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

[derrph]

35 minutes ago, JThorson said:

I find it interesting when Marcelo mentioned we won't need 6G since 5G is more software base than previous generations.

Really doesn't matter what he thinks we don't need, he's not going to be the CEO of Sprint when that time comes.

[Tengen31]

Really doesn't matter what he thinks we don't need, he's not going to be the CEO of Sprint when that time comes.

How do you know that?????

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

9 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

How do you know that?????

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Marcelo has always signaled that he didn't want the job long term. I dont think he will be CEO much longer than the five year mark. He might go 7 at the longest. 

[derrph]

32 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

How do you know that?????

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I view Marcelo the way I view John, brought in to perform a task and then are to move to the next mission. Plus Son really likes Marcelo and it shows because MC is on numerous boards for the companies SB has bought parts in (which will probably be MC's next move). Once Sprint is really stable and is killing the market, that's when Marcelo will leave and a long term CEO will take over. 

[S4GRU]

Some new sites may fire up 3G only for a short time at initial acceptance, but all future sites are anticipated to be full build TriBand or MiniMac B41 from here forward.

Robert

[RedSpark]

Interesting Tweets from:

John Saw: https://twitter.com/SprintCTO/status/956344069709496320

Joe Meyer: https://twitter.com/SprintNetwk/status/956265856668983296

We’ll see what we hear during the upcoming Earnings Call, but things look like they’re kicking into high gear.

[shannonbrian]

Does everyone think tri band on all sites is realistic for 2018 ?.

[Tengen31]

Does everyone think tri band on all sites is realistic for 2018 ?.

We will have to see.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

10 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

We will have to see.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

With enough capex, crews and available equipment, I’m hopeful it can happen.

[BlueAngel]

18 hours ago, shannonbrian said:

Does everyone think tri band on all sites is realistic for 2018 ?.

I would hope so.

[derrph]

Does everyone think tri band on all sites is realistic for 2018 ?.

I think it’s doable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

On 1/25/2018 at 7:14 PM, shannonbrian said:

Does everyone think tri band on all sites is realistic for 2018 ?.

Tri-band, no. But Band 41 of some kind (mini-macro, small cell) will likely be on the majority of sites by the end of the year. I think it will take a couple years to get the entire footprint covered. 

[red_dog007]

I called to get a phone unlocked.  Apparently I have a special on my account.  $10/off per line if I switch to unlimited SD and removed the hotspot.  Would drop me to $70/mo+tax+phones.  That's $35/mo a line.  Kinda interesting. Not going to do it, but thought it was cool. 

[Johnner1999]

So there seems to be some talk of a nationalized 5g network to be mandated by the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[belusnecropolis]

16 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

So there seems to be some talk of a nationalized 5g network to be mandated by the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html 

^This?

Quote

Why it matters: We’ve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo — both produced by a senior National Security Council official — which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration.

The main points: The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years. There'll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration — and an outcry from the industry — over the next 6-8 months over how such a network is built and paid for. 

Two options laid out by the documents:

The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network — which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure.
An alternative plan where wireless providers build their own 5G networks that compete with one another — though the document says the downside is it could take longer and cost more. It argues that one of the “pros” of that plan is that it would cause “less commercial disruption” to the wireless industry than the government building a network.

Well, that sure is something.

[Johnner1999]

Well, that sure is something.

Sort of. Saw it here

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-5g/trump-national-security-team-sees-building-5g-network-as-option-idUSKBN1FH103




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

1 hour ago, belusnecropolis said:

The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network — which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure.

I'm 100% for this.

[belusnecropolis]

Not sure whether to MAGA or F A K E N E W S tag this. 

The idea is great to motivate the out building of networks, densify or have the government haul out some Five Gee to cover rural areas. Make em compete on top where they wont build or create new competition. This could be part of an amazing infrastructure package. We get a sweet national network(under budget and ahead of schedule); plus we all get awesome jobs installing radios, fiber, antennas, towers and connected cars, telemedicine and the future is now etc inf.

The government being the backdoor sure sounds lame. They could also spend 2T dollars on this and have anything from a huge hole, a unique view to your usage, and misuse and abuse. Let alone the implications of all that spending, unprecedented corporate take overs, and how it all shakes out for security.

 

Hey if it comes to a vote and works out, hope we all get some sweet futurenet speeds.

[utiz4321]

3 hours ago, belusnecropolis said:

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html 

^This?

Well, that sure is something.

I dont buy it. There are too many free marketers in the FCC and relevent bureaucracies

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

I'm 100% for this.

Why? Government infrastructure really pays for itself. Further few nationalize the wireless industry you basically take all incentive away from going to 6G or whatever else comes up. It is a retarded idea, that's why I don't think it's actually real.

[ase500]

I'm 100% for this.

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

[JonnygATL]

This^^

[Johnner1999]

Just asking — but isn’t this what makes cell service so reliable and robust In Europe? Not to mention very competitive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ase500]

37 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

Just asking — but isn’t this what makes cell service so reliable and robust In Europe? Not to mention very competitive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[derrph]

Hmm I don’t know how I feel about this but I’m definitely wanting to hear Sprints stance on this. So far they’ve been pretty much in agreement with government changes. I would think with a government built network, it would decrease competition and carrier profit. I do think 5G is hyped up more than what it is and we still haven’t hit maturity peak with 4G.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk