Jump to content


S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mr.Nuke

  1. There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides here. Verizon while it does appear they had a basic zip code block in their system could've been much more proactive about flagging accounts that were fraudulently setup by customers or employees at their own and third party stores and "moved" to the correct address. They also could've caught on a heck of a lot sooner that they had a high propensity of negative accounts that happened to correspond to LTEiRA areas. LTEiRA It has been outright acknowledged by the Montana partner that they were losing customers to Verizon. All of these partners had to have realized they were getting more in Verizon roaming revenue than they realistically should've been from "transient" VZ customers. And any basic data audit would've shown them it was the same VZ customers using their data month after month. Instead of protecting their territory, as as been noted in this thread they turned a blind eye. They were getting roaming revenue without having to deal with any of the costs associated with having a customer. Users I'm somewhat sympathetic but not really. I've seen multiple examples like swintec's above perusing LTEiRA facebook pages and local newspapers in impacted areas. At a fundamental level, even if we plead ignorance on the customers' behalves, people had to realize something wasn't right when you couldn't sign up using your own zipcode or in some cases it wasn't possible for you to get a local area code number. Beyond that there are numerous cases on the internet of people outright flaunting that they knew what they were doing. They wanted unlimited data, access to more phones than their rural provider sold, cheaper rate plans, etc. I have zero sympathy for them.
  2. It was a little more nuanced than that. Their quote was the following They appear to be putting people on an interest list with the intent of accepting them as they have the resources to do so. It isn't as if they're going to need substantial network build outs to accommodate them, as they've effectively already been using the company's network. I can get a rural operator in Montana not having phones on hand or staffing levels to accommodate an influx of customers. What is a little more inexcusable on their part is the first sentence and a half. If as their statement does, you acknowledge you were fully aware that you were losing customers to Verizon who in turn were predominately roaming on your network, it should've been entirely foreseeable that this was coming at some point. The Maine situation is still strange. If you are Verizon and you want a quasi-protection type network in rural Maine to cover your transient roamers/cut down on your roaming costs, why do you partner with this company instead of doing that yourself? In the reciprocal cases it is quite clear why Verizon was partnering with LTEiRA rural provider partners, in this case not so much. The only thing that make sense is that if Wireless Partners, LLC was qualifying for some kind of assistance be it small business programs or rural economic funding that Verizon itself was incapable of meeting. Link And if Verizon had these guys build the network there because they were cheaper due to their ability to get get assistance for providing service to under-served rural areas, that is a much murkier situation than the other LTEiRA deals.
  3. I agree. It is a minor disappointment that LG was able to get things like 4xCA for B41 or B71 support for T-Mobile on the V30, but not this device.
  4. 2X and 3X CA DL B41 2X CA DL B25 No UL CA HPUE 4x4 MIMO (10 streams) 256/64 QAM DL-UL
  5. If you are in Portland your address probably isn't compatible.
  6. Yeah, typically a carrier will install and manage their own equipment using their own spectrum on a rack leased from a tower company. Among other problems though carriers may run into situations where build out requirements dictate equipment needing to be installed before it is financially or logistically realistic for a carrier to do so; or just in general there may be areas where you have spectrum, but based on your customer base/population it doesn’t make fiscal sense to spend your money deploying equipment there. Enter in Verizon’s LTE in Rural America program. As AJ mentioned at a minimum VZ will typically lease out upper C-Block 700 MHz spectrum to a rural operator. The rural operator builds out their own network providing tower space, equipment, and backhaul to VZ’s provided spectrum. Furthermore, the rural operators (typically service provider themselves) will sell local service within their territory*. The rural provider gets reciprocal roaming for their customers on Verizon, access to Verizon’s LTE vendors and device providers (huge for small providers). Verizon theoretically gets cheap rural buildouts that they otherwise wouldn’t have undertaken. *Other than the Maine situation this is why a lot of people are getting excessive roaming letters. Verizon shouldn’t have any customers within any of their LTE in Rural areas (Maine situation excluded). The people living in those areas need to be getting service from the Verizon partner. Not doing so is not only unfair financially unfair to the VZ partner whose network these people are actually using, but it is also a financial liability to Verizon who is racking up roaming charges on the partner network.
  7. Correct, but that "other than" part is likely a huge wrinkle in the standard LTEiRA agreement. The typical incentives Verizon would offer to the rural operator be it: helping build out an LTE network, reciprocal roaming, device access/buying leverage, etc. are moot. And that may be the root of the issue here. Verizon's cost is more than likely higher than a typical LTEiRA partnership. What Verizon is paying to Wireless Partners, be it data charges or whatever doesn't make financial sense for them given the limited customer base. I just wanted to make it clear that this situation appears by everything I've found to be significantly different than Verizon kicking off perma-roamers that reside in territories covered by LTEiRA partners that are actively selling/providing local native service to customers.
  8. The partner in question is Wireless Partners LLC who appear to own, build, and operate the towers Verizon is deploying their spectrum on there.
  9. Based on their statement I don't think so although that ultimately may end up being the case if their agreement is materially altered (which by most accounts it appears it is going to be).
  10. I'm with you, but this Maine one is a bit odd in so far that I can tell the partner doesn't provide or sell any native service of their own.
  11. You were two days away. The system is set up to flag the MB if it hasn't connected in 10 days.
  12. The problem with that is that if your magic boxes don't connect to the macro network within the next couple of days it is highly probable you'll be asked to return them. At that point you may figure out what the issue preventing the NC boxes from activating is, but it still likely you'll be sending it back regardless. Given there are a number of you in North Carolina with issues, if it were me, I'd be doing everything possible with Sprint to try and figure out what the issue with the macro network is. The odds of it resolving itself before Sprint send you an RMA kit and demands the box back are slim.
  13. Ok it isn't that then. In weak signal areas the unit is prone to drop the relay and even when it comes back up devices may not connect to it initially. On mine, the first time I left the house it took my phone hours to connect to it when I got back.
  14. What is the relay signal strength and band coming into the box?
  15. I wouldn't call it dead on arrival yet until John Malone chimes in (if he does at all). It shouldn't be all that surprising that a company, much less one with a significantly higher market cap isn't overly keen on an initial offer to be essentially taken over. If there is any legitimacy to any of the reporting tonight, what Malone's sentiments are especially given the reported discussions between Masa and him, are arguably more important than random anonymous source citing Charter not being interested.
  16. FWIW the "here" geolocation is working for me on both the last version and the latest one that just got pushed out today.
  17. Sprint has lost just shy of $13 billion over the past 5 years. As long as the company is bleeding money, they will need to incur more debt or offer new equity to keep infusing cash into the company. I doubt it. For starters $10 to $20 billion isn't enough to outright buy the company or even Softbank's stake. Furthermore, Sprint as an acquisition much less an investment doesn't seemingly fit in with Buffett's investing strategy or recent (past 25 or so years) investing history. If Masa and Marcelo were talking to Buffett about Sprint, my guess is it would be something along the lines of preferred stock with common stock warrants like what he did with Bank of America and before that GE and Goldman Sachs. Buffett gets a near guaranteed return on a portion of the nearly $90 billion in cash Berkshire is sitting on and Sprint gets a cash infusion to do with as they please. I'm not really sure that Buffett is the best source of funding though as Sprint still hasn't tapped out other cheaper options i.e. the Spectrum backed vehicles.
  18. Both of those are good on my Note 5 now.
  19. Especially based on a single foreign article from nearly two weeks ago that had no comment from either party and was never picked up by the U.S. financial media.
  20. Yeah the logging is fine, because the log is going off of the provider field i.e. Sprint B26 and you are still fielding the correct information from the Samsung API for that.
  21. Yeah I posted about that this morning. Hopefully Mike's Samsung EARFCN display fix can be carried over to neighboring cells at some point.
  22. The word LTE is back on my Note 5, but no band indication in the header.
  • Create New...