utiz4321

In my opinion its worth that and some, it's hard to argue with what Sprint potentially can end up being, the foundation is mostly in place and we all know here what's truly possible. Let's just hope Sprint finds the funds to build on it's solid foundation.

If buffet puts that kind of money into sprint he would be agreeing with you.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I kinda did already...

Bought at just under 4 bucks a share... *cough* *cough*

Would you buy it at 8.5? That is the question. I bought it at around 2 back in NV 1.0 days, it was definitely undervalued then.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Market cap vs what the company is "actually" worth is quite different, at this point in time, its hard to gauge what Sprint with its over 200Mhz of spectrum (and sizable dept) is truly worth.

 

Its probably not just a stock deal if it turned out to be on the high side of the reported investment.

It can't be a loan. Sprint's balance sheet is already messed up. Market caps is what the market believes the company to be valued at. If you think it is under valued by 20 billion you should invest.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reuters reported upto $20B.

Sprint only has a market cap of 30 billion. I think an imvestment of two thirds the value of the company would be a hell of a bet. Hard to see why anyone would do that.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

And they will raise prices even further. I bet they're pissed VZW lowered theirs where they did. Now VZW knows Tmo wants to go up a little more, I wouldn't be surprised if VZW pulls back on their pricing once they capture the share they're looking for. And once Tmo gets a little head room to raise further, bam!

 

Sprint, the fourth carrier, is really going to determine where prices are going to be competitively. We see the Top 3 will push the pricing up. I've never been for a Tmo and Sprint marriage. But I'm getting more and more against it. I think we can see exactly what will happen without a fourth carrier.

 

It's actually quite brilliant how Legere has played millions and millions of people into thinking he was some sort of consumer advocate. The Wireless Ralph Nader. They would have blindly agreed for him to take competition out of the market, because he was so trusted to bring competition, even out of consolidation and reduced competition. But we knew he was just another corporate charlatain who just is only looking out for his corporate interest. And that is his job. But he convinced large swaths of people into believing he was looking out for them. Largely by swearing about the competition and giving away some freebies. He really played it well. "I'm gonna stick it to the Duopoly!"

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Sprint has already indicated that they will raise prices as soon as they can. They have said current price levels are unsustainable. If VZW raise prices expect to see the industry follow.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Where were you? Tukee is my part of the woods.

 

 

That was in Chandler mall. It is the first sign of a mini macro I have seen in the valley. Speeds were above 60 mbs.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

Well, that is helpful too.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Thanks

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Quick question. What does the MM mean here?

 

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

So, you are in favor of just a few gigantic "walled gardens" for content and delivery? And no Net Neutrality protections for consumers and society at large?

 

AJ

We have had discussion on net neutrality before. You are pro and I don't think the government should decide how profits are divided up between content and infurstructor companies. Do people value being able to access their content quickly and reliably from anywhere they are located more that have more choices on content? I don't know and I don't the government does either.

 

I would like to point out that in the history of the internet net neutrality has never had the force of law except a few years under the Obama administration. In all that time before that date nothing like the apocalyptic vision of the internet came into being and there is no reason to think it would, because the consumer values the openness of the internet. The closest you can come to a walled garden is the app store but even then every iphone has a web browser.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

The same will be true of time warner content soon, They will have to negotiate with ATT. I dont see problems with that.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Antitrust concerns are not limited to consumer interests. They extend to market influence over content providers. The larger the merged cable companies -- even if that only minimally affects competition at the consumer level -- the more likely the merged cable companies can make or break any content and content providers.

 

AJ

Content providers have a plethora of delivery methods, many of which are under utilized because of the relatively good relationships between content and deviled companies. A good example of the is HBO now and how long it took HBO to take that step.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Verizon and AT&T compete directly with the local cable company in many cases. In my area, I have Verizon FiOS, and Cox is also available (but significantly more expensive for whatever reason).

 

- Trip

That is my point exactly. Who cares if all the cable companies merged together. In the vast majority of markets it wouldnt make any difference in the number of providers people have to choose from.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

 

I mentioned this name theory while back...

 

 

As for the idea by Arysyn of a combination between Comcast, Charter, Sprint, and Verizon, At first I don't think it will fly. Just looking at the video subscribers alone below, Comcast alone takes up 1/3 of the pie.

​

 

 

 

 

TS

I don't get the anti-trust argument against cable companies merging. They dont compete directly. Cable companies are local monopolies who compete with sat. And telephone companies to deliver content.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

RadioShack creditors' lawsuit says Sprint killed 6,000 jobs

 

"Sprint Corp used confidential information from its alliance with RadioShack Corp to open competing mobile phone stores, dooming the comeback by the electronics retailer and destroying jobs, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday by RadioShack creditors."

 

Not sure how much merit this lawsuit has, but claiming $500 Million in damages is totally nuts.

I don't get why the loss of 6000 jobs is the problem of the creditors.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

this whole thread has reports of people getting contacted.

Most of those post I have read here are people who haven't been contacted. In any case I have not and I applied about a month ago.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Negative...

 

SoftBank would sell off all of its shares to a newly formed company newSprint where charter and Comcast own it.

 

I'll say it's as messy AF no doubt

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Ummm... no. That makes no sense and if SoftBank bought T-Mobile they would have exactly zero credibility in the market place. I can't even think of an example that even comes close to what you proposing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone receive one or receive any communication from sprint after applying on the webpage?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Comcast and Charter bites...

 

I suspect SoftBank will fully divest. And will move on TMO

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

I don't think so. I think ATT is having success with the purchase of DTV and cable is looking to achieve some of the same kinds of benefits while sprint is looking for money to build out it's network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've noticed a repeating grammatical mistake (well, I've noticed loads of them but this one over and over): the correct word is "infrastructure." I have no idea why anyone would attempt to spell it "infrastructor."

 

Not trying to be a d@ck but proper grammar is exceedingly important, especially in any sort of written communication.

It is funny you still knew what it meant. English isn't my first language and I think that was a simple spelling mistake, not a grammatical error. But thanks.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I personally love Trump's response. Cities shouldn't be allowed to hold up our infurstructor projects.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

"To whom".

 

It doesn't matter what you think of my aesthetic sensibility. It's the prevailing sentiment embodied in zoning regulations that matter. Case in point: if your community has a distaste for street lights and put in zoning regulations to forbid them, they don't need you to agree as long as that is a prevailing sentiment. There is not a thing you can do about it. Certainly not circumventing the zoning laws to build street lights on right-of-way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We agree on that, I just think living in a time before streets were illuminated at night by street lights is moronic and wouldnt want to hear my neighbor complain about being mugged at night.

 

And utilities and infurstructor can be built on right of ways. There even exist something called eminent domain were You are only entitled to compensation and your property can be siezed.

 

Also, be a little more cynical about zoning laws. They arent as high and lofty of a thing as you make it out.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Okay I believe you when you say you're a homeowner. But where did you get the idea that what you care about supersedes what other people want? Zoning laws are supposed to reflect the prevailing preferences of citizens. When what you want violate those then you WILL NEED TO CARE ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES. If your sentiment becomes a popular one then there is a democratic mechanism to change zoning laws for the social good. We live in a democratic society under the rule of law and it's certainly not okay for unscrupulous businesses to sidestep regulations just to boost their bottom line. One person's idiosyncratic preference shouldn't override prevailing community preferences.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersede anyone's. I have stated my opinion and ask that if there are areas and groups of other people that strangle wireless deployment with retarded permiting and zoning regulations that those people : stop complaining about how bad their service is, how few choices for wireless providers there are, how other countries are more technically advance and complaining about how the US sucks in wireless broadband access because THEY ARE THE CAUSE!. I am fine with people having other priorities and if the majority of people want to live in a country stuck in time fine, just don't be a hypocrite and complain about it.

 

Also, regardless of what zoning laws are suppose to be, they are often tools of special interests.

 

 

And again "ugly" to who? Not me. Your Aesthetics are off. Are street lights ugly?

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Have you ever seen a Sprint camouflage site? There is a town 80 miles west of me that is filled with them.

 

Sprint has no problem following local ordinances because they've done it in the past. Like I said, this notion that Sprint camouflage sites are a huge burden is baloney. If they were, they wouldn't be doing them or would have focused on coverage, not capacity. Hell, they got areas in Vegas in which one site is a palm tree and the next one isn't. In Fresno, Sprint has macro sites all over the place, but one totally random flag pole antenna with a huge American flag inside a car dealership lot. Sprint does camouflage sites at random, with or without local ordinances forcing them to.

 

And before you ramble off about "Sprint could add more if not for added costs"... remember that Sprint is currently not expanding or adding many macro sites to begin with. So don't even go there

 

At this point, you're just rambling for the sake of rambling. I'm done with you.

You are missing the point. It isnt that it never passes the cost benefit analysis to put up a camouflage tower or small cell, it is that it pass a CBA less often and therefore marginal areas don't get improved service. I dont have a problem with the way towers look, I actually like them. I dont see why your aesthetic sensibility should have precedence over mine.

 

Oh, and if you were a sponsor of this site you would know sprint is expanding the number of sites they have.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

No, it is truly insulting. Because it is very much the opposite of what you say. Even in small markets, the vast majority of stations *require* a meteorology degree to been be considered. There are some grandfathered in, but just about everyone I know in the business is a degreed meteorologist.

 

Sent from my LG G5

No, you don't understand. Greenbastard is the font of wisdom, he knows the truth about every industry, where every new macro, where small cell is going up and what degrees are held by whom in every industry. Bow to his wisdom.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk