Jump to content

tommym65

Honored Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

tommym65 last won the day on September 11 2019

tommym65 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,758 Wireless Expert

About tommym65

  • Rank
    Member Level: eHRPD

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1195-information-about-s4gru-sponsorship-levels-and-how-to-become-a-sponsor/

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    2x Samsung GS7 edge, Samsung GS7
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NW Chicagoland, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  • Favorite Quotation
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

    --George Santayana

Recent Profile Visitors

5,279 profile views
  1. It's about 🤬 time! This ridiculous suit has dragged on for years too long.
  2. If . . . Could have . . . Would have . . . Should have . . . Sprint, Softbank, and Son could have and should have done many things differently. If they had, Sprint would have become a different company than it is today. But they did not do things differently. So here we are. Whatever we wish had happened, it did not. And realistically, there is no practical reason to think that all of these positive things envisioned in this thread will happen if the merger fails. From the shareholders' point of view, the best thing that could happen today is for Sprint to be absorbed by T-Mobile: That result will optimize their return-on-investment in the shortest reasonable time. Otherwise, Sprint will have to spend years trying to recover from its self-made mess, if Softbank will let it recover at all rather than just dumping it. And, quite frankly, the fiduciary obligation of Sprint as a corporation is to its shareholders, not to its customers, not to its employees, and not to 1 district and 13 state attorneys general. So if the merger fails, we should not expect some sort of magical resurgence of Sprint as a viable competitor to the Big 2. It will not happen, at least in any reasonable time frame. The shareholders (84% of whom are, in fact, Softbank) will seek some sort of short-term recourse, and we will almost certainly say bye-bye to Sprint as we know it.
  3. Hi, Robert While I see your points, I respectfully disagree with some of them. Properly managed, Sprint does have the resources to compete successfully. But the key phrase is "properly managed", and that's where Sprint has shown critical weakness time and time again. Since Dan Hesse was screwed over in the Metro PCS debacle, and then dumped after Softbank took over, Sprint hasn't shown any signs of intelligent strategic management. Tactically, they have tried hard to succeed, and have kept up with technology, and have tried to keep up with deployments. But Softbank's refusal to provide capital (either directly or through 3rd parties), Claure's ham-handed cost cutting, and Masa's tunnel-vision focus on merger have all combined to put Sprint in a desperate situation. So I agree with you that Sprint could compete in the future, but I think it is unrealistic to expect Masayoshi and Softbank to actually try to compete. If the merger fails, I think that it is far more likely that Masa will basically dump Sprint just like he dumped Hesse, and loyal Sprint employees and the few remaining independent stockholders will be left swinging in the wind. Sprint customers (I've been with Sprint for 20+ years) will also be hung out to dry. I hope that I am wrong. Actually, I hope the merger goes through, but if it doesn't, then I hope that I am wrong. But I'm not counting on it.
  4. Umm, 85% of Sprint shares are owned by Softbank. I don't think they are likely to support an uprising.
  5. If the merger fails, Sprint will fail. Masa has no intention (nor, in hindsight, has he ever had any intention) of actually investing in Sprint. If the merger fails, he will either sell Sprint off in pieces, or will sell it wholesale to someone like Dish who will run it into the ground (even further than it already has been run into the ground). Sprint has no future as a stand-alone company. The question will be: Will Sprint be sold from Chapter 11? I have hung on this long as a Sprint customer only because I hope that the merger will provide a low-cost path to new phones and decent price plans. If the merger fails, my only questions will be which carrier I can afford and what phones I can afford. Sprint will die sooner or later (probably sooner).
  6. The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice (which has already ruled in favor of the merger) and the Federal Trade Commission (which has never sought to be involved). All of the remaining states are basically trying to extort New T-Mobile into giving away perks, so that states will drop out like Texas and Nevada did.
  7. Or which could be settled by the parties involved.
  8. Gentlemen, calm down. You are pushing the limits of civility. 1st, this discussion really doesn't belong in this thread at all, which is (at least in theory) supposed to be about the attempted merger, not about the technical aspects of bands and FDD and TDD and all that other technical stuff. There are other threads for that. It would be nice if we could stick to the topic. 2nd, even if we do discuss the "technical stuff", you are blurring your arguments. There are at least 2 major aspects of Band 41 uplink which come into play here: Time-division allocations and signal propagation. In an ideal, strong-Band-41 signal situation, Sprint's roughly 5:1 time slice allocation is adequate for the vast majority of mobile users, as it is (for example) on my Comcast wired connection, which runs at a ratio of about 10:1. The bigger problem is that, in the absence of Carrier Aggregation (i.e., when you are ONLY on Band 41), if you are at any significant distance from the tower antenna or you are blocked in any way, your handset simply cannot transmit enough watts of signal to feed the uplink. So the downlink may be fast and robust, but your anemic little cell phone cannot push back. Sprint can't fix that, nor can the handset manufacturers, simply because FCC rules (and common sense) limit the transmit power so that you will not fry your brain. So, can we please return to our irregularly scheduled merger arguments? Thank you.
  9. Apparently you get a few reads, then get blocked. And I'm not interested in setting up yet another password enabled account that I will hardly ever use, even though it's free.
  10. The question then is, what are they going to do with the millions of loyal Sprint customers who have aging handsets. (I have 4.)(And have been waiting to upgrade until this whole thing shakes out.)
  11. It is questionable whether the states have any case at all. Interstate communication is the sole purview of the FCC and interstate commerce is overseen by the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. States - even acting in concert - basically have no standing on either the communication or the antitrust aspects of the merger. At some point, the Federal courts will make this finding. It remains to be seen whether they delay so long that the merger fails.
  12. The story is behind a paywall. Could you summarize it or cite an alternate source? Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...