greenbastard

Your post was pretty self-contradictory. You pretty much blame local government for creating this anti-competitive environment......Yet, you don't want them implementing proactive laws that will prevent future anti-competitive practices by ISPs. In other words;

I used to live in a little small town called Anderson, TX. Ever heard of it? Probably not. It's off the beaten path and has absolutely no grocery stores. Whenever I needed to buy produce, my only choice was the local gas station which carried essentials (potatoes, carrots, oranges, bananas, etc.). But you know what I did if I wanted better variety? I drove my happy ass down to College Station or Conroe to stock up on goods. It wasn't hard and it wasn't impossible. HEB, Sam's Club, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, even a damn Michoacana. If I want to buy groceries, I just drive and buy it. If I want Comcast as an ISP, it may as well be impossible. Getting the option of buying from a wide variety of ISPs isn't as easy as getting in your car and driving. You can awe at that number you provided all you want, but it's an alternative fact...nay, it's fake news. Those 45 providers are all spread out among the metroplex and not competing with each other. Stop being dense. They're aren't a threat to each other, hence NO COMPETITION.

This is the exact definition of "alternative facts". A real fact is that I can buy my food from Kroger, Whole Foods, Walmart, Tom Thumb, Albertsons, Fiesta, Target, Aldi, Trader Joe's, Sprouts, and an endless amount of ethnic specialty stores in and around Dallas. I can only get my internet from Spectrum. But keep believing that these two markets are sooo similar .

Nobody is arguing they are. Where did you read this?

If you can't see how ISPs and market stores are Apples to oranges (but closer to manure), then I can't help you. You want to believe your alternatives facts, then knock yourself out.

So blame the government for creating anti competitive laws and blame the government for creating laws that prevent anti-competitive practices??? Damned if you do, damned if you don't . Are you some type of anarchist? This isn't an Apples to oranges comparison. This is an Apples to manure comparison. You absolutely cannot and should not compare ISPs to stores. It's laughable that you even tried.

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices) Anyone else confused?

Tell us, how does the world work?

I answered all of this in the previous post. Do you not read and just post? ISPs will be able to do what they want if they don't deceive their customers. Good luck getting the FTC to do anything about it. Any good lawyer will be able to throw any "anti-competitive" claims out the window.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/ But let's keep blaming local government, ja??

So are you just going to ignore the anti-competitive practices that existing ISPs use to keep new providers out from their territories? And again, we are several years away from 5G deployment, with or without government interference. It's not going to cover every neighborhood and reliability won't be guaranteed. 5G will not be a safeguard to NN. You keep blaming the wrong people for the lack of competition.

You know that sarcastic counterpoint anti-net neutrality folks give? The one that goes "how did the internet ever work before 2015???" Well, now I ask you...how did ISPs ever make money before net neutrality issues even came up??? You know what's a good solution to all this? Sell data by the GB. Problem solved. Make the heaviest users pay for clogging their networks. You want to torrent TBs of data all day? Then pay for it. But you know why ISPs won't go down this route? It's because they see an opportunity to control and sell to us what we consume online. This isn't about making Netflix pay for a fast lane. This is about rounding up people and funneling them to as many services they can create. You think Verizon won't try to throttle Google services in order to frustrate people into giving Yahoo a try? You think Comcast won't purposely sabotage OTT services during peak hours in order to sway people into buying Xfinity TV? Or what about the next tech startup that competes with one of Charter's major shareholder's investments? They won't slow access to them? Why else do you think T-Mobile bought a video streaming service and Sprint bought into Tidal? ISPs aren't interested in selling services to you. They are interested in forcing services to you. It may not happen in the next 2-3 years, but we will eventually see ISPs "manage" their networks to give their services certain advantages. It's time to stop being naive.

Because the ISPs are trying to find new forms of revenue as their TV business continues to bleed. If Comcast can slow down SlingTV or Vue to a crawl and give their own proprietary OTT video service full speed access, then it creates an unfair competitive advantage. If Verizon slows down Google in order to get people to use Yahoo, then it creates an unfair advantage. Also, 5G is still several years away...with or without permits. And even then, 5G won't cover every neighborhood. As long as ISPs have no competition, they should he heavily regulated.

They are so slow when it comes to adding these types of features to their phones. I wouldn't count on 2018 being the year.

I've seen the same issue come up with the Nexus 5x from time to time. All the kinks haven't been hammered out when it comes to roaming with SRLTE.

Are you sure it was the G block and not just At&t using MFBI on their PCS band? Because I've gotten LTE roaming to show up as B25 from At&T's F+C block

Is RF really bad on the essential? I've been contemplating buying this or the LG G6 (Both free for me stop the moment). I'm leaning on Essential due to it being unlocked and supporting more LTE bands. But if the radio performance is bad, then I may just wait until the Essential PH-2 is released (that is if the company doesn't go under). LG G6 is starting to seem more outdated as each day passes by and the bootlooping mess of their older phones turns me off.

That's odd. Google has their own type of Caller ID that shows the names of businesses and services. It only works with Sprint if you have WiFi (since we have no simultaneous Voice+Data). Are you sure it wasn't that? Sprint still hasn't gotten around to adding visual voicemail or Wifi calling to Android BYOD (except for the Essential, but that's a huge exception). I doubt Android BYOD devices will ever see Calling+ tbh.

Doesn't SMS still go through 1x on iPhones? Sending an SMS on an iPhone 7 take 3-4 seconds longer than it does on Androids that send SMS thru LTE. iPhones also take longer to receive as well.

Is it just a coincidence that Trump is visiting Japan this weekend as well???

Too late. I gave up. I wasted over 2 hours trying to figure this out for someone else. I learned today that I am an Android user through and through . Nice phone, terrible software.

I'm having issues moving stuff from a 6s to an X. It just tells me that the backup for the 6s on iTunes is "corrupt or the device is not compatible" (or something along those lines). This is royally ticking me off. Anyone encounter similar issues? iTunes is up to date (and still hot garbage...it's feels and runs clunky just like in the old iPod days). Trying to transfer everything into the new iPhone reminds me why I'll always be a Android guy. Apple. I'm about minutes away from smashing this $1k phone into the ground. (And no, I can't do iCloud. Not enough space)

It's not the 7.65 Mbps that personally bothers me. What bothers me is that Config 2 completely kills the upload in fringe areas. There are parts were I used to have at least 1 Mbps upload with a weak signal, but now it struggles to even break 0.2 Mbps. Sure, the added download speed is nice, but it wasn't needed. B41 doesn't have much congestion in my area. It's very hard to find a place where download speeds were slower than 10 Mbps before the change.

You're not wrong. What came out was Sprint trying to negotiate a better deal. I still think it happens since everyone and their mommas has turned Sprint down at this point. If SoftBank doesn't go through with the merger, the only option is to sell and recoup their money or double down on a fierce wireless industry in which competitors are cannibalizing themselves via pricing. I doubt Son wants to do the latter.

Either SoftBank is trying to squeeze more from the deal in the last hour or another player (Dish, cable provider, or foreign interest) has approached SoftBank with some interest. I highly doubt SoftBank wants Sprint to go at it alone. They're the ones who approached T-Mobile and cable companies in hopes of a merger after all. SoftBank isn't finished.