Jump to content

dmchssc

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About dmchssc

  • Rank
    Member Level: 1x Advanced

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Nexus 5 / Stock with Xposed
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Boston, MA
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  1. Can someone let me know if this looks correct? $40B for the 50 MHz of usable spectrum (I'm ignoring the unpaired uplink below 1710) covering 316 million people comes out to a MHz/Pop value of $2.55, which is incredible. PCS sold for about $0.98 MHz/Pop, the original AWS band sold for $0.60, and 700 MHz sold for $1.28. Especially considering the relatively high frequency spectrum at play here, we're looking at a massive increase in the cost of spectrum even from just a few years ago. Could this have implications for the "true value" of Sprint's BRS holdings and EBS leases?
  2. It will go into the 'pot' to reduce the deficit we have this year, that's it.
  3. I've seen several band 41 sites that are either already ridiculously saturated or suffer from the legacy Clearwire backhaul issue. One I connected to near Mass Ave at Tremont gave me less than 1.5 Mbps a week or so ago.
  4. They've got Band 41 fired up in Copley Square. 30 mbps down and 10 mbps up! This used to be a pretty badly congested area.
  5. To be completely honest, Roxbury isn't a terrible part of town. People with lighter skin might feel out of place, but you really have to get deep into Dorchester or Mattapan (named from an Indian phrase meaning "evil lives here") for things to get unsafe. And to throw in something relevant to LTE, I'm getting band 26 for the first time in downtown Boston, near the state house. I also caught band 26 a couple days ago in a basement classroom at Northeastern.
  6. I looked through my SignalCheck log the other day, and apparently my phone connected to a few Band 41 towers in West Natick and Framingham about a month ago while I was on a train to Worcester. I think I was on the .15 radio. Thanks for such a useful tool!
  7. PRLs only affect 1x and EVDO with the exception of some of Sprint's first LTE phones. Roaming for 3GPP networks is directed by the networks, not the device.
  8. I finally decided to switch back to .15 from .13. I decided I'd give it until I saw how it performed in DC, a more mature spark market, and I was rather disappointed. Band 41 was nice, but it's not worth losing 8-10 dBm on bands 25 and 26. Looks like I'll have to wait until my next phone to enjoy decent speeds in crowded places.
  9. Apparently, Sprint will finally have 4G service underground on the T soon. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/05/30/mbta-wireless-connection-insite-partners-with-verizon-att-t-mobile-comcast/ The fact that they listed Sprint and T-Mobile in the same gives me doubts (do they think they're already one company?), but if this is true, I'm going to be pretty happy. This has been one of my only gripes with Sprint here.
  10. I'm in Boston, and thankfully I'm able to choose between RCN and Comcast in my neighborhood. RCN has much better prices, so I went with them. 50 mbps down and 10 mbps up for $40 a month, modem rental included. I feel I'm rather lucky, for an American. I went to France for a couple months last summer, and one of the things I remember was how cheap their "triple-play" services were. I just checked SFR (one of their "big 3" telecoms), and they're offering 1 gbps down 200 mbps up internet, unlimited calls to France, the EU, and North America, and 170+ HD channels for 41€ (promotion-free, tax-inclusive). They currently have a 12 month promotion where you save 13€ per month, and a permanent discount of an additive 10€ if you have SFR wireless service. By contrast, the most comparable Comcast plan costs $140 with promotion and has an 85% lower download speed. Let's see... We pay $140 for what we realistically could be getting for $38 (28€).
  11. It's extremely expensive... With the plan pricing they're offering, they're spending months and months of revenue to acquire each customer, customers that are under no obligation to stay with T-Mobile. It's funny you ask why T-Mobile needs to maintain their margins and then mention shareholder value. The only reason it's adding shareholder value is because it's more attractive as a takeover target. The TMUS share price is being completely driven by the anticipation of acquisition. The fact that it makes them more expensive to acquire is perfect evidence that it's making them a more attractive target. That's how the market works.
  12. How could it not be? It's simply not sustainable. They're doing it to boost their subscriber numbers despite the fact that it's destroying their margins. It's a strategy to make them more attractive as an acquisition target, period.
  13. This is just measuring smartphone additions in one quarter... Obviously T-Mobile is going to have higher numbers for a while with all of their special promotions. Their ETF promotion is allowing millions of people to buy new smartphones much earlier than they would be able/willing to without it. Since the promotion is insanely expensive (up to $350 per switcher), T-Mobile will not be able to offer it for an extended period of time, and their smartphone sales numbers will fall back in line with their subscriber numbers.
  14. From at least a marketing standpoint, I like the idea of saying that throttling will be implemented for those who use more than 10 times more data than the typical (median) subscriber. It's relatively simple from the typical user's perspective, and most people probably don't assume that they use TEN TIMES more than the average Joe. It would be a clear way for Sprint to say "We're prioritizing our network so that the average user is less likely to experience data congestion." Additionally, it would be relatively hard to argue against it from a "fairness" standpoint. Sure, the heavy users are paying for "unlimited", but so are the average users...
×
×
  • Create New...