Jump to content

JustinRP37

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

369 Trusted

About JustinRP37

  • Rank
    Member Level: 3G EVDO

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    iPhone 6s, iPad Pro
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  • Twitter Handle
    JustinRP37

Recent Profile Visitors

7,399 profile views
  1. This isn't true. The models are defined by the modem inside Qualcomm or Intel. The Qualcomm modem is used only for Verizon and Sprint phones. The Intel modem lacks CDMA completely. The SIM is simply the card that tells the modem what network it is on. You can't pop in a Sprint SIM card into the T-Mobile iPhone X and have it work on CDMA.
  2. Am I missing something here? It shows TMUS at 23.17, VZ at 21.13, T at 20.05,and S at 15.39. Doesn’t this make them in 4th still?
  3. I do not know what Radem meant by low wired caps (maybe speed?) because I do not know of many areas that have low fixed broadband caps. And again, wireless data won't be more usable if Netflix was paying more to wireless providers. There is still a fixed amount of spectrum, which in turn means a fixed amount of speed. So I do not get your argument. But while we are at you, do you really believe that if Netflix was forced to pay higher interconnect fees they would not pass that cost on? I mean it's the same principle of 'you cannot tax corporations' because they can simply choose to pass that c
  4. Not at all! Deprioritization caps are there to keep the network usable by the masses! If you provided truly unlimited wireless then data speeds would be abysmal! Wireless is not a replacement for fixed connections! Wireless is limited by spectrum, so you have to have a balancing mechanism to make sure that people can have a decent experience. This is just Michigan btw: http://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/need-broadband-michigan-rural-life-can-mean-youre-out-luck Also: https://www.cio.com/article/2689996/consumer-technology/us-lags-in-broadband-speed-due-to-serious-lack-of-competit
  5. They literally just did raise the price! Twice, actually, in the last year! And again Netflix is NOT highly profitable given how much they are spending for content. An additional cost will change their business model, likely either have less money for content or more expensive. That in turn makes the video provider (likely your ISP) the better choice. Further, your claim that 63% of Americans have more than two broadband wireless choices is based on the old definition of broadband (4Mpbs/1Mpbs). The new standard is 25/3 as decided in 2015. Based on 2013 numbers, 83% of Americans only hav
  6. Agree to disagree. People have presented evidence of companies trying to change the internet before net neutrality. You seem to favor the internet not being treated like a utility and I respect that. However, you cannot say that companies have not tried to change the way the internet was handled before Net Neutrality. That is where people are pointing out it HAS happened (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/13/fcc-probes-netflix-isp-fight/10439635/). You can see further what is predicted in this article (http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/). While
  7. My hypothesis is not evidence free. I was an economics concentration in college. If you would like I can send you some papers that study these exact cases for corporations over the years. That extra $15 would be disguised as a 'fee' and most people would not change carriers over that. Plus with ISPs there is largely no place for most customers to churn to. Fees are the best way to increase prices while not changing the overall rate. That is basic marketing. Sure Verizon could have increased my price plan for video on FiOS, but that would make it seem like a price increase. By adding an RSN fee
  8. Your whole argument is flawed. I hate to say it but just because they didn't do it prior to X date means absolutely nothing in the technology sector. The technology is evolving and therefore it will and can change. Cable companies used to post profits on the video stream into the house. Over time that has dried up as more people move to a streaming sources. The pricing strategy, likewise, has to shift. The reason behind Net Neutrality was because companies were trying to change up how data was handled (and are wanting to now). I can tell you it is a lot more complicated than you are willing to
  9. Comcast will not merge with Verizon. Just stop. That would create a mega corporation beyond all imagination. Not even a Trump administration would approve that. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-28/comcast-buying-verizon-it-doesn-t-like-wireless-that-much
  10. This article is actually pretty good with regards to the points I was making earlier. Sprint is in a much better position today to compete than it has been in a VERY long time. They still have issues, but bottom line is improving everyday. That does not bode well for investors looking for a merger, but does look good for consumers who want competition in the wireless industry. Further, I do think job losses could be one thing that would kill this merger. This administration seems to be all about jobs and mergers typically mean layoffs. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4116841-sprint-making-goo
  11. I never said Sprint was not doing that. All I was saying is they had to take out debt on less than ideal terms in the past, which was due to their credit downgrade when things looked bleak. Yes they are paying down high interest debt by leveraging spectrum. It is still debt, but it is on more ideal terms. It is part of the business gamble.
  12. I'm seeing a lot of discussion about debt in here. Just to clear things up, most companies have massive amounts of debt. All wireless carriers have a bunch of debt. It is NOT cheap to build out a network. However, the reason why Sprint is 'beleaguered' is because of its debt load per customer, continual losses, and over the past decade subscriber additions (losses). It is OKAY and actually a good thing to take on debt if it means you will gain more customers, thus more revenue, thus expanding your market reach. This is why the debt of T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon is safe debt. It is safe to
  13. Yes but again, Sprint is still competing on price. The bottom line is these numbers will be used by Sprint and T-Mobile as why they need to merger. Yes, losses were not as bad as projected, but the flip side is revenues also fell short. Even competing on price, the net additions to both Sprint and T-Mobile are not enough to scale up to the duopoly. Do I think a merger is good? No, I am primarily a consumer (not a wireless investor), and 4 major carriers would be much better than 3 for consumers. But from a market perspective this adds fuel. Now if both Sprint and T-Mobile beat on revenues, pro
  14. The quarter was not a ‘great’ quarter. It was a highly mixed quarter. Yes, losses were not as bad as predicted, but revenues also fell short of what was predicted. There was still a net loss. Remember, they are still giving lines of service away for free to gain customers against the competition. In my opinion, this adds fuel to the a merger is needed camp. While I would rather have competition and 4 national carriers, they will use this to say they need to merge to strengthen synergies.
×
×
  • Create New...