Jump to content

utiz4321

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,688

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Everything posted by utiz4321

  1. utiz4321
    They haven't at anypoint from the creation of the internet to 2015 when net neutrality went into effect.
  2. utiz4321
    There is no extra cost. The profits of the industry are just being divided up differently. The ISPs are unlike to charge consumers for access to certain sites, they did not do this any time before 2015 and they wont know. Netflix, during peak time consumes something like a Third of all internet trafficking, why should the Isle be able to change Netflix for the cost it imposes on them? This happens all the time in the shipping industry.
  3. utiz4321
    I personally could careless. It was a fight between big teleco/cable and big content providers about how the industry profits are divided up. I fall to see how that is anyones business but those companies and their consumers.
  4. utiz4321
    It work flawlessly.
  5. utiz4321
    Thanks for the advise. Ill give that a try.
  6. utiz4321
    I am on unlimited freedom and can't get the offer to display.
  7. utiz4321
    I recently got back from a trip to SD and I habe to say I was really impressed witht the progress sprint has made there. For years It was one of the worst preforming areas I traveled to, on this last trip my service preform better and more reliably than my home market. It is really good to see the progress.
  8. utiz4321
    I thought the merger was suppose to do that. Lol damned if you do, damned if you dont.
  9. utiz4321
    That is where advertising comes it. It will take time but as quality improves perceptions do change. A similar thing happen with ATT in the phoenix market. 8-9 years ago it had the worse network and consumer's knew it, now it is thought of as good as VZW or the best.
  10. utiz4321
    I don't like that this is the thrid network strategy in four years and that densification has not been mentioned. But good to see CAPEX increasing. Also, I really loved that he came out and said a merged company would not have sought to raise price but get even more aggressive, something that I was positing as a possibility.
  11. utiz4321
    Maybe we are talking about different time periods. I am talking about shortly after Softbank fail to merge the company with T mobile in 2015. Here is proof the idea was floated in the press. http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/report-softbank-floated-idea-selling-sprint-to-comcast-altice-amid-turnaround Son would later say on one of the sprint earnings calls in 2016 that after the merger fell apart he was depressed and thought of selling the company. My speculation is that he would have done if he could have found a buyer.
  12. utiz4321
    How do you know how I do or do not speak? We have never spoken. Your constant complaining about completely understandable posts that are punctuated and/or grammatically constructed incorrectly on an internet forum, is making you look like a joke. You might want to pay close attention to my first sentence because it shows quite clearly that you indulge in the problem you complain about.
  13. utiz4321
    That isn't true. He said he tried to sell the company and there were several reports he was trying to sell.
  14. utiz4321
    I think he was serious about selling. At least he claims he was. There is no reason to doubt him. It is certain he isnt in the same position now. It is pretty clear he sees value in holding on to sprint now.
  15. utiz4321
    To willingly take on the role of grammar Nazi on the internet is a brave move. Your stress level must be off the charts.
  16. utiz4321
    That is contrary to what is known. He did shop selling the company completely right around the first time the Mobile merger fell through. No one wanted to buy the company.
  17. utiz4321
    Son tried that. No one was willing to buy at the price he was trying to sell.
  18. utiz4321
    The slides I am referencing seems to suggest the vast majority of the macro sites are going for expansion and density was going to be handled largely by mini macros, airspans and magic boxes. I would have to think add ~20 percent more macro sites on to sprints network would expand coverage a great deal more than those maps show. It also looked like they were planing on getting LTE live on every site too. That would also expand LTE coverage. The maps just dont make sense.
  19. utiz4321
    That future expansion map doesn’t make a lot of sense. It show I-10 between az and california with Lte before and after the expansion. The sprint coverage map shows it has lte now. Plus, 8000 macros, with the majority going for coverage expansion would cover more ground than what is shown.
  20. utiz4321
    I would prefer a merger, failing that a massive investment in sprint from cable but most of all these rumors to end.
  21. utiz4321
    Well, if you were the only US wireless consumer I suppose that would be relevant.
  22. utiz4321
    But no one wanted to invest in sprint in 2017 and that is the point. Son is the only one who thinks sprint is worth what he thinks it is worth. Maybe he is a genius so far beyond his time that he alone can see something everyone is missing but maybe not.
  23. utiz4321
    It doesnt have to go away but it will eventually not be a factor in the wireless industry. Unless sprint gets a massive injection of cash it won't be an important player in the wireless industry. Son already tried shopping for investment and no one bit.
  24. utiz4321
    They are not going to share networks. Project fi hasn't been a stellar success and there isnt a good economic argument for it. Hopefully, t mobile can transform into a third player without sprint otherwise we are stuck with the duopoly.
  25. utiz4321
    If they pull this off I think the home ISP argument becomes better.
×
×
  • Create New...