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

[MarshieZ]

Just now, swintec said:

i saw the same today with SCP but it is a display bug of cached data i believe.  during this behavior, if you completely exit the SCP app and then reopen it you will see it now shows USCC correctly.

Hmmm, that would make sense then. I won't be going back that way for awhile, but I'll try and at least go to Waupaca here soon to see if I can recreate this and get some screenshots. I'm still at 0 for roaming data as of today!!

[snowmobiler487]

On 9/18/2017 at 6:13 PM, swintec said:

but do you have a bill from before you had an airave to compare taxes and fees?  Because, guess what...i do.  Actually, i returned my airave earlier this year after three years of not using it.  the bills after returning the device are about $2.50 LOWER.  The difference came from lower admin fees and other surcharges that are charged per line.

I noticed the same thing when I sent my  airave back about 4 years ago.  My bill decreased by approx $3/month.

[jamesinclair]

On 9/19/2017 at 3:36 PM, RedSpark said:

T-Mobile has increased its Deprioritization threshold from 32GB to 50GB:

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/unlimited-prioritzation-increase.htm

Should Sprint respond by increasing its Deprioritization threshold up from 23GB?

Looks like in a month whatever Legere wants Legere will get

[Johnner1999]

Jerry is typically spot on.  And I'd agree.  This isn't a hit piece I don't think.  

 

https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-sprint

 

[Mr.Nuke]

2 hours ago, Johnner1999 said:

Jerry is typically spot on.  And I'd agree.  This isn't a hit piece I don't think.  

 

https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-sprint

 

Jerry isn't always spot on. And no, it isn't a hit piece given he wrote the same article about T-Mobile on Wednesday. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-t-mobile#comments

[twospirits]

With the rumor turning into reality of a T-Mobile / Sprint merger coming true, I sense alot more of these type of articles will be coming out if not already out. If one is happy with a company, great, if not, do what you can to leave and go to the one that you think is better and shut the F up, nobody f'ng cares. But no, they rather jump on the bandwagon and complain saying "I've been a X company customer 10 years ago and they suck and will never go back" 

[Johnner1999]

43 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

Jerry isn't always spot on. And no, it isn't a hit piece given he wrote the same article about T-Mobile on Wednesday. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-t-mobile#comments

he did one for all four... I thought he was being pretty nice and fair.  

 

 

[BlueAngel]

I forgot how terrible south jersey is on Sprint, full bars B41 3xCA pings 1000+ almost unusable something is not right here.

[anthony.spina97]

1 hour ago, BlueAngel said:

I forgot how terrible south jersey is on Sprint, full bars B41 3xCA pings 1000+ almost unusable something is not right here.

Where at were you? I was just in Wildwood and decided to just turn off LTE and use 3G because of how saturated it was.

 

-Anthony

[BlueAngel]

1 hour ago, anthony.spina97 said:

Where at were you? I was just in Wildwood and decided to just turn off LTE and use 3G because of how saturated it was.

 

-Anthony

Yeah I'm in wildwood, even my friends on at&t are having network issues. I'm maxing out at around 10mbps but pings are just insane.

[nexgencpu]

For those in favor of a Sprint/Tmobile tie up need to see the latest eps of Last week tonight. Its a small reminder of why mergers in general are mostly a bad idea. His segment(about the airline industry, and ironically enough makes fun of ATT) will definitely have some negative affect on any questionable mergers that are up and coming, including Sprint/Tmobile (He almost single-handedly saved Net Neutrality with an unbelievable segment similar to this one)

Doesn't hurt that its a hilarious segment..

John Oliver 

[utiz4321]

32 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

For those in favor of a Sprint/Tmobile tie up need to see the latest eps of Last week tonight. Its a small reminder of why mergers in general are mostly a bad idea. His segment(about the airline industry, and ironically enough makes fun of ATT) will definitely have some negative affect on any questionable mergers that are up and coming, including Sprint/Tmobile (He almost single-handedly saved Net Neutrality with an unbelievable segment similar to this one)

Doesn't hurt that its a hilarious segment..

John Oliver 

Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters. 

[nexgencpu]

6 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters. 

Mass consolidation of consumer business goods/services are mostly only good for corporations/shareholders taking over, his stance on this is far from polarizing.

Say what you will about John Oliver, his delivery is almost always spot on. Good writers+good pitch man is the only way shows like these work, and Last week tonight has delivered in spades.

[utiz4321]

Just now, nexgencpu said:

Mass consolidation of consumer business goods/services are mostly only good for corporations taking over, his stance on this is far from polarizing.

Say what you will about John Oliver, his delivery is almost always spot on. Good writers+good pitch man is the only way shows like these work, and Last week tonight has delivered in spades.

Markets are not zero sum games.  If something is good for a company it doesn't follow that it is bad for the consumer.  That is particularly true in industries with high fixed cost as there are benifits to both consumers and companies to scale.

 

If mergers are always bad for consumers then make the case for 7 national wireless providers and why thatvwoyld be better than what we have now.  Ill give you a hint, it wouldnt be better: no 3f, no fake 4g and no LTE.  

[nexgencpu]

17 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Markets are not zero sum games.  If something is good for a company it doesn't follow that it is bad for the consumer.  That is particularly true in industries with high fixed cost as there are benifits to both consumers and companies to scale.

I never specifically said anything good for corporations is bad for consumers. Where talking M&A here, and how they usually are initiated to eliminate competition, not to somehow increase quality of goods.

Without competition in the wireless industry we would still be on 2G/3G, why bother spending when no one will have an option to switch anyway. R&D is an unnecessary expense in a world with zero incentive to innovate.

[utiz4321]

15 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

I never specifically said anything good for corporations is bad for consumers. Where talking M&A here, and how they usually are initiated to eliminate competition, not to somehow increase quality of goods.

Without competition in the wireless industry we would still be on 2G/3G, why bother spending when no one will have an option to switch anyway. R&D is an unnecessary expense in a world with zero incentive to innovate.

How does a sprint/t mobile tie up eleminated competition? There are still three nation wide players and a couple regionals.  The fact is in most case mergers are good for consumers, that is the logic, even from a corporation's  point of view.  Companies merge because it makes the more able to deliver goods and services competitively. 

The wireless industry is a perfect example of where mergers were of great benifits to the consumer. Unless you can argue that 7 players would have been able to create a better wireless industry than we have know.  Go on, I am willing to listen to a case.  I just dont see it. 

 

[nexgencpu]

7 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

How does a sprint/t mobile tie up eleminated competition? There are still three nation wide players and a couple regionals.  The fact is in most case mergers are good for consumers, that is the logic, even from a corporation's  point of view.  Companies merge because it makes the more able to deliver goods and services competitively. 

The wireless industry is a perfect example of where mergers were of great benifits to the consumer. Unless you can argue that 7 players would have been able to create a better wireless industry than we have know.  Go on, I am willing to listen to a case.  I just dont see it. 

 

Yeah lets talk again after S-mobile increase rates 50% and start decommissioning thousands of sites that are considered "unnecessary"

I can still hear the ex iDEN users cries falling on death ears after waiting years to be converted to LTE and it never happening.

[utiz4321]

6 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Yeah lets talk again after S-mobile increase rates 50% and start decommissioning thousands of sites that are considered "unnecessary"

I can still hear the ex iDEN users cries falling on death ears after waiting years to be converted to LTE and it never happening.

Funny thing that doesnt actual answer my question, nor does it help your case. 

 

Why would 7 carriers be better that 4 in 2017? On a spectrum consolidation bases alone it wouldn't makes sense. 

If your arguement is "muh IDEN", look thank the fates IDEN is dead.  It was a dead end technology and the spectrum would be a wast in today's data Centric world. 

[nexgencpu]

9 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Funny thing that doesnt actual answer my question, nor does it help your case. 

 

Why would 7 carriers be better that 4 in 2017? On a spectrum consolidation bases alone it wouldn't makes sense. 

Again, no one is arguing about adding 3 more carriers, in fact the argument is the opposite. So your example is kinda useless in this case.

My argument is still unchanged, mass consolidation is not a good thing for the consumer. If everyone's thought process was similar to yours, we would have one wireless company, and hey, since they have 100% market share, I'm sure they would gladly afford consumers great prices and services, cause you know, why not!? 

Cause corporations always make the wisest decisions when the profit motive is number one. 

You must be a huge fan of Citizens united...Corporations=people 

[lilotimz]

Guys be civilized in the debates. No need to resort to personal attacks. 

[utiz4321]

15 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Again, no one is arguing about adding 3 more carriers, in fact the argument is the opposite. So your example is kinda useless in this case.

My argument is still unchanged, mass consolidation is not a good thing for the consumer. If everyone's thought process was similar to yours, we would have one wireless company, and hey, since they have 100% market share, I'm sure they would gladly afford consumers great prices and services, cause you know, why not!? 

Cause corporations always make the wisest decisions when the profit motive is number one. 

You must be a huge fan of Citizens united...Corporations=people 

You must be in favor of backwardness imposed by the government because muh feels. 

 

Look, you are claiming to know the perfect size of the wireless industry and that it would be a bad deal for consumers if the industry had fewer players.  I am asking you to give some kind of facts for that claim, to which you replied "mergers are bad".  I pointed out that if that were true then the mergers that occurred in the mid 2000s would have been a bad thing so you should be able to make the case that the market size should be 7.   You cant do it. It is a perfectly valid strain of thought. 

[nexgencpu]

5 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

You must be in favor of backwardness imposed by the government because muh feels. 

 

Look, you are claiming to know the perfect size of the wireless industry and that it would be a bad deal for consumers.  I am asking you to give some kind of facts for that claim, to which you replied "mergers are bad".  I pointed out that if that were true then the mergers that occurred in the mid 2000s would have been a bad thing so you should be able to make the case that the market size should be 7.   You cant do it. It is a perfectly valid strain of thought. 

Agree to disagree.

We shall see in a few years how "well" this all plays out.

[dro1984]

 "We"  don't have any say in this.    ... really ... It's between Sprint and T-Mobile and the government.  Not us.     It's a mobile phone company, not a cancer saving debacle!  

[NYC126]

28 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Agree to disagree.

We shall see in a few years how "well" this all plays out.

It will take a year after the merger close to see the higher fees and unlimited going bye bye. I do not favor for this merger, but Sprint and its parent company have been waiting for this. This has been their strategy from the start, but the problem now is they are the seller rather than the buyers. The only thing in their way is the DOJ, but the new administration appointed pro-business lawyers in the antitrust department. 

Had the Japenese invested on Sprint network from the get-go, they would have been negotiating a merger from strength rather than weakness. 

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, SprintNYC said:

It will take a year after the merger close to see the higher fees and unlimited going bye bye. I do not favor for this merger, but Sprint and its parent company have been waiting for this. This has been their strategy from the start, but the problem now is they are the seller rather than the buyers. The only thing in their way is the DOJ, but the new administration appointed pro-business lawyers in the antitrust department. 

Had the Japenese invested on Sprint network from the get-go, they would have been negotiating a merger from strength rather than weakness. 

They did invest in the network.