utiz4321

6 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

Thanks for this misinformation.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation. 

1 hour ago, nexgencpu said:

T-Sprint will not add a higher count of jobs vs lost, at the end of the day, will be net loss of jobs. (by the thousands)

Too much overlap, even in the best scenario it will be a job loser.

Long term that is less clear. 

Sprint and Tmobile are not going to lie to regulators. The risks are too great. Even if it lead to 10000 jobs lost the economy has been adding 100000s a month. Chill out. 

2 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:

So, everyone is supposed to just be cool that many jobs could be lost because of this merger ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know what you mean. It is business. GM is paying for bad strategic decisions. And if these employees are to lose their jobs now is the best time in the past 20 years for them to do so. The economy is adding manufacturing jobs like crazy. 

2 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Consolidation leads to jobs lost. Considering he will be up for re-election in the upcoming year, losing thousands more jobs will not help his cause.

Jobs are being lost all the time. The jobs numbers you see reported are NET.  That means minus jobs lost plus jobs added. 

1 hour ago, nexgencpu said:

I believe GM being in a bind and laying off nearly 15k employees might have an adverse affect on this being approved.

Also, it's clear that ATT has fully taken advantage of owning Time Warner by forcing competition to essentially remove certain content (HBO and a few others) this also does not bold well for big M&A deals in 2019.

Especially since this administrations whole schtick is big corp jobs.

Not going to have anything to do with Sprint /T-Mobile. Different industries and the fact that GM can't sell their cars doesn't mean much in the overall economic picture by itself. 

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

The FCC restarted the 180 day merger clock. All indications are that the merger will be approved. And no roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile is because they never expanded LTE coverage to match CDMA coverage. Also they can no longer roam on Verizon CDMA after 2019. That leaves them with a big hole in voice coverage. Now they are scrambling like mad to make up for their criminal neglect of the network.

It wasn't criminal neglect it was a bad bet on the Nextel merger and Wimax. Sprint was doomed by those strtegic missteps. 

32 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

Sprint will need to expand at some point in order to stay relevant.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

That is the point. They can't so they won't stay relevant.  They will go bust or become a leap wireless, strickly focused on the low end. Lets hope this goes through. 

I dont know what they mean exactly. The networks have already been combined in project fi. A great deal of both subscriber bases have phones that can use either spectrum. From the end user point of view I dont see what would take three years. 

Just now, RedSpark said:

Couldn’t he pay off those loans instead of investing in ARM, Uber and Boston Dynamics (called it Boston Robotics by mistake earlier)?

Maybe. But he isn't a charity. There was better use for his capital than investing in a Sprint with T-mobile. 

10 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

I’m happy Masa bought Sprint.

I’m not happy that he refused to invest capital in it to the degree that it negatively impacted the value of his actual investment... and mine as a shareholder.

As a result: Sprint is becoming part of T-Mobile: “New T-Mobile”. T-Mobile is not becoming part of Sprint.

If this merger doesn’t go through, Masa will have to open the spigot on funding Sprint unless he can find another suitable merger partner... which could offer a worse merger deal than T-Mobile.

Or he could let things go the way they are and everything that Sprint said to the FCC as far as its smaller coverage area, limited 5G deployment and shrinking competitive scale (vs the competition) will come to be.

It wasn't that he didn't invest the capital is was that he couldn't. The convents with the banks he got the loans from to buy sprint would allow him to sink more money into sprint with out paying them off first. 

12 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

That upload doesn't impress. People do more uploading at those things

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Like texing and driving, uploads can wait. Very few people care that something up loads instantly. Why woulf they, the point of uploading something is that people can view it whenever. 

12 hours ago, greenbastard said:

It's not. Which is why I don't have Sprint anymore.

Unfortunately, your "I'm always right" attitude blinds you from seeing the benefits of having good upload speeds.

Whatvare you talking about? For the vast majority of people, spring's upload speeds work fine. Your complete inability to separate you needs from the vast majority of people and tendency to generalize your experience to the majority of people makes talking to you extremely annoying. 

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Slow uploads consume a heck of a lot more battery than fast uploads over LTE.

Uploading a 5 minute, 4k video on a fair B41 signal could take HOURS. Uploading that same video on Verizon, At&t, or T-Mobile usually takes a few minutes.

That's a bigger difference on battery performance.

 

 

For the sake of this argument....yes. Yes there are.

Then sprint isnt for you. 99 percent of people don't care. Stop complaining about it and use a service that fits you needs. 

8 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The presentation was an admission of certain facts/truths that I was hoping wouldn’t be true.

I was hoping Sprint’s “secret sauce” Mobilitie build would defy gravity and the naysayers... it didn’t unfortunately. (Page 3)

I was hoping Sprint’s debt load wouldn’t be insurmountable, but it appears that the company is actually losing competitive scale as time passes (Page 10) and that its debt load (Page 15) will prevent Sprint from making enough capital investments to reverse that trend. (Page 12)

I was hoping there would be more cost-cutting that could help turn things around, but we seem to be near the end of that now (Page 11).

The most stunning admission however is about Sprint’s Postpaid Customer Survivability over 18 months (Page 7)... it’s redacted, but it’s prefaced by “only”... which sounds pretty bad. There’s not a sufficient scale of loyal customers. That’s a death spiral.

As for investment/return... Masa never gave Sprint the necessary capital infusions for it to truly compete. That would have been the “investment/return.” If this merger fails to go through, Masa will be holding nearly the entire bag on this asset which he failed to adequately capitalize. At that point he’ll be relegated to getting a worse deal from another partner (given these disclosures) or be stuck with Sprint as a drag on his portfolio and reputation in its current state. At this point as a Sprint shareholder, I say he deserves either.

You only had to look at the fact that they cut CAPEX in 2016 and 2017 to understand what was going on. The point where Marcelo misled/lied to investors about their network investments in 2015/16 was the breaking point for me. I think the only reason the FEC didn't slap fines on him was because he misled with the consent of Softbank, the majority share Holder.  Sprint has a choice: they can be the discount carrier and be unable to invest in their network, they can invest in their network and loss subs by keeping their prices competitive, some magic fairy can come and dump a ton of money in their laps and not care about what kind of ROI they get or merge with T mobile.  I favor the merger because it offers the best chance for utilizing all of sprint 2.5 resources. Here we are, over 4 years after soft bank bought both Sprint and clear, with less than 50 percent of sprint's 2.5 spectrum having been deployed. How anyone can think this company can be a viable 4th competitor on it's own is beyond me. 

8 hours ago, mystica555 said:

Well, as specified before, I do share photo and video with friends.  A lot of the time, I explicitly take my phone out of my pocket to snap a few pictures then take a short, say 30 second video.  That 30 second 1080p video at Default quality in OpenCamera, is nearly 70 megabytes in size.  4K? nearly 200. 

Photos that come out of it are also similarly large, due to my penchant for taking HDR. I tell OpenCamera to keep all 3 HDR stops as individual photos, because Google Photos then goes and makes a more artistic looking HDR image than the phone can; the phone's onboard HDR is more 'here is what it actually looks like, including the really bright and dark parts' vs 'super-saturated artistic photo' so I rely on Google to make the better image.  I also have software I use on my own computer if I really need to do something like a large photo-stitch that nothing on the phone can do reasonably. 

So to outline a scenario the other day: Photos of a train bridge for our light rail I hadn't been to before. 30 second clip of the train going over the bridge, panning around the shot. 25 more photos of that train at the station, departing the station, then the view while crossing at a walk-through crossing gate, the station up close, at distance. My friend in South Dakota is a rail-fan and hasn't been back to Colorado to see the new Aurora light rail since leaving the state back in 2009. 

Video clip: 73 megabytes. 

Photos on average:  94% JPEG quality. 4.5 MB per each of "-2EV" "0" "+2EV" and the photo app's own merging of the 3 together as 4 images total.

25 snaps = 100 actual photos uploaded, all between 4 and 5 megabytes each. So we'll say ~4.5 for purpose of calculating here, and round slightly.

73+112 = 185 megabytes for what essentially takes me 5 minutes to walk around and shoot. 

Now, we compare "time until I can share with my friend" or perhaps "time until I can be safe knowing that if I DO manage to drop my phone on the train seat and forget it like I did with my HTC-G1 that I won't lose photos in the process",  in best and worst case scenarios. 

Sprint, B41. Best case scenario, sitting next to a tower, about 11 megabits/sec. 2.25 minutes. 
Sprint, ECLR/EPCS 5x5 in either band: about 8 megabits/second, but the uplink quality varies less and it won't go from "sorta working" to "dead" if you turn your head 90 degrees. 
T-Mobile, B2 15x15 : Best case scenario, again next to a tower, 35 megabits/sec. 42 seconds, not including round-trip delay between each file as the backend at Google finishes 1 file, and another is sent. 

Approximate 95% Worst case scenario as experienced with each carrier; there are differences of course, but I will provide a range of what has been seen in similar cases at cell-edge where things go sort of crappy.

Sprint B41: 0.5 megabits/second = 50 minutes. 
Sprint EPCS/CLR : 2-4 megabits/second = 6-12 minutes 
T-Mobile B2 15x15: = 10 megabits/second = 2.5 minutes
T-Mobile B12 5x5 = 5 megabits/sec = 5 minutes as it's lightly loaded and depreferenced when other signals are available.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to shoot the video and photos, quickly walk over to sit down at a bench, then as soon as possible compile them into an album to then send. I don't want to wait nearly an hour, if in a bad area for signal. I'm ok anywhere between 1 and 10 minutes really. Past that, it gets a bit tedious. 

More timeslices in the uplink on B41 and the best-case scenario would more closely match a 10x10 LTE deployment instead of a 18x2 split as it seems we get now per 20MHz TDD channel.. 

Whocares? Why do you care if it takes an hour or 20 mins to upload your photos? Are there people on the internet breathlessly refreshing what ever page you are uploading to, hoping to be the first to see these photos? If so, you are unique and sprint is not a good pick for your needs. But 99 percent of people wouldn't care. 

1 minute ago, Dkoellerwx said:

Qualified because you speak in absolutes when that is not possible. 

I think it is clear that everything here is opinion. I think it is also clear that everything anyone ever says in the future tense is opinion. But good looking out. 

1 minute ago, Dkoellerwx said:

* Is your opinion

Well, you didnt write it. 

On 9/28/2018 at 1:13 PM, mystica555 said:

Video. If I buy an unlimited plan, and I take 1080p video, perhaps I require it to be archived at Google while on the go, so that if I don't get to wifi "soon" i still can share the video with friends.  I also take large amounts of photos on the go, and also like video would prefer to wait 1 minute for 50 pictures to sync, vs 10, or perhaps never at all if I'm in an area where uploads commonly max at half a megabit.

If you arent stremaing the video why do you care how fast it uploads? 

On 9/28/2018 at 3:59 PM, notsrealinc said:

Here's a link to the FCC Filings from where the coverage map and monopole news is from:

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092573429427/Sprint Ex Parte - FULL Dow Draper Presentation - 9.21.2018 - REDACTED.pdf

There's a lot of other stuff in here too.

Sprint can not succeed as an idependant company. The required investment is too high and the return isnt there. 

4 hours ago, S4GRU said:

And the same was said years ago.  Yet.  Here.  We.  Are.

Still going.  Craig Moffet has been disappointed for years.

Not that it matters.  The merger is very likely to happen.

Here we are with a company that is limping along and is not likely to make the kinds of investments it needs to make to have a competitive network, just like a year ago. If you add subs at the price of topline revenue growth you are eating your future. 

1 minute ago, Dkoellerwx said:

We've already seen them turn the corner on network investments revenue. For the next several years they would be fine. If investment continues at the current rate and they can get subscriber numbers up, they would absolutely be able to compete. You assume they will continue to fall behind in subscribers. If that happens, sure they wouldn't last for more than a few more years, but that assumption is not a guarantee. 

Not with the kind investment they will need to make. Top line revenue isnt growing. Cash flow has been improving do to operating cost reduction. You can't cut your way to growth, it has never happened and never will. 

6 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

It was more to get support for the merger then anything

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

They wont be able to compete. I don't why anyone thinks that a company has: the highest debt load in the industry, falling service revenue, the worst margins in the industry, the worst scale in the industry and spectrum assets that require a denser macro network than the competition, stands a chance as an independent player. It is merger or irrelevancy for Sprint. 

6 hours ago, derrph said:

I’d it goes into 2020, who will really care at that point besides Sprint and T-Mobile. Both their networks will be pretty built out. I would assume at that time Sprint will have a pretty strong 5G network....if they keep investing their 6b per year. 

I dont think sprint will have a strong 5g network. They will have a 5g network and it will be somewhat more dense in some markets than today but they dont have the resources to do it right. That has been their problem since the Nextel merger. 

7 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:

This has turned into a ass kissing contest if you ask me

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Turned into? Everything that requires government approval is an ass kissing contest. It is called, regulatory capture. 

1 hour ago, NYC126 said:

The way things are going with Pai lately I wouldn't be surprised if he votes this thing down in a decisive  3-2 vote. Furthermore, he is a Verizon agent and I wouldn't think they want one big entity with that massive amount of 2.5ghz  and 1900mhz for 5G.

He once worked for Verizon, he is not currently a verizon "agent". That would imply that he is taking payments from Verizon and unless you have evidence to that effect that comes close to libel.