Mr.Nuke

It is more insightful than these tend to be. -$5-6 billion may be on the low side on CapEx going forward. -Large push back towards traditional towers. -Going back to the 25/26/41 on every macro tower where possible plan.

I'm liking the camera...

You misread it. (T) is the NYSE ticker symbol for AT&T, not T-Mobile.

https://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/news/press/sb/2017/20171106_01/?linkId=44351122

Joint announcement from both companies https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-sprint.htm?view_id=485 http://newsroom.sprint.com/tmobile-and-sprint-end-merger-discussions.htm

The Magic Box technical support line 844-463-3194.

I think we are starting to see some creativity on this front too. I have a feeling especially given the timing of the announcement in relation to knowing merger talks were effectively stalled in hindsight for the tower company is interesting.

Sprint isn't going anywhere either....

It would be pretty consistent with what was reported last week that a merger announcement is still likely imminent, but wasn't going to be ready by earnings as previously hoped by both parties. There is little point in holding a conference call with analysts right now when you know the questions would be merger dominated (and T-Mobile's executive team can't really answer most of said questions in such a setting right now), especially when you expect to have to hold a conference call with analysts at some point in the coming weeks after you announce a merger.

Pretty much everybody.

Yes.

The V30 supports 4xCA DL on Band 41 and 2XCA on Band 41 UL. The Pixels do not. The 2 also happens to correspond to the foot note for 4x4 MIMO support. It is a typo. The phone supports 4x4 on B41. We've read the FCC documents.

Exact same order here.

Pardon me if I don't applaud them for finally building out a network in a metro area of 925,000 people.

Again, this isn't the proper place for this discussion. This thread is for information about Sprint's network and their deployments in the Lower Central Valley market. If you want to discuss the the rumored Sprint/T-Mobile merger do it in this thread.

October 13th launch

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

Sprint's latest guidance for CapEx was to remain around $3.5 to $4 billion a year for the next 3 years (2017-2019). Can guidance change? Yes, and it has before with Sprint. That said, I'll take their guidance over speculation based on debt maturities.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/technology/google-htc-smartphones.html?mcubz=3

I'd be surprised if they did. 7. Should be an absolute yes, but my guess is no. Which leads into 8. 8. It probably depends on the partner. If roaming is being charged on a per usage basis, pretty much the industry standard; then it depends on what Verizon is paying per MB to the partner, how much data a person is using, and what revenue the person is providing Verizon. I get the impression they're only really going after unprofitable accounts right now.

There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides here. Verizon while it does appear they had a basic zip code block in their system could've been much more proactive about flagging accounts that were fraudulently setup by customers or employees at their own and third party stores and "moved" to the correct address. They also could've caught on a heck of a lot sooner that they had a high propensity of negative accounts that happened to correspond to LTEiRA areas. LTEiRA It has been outright acknowledged by the Montana partner that they were losing customers to Verizon. All of these partners had to have realized they were getting more in Verizon roaming revenue than they realistically should've been from "transient" VZ customers. And any basic data audit would've shown them it was the same VZ customers using their data month after month. Instead of protecting their territory, as as been noted in this thread they turned a blind eye. They were getting roaming revenue without having to deal with any of the costs associated with having a customer. Users I'm somewhat sympathetic but not really. I've seen multiple examples like swintec's above perusing LTEiRA facebook pages and local newspapers in impacted areas. At a fundamental level, even if we plead ignorance on the customers' behalves, people had to realize something wasn't right when you couldn't sign up using your own zipcode or in some cases it wasn't possible for you to get a local area code number. Beyond that there are numerous cases on the internet of people outright flaunting that they knew what they were doing. They wanted unlimited data, access to more phones than their rural provider sold, cheaper rate plans, etc. I have zero sympathy for them.

It was a little more nuanced than that. Their quote was the following They appear to be putting people on an interest list with the intent of accepting them as they have the resources to do so. It isn't as if they're going to need substantial network build outs to accommodate them, as they've effectively already been using the company's network. I can get a rural operator in Montana not having phones on hand or staffing levels to accommodate an influx of customers. What is a little more inexcusable on their part is the first sentence and a half. If as their statement does, you acknowledge you were fully aware that you were losing customers to Verizon who in turn were predominately roaming on your network, it should've been entirely foreseeable that this was coming at some point. The Maine situation is still strange. If you are Verizon and you want a quasi-protection type network in rural Maine to cover your transient roamers/cut down on your roaming costs, why do you partner with this company instead of doing that yourself? In the reciprocal cases it is quite clear why Verizon was partnering with LTEiRA rural provider partners, in this case not so much. The only thing that make sense is that if Wireless Partners, LLC was qualifying for some kind of assistance be it small business programs or rural economic funding that Verizon itself was incapable of meeting. Link And if Verizon had these guys build the network there because they were cheaper due to their ability to get get assistance for providing service to under-served rural areas, that is a much murkier situation than the other LTEiRA deals.

I agree. It is a minor disappointment that LG was able to get things like 4xCA for B41 or B71 support for T-Mobile on the V30, but not this device.

2X and 3X CA DL B41 2X CA DL B25 No UL CA HPUE 4x4 MIMO (10 streams) 256/64 QAM DL-UL

If you are in Portland your address probably isn't compatible.