1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

ISP’s aren’t charities. 

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

6 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

You are completely ignorant about economics. It is not apple to oranges it is apples to apples. They are both two sided market in with the distributers sell their own competing product with their suppliers.

 

If the government creates a problem with a shitty ser of laws and then kind of fixes it with another shitty set of laws, then yes the government is the problem.  You all seem to forget how innovative pipe has been and that treating them like a utility might not be the best thing in the world. After all how innovative are utilities generally? 

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. 

21 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Sorry you couldnt keep up, but my statement was clear. The government is the necessary and sufficient condition for the anticompetitive regulations. The cable companies are neither necessary or sufficient therefore the cable companies cannot be causal. 

 

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?

Quote

No where near the way you fantasize. Tell me grocery stores prevent Innovation amongst food producers? Yet, the charge both the consumer looking to shop with them, carry their own brands, charge other food producers for shelf space and some how the market works just fine.

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.

10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and it is the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. 

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? 

10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government.  So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works.  

Tell us, how does the world work? 

11 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Jesus you guys are paranoid. ISP owned content before 2015 and they couldn't force people to only buy their services then. Look, walmart has their store brands but the can't force people going to their store to buy their brands. In fact They usually sell as the cheap alternative. 

 

How would a company force you to buy something anyway. The don't have access to force. 

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.

2 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google  had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them.  Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies. 

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??

5 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Put the blame where it belongs:

Officials on City Councils or Local Governments who don’t have pro-competition policies or who sign exclusive franchise agreements with one company.

 

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.

4 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

And if you stave ISPs of new sources of revenue what happens to investment? The first thing sprint cut in the late 00s as revenue tanked was capex. Yeah, let have ISPs cut their capes and have plenty of content we can access during peak times. 

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.

5 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The Internet grew like hell before the last 2 years of “Net Neutrality” was enacted.

Why would the future now be any different?

If anything, the Internet will innovate through this line anything else.

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.

15 hours ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

Lol I already am. 2018 iphone bruh! 4x4 mimo and 256qam FTW!!

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.

7 hours ago, swintec said:

I need some technical terms so I can raise an issue with the Essential Phone team.  It is well noted that the essential has reception problems but today, when I roamed on to US Cellular, it completely abandoned 1x and connected to LTE only.  Which is fine when connected to Sprint because the phone can pass text messages over LTE.  Howevever, while roaming, the phone would not send or receive text messages and could not make or receive calls because it was latched to USCC LTE.  My 5X, when it would stay connected to USCC LTE, would somehow get notification of a text or call and idle back over to 1x to take care of things.  Same deal when I would try to send a text as well.  Seems the essential is dead in the water under these conditions.

What may be happening here?  Anything I could mention to essential about how sprint handles this so maybe they could pin the problem down?

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. 

On 11/18/2017 at 4:33 PM, lordsutch said:

Something odd with my Pixel 2 XL yesterday: in Itawamba County (on the border with AL east of Tupelo) my phone would connect to CSpire's LTE network but I couldn't get any data session to work ('x' on the signal strength indicator) - although I had no trouble roaming on AT&T LTE in NW Alabama earlier. But perhaps more interesting is that at least some of the towers were broadcasting on Band 25, which is the first evidence I've seen of a RRPP partner deploying on Sprint's spectrum. I also saw some Band 12 (presumably the 700 A block spectrum CSpire bought).

I haven't seen any evidence of Sprint deployment on Band 12 in Memphis so far but I'll keep an eye out.

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.

5 hours ago, swintec said:

Sprint seemed to have updated the premium caller id service to support a bunch more handsets.  What is surprising to me is that my Nexus 5X is also included.   All day today calls were coming in with caller id name being shown which was never the case before.  Then i get a text from sprint talking about the premium caller id add on and how its $2.99 per month and how they just added the 10 day trial to my account, which explains why the above happened.  I loved this service on my Bolt but didnt think it would ever come to the nexus devices because you had to use sprints caller id app, well not anymore i guess. 

anyone else seeing this?

could it explain why the network initiated a profile update late tuesday night, in prep for this?

also, i ask this every time i talk about it, but how does this work in the background technically, since now it is being used without the caller id app?  it works whether im connected to LTE or not.  any reason why this has not always been available on smart devices?  is this something at the network level?

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.

22 hours ago, burnout8488 said:

Does MMS (Picture messages) go over LTE on an iPhone? I forgot. SMS does, can't remember if non-iMessage picture messages do though.

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.

12 hours ago, dro1984 said:

Deutsche Telekom Said to visit SoftBank, Son,  this weekend in Japan to discuss Merger.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/03/sprint-t-mobile-talks-continue-deutsche-telekom-to-visit-softbank-this-weekend-sources-say.html

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

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

You can temporarily upgrade your iCloud account and then downgrade it after your backup/restore.

Apple gives you 15 days to cancel/downgrade.

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)

3 hours ago, JonnygATL said:

Honestly what sort of uploads are you doing that this (7.65 mbps) wouldn't take care of (and relatively quickly,  at that)?

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.

3 hours ago, SprintNYC said:

Nice. I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong. Now had Softbank officially announced they are dropping out?

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.

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/sprint-shares-drop-more-than-5-percent-on-report-that-softbank-is-calling-off-talks-with-t-mobile.html

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/SoftBank-calling-off-talks-to-merge-Sprint-T-Mobile

So there's this now....

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. 

10 hours ago, anthony.spina97 said:

I go on Sprint's website, and after sorting out an upgrade eligibility issue with my line, I go through the process of ordering a X and even select the full price option, and when I check out, I get a page saying that Sprint is unable to text any of our account's devices for two factor authentication, and that I need to go to a store to order, and I have gotten this error both yesterday and today. Not at all what I want to do, and I'm definitely not going to do that.

 

So can anyone tell me what is going on, and why Apple/Sprint do not want my money (digitally)? Lol. I appreciate any help

I got that same issue the night of the release. It kept asking me to send a text to verify my account. I did it three times in a row and on the fourth try it told me to call or visit the store because of the same reason you saw (very weird). At the point, I gave up and went to bed thinking I wouldn't get the iPhone X until December. 

The next day, I checked and Sprint still had stock (yay for me, worrisome for Sprint), so I logged back in through Chrome incognito mode and everything went smoothly.

Give incognito mode a try. If not, call Sprint sales. 

11 minutes ago, derrph said:

I feel as though they need to be called out on this. I’m sure the other carrier had problems and that’s to be expected but Sprint was just on a whole other level with the maintenance, over 2k orders got cancelled in the system and whatever else that went on. That’s the reason why shipping times are still good over at Sprint. They really have to do better. They really have to do something with that site ASAP. That’s ridiculous with the amount of past layers and looping.

 

Looks like they finally ran out of their initial stock. Any orders past 5 PM today for both 64GB models will now ship by November 14.

1 minute ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

 

Sadly I believe it’s a Sprint thing. Apple is targeting late December for most carriers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Maybe the slow website put off a lot of people. Combine heavy website traffic with an already slow website full of layers on top of layers and you got a recipe for a disaster. With most of their stock still showing as shipping by Nov 3, I hope they don't get slaughtered by journalists.