Jump to content
joshuam

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

Recommended Posts

That still doesn't have anything to do with cities that didn't get Wimax that have LTE "now"

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

It has everything to do with your prior statement as Sprint may still have a few Clearwire sites that need conversion in order to broadcast LTE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimmick or fad? It extends the LTE network indoors in places where it exists only outdoors. There will always be buildings where something like this is useful. Femtocells are more common now with more ubiqutous LTE on other providers. Not less.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The MagicBox did seem silly at first. But the more you examine it, the more genius it actually becomes. For large businesses and commercial strips, a small cell or even a DAS would make sense. But for a small, stand-alone business, a DAS is just overkill and doesn't make any financial sense.

 

With the MagicBox, Sprint can distribute these devices to restaurants, small retail stores, and even mom and pop shops without much of a hassle or financial strain.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Magic Box is a great way to get a round town rules about no towers or no small cell sites. They still need that backhaul site for the Magic Boxes but no need to pay a town 1000+ dollars a year for small cells. Crossing my fingers they have the same reach out side as a strong wifi hotspot (~300ft).   

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Magic Box is a great way to get a round town rules about no towers or no small cell sites. They still need that backhaul site for the Magic Boxes but no need to pay a town 1000+ dollars a year for small cells. Crossing my fingers they have the same reach out side as a strong wifi hotspot (~300ft).

They're advertised to cover 100m outdoors so just over 300 feet.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Magic Box is a great way to get a round town rules about no towers or no small cell sites. They still need that backhaul site for the Magic Boxes but no need to pay a town 1000+ dollars a year for small cells. Crossing my fingers they have the same reach out side as a strong wifi hotspot (~300ft).   

^ This is where I see the most benefit for both sides, company and consumer. Those NIMBY folks can suck it.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those NIMBY folks can suck it.

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those NIMBY folks can suck it.

 

When you tell those NIMBY folks that there are a whole bunch of satellites up there in orbit broadcasting TV and radio all over the USA as well as SAT-Phone service, their minds are blown. I just do not get these people. One of our campuses is in a town that basically does not allow cell phone towers, yet everyone complains of service. "Can you hear me now??" No, because you need towers!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with your prior statement as Sprint may still have a few Clearwire sites that need conversion in order to broadcast LTE.

 

There really is no point to making an argument here... because WiMax protection sites are dead. They're not coming back, no more are getting converted. It's over. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimmick or fad? It extends the LTE network indoors in places where it exists only outdoors. There will always be buildings where something like this is useful. Femtocells are more common now with more ubiqutous LTE on other providers. Not less.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I'd like to see the other carriers you these things to. Some people think only Sprint has issues getting signal in places. The vzw signal at my could use one on these.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with your prior statement as Sprint may still have a few Clearwire sites that need conversion in order to broadcast LTE.

So your saying some major cities don't have LTE?

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no point to making an argument here... because WiMax protection sites are dead. They're not coming back, no more are getting converted. It's over.

As far as I know the only remaining protected sites are LTE.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no point to making an argument here... because WiMax protection sites are dead. They're not coming back, no more are getting converted. It's over.

They are dead, and that is the point. A lot of protection sites were located in areas where Sprint offers no service. After the wimax shut down, a few rural protection sites didn't get LTE and just stayed silent.

 

Thus making this statement not entirely true;

My question is why we are still talking about this? LTE covers what wimax didn't. It's time to move on and, get over it. Feels like a waste of time.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you tell those NIMBY folks that there are a whole bunch of satellites up there in orbit broadcasting TV and radio all over the USA as well as SAT-Phone service, their minds are blown.

 

I don't think most NIMBY folks care about satellites since satellites can't be seen in their neighborhood. You may confusing NIMBYs with people who claim to have high electromagnetic sensitivity.

I just do not get these people. One of our campuses is in a town that basically does not allow cell phone towers, yet everyone complains of service. "Can you hear me now??" No, because you need towers!

Depending on the type of campus you speak of, it wouldn't be too hard to easily hide cell panels and DAS equipment inside buildings or outside of a general campus area. Seems like the blame also lies with uncooperative wireless carriers.

 

I don't get the demonization of NIMBYs. People have every right to protect their property and anything that could lower the property value/attractiveness. Wireless carriers need to do a better job of hiding their equipment and meeting zoning/HOA rules if they want to do business in that area. When I build a house, I don't go crazy and build a 5 story apartment in the middle of a suburban residential neighborhood! I follow the rules set in place and pay all necessary permits. Why should carriers play by different rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most NIMBY folks care about satellites since satellites can't be seen in their neighborhood. You may confusing NIMBYs with people who claim to have high electromagnetic sensitivity.

Depending on the type of campus you speak of, it wouldn't be too hard to easily hide cell panels and DAS equipment inside buildings or outside of a general campus area. Seems like the blame also lies with uncooperative wireless carriers.

 

I don't get the demonization of NIMBYs. People have every right to protect their property and anything that could lower the property value/attractiveness. Wireless carriers need to do a better job of hiding their equipment and meeting zoning/HOA rules if they want to do business in that area. When I build a house, I don't go crazy and build a 5 story apartment in the middle of a suburban residential neighborhood! I follow the rules set in place and pay all necessary permits. Why should carriers play by different rules?

Not sure if you have watched the townhall meetings posted here about the small cells. Health is one of the top reasons people state as the reasons they don't want towers in the area. Looks are one of the reasons but even when it is pointed out that the meetings are about setting rules for small cells looks people go on about it doesn't matter what they look like because they would still be "bad" for health reasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if you have watched the townhall meetings posted here about the small cells. Health is one of the top reasons people state as the reasons they don't want towers in the area. Looks are one of the reasons but even when it is pointed out that the meetings are about setting rules for small cells looks people go on about it doesn't matter what they look like because they would still be "bad" for health reasons.

Yep how many of thos people own cell phones.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In the era of capacity, high band spectrum and lots of it matters. 

 

 

But we've been hearing this for years. B41 this. B41 that. 

 

Sprint still has the slowest LTE network in the US with the most spectrum and least amount of customers.

 

Depending on the type of campus you speak of, it wouldn't be too hard to easily hide cell panels and DAS equipment inside buildings or outside of a general campus area. Seems like the blame also lies with uncooperative wireless carriers.

 

 

This is a good point. All three of the universities I went to for (undergrad/masters/professional) has carrier-neutral DAS systems across their campuses. Two carriers usually ignored them and didn't bother deploying their equipment.

 

Edited by WiseGuy321
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But we've been hearing this for years. B41 this. B41 that. 

 

Sprint still has the slowest LTE network in the US with the most spectrum and least amount of customers.

 

 

It seems like you have a bit of a grudge. If it bothers you that much, maybe you should look elsewhere?

 

Sprint is not the fastest, I'll give you that much, but to say it is the slowest is not really true. While Sprint is not winning awards in every city, they are doing pretty well in many metro areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are dead, and that is the point. A lot of protection sites were located in areas where Sprint offers no service. After the wimax shut down, a few rural protection sites didn't get LTE and just stayed silent.

 

Thus making this statement not entirely true;

 

And what would have expected? Sprint to randomly expand into areas they have never offered service? Protection sites were never officially part of the network, what would cause that to change when Sprint took over Clearwire. They were there to protect the license agreements. With Sprint's deployment of B41, they have fulfilled the agreements. No reason for protection sites to exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you have a bit of a grudge. If it bothers you that much, maybe you should look elsewhere?

 

Sprint is not the fastest, I'll give you that much, but to say it is the slowest is not really true. While Sprint is not winning awards in every city, they are doing pretty well in many metro areas. 

Hm... I have no grudge. 

 

I was merely pointing out fact using Ookla data.

 

Using data from across the nation, yes, Sprint would be considered the slowest. Speedsmart's recent report also conveys the same thing. (http://speedsmart.net/wireless_index/april_2017/)

 

(FYI I am not trying to attack you or anyone else on this site)

Edited by WiseGuy321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm... I have no grudge. 

 

I was merely pointing out a fact using Ookla data.

 

Using data from across the nation, yes, Sprint would be considered the slowest. Speedsmart's recent report also conveys the same thing. (http://speedsmart.net/wireless_index/april_2017/)

 

(FYI I am not trying to attack you or anyone else on this site)

 

I have never heard of Speedsmart, but looking at their data, Sprint is not the slowest in every market, in every city. I do not know how they weight their "points," but if they are weighting the upload speeds, then yes Sprint will suffer. Because B41 is TDD, upload speeds will always be slower than the other carriers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how both Att and V took a big hit after unlimited was deployed. And again, if you visit Verizons Reddit page more and more post about slow speeds cropping up.

 

As Masa said, he welcomes the unlimited data war, and this kinda sums it up why.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the demonization of NIMBYs. People have every right to protect their property and anything that could lower the property value/attractiveness. Wireless carriers need to do a better job of hiding their equipment and meeting zoning/HOA rules if they want to do business in that area. When I build a house, I don't go crazy and build a 5 story apartment in the middle of a suburban residential neighborhood! I follow the rules set in place and pay all necessary permits. Why should carriers play by different rules?

The other side of the coin is noted, but If I am going to find a house to live in, I would like to have cell service, cable service etc. Be it provided by a pole, tower or a dish. Without it, in my opinion, brings down the value of the area. 

 

Not sure if you have watched the townhall meetings posted here about the small cells. Health is one of the top reasons people state as the reasons they don't want towers in the area. Looks are one of the reasons but even when it is pointed out that the meetings are about setting rules for small cells looks people go on about it doesn't matter what they look like because they would still be "bad" for health reasons.

Probably the same folks complaining that are living near a high voltage tower that brings in the electricity to power up that microwave for their tv dinner. Health reason be damned as long as I have my MTV and Microwave.   :devil:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of the coin is noted, but If I am going to find a house to live in, I would like to have cell service, cable service etc. Be it provided by a pole, tower or a dish. Without it, in my opinion, brings down the value of the area.

 

Probably the same folks complaining that are living near a high voltage tower that brings in the electricity to power up that microwave for their tv dinner. Health reason be damned as long as I have my MTV and Microwave. :devil:

I completely agree with twospirits here. There is a huge benefit to live in an area well-served by wireless carriers, cable companies, etc. It ought to bring value to have an abundance of these services, not decrease the value. I know wherever I move to, having close proximity to a tower will be a very important factor in where I go.

 

Also, I remember some time ago about how some people in Kansas City were complaining about the look of Google Fiber boxes. I really can't understand these people. To have Google Fiber available at your house, is an amazing thing. If Google wanted to build it where I live and if anyone fought it at a town hall, I'd likely be thrown out of the meeting for what I'd have to say towards these NIMBYs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another solid showing by Team Yellow..

 

https://imgur.com/gallery/S3Q1f

Good for Sprint, though I'm beginning to believe John Legere about the treatment being shown towards T-Mobile by RootMetrics.

Share this post


Link to post
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

    • Okay, now that I said I hadn't seen any activity, I'm wondering if I saw something new this afternoon. https://imgur.com/a/kD5lUkr I copied one of the pictures and annotated it in red.  Am I right? - Trip
    • I've been noticing lowband coverage loss in the greater Seattle area as T-Mobile has been swapping out 6-port 700/midband antennas for 8-port 600/700/midband antennas.  Judging from the antenna gain figures, this isn't surprising, but I was wondering if anyone else has been noticing the same? There are quite a few areas I frequent that have gone from reliable weak L700 to EDGE or no service after 600 antenna upgrades... Antenna comparison for anyone interested: Commscope SBNHH-1D65C (almost all 700 setups use these antennas) 2x2 700 (16.2) 4x4 1700 (17.7) & 1900 (17.9) & 2100 (18.5) 65° 96.6 x 11.9 x 7.1 49.6 lbs Commscope FFHH-65B-R3 (most new 600 setups use these antennas) 4x4 600 (14.1) & 700 (14.3) 4x4 1700 (17.6) & 1900 (18.4) & 2100 (19.0) 65°  72 x 25.2 x 9.3 101.4 lbs Commscope FFHH-65C-R3 (some 600 setups on large structures use these antennas) 4x4 600 (15.4) & 700 (15.8) 4x4 1700 (17.9) & 1900 (18.4) & 2100 (18.8) 65° 95.9 x 25.2 x 9.3 127.6 lbs
    • If there is a purchase option on the current T-Mobile leases, then there probably won't be much of a bidding war.
    • Dish has ~8 million customers.  I don't expect Dish to have the growth that TMobile has had.  Lets say Dish is lucky to add an average of 1M customers a year for 5 years.  That puts them only at 13M customers. Even if they were TMobile like in the ability to add at least 1M new customers a quarter, in 5 years that is 20M + 8M, so 28M. Whatever network they build I think it'll focus very much just in the big cities where they have the most customers right now and plan to push sales the most. It doesn't make sense for them to build a nationwide network and use all their bands.  It doesn't even really make sense to build a low-band network to hit their 70% pop coverage. I could see Dish coming to an agreement with TMobile to broadcast their spectrum.   Like why would they need to cover 70% pop if they have few customers. Also I could see if Dish continues forward in good faith and the deadlines are near that the FCC could be willing to come to some form of agreement with Dish to not penalize them if they are unable to get TMobile to host use their spectrum.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...