maxsilver

After writing that long response, and then re-reading your username, it occurs to me that I might be getting trolled hardcore... If that's true, then I guess I took the bait. Sorry about that, to anyone else who is reading this. That won't stop me from assuming the best of folks by default. I just might check usernames more closely, before spending 30 minutes on Google thinking I've missed some crazy huge cellular news in the past 5 years

5 Posts -- I didn't notice this before , but welcome to S4GRU I think your words and my quote got jumbled in your post -- you can edit that, if you'd like to, by clicking the source button ("Lightswitch" icon button) and moving the 'quote' BB tags around - - - Can you link to a source of information that refers to any of those statements? I have never heard any of these claims before. I'm aware Qualcomm and Nokia had some lawsuits in the past, but I believe they were related to patent disputes. Some of those Nokia won, some Qualcomm won, and some were dismissed. This is another thing I've never heard of. I'm well aware that Microsoft had delayed support for CDMA. I owned a Sprint HTC Arrive WP7 device back in the day, it was the phone I replaced my Launch-Day Palm Pre with. I'm also aware that Microsoft dropped device support for many WP7 devices -- I got burned by that myself. But Microsoft ignoring 7.5 for CDMA devices doesn't just instantly translate to "Microsoft hates Qualcomm". It could be as simple as Microsoft dropping the phones that were extra effort to support (ask the Lumia folks, some of the GSM users got burned in various Microsoft's upgrade cycles too) EDIT: Removed a mention of my Quantum, since it apparently got the update after I got rid of it There's a lot things in your statements that sound like broad assumptions. Can you link to anything that would provide information on this? Specifically, anything about "Microsoft discouraging CDMA OEMs", "Microsoft retaliating against Qualcomm" or "Microsoft sneaking security flaws in CDMA code through the FCC". I know WP7 support on the CDMA side was weak for a long time, but I would not be so quick to assume Microsoft / Nokia / HTC all hated Sprint / Qualcomm, just because there used to be a lack of Windows Phone devices on Sprint/Verizon. What does this even mean? There aren't separate standards for the same network. The device either supports EVDO CDMA or doesn't. How could a Nokia radio be "five years behind" to the point that it was causing problems, and still function on the network? What are you actually saying with "[Nokia] is towards use by governments who want to know what their citizens say". Did Nokia's radios somehow secretly use CDMA to backdoor your communications or transmit your voice calls back to the government? (Why would they even do that -- the US government already has a direct copy of every text message and phone call straight from the cellular carriers. There's zero need to waste valuable spectrum on backdoors). I've been googling for like crazy for twenty minutes here trying to find a shred of anything to support these statements and am coming up blank. To be clear: I'm not trying to start an argument, and I'm not saying your wrong -- but your making broad, sweeping accusations at a lot of large companies, and I can't find anything but your word that any of this occurred. Can you link to *any* trustworthy sources that might have more information about these accusations? See, this is where you really loose me. Because according to Anandtech teardown *and* Qualcomm itself, Qualcomm makes the radios in those modern Nokia CDMA devices. (Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8441/nokia-lumia-930-review/7 and https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/smartphones/nokia-lumia-icon ) They may have trouble roaming -- that could be true, I don't know. But "Nokia's CDMA radios" can't be the cause of those problems, because these devices (such as the 928 and the Icon) have only ever shipped with Qualcomm CDMA radios in them. If modern Nokia CDMA phones are experiencing roaming issues, someone needs to call Qualcomm, because according to Qualcomm's own website, they're the SoC vendor for those devices.

Nokia's CDMA devices weren't "years behind". They simply didn't want to pay Qualcomm for something that everyone elses network has for much less. Nokia agreed to license patents from Qualcomm back when 3G was novel. But when GSM WCDMA rolled out (without the need for the extra fees), Nokia pushed back on Qualcomm. There's no reason to pay Qualcomm extra for their patents, when everyone has that technology now -- nothing in Qualcomm's proprietary airlink was significantly better anymore, than the non-proprietary international standard. Additionally, the percentage of devices they sold compatible with Qualcomm was dropping considerably. Qualcomm refused to lower the rate, so Nokia stopped making the devices. And it didn't last forever, Nokia made devices for Verizon pretty recently. To say that Nokia's radios were "behind" is not accurate. Similarly, Microsoft didn't really prevent any second generation handsets, in fact they added CDMA support specifically for Verizon and Sprint. But they couldn't *make* anyone make devices for Sprint/Verizon. (And you'll notice, now that Microsoft owns Nokia, there's a Nokia handset in the pipeline for Sprint) Source : http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/25/8396726/index.htm and http://www.infoworld.com/article/2656804/networking/update--nokia--qualcomm-squabble-over-cdma-license.html EDIT : The relavant part of the article below

Holding a dissenting opinion, even just loosely, automatically equates to being a shill - - I don't like Ericsson in any particular way, but Milan's main point does seem accurate --- regardless of how bad Ericsson's past mistakes are, it doesn't seem to stop carriers (nearly every carrier) from using them over and over again. They don't hold a monopoly, no one *has* to work with them. So...what's the deal here? Why do they continue to do so? - - SoftBank worked on a software network trial with Ericsson in Japan, for instance, and was the vendor for some of their network equipment too ( according to LightReading and FierceWireless) That happened one month ago. (August 2014), and from the article, appears to be a new arrangement. I know SoftBank Japan isn't Sprint, but if Ericsson was causing that much hell for Sprint, you'd think they would have told their own parent company.

I'm pulling this from memory, so I might not have all of these details down exactly, but I believe the "missing Cat6 modem" just means no large-bandwidth carrier aggregation. (I think Cat5 maxes out at 20mhz, and since Sprint B41 smallest carriers are already at 20mhz, it can't aggregate them) But the Note 4 should still have full Band 41 LTE support, anywhere it exists, no problem. At least, the FCC docs I linked to above very clearly state Band 41 support It might not have "simultaneous dual Band 41 LTE connections", a.k.a carrier aggregation. But that's not that bad, most Spark devices don't do CA on B41 yet, and they still get Band 41 LTE service.

Where did you hear that? I'm fairly sure that the Sprint Note 4 has full Spark support, including full LTE Band 41 support. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=598336&fcc_id=A3LSMN910P

"Silly electronics! Why you always gotta be so dependent on electricity?"

I guess I'm confused then too, because I was responding specifically to " if you are likening the Sprint Airave type devices to the T-Mobile Wi-Fi router, you are full of magenta colored shit." That reads pretty strongly against to me. But I could easily be misinterpreting the phrase "full of magenta colored shit".

That's 100% fair. I've never seen anyone personally denied an Airave. But I'm sure folks who are in areas with better network coverage probably get turned away (licensed spectrum is a pain for consumer devices) Some folks are a little too nice to CS. If you "ask" for an Airave, you get a "no". If you (calmly, kindly, respectfully) attempt to cancel your service, the Airave rules quickly get relaxed very quickly. I'm not picking on AJ specifically, and I know he knows his technical stuff (I've read it). But this particular statement is still ridiculous. I still see no way someone can claim Sprint handing out Airaves is "good", but T-Mobile handing out AC routers is bad -- or otherwise claim that these two actions are meaningfully different. These two are nearly identical, and the only meaningful difference is that T-Mobile's method uses no licensed spectrum, so they don't have to have any requirements about who gets them, or where they get placed.

Ok, let's do this. This appears to be the appropriate thread for it, let's break this down a bit : Sprint Airave is free to the vast majority of subs, and is widely distributed. Sprint even set up a special customer team to distribute them, as your already well aware - http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-88-sprint-has-a-new-airave-product-out-that-are-free-to-customers-with-indoor-coverage-problems/ The only reason Sprint has to have any loose checks in place is the licensed spectrum use. As soon as Sprint's Wifi calling works widely, we might see them switch to using Wifi routers too. The hardware is slightly cheaper and there's no licensed interference to worry about -- in general, it's a "cleaner" approach than microcell/femtocell options. Er...so? Sprint Airaves retail for about the same ~$200 as the AC router T-Mobile hands out. - https://ting.com/shop/Airave25 Sprint hands these out for free to the same "well qualified" customers that T-Mobile hands out routers to. Obviously Sprint pays much less than that per unit, but T-Mobile pays less per unit for their AC routers too, so... not seeing a huge difference on price. Very true, absolutely. But is this supposed to be a bad thing? Shame on T-Mobile, for providing a device that works well with almost everything? Shame on T-Mobile, for investing in open infrastructure for the past eight years, so that they don't have to use a proprietary device, with spectrum license restrictions and required GPS reception? That's just a lot of FUD. There's nothing T-Mobile could do to please you, by your own logic. If Legere raises rates or charges any extra for anything, you'll just say he's artificially pumping up revenue to make the financials look good for a sale of the company, or that it was a "bait and switch". (Even though Sprint also raises rates occasionally) If Legere lowers rates, or gives anything away for free, you'll just say he's "playing Santa" and "giving away goodies" for a sale. (Even though Sprint also lowers rates or gives things away occasionally -- I still have my free 'Sprint Tab 3' right here, which according to Sprint, was also a $200+ valued device) - - - At the root of this, you've implicitly decided everything T-Mobile does (regardless of actual intent) is a sure sign of a sale of T-Mobile, and that the sale is a bad thing. Your tying a lot of artificial FUD to that. But that's a really big assumption. SoftBank bought Sprint, it might be the best thing that's ever happened to the company. They have a purpose, clarity and a focus now, more than ever before. It's not a leap to see a similar outcome if someone buys out T-Mobile (if Iliad did, for instance). Sure, Dish is annoying. But they aren't the only folks after T-Mobile, and it's not certain they'd buy the company. It's also not certain that a Dish buyout would wreck or hurt T-Mobile in any way. Why all this fear that T-Mobile might find a buyer for it's business? Sprint did, and it's been pretty good so far.

"General subscriber access to these customized, on premises Femtocell "Airrave" has to be Sprint's end game. Hesse is not the altruist that many believe him to be -- he and the "sunshine (#1)" executive team have plenty of ulterior motives up their sleeves." Supplying a device, for your home/office, at little-to-no cost, to improve service -- This is seriously the same thing Sprint has done for years. I don't know how this can be construed as having ulterior motives. And if someone does, then surely Sprint must have equally ulterior motives, since they've done nearly the same exact thing for many years now. #1 - It's not okay to match that insult on the Sprint side, for obvious reasons. Especially now.

I don't think that's actually happened yet, but even if it does happen, it's not necessarily a bad thing for Sprint to not own their own wireline network. Sprint's goal is to get cheap, reliable, competitive backhaul. Owning their own network and managing it well is one potential way to do that. But these aren't directly complimentary businesses, and it requires a lot of capital and effort to do -- focus Sprint would likely pull from running the cellular network. (That's not to say they are literally pulling people from cell towers to fiber lines or anything -- but as a whole organization, they aren't exactly well equipped or well funded enough to do a great job at both simultaneously). Creating a strong partner with Level 3 can still help them out similarly. Level 3 needs revenue from big players, so they are well incentivized to support Sprint. Level 3 has a more focus on expanding fiber networks, and would probably give Sprint's fiber network and cell sites the extra attention it deserves. Both companies could have their incentives in the right place, and both would be individually better off in competing against Verizon/AT&T (on the wireline, and wireless side, respectively) Similar plays have worked out well in the past. For example, T-Mobile has had a strong relationship with Zayo for many years, and that's often helped them get lots of competitively-priced backhaul to sites quickly and efficiently, without needing to directly pay AT&T/Verizon for wireline service. (It's not quite the same situation as Sprint/Level3, as there's no asset sale, but similar enough) A sale of these Sprint assets to Level 3 would also artificially pump up Sprint's financials for a quarter, and likely jump Sprint's stock price up a bit. (Similar to TMO spectrum sale to Verizon). However, unlike T-Mobile's sale, Sprint selling wireline fiber would likely be perceived by some investors as a display of confidence in their wireless business. Neither of these are a huge deal, but both nice to have. - - - - TL/DR: Vertical integration isn't always better. There's a lot of money that can be generated or saved by *not* vertically integrating.

I'm hoping for the opposite. FreedomPop seems way overvalued. It's an expensive distraction. Have Sprint use it's money for new cell sites, Band 41, and purchasing US Cellular, and things of that nature. Let AT&T or Verizon waste money buying another MVNO. Disclaimer: I am long on Sprint, but only by a trivial amount.

I just downloaded Sensorly, and it still appears to be there. Under "Settings" -> "Report to Server" , check the box labeled "Only over WiFi" and the message will read "Yes, only report to server when connect to Wifi".

It's actually not a lot of data to simply map a trip (assuming you run zero speed tests). You don't have to display the Google Map as you go (so it's not downloading vector/image data) at which point your just sending a tiny bit of data every second. Optionally, I think you can also tell Sensorly *not* to submit map data as you go, so you could map a trip now, but only upload it later (while on Wifi at home/work, for instance). That way, you use almost zero mobile data.

Do we know that though? If you start with the $749 iPhone, then you should only have to pay $250 to keep it if you quit at 20 months. $750 - ($25/month * 20 months) = $250. But the document sounds like it's saying, if you quit at 20 months, you owe all the months remaining and the purchase price.. Which would be ($25/month * 4 remaining months) + $750 = $850 to cancel. And that's after you already paid $250. That's why I want to see the Lease. I'm hoping they've defined some sort of "Lease purchase price" that drops each month. Otherwise, this is a crazy lock-in scheme. - - - Another weird tidbit in the plan : "As a customer in good standing, at the end of your lease, here are your options: Turn in the iPhone, get a new one with zero down Purchased the leased iPhone Continue leasing the iPhone on a month-to-month basis Note: If you paid money down at signing, your month-to-month lease payment will increase starting in month 25 to the amount you would have been required to pay per month if you had not been required to pay money down at signing." So, it's really unclear, but based on that wording, it sounds like if you put money down, pay for 24 months, your price on your lease goes up, even if you "continue leasing the iPhone on a month-to-month basis?" Surely that can't be right either... Either this plan is crazily predatory, or the wording is terribly misleading.

Ok, this is bugging me, the pricing can't be this bad for ETF-folks. Does anyone have a copy of the actual Lease Agreement? I've dug through everything I can find on the site , and found lots of statements like "you will have to pay the remaining lease payments plus the device purchase option price set forth in the Lease Agreement." but can't find the actual Lease anywhere. Perhaps someone in Retail can post it It can't be confidential, since customers have to sign it. Surely they must at least discount at least some portion of the phone price on a per month basis.

Woah! That needs to be highlighted in thousand-point-font somewhere. If that's true, then Sprint is making you to pay 2x to 3x the normal ETF cost if you bail on the iPhone for Life plan. I thought Legere was just talking crap during the Chen interview. But his comments seem extremely fair now. Finishing the lease payments seems fair (same as everyone elses device plan). Buying the remainder of the device seems fair (similar to the ETF's of subsidised pricing). Making people do *both* is entirely unreasonable. This Sprint plan is basically just as bad as T-Mobile's old pre-Legere Value Plans (which also had 2X ETF fees).

Yes, Sprint intentionally disables data roaming on the LG G3 until you manually enable it, every single time, regardless of whether you check the "don't ask again" button. Effectively, Sprint has banned all background data roaming (since you can never use it, the minute you have roaming data service, Sprint disables all roaming data until you wake up your phone to re-enable roaming).

True, and Marcelo has probably never spoken to an actual developer, I'm sure some edict was passed down from a VP, to a group manager, to a product manager, to a team lead, to a developer, etc, etc. I'm claiming Artistic License. ;-)

Somewhere deep inside Overland Park : Marcelo : I want to offer 20GB for the family, *and* 2GB extra for each line as a promo. Web Developer : But our system was written two decades ago. It's a broken pile of garbage! No living person actually understands the whole thing from end to end. It will take months to cobble together a feature to allow us to provision this! Marcelo : I don't care. Make it so. *Now*! Web Developer : ...(screw this. I'll just set a hard cap at 40GB. This promo's ending in a few months anyway, and half the plans on the website don't display right. No one will even notice...)

For what it's worth, I think folks have seen chunks of it disappear already. Tmonews has reported a number of small town / exurb regions switching to LTE, such as: - http://www.tmonews.com/2014/08/1515-lte-pops-up-ludlow-ma/ - http://www.tmonews.com/2014/08/t-mobile-lte-pops-up-in-geneva-and-ashtabula-ohio/ - http://www.tmonews.com/2014/08/4g-sighted-in-new-small-towns-wideband-1515-lte-in-rockford-il/ In my area, at least three small cities got bumped from GRPS or EDGE straight to LTE. (Hudsonville, Rockford, Wayland). Sensorly tentatively showing a lot of east side LTE upgrades too. Still plenty of EDGE and GRPS left to go. I don't know about 2014, but at the rate I'm seeing changes here, I think they could easily be finished by mid 2015.

It doesn't seem impossible. Technically, Sprint (and subsequently, Ting) could activate almost any Verizon phone if they wanted to. It might be missing some bands for some services (B25/B26 LTE, among others), but in general, there's zero hardware / technological problem preventing Verizon phones on Sprint's network. Getting past Sprint's blacklist/whitelist is usually the only barrier. If Sprint chooses not to blacklist Verizon iPhones, there'd be nothing preventing them from working on Sprint.

T-Mobile roams on AT&T, but only in certain, specific, hand-picked areas (on a nearly tower by tower basis). It's usually only allowed in places *far* removed from T-Mobile's own native coverage. AT&T does not usually allow any roaming on T-Mobile, even when they have no native service and T-Mobile does. (This might be different for Business or M2M customers, or in some hand-picked markets -- I don't know about that specifically. But generally, normal lines do not allow roaming of any kind onto T-Mobile.) This isn't always true however. For instance, during Hurricane Sandy, AT&T and T-Mobile agreed to complete network sharing temporarily, so that you could switch between them at any time on any device - http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/31/att-and-t-mobile-temporarily-share-their-networks-in-nyc-nj/ But acts like that (while always 100% technologically available) are very rare to see in practice.

In practice, this doesn't actually happen. History has shown numerous times that "Merge networks" is (usually) a euphemism for "kill a network". Sure, some small token amount of stuff might get pulled over. But the vast majority of the coverage will be considered "overlapping" (even though it largely isn't) and one of the two networks would be by-and-large entirely shutdown. That's where the "reduced CAPEX" comes from. By killing someone's sites and backhaul. Merged networks is good for stockholders. But it's not good for folks using those networks.