MarshieZ Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Just now, swintec said: i saw the same today with SCP but it is a display bug of cached data i believe. during this behavior, if you completely exit the SCP app and then reopen it you will see it now shows USCC correctly. Hmmm, that would make sense then. I won't be going back that way for awhile, but I'll try and at least go to Waupaca here soon to see if I can recreate this and get some screenshots. I'm still at 0 for roaming data as of today!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowmobiler487 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 On 9/18/2017 at 6:13 PM, swintec said: but do you have a bill from before you had an airave to compare taxes and fees? Because, guess what...i do. Actually, i returned my airave earlier this year after three years of not using it. the bills after returning the device are about $2.50 LOWER. The difference came from lower admin fees and other surcharges that are charged per line. I noticed the same thing when I sent my airave back about 4 years ago. My bill decreased by approx $3/month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesinclair Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 On 9/19/2017 at 3:36 PM, RedSpark said: T-Mobile has increased its Deprioritization threshold from 32GB to 50GB: https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/unlimited-prioritzation-increase.htm Should Sprint respond by increasing its Deprioritization threshold up from 23GB? Looks like in a month whatever Legere wants Legere will get 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnner1999 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Jerry is typically spot on. And I'd agree. This isn't a hit piece I don't think. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-sprint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Nuke Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnner1999 said: Jerry is typically spot on. And I'd agree. This isn't a hit piece I don't think. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-sprint Jerry isn't always spot on. And no, it isn't a hit piece given he wrote the same article about T-Mobile on Wednesday. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-t-mobile#comments 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twospirits Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 With the rumor turning into reality of a T-Mobile / Sprint merger coming true, I sense alot more of these type of articles will be coming out if not already out. If one is happy with a company, great, if not, do what you can to leave and go to the one that you think is better and shut the F up, nobody f'ng cares. But no, they rather jump on the bandwagon and complain saying "I've been a X company customer 10 years ago and they suck and will never go back" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnner1999 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 43 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said: Jerry isn't always spot on. And no, it isn't a hit piece given he wrote the same article about T-Mobile on Wednesday. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-t-mobile#comments he did one for all four... I thought he was being pretty nice and fair. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueAngel Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 I forgot how terrible south jersey is on Sprint, full bars B41 3xCA pings 1000+ almost unusable something is not right here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony.spina97 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, BlueAngel said: I forgot how terrible south jersey is on Sprint, full bars B41 3xCA pings 1000+ almost unusable something is not right here. Where at were you? I was just in Wildwood and decided to just turn off LTE and use 3G because of how saturated it was. -Anthony 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueAngel Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, anthony.spina97 said: Where at were you? I was just in Wildwood and decided to just turn off LTE and use 3G because of how saturated it was. -Anthony Yeah I'm in wildwood, even my friends on at&t are having network issues. I'm maxing out at around 10mbps but pings are just insane. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 For those in favor of a Sprint/Tmobile tie up need to see the latest eps of Last week tonight. Its a small reminder of why mergers in general are mostly a bad idea. His segment(about the airline industry, and ironically enough makes fun of ATT) will definitely have some negative affect on any questionable mergers that are up and coming, including Sprint/Tmobile (He almost single-handedly saved Net Neutrality with an unbelievable segment similar to this one) Doesn't hurt that its a hilarious segment.. John Oliver 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 32 minutes ago, nexgencpu said: For those in favor of a Sprint/Tmobile tie up need to see the latest eps of Last week tonight. Its a small reminder of why mergers in general are mostly a bad idea. His segment(about the airline industry, and ironically enough makes fun of ATT) will definitely have some negative affect on any questionable mergers that are up and coming, including Sprint/Tmobile (He almost single-handedly saved Net Neutrality with an unbelievable segment similar to this one) Doesn't hurt that its a hilarious segment.. John Oliver Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, utiz4321 said: Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters. Mass consolidation of consumer business goods/services are mostly only good for corporations/shareholders taking over, his stance on this is far from polarizing. Say what you will about John Oliver, his delivery is almost always spot on. Good writers+good pitch man is the only way shows like these work, and Last week tonight has delivered in spades. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, nexgencpu said: Mass consolidation of consumer business goods/services are mostly only good for corporations taking over, his stance on this is far from polarizing. Say what you will about John Oliver, his delivery is almost always spot on. Good writers+good pitch man is the only way shows like these work, and Last week tonight has delivered in spades. Markets are not zero sum games. If something is good for a company it doesn't follow that it is bad for the consumer. That is particularly true in industries with high fixed cost as there are benifits to both consumers and companies to scale. If mergers are always bad for consumers then make the case for 7 national wireless providers and why thatvwoyld be better than what we have now. Ill give you a hint, it wouldnt be better: no 3f, no fake 4g and no LTE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 17 minutes ago, utiz4321 said: Markets are not zero sum games. If something is good for a company it doesn't follow that it is bad for the consumer. That is particularly true in industries with high fixed cost as there are benifits to both consumers and companies to scale. I never specifically said anything good for corporations is bad for consumers. Where talking M&A here, and how they usually are initiated to eliminate competition, not to somehow increase quality of goods. Without competition in the wireless industry we would still be on 2G/3G, why bother spending when no one will have an option to switch anyway. R&D is an unnecessary expense in a world with zero incentive to innovate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, nexgencpu said: I never specifically said anything good for corporations is bad for consumers. Where talking M&A here, and how they usually are initiated to eliminate competition, not to somehow increase quality of goods. Without competition in the wireless industry we would still be on 2G/3G, why bother spending when no one will have an option to switch anyway. R&D is an unnecessary expense in a world with zero incentive to innovate. How does a sprint/t mobile tie up eleminated competition? There are still three nation wide players and a couple regionals. The fact is in most case mergers are good for consumers, that is the logic, even from a corporation's point of view. Companies merge because it makes the more able to deliver goods and services competitively. The wireless industry is a perfect example of where mergers were of great benifits to the consumer. Unless you can argue that 7 players would have been able to create a better wireless industry than we have know. Go on, I am willing to listen to a case. I just dont see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, utiz4321 said: How does a sprint/t mobile tie up eleminated competition? There are still three nation wide players and a couple regionals. The fact is in most case mergers are good for consumers, that is the logic, even from a corporation's point of view. Companies merge because it makes the more able to deliver goods and services competitively. The wireless industry is a perfect example of where mergers were of great benifits to the consumer. Unless you can argue that 7 players would have been able to create a better wireless industry than we have know. Go on, I am willing to listen to a case. I just dont see it. Yeah lets talk again after S-mobile increase rates 50% and start decommissioning thousands of sites that are considered "unnecessary" I can still hear the ex iDEN users cries falling on death ears after waiting years to be converted to LTE and it never happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, nexgencpu said: Yeah lets talk again after S-mobile increase rates 50% and start decommissioning thousands of sites that are considered "unnecessary" I can still hear the ex iDEN users cries falling on death ears after waiting years to be converted to LTE and it never happening. Funny thing that doesnt actual answer my question, nor does it help your case. Why would 7 carriers be better that 4 in 2017? On a spectrum consolidation bases alone it wouldn't makes sense. If your arguement is "muh IDEN", look thank the fates IDEN is dead. It was a dead end technology and the spectrum would be a wast in today's data Centric world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, utiz4321 said: Funny thing that doesnt actual answer my question, nor does it help your case. Why would 7 carriers be better that 4 in 2017? On a spectrum consolidation bases alone it wouldn't makes sense. Again, no one is arguing about adding 3 more carriers, in fact the argument is the opposite. So your example is kinda useless in this case. My argument is still unchanged, mass consolidation is not a good thing for the consumer. If everyone's thought process was similar to yours, we would have one wireless company, and hey, since they have 100% market share, I'm sure they would gladly afford consumers great prices and services, cause you know, why not!? Cause corporations always make the wisest decisions when the profit motive is number one. You must be a huge fan of Citizens united...Corporations=people 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilotimz Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Guys be civilized in the debates. No need to resort to personal attacks. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, nexgencpu said: Again, no one is arguing about adding 3 more carriers, in fact the argument is the opposite. So your example is kinda useless in this case. My argument is still unchanged, mass consolidation is not a good thing for the consumer. If everyone's thought process was similar to yours, we would have one wireless company, and hey, since they have 100% market share, I'm sure they would gladly afford consumers great prices and services, cause you know, why not!? Cause corporations always make the wisest decisions when the profit motive is number one. You must be a huge fan of Citizens united...Corporations=people You must be in favor of backwardness imposed by the government because muh feels. Look, you are claiming to know the perfect size of the wireless industry and that it would be a bad deal for consumers if the industry had fewer players. I am asking you to give some kind of facts for that claim, to which you replied "mergers are bad". I pointed out that if that were true then the mergers that occurred in the mid 2000s would have been a bad thing so you should be able to make the case that the market size should be 7. You cant do it. It is a perfectly valid strain of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexgencpu Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, utiz4321 said: You must be in favor of backwardness imposed by the government because muh feels. Look, you are claiming to know the perfect size of the wireless industry and that it would be a bad deal for consumers. I am asking you to give some kind of facts for that claim, to which you replied "mergers are bad". I pointed out that if that were true then the mergers that occurred in the mid 2000s would have been a bad thing so you should be able to make the case that the market size should be 7. You cant do it. It is a perfectly valid strain of thought. Agree to disagree. We shall see in a few years how "well" this all plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dro1984 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 "We" don't have any say in this. ... really ... It's between Sprint and T-Mobile and the government. Not us. It's a mobile phone company, not a cancer saving debacle! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC126 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, nexgencpu said: Agree to disagree. We shall see in a few years how "well" this all plays out. It will take a year after the merger close to see the higher fees and unlimited going bye bye. I do not favor for this merger, but Sprint and its parent company have been waiting for this. This has been their strategy from the start, but the problem now is they are the seller rather than the buyers. The only thing in their way is the DOJ, but the new administration appointed pro-business lawyers in the antitrust department. Had the Japenese invested on Sprint network from the get-go, they would have been negotiating a merger from strength rather than weakness. 8 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utiz4321 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 hour ago, SprintNYC said: It will take a year after the merger close to see the higher fees and unlimited going bye bye. I do not favor for this merger, but Sprint and its parent company have been waiting for this. This has been their strategy from the start, but the problem now is they are the seller rather than the buyers. The only thing in their way is the DOJ, but the new administration appointed pro-business lawyers in the antitrust department. Had the Japenese invested on Sprint network from the get-go, they would have been negotiating a merger from strength rather than weakness. They did invest in the network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.