JWMaloney

Hey AJ, I was hoping you could shed some light on this. I was doing a bunch of reading on 3GPP standards today, including Voice Call Continuity, IMS, and CSFB. My understanding of the technologies is that an IMS core call can be arbitrarily moved across Wi-Fi, LTE, and traditional voice technologies without being disconnected. Do you know of any technical limitations which would prevent a common IMS core network from handing off to both UMTS and CDMA2000 voice networks? I know there's probably a limitation in that it wouldn't allow calls to cross the two technologies directly, but since IMS is actually at a lower level than points like the MSCs, I don't see where there would be an absolute limitation that a VoLTE call couldn't hand off to whichever technology were more convenient at the moment depending on UE location. I was also giving thought to how it would work with CSFB/eCSFB. I know there are two slightly different 3GPP standards depending on the relevant circuit-switching technology, but when a device is parked on LTE and a call comes through, is there any technical reason the cell site can't tell the device to pick up the call on either voice technology? Do you think there will be a unifying CSFB standard from 3GPP to allow both? Lastly, am I correct in thinking that a device like a Nexus 5 could successfully use a UMTS carrier's LTE as long as CSFB is set up? Or would it refuse to connect like it does on Sprint sites which don't have the eCSFB patch? This stuff is so confusing.

To what exactly would it be a counter argument? Here's your original post again: I made a counter-argument to that post saying that both their LTE data networks and their IMS core voice networks are compatible, and that current user equipment will work across both networks today. Now you're ranting about all of Sprint's past business endeavors (which again, I will not apologize for). Please explain to me, in a clear, constructive manner, why you believe the Nextel merger, the Clearwire bankruptcy, or the pace of the Network Vision rollout have ANY bearing whatsoever on the technical compatibility of the two carrier's LTE data networks or IMS core networks, the ability for Network Vision to accommodate hosted spectrum, or anything else technology-related between the two carriers. Because once again, the fact is that today, right now, I could take a Nexus 5, or an HTC One M8, or a Samsung Galaxy S5, or any number of other devices, and use them on both carrier's LTE networks with zero compatibility issues. And there's zero reason e/CSFB can't throw you back down to the appropriate voice technology when a call comes in.

That's a nice rant, and I hope you can find a better site to air it since it's unconstructive and won't be tolerated here, but how does any of that discount the fact that MUCH OF THE USER EQUIPMENT ON SALE AND IN THE FIELD, RIGHT NOW, TODAY, WILL ABSOLUTELY WORK ON LTE ACROSS BOTH NETWORKS AND BRING AN IMMEDIATE AND OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO CUSTOMERS OF BOTH COMPANIES if the merger goes through, with no negative effects? I won't apologize for Sprint's awful past mistakes, but I won't pretend that they have any bearing on the merits of this merger.

The Clearwire spectrum gives them everything they could want in AWS and more. Buying AWS would add nothing to the table. What they need is more sub-GHz spectrum, and 600 MHz is going to be the only place to get that.

I don't think you get it. Both carriers have UE deployed today, right now, that could connect to at least part of either carrier's LTE networks if told to do so, since both are using PCS LTE. Some devices (HTC One M8, Nexus 5, etc) can even connect to all bands on both carriers. Both carriers have also implemented IMS in their core networks to allow for Wi-Fi calling, which will pave the way for both to offer VoLTE. Both carriers are working, right now, to implement VoLTE. And thanks to Voice Call Continuity, this means there's practically zero reason that your calls couldn't hand off between the two networks! There is absolutely zero negative impact (and plenty of positive impact) to allowing reciprocal "native" roaming across the two networks today. IMS makes it work on the backend, and Network Vision makes it work on the towers. This is absolutely nothing like Sprint-Nextel.

The video in the post literally two posts above yours shows 16 devices connected to only 8 radios.

There's a big difference in legality between the two. It's not illegal to drive the speed limit in the left lane (in fact, it's illegal to exceed it), while many states do have laws to keep right except to pass. I should be able to safely use the left lane to pass without exceeding the speed limit, but drivers who take the law into their own hands selfishly make this impossible to do. And "that's the way it is" doesn't excuse the behavior.

Network Vision architecture was designed with spectrum hosting in mind; have you forgotten their original intentions with hosting LightSquared? If this goes through, expect to see NV sites hosting LTE and HSPA+ on AWS spectrum, and maybe even existing T-Mobile sites brought up to NV standard to host Sprint band 41. There are already plenty of devices on the market that will work with either carrier's LTE if allowed to. Expect to also see more efficient usage of both carriers' existing PCS holdings. Sprint just needs to throw up a new antenna, RRH, and carrier card at NV complete sites to host AWS HSPA/LTE, just like they're doing with EBS/BRS. They might even be able to squeeze enough PCS out of T-Mobile to launch a second or third PCS LTE carrier in some markets. EDIT: Sprint is already eyeing 600 MHz spectrum which is already going to require all of those additions. They could easily do what AT&T did with their combination 700/AWS antennas and throw up 600/AWS antennas on all their sites which would allow them to launch 600 MHz LTE and host T-Mobile's AWS LTE on the same antennas. It all fits together very well in ways that would benefit both carriers. EDIT 2: Maybe they'll even do 600/700/AWS antennas since T-Mobile already has 700 MHz spectrum to use in some markets. They would be very similar to the 3-section antennas being used in NV 1.0.

Did you just completely forget that AT&T unsuccessfully tried to buy T-Mobile?

I missed three calls in a row last night while connected to Band 26 on one of my most used towers. Sprint's solution: won't create a ticket because the fourth call connected.

That's around the battery life I get stock. The phone is not a power sucker; envelope tracking assures that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579534673724368360.html&ei=tFdiU93LEoi92wXj1oDICQ&usg=AFQjCNHMaOZ29lyF3adqb8ulT0zANQZngQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.b2I

Those are voicemail notifications. Have Sprint Care reprovision voicemail properly on your line, or use Google Voice.

The possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

I wish they would. At least Starbucks is slowly dumping AT&T's 1.5 Mbps Wi-Fi for Google 15 Mbps Wi-Fi across all its stores. But I learned a long time ago not to bother with any APs named attwifi, especially at Starbucks and McDonald's. NV 3G is faster unless you're the only person in the store.

Not only would you need all-new user equipment to even connect to it, but it would roll back much of the progress of Network Vision. The purpose of making an LTE network in 900 MHz is for public safety and machine-to-machine communication. There should be enough bandwidth after the narrowband channels are deinterlaced to do VoLTE and small data transfer.

Nothing like sharing a single T1 line with 20 other people.

It will almost assuredly be a key part of their VoLTE deployment. It really wouldn't be useful for much else.

I think it's pretty clear that my edit only added a screenshot and text refuting the argument that advertised speeds are "all a sham." I'm sure you either have the power to see that or know someone that does. Right, because any time anyone ever says something positive about a large corporation on the Internet, they're automatically a paid shill. If you go through my online posting history, that must also make me a shill for Google, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Apple, Nokia, Samsung, Comcast, Cox, Sprint, AT&T, Walmart, Capital One, and plenty of other companies. Spare me, please. I'm an advocate of municipal fiber, but I don't go around preaching that Comcast is the devil. I was defending what was referred to as "The powerboost inflation factor" and that should be pretty obvious if you follow the quote trail from my original post. The fact that it's Comcast here is irrelevant. Every ISP I've ever used, including Cox, Comcast, and LUS Fiber have done it. All the big players do it, and all of them are doing major upgrades, and none of them are selling consumer connections with speed SLAs. End thread.

I'm pretty sure that cletus's post was quantifying digiblur's complaint after I responded sarcastically to it, especially since it begins with "No, the complaint here is"

Ericsson has been busy forgetting to add eCSFB to sites all over again with band 26. There are a bunch of sites now that already had eCSFB active on band 25 which are now screwed up after their band 26 additions.

Because it wasn't his complaint, it was digiblur's complaint. And it doesn't really matter where "here" is [EDIT: to cletus] because he's referring to a sustained download rate for a single file from a server which is not under his control. The server he is downloading from is in no way required to continuously deliver it to him at his maximum sustainable rate. My overall point was that complaining about a feature that actually *helps* you by briefly over-delivering on advertised rates is pretty silly. If performance is going to degrade due to capacity, it's going to do it either way; having it over-deliver at the beginning doesn't hurt anyone because it only does it when capacity is available. It's no different than how Sprint advertises average rates of 5-8 Mbps on band 25 but will let you use 35 Mbps if capacity is available. I know none of us are complaining that we aren't capped to 8 Mbps like AIO is.

See my edit above for an example. Comcast has been busy upgrading their network all across the country. They offer residential service in my area up to 105 Mbps (as well as even faster business packages). If you are referring to sustained download speeds from a single server for a single file, you'll probably see those drop down over time on any ISP. This is a side effect of both the server you are downloading from and TCP flow control. Long-term single connection sustained rates aren't really indicative of ISP performance. Notice in my screenshot that there are a sum total of 249 download connections.

I understand the complaint, and it is not warranted. My speeds rarely, if ever, drop below advertised rates, even with sustained usage. In fact, I have tested this by queuing multiple Linux distribution torrents and watching the download rate consistently rise higher than my advertised rates over time. EDIT: Case in point -- sustained download rate of 6.7 MB/s (53.6 Mb/s). The speeds did dip briefly at one point... while my disk was overloaded. This is encrypted torrent traffic.

Mine only does it if it was on band 26 LTE. Otherwise it has to lose a 1x 1900 signal completely before it will find 1x 800.