Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. RedSpark

    RedSpark

    S4GRU Premier Sponsor


    • Points

      3

    • Content Count

      3,507


  2. mmark27

    mmark27

    S4GRU Premier Sponsor


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      1,866


  3. greenbastard

    greenbastard

    S4GRU Member


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      1,477


  4. RAvirani

    RAvirani

    S4GRU Staff


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      2,992


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/16/2020 in all areas

  1. Sprint also had huge sponsorship deals with NASCAR and the NBA. Of course, if you look at the customer metrics at the time, that's when the network began to get creaky and Sprint began to lose a substantial number of customers over time. Sprint would have been better off spending the money on the network instead and none on sponsorships. I'd love to see a customer survey of how many people stayed with Sprint because of its sponsorship agreements vs how many left because of a poor network experience. In fact, I'd love to see it broken down to a per-person cost. The bean-counters came in an
    2 points
  2. Finally out for Sprint TNA this morning
    2 points
  3. Pulling out of mainstream sports and going all in on soccer was a dumb move by Sprint. You could tell Marcelo pushed for this as he loves soccer and had a financial interest in it. It was a move made by someone who is way out of touch with what America likes. This is the US. Not enough people care about soccer. The sport pales in comparison to the big three sports. This was a terrible investment from the very beginning and the fan boys defended it by saying "but soccer is the largest growing sport in the country". Sprint needed the exposure today, not tomorrow.
    2 points
  4. That's a good point. Had Sprint's network been performing well, and had Sprint made substantial investments in NASCAR cities and venues during this timeframe, I would say that the NASCAR sponsorship would have been an extravagant expenditure. However, Sprint's network was already faltering, and this was only exacerbated further when it got the iPhone in Fall 2011. When I think of each million dollars sunk into a marketing or sponsorship effort that didn't result in any appreciable customer gains (and probably had no effect on retention either given the customer losses over that period), I can'
    1 point
  5. The NASCAR sponsorship was there from the Nextel days (hence "Nextel Cup"). Nextel's brand meshed well with NASCAR. Sprint's? Not so much...but that's just as much a testament to the Sprint-Nextel merger as anything else (Sprint should've merged with Alltel, though had that happened the 2.5 GHz band would've looked very different ownership-wise).
    1 point
  6. I found a couple interesting tidbits. First, network signaling on T-Mobile shows 312-250 as an "equivalent PLMN" to 310-260, meaning it's treated as native and behaves like the Clearwire PLMN did with Sprint back in the Clearwire days. Should have soft handoffs with no IP address change nor drop of a VoLTE call, but I haven't tested this yet. Second, it seems that T-Mobile has disabled CA for Sprint users without ROAMAHOME or TNX if they're "roaming" on T-Mobile. The carrier policy marks 311-490 as Sprint (whereas it's T-Mobile for non ROAMAHOME or TNX users) and only enables
    1 point
  7. The MFBI spec does not support simultaneously different IBWs/center frequencies. For example: 15x15 C block carrier could be simultaneously broadcasted as B2 (1125) and B25 (8565) with MFBI. However, MFBI does not support simultaneous broadcast of 15x15 B2 (EARFCN 1125 in the PCS C block) and 20x20 B25 (EARFCN 8590 in the PCS C+G block) that overlap by 15 MHz. Achieving the latter is a much more complex problem due to the fact that guard bands would be of different widths and thus, the physical resource blocks and LTE subcarriers wouldn't necessarily line up. These challenges re
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...