Trip

2 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

fight TV stations occupying the spectrum

Not clear what you're talking about here.  The TV stations are being compensated for their moves, and that work is on-going.  Many have been desperate to move earlier, rather than later, to get a hold of the new equipment as soon as they can.  Phase 1 of the transition hasn't arrived yet, and already about 25 TV stations have moved.

- Trip

T-Mobile discussions already exist:

http://s4gru.com/forums/topic/7845-sprint-tmobile-merger-disc/

http://s4gru.com/forums/topic/6950-t-mobile-lte-network-discussion-v2/

- Trip

2 hours ago, TimS said:

While tracking Sprint, I just edit the LTE bands on the phone - I don't use Network Signal Guru.  I am not sure if that would help you since I don't know how NSG locks bands.

Not sure how to do this.

- Trip

Follow-up note:  Do not buy the Moto E4 if you're attempting to use it for network tracking as I am.  Leaving aside the bad Band 66 EARFCN (which means I never see a valid EARFCN for AWS-1), it's also having issues with Network Signal Guru.  The band lock doesn't seem to stick properly some of the time; if it can't find LTE in a particular band, it looks like it will sometimes override the lock and try the other bands anyway.

I was also having trouble with the GPS power save being really aggressive and not providing coordinates at all; I had to change it to high accuracy.

I may still keep it if Mike puts the override in for the bad EARFCN, but it's rather disappointing.

- Trip

Mike,

I bought a Moto E4 to replace my Moto G4 Play that I use to track Verizon since the GPS is dying in it, and it has the bad EARFCN on Band 66.  For Verizon (and I suppose AT&T), where we know that the sector number properly indicates the band in use, could a fast work-around be to check the sector ID and, if appropriate, add 65535 to the EARFCN provided by the API if it's an AWS sector but providing a non-AWS EARFCN?

- Trip

AT&T opened a bunch of permits around here that, I believe, are for Band 66 and/or 14.  I know in Montgomery County, MD, I can see some of the actual application documents and they show those bands being installed.

I just need to get a phone that supports Band 14 now.  Waiting for one that's a bit lower in price than what I've seen thus far.

- Trip

Are there any changes in the way SCP behaves?

- Trip

For folks in the south Texas part of IBEZ:  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-542A1.pdf

- Trip

Interesting, it also appears to be giving you correct EARFCN values for Band 66, so maybe they've fixed that issue as well.

- Trip

6 hours ago, S4GRU said:

 We have S4GRU Staff who are for the merger and those against.

Plus staff who should not take a position on it. 

- Trip

I won't speak for Mike, but it sounds like they're specifically talking about network traffic, as in what websites you're connecting to, rather than which cell tower you're connected to.  That information comes from an actual Android API which requests permissions, and what they're talking about here is direct access to /proc/net in the file system, which apparently does not.

That said, it's vague enough that I, too, would like to hear more information on it. 

- Trip

I'm not sure I understand how that works.  Shentel builds out better than any other carrier.  They are the leader in their region, they don't rest on their laurels despite that, and they continue building out and upgrading at a ridiculous pace.  I'm not entirely sure how it is anti-innovation to want the company that clearly knows what they're doing to continue being able to do so.

- Trip

36 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

I wasn't trying to say anything negative about Shentel, and you're right I'm not all that familiar with it, but any connection with Sprint (or even T-Mobile now -possibly), it makes sense the national carrier would want full control over that area/region. I'm not saying its necessarily good nor bad for customers, just the matter in perspective of national carriers means of growth.

Again, as I realize I know I sound like I'm all for national wireless control without mentioning the local needs often enough, I do, just that it should be done differently, as I explained. There really isn't a need for a local/regional carrier to be covering the same business as a national one, when there are other ways of attracting local business by being in a more localized model - wisps, large local area wifi, etc. that could provide enough services for a good chunk of the population's needs where they don't necassarily need to choose a national carrier.

Old expression:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seems like it should apply here.

- Trip

4 hours ago, Arysyn said:

Regarding Shentel - not a company I know much about - but I really can't see why T-Mobile wouldn't buy them out. It makes sense just to unify the network and its customers in that region. Why Sprint didn't do that, I don't know. Then again, there is i-wireless, which I really think ought to just be T-Mobile.

I realize I come off sounding very much as if I hate local/regional wireless carriers, but I really don't. I just dislike them acting as non-nationwide MVNOs, nor do I particularly like that they essentially compete against nationwide carriers without really trying to be different.

You're not familiar with Shentel.  In its region, Shentel beats out the other three or four carriers hands-down.  In the recent state-by-state wireless company rankings, Sprint was tied for first place in exactly one state:  West Virginia. 

https://www.rootmetrics.com/en-US/rootscore/map/state/west-virginia/2017/2H

Shentel operates the network in almost all of West Virginia.  Getting rid of Shentel would be a very bad decision, in my opinion.

- Trip

12 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

dro, can you please re-edit your post here. I really don't want to be quoted as saying something I didn't say.

I took care of it.

- Trip

51 minutes ago, Dkoellerwx said:

If it is seeing an LTE signal, it will not allow you to roam. However, there are many instances where devices have been on a roaming LTE signal while connected to Sprint 1x (1900 or 800). I have seen this happen on my devices many times. However, it seems to only happen *after* losing the Sprint 1x signal and switching to roaming. Once that happens, the device seems perfectly happy to continue on roaming LTE even when it reacquires a Sprint 1x signal, and doesn't switch away from the roaming signal until it sees a Sprint LTE signal. 

That has not been my experience at all.  When roaming on US Cellular, the moment my phone thinks it sees 1X 800 from Sprint, it immediately ditches the US Cellular LTE signal and tries to connect to 1X 800 until it realizes there was nothing there after all.  Very, very annoying.

- Trip

5 hours ago, EntrepreneurKid said:

T-Mobile devices won't connect to US Cellular if it can locate a T-Mobile or in the case of Iowa (iWireless) signal and US Cellular devices won't roam onto T-Mobile or Sprint if it can locate a US Cellular signal.

Not sure if you have a US Cellular phone, but on mine, it roams seamlessly onto Sprint LTE even while connected to US Cellular 1X. 

- Trip

What I've been reading is that the combined network would have 120,000 sites, and they're planning to shut down 35,000 of them, leaving 85,000.  That's about 30%.

Going back to the Spotsylvania County example, counting it that way, there are 30 sites.  12 of the Sprint sites are co-located with T-Mobile sites.  Turning those off would decrease the total number of sites by 40%, but there would be no change in coverage.

- Trip

To the earlier discussion about the number of cell sites being turned off, I did a little bit of an analysis.  I used Spotsylvania County, VA as my example case, excluding the Shentel area.  I put both the Sprint and T-Mobile sites on a map.  The total number of sites is 18.  Of those, 12 are shared between Sprint and T-Mobile.  Of the remaining six, 5 are Sprint-only and 1 is T-Mobile only.  While the 1 T-Mobile only site is kind of near one of the Sprint-only sites, both are on I-95 and AT&T is actually on both towers, so I would expect them to keep both.

So even though 2/3 of the Sprint sites would presumably go away in Spotsylvania County, the actual change in service would be effectively zero.

- Trip

I've been in half a panic about this merger because there's been no word at all about what happens to Shentel.  I found this article this morning, which is making me feel better, though I want to wait to hear something for certain:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4096992-real-winner-sprint-t-mobile-merger

The link to the agreement being discussed in the article is here:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/354963/000114036115031058/ex10_2.htm

The summary seems to be that in the case of this merger, Sprint either has to buy out Shentel at a premium, sell the T-Mobile customers and network in the Shentel region to Shentel at a discount, or shut down the T-Mobile network in the Shentel region.  One of the latter two options would make me happy.

- Trip

Just now, Arysyn said:

Thanks, Terrell. That makes more sense... I couldn't imagine the company getting rid of 85,000 sites, though still the 35,000 going away is quite alot too, the closely by sites to T-Mobile's towers.

There are an absolute boatload of sites shared by both Sprint and T-Mobile.  There are additional sites that are at adjacent locations.  I wouldn't be surprised if that number added up to 35,000.

- Trip

It just ended.

- Trip

Mostly taking questions about business synergies and other buzz words.  I missed the beginning of the call so I missed any discussion about roaming.

- Trip

2 minutes ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

Apparently Marcelo announced on the call that sprint users will be able to roam on T-Mobile effective immediately. 

 

Does anyone have a call transcript?

Call is still going on.

- Trip

I've asked on Twitter about the Shentel region and SprintCare already wrote back saying they don't know.  I hope they address it on the call; I'm listening now.
 

- Trip