Jump to content

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


joshuam

Recommended Posts

Have you ever seen a Sprint camouflage site? There is a town 80 miles west of me that is filled with them.

 

Sprint has no problem following local ordinances because they've done it in the past. Like I said, this notion that Sprint camouflage sites are a huge burden is baloney. If they were, they wouldn't be doing them or would have focused on coverage, not capacity. Hell, they got areas in Vegas in which one site is a palm tree and the next one isn't. In Fresno, Sprint has macro sites all over the place, but one totally random flag pole antenna with a huge American flag inside a car dealership lot. Sprint does camouflage sites at random, with or without local ordinances forcing them to.

 

And before you ramble off about "Sprint could add more if not for added costs"... remember that Sprint is currently not expanding or adding many macro sites to begin with. So don't even go there

 

At this point, you're just rambling for the sake of rambling. I'm done with you.

You are missing the point. It isnt that it never passes the cost benefit analysis to put up a camouflage tower or small cell, it is that it pass a CBA less often and therefore marginal areas don't get improved service. I dont have a problem with the way towers look, I actually like them. I dont see why your aesthetic sensibility should have precedence over mine.

 

Oh, and if you were a sponsor of this site you would know sprint is expanding the number of sites they have.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen a Sprint camouflage site? There is a town 80 miles west of me that is filled with them.

 

Sprint has no problem following local ordinances because they've done it in the past. Like I said, this notion that Sprint camouflage sites are a huge burden is baloney. If they were, they wouldn't be doing them or would have focused on coverage, not capacity. Hell, they got areas in Vegas in which one site is a palm tree and the next one isn't. In Fresno, Sprint has macro sites all over the place, but one totally random flag pole antenna with a huge American flag inside a car dealership lot. Sprint does camouflage sites at random, with or without local ordinances forcing them to.

 

And before you ramble off about "Sprint could add more if not for added costs"... remember that Sprint is currently not expanding or adding many macro sites to begin with. So don't even go there

 

At this point, you're just rambling for the sake of rambling. I'm done with you.

 

It's not the stealth macro sites that are the issue.  It's the very fact municipalities and local governments apply the SAME rules for macro sites to small cells which are far separate in terms of leased areas, size, and height.

 

It makes no sense a singular low power all in one small cell strapped to a standard 30-40' wooden pole or light pole / traffic lights should go through the same extensive permitting and reviews as a high power macro site with backup battery cabinets, ground base stations, multiple fiber and coax cable runs, and multiple "high power" radome equipment. This is the primary issue now with a lot of municipalities that don't have experience with small cells.

 

Now if Sprint wants to be stupid and apply for 75-130' wooden poles that are sometimes taller than macro sites then it's on Mobilitie and Sprint being stupid. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, speak for yourself. I am a home owner and NIMBY drive me nuts. I dont care about your personal aesthetic sensibilities, I care about having infurstructor running to my house. Wireless cites arent ofensive to me in the slightest, it would be like saying you dont want street lights because you dont like the way they look.

 

Okay I believe you when you say you're a homeowner. But where did you get the idea that what you care about supersedes what other people want? Zoning laws are supposed to reflect the prevailing preferences of citizens. When what you want violate those then you WILL NEED TO CARE ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES. If your sentiment becomes a popular one then there is a democratic mechanism to change zoning laws for the social good. We live in a democratic society under the rule of law and it's certainly not okay for unscrupulous businesses to sidestep regulations just to boost their bottom line. One person's idiosyncratic preference shouldn't override prevailing community preferences.

 

In any case most of this stuff isnt going up in subdivisions but just out side of them or in parks and open areas with in them. So, what is the big deal?

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I think you're just making excuse for them. But in any case, if you think you have a strong argument for those small cells then I encourage you to be an activist and lobby for a change in zoning laws but I suspect your opinion will be vastly outnumbered. The preference of the minority cannot come at the expense of the majority, even if the minority doesn't understand the expense. Thank god for that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the stealth macro sites that are the issue. It's the very fact municipalities and local governments apply the SAME rules for macro sites to small cells which are far separate in terms of leased areas, size, and height.

 

It makes no sense a singular low power all in one small cell strapped to a standard 30-40' wooden pole or light pole / traffic lights should go through the same extensive permitting and reviews as a high power macro site with backup battery cabinets, ground base stations, multiple fiber and coax cable runs, and multiple "high power" radome equipment. This is the primary issue now with a lot of municipalities that don't have experience with small cells.

 

Now if Sprint wants to be stupid and apply for 75-130' wooden poles that are sometimes taller than macro sites then it's on Mobilitie and Sprint being stupid.

I think popular opinion is pretty receptive to the 30-40' small cell poles and if the industry had stuck to those then the NIMBY defense would have gradually dissipated. The problem really blew up when Sprint hires Mobilitie to build those ugly 75-120' poles. The public opinion is 100% against those and so the entire industry's small cells rollout is stalled because of that stupid idea. If the industry had focused on lobbying local zoning laws to accommodate the "real small cells" (sub-38') we would have a lot more deployed by now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I believe you when you say you're a homeowner. But where did you get the idea that what you care about supersedes what other people want? Zoning laws are supposed to reflect the prevailing preferences of citizens. When what you want violate those then you WILL NEED TO CARE ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES. If your sentiment becomes a popular one then there is a democratic mechanism to change zoning laws for the social good. We live in a democratic society under the rule of law and it's certainly not okay for unscrupulous businesses to sidestep regulations just to boost their bottom line. One person's idiosyncratic preference shouldn't override prevailing community preferences.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersede anyone's. I have stated my opinion and ask that if there are areas and groups of other people that strangle wireless deployment with retarded permiting and zoning regulations that those people : stop complaining about how bad their service is, how few choices for wireless providers there are, how other countries are more technically advance and complaining about how the US sucks in wireless broadband access because THEY ARE THE CAUSE!. I am fine with people having other priorities and if the majority of people want to live in a country stuck in time fine, just don't be a hypocrite and complain about it.

 

Also, regardless of what zoning laws are suppose to be, they are often tools of special interests.

 

 

And again "ugly" to who? Not me. Your Aesthetics are off. Are street lights ugly?

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersedes anyone. I have said stated my opinion and ask that if there are areas and groups of other people that strangle wireless deployment with retarded permiting and zoning regulations that those people : stop complaining about how bad their service is, how few choices for wireless providers there are, how other countries are more technically advance and complaining about how the US sucks in wireless broadband access because THEY ARE THE CAUSE!. I am fine with people having other priorities and if the majority of people want to live in a country stuck in time fine, just don't be a hypocrite and complain about it.

 

Also, regardless of what zoning laws are suppose to be, they are often tools of special interests.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Those people are NOT complaining about broadband access or mobile coverage. You're arguing with a straw man that doesn't exist. You probably haven't had a real talk with any property owner who fight to protect their neighborhood and hence your lack of empathy. I encourage you to not see your opponents as despicable hypocrites and try to understand their viewpoints and rights a bit better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersedes anyone. I have said stated my opinion and ask that if there are areas and groups of other people that strangle wireless deployment with retarded permiting and zoning regulations that those people : stop complaining about how bad their service is, how few choices for wireless providers there are, how other countries are more technically advance and complaining about how the US sucks in wireless broadband access because THEY ARE THE CAUSE!. I am fine with people having other priorities and if the majority of people want to live in a country stuck in time fine, just don't be a hypocrite and complain about it.

 

Also, regardless of what zoning laws are suppose to be, they are often tools of special interests.

 

 

And again "ugly" to who? Not me. Your Aesthetics are off. Are street lights ugly?

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

"To whom".

 

It doesn't matter what you think of my aesthetic sensibility. It's the prevailing sentiment embodied in zoning regulations that matter. Case in point: if your community has a distaste for street lights and put in zoning regulations to forbid them, they don't need you to agree as long as that is a prevailing sentiment. There is not a thing you can do about it. Certainly not circumventing the zoning laws to build street lights on right-of-way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To whom".

 

It doesn't matter what you think of my aesthetic sensibility. It's the prevailing sentiment embodied in zoning regulations that matter. Case in point: if your community has a distaste for street lights and put in zoning regulations to forbid them, they don't need you to agree as long as that is a prevailing sentiment. There is not a thing you can do about it. Certainly not circumventing the zoning laws to build street lights on right-of-way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We agree on that, I just think living in a time before streets were illuminated at night by street lights is moronic and wouldnt want to hear my neighbor complain about being mugged at night.

 

And utilities and infurstructor can be built on right of ways. There even exist something called eminent domain were You are only entitled to compensation and your property can be siezed.

 

Also, be a little more cynical about zoning laws. They arent as high and lofty of a thing as you make it out.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My personal experience with ZTE was pretty good. I have a LivePro that had some weird issues which they replaced under warranty rather quickly. It was maybe 5 or 6 days from when I called for warranty support to when I received the device back. The only snafu I ran into at all was the replacement devices meid wasn't in Sprint's database and I had to wait another two days to get it activated. I would definitely try another one of their devices.

 

 

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

If you had a good experience with ZTE, that is fine. There seem to be alot of hit or miss from what I've read from people, and some really strong diehard fans of them too. The positive thing I'll say about it, is the diehard fans at least most of the ones I've talked with, are pretty reasonable about the downsides of ZTE and were pretty supportive towards me when I explained my issue with ZTE.

 

I'll be glad to tell anyone my situation regarding ZTE through pm, if anyone is interested. Since there isn't any relation to Sprint or any other carrier, I won't go into detail here, other than to say it was more serious than anything else I've posted here, but it isn't anything I believe even the slightest should affect another's decision to buy ZTE, at least in terms of what people here care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The merger could always go the other way.

 

The merger will be an all stock merger. Neither entity can afford to buy the other. As it is, right now T-Mobile has a higher corporate value at approximately $80B while Sprint has a $70B value. So it seems that unless Softbank comes up with a few billions to even up the stakes, T-Mobile or DT will be the controlling entity. I expect that at some point after the merger, the resultant company will come up with a public offering to the public to get some value out of the company.

Edited by bigsnake49
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's going to wind up running it. I don't see Masa giving up ownership of his vision for Sprint. I see Marcelo running the whole thing as part of the SoftBank Empire.

 

For what it's worth, John Legere wasn't there at The White House meeting. Not sure what to read into that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, John Legere wasn't there at The White House meeting. Not sure what to read into that.

nothing really to read. Its obvious. They (Trump & Legere) both went off on each other on twitter a few months back. Both criticizing each others business, so naturally Legere doesn't want to look like the one that has to suck up.

 

TS

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that Legere will be a part of NewCo. I think (and this is just my opinion) that this will be Legere's Golden Parachute.

I'm thinking that as well. Marcelo's whole demeanor in that CNBC interview (https://twitter.com/sprintnews/status/877980187048243204) seemed to be that he's not stepping aside.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing really to read. Its obvious. They (Trump & Legere) both went off on each other on twitter a few months back. Both criticizing each others business, so naturally Legere doesn't want to look like the one that has to suck up.

 

TS

That's very possible!

 

Marcelo was a supporter for Hillary (http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article103428377.html). Apparently that didn't come up in his meeting with the President.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that Legere will be a part of NewCo. I think (and this is just my opinion) that this will be Legere's Golden Parachute.

John Legere will take the money and run. Then he'll focus on trying to keep his popularity in some other way with his Tmo Magenta followers. One thing though, I doubt he'll be wearing all those Tmo items once he's gone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed a repeating grammatical mistake (well, I've noticed loads of them but this one over and over): the correct word is "infrastructure." I have no idea why anyone would attempt to spell it "infrastructor."

 

Not trying to be a d@ck but proper grammar is exceedingly important, especially in any sort of written communication.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed a repeating grammatical mistake (well, I've noticed loads of them but this one over and over): the correct word is "infrastructure." I have no idea why anyone would attempt to spell it "infrastructor."

 

Not trying to be a d@ck but proper grammar is exceedingly important, especially in any sort of written communication.

It is funny you still knew what it meant. English isn't my first language and I think that was a simple spelling mistake, not a grammatical error. But thanks.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...