Jump to content

tommym65

Honored Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

tommym65 last won the day on September 11

tommym65 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,742 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

5,197 profile views
  1. Or which could be settled by the parties involved.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. 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.
  6. The story is behind a paywall. Could you summarize it or cite an alternate source? Thank you.
  7. Then imagine inflicting Comcast pricing on top of their customer service. Their current pricing is totally out of line for people who actually use data.
  8. What he said ^^^. Sprint lacks the capex. Sprint also lacks the financial support from Softbank. For the past several years, Sprint has lacked the leadership, primarily because Claure was obviously brought in to cut the company to the core in preparation for a sale or merger. Sprint lacks the brand image, and the probable hit-and-miss effort Sprint will be able to mount to implement 5G will not improve that: It will almost certainly be too little, too late. Sprint lacks the ability to continue to meet its debt service requirements and meaningfully expand coverage or service, because the debt service is simply going to eat away at future capex. In sum, Sprint simply lacks the resources to compete as an equal with ATT, Verizon, and the still-growing T-Mobile. Let's be totally real: Within a very short period of time (1 year? 2 years? Less?), Sprint as we know it will no longer exist. Either the merger will be approved, or Sprint will enter Chapter 11 and be totally reorganized, or some 3rd party outside of the telecom industry will purchase the company in a fire-sale and change it drastically. But the Sprint we know today is doomed. That saddens me, because I have been a Sprint customer for over 20 years, and a combination of stupid moves by the Board of Directors, muddy objectives and execution on the part of Masa Son and Softbank, and a cutthroat competitive environment have forced a future that is very bleak.
  9. Option 3: Unrelated business purchases it (Dish, cable operator, Warren Buffet, General Motors, McDonald's, ???).
  10. That is not what I said, and you know perfectly well that it is not what I said. Do not pretend to know what my politics or my motivation are, and do not put words in my mouth that I have not said. You are obviously spoiling for a fight. Cut the shit, learn to read what other people actually say, and try to be at least a little respectful. "Did i hurt you feels?" Really? Why, I'm asking myself, am I even bothering to react?
  11. 1. I recognize the site rules regarding political discussion. This political topic is directly relevant to the pending Sprint/T-Mobile merger. 2. The previous administration was known to be broadly opposed to large corporate mergers, including AT&T/Time Warner, a fact well known and not germane to this discussion. 3. The reality is: Many sources (including, but not limited to: The New Yorker, The Washington Post, Market Watch, Slate, CNN, PolitiFact, NBC News, Politico . . .) have reported that the President personally instructed Gary Cohn, formerly director of the National Economic Council, to contact officials at the Department of Justice to attemp to intervene in the merger, reportedly because of the President's extreme antipathy toward CNN. 4. The US House of Representatives is reportedly investigating this interference, which certainly lends credance to the whole story.. No, I don't have "proof". My "paranoid and basely claims" (I can only assume you meant "baseless") are, in fact, neither paranoid nor baseless, but are widely substantiated. Moreover, insulting me, however vaguely you do so, is inappropriate on this forum.
  12. Actually, it is a real issue. While presidents are not supposed to be involved in merger approvals, this one has already (so far unsuccessfully) tried to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger (for apparently personal reasons), and who can predict where he will go next.
×
×
  • Create New...