Fraydog

https://9to5google.com/2016/09/03/consumer-reports-note-7-recall/?pushup=1 http://www.androidcentral.com/play-it-safe-and-swap-your-note-7-because-recall

There aren't a lot of places left even around me where falling off LTE to 3G is a thing. It is very remote places, mainly. Verizon still has to have CDMA support for the foreseeable future for those places. Some are not far from me. Every once in a while, I'll still hear the jingle of getting LTE back. It is increasingly rare, however. Rootmetrics is testing VoLTE for 2H2016 on Verizon and it appears they are not seeing much if any of a slip on call reliability. This might be the most fair Root testing this half of the year for ages and ages. Every device is a Samsung GS7 running on a Snapdragon 820. This is going to really show how the carriers do things like call reliability. I just don't see the major degradation in reliability on Verizon's end. The hard evidence is coming in and Verizon is doing very well with their transition.

Flossy Carter, who is a Sprint user, is like "chill" on the whole thing.

More Gunther, he was on Carrier Wrap, a YouTube show Dan Meyer from RCR hosts. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I'm in the same boat. Note5 Verizon and Sprint models are very similar (probably the same hardware wise with different firmware.) I have to manage apps very closely to get up to 5 hours. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Was the Note5 battery life always like that for you or did it degrade gradually? Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Gunther looks like he could cook a mean fried chicken. If I knew the guy I'd ask him to a chicken and beer dance here. Maybe talk him into getting a Sprint tower in Chester.

Anyone here used the T-Mobile 700 MHz expansion coverage?

Samsung supports UHQ. That is only found on Samsung Level headphones, IMO. The Level headphones are, if anything, underrated. I have a pair I got with the Note5 promotion when I bought it and they have worked very well. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I wouldn't have projected AT&T to re add it with DirecTV, but I don't see it for Verizon as much. 1. Backsliding on the promise to not to unlimited data goes against their whole deal where they whine and complain about being spectrum deprived. This coming from the carrier with NATIONWIDE 750 MHz and 20x20 LTE most places nationwide as well. Verizon has the best conventional spectrum position. Well, they do before Sprint 3x20 carrier aggregation gets tossed in. 2. They then contradict that position when they say that infrastructure is better than spectrum anyway, citing their small cell development. With that small cell development... couldn't they go to prioritized unlimited? 3. T-Mobile has 20x20 in fewer places and low band fully deployed in less and still beats them for fastest network. All things considered... a 26 GB cap prioritized probably makes Verizon more money in the long run. It also cripples T-Mobile and Sprint. I just don't see it because Verizon isn't into making short term sacrifices on dividends and earnings. Also, Shammo's successor is Matt Walsh, who engineered the Vodafone buyout.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-s-shammo-to-step-down-as-cfo No more Shamwow. Hopefully Verizon replaces him with a more progressive financial mind that is willing to try more innovative plans and go out to acquire more spectrum. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

With Fast Charging, I am honestly surprised that more of these issues don't pop up. I am pretty sure that what nuked fast charging on my Note5 was using a bad car charger with a MicroUSB port that was, to put it mildly, extremely cheaply made. Wireless charging is the best IMO. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

In all of my tracking of Sprint doing coverage expansion I have only seen one cell in the flesh that is an all new cell, in Sparta of all places. Yes, right up the road from me. ???????????? Second point: both Verizon and T-Mobile have large chunks of GMO around where I live. Only reason Verizon can get away with it is because they have 750 MHz spectrum that can cover peaks and valleys where I live where T-Mobile does not have that luxury. By now, Verizon should have had their entire LTE network here in Randolph County on AIR32 for both 750 MHz and AWS which is deployed on one tower in Steeleville, and a couple in Sparta along with some small cells. I can't solely call Sprint out on GMO. They aren't the only ones doing this. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Time on B41 is the key metric for Sprint at this stage network wise. No question. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I still think Masa and Marcelo can succeed without a T-Mobile merger. Unfortunately they are penalized by not coming in July 2013 with more sweeping changes off the bat. In the past I argued for full SoftBank-ification. While I think some of the arguments were extreme in retrospect, there's clearly moves finally showing up that show Sprint as a clear subsidiary of SoftBank. I think the problem is they stood still for an entire year doing nothing while their network fell into disrepair. That is the time I wish Sprint could get back but can't. Hesse was clearly disinterested after the SoftBank deal. Unfortunately Masa went on the T-Mobile goose chase. I think a better way would have been to shake up the market first and then ask for regulatory trust. Unfortunately it is hindsight on my part. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Uh oh. Looks like the 600 MHz auction isn't drawing the revenue that was once projected. https://twitter.com/KatyontheHill/status/770781733457317888?s=09 Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Ironically Verizon would be in a much better position to smack down T-Mobile and other market competitors with a national triple play that involved fiber. Unfortunately Wall Street is not known for its long term strategic thinking. Most of that crowd wants their dividends on time and don't care.

Likewise, my local one horse cable company in Chester can usually get 110 Mbps on a 100 Mbps plan. I can't remember the last time I was connected to 5 GHz wifi and didn't test over 100 Mbps.

I think the navigation has got better on Apple Maps, but it isn't a high bar it had to cross before.

I'm not sure Verizon's network is analogous to a aging set of Windows XP computers. But I get the joke. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I agree with this. That is why I limited the comparison to Verizon. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Except I admitted that these were issues from the very beginning before you even asked any questions. No red herrings have been tossed out, and no goalposts have been moved. I indeed implied the answer to all the questions was no when I made the comparison. As a matter of fact I also explicitly stated my opinions were anecdotal in nature. My comparsion was very much about user experience. That is something that gets left out of the discussion in technology far too much. If the end conclusion is that I can never compare my voice experience on CDMA to my experience on VoLTE in relation to Verizon, then the gap is far too great to bridge and we should just agree to disagree. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Then lets examine the reasons why Verizon has a weakened decrepit CDMA network and a prioritized LTE/VoLTE network. When the reasons are looked at, I must say the situation of 3GPP2 not innovating anymore and Qualcomm ending CDMA development plays a part in Verizon's logic. I would hardly say that qualifies as tangental. If anything, I would disagree and say that it is quite interconnected. Even if all the answers to the questions are no, that doesn't have an effect on the reasoning behind a move. It's a case of Verizon skating to where the puck is going. Verizon didn't need to modernize their CDMA2000 network. They didn't need to deploy it on all sites. They didn't need to maintain capacity on CDMA2000, if anything they needed to decrease that capacity to increase capacity for LTE. I'd also say that Verizon will manage the transition of users from VoLTE quite well, they aren't having to rush in like, say, a certain Magenta carrier has. Every carrier has a different set of technical rationales based on their spectrum. Sprint hasn't got a choice but to stick with CDMA2000 for the conceivable future. Most have explained why, but I concur with the reasons they have cited. Sprint has to densify a lot more.

When using my cousin's line in Cincinnati a while back I'd rate the call quality between Verizon CDMA and Verizon LTE. It's good but I wouldn't say it is as high quality as Verizon LTE to Verizon LTE with HD voice enabled on both devices.

I'd answer accurately if I had a magic 8 ball that allowed me to decipher the Verizon CDMA network, but Verizon capital spend was all in on LTE for a long time. Why deploy CDMA2000 on new sites when CDMA2000 was abandoned by Qualcomm leaving it with one foot in the grave? Verizon did a good job managing what is a difficult transition. Of course the CDMA network has suffered in quality a bit but they still have the first spot in measurements like Root and have weathered the Magenta free candy and booze better than anyone else. Sprint on the other hand has to stick with CDMA2000 as their network isn't ready. All I'm saying is that VoLTE will work well when Sprint's network is ready. Finally I'll be the first to admit that the anecdotal nature of the conclusion could be because my area had a crap CDMA but great LTE network. Doesn't mean that is a national conclusion.