marioc21

MetroPCS and Tmo have similar spectrum holdings in AWS/PCS. The new combined company would most likely just phase out the MetroPCS network ASAP, forcing those customers to migrate into new devices (kind of like what ATT did with Alltel). I just think that MetroPCS spectrum just isn't very valuable. You can look at it here: http://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

 

Also, MetroPCS subscribers aren't very valuable either. And you can't use their network. The only value to MetroPCS, IMHO, is the spectrum. They do have two good 5x5 chunks of AWS in the Western U.S. But other than that, it is highly fractured pieces of 5x5 AWS and PCS...and a 10x10 AWS chunk in some rural Florida, Georgia and California counties.

 

Robert

Migrating customers would probably be difficult. MetroPCS is all non-contract prepaid customers isn't it? They don't have a contract keeping them tied to the service provider.

It appears that Deutsche Telekom parent of Tmobile is in talks with MetroPCS about a potential merger which involves a stock swap transaction that gives Deutsche Telekom majority control which would make Tmobile go public. Very interesting turn of events.

 

http://www.businessw...bile-usa-merger

I wonder if this will value Metro higher or lower than the reported Sprint deal. That one had had metro at about $8 billion. Metro has since reported a somewhat disappointing quarter.

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or a bad one. Considering VZW wants to do it, it's probably a bad one.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/ctialive/story/verizon-t-mobile-promote-idea-toll-free-data-plans/2012-05-09

Here's the official word from Sprint.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sprint-debuts-htc-evo-4g-130000149.html

That is just 4G data limits. 3G is limited to the data plan limit you sign up for.

Makes sense.

And Eric, the data cards on Virgin will have unlimited 4G usage for those in WiMax service areas. I thought that is a very cool feature too.

Not quite. If you read the fine print on the virgin mobile usa site about the new 4g plans you see that it's limited to 10GB of "full speed" data. After that they throttle you down to 256kbps until your next billing cycle. Still I've never used more than 7GB in a month of total 3g/4g on my phone. So it might not be a problem.

http://www.virginmob...gteaser-050212#

Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see a tiny little "more" link. When you hover over it it'll expand and show you the restrictions. Annoying that they try to hide it.

Edit: Upon further review I'm not sure if that limit is strictly for 4G data or total 3g/4g data.

Sprint announced that both Boost and Virgin Mobile would add prepaid devices to their lineups.

Virgin is getting the EVO V 4G (rebranded Evo 3D) while Boost is getting the EVO Design 4G. (Same name as Sprint version)

Virgin press release:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/virgin-mobile-usa-introduces-4g-130000863.html

Boost press release:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boost-mobile-pairs-speed-4g-130000459.html

It looks like Virgin is keeping the same $35 monthly unlimited plan while Boost is staying with the $55 unlimited with shrinkage. Although I think their 4g plan doesn't decrease as much as it used to, but I'm not sure on that.

Shentel, a sprint affiliate, reported their earnings this morning. No real detail in their press release about their progress upgrading to NV but hopefully there's more info on their conference call. That's scheduled for 2pm EDT.

Here's the release:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shenandoah-telecommunications-company-reports-improved-121500648.html

For those that don't know, Shentel operates the towers in rural parts of western Virginia, West Virginia and MD. They sell service under the Sprint brand. In their previous earnings call they had stated that they would be upgrading all of their towers to NV starting this year. Hopefully there are some progress updates.

There article is here. Basically, just the CEO ranting about not getting his deal approved and how that will lead to a spectrum crunch. He also believes that the U.S. market can't support 4 major players in the long term. He might be right on that point. Anybody think he's got a valid argument?

Here's the link to the article. If you're not a WSJ online subscriber just do a google search for the title of the article. When you click the resulting link you should get to a free reading.

http://online.wsj.co...1659747956.html

I thought this was the best part:

"Since that deal got killed, our data prices have gone up 30%," he said. He also blamed the blocked T-Mobile USA deal, in part, for AT&T's decision earlier this year to impose a limit on the amount of data available to a given customer. However, he said such a move probably would have been necessary regardless of the decision, and that he regretted not imposing the cap sooner.

 

 

"I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure the people who were using the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth," Mr. Stephenson said.

Didn't ATT impose data caps at least a year before the TMO deal was announced?

For my money this is still the greatest Sprint commercial ever.

Clearwire just released it's quarterly financials along with a listing of their first 4g LTE cities. They're calling them 4G Hot Zones. As previously expected they're saying they won't launch until the first half of 2013. A total of 31 markets are planned.

Initial Cities mentioned by name:

Los Angeles

Seattle

San Francisco

Chicago

New York

http://corporate.cle...eleaseID=667820

Financials:

http://corporate.cle...eleaseID=667819

I just read a test that had the Nexus camera beating the brand new HTC One X, which the camera was supposed to be the strong point of that phone. The GSII and iPhone might beat the Nexus, but the list is very short after that. Trust me, the GNex is a good camera, most people are instantly jaded when they look at the 5MP badge. It also depends on what you want your camera to do. If you want a replacement for your point and shoot, maybe the 4S and GSII are close to that, even though I have yet to see a cell phone take a good picture using the flash. If you are like me and want something to take a quick picture, in focus, of something happening spur of the moment, the Nexus is plenty good.

I have no qualms about the 5mp. My Epic only has a 5mp camera and I can take some great pictures with it. I just think if the Nexus is supposed to be the "best" that Google can make, it should have the best components. Processor, memory, battery and camera should all be the top of the line. Maybe I have it wrong and Google really doesn't care about the hardware as much as the software. That's fine, there'll be plenty of options available. It just won't be a Nexus for me.

What is wrong with the Galaxy Nexus camera?

It's universally considered the weak point on the phone. They used a lower quality camera in it than what Samsung put in the GSII. That's not to say it's bad. Just not nearly as good as the IP4S, GSII and other top-tier phones.

If going with Samsung again means they put the Exynos 5450 2.0 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex-A15 CPU with ARM Mali-T658 GPU in the next Nexus, all will be right in the world. Maybe that was a condition of Google securing that processor for the Nexus.

Like I wrote in my first post, I'll trade the quad core cpu for a top tier camera. The phone camera has just become a necessity for me. It's what I carry. My Sony pocket shooter has been collecting dust for about 20 months now since I got my Epic. Most of the videos and pictures I have of my daughter were taken with my phone and then shot up to Facebook or youtube or [whatever service you prefer].

Saw this on CNET. The story is that Samsung may have won the bid to make the next Nexus phone. That would be three models in a row for them if true. I just hope they put in whatever camera sensor they use for the GSIII. If they do then I just might buy a nexus. Biggest drawback for me on current Galaxy Nexus is lackluster camera.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57421062-1/motorola-snubbed-samsung-reportedly-making-next-nexus/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=readMore

This may be, I don't know. But the fact that Apple sells the CDMA versions of their devices in their store, it gives me hope.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

Apple is the exception that proves a lot of rules.

Just to throw my two cents in. The S4 chip may be somewhat faster, but it's because it's based on the ARM Cortex-A15 core. I believe the Tegra 3 is based on the Cortex-A9 core. I think Nvidia isn't planning to use the A15 core until the Tegra 4 comes out this fall. The A-15 is a newer more efficient processor design. I believe Samsung's next gen exynos 5250 processor is also based on the A15 core.

Yeah, I think he was just talking about the price and not the whole cdma vs gsm thing.

I just believe on the CDMA side it's very difficult to sell a non-contract phone. Don't know why that is, but it just seems to be. I suppose it's because each phone has to be inventoried into Sprint's or Verizon's database. I'm guessing Google will only sell unlocked gsm phones and eventually wifi only tablets and unlocked 3g gsm tablets.

One little piece of data from the earnings call:

 

Further, in the 600 network Vision sites currently online, Elfman said Sprint is seeing a doubling of the coverage range compared with legacy sites, which should help reduce roaming costs. Sprint is also able to repurpose 2.5 MHz to 3 MHz of spectrum on its 800 MHz band from Nextel iDEN service to voice, he said.

Read more: Sprint adds 1.5M iPhones in Q1, will bring WiMAX to prepaid brands - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewir...5#ixzz1t3yNQfYN

 

I heard that on the conference call but couldn't type it up fast enough. Then they moved on and I couldn't remember exactly what they'd said.

I am headed to an important meeting, but I will add this point. The number of total sites being completed in 2012 is way down. They were initially aiming for 20,000 sites in 2012. NV is a total of 38,000 sites. This may not be a total schedule slip, as they may make it up in 2013. But it is a slip.

 

If I were Sprint, I'd consider changing strategies. Perhaps whole market conversions are not the way with the current schedule. Instead of having four/five crews in each of the markets now, maybe break it up and get two of those crews moving on to another market. Even though it will slow down one market, the other one will start getting deployment early. And more markets can have some sort of LTE coverage.

 

However, I wouldn't slow down Chicago, given their problems. If anything, I would speed that one up.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

That's disappointing to hear. Keep expecting Sprint to surprise people and execute things faster than people expect. Always seems to wind up going the other way. I guess that explains why their NV spending is so low so far. Not progressing as fast as planned.

Have you seen the presentation form the annual shareholders meeting?

 

"Plan to upgrade 274 cell sites in 2012 and the remaining 236 in 2013"

 

"Expect to launch LTE as early as Q3 2012"

Shentel will present it quarterly financials on May 4. With a conference call scheduled for 2pm EDT. Hopefully they'll provide some more details then.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shenandoah-telecommunications-company-release-first-130000561.html

Financial call is all wrapped up. Nothing really knew. Sprint still said it's estimating between 80 and 120 million LTE pops by year-end. Would not discuss any other LTE markets beyond the 6 they've already announced. And no discussion of any LTE roaming plans beyond Clearwire.

Only mention of LTE roaming was deal with Clearwire to use 2.5ghz when they launch LTE in 2013. No further talk of roaming deals. Disappointing.

What I thought I heard was Network Vision spending was $54 million in 4Q11 and $104 million in 1Q12 and will double again for 2Q12. I could be "misremembering" though.

I think you're right. They've only completed 600 sites and Steve Elfman, President of Network Ops, just said Sprint doesn't pay anything to alca-lu/Ericsson/Samsung until a site is completed and Sprint accepts delivery. So we should NV costs continue to rise throughout the year as more sites come online.

Network Vision spending in 1Q was $104million, expected to double in 2Q

Only $104 million? Isn't the whole Network Vision project supposed to cost $5-$6 billion?

I believe that number was just the increase in Network Vision spending from the 4th quarter 2011 to 1st quarter 2012. They stated that total capital expenditures for 2012 should be about $6 billion.