mhammett

I'm in Rockford right now(10AM Harrison st and Mulford Rd) less than 2 miles from the mall. LTE 41 is between -108, and -112 outside .speed test wasn't bad 26/27 for download and less than 2 for upload .as soon u get inside the building that's another story lol

I talked to the owners of the mall once about doing WiFi throughout. They asked me how much I was willing to pay them. Hah. Right...

900 is congested anywhere people are.

http://www.gizmag.com/digital-radio-transmitter-microprocessor-technology/36380/

 

 

For the first time in history, a prototype radio has been created that is claimed to be completely digital, generating high-frequency radio waves purely through the use of integrated circuits and a set of patented algorithms without using conventional analog radio circuits in any way whatsoever. This breakthrough technology promises to vastly improve the wireless communications capabilities of everything from 5G mobile technology to the multitude devices aimed at supporting the Internet of Things (IoT).

......

@ascertion and the lack of waterproofing and the fact that the phone actually has less battery than before and...

I was expecting an S6 announcement soon and was ready to purchase, yet the industry continues to disappoint me.

To the guy that said (I forget now and don't want to scroll back) that AJ knew more than me, I don't know how much AJ knows, but I guarantee you that if he does know more, it's not a landslide.  ;-)  No offense meant to AJ, just saying that I know more than your average bear.

 

 

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

 

UTOPIA, so like in Provo where after spending tens of millions of dollars, they just hand it over to Google for a buck because they can't make a go of it?

(I may have said some of this already) My state was quite successful in getting grant money from the ARRA. In my county, all schools, libraries, healthcare, non-profits, etc. were sucked out as potential clients. This came just as I was approved to provide those very connections. It may sound like sour grapes, but now I don't have that strategic anchor customer that has the bargaining chips with the village for me to use their infrastructure. I don't have that big customer to justify the monthly expenses in expanding to that community. Unlike if they were with a private company, if I use the new infrastructure in any way, I have no agree to a non-compete regarding all non-profit and government entities. The county has to waive its right to sell that customer first. I couldn't steal those customers away if I wanted to because the county surely isn't going to give them up. Okay, but I can use it to sell to others, homes small businesses (few of these towns have any businesses other than small), etc. I could, except the cheapest connection to a home is $90/month. That's just the connection from me to the home. I have to then connect me to the Internet, connect the things within the home, support that customer and of course profit enough to do it again somewhere else. The prices for commercial grade 100 meg and GigE services aren't bad except that the GigE service really isn't GigE. They only guarantee 600 megs.

 

Another project in the area has been operational now for a year, year and a half? I still can't buy lit services on it, only dark fiber. Providing a 100 meg to a customer 40 miles away would require a massive up-front cost to buy all of that fiber.

 

One that encompasses more of the state, but only really hits major towns does okay on GigE pricing. However, anything more than or less than GigE is expensive. 100 megs? $800/month. 200 megs? $1,500/month. GigE? $1,200/month (so not much more than 100 megs and less than 200 megs). 10GigE? $9k/month. 10GigE available from another operator (available in different areas of the state, though not all of the former project, but some areas the former isn't available in)? $2k - $3k/month. It's unrealistic pricing for anything other than GigE.

 

That's some very stiff (or getting stiffed) competition paid for with tax dollars.

 

The ISPs wanting municipal broadband or TItle II are so very small in numbers, they're insignificant.

 

Let sprint team up with Google fiber to subsidize rollout and in exchange sprint would get marketing like "google fiber + sprint spark = blah blah blah" I don't know but SOMETHING.

 

6) Google MVNO sounds good except for what is publicly known: Sprint said "if you get too successful, we get to reign you in". MVNO can't properly compete against its host so that's not real competition.

 

You assume that Google Fiber is profitable. It isn't. It's losing money and not garnering the signups they were hoping for.

 

Never seen an introductory rate before? We give you a special deal where we're not actually making any money for the PR, but eventually we have to make money at this.

 

For mom-and-pop shops, I would somewhat agree. (Although if any meaningful number of them could afford licensed spectrum, Ubiquiti would probably make gear for them)

 

Agree, 100%. Not to mention rural WISPs who could do some amazing things with licensed spectrum.

 

Which is why most people are advocating for Title II + Municipal Broadband. Which would give independents equal footing on every one of those networks, enforced by law. It's not free money like the ARRA's mess.

 

When there is competition, I'd agree. For instance, mobile is (currently) fairly competitive, in my opinion.

But in other areas (landline broadband) -- there's zero competition in almost every market. It makes a lot of since to me for local municipalities to be allowed to build their own last mile, so long as it's protected by Title II. Especially since they often do a good job with it.

 

Ubiquiti won't. They haven't committed to supporting TVWS, so getting their support for licensed bands would be pretty much nil.

 

We could do great things, and some are.

 

It would not be equal footing. It would be taxpayer subsidized hacks.

 

Yes, there is plenty of competition in mobile. No need to do much there.

 

There are thousands of independents that don't appreciate you calling them zeros. To me it makes a lot more sense for local municipalities to embrace the independents that are already there. I had a village looking at my service to connect all of their buildings. I was going to provide 100 megabit+ of diverse entrance building-to-building goodness. I'm already on their towers, so it was not difficult for me to do so. They opted for a non-diverse Comcast setup. *facepalm*

 

My expectation is that mhammett does not want municipal broadband because he does not want that added competition.  That is understandable if his WISP is his livelihood.

 

But some jobs and businesses have to fall by the wayside in the name of progress.  Sorry.  And broadband progress driven by WISPs is not going to be sufficient.

 

Wireless spectrum is too finite.  Only investment in fiber -- to the premises or at least to the node -- is adequate for the future.  It must be run everywhere and offered at utility level prices.

 

For profit incumbents/entrepreneurs are generally not willing to make that longterm investment -- except in select locations.  Municipal broadband may be the only way to fill that digital divide.

 

See Chattanooga, TN and Lafayette, LA.

 

AJ

 

See the first part of my post about that supposed progress. This spring I'm rolling out 50 megabit service for under $100/month (so same ballpark as Comcast, only without their BS) and actually cheaper than Comcast on some of their lower speed services... over wireless. No government subsidies of any kind. Dozens if not hundreds of my brethren have started building their own fiber networks, again without government subsidies.

 

Landline has to get more competition with Title II and Municipal Broadband. That's pretty clear. That isn't addressing wireless, however.

 

What about the existing independents getting rolled over?

No, no no no. That's not the takeaway from this.

 

The FCC should welcome new entrants into telecom. But spectrum sold should always have strong buildout requirements.

 

All the FCC needs to do is have and enforce strong buildout requirements. Serious new entrants will meet them. Fake new entrants won't, and will loose their spectrum. 

 

There's also the issue of lack of equipment. Unless someone like the big three ask for equipment in that band, it doesn't get made. Just ask all of those telcos that got 700 MHz licenses where the big guys haven't built out (frequency wise). Sprint has done well with their RRPP program. Well, if it pans out.

 

Yes but established telcos - the big four plus regionals - ARE in it for the capacity/coverage that new spectrum provides.

With "new entrants", you don't know if they're speculators or not.

 

And honestly at this point, can a new entrant legitimately compete with >100% saturation? I don't think so.

 

There are a ton of small carriers out there that need moar spectrum.

 

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

 

Look at ARRA's BTOP and BIP. Tons of crap came out of that. Illinois got...  $250M? What did we get? Networks that stole the anchor customers from any of their buildouts while providing overpriced transport. Now the independents have a significantly harder time. That model repeats itself...  almost ubiquitously in the government broadband world.

So we have to have massive duplicate networks because MURICA. Got it!

 

Competition, so yeah. Everyone wins. How much innovation was there when there wasn't competition?

 

The US is already paying some of the highest prices in the world. That's with four carriers. The real issue is that it's not four carriers. It's two strong and two weak.

 

Yet we have the largest and fastest mobile networks? Europeans would rather cheap service than good service. I'll take the good service, thank you.

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

I would appreciate a mod spinning off these non-AWS posts to a new thread so I can continue to educate people over there instead of cluttering up this thread. Please notify me when you do. Until then, I'll stop on this tangent.

Wow. I definitely hope AJ jumps in.

But by that logic, ind networks should've been thriving in the states with bans.

Have they?

 

To the first point, I guess strict buildout requirements is the way to go then. That'd take care of speculators. [emoji106]

I don't care who jumps in. The board's management knows that I have built and operate my own ISP. There are literally thousands of us out there, but we're not as flashy to the markets due to scale and we're not as flashy to the pipedreamers because we prove their concepts invalid.

 

There are a ton of great ideas for increasing competition. http://harnishhypothesis.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-gig-is-up.html Just one of many.

The fcc should stop this fantasy that somehow there's gonna be a new entrant in telecom. It shouldn't allow bidders without an existing wireless business.

There are tons of companies outside of the major metros that would love more reasonably priced spectrum. There are dozens to maybe hundreds in the mobile wireless game and thousands in the fixed wireless game.

 

Municipal broadband…

You were guessing municipal broadband. If you're stating municipal broadband, I can take that. Good, get the tons of failed government broadband boondoggles out of here. They don't cause material harm to the big guys, but virtual eliminate any independent networks in the area. There should be a nationwide moratorium on municipal broadband.

I'm not that we'll read on fcc votes but I guess in general.

Like I'm gonna guess he's against municipal broadband.

So really, you're just making shit up as you go along? Okay, got it. Now that we have that out of the way...

Too bad he's pn the wrong side of most issues.

Examples?

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAION ABUSE OF THE DESIGNATED ENTITY PROGRAM

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331802A1.pdf

 

Pai is the best Commissioner on the FCC today. Simply fantastic.

So what does that tell us about Dish vs T-Mobile vs Sprint and the possibility of mergers between any of those players? Well, in an acquisition scenarios, Dish will be valued much higher after the auction, making it too expensive for either Sprint or T-Mobile. Even in a spectrum sale, the high price of this auction will preclude any spectrum sale. In a merger scenario, the spectrum price gets somewhat hidden because everybody has spectrum. However I can definitely see some movement to network share between all three after the 600MHz auction. I still see Dish acquiring the unpaired uplink for the reserve price and pairing it with the Lighsquared spectrum.

 

Would the high proceeds beyond funding Firstnet encourage the FCC to move PS LMR out of the 800MHz SMR band and onto the nearby 700MHz PS voice band that's adjacent to the PS data band unifying it into a contiguous 15x15MHz band that can be used for both voice and data using VoLTE? One would hope that the FCC and PS community has the forethought to plan beyond the next year and see that the solution is an integrated voice/data communicator.

They haven't even finished the Nextel rebanding yet.

 

Now that AWS-3 is well over 30 billion, if 600Mhz does happen would that auction it be more expensive..maybe in 40+ billion? 

 

They may delay the 600 MHz auction to give the carriers time to digest.

 

"He" won the CMA that covers Nye County, NV. I'd like to know who he is too!

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-sofio/0/643/458

I'm "betting" this guy.  ;-)

 

No. A new band must be created and consumer and vendor equipment must be procured and deployed. 

This is crap. Not saying you're wrong, but saying it's crap that they segment things so damn much.

Great animations and data presentation on the AWS-3 auction.

 

 

 

They could afford to give things away because their cost per search is low because they own the infrastructure.

You can't survive selling things at a loss. What he was trying to say was that Google's revenue isn't from the services they sell to you and me, but the ads they sell. This would just enable better data gathering to further that cause.

That is still unlimited data. For every 15-20GB per month user on unlimited plans, there are hundreds if not thousands that use far less in the 1-5GB range. Besides, I doubt Google would have trouble affording it. Look at Google fiber, they offer far more than their competition at significantly cheaper prices.

As Gogle is significantly push heavy, the end-users with their pull traffic are essentially free.

 

The difference is roaming rates are much much higher than wholesale. Why do you think T-Mobile has been campaigning to get fair roaming rates?

Because their network sucks?

 

There's not one mvno that offers truly unlimited data. That's my best argument against google being one.

 

I'm on TMO but i hope fcc rejects TMO's petition. If TMO will really cover 300mil with lte then there's no reason for roaming anymore on att.

Throttled unlimited is still unlimited.

 

I hate the ePenis contest for fastest network speeds. I'd trade a 70Mbps+ speed test result 5% of the time for a reliable, low latency consistent 8-10Mbps 95% of the time. I'm on a phone - 8Mbps is more than adequate for nearly all mobile tasks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. Significantly more useful.

 

And will their cust service speak English.

Google has customer service?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-15/radioshack-said-in-talks-to-sell-stores-to-sprint-in-bankruptcy.html

 

I'm going to wire up one for each major carrier in my truck. They run constantly via pay as you go plans. Upload via WiFi.

Any issues with running multiple tools concurrently?

We likely all know of Sensorly. I have come across a couple others. Wondering what you thought of them.

 

MyMobileCoverage

RootMetrics

Open Signal Maps

CellMapper

Cellumap

Confirmed: T-Mobile to launch unlicensed LTE at 5 GHz, possibly next year - FierceWirelessTech Edit

 

http://bit.ly/1AeaZZ4

I'm guessing it would be enough. I could probably watch the usage and throttle accordingly.

Does anyone know of a service (Sprint or MVNO) that provides unlimited or otherwise high usage tri-band LTE via a USB, mPCIe or Ethernet based modem? I do not want a hotspot. I would be adding external antenna.

 

Thanks.

Thanks.