Jump to content

DanielB

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Posts

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanielB

  1. Really off-topic....I've got a pair of wired Beats headphones - they're about 3 or so years old. I'd love to find a bluetooth adapter so I can use them wirelessly, but not sure if it's possible (i.e., how would they receive power to operate?). To the people who are much smarter than I: 1) Is it possible? 2) If so, what adapter do you recommend? Everything I've come across looks bulky and ridiculous.
  2. Interestingly, my experience with all four models of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s has been outstanding on Sprint in and around the Richmond, VA market. In fact, in my tests the device on Sprint has outperformed its peers on Verizon in this market, particularly in regards to LTE data (I have not completed AT&T testing yet).
  3. Just sent a bit in. Great idea - somehow I've missed it in the past!
  4. So you make a great point with one idea you've been repeating...natural market forces don't tend to create monopolies. This is true. Whole or partial government intervention inadvertently leads to market dominance...and has done so time and time again. This is seen with the old AT&T (hell, the new AT&T, too), as well as other examples such as Google. Yes, Google....all levels of government can adversely impact markets, including municipalities that offer tax breaks to one company (but not others) in order to locate a facility within their spheres of governance. So fair point, and I agree with you fully on this one....natural market forces do not by themselves breed monopolies. Could we take this further and say government has enabled the dominance of 2 large players in the wireless industry by allowing mega-mergers to take place over the past 10-12 years? I remember SunCom, Cingular, Alltel, Sprint, Verizon Wireless (not wholly owned by Verizon), T-Mobile, Ntelos, etc....just a few years ago. Many of these players were allowed to combine for no reason other than gaining economies of scale. It cannot be said that, on the whole, the industry was suffering from having so many players. Most wireless operators were traditionally profitable. It is also important to consider situations where government (in this case, at the federal level) has bestowed certain assets (spectrum) to certain players with no licensing costs attached - while not doing so for others....at least not with assets of equivalent market value. This, too, plays a role in who wins and who loses. Granted, there are implementation costs for spectrum but I can tell you I'm a hell of a lot further along than you if you pay $10 billion for spectrum licenses equivalent to what I have acquired for free. In such a situation, I can spend $10 billion more than you on implementation and achieve a dominant competitive position that, for you, will be insurmountable. Perhaps you see where I am going. Capex and opex are high because carriers have become lazy and sloppy. Real competition breeds efficiency. Whining about expenses being high is like me whining about a $900 car payment on my Mercedes. BFD....it would be my own damn fault. Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion surrounding the reasons why Verizon can implement network modifications so much more quickly than can Sprint or T-Mobile; it was soundly illustrated that the reasons for this are primarily due to capex levels. Verizon does not have to be concerned about smart deployment of resources in a targeted fashion designed to improve their network where needs dictate...so they don't. Conversely, Sprint and (to a lesser extent) T-Mobile have far more limited capital at their disposal and so must deploy it in a way that its impact is far larger than the impact Verizon receives from its capex one a strict dollar for dollar basis. What am I saying? This: increased competition in wireless would serve to drive down operating expenses and capital expenses as carriers are forced to find more efficient means of accomplishing their goals. Your assumption that less competition would magically reduce expenses is flawed and, frankly, stupid. Please pardon me for saying so. We're talking about wireless here - not wireline. There is absolutely no economic proof throughout history that what you are saying is true. In fact, we would be better off in terms of the wireless competitive environment if we still had many players (granted, some regional), like Alltel, SunCom, Cingular, etc...each spending money ever more efficiently to deploy better networks and win more customers from their competitors. If this were so, I can guarantee you net neutrality violations would not be an issue because no company would try to pull stupid sh!t like this in a real competitive environment.
  5. I know this thread is a bit older, so I am sure I am duplicating prior responses. But going to go ahead and throw my votes in anyway. The Blacklist is absolutely effing fantastic. So is Breaking Bad. Can't recommend either one of those enough. Lost is another great one to watch. EDIT: I'm also going to recommend adding a Hulu subscription to your roster. Brooklyn Nine-Nine and How to Get Away with Murder are my two top picks there.
  6. Sorry to hear of this. I worked for UPS for five years many years ago, and would never ship with them by choice if that tells you anything!
  7. Anyone bought and used this one on Sprint yet?
  8. It is indeed a good deal. But it is not, however, big news. Consumers still believe they are sacrificing quite a bit by moving to Sprint from another Big 4 carrier. Sprint must address this perception. Secondly, Sprint has made a big deal of protecting (nay, growing) margins....and yet they come out with something like this? A wiser strategy would have been to bundle things that have merely an incremental effect on the bottom line (more hot-spot data, a beefier global roaming deal that is automatically bundled with each plan) rather than something so costly. Marketing emphasis could have also been placed on the $25.00 difference in price that already exists between T-Mobile's unlimited plan and Sprint's. SMH I love Sprint. I love what they're doing with their network. I just think they underestimate consumers.
  9. RIP Sprint. No one will ever pay attention to your "big announcements" ever again. I am disappointed that they seemingly have no knowledge of what resonates as a big deal with consumers.
  10. Not trying to pick a fight, but at least in the markets I've been with Sprint and T-Mobile phones, Sprint is a much better in-building performer. Now that their 800 MHz spectrum is rather widely deployed, they simply wipe the floor with T-Mobile when it comes to in-building coverage....and I say this with complete conviction based on my own personal experience with side-by-side tests.
  11. It's Samsung's first good phone (imho), so I think that's why interest isn't greater. I've known plenty of folks who grew weary of Samsung's quality issues and over-zealous TouchWiz interface with the GS 3, 4, and 5. They're corrected all of these with the GS6/Note 5 family, but it's going to take awhile to convince people of this. I'm very happy with my Edge+....even bought the keyboard cover this weekend as I plan to hang onto this one for awhile.
  12. *3, eh? Is that billing? The few times I tried to pay off an EIP early (without porting), billing did not know how to handle my request.
  13. Let me clarify - I applaud the moves Sprint has taken. All have made their plans more consumer-friendly or helped to increase yield for Sprint with no downside for the customer. However, this does not diminish the negative impact that such a large number of plan changes in such a short amount of time has on consumers.
  14. I wouldn't disagree with you. Look at the large number of plan changes since Framily.....$50 iPhone Unlimited $60 Unlimited, $70 Unlimited, Family Share, New Family Share....that's quite a bit of change for consumers to absorb over little more than a year. Sprint is running the risk of marketplace confusion at this point....they really need to settle on plans and pricing and stick with them.
  15. It is undeniable that the carrier distribution model for handsets is going to fade. The onus is on manufacturers to meet the needs or wants of consumers....and things are moving this way ever so slowly. Look at Apple, HTC, Nexus. Not enough yet, but a start. Within the next two years, most phones will be purchased unlocked from non-carrier sellers (either directly from manufacturers or from other retailers). So I think things on this front are going to continue to change very quickly. It's an exciting prospect.
  16. I noticed that on the new $70 unlimited plan, there is no longer an option to add more tethering data....is this the way it is now, no option at all to pay for more high speed tethering data?
  17. Interesting on the commissions....and that would explain why Sprint's corporate management has also advised me of the same. Will use Sprint.com exclusively for my orders now. Thanks, all!
  18. That's not a great selection, especially considering almost ANY unlocked GSM phone will work on AT&T or T-Mobile. Not Sprint's fault, of course, but still unfortunate.
  19. In fact, I wish one could just buy unlocked devices that were compatible with Sprint's network. This would solve a lot of issues, both for me and - I am sure - others.
  20. You are right again - she warned of such and said to call her directly if it happens again!
  21. You are right....except I was told not to. Even just now on the phone, Nora advised to make no change to what I am doing as it is the best way to do it.
  22. All straightened out now! Ms. Armstrong even told me to keep her direct number handy in case it happens in the future. Very satisfied with Sprint.
×
×
  • Create New...