avb

My idea begins with having a speed cap, in helping to relieve congestion. Actually, it isn't exactly my idea, as it has been mentioned before by others, but since I happen to agree with them, I'll integrate the concept with my own strategies.

 

The speed cap I'm proposing, is 30 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video maximum download speeds for everyone, decreasing down to 15 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video typical download speeds, then decreasing down to 9 mbps/9 mbps Audio/Video minimum download speeds, when the network is congested. I realize that sounds like a high minimum Audio/Video download speed, in contrast to what is needed for an HD download, being 3 mbps. However, I'm considering minimum speeds necessary for 4k downloads as well, assuming those need anywhere between 6 mbps to 9 mbps minimum download speeds. I think everyone ought to have minimum working download speeds, even in congestion, as wireless networks ought to be able to handle this at the minimum, especially considering how landline networks already are becoming way ahead of what is minimally necessary.

 

Upload speeds ought to be at least 3 mbps, even in congestion, though I'm not as aware of what is necessary for upload speeds, as I am with download speeds. However, 3 mbps is what I've heard is a decent minimal speed, so I'll leave it at that.

 

When the network is congested speeds will already decrease below what you're proposing.  You're asking to put an artificial cap on speeds.  What good is a 30mb/s or 9mb/s speedcap if you're in a congested area averaging 1-2 mb/s?  Any time the speeds are above whatever you're proposing means the network isn't congested and can handle the traffic, so why put in an artificial limit?  

Over the air hd antennas are all that's required for these free channels. If you need an internet connection then it's no longer free. If you need an internet connection, you'll probably need a wired connection, and that means cable. If you expect cable companies to give you free channels instead of requiring a cable subscription that certainly won't happen.

1) my favorite carrier is whichever one has consumer friendly policies. I suppose #UncarrierForcedTo is yours.

2) if sprint knows it's gonna need the spectrum then why not borrow from softy and maintain its remaining advantage?

Selling for the benefit of better interest rate on debt for a few years seems awfully shortsighted for a man with a 500 year plan for softy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My second line is a Metropcs line, so I want T-mobile and Sprint to both continue to improve their networks.

The LTE-laa thing that all the carriers are looking into will help with crowded areas such as stadiums and what not. Looking to add this to supplement the network is not an either or thing in regards to acquiring more spectrum. Are you against T-Mobile looking into this technology too?

Read the post to which you replied.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, if they decide to sell spectrum they will get some cash out of it. If they deploy more b41 and end up selling some of that spectrum it becomes more of a hassle. If they use LTE-laa it doesn't matter since they're using unlicensed spectrum. On top of that if all the carriers use some form of LTE-laa it will probably drop the cost of the equipment.

So again why do you feel the unlicensed spectrum should only be used by your favorite carrier?

It's openly talking about selling some spectrum . . . yet it's installing LAA in case it needs more spectrum?

 

[insert "HUH" meme here]

Why are you against this? T-Mobile and Verizon is also testing this out as well. Or do you feel the unlicensed spectrum should only be used by T-mobile, making it T-mobile's spectrum?

Last time I made the trip to Dallas 9/2014 or Austin 6/2014... Neither journey had complete LTE coverage. Note 3.

 

Barometer: Pandora

 

Result: switching to radio since data connection couldn't be established

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N910T

My last Dallas drive was the week after Christmas, there was probably a 10 minute stretch where I didn't have LTE (LG G3).  My friends on T-Mobile didn't have LTE for about 2.5 hours of the 3.5 hour drive.

Haven't been to Austin in a while, so can't comment there, but last time I drove to San Antonio was about 2 years ago and I don't remember dropping LTE.

If T-Mobile can cover those stretches at least as good as Sprint it'll be competitve.

Data definitely is better than Sprint here. Voice about the same

 

Sent from my SM-N910T

From my experience, speeds are faster the majority of the time with T-Mobile, but my friends on T-Mobile will lose data or switch to 2g more often when indoors (at restaurants, houses, apartments, etc).  None of my friends with T-Mobile have a phone with band 12 though, so if Band 12 can fill in those holes then coverage wouldn't be an issue.

One thing in Texas - driving to Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio, basically a triangle in Texas, and people make this drive quite a bit, Sprint has LTE covered the entire way, while T-Mobile isn't quite there.

Even if your Spark phone isn't capable of carrier aggregation you'll still benefit from increased speeds with the increased capacity of a second carrier.

Seems pretty clear that it's only for those new plans, not just a general "free" phone offer. This really is just a play with numbers. Regular unlimited plan is $60, plus $20 phone lease. Or get an $80 unlimited plan with added perks of annual upgrade and free data roaming in 15 countries.

 

If you are on the cheapest Framily plan ($25/line), with unlimited data, it's still slightly cheaper to just lease the Galaxy S6 than get the new plan at $80.

On the surface it's great that Sprint is offering more options, but I'd prefer simpler plans.  I don't want to recommend Sprint to someone and have them ask me why is there unlimited for $50 with iphone, another $60 unlimited plan, and this super duper unlimited for $80.

LA Metro hasn't been updated yet from what I can tell. I did fill out the survey that pops up when you go to the coverage maps. I pleaded for a modern, legible and responsive design that shows accurate coverage.

 

I also suggested a toggle for estimated average indoor coverage. (Yes, I realize the problems with this.)

 

I almost suggested this 3 step plan:

1. Team up with Sensorly to provide map data.

2. Enlist S4GRU members to drive around to fill in the maps.

3. Reward those members with discounts on their phone bills and provide matching contributions to S4GRU.

I think we all would like more accurate maps, but at the same time, all the carriers overstate their coverage and having accurate maps will be a negative when potential customers are looking at coverage maps between different carriers.

what is confusing to me is, they did not specify *how* your supposed to watch TWD on your sprint phone... is it via sprint tv (probably not), an AMC app or website, some other app/website, or simple piracy ?

You can watch The Walking Dead on Netflix or Sling TV.

I think now is a good start time for everyone to start checking for new tower permits on a regular basis for their location.

Nice. What time of time frame are we expecting for these projects? When will they start, and how long do we expect before the project is substantially completed?

They don't mention LTE for data, so it might be 3g only. I think Page Plus is the only Verizon mvno I've seen with LTE, and even then speeds are capped at 3.5mb/s.

Also, where does one pick up some of these notes?

Check with your investment advisor, or if you have a brokerage account with someone like Fidelity you might be able to purchase with them. When you purchase from a broker like Fidelity you're buying on the secondary market so there's a price adjustment.

Probably also adding cash just in case the 600mhz auction does happen.

I'm seeing on twitter and reddit that people are complaining about an outage/no service for T-Mobile in the northeast.  I guess reliability does matter.

https://downdetector.com/status/t-mobile/map

Just picked up the Fire TV box deal.  Slingtv works pretty well on my phone so far.

What do they mean by this?

I wonder if this would also help battery life on standby since 1900 should be a stronger signal.  Also, if this is the future plan they should start seeding devices with this type of carrier aggregation asap.  The new flagships from Samsung and HTC come out in the spring and they it would nice if they have the capability once the network is ready.

Sounds like Sprint will have the least coverage/capacity in the stadium based on the number of sectors they are using *barring other factors such as number of users and coverage from nearby towers.

I do have a question about das systems such as what's being used here: the bands that are bring used by the cellular providers - how wide are the channels? (5x5 or 10x10, etc). Is this limited by the spectrum the carriers have in a particular market, or is it limited by the das provider? If its limited by the spectrum owned by the cellular provider I feel Sprint will always be at a disadvantage because their primary G band is only 5x5, while the other carriers have 10x10 and wider channels. That is unless band 41 becomes compatible with these das systems.

How much time does Dish have left on their existing spectrum for build out requirements?

That makes sense for Verizon, as they still have x amount budgeted for capex every year, and if LTE coverage is everywhere they have to do something with the money.

I thought once upgraded backhaul is in place, the backhaul is scalable?  Meaning once the fiber is there, if backhaul is at 100mbs then they can just dial it up to 250mbs.  Like calling up Comcast and upgrading plans.

The iPhone for life plan is a good lease plan because iPhones get a discounted rate plan.

anyone have problems with MMS over WiFi calling? I can't receive photos.

I have an LG G3 and mms/picture messages do come through when I'm on WiFi calling.