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

[Arysyn]

Both companies are leaps and bounds beyond where they were a year or two ago.  Both companies can (now) step in and beef up their low-band spectrum holdings.

 

Just zip it with the merger talk, please.  

 

I agree that Sprint is in a much better shape now than a year ago, especially with their much improved PCS spectrum holdings. I've especially been quite impressed by that particularly, and have spoken about how important I believe that is going to be for Sprint. It even has changed my mind about their PCS holdings, where last year I was suggesting they sell/trade it for something that could do more with somehow. However, I did also suggest trying to gain more PCS as an option to make their PCS well tolerable for its subscribers, as going from vast swaths of band 41 spectrum down to 5x5 PCS is a huge, and often miserable experience, at least from my point of view where I'd get 15mbps and up on band 41, down to less than 3mbps on PCS, often even less than 1mbps.

 

Yet, T-Mobile does not have Sprint's huge amount of band 41 spectrum. T-Mobile is in a bad position with the lack of the spectrum they have for the future. The only thing helping them right now is their generally good tower density and that they do not have the number of customers AT&T and Verizon have, which if T-Mobile did, their network likely would be worse than Sprint's network Sprint's worst times some years ago. Already, since T-Mobile has gained the customers they have in the past few years, their network has taken a hit. Especially in places where band 12 isn't available. T-Mobile needs to do a lot more spectrum swapping than even Sprint does, in order to get their networks at least to 15x15 for wideband. It is crucial to them, as 15x15 AWS and 15x15 PCS equaling 60mhz is the most on average they are going to get (with consideration some areas might be 20x20 on one and 15x15 on the other with lesser amounts than this taken into account, besides low band. Sprint has twice that amount around the same number of customers.

 

So to keep this post from becoming too long, I'll just add that I see this as Sprint needing T-Mobile for the financial incentives, T-Mobile needing Sprint for the spectrum, and both needing each other for the competitive aspects of business.

[derrph]

There was a article posted on phonearena about Verizon, their network, 5G and their views on their competitors. What stood out to me was at the end of it.

 

"Lastly, we asked him to give us a quick summary of Verizon's rivals. He sees AT&T as a long-time solid tech company, while calling T-Mobile a "worthy challenger". Sprint, he said, should not be underestimated."

 

Deep down even Verizon knows that Sprint is going to a beast no one expected to see coming.

 

Anyways, here's the link if anyone wants to read it

 

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Verizon-got-to-the-top-by-investing-time-and-money-on-its-network-UPDATE_id79173

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

There was a article posted on phonearena about Verizon, their network, 5G and their views on their competitors. What stood out to me was at the end of it.

 

"Lastly, we asked him to give us a quick summary of Verizon's rivals. He sees AT&T as a long-time solid tech company, while calling T-Mobile a "worthy challenger". Sprint, he said, should not be underestimated."

 

Deep down even Verizon knows that Sprint is going to a beast no one expected to see coming.

 

Anyways, here's the link if anyone wants to read it

 

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Verizon-got-to-the-top-by-investing-time-and-money-on-its-network-UPDATE_id79173

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Really great article, and what I find really interesting is the beginning of it where it mentions how much more Verizon has spent on its network compared to AT&T. I don't even believe the rebuttal excuse AT&T used about it, and I'm definitely left disappointed in AT&T for it. Much of their spending has been in Mexico and in purchasing DIRECTv. The reviews done by groups such as Root Metrics shows a serious decline in AT&T's network in many markets, losing quite big in contrast to Verizon and Sprint, sometimes even to the ever-slowing and worsening T-Mobile network.

 

I like the comment made about Sprint, which definitely should not be underestimated.

[richy]

I agree that Sprint is in a much better shape now than a year ago, especially with their much improved PCS spectrum holdings. I've especially been quite impressed by that particularly, and have spoken about how important I believe that is going to be for Sprint. It even has changed my mind about their PCS holdings, where last year I was suggesting they sell/trade it for something that could do more with somehow. However, I did also suggest trying to gain more PCS as an option to make their PCS well tolerable for its subscribers, as going from vast swaths of band 41 spectrum down to 5x5 PCS is a huge, and often miserable experience, at least from my point of view where I'd get 15mbps and up on band 41, down to less than 3mbps on PCS, often even less than 1mbps.

 

Yet, T-Mobile does not have Sprint's huge amount of band 41 spectrum. T-Mobile is in a bad position with the lack of the spectrum they have for the future. The only thing helping them right now is their generally good tower density and that they do not have the number of customers AT&T and Verizon have, which if T-Mobile did, their network likely would be worse than Sprint's network Sprint's worst times some years ago. Already, since T-Mobile has gained the customers they have in the past few years, their network has taken a hit. Especially in places where band 12 isn't available. T-Mobile needs to do a lot more spectrum swapping than even Sprint does, in order to get their networks at least to 15x15 for wideband. It is crucial to them, as 15x15 AWS and 15x15 PCS equaling 60mhz is the most on average they are going to get (with consideration some areas might be 20x20 on one and 15x15 on the other with lesser amounts than this taken into account, besides low band. Sprint has twice that amount around the same number of customers.

 

So to keep this post from becoming too long, I'll just add that I see this as Sprint needing T-Mobile for the financial incentives, T-Mobile needing Sprint for the spectrum, and both needing each other for the competitive aspects of business.

Re tmobile spectrum, this little pearl leaked out today, apparently TMobile has 200MHz of 28GHz and 39GHz to use for 5g. If they can refarm enough,  get aws3 in use,  use 4x4 mimo they may stand a chance of having enough capacity to last until they can deploy 600MHz (assuming they can afford any), which might tide then over until 5g is mature.  Then again they may not I'm curious if that 200 mhz is nationwide or just in one area for testing and if sprint has any!

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/wells-fargo-loose-credit-policies-caused-bit-disruption-t-mobile/2016-03-11

[Arysyn]

Re tmobile spectrum, this little pearl leaked out today, apparently TMobile has 200MHz of 28GHz and 39GHz to use for 5g. If they can refarm enough,  get aws3 in use,  use 4x4 mimo they may stand a chance of having enough capacity to last until they can deploy 600MHz (assuming they can afford any), which might tide then over until 5g is mature.  Then again they may not I'm curious if that 200 mhz is nationwide or just in one area for testing and if sprint has any!

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/wells-fargo-loose-credit-policies-caused-bit-disruption-t-mobile/2016-03-11

 

Hmm... If T-Mobile has this nationwide and with 4x4 mimo, how far will the signal travel and would it go through buildings well enough? I've read a lot of unfair criticism of Sprint's band 41 with all the claims of not traveling well, etc., which certainly wasn't my experience. I thought band 41 traveled pretty well outdoors and gives great speed. Although during my brief experience using Clear, it didn't do so well indoors, granted that was with WiMax using older technologies.

 

However, I'm a bit skeptical about how such high frequencies mentioned T-Mobile is using for this will be. Seems hypocritical for Magentans to criticize Sprint using 2.5 ghz, claiming it travels horribly, but then 28 and 39 ghz is okay. Granted, I hope this spectrum ends up working for T-Mobile just as well I know that band 41 works for Sprint. Yet, I'm still curious and unsure just how well this will work for T-Mobile, as there is some truth, despite Magentan exaggerations, of the distance issue. 

[sbolen]

Really great article, and what I find really interesting is the beginning of it where it mentions how much more Verizon has spent on its network compared to AT&T. I don't even believe the rebuttal excuse AT&T used about it, and I'm definitely left disappointed in AT&T for it. Much of their spending has been in Mexico and in purchasing DIRECTv. The reviews done by groups such as Root Metrics shows a serious decline in AT&T's network in many markets, losing quite big in contrast to Verizon and Sprint, sometimes even to the ever-slowing and worsening T-Mobile network.

My work phone is an AT&T iPhone 6S Plus. Part of my job requires me to travel all over the US (and eventually parts of Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Rim). I've experienced the degradation of AT&T data service in nearly every major city I've visited over the past year. Co-workers have asked me many times why I still have a personal phone/carry two devices on the road -- honestly, it's because I need Sprint to provide reliable data/call/text quality in areas where AT&T is overwhelmed or just flat-out poor.

 

If I were AT&T, I'd seriously start dumping tons of money into Network/infrastructure upgrades. It's no joke that Sprint & T-Mobile will eventually out perform AT&T in the major markets unless AT&T opens up the vault and pays up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

It's strange how I keep hearing that AT&T's LTE rollout is "complete" but that's complete nonsense.  Many rural cell sites do not yet have LTE with AT&T.  In fact, the only carrier that seems to have universal LTE is Verizon.  

 

On the flip side, in this area at least, AT&T seems to be the densest of the four, followed by T-Mobile, and then Sprint/Verizon are very close to each other, but Verizon has a TON of open permits for densifying which I assume we'll see this year. 

 

Despite that, Verizon and T-Mobile are basically tied for first while AT&T is last, according to RootMetrics.  I really don't know what AT&T is doing wrong around here, because their spectrum holdings are pretty comparable to the other carriers.

 

- Trip

[Johnner1999]

Hmm... If T-Mobile has this nationwide and with 4x4 mimo, how far will the signal travel and would it go through buildings well enough? I've read a lot of unfair criticism of Sprint's band 41 with all the claims of not traveling well, etc., which certainly wasn't my experience. I thought band 41 traveled pretty well outdoors and gives great speed. Although during my brief experience using Clear, it didn't do so well indoors, granted that was with WiMax using older technologies.

 

However, I'm a bit skeptical about how such high frequencies mentioned T-Mobile is using for this will be. Seems hypocritical for Magentans to criticize Sprint using 2.5 ghz, claiming it travels horribly, but then 28 and 39 ghz is okay. Granted, I hope this spectrum ends up working for T-Mobile just as well I know that band 41 works for Sprint. Yet, I'm still curious and unsure just how well this will work for T-Mobile, as there is some truth, despite Magentan exaggerations, of the distance issue.

The 28 and 39ghz bands are using newer technology that doesn't require the same power to be useful.

 

At least that is what I understand.

 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/6336544/06515173.pdf?tp=&arnumber=6515173&isnumber=6336544

 

Note at least in my area I believe VZW uses 2.3ghz now and has zero issues inside a building. I suppose VZW uses unicorn magic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

The 28 and 39ghz bands are using newer technology that doesn't require the same power to be useful.

 

At least that is what I understand.

 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/6336544/06515173.pdf?tp=&arnumber=6515173&isnumber=6336544

 

Note at least in my area I believe VZW uses 2.3ghz now and has zero issues inside a building. I suppose VZW uses unicorn magic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Verizon doesn't have 2.3ghz. Verizon only holds 700, 800, 1900 and AWS (2100). AT&T might have 2.3ghz tho because they are rolling out WCS rn

[Johnner1999]

Verizon doesn't have 2.3ghz. Verizon only holds 700, 800, 1900 and AWS (2100). AT&T might have 2.3ghz tho because they are rolling out WCS rn

Thank you --- I thought it was 2.3!

 

Being aws does that assist with in building use?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EvanA]

Thank you --- I thought it was 2.3!

 

Being aws does that assist with in building use?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, due to the lower uplink frequency (1700MHz).

[Arysyn]

I had intentions on joining AT&T, if the T-Mobile situation I had didn't work out. However, since it did I'm staying on T-Mobile, and I'm thinking it probably is for the best. I got excited/hopeful hearing about some of AT&T's new spectrum deals, but I'm not even sure if its helping/going to help, because of other network issues and all the reports I'm hearing about AT&T worsening in so many places. Even my cousin who has AT&T on their old unlimited plan has been complaining about the network here in the Chicago market, which has lots of 10x10 spectrum. So now its really up to seeing what happens with AT&T's desperation if they can't get their review ratings up. I can see them trying to reaquire T-Mobile in a new administration, though of course I'd rather Sprint get T-Mobile. However, AT&T's strategy seems to be focused on acquisitions to build their company nowadays, so it'll at least be interesting to see what they do and whatever happens in the next few years betwee the carriers involving growth strategies.

[gusherb]

I had intentions on joining AT&T, if the T-Mobile situation I had didn't work out. However, since it did I'm staying on T-Mobile, and I'm thinking it probably is for the best. I got excited/hopeful hearing about some of AT&T's new spectrum deals, but I'm not even sure if its helping/going to help, because of other network issues and all the reports I'm hearing about AT&T worsening in so many places. Even my cousin who has AT&T on their old unlimited plan has been complaining about the network here in the Chicago market, which has lots of 10x10 spectrum. So now its really up to seeing what happens with AT&T's desperation if they can't get their review ratings up. I can see them trying to reaquire T-Mobile in a new administration, though of course I'd rather Sprint get T-Mobile. However, AT&T's strategy seems to be focused on acquisitions to build their company nowadays, so it'll at least be interesting to see what they do and whatever happens in the next few years betwee the carriers involving growth strategies.

AT&T really isn't bad in the Chicago market nor is it declining. What you're reading about them declining elsewhere does not apply here. What I complain about in my county doesn't even apply in the rest of the Chicago market. That's why I talk about Chicago and Lake County, IN like two totally separate areas.

AT&T is a solid choice in most of the Chicago area alongside Verizon and just ahead of Sprint and T-Mobile.

If your carrier works for the most part then you should just stick with them because you're never gonna find true happiness on any carrier. In the end they all suck one way or the other.

[Arysyn]

AT&T really isn't bad in the Chicago market nor is it declining. What you're reading about them declining elsewhere does not apply here. What I complain about in my county doesn't even apply in the rest of the Chicago market. That's why I talk about Chicago and Lake County, IN like two totally separate areas.

AT&T is a solid choice in most of the Chicago area alongside Verizon and just ahead of Sprint and T-Mobile.

If your carrier works for the most part then you should just stick with them because you're never gonna find true happiness on any carrier. In the end they all suck one way or the other.

 

That sounds fair. I definitely don't mean to be harsh about AT&T, after all there are things I do like about them, and they do have the best indoor reception in the area I live. Cricket's reception in the basement of my townhouse was truly amazing at over half the bar signal strength in between four walls of concrete, totally underground. No half basement, half outside kind of basement, fully underneath the earth. Verizon couldn't get there, neither can T-Mobile. I didn't test Sprint in the basement though, so I can't say for sure about that. Although AT&T (on Cricket) was amazing outside even.

 

However, that was a few months ago, and my cousin still has AT&T where I don't, so I'm really unsure what to think. He loved the deal when I told him about it and he'd be saving quite a bit of money if he and his mother, my mother and I all got the four line unlimited plan, especially if AT&T took the Freelancer's Union card discount. However, he complained that his service is getting quite slow, so I'm wondering if he's thinking about canceling. Perhaps it has become worse around here since I had Cricket, I'm not sure? I definitely don't want to judge all of Chicago though, just where I know I've used the service.

 

Anyways, you're certainly right about how all carriers do suck in some ways. Especially when dealing with service people. Some are really great, others crap. Signal, speed, etc., all of it varies. The thing when discussing positive/negative experiences is to try remembering to always use words when describing them, like "where I've been" or if referring to others by saying things like "I've read, or I heard such and such, rather than say things like Sprint sucks in Russia! Of course, Sprint doesn't have service in Russia, but to say such a thing even if they did and it sucked, its still a bit too vague. A few important points I try to remember and adhere to when posting.

[gusherb]

That sounds fair. I definitely don't mean to be harsh about AT&T, after all there are things I do like about them, and they do have the best indoor reception in the area I live. Cricket's reception in the basement of my townhouse was truly amazing at over half the bar signal strength in between four walls of concrete, totally underground. No half basement, half outside kind of basement, fully underneath the earth. Verizon couldn't get there, neither can T-Mobile. I didn't test Sprint in the basement though, so I can't say for sure about that. Although AT&T (on Cricket) was amazing outside even.

 

However, that was a few months ago, and my cousin still has AT&T where I don't, so I'm really unsure what to think. He loved the deal when I told him about it and he'd be saving quite a bit of money if he and his mother, my mother and I all got the four line unlimited plan, especially if AT&T took the Freelancer's Union card discount. However, he complained that his service is getting quite slow, so I'm wondering if he's thinking about canceling. Perhaps it has become worse around here since I had Cricket, I'm not sure? I definitely don't want to judge all of Chicago though, just where I know I've used the service.

 

Anyways, you're certainly right about how all carriers do suck in some ways. Especially when dealing with service people. Some are really great, others crap. Signal, speed, etc., all of it varies. The thing when discussing positive/negative experiences is to try remembering to always use words when describing them, like "where I've been" or if referring to others by saying things like "I've read, or I heard such and such, rather than say things like Sprint sucks in Russia! Of course, Sprint doesn't have service in Russia, but to say such a thing even if they did and it sucked, its still a bit too vague. A few important points I try to remember and adhere to when posting.

If your signal is as good as you say it is then I'd be very surprised if you had any speed problems in your basement. I really only ever encounter a speed issue when there's a miles long traffic jam on the expressway (but it still works fine), or downtown at rush hour.

[Arysyn]

If your signal is as good as you say it is then I'd be very surprised if you had any speed problems in your basement. I really only ever encounter a speed issue when there's a miles long traffic jam on the expressway (but it still works fine), or downtown at rush hour.

 

I didn't check the speed when I had Cricket using the device in the basement, as I knew the speed would be around or under 8mbps, which with the signal being really good, I figured I wouldn't have any speed problems there.

 

Again, the only thing I'm wondering about is what exactly is going on with my cousin's experience. If I get to talk with him soon, I'll ask and then report back here about it. My aunt talked with him about the deal I proposed, which he seemed happy about, as it would save him money, but then he mentioned something about his speeds being bad. At least, this is what my aunt told my mother, who passed the information along to me. So it sounds as if he might be considering switching to another carrier, I'm not sure though.

 

One thing though that needs to happen, is for AT&T to resolve its issues where it has them, particularly due to what they are charging people for service. Then again, I believe the sane thing about T-Mobile, which has raised prices without really offering much improved service. It seems Sprint is the most fairly priced of them all, at the moment. Although, I won't complain much about the signal/speed issues of T-Mobile, considering the deal I have. As long as they are nice on the phone really is what matters. If the signal/speed issues become a problem with my health needs though, then I'll have to switch.

[Johnner1999]

AT&T really isn't bad in the Chicago market nor is it declining. What you're reading about them declining elsewhere does not apply here. What I complain about in my county doesn't even apply in the rest of the Chicago market. That's why I talk about Chicago and Lake County, IN like two totally separate areas.

AT&T is a solid choice in most of the Chicago area alongside Verizon and just ahead of Sprint and T-Mobile.

If your carrier works for the most part then you should just stick with them because you're never gonna find true happiness on any carrier. In the end they all suck one way or the other.

Bingo unless you work for a carrier - they all have a motive and it's not being our friend.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoBigRed79]

Bingo unless you work for a carrier - they all have a motive and it's not being our friend.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly! That why I don't understand carrier fanboys. All the carriers have one goal and that is to get as much of my money as possible. Use whoever works best for you and your situation period. I could care less what carrier anybody uses. I use sprint right now because it works well where I use my phone 99% of the time and offers me the best value for my needs. If another carrier comes along and offers a better value, I will give them a look. But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Exactly! That why I don't understand carrier fanboys. All the carriers have one goal and that is to get as much of my money as possible. Use whoever works best for you and your situation period. I could care less what carrier anybody uses. I use sprint right now because it works well where I use my phone 99% of the time and offers me the best value for my needs. If another carrier comes along and offers a better value, I will give them a look. But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said. I only have loyalty to my wallet. Sprint is definitely not the best carrier in East Texas/Southeast Louisiana, but it gets the job done for the best value. I know 1-2 Mbps is slow compared to other carriers but it gets the job done.

[Johnner1999]

Finally some sanity posts :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

Yes, due to the lower uplink frequency (1700MHz).

 

I think that AWS has a lower power envelope.

[WiWavelength]

Finally some sanity posts :-)

 

Is "sanity" what you really want?  Because S4GRU is, well, kind of insane.

 

The charitable hours, work, and money -- especially among the staff -- that we put into S4GRU are, well, kind of insane.  And that makes S4GRU sort of a stakeholder in Sprint.  Understand the sentiment.  Some of us do unpaid work for an educational cause.

 

However, if you wish, we can stop doing this at any time.  We can become sane, and S4GRU can go away tomorrow.  Then, you can go wandering around in the dark on your own.  Get your own insider or technical information -- if you can.  Is that what you want?

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

It's strange how I keep hearing that AT&T's LTE rollout is "complete" but that's complete nonsense. Many rural cell sites do not yet have LTE with AT&T. In fact, the only carrier that seems to have universal LTE is Verizon.

 

On the flip side, in this area at least, AT&T seems to be the densest of the four, followed by T-Mobile, and then Sprint/Verizon are very close to each other, but Verizon has a TON of open permits for densifying which I assume we'll see this year.

 

Despite that, Verizon and T-Mobile are basically tied for first while AT&T is last, according to RootMetrics. I really don't know what AT&T is doing wrong around here, because their spectrum holdings are pretty comparable to the other carriers.

 

- Trip

Driving from Rapid City, South Dakota to Seattle, Washington last week, I had an AT&T signal over 95% of miles driven. But an LTE signal only over about 50%. So I agree with your summation. They are nowhere near complete with LTE coverage.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[Johnner1999]

Is "sanity" what you really want? Because S4GRU is, well, kind of insane.

 

The charitable hours, work, and money -- especially among the staff -- that we put into S4GRU are, well, kind of insane. And that makes S4GRU sort of a stakeholder in Sprint. Understand the sentiment. Some of us do unpaid work for an educational cause.

 

However, if you wish, we can stop doing this at any time. We can become sane, and S4GRU can go away tomorrow. Then, you can go wandering around in the dark on your own. Get your own insider or technical information -- if you can. Is that what you want?

 

AJ

You seem to always respond in a digital process.

 

I do value your knowledge

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

Oh and my sanity post was aimed solely at the notion that no carrier is our buddy or friend. That was all. [emoji41]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk