payturr
-
Posts
611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Everything posted by payturr
-
I think everyone here has a bit of neighborhood bias. Nextgencpu has great experience in NYC's network, I have a pretty good but sometimes crappy experience in NYC. Kg4icg has a great time in DC, Terrell doesn't. Terrell thinks Southeast states network is bad, I think Sprint in Southwest Florida is pretty solid. Ultimately, it comes down to the person in question and what their opinion of good service is. If a person wants to go with Sprint, don't steer them against it or to it, just say give it a try. If it's for them, they stay, if its not, they won't. Telling them what to do isn't the best advice.
-
I understand 2000 is a lot but I don't agree with the idea that people are really complaining about the appearance of these poles. Verizon, T-Mobile/Metro, and AT&T/Cricket were able to build out dense small cell networks in a few cities including NYC, no one ever says anything and the performance of their networks have been proven to be rather stellar as a result. There has to be more going on here than just appearances that is holding Sprint back.
-
No, my point is that DT didn't buy T-Mobile when everything was tough. They bought T-Mobile in a time of growth given VoiceStream was new and had just got spun off from their owners. T-Mobile hit hard times later on in the 2000s much after DT's purchase. SoftBank bought Sprint at a bad time knowing things were gonna suck. To compare the two isn't fair because they have very different situations; DT kept trying to sell T-Mobile during the bad times.
-
DT didn't buy T-Mobile US, they bought VoiceStream which became T-Mobile US. Furthermore, it was 2001, when voice service was all that was important and broadband internet still wasn't a thing. They didn't realize what was coming. SoftBank knew what to expect.
-
Everyone looks at another buyout to fix Sprint's debt; will never happen. Nobody will buy a company for such large liabilities at this point, SoftBank bought Sprint and has had 0 return in the past 2 years, in fact Sprint has been costing them a fortune. On top of this, they never paid Sprint's debt, nor will anyone else. No one is gonna buy Sprint from SoftBank. They just don't have that much value. Every company who's interested is better off waiting for a bankruptcy so they can swoop in and buy their spectrum holdings. Sprint has to plug holes in their network that are inconsistent, lack coverage, and provide poor performance and they need to dump their branding. That's the only way they can get out of this rut and pay their bills before it's too late. A new name that performs as well if not better than the competition will lead to new customers and a chance at raising the ARPU to a level where they're posting a profit and shrinking their debt.
-
Very interested to see what Sprint's plans for 5G roll out is
-
Hey everyone, I'm out in Lehigh Acres 33974 for the summer. First I gotta say LTE coverage is really impressive, hard to find yourself on 3G unless you find yourself in my house. But speeds are pretty respectable so no complaints, I love it! Far better than New York. Interestingly enough, my neighborhood's local telephone lines were wired by Sprint before they spun off the service into Embarq, which is cool. All in all very satisfied with the results of NV and, as a New Yorker living here, I love this town!
-
But our wireless industry didn't start out with 4 national guys, it was a bunch of tiny regional companies. Arysyn is talking about 4 companies controlling all the spectrum in equal divisions in all markets, not a small guy controlling half here and there.
-
Gotta admit, I'm pretty cynical. Going to what you were saying about the word, I know the world would continue to advance in terms of tech and what not but like I was saying the US would have little incentive to adopt a newer tech & help develop existing tech. I think the current system of eratic, uneven holdings helps keeps the industry on its toes. Just my 2 cents though!
-
Well it's not the average, it's the median. Two very different things my friend!
-
I mean it's not bad. 93 is far better than a 60, and it's an A- technically to my college. I'm fine with it! Nothing wrong with 7Mbps median download. Just need to improve that 7Mbps to point of consistency in terms of LTE footprint.
-
My dad's 5s died, so he went to Sprint to see what we can do. On ED1500 currently, he was offered to switch to the new XXL 40GB plan. All four of us are still on contract, but apparently the manager is able to waive the contract access fee on all my lines? Is this part of this big sale or is a separate thing Sprint started doing? I asked for it on paper as proof but got nothing, and I'm full of doubt.
-
My point is it would hinder services for people which you keep seeming to miss. 30x30 sounds great NOW that we have LTE but if it was 30x30 for everyone during the beginning of cellular networks with AMPS, no one would have moved pasted cdmaOne or GSM because there would be no point. All carriers would have equal spectrum holdings with equal speeds and would have little to no incentive to innovate. We all would suffer because of the equality on their level. It's bad for business, it's bad for us. They wouldn't give a damn about network tech, they would just build out coverage and charge for minutes and texts and whatever little data we get.
-
Proves a point - T-Mobile doesn't even have 100MHz of spectrum in NYC, but they innovated to make a total of 60MHz KILL. Giving everyone an equal footing will not breed innovation.
-
It's boring because no one would try, that's what you're missing. If I have 240MHz of spectrum and the guy next to me has 240MHz and the guy behind me also has 240MHz, what's the point? I'm not making new tech to squeeze the most out of it. I'm just gonna chill cause regardless of the situation we will all have the same speeds and capacity at the end of the day. Tech innovation ceases, no one has "lightning fast" or "extended range" LTE. Because it's ALL THE SAME. The way the system is makes people get to WORK. Verizon knew CDMA wasn't gonna last, they needed more. What did they do? Throw 20MHz, a TINY SLIVER, at LTE and made a network exponentially faster than the existing one. That's innovation. The threat of death because of small spectrum holdings keeps carriers on their toes. If everyone has equal holdings, nothing is interesting. I am interesting and you are interesting because I am me and you are you. If we had the same opinions and thoughts, we'd be boring.
-
5G is important because it offers new sources of revenue with greater return which means Sprint can invest in Granville OH and give you guys 4G and even 5G
-
The reason that doesn't exist is because they don't have the money, and if the FCC gave 30x30 of every band type the market would be BORING. Like SO BORING. Who would bother trying if they each have the same amount? It's unexciting, it's not sexy, and it makes for bad marketing. The current situation makes stuff exciting! T-Mobile is FANTASTIC in NYC but is pure CRAP in Madison! That spurs competition that makes Sprint VZ and AT&T take shots at them, it keeps marketing fresh, innovation fresh, and the industry being something worth talking about. Who would make MIMO if we all have the same amount spectrum? There's no point
-
There's no such thing as "too expensive" in a capitalist market. Spectrum is a finite resource much like oil, except far more finite since we have an exact idea of what frequencies we can use and for what. Because of this, the cost of spectrum per individual it can cover is of course gonna be a fortune. Once all the spectrum has been divided and sold, it's gone forever (unless someone goes bankrupt or this ridiculous incentive auction). If there's someone willing to pay, it's not too expensive.
-
Wow I'm LATE Sorry Deval finals are hell! But as I promised, screenshots of 39991 still live on Baruch College campus
-
Oh I'm well aware. One thing to keep in mind however is the range. 1.8Gbps over 0.6 miles of coverage is rather impressive!
-
I think we're all worrying about this capex too much. It's been recently revealed that Twin Bells also cut their capex, T-Mobile is the only one increasing capex, which they need because they have many lone 700MHz towers that need UMTS and higher capacity LTE in their rural expansion. Majority of Sprint's towers are upgraded, and the remaining GMOs that need upgrades won't need as high as a capex as previous years did, especially since the cost of equipment they're purchasing has most likely dropped in price. Sprint's just gotta focus on densifying. I don't care if my speeds are 110Mbps or 15Mbps I just want some damn consistency, and Sprint is looking to deliver that consistency. Stop panicking about the capex.
-
Verizon's CEO claims to have produced 1.8Gbps in Basking Ridge with their 5G fixed tests. That's EXTREMELY underwhelming.. Unless it was a small 40MHz chunk or with existing spectrum. McAdam does state fixed wireless gives you all the return on capital you need, so it definitely looks like they wanna become a WISP. Super neat! Source here: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-mcadam-5g-fixed-deployment-gives-you-all-return-capital-you-need/2016-05-24
-
You won't notice because it'll be on their own private testing equipment. However, if they do a demo on a big screen and tell people how fast it is, please let us know!
-
"We now have our 2.5 network reinforced in major cities under LTE Plus thanks to carrier aggregation and MIMO. Our speeds have essentially doubled and are much faster than the competition according to Nielson ratings. Our densification plan is rolling out and in affected neighborhoods the customer response has been positive in terms of speeds and coverage. We will have 2/3 of major cities covered by the end of next year. We've cut a lot from our budget and Claure keeps finding new ways to do so without damaging the quality of the network. We posted a positive operating income and will continue to increase in subscribers thanks to the increased LTE Plus coverage. We're on track to posting a positive net income." Not too hard to predict what Sprint management say at this point.
-
More like pro-monopoly. There's no competition between AT&T and Verizon as it stands! They just hangout and do what they can and don't even bother to make the other work cause they essentially have equal footing in terms of subscribers. In a world where they're the two only carriers, it would be crap for everyone, nobody wins everybody loses. In fact I bet everyone would give up on 5G and start charging $80 a GB. Everybody needs to drop talk about anybody merging after the new administration comes to office, its never gonna happen. Especially a Sprint/T-Mobile merger. The US government had to investigate for quite awhile when Softbank bought Sprint and the deal seemed very volatile at the point. 2 years later Softbank is struggling because of Sprint, and people think its plausible that Masayoshi Son will further burden his company with debt. Softbank has enough debt operating on its own as well as the buyout from Sprint and Clear. Sure they can do a leveraged buyout, but that can blow back HARD and then we're left with two carriers. The US needs four carriers. Twin bells don't compete, they just sit back and make money because they're both equally respected. No one who has AT&T says Verizon sucks and vice versa. It's just a matter of who would you rather give your money up to. Sprint offers cheap unlimited data while T-Mobile breaks everything that a traditional carrier does and makes it sexy for everyone, and now all four are building superfast reliable networks. Any of them merging will screw up a careful balance in place and honestly, there are no benefits if anyone merges. EDIT: Verizon CEO's comment on buying a big network company: https://twitter.com/FierceWireless/status/735081759621009413
