Jump to content
joshuam

Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

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!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot how terrible south jersey is on Sprint, full bars B41 3xCA pings 1000+ almost unusable something is not right here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :tu:

Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 <_<

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys be civilized in the debates. No need to resort to personal attacks. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "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!  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 8
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • TAPATALK VERSION
    BACK ONLINE

  • PROGRESSIVE RAFFLE
    FOR AN iPHONE 8

    iphonexiphone8.jpg

    WHICH CAN PROGRESS TO AN iPHONE 8+ OR AN iPHONE X
    **or an Android device of equal or lesser value**

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • The other thing I found in his video presentation was the clear lack of anything "Sprint".   John jabbed at AT&T and Verizon but nothing on or against Sprint.  Also, I don't know if you guys noticed, but the word "Duopoly" is the power word of late and is being used with more frequency! (no pun intended)....   I think it's about conditioning  the FCC and DOJ by hearing it.
    • The DOJ reviews potential antitrust issues in mergers. The FCC is supposed to look at whether the merger is in the public interest, which includes reduced competition. So the FCC could reject the merger on the grounds that the reduced competition is not in the public interest. I do not, however, see Chairman Pai doing that because he is so pro-business. From the FCC's FAQ about merger reviews:
      Q: What is the FCC’s public interest standard/test?
      A: Under section 310(d) of the Communications Act, we determine whether a proposed transaction will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. First, we determine if the application complies with provisions of the Act and our Commission rules. If it does, then we consider whether granting the application could result in public interest harms by substantially frustrating or impairing the objectives or implementation of the Communications Act or related statutes. Competition, diversity, localism, and encouraging the provision of advanced services to all Americans are among the principle objectives of the Act. We also consider what potential public benefits might occur because of the transaction. We balance the potential public interest harms against the potential benefits. The Applicants bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed transaction, on balance, will serve the public interest.
    • Before we jump to this conclusion we need to see sustained financial growth over a period of time and a much larger increase in net additions to the network. Sprint is still offering the best deals in wireless and their growth is lagging the competition. This is not sustainable over the long term. Honestly, I see a merger as inevitable as the larger providers will have much more flexible cash for network enhancements in the near future, which they can then leverage to gain more customers. 
    • For exurban and rural sites, microwave and satellite backhaul are often used. 
  • Recently Browsing

×