Jump to content

Fraydog

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Posts

    4,478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by Fraydog

  1.  

    Nah. That's probably not a good idea. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if SouthernLINC is doing this as a transitionary measure. After all, SouthernLINC doesn't have another network to fall back to while shutting down iDEN. Now, SouthernLINC can move customers to PTT over UMTS and start working on an LTE-based PTT network.

     

    Where's SoLinc going to get the spectrum to do that? From T-Mobile? Now if T-Mobile and SoLinc announced network sharing in the SE, and built out rural LTE through that arrangement, I would watch that with great interest.

  2. Want to see what Verizon is like here. Let me show you...

     

    vy2egy8a.jpg

     

    That's pretty typical here for customers still on Verizon 3G here, and the LTE upgrade has been botched so far as they've put it up multiple times only to take it back down.

     

    In theory, Robert and AJ are right. I think I could make a compelling case to Sprint that this is an exception. I will try with official correspondence addressed to Sprint's headquarters in Overland Park, KS.

     

    I'm going to map out the locations in question later today. It isn't the same cost to add towers, however. USCC already bore that cost in the area.

  3. Some of the surrounding areas like Mayfield have Sprint Roaming Alliance coverage. Voice-wise it isn't quite as consistent as Sprint is,from personal experience. On the other hand data speeds are generally faster than most current data speeds. I often see them well over 1 Mbps. And to be realistic the cost of adding coverage of their own isn't worth it. I would guess the only reason there is coverage in Murray at all is because of the school. The other locations don't have a high enough concentration of people for it to be profitable.

     

    That's the MyMobileNation territory. Kind of an odd outfit, if I must as say so. They used Huawei equipment, then Huawei started getting all that crap from the Feds. It will be interesting to see what happens with them.

  4. Sprint doesn't have any WCDMA roaming partners. All their roaming accords are CDMA 1X/EV-DO carriers. The advent of rural WCDMA carriers is a fairly recent phenomenon here in the US IIRC. Some GSM carriers are still, um, all GSM. :(

     

    So, with no WCDMA carriers to roam on, and Sprint using CDMA in Canada, Sprint disables WCDMA to make sure GS4's don't end up on AT&T. That would be my best guess.

  5. I realize the Milwaukee market is a particularly sore spot. Still, this forum isn't a complaint forum.

     

    If you have to leave, that's a decision each person has to make. We aren't Sprint CS people. We can't fix issues they have. I can only guess the rush to get Chicago done due to the dropped call issues there left MIL on the back burner. Sucks for you guys but no one on here can do anything about it.

  6.  

    Slightly OT, flip to 23 minutes in, and listen to Dieter's story of what happens when he tries to buy a MicroSIM at a Verizon corporate store. The Verizon sales people straight up said no.

  7. I am not too educated when it comes to network technology, but wouldn't it cost Sprint a lot of money to switch to gsm? I am assuming most of the radios in the sites are not compatible. If you would so kind, please enlighten me about the differences if possible.

     

    Sprint doesn't need to switch to anything other than the CDMA/LTE system they're currently using, Verizon uses C-SIM which are SIM's that interchange between CDMA and LTE. Sprint can implement a similar system.

     

    Switching to WCDMA isn't possible because of the spectrum crunch PCS CDMA is currently under, specifically in markets like Houston and Chicago. So I don't see SoftBank doing that unless they also acquire T-Mobile down the line.

     

    I think Sprint and T-Mobile sharing networks could be a good idea as well, and I may look at doing posts at how that's possible in the long run here someday.

  8. Phase 2 is 800/2500 lte not the great expansion or density increase.

     

    Sent from phone

     

    I'm glad you mentioned that, Iyad Tarazi pointed out that HetNets, which would provide a large density increase, would be a big part of Network Vision 2.0.

     

    http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/sprints-tarazi-explains-hetnets-and-network-vision-20/2012-10-03

     

    FierceBroadbandWireless: You mentioned simplifying the core network. Is that just your Network Vision project or is it something else?

    Tarazi: It is the next step in our Network Vision project. We internally refer to it as Network Vision 2.0. It is our HetNet strategy.

    As you know, in Network Vision 1.0, we are deploying CDMA at 1.9 (GHz)--the G-Block--plus we're deploying next-generation CDMA,. We're integrating both CDMA and LTE together, and we're launching 800 (MHz) spectrum for CDMA.

    Network Vision 2.0 will take the core and add some more capabilities to it and allow us to extend it to 800 (MHz) LTE. The work we announced with Clearwire (NASDAQ:CLWR) on 2.5 (GHz) TD-LTE, interoperability with all the small cells--picos, femtos and e-femtos--is in a seamless way. And all of the next-generation integration with Wi-Fi hotspots and the combination of all these tools now--CDMA, LTE at 1.9, LTE at 800, LTE at 2.5, picos, femtos and Wi-Fi--is also in a seamless manner The customers don't have to know they're moving back and forth, but they get the benefit of the scale that is in essence the next-generation core and radio technology we're deploying.

     

    So 800 FD-LTE and 2.6 TD-LTE play a part, but to truly effectively deploy 2.6, you need to deploy some sort of HetNet strategy.

    • Like 1
  9. Mine is simple. Proper city spacing in the city and city coverage for the city geographic size of 2013 and not 1998.

     

    Amen. I'm not sure 38,000 sites are going to be able to achieve that nationwide. Hopefully Phase 2 of Network Vision pours on the cell density big time.

    • Like 1
  10. Might be a moot point if phones get cheaper , which they pretty much have to by a lot.

     

    Sent from phone

     

    There needs to be a hardcore shift away from subsidized pricing models to see a real change... T-Mobile going that direction helps, but I'd like to see Sprint do something similar, like a $70 BYOSP or SIM Only plan.

  11. If only sprint used sim cards. Then you can activate on sprint as you go for the same $70 a month.

     

    Let's see what SoftBank's policy is once they likely take over.

  12. Interesting article regarding the unlocked htc one.

    http://mobile.thever...ut-att-nonsense

     

    The entire problem with Ziegler's column is that you're paying $400 extra over the life of the contract for the privilege to have an unbloated device. For most people, that isn't worth it. Most will deal with the bloat and keep the extra $400 in their pockets. Only T-Mobile is different in that it's cheaper for a SIM Only plan.

     

    $574.99 x ($90 a month x 24 3GB) = $2739.99 for AT&T

    $579 X ($70 a month x 24 unlimited) = $2259 for T-Mobile

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...