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

[Hmight]

Lol oh Masa. I swear I have a love/hate him. I doubt this will happen (only because of his failed promises in the pass) however it seems Sprint is not a huge burden of SoftBank anymore so maybe Masa will invest more into Sprint.

 

Also with Sprint partnering with Gilat for sattelite LTE backhaul, that will give sprint to deploy LTE quicker in rural areas.

 

 

Softbank has already invested billions in Sprint through various financing vehicles the last couple years (LeasingCo and SpectrumCo) to improve Sprint's balance sheets.  If you think Masa is just going to open his wallet and pour billion of dollars into Sprint network, that's not going to happen.  It seems he has a plan to beef up the network with unconventional ways for the years ahead.  Analysts have a field day with Sprint, but as long as Sprint is improving its network ranking. Masa will have the last laugh.  He had done it in Japan and he would like to replicate it in the US.  Analysts are not known for creativity.  Analysts love to criticise when they see things astray from their conventional wisdom.  That's why they are "analysts" in the first place and do not work for the telecom companies.  

Edited November 8, 2016 by Hmight

[tyroned3222]

Sprint doesn't have to add more cell sites to be number 2 depending on which testing organization you are looking at. J.D. Power already lists them as #2 in 5 of 6 markets. The 6th that market includes US Cellular which is listed as the best. Nielsen has sprint as the highest download speeds across the country. In Rootmetric Sprint is 4.4 magic beans behind at&t for 2nd place for national overall. All Sprint has to do is add a few more B41 carriers to the sites they already have up and running to be second. Nokia is just starting to launch 3rd carrier in some markets but they should be at 4 or 5 B41 carriers by now someone needs to put pressure on the software guys.

If they want to achive a decent volte experince then yes they need to add more cell sites

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

If they want to achive a decent volte experince then yes they need to add more cell sites

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Not necessarily - 800 LTE is not anywhere near its potential. If Sprint were to cut all EVDO operations in the PCS band, they could run 15x15 LTE or wider in most markets, allowing them to turn up PCS LTE power. The increased PCS coverage would allow them to turn up SMR LTE power levels. I've seen towers where AT&T and Sprint are right on top of each other with the same sector alignment and AT&T in many cases getting a hell of a lot more coverage on their PCS and 700mhz than Sprint is on their PCS and SMR. Günther has also expressed that 4x4 MIMO on SMR LTE will be coming in the future. This will help tons in terms of edge of cell performance.

[Flompholph]

If they want to achive a decent volte experince then yes they need to add more cell sites

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

They don't need volte to be #2. They don't need volte for awhile if ever with voip apps available. 

[utiz4321]

Masa says Sprint's Network will be better than Verizon's in 2 years.

 

Check out @WaltBTIG's Tweet: https://twitter.com/WaltBTIG/status/795620472746549249?s=09

At this point Sprint's two year plan should have as much credibility as the old 5 year plans of the Soviet Union.

[JeffDTD]

First, let's not hang on the phrasing used. English remains his second language. "better" is not "bigger" and in sprints case it never will be.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Sprint performed well at the world series..

 

Check out @Speedtest's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Speedtest/status/795727323148357632?s=09

[clbowens]

Sprint performed well at the world series..

 

Check out @Speedtest's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Speedtest/status/795727323148357632?s=09

??  Sprint is not even on the Wrigley Field chart.

[Rawvega]

Sprint performed well at the world series..

 

Check out @Speedtest's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Speedtest/status/795727323148357632?s=09

 

Kinda odd that they don't have data for Sprint at Wrigley or for the victory parade at Grant Park.

[nexgencpu]

??  Sprint is not even on the Wrigley Field chart.

They said that not one person ran test at that stadium.

[kg4icg]

If you see what Ookla said on the Twitter feed, no one at Sprint bothered to do a speed test, they were busy enjoying the game. Maybe Sprint users had other priorities then running a speed test at Wrigley.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[Hmight]

Kinda odd that they don't have data for Sprint at Wrigley or for the victory parade at Grant Park.

 

That's why I never care for Okla.  You can have a lot of users from one carrier to use your app and it turns out that network performance is better than the rest.  It's the definition of a bias study, whether they want it or not. 

[kg4icg]

And you noticed in Cleveland, Sprint beat Verizon and AT&T on download

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

Not necessarily - 800 LTE is not anywhere near its potential. If Sprint were to cut all EVDO operations in the PCS band, they could run 15x15 LTE or wider in most markets, allowing them to turn up PCS LTE power. The increased PCS coverage would allow them to turn up SMR LTE power levels. I've seen towers where AT&T and Sprint are right on top of each other with the same sector alignment and AT&T in many cases getting a hell of a lot more coverage on their PCS and 700mhz than Sprint is on their PCS and SMR. Günther has also expressed that 4x4 MIMO on SMR LTE will be coming in the future. This will help tons in terms of edge of cell performance.

 

Yeah, it's time to implement that plan, no more farting around.

[Hypeo]

Anyone notice the lack of mud slinging between Marcelo and John L.??

 

Sent from my 2PS64 using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

That's why I never care for Okla. You can have a lot of users from one carrier to use your app and it turns out that network performance is better than the rest. It's the definition of a bias study, whether they want it or not.

Wouldn't that average out the results? If anything, it shows that the carrier is doing much better than anticipated if users are using a lot of bandwidth testing their speeds. There's nothing biased about it.

[Paynefanbro]

Wouldn't that average out the results? If anything, it shows that the carrier is doing much better than anticipated if users are using a lot of bandwidth testing their speeds. There's nothing biased about it.

 

Not necessarily. Ookla speed tests can be skewed in either way. People tend to only test network speeds when the network is really good or really bad. And because it's so reliant on this randomized data set, there is no true one to one comparison between networks since Ookla will receive more data from certain carriers more than others, whether it is due to number of subscribers or the existence of tiered data plans.

[Hmight]

Wouldn't that average out the results? If anything, it shows that the carrier is doing much better than anticipated if users are using a lot of bandwidth testing their speeds. There's nothing biased about it.

What Paynefanbro says, and speedtests say nothing about coverage. It just tells you a group of people with really good data or bad data. It doesn't tell you when those same people have NO data. That's why I believe rootmetrics more.  

[Ascertion]

What Paynefanbro says, and speedtests say nothing about coverage. It just tells you a group of people with really good data or bad data. It doesn't tell you when those same people have NO data. That's why I believe rootmetrics more.

But in this scenario, it is testing the stadiums during a major game.

[bigsnake49]

Anyone notice the lack of mud slinging between Marcelo and John L.??

 

Sent from my 2PS64 using Tapatalk

 

Maybe eventually they can share a network and just become two separate marketing companies. As they just found out, it costs a lot of money to upgrade your network to the latest standard.

[chamb]

Maybe eventually they can share a network and just become two separate marketing companies. As they just found out, it costs a lot of money to upgrade your network to the latest standard.

That may be a great idea.  One of them build out one state and the other one build out a different state. Either company could use the network built by the other company with little or no money changing hands.  It would look like native service to both companies.

 

Is there any good reason why it would not work? Would the Feds try to stop that?

[RAvirani]

Maybe eventually they can share a network and just become two separate marketing companies. As they just found out, it costs a lot of money to upgrade your network to the latest standard.

That may be a great idea. One of them build out one state and the other one build out a different state. Either company could use the network built by the other company with little or no money changing hands. It would look like native service to both companies.

 

Is there any good reason why it would not work? Would the Feds try to stop that?

Lack of competition will lead to lack of upgrades and lack of network quality improvement because there will be no pressure or motivation for any of that. Competition is the foundation of capitalism.

[bigsnake49]

Lack of competition will lead to lack of upgrades and lack of network quality improvement because there will be no pressure or motivation for any of that. Competition is the foundation of capitalism.

 

Plenty of competition between the big 3. Plus I do believe that we will see the cable cos finally get in the wireless game.

Edited November 8, 2016 by bigsnake49

[RAvirani]

Plenty of competition between the big 3. Plus I do believe that we will see the cable cos finally get in the wireless game.

That may be a great idea. One of them build out one state and the other one build out a different state. Either company could use the network built by the other company with little or no money changing hands. It would look like native service to both companies.

 

Is there any good reason why it would not work? Would the Feds try to stop that?

I think the feds would block this - they have expressed numerous times that they want four major players in the telecom industry, not three. Additionally, an arrangement like this would open the door to many more half-mergers, not necessarily solely in the telecom sector, a slippery slope the feds probably want to avoid.

 

I personally believe competition would be greatly reduced if Sprint and T-Mo were allowed to merge on the network side. The market would probably revert to the way it was before T-Mo's disruption a few years back...

[chamb]

I think the feds would block this - they have expressed numerous times that they want four major players in the telecom industry, not three. Additionally, an arrangement like this would open the door to many more half-mergers, not necessarily solely in the telecom sector, a slippery slope the feds probably want to avoid.

 

I personally believe competition would be greatly reduced if Sprint and T-Mo were allowed to merge on the network side. The market would probably revert to the way it was before T-Mo's disruption a few years back...

I suspect that Sprint & T-mobile could get away with just agreeing to roam on each others LTE network.  I doubt if there is any way to stop that.  Then quietly, with no announcement, t-mobile could upgrade the LTE in Wyoming and Sprint could upgrade the LTE in North Dakota. It might take some careful engineering of the networks to make it work right.  I do not see any law being broke.

Either carrier can decide to NOT build out a state while the other carrier can decide that state is one it will build out.

Is it illegal to meet and talk about which states goes to which carrier?