Jump to content


S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Arysyn

  • Birthday 10/05/1982

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
  • Gender
  • Location
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  • Favorite Quotation
    Time, it is all I ever think about anymore. It is as if there is never enough of it. The future is in front of you and goes on forever. You never really get there. It always is one step ahead of you. It is as if there is no present, no now. Just when I think I am here, the moment is gone. Either everything is in the past, or it is in the future. There is no now.<br /><br />
    - Arcade
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

4,443 profile views

Arysyn's Achievements

Member Level: 4G LTE

Member Level: 4G LTE (11/12)



  1. If any spectrum is to be divested, it certainly isn't going to be the spectrum that matters. I really don't understand why some people seem so excited, interested, really anticipating a spectrum divestment as if they're hoping for it and thinking the new combined company is going to be forced to lose 600mhz, PCS, AWS-1, or band41 spectrum. This simply isn't going to happen, period! If any spectrum is going to be divested at all under any part of a deal with the government for it, that spectrum will be 800mhz spectrum. That will be quite useful for the government in having for public safety purposes. Also, it will be easy for the combined company to agree to spectrum trades with carriers that will streamline operations. I think 700mhz would be a great divestment in favor of a potential merger for Dish's 600mhz spectrum which would boost T-Mobile's 600mhz to 20x20 nationwide, except in many areas where it would be more. T-Mobile ought to trade the overrun for adding spectrum in the then few remaining areas with 15x15 of the 600mhz spectrum. If they could get Dish, AWS-3 could be traded with AT&T for more AWS-1 spectrum, along with any possibly needed PCS, which is likely not much needed to reach 20x20 for the new T-Mobile. As I've mentioned in a few past posts I've wrote, without Dish - the New T-Mobile should be able to form nationwide 20x20 600mhz with some major trading with Dish, at least. 20x20 PCS, and 20x20 AWS-1. With Dish, add on to that 20x20 AWS-4, giving them a total of 120mhz of mid-band spectrum, along with the 120mhz of band41, and the 40mhz of low-band spectrum. This consolidation of national carriers will help increase very beneficial spectrum trades of wideband spectrum consolidation that will help produce such a great network quality among the national carriers. No company is actually looking towards losing spectrum anymore. Its all about gain and consolidation nowadays.
  2. Sprint really ought to just offer Tidal HiFi for free to Sprint customers. Or get rid of the Hulu limited commercials deal, bump it up to the no commercials deal, then offer a choice between Tidal and Hulu. One way of integrating this would be to scrap the family plans and just offer per line pricing with these choices. $45 pl/pm - neither, $60 pl/pm - either, $75 pl/pm - both. No streaming quality restrictions, 45gb per line/per month until possible deprioritization. I think the New T-Mobile might do something similar if the merger happens, but adding a $90 pl/pm plan for Tidal, Hulu, and Netflix, along with raising the deprioritization limit to 90gb per line/per month. It'll be seen as a great bargain while hopefully raising ARPUs away from this cheap multi-line garbage going on still with pricing, to where also hopefully it'll bring back fair individual line prices. Seriously at that time, what would be the point of having "$45 per line if you have four lines" - type plans, if the carrier can say "for $90 per line, per month, you get unlimited data (up to 90gb before possible deprioritization), no streaming quality restrictions, Netflix UHD 4k and Hulu No Commercials streaming video plans both included, along with Tidal HiFi audio, all included!" Another great thing about removing family plan/multi-line pricing models, is in the area of individual billing that could sensibly possibly bring back programs like Framily, where there could be a central account charged at $15 monthly, and each line at $5 monthly, no line restrictions, all lines get their own private billing, all taxes included regardless of location, and so on. Then instead of using multi-line discounts, there could be point rewards based on line loyalty, and larger number of points offered the bigger the account is (the more lines to the account, the greater number of points rewarded to the account, split per-line). I'd really like to see this done, if its implemented well.
  3. Not much of a background documentary on him, but I suppose thats just the format of the show.
  4. Its certainly an issue with several different ways of looking at it, and I'm not sure any is better/worse than others (the discussions/links issue pertaining to the merger, not the merger itself). S4GRU certainly being its own site not affiliated with Sprint I'm glad for, same I imagine many other members here are as well. It allows for freedom of various viewpoints without official Sprint staff moderating/banning us for certain talk. Regardless of the lack of official oversight by Sprint itself, its still a good thing to prevent direct attacks against Sprint here, and to some extent Softbank, though my thinking is Softbank ought to be more open to criticism and I certainly see them as the weak point to Sprint. Yet even I would never post a link here to a petition such as "Get Softbank out of Sprint", because I respect the nature of whatever positive outlook Sprint has of S4GRU, whether the site here officially supports the position of the link or not. Just my opinion. The writeups seem fine though, because they'd be individual opinions. I figure you'd probably have a disclaimer of sorts like "The following opinions expressed are of the individual and not necessarily that of S4GRU" and so on. Even an official writeup collaboration seems fine, so long as its a counter balance between pros and cons. Of course I'm not trying to say what should or shouldn't be done here, but I do think the recognition Sprint has given S4GRU over the years (though I believe it ought to be more) is very nice and if this petition were to grow big, well its up to Sprint for interpretation, but I just see it as a potential negative. Whereas a link to an opinion poll showing both sides would be different.
  5. Robert, its your site, so I respect your opinion to run it the way you want, make decisions, etc. I know you and I don't agree on everything, but please understand what I'm going to say now is really my best outlook for your site. Allowing this link to the petition is damaging. I say this knowing that right now it may look innocent like one person sharing something that is their opinion, which I'd support say if S4GRU were not Sprint-related but more of the general network-oriented site I've been advocating upon the potential completion of the merger. However, if this petition were to grow, we know Sprint executives view this site occasionally and they may see the link to this position as helping the merger to fail, even if its clear S4GRU isn't directly advocating it. There's a big difference between allowing various members here to speak their opinions about the merger in contrast with allowing an official link to a petition that could have consequences for Sprint and T-Mobile. Officially it really doesn't look good. Similar to how posting links here of people on other forums bashing Sprint could be viewed the same as someone directly posting here bashing Sprint. Such as (and I'd never do this, btw), but I'd expect you and the staff to be angry at me if I kept posting links to people posting on other sites saying "Sprint sucks", because in essence it would show a very questionable motive on my part for doing so. Again I would never do that, but I can understand why it would look bad for me to do.. Posting a link here to an official petition against the merger is similar to showing a negative view of Sprint here that goes beyond a personal opinion. Sprint obviously wants this merger, so by allowing a link is showing attention to a cause that is going against Sprint's wishes, which puts it in a realm of Sprint bashing, not just an individual giving an opinion based on facts. An individual writing about their bad experience with Sprint or about how they don't like Softbank because of plans made and broken - those are not going to hurt Sprint. Whereas this petition has the potential of doing so, the link to it being publicly viewable here on S4GRU. No offense intended, Robert. I really do appreciate this site and am only speaking to help.
  6. Consider though my suggestion was made to be something Sprint could have done after getting enough of the 600mhz spectrum. In no means did I intend to suggest Sprint should have sold the spectrum right away without the other spectrum in place. They obviously need something there to provide service where the vastly underdeployed band41 isn't. When I had Sprint, I was always hoping for band41 to connect, because being on PCS was miserable. I made that known here and was told basically "yeah, its 5x5 in Chicago" without ever being told, "Well, Sprint has another 20 or 30mhz of spectrum they can use when CDMA goes away. Despite that, I did figure there must be some extra spectrum being used for voice, but with the news of no VoLTE and other issues, I figured if Sprint could just get a good amount of 600mhz and deploy that, using sales of what I thought were limited amounts of PCS, could get a quick network boost from the 600mhz spectrum without having to densify at all and would quickly remedy the situation with PCS. Sprint's band41 clearly is an amazing spectrum Sprint made a really wise choice in getting when they did, and by deploying it quickly also could have remedied the complaints about its network. Sprint was on its way to doing that, but sadly though, Softbank got in the picture. I figured with the change to austerity, this would be a way to earn money used on a more practical deployment of a spectrum with great range while letting band41 be the short distance spectrum.
  7. At the time I asked, but what I was told was fairly limited.
  8. At one point alot of people here on S4GRU got upset that I suggested Sprint sell their PCS spectrum, but some who responded to me (though certainly not all, just some) seemed not to have listened to my reasoning for that, a few even using the excuse of "its what Sprint is known for, being SprintPCS". Well, its also what Sprint is given its bad reputation for not having enough of that spectrum to build a quality network with. Essentially its the "bad side" of Sprint, representing Sprint's past, whereas band41 is the "good side" of Sprint, representing Sprint's future. Like T-Mobile, Sprint really needs more low-band spectrum. My suggestion at the time I mentioned selling PCS, which was back when Sprint mostly had 5x5 of it in use for PCS. Of course since then, Marcelo & team got working on it to grow the PCS spectrum portfolio to 10x10, and even in some areas to 15x15., and with that I'm no longer supportive of the idea for Sprint to sell its PCS spectrum. However prior to that, my idea was for Sprint to sell it to T-Mobile and possibly Dish, in exchange both for cash and an agreement to let Sprint have access to 20x20 of the 600mhz spectrum at the auction. My belief is that Sprint could do very well on its own without any mid-band spectrum, just the 120mhz of high-band spectrum (band41), and if they were to have received the 20x20 of the 600mhz spectrum at the auction, that would have given Sprint the interesting position (among wireless carriers) of having the most streamlined of spectrum portfolios, while being plenty enough spectrum to operate exceedingly well for Sprint, had they also followed through with the necessary deployment and densification strategies needed in order to supply coverage to these areas using band41 first and foremost, then the 600mhz spectrum as secondary spectrum in order to provide necessary reach deep indoors, which serves an area better than by simply adding a bunch of magic boxes around. However, now that things are the way they are, and say that the New T-Mobile were not to get Dish, but rather to simply buy the 600mhz spectrum Dish has, while leaving Dish possibly to go to Verizon - though I think Verizon will go to the cable companies, while perhaps Dish will go with AT&T. The New T-Mobile would do just fine without getting Dish, so long as they could get their 600mhz spectrum in order to have a nationwide 20x20 network of it, while divesting and trading their 700mhz, 800mhz, and AWS-3 spectrum for bits and pieces of PCS and AWS-1 spectrum to get (without Dish) : 20x20 of 600mhz spectrum 20x20 of PCS spectrum 20x20 of AWS-1 spectrum 120mhz of band41 spectrum
  9. I wonder about the spectrum divestment issue too, as the total spectrum between the two carriers combined will massively exceed the spectrum of the other carriers. I doubt in any way that the New T-Mobile will be willing to give up any band41, PCS, and AWS-1 spectrum. Actually, I think the company ought to look at the convergence to three national wireless carriers as a means to do more spectrum trading and working with other carriers in trying to mainstream spectrum portfolios across the country, giving each carrier to closest to an even level of spectrum throughout the nation. So that when a customer goes to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... they can expect their network will not be lesser quality in one area than the next because of spectrum-related issues. Carriers ought to be focusing on wideband. I personally think the best way to do this is by having 20x20 on each set of spectrum, then having that be nationwide. The New T-Mobile would be in a position where they could divest their AWS-3 spectrum to AT&T, in exchange for filling in some areas of PCS and AWS-1 to give them 20x20. They could also divest their 700mhz spectrum to AT&T and Verizon to do that as well. The main spectrum I think would be beneficial to the U.S. Government for the New T-Mobile to divest, is Sprint's 800mhz spectrum, which the U.S. Government to use for public safety, etc., just as the new T-Mobile trading 700mhz to AT&T could be put to use for FirstNet. Then if the New T-Mobile decided to try for Dish and got it to go through, they could divest the AWS-3 spectrum from there over to AT&T, and quite likely securing enough AWS-1 and PCS spectrum to have 20x20 each nationwide. Then the added 600mhz spectrum from Dish, along with trading overrun spectrum in markets over 20x20 for spectrum still left under 20x20 in a few places, ought to bring the number to 20x20 nationwide of 600mhz. I think the ultimate "goal" of spectrum for the new T-Mobile ought to be : 20x20 600mhz spectrum 20x20 PCS spectrum 20x20 AWS-1 spectrum 20x20 AWS-4 spectrum 120mhz - band41 spectrum
  10. I think the statement really ought to be "If it aint broke, but you don't keep up improving and innovating, it will wither and die. Then at that point you won't be able to fix it."
  11. 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.
  12. 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. My idea is that national carriers should focus on macro sites, not small cells, though equipment such as the Magic Box is fine. Nor do I like the idea of national carriers getting into mmWave spectrum. I think the FCC should restrict national carriers from these, in exchange for allowing national mergers . My preferred idea, if it were possible - which I know isn't likely, would be for AT&T to get T-Mobile and Dish, with some spectrum trades with Verizon, which would merge with cable companies. There would be those two national wireless carriers, while the FCC opens up an entirely new market for local carriers to thrive with cheap access to the mmwave spectrum for use with small cells that are better implemented on a local, WiSP-like structure. These local carriers then would become the competition to the big nationwide carriers selling plans that would be for people who don't travel much, if at all past their local area, people who use wifi alot, and those who would like WiSP home internet services, rather than the wireline internet the national carriers sell. Again, these local carriers would be competition to the big nationwide carriers - direct competition with complete restrictions on any sort of dealings between them. Instead, local carriers could offer roaming for their customers who may travel once in a while, by agreements with other local carriers throughout the country.
  13. From some of what Legere said about AT&T and Verizon using MMwave spectrum, is that it'll be very costly to fully deploy - in the extremes over a trillion dollars. While T-Mobile has been interested in the MMWave spectrum and may still buy some in case the merger doesn't get approved, I'm doubting there is going to be any commitment to the MMWave spectrum beyond that. I think if the regulators tell T-Mobile and Sprint they'll approve the merger upon some spectrum divestment, I think the spectrum likely to go first is whatever MMWave spectrum they have at that point, followed by the 800mhz spectrum and the 700mhz spectrum. Doubtfully they'd have to divest all of that spectrum to get the merger with Sprint to go through, but possibly might if they then try going for Dish, possibly along with Dish's AWS-3 spectrum. In the case with Dish, their added 600mhz spectrum would give a great boost to T-Mobile's, where the very minimum of 600mhz spectrum few areas have, would go from 10x10 to 15x15. Most areas however, would have a minimum of 20x20. Some areas have more. I would like it if T-Mobile traded in whatever additional 600mhz spectrum they have beyond 20x20 for those few areas with under 20x20, so they could claim nationwide 20x20. I read that Dish has 20x20 AWS-4 spectrum nationwide. I think once the Sprint/T-Mobile merger is done - if it goes through, won't the combined nationwide PCS spectrum assets be over 20x20? If so, T-Mobile could keep 20x20 of that, and trade off the rest for more AWS-1, It would be great if they trade enough of the extra spectrum to get 20x20 of AWS-1, so that between the mid-band spectrum they'd have 40mhz PCS and 40mhz AWS-1 hopefully nationwide, putting an end to the local variations in spectrum I very much despise. Along with 40 mhz of low-band 600mhz spectrum, thats 120mhz of wideband spectrum that could be used well in carrier aggregation, separate from the 120mhz of band41 spectrum. 120mhz of 4G LTE and 120mhz of 5G band41.
  14. Dan, one of the biggest benefits to band41 2.5ghz spectrum is in its designation as TDD spectrum, rather than FDD. The difference is with FDD, which is the spectrum most carriers in the U.S. utilize, comes in equal/even pairs, such as you'll see when someone mentions 5x5, 10x10, 15x15, 20x20, and so on. What this means is the downlink spectrum amount and the uplink spectrum amount. With FDD there isn't an ability to make variations to that. Such as a carrier with 40ghz of say, the 600mhz spectrum. The carrier cannot decide to take, again say 30 mhz of it for using it as downlink spectrum, and the other 10 mhz for uplink spectrum. Therefore, there isn't 30x10. Reverse that, you won't see 10x30 either for areas where perhaps more uplink is needed. That just isn't how FDD works. TDD spectrum is different. Sprint's band41 is TDD. With TDD, the uplink and downlink can be altered to accommodate more needs of one versus the other, but it isn't inherently such number by such number. If I'm right about this, I think the spectrum is limited to 20mhz, where I suppose you could say the spectrum is 10x10 at the maximum, but that can be altered around, such as 15x5, 5x15, etc. To expand this spectrum, as Sprint has around 120mhz of band 41, carrier aggregation is needed. 2xca uses 40mhz, 3xca uses 60mhz, 4xca uses 80mhz, 5xca uses 100mhz, and 6xca uses 120mhz. I think the current maximum ca Sprint has is 3xca, though when next year's modem is in smartphones allowing 6xca, and after the merger if it goes through, I expect T-Mobile will release 6xca on band41.
  15. Wow, thats a really great post! I disagree of course about the merger, as I want it to happen - but then you also presented a really good case for it not to happen, to get Softbank to take a loss. Its no secret around here I really don't like Softbank, and having the merger fail would be a major hit to them. If they end up selling Sprint at half price, then at least Sprint would be in better shape being able to do well as it should without Softbank. Plus, a selloff means no Softbank percentage in Sprint at all, unlike with the New T-Mobile. If I didn't have T-Mobile happy with AT&T or Verizon, I very well may love this idea to happen.
  • Create New...