Conan Kudo

Insurance policy

Currency Mint

I'm not giving T-Mobile a free pass. The only reason I don't care either way is because LTE and HSPA+ performance is fairly equivalent at this stage. I get similar performance on HSPA+ and LTE, so it's not a big deal. It makes sense for Sprint and Verizon to do technology gradients because the performance delta between CDMA2000 1xEvDO and LTE is extremely large. Both Sprint and Verizon have every incentive to push LTE to as many subscribers as possible. AT&T does it because it wants to use the map as a way to help push people to LTE devices to reduce load on its HSPA network. When T-Mobile's average LTE performance jumps substantially above HSPA+, then I'll care more about technology gradients. And as for my "T-Mobile bias" as you called it, I will freely admit I prefer GSM/UMTS over CDMA2000. But I give every operator a fair shot. I personally pay for service with all four national operators, and I actively keep track of network performance all over my region with all of them. I've re-acquired Sprint service through an MVNO as of three weeks ago (after dropping it in May due to cost-cutting and uselessness). I own devices for all of them and use all of them frequently. And since you brought up my work on ExtremeTech, I will point out that my latest article is actually an examination and criticism of T-Mobile's claims of covering 90% of the top 25 markets with 20+20 MHz LTE (despite the weird article title). I've written good and bad things about T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon. I would write more about Sprint if there was something to write about. There isn't. I've already covered Network Vision, ESMR LTE, and LTE TDD. Right now, Sprint isn't doing anything noteworthy.

Baked Chicken

Ocean Springs

Time Tunnel

Life counseling

Sexy Lady

I'll take signal gradients over technology gradients any day.

It doesn't matter, A.J. Yeah, T-Mobile doesn't show different colors for LTE and HSPA+, but it will still tell you what technology you've got when drop a pin on a location. Certainly, it isn't as clear as Sprint's map, which uses different colors for CDMA, WiMAX, and LTE. But the information is still there. And as for the "4G" comment, don't forget that Sprint played that game, too. WiMAX is still called a 4G technology despite being classified as a 3G technology by the ITU at least a year before Sprint deployed WiMAX with Clearwire. If you want to get technical, you know damn well that you can't even call EDGE "2G" or "2.5G" or whatever crazy moniker. It's classified as 3G, and that has never been revoked. But of course, you don't care about that, because aside from a brief stint by Cingular, very few called it 3G in order to be able to sell UMTS to consumers far more easily. Don't get snippy over the "4G" mark. And who cares? To most people, 4G is 4G is 4G. From a performance perspective, LTE, HSPA+, and WiMAX are all fairly similar. Peak numbers are nice to crow about, but it doesn't matter beyond the first few months of a network deployment.

Time Wizard

The swaps were agreed upon last month. The filings for the swap were submitted several weeks ago. The FCC is just backlogged as all hell because of... well, everything! This swap is completely independent of any acquisition of Lower 700MHz A block spectrum.

Football Fumbles