Jump to content

Softbank - New Sprint - Discussion


linhpham2

Recommended Posts

Why would they sell the network to Sprint and the customer to AT&T? Seems like they would be much more valuable to Sprint.

 

Sprint cannot service their current customers really, anyway.  Why pay money for them?  AT&T didn't buy their customers either.  AT&T is just giving them offers to attract them, like a $100 credit and waiving fees.  AT&T really just bought the spectrum.  Which Sprint doesn't even need.  And AT&T doesn't need the towers and networks.  This is a good deal for Sprint.

 

Sprint shouldn't sell service in Montana until the sites are upgraded to NV and LTE is on B25/26 together and optimized.

 

Robert

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

c1_montana_500.gif

That's a  pretty large area and I'm sure Verizon and AT&T aren't too happy about this.

 

Given Sprint's LTE maps knack for over statement of coverage, it will look more like this on Sprint maps:

 

S-Montana-B26-LOL.png

 

Robert

  • Like 27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will sprint really be able to pull off band 41? With its current site configuration? Or will it be "sparse" due its shorter travel?

 

Things are looking better but how many more sitrs /small cells will sprint need to bring us to the promise land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will sprint really be able to pull off band 41? With its current site configuration? Or will it be "sparse" due its shorter travel?

 

Things are looking better but how many more sitrs /small cells will sprint need to bring us to the promise land?

 

B41 is not meant to be a perfectly cohesive overlay with seamless wall to wall coverage over a city.  Where that is achieved, then great.  Verizon is not trying to make its Band 4 (XLTE) be perfect wall to wall either.  What it is trying to do is cover most customers and relieve the other bands where they perform much better for customers who cannot connect to the wideband relief cells.

 

Verizon is adding some XLTE Band 4 only sites where needed as infill, where the experience in between is insufficient for Band 13 alone.  They have added one recently in my city.  Sprint will do the same thing with Band 41 Spark.  They announced they will be adding infill sites in areas as needed.

 

Robert

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will sprint really be able to pull off band 41? With its current site configuration? Or will it be "sparse" due its shorter travel?

 

Things are looking better but how many more sitrs /small cells will sprint need to bring us to the promise land?

 

I like to look at it like this -- the best umpires in baseball are the ones you never see. What I'm driving at with that tortured analogy is that Joe Consumer shouldn't care if he's connecting to B25, B26, or B41; but rather that there is a data connection with very low latency that allows him to send/receive messages/photos/videos/Facebook/Twitter/Porn seamlessly.

 

I don't care what band my phone is on... I just want the dumb pipe to quickly get me what I'm requesting, and honestly, 3-5Mbps with a low latency is probably fast enough. B41 for capacity is great, in that if Joe Consumer fired up his favorite pr0n site, the network is able to cope with his ... addiction and not be saddled by his data consumption.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to look at it like this -- the best umpires in baseball are the ones you never see. What I'm driving at with that tortured analogy is that Joe Consumer shouldn't care if he's connecting to B25, B26, or B41; but rather that there is a data connection with very low latency that allows him to send/receive messages/photos/videos/Facebook/Twitter/Porn seamlessly.

 

I don't care what band my phone is on... I just want the dumb pipe to quickly get me what I'm requesting, and honestly, 3-5Mbps with a low latency is probably fast enough. B41 for capacity is great, in that if Joe Consumer fired up his favorite pr0n site, the network is able to cope with his ... addiction and not be saddled by his data consumption.

I can't agree with this more. Seamless is the goal. Right now it's anything but in most places....I keep reminding myself about my little visit to KC when I start feeling Sprint is hopeless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verizon is adding some XLTE Band 4 only sites where needed as infill, where the experience in between is insufficient for Band 13 alone.  They have added one recently in my city.  Sprint will do the same thing with Band 41 Spark.  They announced they will be adding infill sites in areas as needed.

 

Robert

VZ is actually putting AWS antennas on top of their retail stores around here. Any chance of Sprint doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Galaxy S3 came out and Sprint sold more than any other carrier in the U.S.? It seems like he's trying to be the one to do that this time around with the iPhone. I can't wait to hear what he has to say next week. He doesn't seem to be faltered by T-Mobile's tactics.

 

One thing he is accomplishing from the get-go is getting rid of that loser mindset that's always stuck with Sprint. He seems very optimistic and way more proactive than Dan Hesse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiot CEO strikes

 

From twitter...@JohnLegere: To paraphrase @Sprint CEO's 1st employee meeting today:"Our network is terrible, so we're going to have to slash prices" #didthatjusthappen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiot CEO strikes

 

From twitter...@JohnLegere: To paraphrase @Sprint CEO's 1st employee meeting today:"Our network is terrible, so we're going to have to slash prices" #didthatjusthappen?

Good or bad it is free marketing

 

Real question is did john just open Pandora box?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiot CEO strikes

 

From twitter...@JohnLegere: To paraphrase @Sprint CEO's 1st employee meeting today:"Our network is terrible, so we're going to have to slash prices" #didthatjusthappen?

 

Which CEO is the idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idiot CEO strikes

 

From twitter...@JohnLegere: To paraphrase @Sprint CEO's 1st employee meeting today:"Our network is terrible, so we're going to have to slash prices" #didthatjusthappen?

The pot calling the kettle black

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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...