lou99/maximus1987

Yes, a 10x10 would be nifty. I don't think Masa is in the business of overpaying, though. So don't hold your breath.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

It's a perpetual license, not 15 year like in Europe so it's basically impossible to overpay. If duo are willing to pay a certain price then softb should be

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Def faster than the sprint store telegraph & 12-mile: 0.1mbps on iPhone 6, note edge, etc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I do not. However I fully believe that Masa and the board at Softbank invested for the long haul. If you don't think they looked at 5, 10, 15, 25 year predictions by experts before they even considered buying in Sprint you're crazy.

 

Masa has shown he has a methodical, planning mentality. If they believe Sprint needs something they will go after achieving it however they feel best.

Son stated buying TMO was plan A. I'm sure he would've bid for 20x20 of 600 had that gone through.

But now he has to compete in a 4 carrier market and as you said, softb is a big company with lots of opportunities for investment; throwing more of softb's money into a 4 carrier free for all is probably the least profitable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This in my opinion is a stupid statement. Softbank has money in multiple ventures like most successful major companies, and money to spare.

 

Investing into a Mobile Game creator that is the brains behind not only one, but multiple insanely popular games is smart. Greater returns means more capital that can be used for anything Softbank, even Sprint.

So you think softb will give sprint enough $ for a proper 10x10 no matter the reserve size?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/wireless-carriers-may-hesitate-partner-firstnet-analysts-say/2015-06-01

If sprint won't bid on 10x10 of 600 because softb would rather spend money on video games

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/us-softbank-supercell-idUSKBN0OH23H20150601

then is b14 a viable alternative? Beggars can't be choosers.

Tmo cleared 700a in NYC

http://www.tmonews.com/2015/05/t-mobile-clear-to-launch-700mhz-band-12-lte-in-new-york-city/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the 2k screens currently on smartphones are probably going to provide the max benefit of conventional video/display usage, especially on current battery states of 3000 to 4000. I doubt much heavier batteries are going to be used on smartphone devices, instead more efficient usage technologies in place to make battery life on 4k devices sufficient, meaning smartphones.

 

So despite my not thinking 4k is going to do much more visually for typical usage of smartphones, I'm seeing it happen more for the benefit of VR headset technology where 4k smartphones can be used, and in those cases, 4k will be more helpful to have than 2k. Yet, 4k likely will be the max for that, at least for a very long time.

Any sources for any of your assertions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Use the form under the article and above the comments to see when an average person with 20/20 vision could see all the detail on screens of different sizes at different resolutions and different distances.

 

Just for fun, I plugged in a 7 inch diagonal screen which is larger than all telephones have. 7 inches is actually the size of the smaller tablets. The form states that you need to have your screen 2 feet or closer to see all the detail at 480p resolution and 1 foot or closer to see all the detail at 1080p resolutions. It says you have to have the screen 0 feet or closer to see the detail at 4K resolution.

 

I do not know how close you like to keep your telephone screen from your face but I am guessing that you keep it 1.5 to 3 feet away when looking at it when watching video on it. This means that your eyes likely cannot see the difference between 480p and 4k resolution. You would have an even more difficult time seeing the difference if you were on a smaller screen than 7 inches diagonal.

Thanks.

This is why anything more than 1080p on a phone is ludicrous. The iPhone 6+, 5.5inch, is 1080p. I don't hear anyone complaining about its resolution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the foreseeable future according to executives. They aren't planning on replacing the GMO sites with full builds. Even with the 700a deployment, GMO band 2 will remain.

Where did they say that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

T-Mobile is only doing GMO band 2 LTE + GSM in rural areas.

For now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is an amazing POV -- actually I knew TMO wasn't an option for where I lived... I tried them for over 10 years and only 2g EDGE at best. I actually never really considered them a national player. Rather a national - regional carrier that focused on major cities.

 

Where as Sprint advertised as a true National option...

 

so to your point - yeah TMO seemed to get (gets) a get out of jail card and pass directly to start collect $200 :-) Where as Sprint always got (gets) kicked in the ____.

That's cause sprint waited too long to do the overhaul and caused huge service disruptions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish all the cell carriers would agree that nobody would be able to run 4k streaming over their cell network unless they buy a special costly plan. There is really no need for the average person to tie up the network with a 4K stream.

More importantly, how big does a screen have to be before 1080p is insufficient?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Carriers must have compatibility with devices also, vice versa, in agreements between carriers and the device manufacturers.

There can be compatibility. But carriers can still throttle the video stream to 1080p. Problem solved.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, I am not saying anyone needs 4k. I know many of my posts are long, but I've made a good effort here lately to post no more than two or three medium length paragraphs. Many of my posts lately only being one medium length paragraph, which I can tell when they are being read now by the responses and the likes I receive in the notifications area.

 

However, some of you are misreading what I'm saying. I'm not even advocating people watch 4k on their devices. The fact is that many people are going to do it no matter what anyone, including people on S4GRU have to say about it. Also, if the carriers currently offering unlimited remove unlimited and start charging over $5 per GB, many of these customers will leave for cheap MVNO Voice service along with buying tablets they can download 4k on using unlimited WiFi. While many here will be thrilled by that, these carriers won't want to lose that business. So, they'll either keep unlimited plans as is (or possibly raise the rate slightly), or they will go to a less expensive per GB data rate model of around $2 to $3 per GB, though I'm not discounting the possibility of it starting off at $5 per GB.

1) carriers charge mvnos wholesale rates, not retail. The diff is that retail rate is higher to pay for advertising so if 'everyone' flees to mvnos, fine. Carriers still make money.

2) if (1) analysis is incorrect, carriers will just raise the rate they charge to mvnos. Simple.

Mvnos are basically the carriers' bitches.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true. Consumers apparently do not care that T-Mobile has taken nine years and counting to overhaul its entire network. Or they do care -- just not that much.

 

AJ

Correct. They care that it works. They don't care the engineering behind it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't play the ignorant card because you know way too well that you can't just "get it done".

Consumers don't care. I wouldn't stay with a company just because I knew WHY their product sucks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because someone says their market is complete does not make it so. You and johnner can look at the maps for yourself and see conn is no where near complete. Where are the screenshots showing second and third carrier for band 41 if it was complete?

There's still sites not nv complete in NYC. So yeah… and no, we don't care it's the landlords blah blah blah. It's mid 2015. Get it done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

T-Mobile is working on network improvement (and expansion) just as Sprint is and their CAPEX forecast for 2015 is $4.4B to $4.7B. I don't think this analyst has a very good sense of what Sprint actually needs to spend in CAPEX to improve the network.

But sprint has 2.5ghz in abundance not midband. This means higher CAPEX.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marcelo said the 5 billion number did not included NGN. The capes number for sprint will go up.

Everyone agrees $5bil doesn't include ngn, including btig; see my summary of their article somewhere above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW -- my take is still that SoftBank assumed it was going to get everything it asked for....

 

- buy sprint

- buy clearwire

- buy TMO

 

I'm still taken back that SB assumed --- hey yeah the American's will let us come in and buy three (2 national and one semi-national/local) networks in less than 24 months???

 

With that I believe SB wanted (will) invest gobs of cash to be in the top 2, BUT didn't count on also battling for the number three spot at the same time! Which is in my opinion diverting much needed cash for becoming No 1 or 2.

 

 

THAT all said -- SB might see this as a harder fight and may want to slow its roll on Sprint at the moment. Especially if Crazy Uncle Charlie buys TMO.

 

 

okay have fun with that post now :-)

 

john

It is a fact that softb's plan a was to buy TMO. Son stated so during recent softb earnings call.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would I be able to activate an unlocked Nexus 6 on the Sprint network?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are we rehashing last weeks news.

 

Marcelo has already hinted at the "next generation project" and how its going to be massively densifying the network, and also how with in 18 months Sprint will be either one or two.

 

These are not words to take lightly and didn't come from some analyst looking to fudge the market.

May it be so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do I get the feeling these folks over at BTIG know a whole lot less than even we do about the matter.

Plan A was to buy TMO to eliminate competition on the low end but fcc said no.

If a Dem wins whitehouse, that's 4 or even 8 more years of competing against TMO and the duo.

Softb may decide that it can get better returns by investing its own additional cash in India and other emerging markets.

Sprint can still take on more debt to fund 600 auction and densification and if Claure delivers, THEN son can step in and inject more $ to pay off that high interest debt. If it doesn't workout, softb will be shielded somewhat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any chance you could summarize why BTIG suggests this, please? I'm not a member of that site. Thank you.

1) sprint 2015 CAPEX is $5bil which is more akin to maintenance than network improvement. CAPEX should increase by >35% if we are believe sprint that it wants to better its network.

2) sprint says softb supports sprint yet they keep talking about selling spectrum or issuing debt.

3) softb is looking to invest in other ventures so there could be internal struggle against giving sprint more money.

4) Claure repeatedly states softb is 'behind' the network densification plan

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AT&T hasn't exactly been hasty with LTE-A and VoLTE. I'm hoping that they pick it up too.

Lte a isn't gonna solve att's speed issues.

They need densification - macro and small cells - and to deploy their b30 already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk