Thomas L.
-
Posts
607 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Posts posted by Thomas L.
-
-
12 hours ago, though said:
So for upload, only 2xCA on B41 is possible on the Pixel 4? How about other devices? My biggest "want" is the best upload speed generally.
Unfortunately, based on LTE standards, I believe that 2xCA upload is the maximum CA supported for upload for ANY band, so it's a technology limitation at this point. I don't think that will change until 5G becomes more widespread.
-
$100 Billion? That's outrageous.
-
So does anyone know when we might get access to T-Mobile spectrum more regularly? T-Mobile roaming is disabled in my market.
-
I don't think that Dish can even be brought into this. Yes, it seems insane to make Sprint and T-Mobile divest spectrum when Dish has so much, but let's not pretend that the current FCC and DOJ have any interest in things that would benefit CONSUMERS.
-
8 hours ago, RedSpark said:
Masa actually bought a house which neighbors Marcelo’s: https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article42616254.html
It’s now on the market for $9.2 Million: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/11/18/claure-masayoshi-mission-hills-mansions-for-sale.html
Did he actually ever go inside?
This is hilarious, I didn't know this.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:
So I presume everyone else would want to jump in on that? Would Sprint jump in on it or just stay with 2.5GHz?
It is yet another chunk of spectrum that is available, so every carrier out there will jump on it because it has unlicensed dynamically allocated components.
-
On 4/7/2019 at 10:45 AM, NYC126 said:
"The proposed @TMobile @Sprint merger is vital to accelerating the deployment of a nationwide mobile #5G network, enabling the U.S. to take a leadership position in 5G."
Translation this government needs to approve this merger so I can the millions of dollars that I was promised then I would move back to Seattle where I used to reside during my Clearwire days.
The US is going to lose to China with this no matter what. There is no way we can compete with three carriers that are owned and financed by the Chinese government using the equipment of companies that are also under the control of the Chinese government, with all three of the mobile carriers also having direct access to the country's fiber backbone, again by order the government, all without the permitting issues the US has because the Chinese government has prioritized deployment of 5G in their national economic plan and there's no such thing as NIMBYs in China. Not to mention spectrum isn't bought in China, it's allocated as a resource for the good the country's economic interest, such as that it's designed for optimal deployments in LTE and now 5G (it's being reconfigured). That type of synergy is unimaginable in the US.
This is without mentioning the fact that the government has consolidated the towers of China Telecom and China Unicom (the two smaller carriers in China) into China Tower (again, owned by the Chinese government) so that they basically share towers and are sharing the burden of 5G deployment. China Mobile has a network that was built with a density and spacing that was optimized for Band 41 LTE, which means they alone have more than 1,000,000 deployed cell sites, and they are being reallocated additional 2500/2600mhz spectrum from China Unicom and China Telecom for 5G - they'll just have to add equipment to existing towers which are already spaced with appropriate density. Oh, and the entirety of China's 700mhz spectrum in the APT TDD allocation (band 44, equivalent to bands 12/13/14/29 in the US) will also likely be used for 5G when that spectrum is cleared in a few years. Where US carriers add spectrum to avoid the cost of increasing density, Chinese carriers increase density to make better use of spectrum resources, meaning more bandwidth for 5G while keeping LTE performance. China Unicom and Telecom have been allocated the IMT spectrum in the 3.5ghz band that will be the international standard. A huge amount of the Chinese economy is built around smartphones, mobile payments, the gig economy, etc. - much more than in the US, and it's a massive government priority - T-Mobile combining with Sprint will have a minimal comparative effect on the ability of the US to "win" in the race to 5G considering all of these factors. They are basically bamboozling people who don't know better with what is basically an appeal to economic nationalism.
-
3
-
-
22 hours ago, dkyeager said:
Being a conglomerate, perhaps Softbank is looking for and exit strategy or looking for ways to be able to invest more money. They are hamstrung the way it is currently structured.
I agree, in a way that was my point. The claims of Sprint going belly-up if they aren't able to merge are hyperbole, it will just be most profitable for both sides. There are definitely other ways forward that will keep both companies viable, Softbank in particular just wants to be rid of Sprint.
-
1
-
-
I still don't understand why, if the Sprint and T-Mobile merger falls through, they don't do what Bell and Telus (number 2 and 3 providers in Canada) did 10 years ago when they needed to build a GSM-compliant HSPA+ network after they decided to give up on CDMA and wanted to catch up with Rogers (#1 Canadian provider) which went with GSM and then HSPA+ from the start. The two stayed separate companies but agreed to build a joint HSPA+ network because they knew that neither one could do it alone and build a network quickly enough with wide enough coverage in a competitive way.
Sprint and T-Mobile could develop a 5G network equipment and spectrum sharing agreement, pursue their own marketing and business strategies, but share a 5G network infrastructure. It seems to me like it's false to say they have to merge to pursue a shared network. There are more nuanced agreements that could be formed.
-
2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:
Want to correct some inaccuracies in this discussion:
1. Nextel did not have a lot of 2.5 GHz spectrum. Just 30MHz of BRS. Sprint through their failed Wireless TV venture that later became their failed fixed wireless venture owned the other 30MHz. But that BRS they got from Nextel came with a deployment mandate and that what brought forth Wimax. They could have chosen to implement UMTS on it but they did not. Clearwire leased the vast trove of EBS from educational institutions and the Catholic Church.
2. Sprint was a partner along with Cable companies in the first AWS auction. But they did not have money to deploy it and the cable cos sold it to Verizon for $4.4 B and the promise for cheap MVNO rates. Xfinity Mobile and Spectrum Mobile are their children of that sale.
Could they have deployed UMTS in the BRS spectrum? It's unpaired spectrum, so it would have had to be some TDD variant like TD-SCDMA in China (which was trash), or am I misunderstanding?
-
37 minutes ago, RedSpark said:
Marcelo laid it on pretty thick: https://www.kcur.org/post/clouds-gathering-over-sprint-t-mobile-deal-opposition-gets-louder#stream/0
......
"It's impossible to compete," Claure said.
He painted a bleak picture of Sprint if the merger fails to go through, saying it won't be able to offer service to rural customers and will only build a limited 5G (next generation) network.
"Unfortunately, as you know, Sprint doesn't generate any cash flow," Claure said. "And if we gotta build this network on our own, we need to spend between $20 billion and $25 billion. We're going to have to go to the banks, we’re going to have to go to the bond markets."
....
He’s painting a grim picture, but $20-25 Billion from the Banks/Bond Markets seems doable given SoftBank’s ownership. I’m not getting the fear factor here.
Why SoftBank/Marcelo had Sprint completely pass on the 600 MHz auction to leave it all for T-Mobile is beyond me, especially since one of major justifications Marcelo is making for the merger is that Sprint lacks nationwide low-band spectrum.
As I imagine it, Sprint’s $20-25 Billion figure would be less if it had the deployment efficiencies of 600 MHz spectrum.
T-Mobile spent $7.99 Billion on 600 MHz: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/tmobile-spectrum-auction-win
Sprint could have afforded this, or ar least fraction of it for a nationwide footprint. Now we’re hearing $20-25 Billion.
Sprint boxed itself into deploying 2.5 GHz nationwide, which is much more costly, or merging with T-Mobile.... and it chose merging.
The reality is they put themselves in a situation that would require them to merge because that was what they wanted to do, and they hoped to make that argument to regulators. Again, Softbank didn't want them to exist solo, they bought Sprint with the intention of merging. They're not making business decisions that are best for them as a solo company.
-
3
-
-
On 1/10/2019 at 6:43 PM, RAvirani said:
Sprint traffic is prioritized behind T-Mobile traffic. That could be the cause of some of what you're seeing.
I'm pretty sure they have put into place some throttling after a period of uncapped speeds. I can no longer get anything above 3-4 Mpbs down anywhere I've been roaming on T-Mobile in the San Diego area. I have the same experience that upload seems to be uncapped and I get 30-50 Mpbs up+. This is on a cell that I get 100+ down with my T-Mobile SIM card in the same place on the same phone. I feel like deprioritization isn't that uniform usually in a whole area.
-
1
-
-
On 12/4/2018 at 9:31 AM, nexgencpu said:
Not in my city, Sprint is currently the fastest! Especially after LTE-A was pushed out a couple of weeks ago!
I mean, in the borough of Manhattan they are. You'd think they would be more than tied with Verizon too considering their spectrum position.
-
On 11/9/2018 at 7:40 AM, ScipioUSA said:
Hello All.
I've been with Sprint a long time, and have been relatively happy with their service. But I live in a rural area, and lately my work has had me traveling a lot. I recently started using an Essential PH-1, which has a great feel and the fast updates are great. But Im not sure if I am going to be able to live with the very poor signal that it can pull in. I'm honestly not as concerned with the data speeds as much as just being able to make a voice call.
Does anyone have a thought/recommendation on a phone that gets better reception? I would prefer to stick with Android just because I am in their ecosystem, if possible. Not looking to buy a 2019 flagship, but just wondering what that is current or from the past few years might work a little more reliably....
Thanks in advance!
I am so depressed with the RF performance of the Essential phone. It's a great phone with everything other than the RF reception, and that's basically a deal breaker. I live in an area that has pretty good coverage so it's not as much of an issue, but when I'm traveling there are places I know I should have coverage and I don't.
-
4 hours ago, red_dog007 said:
If there is a merger, I hope Sprint customers can go out and get non Sprint phones fairly soon. Being able to go out and get OnePlus would be great.
Yes, and that I can use non-Sprint approved phones that are compatible with Sprint. I have one that's totally compatible from China but can't be used.
-
AT&T Band 5 is live in the San Diego area, I have a phone from China that only supports Band 5 in the US and can get LTE.
-
On 11/2/2018 at 3:45 PM, iansltx said:
I've started seeing 10+ Mbps upload speeds on B41 when I was seeing 6-7 Mbps before, max. I'm going to attribute this to 64QAM. Also lower latencies. Upload speeds still aren't quite as good as prior to the TD reconfig from awhile back, but I'll take it.
I have a feeling Austin isn't on the 225-city list though, otherwise I'd have seen higher download speeds as well; I'm still topping out at ~110 Mbps here.
The Essential phone is also supposed to be supporting upload carrier aggregation, so it's possible that's part of why you're getting higher upload speeds.
-
I'd like eSIM capability. It would make traveling much easier.
-
Just now, nowerlater said:
My airave LTE has changed to that also
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Something that's interesting, when I do a network search on my essential phone, 312-530 shows up as an option, but it is "forbidden" and I can't connect to it. I wonder if anyone knows what that's about.
-
2
-
-
On 10/3/2018 at 12:32 AM, david279 said:
Something different after this update. 312530...
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Interesting, that's been used for MagicBoxes previously.
-
On 9/26/2018 at 10:50 AM, Tengen31 said:
My S8 gets VOLTE this TMO and vzw including there prepaid, so it better on the Sprint network
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I have no doubt Sprint will restrict devices in the same way AT&T does when it comes to VoLTE use. Sprint is by far the most restrictive carrier when it comes to devices, even if it is a fully compatible device...
-
1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:
In my opinion the essential phone overall is worse. I had it for like 2 weeks and I was not pleased with the overall reception of the phone.
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
That's true without a doubt, it sucks in terms of RF performance compared to be LG V20, but Android P seemed to make it even worse - it doesn't aggregate carriers like it did before. I might actually downgrade to see.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, ingenium said:
I also get a lot of drops to 3G now, when previously in the same areas I had solid band 25 or band 41. In my case, I think it's a combination of Android Pie having a crappy modem and the software update for 64 QAM upload in Samsung markets. Network Signal Guru shows lots of failed handoff attempts and failed "attachment".
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
My performance on Android P. on my Essential phone has been a lot crappier too. I thought it was just in my head but maybe that's it.
-
1
-
-
On 9/16/2018 at 10:05 AM, schmidtj said:
The more I think about it with either restriction, namely only one CDMA per phone or both carriers must be the same on a locked phone, you won't be able to have two Sprint or two Verizon lines regardless of the phone's locked status.
Thinking out loud will VOLTE help in this situation? eg. If/when Sprint supports VOLTE will the the CDMA rules become mute?
Verizon now supports VoLTE devices with no CDMA including certain GSM/WCDMA/LTE iPhones. If you can set the Verizon SIM to LTE only you shouldn't have any problem. Non-CDMA phones on Verizon even get provisioned automatically to roam on ATT HSPA+ in several areas where CDMA/LTE Verizon phones don't, probably in anticipation of the CDMA network shutdown.
Pixel 4/4XL
in Google
Posted
Do you know where I can find a list of bands that THEORETICALLY can support upload carrier aggregation? I don't know why it seems SO DIFFICULT to find that list - Thank you!