Mr.Nuke

I'm liking the camera...

8 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

Sorry...

In that linked tweet they show how much the others are spending for capex. And TMO is 10b. But maybe that was just due to 600mhz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You misread it. (T) is the NYSE ticker symbol for AT&T, not T-Mobile.

Quote

 

TOKYO – SoftBank Group Corp. (“SBG”) announced today that it intends to increase its stake in Sprint Corporation (“Sprint”) through open market transactions or otherwise, subject to market conditions and other factors. SBG does not intend to increase its ownership of Sprint outstanding common stock to 85% or more as a result of these purchases.

Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SBG and Chairman of Sprint, said, “We are entering an era where billions of new connected devices and sensors will come online throughout the United States. Continuing to own a world class mobile network is central to our vision of ubiquitous connectivity. Sprint is a critical part of our plan to ensure that we can deliver our vision to American consumers and we are very confident in its future.”

On November 4, 2017, Sprint (NYSE: S) announced that discussions regarding a potential merger with T-Mobile (NASDAQ: TMUS) have ended without an agreement being reached.

 

https://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/news/press/sb/2017/20171106_01/?linkId=44351122

Joint announcement from both companies

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-sprint.htm?view_id=485

http://newsroom.sprint.com/tmobile-and-sprint-end-merger-discussions.htm

9 minutes ago, Jesito473 said:

Does anyone know where to call to get a return kit for an MB? Of course if anyone has returned one lol.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

The Magic Box  technical support line 844-463-3194.

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

SoftBank is in a real bind here:

It can't give Sprint more money: SoftBank's covenants with Japanese banks prevent sinking more cash into Sprint.

I think we are starting to see some creativity on this front too. I have a feeling especially given the timing of the announcement in relation to knowing merger talks were effectively stalled in hindsight for the tower company is interesting.

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

Hopefully, t mobile can transform into a third player without sprint otherwise we are stuck with the duopoly. 

Sprint isn't going anywhere either....

37 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Any thoughts on what this means?

No Earnings Call? That seems really peculiar... and perhaps indicative.

Seems like something’s up here.

It would be pretty consistent with what was reported last week that a merger announcement is still likely imminent, but wasn't going to be ready by earnings as previously hoped by both parties. There is little point in holding a conference call with analysts right now when you know the questions would be merger dominated (and T-Mobile's executive team can't really answer most of said questions in such a setting right now), especially when you expect to have to hold a conference call with analysts at some point in the coming weeks after you announce a merger.

20 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Who knows what prices are going to do. 

Pretty much everybody.

15 minutes ago, bretton88 said:

So does it still use a regular SIM card is for use on other networks?

Yes.

1 hour ago, fizzicsguy said:

Any glaring omissions from my little phone decision comparison?

The V30 supports 4xCA DL on Band 41 and 2XCA on Band 41 UL. The Pixels do not.

6 hours ago, TimS said:

I don't think it supports 4x4 on B41

It looks like bands 1,2,3,4,5,7 & 38 do

5 hours ago, uecker87 said:

Hmm.  Idk.  Weird how B41 has just a little 2 and not a star.

 

The 2 also happens to correspond to the foot note for 4x4 MIMO support. It is a typo. The phone supports 4x4 on B41. We've read the FCC documents.

23 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Ordered.  Pixel 2 XL.  Black.  64 GB.

AJ

Exact same order here.

On 10/2/2017 at 11:08 AM, brockeb1 said:

Get ready Omaha and Lincoln, T-Mobile is coming for you! T-Mobile Mobile Magenta truck will be in Omaha and Lincoln from October 3rd - October 14th. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell your co-workers. I will post a schedule of times and locations once I receive it. 

Pardon me if I don't applaud them for finally building out a network in a metro area of 925,000 people.

2 hours ago, Nextel49 said:

todays update might be that may not happen https://gizmodo.com/what-s-going-on-with-the-rumored-not-good-t-mobile-and-1818975719

Again, this isn't the proper place for this discussion. This thread is for information about Sprint's network and their deployments in the Lower Central Valley market. If you want to discuss the the rumored Sprint/T-Mobile merger do it in this thread.

October 13th launch

2 hours ago, Johnner1999 said:

Jerry is typically spot on.  And I'd agree.  This isn't a hit piece I don't think.  

 

https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-sprint

 

Jerry isn't always spot on. And no, it isn't a hit piece given he wrote the same article about T-Mobile on Wednesday. https://m.androidcentral.com/5-reasons-switch-away-t-mobile#comments

16 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

The fact is for The two years after this one sprint is likily to cut capex drastically.  It is hard to see how they compete going forward.  Would it be better to take a 3 player market because of a merger or risk a 3 player market do to a bankruptcy? 

Sprint's latest guidance for CapEx was to remain around $3.5 to $4 billion a year for the next 3 years (2017-2019). Can guidance change? Yes, and it has before with Sprint. That said, I'll take their guidance over speculation based on debt maturities.

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO — Google announced late Wednesday night that it is spending $1.1 billion to hire a team of engineers from the smartphone business of the struggling Taiwanese manufacturer HTC in a bid to bring more hardware expertise to its own mobile technology operations. HTC said many of its estimated 2,000 employees affected by the deal were already working with the search giant on smartphones.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/technology/google-htc-smartphones.html?mcubz=3

22 hours ago, S4GRU said:

It will be interesting if Verizon answers the last two questions. And what its answer would be.

I'd be surprised if they did.

7. Should be an absolute yes, but my guess is no.  Which leads into 8.

8. It probably depends on the partner. If roaming is being charged on a per usage basis, pretty much the industry standard; then it depends on what Verizon is paying per MB to the partner, how much data a person is using, and what revenue the person is providing Verizon. I get the impression they're only really going after unprofitable accounts right now.

On 9/17/2017 at 7:43 PM, S4GRU said:

 They could have stopped these customers from joining to begin with. They didn't. They were hoping they wouldn't use the network much.

On 9/18/2017 at 10:39 AM, swintec said:

Ive been reading some comments in various local facebook groups and what not and it seems the customers up in this county who signed up for verizon did get some pushback initially.  One woman, while at the verizon store signing up, was declined service based on her home zip code so the nice rep simply put in the zip code to maines largest city to establish service (and obviously establish his commission) and then once the account was up and running the woman then went and updated her address to her actual address in this roaming partners area.

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.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:14 PM, Sprke said:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/09/14/verizon-montana-drop-affect-emergency-services/666350001/

Somebody is quoted in this article they used .07 GB the last 3 months. Also the rural carrier in this area is not signing up new customers so people have no other options. 

It was a little more nuanced than that. Their quote was the following

Quote

Like other small carriers around the US who are dealing with the same issue, we did not know this was coming. Because we have been losing cellular customers to this company's active marketing in our area for years, we did not have any excessive inventory of devices on hand or other resources needed to support a large influx of new cellular customers." 

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.

On 9/17/2017 at 4:10 PM, WiWavelength said:

Not so strange.  VZW wanted the LTEiRA coverage for its own transient roamers passing through the area, not for permanent resident of the area.

AJ

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. 

Quote

Portland-based Wireless Partners LLC said it is planning to expand high-speed cellular and broadband service to underserved Down East areas.

The telecommunications firm on Thursday said the 4G LTE expansion is moving forward after it was recently approved as a Pine Tree Development Zone company by the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development.

The Pine Tree Development Zone program was set up by the state to support job creation and new business development in selected state regions. It gives multi-year incentives for certified companies to encourage capital investment in new operations and create high-quality jobs.

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.

26 minutes ago, S4GRU said:

No, not a huge loss. But the more CA, the better. Plus, when we invest so much money on a cutting edge flagship device, we kinda want it all. But probably not a deal breaker for anyone. 

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.

44 minutes ago, skid71 said:

Here are the FCC numbers.  I'm unable to read documents with white backgrounds, so can someone share the nuts and bolts of what this document is telling us?

2X and 3X CA DL B41

2X CA DL B25

No UL CA

HPUE

4x4 MIMO (10 streams)

256/64 QAM DL-UL

45 minutes ago, swintec said:

Ugh...this company i swear.  Now they want me to send it back because my address is not compatible.  whiskey tango foxtrot.  i hope it is just a defective box like RightNow had and the second one i get tomorrow will work okay.

If you are in Portland your address probably isn't compatible.

1 hour ago, swintec said:

 

hhmm...as opposed to a "normal" cell set up where the carrier itself installs and manages their own equipment by leasing space from a tower company and thats it?

wonder if this set up was because it is so rural and was quicker for verizon to go this route.

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.