JustinRP37

37 minutes ago, jroepcke51 said:

The models are defined specifically by SIM. The SIM activates the different bands or uses (i.e., CDMA for Sprint or VoLTE for Tmo).

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. 

35 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

This was from last quarter testing.

Okay just making sure my mind wasn’t playing tricks on me.

On 12/22/2017 at 5:01 PM, nexgencpu said:

In fact, they should be in second unless V is faster than last reported..

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?

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

We were talking about wired. But now that you mention it what companies are most responsible for wireless data being unusable if it we're truly unlimited? Netflix, YouTube? Hmmm....... Should they flip part of the bill?

 

 

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 cost on, which most corporations rightfully do because it is a cost beared to them. Show me evidence of a cost being imposed upon a company and that company just sitting by and taking the profit hit without trying to recoup that. I'll just leave it at that. You have been calling out many people for not providing evidence, yet your only evidence for your argument is that it has not been done in the past.

11 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

It isnt about keeping the internet open. It is about big content asking the government to tilt the profits of an industry towards them. It is package as keeping the internet open, but that is just a marketing. 

 

Low caps are the way ISP make up for not being able to charge netflex for the data they use. Caps are an effect of net neutrality not solved by it. 

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-competition.html

Don't tell me our networks are the best out there because that just isn't true. I would be more likely to forgive slower speeds if all our urban and suburban areas were doing great with broadband, but even that isn't the case. 

31 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

So? If the could raise prices and increase profits (your claim) they would do it now. Why wait? That doesnt make sense. 

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 have access to 1 true wired broadband provided. These numbers have not really improved all that much in the last few years either. You market (Phoenix) actually fares quite well with broadband connectivity. Living in NYC, it always shocks when I go to more rural places in the Midwest a) how much the service costs, b ) how slow the speeds are, and c) that there is usually only one fixed broadband provider. You are right though people can move to areas with better connectivity, especially in an economy that is really more and more tech based. If you throw wireless into the mix then yes you have slightly more 'competition', but that is not really a fair comparison because of deprioritization based on usage. Most families would reach deprioritization early in their billing cycle if they were using their wireless provider as their sole source of internet and streaming video. And usually in these areas that have lack of choice, the wireless networks are on the fringe and since many people do try to use it to power their homes, it tends to be much slower. 

Also, while pointing out to others that they are not giving evidence, you should show us your sources to better inform us as well.

38 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

I have a b.s. in economics. So what? Your arguement is evidence free. ISP could simply raise the prices now, they could add any fees they want now. What you are talking about is a price hike and they can do it now if they wanted but apparently it doesnt maximize profits. 

The issue is wheather or not they can make this a two sides market and that is simply about were the profits for the industry go and who cares, market are more than capable of figuring that out. 

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 the Verge is not my go to news source this is a decent article (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16710450/fcc-net-neutrality-fact-sheet-is-total-nonsense). Paid fast lanes (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/). Throttling before net neutrality (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-throttling-bittorrent-was-no-big-deal-fcc-says/). And if you do not think ISPs charge more simply because of competition in the area, I can tell you my cable bill is lower in the NYC area than my parents in CT and in-laws in Ohio merely because my building is a FiOS and Optimum building. The building down the street has higher prices for Optimum because they cannot receive FiOS.

So yes you can make the case that prices will not increase with a repeal of net neutrality, but there is evidence that this will not be the case as noted above. The costs of these paid fast lanes will ultimately come down to the consumer. If you think Netflix is going to pay huge interconnect fees WITHOUT increasing their prices to the consumer, then I have a bridge to sell you, especially if their competitors face the same fees. And again companies have been raising the price steadily of the internet over the past few years. This will likely just increase that cost on multiple fronts (content providers like Netflix) and your ISP bill with additional fees. People do not tend to switch ISPs readily, even with price increases. Again, I'm not looking to change your mind, but I do want you to at least notice why people might be nervous/upset about this change. Saying that market will handle it, is not a good argument when most people have to purchase from a monopoly. I am fully aware that you believe the markets can and will respond and I am making the case for a market inefficiency. Whether or not the repeal of net neutrality will actually change the way the internet is handled can be debated for awhile until we actually see changes. I suspect we would see changes within the year. But you cannot use the argument that because it has not been done in the past does not mean it will not in the future. Times change and the way we consume media has drastically changed over the last 5 years. 

As for price increases: http://bgr.com/2017/10/07/home-internet-service-providers-no-contract-price-2017/

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

The past is the only evidence that we have and while it is true that the future may not look like the past at least usingnit as a guide is better than just making stuff up. 

Futher let's examine your made up, evidence free hypothesis. That an extra 15 dolllar charge for access to content people want by cable companies would cause people to leave.  If it is likily that they would do this with a cost why not just raise internet pricing? I mean that is all that it is in the end and in fact it is worse. Consumer behavior is EXTREMELY hard to change companies try at the own risk and when it comes to the internet the end user experience is I get on and do what i want without obstruction from my ISP.  That is not going to change. 

 

Ps. The internet hasnt changed much in a year and a half years. 

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 they are making the customer feel like they had no choice but to tack on the fee based on the RSNs. Another industry to look at is the airline industry. The extra fees are everywhere. I work in academia, and I can tell you most colleges have drastically slowed down tuition increases but guess what is much higher now, fees!!! That is still revenue! 

Also, there were cases already of ISPs harming the end user experience, so I don't know what you mean by that. Many people were complaining of throttling before. There are plenty of cases out there from 2012 until Net Neutrality.

14 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

More sand castles in the sky. It didnt have anytime before net neutrality (2015) and it wont happen now. The cable package comparison make zero sense if you think about it for just five seconds.  The internet has not had net neutrality regulations for its entire history out side of the last year and a half and no one has been able to package the internet in the way you are talking. 

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 give it credit for. I know many people on the insides of these companies and I can tell you the corporations would love to be able to increase their profits from data carriage. And sorry, your Netflix example does not fly. Netflix would not be the one paying the costs, that would be passed on to the consumer. Much like when you tax companies, wealthy, etc, they can typically pass the increased costs on. Netflix itself still is not that profitable. It has huge overhead costs and has been spending money at a very high rate. 

Further, when you say 'the first company that does this will hemorrhage customers like crazy', is definitely not true. Many people only have one or two choices and usually 1 is not as good as the other (DSL versus Cable). Verizon HAS been steadily increasing FiOS internet prices over the last few years, and this year even increased video prices substantially by hitting everyone with a RSN fee (which equates to a price increase). People would be forced to shut up and pay or change the way they live. Even a $15 a month increase, while not a lot to many people, the profits will increase and people will pay. Just look at the iPhone X. Many people said nobody will pay for it, yet it looks like it was an extreme hit. Hell Verizon literally took away 4k HD steaming on the cellular side and offered it back to customers as a $10 add on! 

Just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future. Companies, specifically publicly traded companies, have an obligation to the shareholder, not necessarily the customer. Usually you treat the customer okay, they will stick with you, but there are many cases where this is not true. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America, yet continues to do well financially. Being an economics major in college I can tell you companies are always looking for a way to increase their bottom line in the long run. 

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

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-good-case. 

46 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Actually Sprint has refinanced a lot of it's high interest debt and will continue to do so by putting up spectrum as collateral.

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. 

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 say that Sprint HAS turned a corner, but it MUST continually make subscriber gains and continue to stay net positive to pay down debt. Sprint has also leveraged a lot of assets to help ease the pain of the debt. Further, when you have poor financials, which Sprint had for years, your credit market is much tougher. You will be subjected to much higher interest rates, just like when you forget a credit card bill you are hit with a penalty APR. Don't forget Sprint is literally rebuilding their Puerto Rico network, had damage in Florida, Texas, and California. That hurt this quarter's financials a bit and they even admitted that. They are definitely on the right path, but people want miracles overnight. That does not happen and there are still many risks in the future. 

6 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Just to be clear, again, customer acquisition cost of the "free" service deal is almost nothing. No cost of buying out devices, no device subsidy, no advertising and no in-store training...

Marcelo and Tarek both made it clear it's only a tiny percentage of post paid net additions this past quarter.

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, profits, and net additions that would add fire to the feds to say no, you are doing fine on your own. This one can still go both ways though.

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. 

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

This merger doesn’t need to happen. Sprint has finally turned the corner on its network build. We just got a bunch of new extended coverage as well as an announcement from Gilat on October 16, 2016 about Sprint expanding its Contract to a Three Year Managed Services Project:

Before we jump to this conclusion we need to see sustained financial growth over a period of time and a much larger increase in net additions to the network. Sprint is still offering the best deals in wireless and their growth is lagging the competition. This is not sustainable over the long term. Honestly, I see a merger as inevitable as the larger providers will have much more flexible cash for network enhancements in the near future, which they can then leverage to gain more customers. 

1 hour ago, Terrell352 said:

Only 2 days away???!! This is unusual. http://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-corporation-schedules-fiscal-2017-second-quarter-results-announcement.htm?linkId=43825106

And no call... Just a note from management. That is strange, especially at such a precarious time for Sprint.

On 10/18/2017 at 2:08 PM, Nextel49 said:

GSM is to slow & doesn't have the distance that CDMA has plus CDMA also has VOLTE Sprint has it in some of the New Phones now like the S8 Note 8 V30 etc Verizon already has it as well & they are CDMA

You posted this earlier. What people are saying is CDMA is not going to be around a long time. Everything will be LTE, like it or not. I agree that CDMA has great call quality and great ability to maintain the call on the cell fringe. But CDMA will be making way for LTE over the next few years. Once VZ turns it off, then things will get mighty interesting because of economies of scale.

2 hours ago, cletus said:

Right, we agree. VOLTE isn't easily workable due to CDMA tower spacing. Sprint has to densify it's network and it won't get there with continual capex cutbacks. Small cells and magic boxes won't actually solve this either because of their small coverage area/power. The only fix is A) more towers or B)better frequency. 

edit: actually mathwise I am not sure even going from 800 mhz to 700 mhz (if T-Mobile and Sprint merge) would fully solve the issue.

They will have no choice but to densify. Verizon has actually increased the scheduled shuttering of CDMA to the end of 2019. Verizon has already released some phones that only use LTE. Once Verizon stops selling phones with CDMA you will see many manufacturers drop support as it is already not widely used around the world, thus prices for Sprint to keep CDMA would increase as they would need a carrier exclusive phone. I think CDMA does have great call quality, especially towards a cell's edge, but the market has spoken and LTE is king. Sprint realizes this and hence they are rapidly densifying, just like Verizon. There is no choice but to move forward and plan for an LTE-only future within 5-7 years. 

14 hours ago, Nextel49 said:

GSM is to slow & doesn't have the distance that CDMA has plus CDMA also has VOLTE Sprint has it in some of the New Phones now like the S8 Note 8 V30 etc Verizon already has it as well & they are CDMA

He means CDMA will go away slowly. They are not going to deploy CDMA equipment anymore. Moving forward all expansion will be LTE with VOLTE. When you are using VOLTE on Verizon, you are not using CDMA for voice. 

1 hour ago, kg4icg said:

Because of cost and upgradability, for example, as I can upgrade my ram and my ssd in my Dell Inspiron, where on a MacBook they are soldered in. 

While I love being able to replace RAM in laptops to increase their lifespan, unfortunately this is going away. Most manufacturers are heading this way in the race to make everything as thin as paper. Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Samsung, etc all have models like this now. If I had to guess, I would say onboard non-replaceable memory will be the only option in laptops in the next few years. Personally, as much as I love thin devices, I find it a waste to have to replace the whole board when something happens to the RAM. That being said, yes the prices Apple charges for RAM are astronomical. 

31 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

I don't disagree that apple has the best customer support, but if I have to worry about that more than a couple of times at most it's not the device for me.

That's one of the reasons I believe apple is better suited for the less technically inclined.

I'd agree but you can't really buy self serviceable laptops that aren't crazy heavy anymore. Also working in high-tech labs I can tell you most machines are driven by macs or Linux computers. So I wouldn't say tech are less technologically savy. I'm around computers of all types. It all depends on your use case. Apple definitely is great for computer and smartphone newbies, but it is still quite prevalent in scientific settings. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just don't like when people bash people for their tech decisions. 

5 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

What’s the issue? It’s a premium brand.  

I don't get it either, but as I consumer of all things tech, Apple still has hands down the best customer support. I have never had much success with dealing with other companies, but Apple has replaced multiple things out of warranty for me from batteries to iPad keyboards. Yes even they aren't perfect, but I am still satisfied when things go wrong.

20 minutes ago, jamesinclair said:

 

Used to be $199 on a 2-year actually.

Now it;s $999

But but they unbundled the prices to make it seem like you were getting a much better deal for a few years! /sarcasm. Of course the carrier planned on making more money this way, they aren't benevolent!

1 hour ago, kg4icg said:

I guess you don't need to ask the UK why MacBook prices are 200 plus more then everyone else being charged, and Apple care being 199 for iPhone X, raised from 129, which was raised from 99. And don't go looking for band 71 on the new phones, it isn't there. Everything on the fcc certification site came out today. 

UK prices have changed much more because Apple pegs its prices to the USD. After Brexit both the Euro and Pound lost value relative to the USD so Apple of course raised their prices, in some cases more than the exchange rate amount. The price raise for AppleCare was when they changed to AppleCare + where they cover two incidences of accidental damage (something that previously required out of warranty repair). And the further price increase for the X, makes me wonder how much that faceID system costs. Also, historically, Apple and other manufacturers have not increase prices with inflation, the iPhone 8 is the first iPhone price increase. But it isn't just Apple the that has increased prices lately, go look at the Surface lineup at Microsoft or Samsung even.

Band 71 won't be supported by the iPhone 8 or iPhone X, but Apple has historically done an absolutely amazing job at creating world phones that work on just about every network there is. Just pickup the Sprint or Verizon model and you can pretty much take that phone to any network worldwide. 

I do not get Apple bashing nor any other cell phone bashing. People use what they like plain and simple.