maximus1987/lou99

I think all 4 of the major carriers will bid on the 600 MHz spectrum. Sprint should bid on 600 MHz and depending on the availability Sprint should try to capture 20 MHz of the spectrum to form a 10x10 LTE carrier. I am not too afraid of making quad band phones since eventually every carrier will have multiple LTE band support. The bigger concern is getting new tower equipment (antennas and RRUs) to support these bands and deployment. Eventually Sprint will need to add more panels for each sector which is why most NV cell sites currently only have 1 panel per sector to leave room for expansion. SoftBank does not want to sink large $$$ into 600 MHz. They'll get primarily 5x5 for urban penetration and secondarily for rural propagation and, like a mod said, shift ALL data to 600 MHz and use SMR 800 for voice forever. They don't have the full 7x7 MHz nationwide. It's Verizon and ATT who have the large number but low population density of rural customers who "need" large amounts of 600 MHz. Sprint's differentiator will be 2.5 GHz. That's mostly where Softbank wants to send the $5bil it gave Sprint.

I'd say not a chance in hell. I don't think VZ wants to get "rid" of its Cellular spectrum. Agree. The iphone 5 and probably other phones have LTE Band 5 - cellular 850 - support. Once their CDMA traffic drops enough, they can repurpose some for LTE and activate it with a carrier update.

That's what their large AWS holdings are for. Let's let them deploy that first. I'm sure Verizon agrees with you 100%

There's a quote from Philip Humm during a conference call in this thread or the other TMO thread wherein he says 37k is the then 3G/4g coverage. And he says those are the towers they're gonna upgrade to LTE. So TMO will have 2g-only areas and LTE areas and no HSPA-only areas. That's the implication from the conference call.

If you use the NDK, can you stay completely native or do you have to still call Java for certain functionalities?

And again, I know that but it's the same concept: they use a virtual machine. Do you understand what a virtual machine is? No, I don't expect assembly language and I never said that; I said C++ several times. C++ is also higher level and Android would still provide a framework like on windows: Qt, MFC, WPF, etc. But a framework is different from a VM - assuming the framework is native code - and a framework doesn't introduce anywhere near the overhead that a VM does. Yes I agree. But if Android apps were native vs VM-based, they'd be way faster . . . because of the Dalvik virtual machine.

Why does "how many phones there are" imply that you have to use Java? They all use ARM, MIPS or x86 so you compile your app three times and submit it to the app store.

And Dalvik takes up system resources, right? Like memory and CPU time. So why wouldn't Google go with the most efficient architecture? It's not a PC where you can throw in 8GB RAM for $50.

My point is that with native code, you wouldn't need so much RAM and quad cores. Right now, Android is only usable and fluid on the latest hardware. Regarding the octo-core thing: you'll only use 4 cores at a time no matter what.

Instead Java classes are compiled into Dalvik executables and run on Dalvik, a specialized virtual machine (VM) designed specifically for Android http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_Android_API It's not just Java syntax but the use of a virtual machine that it calls Dalvik which is the same concept as the Java virtual machine and it's what makes Java SLOOOOOW. Are you familiar with garbage collection vs smart pointers? Here's a nice history http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57417144-92/android-java-and-the-tech-behind-oracle-v-google-faq/ The developer base also knew C++ or would've easily transitioned to C++ from Java. You're sure? Did you ask Ookla developers?

The newest Android phones have insane - 2GB - amounts of RAM and 4 cores and most people - hopefully not the ones here - say "WOW! Android phones are SOOO much better than iPhones and Windows Phones cause they have WAYYY more memory and 4 cores! I'm buying an Android cause it's gonna be so much faster" But the reason why they have so much memory and cores is because apps are written in Java which needs a Virtual Machine which needs memory and more processing power compared to a native app. I'm sure there's caveats to above statement but that's the gist of it. And the sad part is that all the extra processing power still doesn't make up Java. Just compare the fluidity of Ookla's Speedtest app. The needle doesn't even stutter in Android; it updates at .2 frames/sec while in iOS it behaves like a needle, though this may be due to lazy use of the Android API. So given its inherent limitation and ESPECIALLY on a mobile platform, WTF did Google use Java as their framework? It's not as if people don't also know C++. If you want automatic memory management in C++ like Java, use boost's smart pointer. Done. [Chirp Chirp] If Apple and Microsoft can make a native SDK, why can't Google?

It's not that we want that to be true but rather, we have the CEO of TMO pre-merger stating that they're going to upgrade 37,000 towers to LTE and he states that this 37k number is their current (2012) 3g/4g footprint. So this would mean that they would have to have WAY more than 37k towers to account for all the 2G-only areas.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10572.html I've tried pasting the spectrum table allocation but it removes the formatting; the table is in the link above. Search for "Table 1 — Block size for spectrum in the 700 MHz band" The band plan is exactly the same except Band 13 spectrum is split into 2 5x5, probably so that two carriers can buy that band. What's nice for Verizon is that it will be able to purchase both those 5x5 blocks in Band 13. A spectrum cap of one paired spectrum block within blocks B, C, C1 and C2 is applicable to all large wireless service providers. Large wireless service providers are defined as companies with 10% or more of the national wireless subscriber market share, or 20% or more of the wireless subscriber market share in the province of the relevant licence area.http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10581.html#p6.2

Why would there be any rules to deny Verizon to bid on Band 13? Especially when it doesn't have any 700 MHz in Canada so . . . Here are the rules: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10572.html 6.2 Spectrum Aggregation Limits243. Competitive measures with regard to the 700 MHz band were announced in SMSE‑002‑12. Industry Canada sought comments on the proposed wording of the condition of licence related to the spectrum aggregation limits as follows: The licensee must comply with the spectrum aggregation limits as follows: A limit of two paired frequency blocks in the 700 MHz band (blocks A, B, C, C1 and C2) is applicable to all licensees. A spectrum cap of one paired spectrum block within blocks B, C, C1 and C2 is applicable to all large wireless service providers. Large wireless service providers are defined as companies with 10% or more of the national wireless subscriber market share, or 20% or more of the wireless subscriber market share in the province of the relevant licence area. The spectrum caps put in place for the 700 MHz auction will continue to be in place for five years following licence issuance. Therefore, no transfer of licences or issuance of new licences will be authorized that allows a licensee to exceed the spectrum caps during this period. Any change in ownership or control granting a right or interest to another licensee in this band may be considered as licence transfer for the purpose of this condition of licence whether or not the licensee name is changed as a result. The licensee must request approval by the Minister of Industry for any change that would have a material effect on its compliance with these spectrum aggregation limits. Such a request must be made in advance for any proposed transactions within its knowledge.

What's the market cap of the other players vs Verizon? Comparison of the Triplets: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=RCI+Competitors Verizon could buy ALL the spectrum in the auction. Verizon could buy Rogers, Telus, and Bell if it really wanted to. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VZ

Even Mexico is using the APT plan! http://www.policytracker.com/headlines/mexico-adopts-apt-plan

Duh.

Is this a good place to start a 700 MHz bandplan discussion? If not, mods can move it. AJ, why was the 700 MHz plan chosen the way it was here in USA? Is it because of no public safety band? 59. Option 3, the APT band plan adopted by administrations in Asia, does not include provisions for public safety services in the 700 MHzband. The adoption of this band plan would thus require the displacement of Canadian public safety operations from current frequencies. Moreover, significant issues related to cross-border interoperability, interference, frequency coordination and equipment availability would arise and affect both public safety and future commercial mobile systems. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10122.html That's what Canada's FCC said. Or is it politics? Looks like no one else is gonna use that plan But while the US model is unlikely to be adopted by any other region, it does look as though other regions might be pursuing somewhat separatist strategies. Many Asia-Pacific countries have already committed to the Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) plan, which takes 703–748MHz and pairs it with 758–803MHz. Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, Korea, Papua New Guinea have now either formally adopted or signalled their intent to use the APT700MHz spectrum band for LTE services. Indonesia and Malaysia are yet to commit, though, while China—ever keen to plough its own furrow—has indicated that it aims to introduce TDD technology in the 700MHz band. http://www.telecoms.com/154582/done-roaming/

Yes they did 60. Taking into consideration the constraints related to potential cross-border interference, the necessity to support public safety systems and equipment ecosystem availability, Industry Canada has concluded that Option 1 (harmonization with the U.S. band plan) should be adopted. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10122.html If they hadn't, Verizon wouldn't have any LTE roaming advantage.

It's going to be hard to get stations to give up their spectrum. With the switch to digital just a few years ago forcing some stations to revamp their transmitters, I don't see it happening again soon. Smaller stations, like mine, are in no position to be changing transmitters. Gannet bought BELO, not KING-TV. KING-TV was one of the channels operated by BELO. Only some stations are broadcasting in the 600Mhz band. Channels range from ~470 to ~750Mhz. However, stations have a lot invested in their transmitting equipment, and for the stations that do broadcast in the 600Mhz band, there isn't really anywhere else for them to go, especially in larger markets. It's going to be a tough sell to get them to move. Good thing TMO and Sprint have enough spectrum in metro areas. It's rural where its most valuable to them. Though after seeing how long Verizon milked its 10x10, more urban wouldn't be bad either.

Exactly the opposite. How does insulating your economy from global competition mean you care about your citizens? They have the highest cell prices BECAUSE there is no competition. As a result of highest prices, Canada has the lowest cell ownership per capita. "However when we look at how many cell phones there are per person in Canada, and compare that to other technologically advanced nations, Canada is far behind. In 2009 Canada had only 70.9 cell phones per 100 people, while the much smaller U.K. had 129.9, and even the U.S. with its large size managed to reach 89.2. Canada also fares poorly in comparison to other nations that have a widely dispersed population like Finland (144.2) and Norway (111).8" http://openmedia.ca/blog/why-your-high-cell-phone-bills-have-nothing-do-size-canada Have you heard of a foreign company called Softbank? Softbank could never do in Canada what it will do here BECAUSE we have less government coddling than in Canada. How is Verizon bad? Even if Verizon, as you say, maintains the same pricing as the Canadian Triplets, then by definition, things at worst won't change. But then why would people switch to Verizon-Canada and how would they recover their costs? I can see one scenario that would be bad for Canadians: Verizon undercuts the Triplets and upon acquiring a commanding market position, it raises prices. But this assumes the Triplets don't do anything to react. Though maybe Verizon may be content to lose money for a longer time so it kills the Triplets? What's the payoff? Canada is so small that it's not worth it. If the were to happen, the Canadian gov would step in somehow so . . . no. Verizon wouldn't risk a xenophobic backlash for such a small payoff. Read some Fiercewireless articles about what happened in France - France of all places - when Free Iliad came on the scene as the fourth national competitor; France Telecom was not a happy camper. Before Free Iliad, France had the highest rates in Europe. (Can't find the article right now) No. Verizon will definitely not be bad for Canadians. Having 4 equal-ish sized cell Cos, each with national coverage and sub 1-GHz spectrum? Count me in! Can't wait till TMO gets that 5x5 @600 MHz, if it survives 3 years without upgrading all towers to at least 3G or an expansion of its footprint. Ray said that the company is not currently looking to expand its network footprint and is eagerly awaiting next year's scheduled incentive auctions of 600 MHz broadcast TV spectrum. He said using such spectrum is "a far more effective way to go and build those opportunities out" and that getting access to such low-band spectrum would mean "we would finally have a level playing field in the U.S. marketplace" between smaller carriers and AT&T and Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ), which dominated the 700 MHz auction in 2008. Read more: T-Mobile to expand MetroPCS footprint by 100M POPs - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-expand-metropcs-footprint-100m-pops/2013-05-15#ixzz2Xux6tmhm Subscribe at FierceWireless

You didn't read the article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/17/f-naguib-sawiris.html "Globalive, headed by Canadian entrepreneur Anthony Lacavera, has a complex ownership structure under which the Canadian equity owners control the company, but Orascom put up more than 80 per cent of the funding. That raised the ire of telecom incumbents Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. which complained to the CRTC that the company doesn't adhere to Canada's stringent foreign ownership rules. After a lengthy process, Canadian officials eventually ruled that Wind was within the rules and was allowed to launch a cellular service in late 2009." By the skin of their teeth it was ruled ok; that's not how it should be. We have Tmobile and now Softbank. WTF are the Canadians worried about? It's one thing to have issues with Huawei and ZTE's routers but when it's Verizon? VoLTE: I'm sure you've read the mods' many posts regarding VoLTE in its current state. Simply, it's not as robust in terms of coverage at 700 MHz, let alone at AWS, compared to even W-CDMA voice. As the mods said, maybe LTE R12 will fix that but that'll be a while. And this is even more relevant for Verizon who has very far spacing on their LTE towers. Don't think that VZW will make their towers denser in Canada when their low population density will already require a huge investment. And marketing-wise, how can Verizon justify charging their US customers roaming on the Verizon-Canada network? They can't. That article was wrote 2 years ago. Here's the kicker: an article wrote earlier this year said that Canada's telecom authority has relaxed their rules more than when they let Wind Mobile start up. If I remember to this evening, I will try to find it. They want a major 4th player, but frankly, Verizon shouldn't be it. Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2 Found it but it's not much better. It's still not what we have here in US-A. Foreign carriers c. Buy a carrier if it has less than 10% of Canadian telecom revenues. "The recent amendments to the Telecommunications Act2 provide an exemption to the normal rules for carriers and their affiliates having total annual telecommunications revenues that represent less than 10% of total Canadian telecom industry revenues. Based upon the most recent CRTC reports, carriers could have up to C$4.17 billion in annual revenue and still be exempt from the foreign ownership restrictions. As a result, the exemption will apply to all current Canadian carriers other than Bell Canada, TELUS Corporation and Rogers Communications Inc. A carrier established under the exemption can expand its operations to exceed the 10% ownership threshold, provided that growth beyond the threshold is not a result of acquiring control of another carrier or acquiring assets of another Canadian carrier, in which case the normal ownership restrictions would apply (effectively, a 46.7% limit and no "control in fact")." http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/187372/Telecommunications+Mobile+Cable+Communications/Foreign+Ownership+Restrictions+Relaxed+For+Telecom+Carriers+In+Canada Does anyone know why the Canadians are so antsy about foreign investment? Lobbyists and campaign donations?

You didn't read the article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/17/f-naguib-sawiris.html "Globalive, headed by Canadian entrepreneur Anthony Lacavera, has a complex ownership structure under which the Canadian equity owners control the company, but Orascom put up more than 80 per cent of the funding. That raised the ire of telecom incumbents Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. which complained to the CRTC that the company doesn't adhere to Canada's stringent foreign ownership rules. After a lengthy process, Canadian officials eventually ruled that Wind was within the rules and was allowed to launch a cellular service in late 2009." By the skin of their teeth it was ruled ok; that's not how it should be. We have Tmobile and now Softbank. WTF are the Canadians worried about? It's one thing to have issues with Huawei and ZTE's routers but when it's Verizon? VoLTE: I'm sure you've read the mods' many posts regarding VoLTE in its current state. Simply, it's not as robust in terms of coverage at 700 MHz, let alone at AWS, compared to even W-CDMA voice. As the mods said, maybe LTE R12 will fix that but that'll be a while. And this is even more relevant for Verizon who has very far spacing on their LTE towers. Don't think that VZW will make their towers denser in Canada when their low population density will already require a huge investment. And marketing-wise, how can Verizon justify charging their US customers roaming on the Verizon-Canada network? They can't.

1. That implies that Verizon is spending billions in Canada so its own customers will stay on a technology that it wants them to get off. If anything, Verizon is happy that CDMA is dying in Canada so those customers buy a Qualcomm LTE/W-CDMA phone. 2. Yes. So what? That's the justification for them spending billions in Canada? 3. The only carriers Verizon is buying are the 3 startups that were created after Canada's AWS auction. http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/reports-verizon-makes-600m-800m-bid-canadas-wind-mobile/2013-06-26 Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, Public Mobile Look at their coverage maps: they only have enclaves of native coverage - and only on AWS - in one or two metro areas each and the rest is roaming; there is no infrastructure to speak of and it's ALL only AWS.

Turns out there's a reason why Canadians pay so much: besides China, they're the only country that doesn't allow foreign direct investment. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/17/f-naguib-sawiris.html So the Canadian government's public declarations that they want a fourth national competitor is just BS. Cause they'd change their investment rules if that were the case.