Jump to content


S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ase500 last won the day on September 2 2016

ase500 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About ase500

  • Rank
    Member Level: iDEN *chirp*
  • Birthday 09/30/1982

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Samsung Galaxy S5
  • Gender
  • Location
    Bemidji Minnesota
  • Here for...
    Sprint Fan Boy (or Girl)
  1. Not really. There are some state run networks in the world. However, much of the reliability has to do with the uniform Technology and the smaller foot print, as well as the demographics. You have to think that in much of the world people don't "spread out" the way we do in the U.S. This means They also are not covering the kind of space U.S. Networks are. Then on top of that the structure of the government running the network is going to play a role. A Dictator could probably run a very effective, reliable, and robust network. We live in a Democratic Republic, it is designed to be slow moving, this is at odds with the nature of technology and the very reason why they suck at technology related issues. This kind of slow grinding politics is the reason why we have independent agencies that are given authority. Think of it this way the FCC was formed in 1934 at the request of industry, leaving things open and allowing the government slowly move to any form of regulation was too slow in 1934. Think about it, our government, which was working and passing laws faster in 1934 was too slow for technological changes. Imagine just how slow it would be with our current partisan bickering and the FCC being tossed around as a political foot ball. I highly doubt we would get a reliable network. At the current pace of technology the government wouldn't get done with the east coast before the technology would be obsolete. Not to mention they would have to pull workers out of their rears just to get that much done.
  2. Umm. Anyone who has worked in technology and with the government knows the thing they do WORST is technology. While I am absolutely in favor of community run fiber networks and cooperatives. These are on a micro-level as wireless becomes more important a macro-level government network could be a disaster both technological and from a first amendment perspective. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  3. Ok, while I am not pro net neutrality in its current form. You really have a massive misunderstanding of what the internet is and how it has been regulated in the past. As well as why some form of net neutrality will be essential in the future. While the DOD did infact create both the original network and standards. Starting in 1988 IANA was formed with Jon Postel at the helm. However, IANA was completely under control of the DOD until ICANN was created in 1998 to help facilitate the transfer of authority away from the Government. This is where Net neutrality becomes more important. Up until 1998 theoretically the Government had the full ability to revoke IP addresses and DNS access. The government handed over full control October 1st 2016. So up until that date the government wielded massive control over the internet via IP addresses and root server access. Furthermore, up until a few years ago ISPs were dumb pipes with no real skin in the content game. Sony entertainment was not a theat Charter's video business. Comcast was not competing for content production rights with netflix or amazon. We now have a situation where the ISP no longer a simple dumb pipe, they now have an interest in what I am using it for. We also have a situation where the peering agreements that created the broader Internet may no longer be the best option for the larger tier one networks. Leading higher capacity networks to charge gate fees. This would essentially end the free and open internet as we know it. Also driving prices in rural areas up. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  4. All taxes in the end are paid by the consumer. The question is how is the burden shifted. Unfortunately, decreasing corporate tax rates is usually a shift to increased taxes to those who can least afford it on the long term as tax cuts often lead to increased deficits. This increase in deficit often means increased taxes on the middle class and cut services in areas that are critical to the common welfare of the people. Mind you that is the primary role of government. While the tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short-term, long-term they are a disaster. Furthermore, they serve to further complicate the tax system at a time when the CBO and IRS have said the best way to increase wealth and investment is to simplify and flatten the tax structure. The way forward should be to take a note from our friends to the north. No foreign corporations, you do business here, you have a HQ here and you pay taxes on income made here. Next flatten the tax rates, corporate, investment and personal income all taxed at the same rate. This gets rid of tax shelters. GST and SST. And if you really wanted to kick the economy into high gear end the religious exemption. Massive amounts of tax dollars are hidden there. Some studies on taxing churches showed we could bring tax rates as low as 7 percent if we taxed churches. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  5. No, he said he had sought mergers. That goes to scale. The reports you read were speculative chatter from wall street. AND selling a company doesn't mean selling a company... Think back to Lampert, he sold his controlling share in sears to buy Kmart then used Kmart to buy back Sears and merge them. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  6. Never did he try to sell the company. He said that he wondered if he had gotten in over his head. He said he misjudged the regulatory environment in the US. Time and time again he has stated that he considers Sprint very important. Many of the things he has said recently would have been to lay the groundwork for a merger. Stop and really give this some thought. He bought ARM, he is building robots, and working on AI. If he really wanted out he could have divested to the open market. Sprint it is much better shape than it was when he bought it. He is buying more of it and spending more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  7. I don't think this is confusing. He never really wanted to sell the company. He wanted to give Sprint scale. If you pay attention to many of the deals he has made, he uses any means necessary. I am thinking his goal was to gain control of the merged company after the merger by buying much of the open market stock. However, I am thinking that DT wanted to give him nonvoting stock. This would never give him the opportunity to control the combined company. I don't think it was ever his intention to give up control permanently. He was trying the backdoor. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  8. I would say so. I meant that Sprint sevice in the aforementioned States is still better than any provider even Verizon in much of northern Mn. Areas around Red Lake, Northome, Big fork have no service from any provider. The square miles of that are is larger than some of the states mentioned. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  9. What. That isn't even close to what I said. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  10. Many of the highest earner get cell service from their employers. I would also argue that Sprint service in those areas is still probably better than say Verizon's in say northern MN. There are areas larger than RI that have no service from any provider. Get out to day Northome MN and see what spotty service really is. It's an expectation game. You simply expect more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  11. Out of those four states only one can have a large ignored area as only one is a large enough to have a large area at all. You are also assuming that density of population has anything to do with profit. All of those four states are also have one thing in common. Higher than average per capita income. Most are not looking for a deal and are probably going to stick with the big two. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  12. I myself was told this by the retention rep I talked to. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  13. Extra butter? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  14. I don't think there many that want a subsidized phone any more. It really isn't a good deal anymore. What most want is a way to transition out of the contracts that doesn't penalize them for being a loyal customer. Once the wholesale cost of the phone is paid, sprint doesn't stand to lose anything by allowing the customer off contract. In fact they could allow the customer off and sell them on an upgrade at retail. There by turning it into a profit situation, rather than a loss. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  15. The name for that attitude is called bankrupt. I help operate a 120 million a year operation for one of the largest companies on earth. And that statement alone would have gotten you fired. Every customer counts. In a connected world one angry customer, no matter how small the profit can make huge dent in your bottom line as they lampoon you on facebook and Twitter. It is quite clear many of you here don't understand business. I really hope none of the people at Sprint share your view. If they share such an anticustomer view the company has earned its reputation for poor customer service and it will not make a full turn around. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk