lou99/maximus1987

What the hell does China have to do with this? You miss my point completely.

 

The US does not need to follow any other country. The US needs to lead -- like it used to do. Blaze the trail. Show the rest of the world how it is done. Build the Interstate Highway System, go to the Moon, establish the Internet, etc. The long term payoff is immense.

 

Today, none of those great, big things would happen. All would be left to for profit corporations, which would endeavor only when and where convenient for short term profits.

 

But, in order to appreciate that point, you may need to remove your head from so far up your gluteus maximus. Or did I get that punctuation wrong? Should it be gluteus, maximus? Or gluteus maximus, maximus?

 

 

AJ

UMTS or is it umts or UMT-S

Did I get the punctuation wrong?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Capitalist $Murica.

 

 

AJ

Has it happened even in communist china?

Have softb and TMO even attempted network sharing? No because it's not in softb's interest to compete in 4 carrier market so they'd rather take the chance republican admin wins in 2016.

Is even china even discussing doing this? No so it must not be that great an idea in practice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish there was more LTE coverage on the casino floors. If that means installing DAS systems. I usually get 3G coverage. How is the coverage in the casino's with other carrier's?

In shocked there's no free wifi.

I mean with their profit margins being a gazillion percent…

When McDonald's can give you 0.5mbps wifi for free butc casino can't… you've learned true meaning of greed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My wife is bummed about the sizes - she has smaller hands and the 6 is uncomfortably large for her. Hopefully the "6C" is released at the 4" size.

I think apple will keep the plus size for only the most recent release, to maximize their prof....... Contribution to society[emoji12]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the "ish" is a euphemism for shit, yes. VZ and AT&T -- not just their wireless arms -- will never cover the US as befits the most dominant country in the world. Meanwhile, Sprint and T-Mobile will be just shit across most of our geographic area.

 

AJ

TMO is gaining postpaid phones with everyone knowing their coverage is shit.

Not everyone needs or can afford vzw coverage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Now, if we want to get sensible and make telecom a national utility, then we can have one infrastructure entity.  Everywhere gets fiber and wireless.  Providers pay for their use and sell their services over the top of the national infrastructure.

 

AJ

That's not gonna happen. And it looks like we're gonna have 4 carriers with 300-ish mil coverage anyway.

Highways get built via eminent domain.  National telecom infrastructure could, too.

 

AJ

This isn't even a question of eminent domain. If a carrier buys land, they can be blocked - even in Nowheresville - from building.

Telecom infrastructure already has eminent domain perks: since Kelo vs New London (2004), private property can be forcibly bought and transferred to another private party as long as the tax revenue generated by new owner is greater than current owner.

ok.... Some people who live in RUAL areas choose to live in RUAL areas for a reason, they like nature and dont want to see steel in the air out their back door....

The towers have to go somewhere. Tall steel powerlines have to go somewhere. It's not like there's this many towers

Sounds like your a VZW fan then a Sprint fan if you "hope vzw crushes them"....

When a cell co is willing to put up a tower in Nowheresville but Nowheresville likes their empty sky too much . . . I hope Nowheresville gets crushed.

If Verizon sells LTE only devices, I would expect those devices to priced lower, at least at first, to spur sales....as well as a strongly worried T&C that forces you to accept that your chosen device may not have the same voice coverage.

I'd like milan or neal to chime in on how much more it'd be to have gsm/umts/lte from lte.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VZW cannot reliably deploy VoLTE nationwide without having an LTE network as dense as their CDMA network, which they do not have, especially in non-urban areas. They don't have a nationwide LTE network, they have a majority-of-their-nationwide-CDMA-network overlayed LTE network. 

 

No carrier without fallback and or release 10 upgrades can deploy VoLTE, regardless.  

 

They also cannot remove CDMA from their phones yet, as that would disadvantage many VZW users in areas where there is limited/no LTE yet, or where the CDMA is already barely dense enough.

I don't think their phones will be literally lte-only.

Adding gsm+UMTS is probably cheap and - reaching - they could get UMTS roaming on ATT, TMO.

Verizon would be able to use Intel or Mediatek SOCs for their non-iphones. 

It is an understatement to say that Intel is desperate to be viable in mobile I mean they've been paying OEMs to use Atom in their tablets!

But you're assuming they're not aware of this problem and doing nothing to fix it (by adding more lte towers).

We're almost a year out from them launching these phones.

But if THIS keeps on happening, they may have to push it back

 

And this is just a guess on my part, but by the time a VoLTE only phone launches on Verizon, VoLTE reliability will be indistinguishable from CDMA for the vast majority of users. They appear to be pretty close to that already, nearly everywhere except rural areas.

So will this affect sprint in any way?

Phone pricing, network gear, push it to do VoLTE faster?

Despite the vote of confidence in CDMA, Shammo did add that Verizon Wireless remains on track to rollout LTE-only smartphones beginning early next year that can take advantage of the carrier’s growing voice-over-LTE service. The VoLTE service, which carries voice traffic as data over LTE, was launched last fall and according to Shammo was serving “several million” customers.

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150519/carriers/cdma-remains-on-verizon-wireless-radar-600-mhz-auction-strategy-in-flux-tag2

1) I thought vzw volte coverage sucks?

2) will all vzw phones, starting with the above mentioned, lack CDMA? Will this affect spribt's phone costs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect your right on Verizon getting their way most of the time. But for what it's worth, the opposite does occasionally happen.

 

For instance, we have a local rural town that is (probably illegally) blocking Verizon, even though AT&T was allowed. - http://boycottverizonwexford.com

"Detract from the rural nature of the area"?

Wtf

I hope verizon crushes them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously Softbank, if they have the money to purchase TWC, then they have enough money to invest in the 600mhz spectrum auction for Sprint. 

Obviously.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-37011

http://www.wsj.com/articles/altice-to-buy-controlling-stake-in-suddenlink-in-deal-worth-9-1-billion-1432105992

Altice bought suddenlink and DT, softb might buy time warmer cable

The golden age of telecom will soon arrive!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, I am not saying they would "pull the plug" What I am saying is that Sprint has to show signs of turning a profit to warrant another investment by Softbank. If Sprint can monetize their spectrum because the market want sustain 4 profitable carriers or Sprint can become one of the three in a four carrier market then no it is not a reason for Softbank to stick around.

Sprint won't turn a profit unless they can build out 2.5

Son had to know

1) getting the merger rejected was a possibility

2) Sprint's network wouldn't be competitive without 2.5 almost everywhere

3) Sprint would be burning cash for a long time

Therefore, Sprint would need more cash to build-out vis a vi more debt, asset sale or equity sale.

In the recent Chase thing, Eutenberg was asked directly about the "backing" of softb and replied 'it's not a written guarantee but a strong understanding'. I don't think there's a transcript yet.

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

Given the state of sprint network today, you cannot use their customer net gains/losses to extrapolate anything.

Wait until they have lte on all sites - sometime in 2016 - >10mbps everywhere, 800mhz everywhere then wait 1 year to drain the negative brand equitiy AND THEN make a judgement.

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

And what criteria will it use to decide this? You'd think having massive capacity-in-waiting would be enough.

Stakeholders are last on the list in an asset sale from bankruptcy. The debt holders have first claim and since Sprint is 32 billion in debt, yeah softbank's investment is probably worth close to zero if Sprint was to go into bankruptcy.

Which would only happen if softb allows this. Son is making plenty in his 3-carrier market; he should spread the wealth.

Get your head out of the pink sand.

Seems sprint cheerleaders are saying Sprint can't survive in a 4-carrier environment.

Sprint: 16 of 30 rural LTE roaming partners have now launched LTE service

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-16-30-rural-lte-roaming-partners-have-now-launched-lte-service/2015-05-20

Have these shown up on map?

 

Since those 27 were announced in September 2014, Sprint has added three additional carriers, including United Wireless. The other two did not give Sprint permission to identify them, according to Norton.

 

huh?

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

I think you're overestimating gain of 600 vs 800; it's gonna require more towers no matter what.

Softbank, like any seller, will have to find a buyer.

How is 120MHz of 2.5ghz not enough reason for softb to stay?

Sprint and T-Mobile haven't made a yearly profits for years. Almost all of the profits for the entire industry is concentrated in the Big Two and it has been that way for over five years. Bankruptcy, while a long way off isn't out of the realm of possibilities for sprint if SoftBank decides it can't make a return on investment. The CAPEX required over the next five years show no real signs of slowing down as the carriers begin Volte. There is a lot auguring for three carriers. It is not a position of ignorance but claiming that sprint and T-Mobile are simply not making profits today is.

Why are profits concentrated at duo? Because they have truly nationwide coverage. Now TMO sprint are fixing that.

Actually CAPEX will def slow down. Volte is a software patch to the network. More relevant example is small cells. I guess we'll see what CAPEX for 2016 for !duo is.

Today they're not making profits. Once !duo can point to a 300mil map, that'll be the end of that issue.

Furthermore, Robert stated that where he lives people are dying for another option.

And softb. Who's gonna buy their 80% stake? Maybe comcast I guess.

Otherwise they're stuck and they'll continue benefitting sprint the same manner and amount as today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Making a profit two out of the last 8 quarters( actually one because as you point out one quarterly profit can from selling assets) isn't a sign of a sustainable profits. If they are able to deliver on the next three quarters then I can remove T-Mobile from my statement. But sprint still hasn't and so the thrust of my statement remains. If three companies are making a profit and one is not it is hard to say the right number of carriers is four.

Sprint:

Avg above 10mbps in all root markets AND. Root airports AND everywhere else, sparky or not;

800mhz lte, voice deployed everywhere

TMO:

All sites have at least GMO lte;

All 700a owned licenses fully deployed (only after 600 auction or concurrent agreement)

And THEN we'll start the clock to decide whether it's possible to have 4 carriers survive.

But to say "sprint is not making money today, therefore a merger is the only option" is… ignorant.

Ask digiblur about New Orleans, a ?top 50? Market?

Even once sprint achieves above "start click" triggers, it'll be done time till it can reverse its negative brand equity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk