Jump to content

JeffDTD

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    1,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

JeffDTD last won the day on August 10 2017

JeffDTD had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,435 Wireless Expert

About JeffDTD

  • Rank
    Member Level: 4G WiMax
  • Birthday 04/07/1984

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Galaxy Note III
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
  • Here for...
    Friends
  • Twitter Handle
    @Jeffzx226
  • Favorite Quotation
    I refuse to be stuck in the past.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,748 profile views
  1. Right. For Sprint’s sake, I hope that was a fluke. Put a couple hundred Sprint customers on that and it’s dead. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. I don’t like the idea of enticing any user to stream video content they wouldn’t already stream. But if it prompts growth, I suppose. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. It's "wise" , from their perspective, in several ways 1)Reduces buildout costs for rural/under served areas. 2)Future proofs lease pricing, to some extent. 3)Opens the door to Verizon/ATT doing collective negotiations with current tower owners re future rates -ie - "we can build and service our own tower" 4)Has the *potential* to create higher costs for smaller carriers, should the longterm plan be to abandon sites in given markets. 5)Affords the two the opportunity to *only* offer cost prohibitive lease rates to competitors looking to use their infrastructure in under-served markets. *Perhaps* this will provide some motivation for Sprint and Tmobile to share network infrastructure or build out costs sooner than later.
  4. Yay for no more distraction. A loose confirmation that this merger mess has been a huge distraction from network planning and marketing strategy. And why wouldn’t it be? Just getting all 3 bands deployed on 100% of the footprint would be impressive. Now to wonder- will Sprint pursue the fastest backhaul when adding sites or the the cheapest? Understandably a balancing act. I tend to think Son is looking for a partner who doesn’t have a national network footprint, meaning the deeper and wider the footprint goes, the more attractive Sprint becomes as a partner. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. What a bore. I can’t help but think that time that could have been devoted to planning, promotions and strategy has been used to chase a merger. And that’s both carriers, not just Sprint. What do we really want? Reliable, competitively priced data, calls and text. I still don’t give a rats ass about 5g or coverage in the woods. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. Not sure that sprint should make further statements which attribute network improvement to the box. Should they be doing it? Absolutely. Can a competitor twist or spin it against them? Perhaps. I never dreamed competitors would spin the network upgrade map against them, but they did. Let the box be strategic, keep it close to the chest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. So you would allow a single entity to own all the cable assets in the US? And presumably retain (by way of Comcast) Universal and all of the channels under it? That's interesting. Interesting only so far as you expecting a sweetheart bundling discount from a single company that will have an iron grip on broadcast media it doesn't (yet) own Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. Sprint isn't really the best "merger of equals" partner. For a suitor who outright acquires them, it's still a long game to profitability. In a merger of equals setting, it's playing with fire. Less about who's got the cash to buy them and more about "who's got the cash to really put their assets to work?" Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. Quite naive to conclude sprint leadership is a "mess" because there are inconsistent stories floating the news. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. Yep. Not to mention the capital spent to acquire the low band spectrum and build out the network. Magentans who believed the budget pricing would survive alongside a network that comes close to the big two were naive. Pricing will always follow quality Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. Comcast does so much so well... Toss in charter for more fun? I can't you guys. If sprint becomes "xfinity wireless" I will clutch my rosary and run far, far away forever Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. While the lawsuit is garbage, it was an avoidable result. Sprints behavior with alliances to open stores (both the radio shack deal and the Dixon carphone deal) seems fickle at best. Atleast one semi-rural radio shack store here in south Mississippi flipped to sprint cobranding for several months and then went out of business. A big collective "duh" considering most residents in said area wouldn't have had contiguous coverage in said rural area ????????‍♂️ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. Sprint just needs to execute. Their majority owner has the funds to put all the spectrum in play and shore up the network deficiencies by 2020. Sprint doesn't "need" anyone else's money. Network investment seems to bring good returns as well. Sprint will be gradually be worth more in the future (to a potential suitor) based on the quality of the network access being purchased and customer satisfaction. So my point? I am no longer in favor of a tmo merger. And color me a bit skeptical of mega mergers... promises of customer benefits are often over stated. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. And Sprint selling its 1900mhz /PCS spectrum ... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. Marcelo nor Legere likely give a rip who goes... a very plush payout awaits the CEO who departs I dream about being paid to go away one day ! [emoji23] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...