even with your current phone (that is to say even without a triband phone) you should see much better performance once some more towers go online in the Financial District and SOMA.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

In all honesty if verizon was in my area I would have switched to them a long time ago. I just admire the fact they have LTE pretty everywhere I travel. They even have LTE in places where they don't have 3G towers (Hagerstown, MD).

 

I just wish Sprint/ Clearwire went with LTE and sprint had already started network vision 5 years ago including the Nextel shutdown. But the past is the past so all I can look forward is for the future.

 

I hope sprint is first to deploy LTE advance before the other carriers and with LTE advance I hope they stick with their unlimited plans.

Where are you that Verizon isn't?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Hopefully TD-LTE will fix these speed issues. Anyone find TD-LTE in Los Angeles?

I don't remember where the post was but someone did pick it up at least somewhere in the LA market.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Hoping that in the next few weeks (that is, when I move to start going to school there) the remaining two sites that are on UCLA's campus and are 3G upgraded only will get 4G. When I was there for orientation my S3 would often hang onto 4G for dear life even when it was unusable and the residence hall I was standing next two was 3G upgraded.

By the way I know this is a total knobhead post but I am bored out of my mind and impatient as hell to move and start school in three weeks so bare with me lol.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Is EvDv similar to EvDo RevB?

EvDo Rev. B allows multiple carriers to be used at the same time along with addition optimizations and upgrades that increase data speeds quite a bit. EvDv on the other hand allowed voice and data on the same carrier if I remember correctly.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Not surprising they have not incorporated clears unlimited plans into sprint, but Lame none the less.

 

They certainly are not competitive with clears $50 unlimited plan, that is for sure.

Clear's unlimited plans were really designed for another era. Before Netflix, before YouTube HD, before file sharing gigabytes and gigabytes of videos, which are all things normal people do now.

What I could see are some bandwidth capped plans with unlimited WEB BROWSING up to a certain point, or something like that.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

No overage fees, I don't believe in it. I'd rather make exceptions for the high usage folks and work out an agreement so that everyone has a plan that fits their usage best. A portion of folks, especially those that have had limited or no prior access to broadband will fit the lower tier packages well, as it will be an affordable alternative to anything currently available and if you end up using more than expected you will just have to move up to a higher tier package. The only thing available to small businesses will be the mobile portion of the network, the fixed wireless & FTTH will only be for residential. Many businesses already have access to some sort of a metro fiber provider.

Can't wait till you release your big plan and the technology you'll be using and stuff, maybe a preview post in Premier Sponsors?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

I agree with digiblur - from what I've seen of Samsung's 1x 800 at least, it works and they also get big points for programming the actual tower coordinates as the broadcast coordinates.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

@DBSynergy over in the SF Bay thread posted the reported coordinates of a 1x 800 tower he connected to, and I checked it with the site map - it corresponds almost exactly to a Sprint cell site. It's looking more and more like Samsung markets, or at least the SF Bay Area and South Bay, have 1x 800 towers reporting the correct position pretty much exactly. That's nice to know, and can be confirmed as more 1x 800 towers come online. 

I just noticed I'm getting an 800mhz SMR signal in my house. Its not very strong, and what's weird is signal check pro located the tower all the way over in sausalito!

 

If that's true, the distance that signal is traveling is impressive!

 

 

 

Sent from my LG-LS970 using Tapatalk 4

There is a tower almost at those exact coordinates, though not accepted for 1x800.

This is yet another sign that Samsung is programming the correct coordinates for 1x800 - which is quite exciting. 

Updated, my friend in marketing says it will be arriving on November 2nd. I am hoping this is not the case, what a colossal wait time!

Bah, I can't see Sprint releasing their version of the phone a month and a half after AT&T and Verizon, especially considering it's already hit the FCC. It doesn't make sense. If they do I feel like it'll be a big mistake.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

I find that most stealth sites just look silly. The fake pine and palm trees are really ridiculous when you have this lone palm tree sticking 150 feet above the rest of the tree line with proportionately stubby leaves compared to its size. The flag pole sites I have seen are so thick with comically massive flags to attempt to blend in with their size. Personally, I like nice monopole tower. I am a tech guy to the core so when I see a high tech looking panel with fiber optic cables running down it makes me feel warm inside.

Ever since I pointed out the fake trees to my mom she has been fascinated by them. We were driving recently in a kind of hilly grasslands like area here in California and in the middle of nothing is this huge fake tree-tower that just looked totally ridiculous. If you put a tower in a middle of a field, camouflaged or not it's going to look ridiculous and bad.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Blocks calls not drops. Unless your rally the troops and rattle enough cages to get it fixed like a couple of us did in our area. Had to do this with a ton of donut LTE sites as well last month but they always seem to go back to their ways. I will say I hate being in an Ericsson market due to all the issues. That's what you get when you allow people to sign off on their own work.

Donut LTE sites? And how did you rattle cages?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Yeah what seems to be Ericsson's problem? Do we know?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

So I have something anecdotal I've been noticing, and i'd like to know if it's just my imagination or if there could be something to it:

I've noticed that many times, once a tower has been upgraded for 4G (and 3G is not accepted, meaning I assume that 3G is still using legacy equipment), I often notice that the 3G signal is slightly weaker, or that speed is lower than it previously was and phones roam more often. Is it possibly because when they're putting up the new equipment they are messing up the alignment of the legacy equipment? Is there any reason that this would happen?

I've been pulling down 800 SMR around Macon the last couple of days on the following BSSIDs (SID 22437, NID 201):

 

Decimal (Hex)

30801 7851

30802 7852

 

32307 7E33

 

32546 7F22

32547 7F23

 

Only 3254x/7F2x has been squawking a base station location, which corresponds to a tower in NE Macon (Shirling Drive) although it may not be broadcasting its true location. I am going to try to figure out where the others are by extrapolating the handoff boundaries at some point.

 

When I just tried to call someone on ESMR it dropped me to 1900, but I'm not sure if that's because I was at -101ish dBm with a closer 1900 tower, or if it's set to idle on ESMR but handoff calling to 1900 if possible.

That all sounds very complicated 0_0

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

The reason I ask is that since LTE 800 isn't a voice service, they don't have to worry about 911 testing and all that, so I could see them skipping ahead. One of the OEMs however requires separate RRUs for 800 LTE and voice, and they might wait to go back and install that until they're ready to do voice at the same time I suppose.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

If I recall correctly, for otherwise fully upgraded sites (3G/1x 800/LTE 1900), all that's required to add 800 LTE is for a contractor to return to the site to install a carrier card and run some tests to make sure everything works as it should. Depending on how loaded the site is, Sprint may also ask for the fiber backhaul speed to be increased beyond the default 100 Mbps to make sure both bands can run at full speed during peak hours. This relatively simple install is why Sprint feels it will have 800 LTE up on all sites that are currently 4G accepted by the end of the year. Obviously deployment on other sites that don't have the new equipment or backhaul yet will linger on into next year.

Would Sprint light up 800 LTE on a site that isn't 3G upgraded, I wonder?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

800 LTE on all current 4g sites by the end of the year or starting deployment then?

The stated goal is that all 4G sites that have been accepted thus far will be upgraded to LTE 800 by the end of the year and that all future sites will be LTE 800 from the get go.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Pretty much.  If the 2100 MHz downlink signal is lost, then the 1700 MHz uplink signal is rendered irrelevant.  About the only thing that can be done to compensate for worse path loss characteristics on 2100 MHz than 1700 MHz is to turn up the power on the downlink.  But T-Mobile seems not to have done that.  If anything, users have complained about lower power on band 4 AWS than on band 2 PCS.

 

AJ

And why WOULDN'T they increase the power of the downlink, is there a reason? Some sort of regulations that prevent them from doing so? I would think they'd want it as high as possible.

"But if you want data that will stream video/music consistently NV is making that happen in the markets I have traveled to ( San Diego, la, San Francisco) now hopeful Phoenix can get going."

 

I live in San Francisco (South of Market) and work a few blocks away in the financial district. During work hours data speeds are pretty abysmal. Better in SOMA than the financial district. I can stream music 80% of the time and cannot stream video at all. I ran speed tests and many times I get a "null?" error message or something like that. On good days during the day I'll get 300k. At night in SOMA when I don't need it, I get easily 20mb down. I could care less about top speed (although I have an ATT ipad and am sometimes blown away by the network). I just want to be able to stream my MLB tv when I'm working late hours, even if it were to be choppy and fuzzy.

 

I have been with Sprint since March and am rooting for them. I think they will be strong in the long run. However, if I find their data speeds to still be unusable, I will likely try TM when the new iPhone comes out and eat the ETF (ouch). Right now my phone is just paper weight at work. Of note, I heard TM data can be abysmal as well so we'll see.

 

PS - I just set up an account but have been watching this site for a few weeks. Although I don't understand all the nomenclature that's tossed around I do find this site to be useful. Thanks.

I would love to hear Robert and AJ respond to this - I would like to know what Sprint can do in situations like this where LTE is deployed in a particular area but speeds are already abysmal because of capacity issues. The financial district in SF is one of the harshest for all the carriers just because usage is so high there, but I should think Sprint could do something, add another carrier maybe, to prevent their shiny new network from already becoming overloaded and unusable.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

If this isn't in the proper forum, mods please feel free to move it.

 

I'm not trolling or attempting to cause issue, I'm wanting the honest hard truth in regards to NV.

 

I live in the Suburbs of Denver. Without say, I don't have 4g. Nor have I had it for the 2 years I've paid the premium. My contract is soon up and I want some real world answers, and not from a CS rep to tell me what I want to hear.

 

I've learned from this site that there is indeed some service getting lite up around Denver. What I'm wanting to know from those with experience, how much longer can I anticipate that a great deal of Denver is NV strong? Two months, six, another year? I'm just looking for some answers.

 

My wife and I have been with Sprint for 13 years. I don't want to change, but I want good data speeds as well.

 

Also, for those living in completed NV areas, how is the service? Assuming we wait out completion, is it what it's being touted as?

 

Sent from me phone

There are only a couple areas that are fully rolled out: the test markets (FITs) where Sprint did their deployment testing, and Chicago, which is pretty damn close. According to our reigning administrator Robert, in the FITs NV is everything they said it would be. Maybe some of the Chicago-ens on the site will want to chime in, but it's my understanding that Chicago offers a pretty great user experience too. Your area will be covered, and as others have said, Denver is pretty well covered already with 2600 LTE, which will be supported by new Sprint smartphones starting with the LG G2 coming out next month. Your experience should be getting better, and fairly quickly. If you get a triband phone I believe you would see some massive improvements in your market immediately.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Sprint has always been careful to never call it a 4G data charge.

 

Article from 2010 when ithe fee was first announced along with the evo 4g: http://blog.laptopmag.com/sprint-clarifies-required-10-premium-data-charge-on-evo-4g

Sprint DID refer to it as a 4G data charge, pissing off legions of customers who were paying a 4G data charge even though they had no 4G coverage. I think it caused huge headaches for Sprint's CS having to explain why the 4G data charge was there when 4G coverage wasn't. If I remember to look tomorrow I'll try to find one of my old bills that used that terminology. They were eventually forced to change the name of the fee to a premium data surcharge and then a smartphone surcharge when they couldn't deliver 4G and needed to stop pissing off customers. That allowed them to say the fee was because smartphones use more data so they could save some face. I remember all this very clearly.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4