Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 01/10/2018 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    That is why roaming was invented. Compete where it makes sense, and cooperate where it doesn't. - Trip
  2. 10 points
    I've owned two XC90's. And other vehicles too. I totaled an Isuzu Ascender by hitting a deer outside Bismarck, North Dakota chasing Sprint LTE tracks on Sensorly (which turned out not to be actual Sprint signals). I have run into golf ball sized hail while signal tracking. Been chased by a funnel cloud. I have slid off icy roads. I have backed into parking bollards. Numerous paint scratchings from brush and trees while driving up mountaintop access roads. I have blown a transmission. I have had more close calls than I can count with other cars and pedestrians (and sometimes farm animals). I have dropped a brand new phone on asphalt jumping out to view new base station equipment deliveries. I have been chased off by well armed unhappy property owners. And other things that aren't coming to my mind quickly. There have been a lot of casualties. But many fun memories. I think I get the same rush that extreme sport enthusiasts get when I discover a new signal or some sort of unexpected anomaly and begin the chase. Like a less dangerous storm chaser? And less useful. I don't provide useful information to climate scientists and meteorologists. But hey, we do have a meteorologist on staff at S4GRU. And I'm glad for that! Robert
  3. 6 points
    Beyond T-Mobile getting money from AT&T, they also got an influx of 9 Million customers and a bit of spectrum from MetroPCS. Dan Hesse wanted to buy them first but the board told him no. T-Mobile jumped at the opportunity to buy them and it paid off.
  4. 5 points
    People dont hate roaming, they dont even notice except when some services are missing. Roaming agreements make alot more sense that haveing four carriers spending the money to compete for 500 customer of some town in the middle of nowhere. Let one or two players offer service to the locals and other players rent their network when ond of their customers accidentally wander in to those areas. Ps. People that call sprint an MVNO are ignorant of simple definitions.
  5. 3 points
    I guess people forgot that Sprint still had to pay out for frequency rebanding , some jurisdictions being a pain in the butt wanting more money for the effort, trying to get Sprint to help there budgets. California going broke.
  6. 2 points
    I mean if people want "coverage" smacking down a B26 mini Mac and an omnidirectional antenna gives you that. *totally not because we found such a site in a rural previously no native coverage area* Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  7. 2 points
    Why won't Sprint gain more customers with "all that roaming?" They'll almost certainly go broke if they try to duplicate completely AT&T's coverage, much less Verizon's coverage. This is especially true now that T-Mobile is trying to fight in that same space. Does Sprint need to cover more places natively/roam-like-native than they do today? Sure. But there's certainly enough people who don't need like-native coverage next to every forest and prairie with no people for miles around that Sprint could cater to. Sprint just needs to expand their network to the point where most (90% or so?) people are covered where they live, work, and spend most of their time outside of home/work, let roaming coverage offer essential connectivity when they're well off the beaten path, and let the other three carriers fight for the 10% of customers who wouldn't be well-covered by Sprint's network.
  8. 2 points
    People don't like roaming if the experience is terrible when they're roaming. A lot of Sprint's roaming is terrible when it comes to data (1x speeds.) However, if the experience is seamless, people really don't care too much, or at least I can't imagine why people would. When I'm roaming on US Cellular, my data works beautifully and it feels like native service. I honestly don't care if I'm on Sprint or USCC roaming, because both experiences feel the same. Most people don't care about the technical side of how their phone service works; they just want it to work. Roaming in extremely rural areas makes sense, especially for a budget carrier. There's not enough money to be made to invest in towers absolutely everywhere. However, that experience should feel similar to on-network usage, at least for a limited usage timeframe/usage amount. If that was the case everywhere, then most people would be fine with a little roaming here and there, especially if the cost savings were decent or the on-network experience was better than the other carriers.
  9. 1 point
    I think you're overestimating how many people live outside or regularly travel outside of urban centers. There are many small local carriers that serve these areas and it makes more sense for Sprint to lease out their spectrum in return for native network usage as is the case for Sprint's RRPP program or simply negotiate "roam like home" deals with them instead of building out coverage that'll get used infrequently. If Sprint wants to cover popular destinations in rural areas and the highways that connect big cities to them, that will pay off faster than building a site in a town of 2,000 people that's already covered by Verizon and AT&T.
  10. 1 point
    Native roaming is still roaming. I'm not sure why Sprint "needs" two million square miles of native coverage if they can start signing agreements that allow roam-like-native or at least roam-with-okay-service in rural areas. Call/text is fine (as far as I'm aware) in roaming areas, so it's only data that really needs to be negotiated on some sort of reasonable playing field with AT&T and VZW. That'll be difficult, but it's not impossible that they'll be able to get something in place. I think writing off roaming as an option in rural areas that aren't near major highways rules out a quite viable solution to fill in those gaps that a budget carrier like Sprint simply can't justify competing in natively. Ideally, that roaming would offer usable data speeds (1.5Mb would be a minimum qualification for "usable," in my opinion.) However, if Sprint can build a solid core network that covers most people where they are most of the time, people can probably put up with a less-than-stellar experience the 1% of the time they're in an extremely rural area. I'd much rather see investment in making the core network strong, covering urban and suburban areas well and the travel corridors that connect them. Targeted investment in known frequent roaming areas is also fine; if there's a place where a lot of people visit cover that well even if it's extremely rural. But there should also be some savings by not covering every square inch, which can be passed along to the customers in the form of a lower rate. Let AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile battle it out for those who need native rural coverage, and let Sprint differentiate themselves with a value price that offers a solid network experience most places but is okay with relying on roaming for the last 1-2% of the time when people are away from the highly-populated/traveled/visited areas.
  11. 1 point
    Accept people don't like roaming. Most people want it gone. That's why some have called Sprint a MVNO. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  12. 1 point
    We don't need 4 carriers. It is wasteful to have 4 carriers covering the same sparsely populated areas that can barely support one carrier. I am all for them merging with USCC and partnering with Dish or the cable cos. Anything to create value.
  13. 1 point
    I'm Glad they didn't merge we need 4 carriers. I would like to see them merge with USCC. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  14. 1 point
    I think it is very stupid that the Sprint/T-Mobile did not merge over control of the combined entity.
  15. 1 point
    Alltel was the biggest one. If they had done that, that would have given then way more coverage and it's possible Sprint would be the largest carrier these days. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  16. 1 point
    The board was epically wrong. They should have merged with not just Metro but Leap. Influx of 15M customers and strengthened midband spectrum. Just like they were epically wrong not to merge with Alltel.
  17. 1 point
    Not to mention that the parent corp forgave $5B when Metro and T-Mobile merged.
  18. 1 point
    It definitely was. Sprint's plan was to make the company as strong as possible (in revenue, stock value and subscriber terms) while investing as little as possible and then merge the two companies with Masa having strategic control of the new company so that he could integrate it with his other investments. That would explain the company's 2015 and 2016 talk about densification with while not actually densifying campaign. Masa just believe the control of sprint is worth more that ~40 percent of 32 billion of value. He is either epically wrong or a genius.
  19. 1 point
    I am hoping there is at least an "opt-in" way to do VoLTE on iOS by the end of 2018. Kind of like how Verizon added the feature when they rolled it out, but it wasn't on by default. My market is totally ready for it, but I understand that many aren't quite there yet.
  20. 1 point
    I don't know how many disappointing miles I have logged a wireless enthusiast. Probably tens of thousands. I get your frustration. And I've experienced them with every carrier at some point or another. All funny anecdotes now. Enjoy the view, the greasy roadside food and keep mapping! #manymilesbeforeisleep Robert
  21. 1 point
    Okay, so now that I am over it, I will post about it...................Went to Gillette last weekend to map and test out Band 71 on my LG V30. Get all the way to Gillette and you can only guess..............................NO SIGNAL. Yes, 160 miles just to find out NOTHING! Was not happy at all and took to Twitter to message both Neville and John Legere. Received a reply back from T-Mobile Help, which is nice, but they can't help with turning on towers now can they.................I just would prefer honesty when they are making announcements and making believe they have all this wonderful 600mhz coverage when they really don't. Will NOT be going back until I see it LIVE on the coverage map on T-Mobile's site. #DISAPPOINTED
  22. 1 point
    It was actually quite a bit: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/att-and-t-mobile-whats-2-billion-among-friends/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/att-admits-defeat-on-t-mobile-takeover-will-pay-4-billion-breakup-fee/ and it started the ball rolling on T-Mobile’s LTE Network build: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/t-mobile-takes-3-billion-att-breakup-fee-builds-4g-lte-network/
  23. 1 point
    My understanding was cut back to raise money for a higher capex in 2018. Some people talk about how well Tmobile has done all while Forgetting it was att's money that paid for that. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  24. 1 point
    Mostly done. Triband (750, 1900,2500) sites will be getting deployed once the cleanup from the hurricane mess is completed.
  25. 1 point
    The best way for sprint to rebrand is to densify and build out their network. The problem is that they have been talking about doing this for year's and in my opinion they have been misleading people about what their network plans have been. I am still very sceptical about anything that sprint management says with regards to their network investment.
  26. 1 point
    I carry a Sprint and Verizon phone for work, as well as a T-Mobile device, Note8, S8, and S8+ respectively, so I get to use all three networks on a consistent basis. Sprint's claims of 1% are usually spot on in my experience. May not be the fastest, but it works. That's the real tag line, works for me. T-Mobile usually blows away Sprint in terms of raw speeds, but it's very inconsistent. For example, was in Denver last week, and Verizon bounced between great LTE and 1x, T-Mobile was strong signals but piss poor throughput, and Sprint had 3CA everywhere I went. Sprint needs to make their network work better across the board, and not be limited to city hotspots.
  27. 1 point
    I think that T-Mobile has plenty of 600Mhz spectrum.
  28. 1 point
    A brand change would be very expensive to do. This money would be better used for improving the network in my opinion. A brand change would also be ineffective in my opinion. People would remember the old brand name and reputation for a very long time. Given that there are only 4 Major Wireless Carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint), Sprint’s Legacy Branding and Reputation wouldn’t simply go down the Internet (or off-Internet) memory hole for the foreseeable future. There would be a slew of articles and press referring to Sprint’s rebrand which will continue the association with its legacy brand. The saturated wireless market would constantly refer to Sprint’s old branding and reputation. This is therefore not a near term fix nor a long term one, as it takes resources that could be better used for tangible improvements to the business and product. In short, I’d expect a rebrand to have as much effect as Comcast trying to call itself Xfinity. Was this even a real rebrand? I’m still not sure. However, it didn’t work. T-Mobile went through a terrible branding period... and it’s emerged fine on the other side. No rename necessary. Here’s the solution and it’s nothing novel: Network, Network, Network. Make the Network blow the other guys’ out of the water. Distribute flagship devices to prominent columnists (Sascha Segan, etc.) and have them write reviews on the Network. Share these reviews widely. Here’s a start: https://www.pcmag.com/review/358021/lg-v30 https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945682340105289729 https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945688172943593473 The customers will come if the product is better. People are savvy enough to see through a brand change and it would be a waste of money. A brand change would be a waste because Sprint doesn’t have a perception problem as much as it has a product problem. Here’s what’s wrong with the product: Sprint doesn’t have Band 41 on 50% of its towers (or about 30% of its POPS) . It doesn’t have Band 26 on many others. It needs thousands of more tower sites to improve coverage on its existing footprint and at the fringes where there’s been suburban development that has exceeded the capacity of the Network. It needs to get all three LTE Bands deployed on every site. Sprint doesn’t have VoLTE for simultaneous Voice/Data (and for good reason as we all know why, but Prospective Customers don’t and may not switch.).
  29. 1 point
    I switched away on my last upgrade. They just dont seem interested in making phones like I want. The s8+ is as close to my perfect phone as I think I've ever been.
  30. 1 point
    long term I think your current deal would be hard to beat. If I was in your situation and happy with my current performance then I'd stay put.
  31. 1 point
    The biggest thing I”d have to lose is that I would be relinquishing my Tmo plan - I pay $118/month taxes included for five lines. Then I get kickback on at least one line and I have One Plus (double international speeds)/HD pass on three of the lines - all included in that price. I guess I switched at a pretty sweet time. So this decision is pretty hard. At this point, I’m leaning to stay with Tmo for the time being.. their service seems to be better than it had been in my area, so we’ll see.
  32. 1 point
    Finally got a SignalCheck Pro update pushed out yesterday afternoon! By now I'm sure many of you already grabbed it, but here are the version 4.47 highlights.. Added option to hide "Unknown" neighbor cells. If you enable this option, you will not see "Unknown" neighbors displayed individually.. instead the total number of unknowns (if any) will be mentioned in the neighbor cell header. "Unknown" cells are usually nearby cells that are on a different band than your active connection. Android used to handle these without an issue, but since 7.0 it's been broken. Resolved issue with missing signal information on GSM devices reporting 99% BER. There's a decent number of older Samsung devices (and possibly others) that report a bogus GSM bit error rate (BER) even when the connection is valid. This should work around that. Overhauled implementation of Android 6+ runtime permissions requirements. This has been a nightmare, but it's getting better. Essentially, you need to grant SignalCheck the location, phone, and storage permissions it asks for if you want full functionality. There is still a glitch where you may not be prompted for every permission if more than one is pending in the background, but I'm working on it. There is an explanation of why these permissions are needed on the website FAQ, but please ask if you have any questions. Overhauled Wi-Fi channel and bandwidth routines. Wi-Fi channel/frequency/bandwidth information should be greatly improved for those who were lacking this information before. Still some occasional reports of issues with DFS, please let me know if anything doesn't look right. Changed AT&T LTE band 17 indicators to display as "B12/B17" if EARFCN cannot be obtained. I'm probably getting the technical explanation wrong here, but AT&T is deploying B12 and B17 together with MFBI. SignalCheck will now show either B12 or B17 if the EARFCN confirms one of those, or "B12/B17" if it's not sure. Added additional indicators for AT&T LTE band 2, 4, 5, 12, 17, and 30 cells. Added additional indicators for Sprint CDMA Airave cells. Added additional indicators for Sprint LTE band 41 Magic Box cells. Added Data/EPST and Debug/Engineering shortcuts for rooted Pixel devices. Added indicators for T-Mobile LTE band 71 cells (excluding East Coast & Western US). Added support for newest LTE bands in 3GPP spec. Reorganized Display Settings screen. Resolved force closes on devices with multiple user accounts. Resolved force closes when necessary permissions have not been granted on Android 6+. Resolved force closes with Send Diagnostics function when storage permission is not granted. Resolved issue with CDMA BSL display failing on Android 8.1. These should all be self-explanatory but feel free to ask if you want more information. As always, thank you to everyone for your support! There WILL be an update to SignalCheck Lite this month to catch it up to this release. I have been holding out because I was hoping to get all of the permissions issues ironed out before doing that, but my patience has run out. -Mike
  33. 1 point
    Ya one weak spot was the West gate district.. the band 41 site is too far away so it drops to band 25 and that's a busy area .. at the time I was there speeds were ok , but once packed it's more then likely going to be a bad experience.... The Arrowhead mall received new band 41 upgrade since I was connected to a mini macro.. speed we're around 100mbps .. I was connected to band 41 85% of the time.. sprint was also good downtown went to a Phoenix Suns game and they perform well Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
  34. 1 point
    Was in Phoenix ( Glendale, tempe, Scottsdale ) sprint performed very well.... Phoenix was part of 1st phase of band 41rollout ..so, all site we're 3xca that I connected to with new band 41 site running Nokia mini macros 2xca... Also, band 25 is now 10mhz in Phoenix that was good to see.. band 26 is a nice fill in for indoor coverage not crazy on speeds, but around 5-7mbps.... Also, the cell grid looks to be dense... don't know if that just started happening recently or has Phoenix been a pretty dense market? Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
  35. 1 point
    For people who bemoan the limited coverage of band 41, many of you are irrationally gung ho over 256QAM, which has a usable coverage radius much smaller than that of band 41. AJ
×