utiz4321

45 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

Sprint has already expanded it's 5G deployment prospects given how when initially announced sprint said they would only be deploying their 5G in Manhattan for the NYC market but the first site we found was in a purely residential area far away from Manhattan. I'm also confused about where you get your numbers from about what percentage of sites are getting 5G. We shouldn't make statements if we can't back them up. Just looking at their 5G deployment map alone you can see that Sprint's main focus is cities and their suburbs within the next 5 years.

I never said Sprint's brand isn't tarnished, I simply said their brand right now is not as bad as T-Mobile's at its worst. T-Mobile began their turnaround by investing in their network and then offering competitive prices to match which is exactly the same path Sprint is taking right now by investing over $1 Billion per quarter. I never claimed to be pro or anti-merger, I am just interested in the facts of both sides.

Edit: I forgot to mention that literally only T-Mobile is deploying 5G outside of metro areas and even then it'll be barely faster than what you can currently get using LTE. We should come to grips with the fact that "true 5G" will almost exclusively deployed in cities for at least the first few years. I'm fairly certain that the larger carriers will be dependent on smaller rural carriers for 5G roaming in rural areas

It is an estimate based on the statement john saw has made on deploying massive mimo on "thousands" of sites and him not saying "10s of thousands". I think it is reasonable to assume that means around 10000 given how the company is known for making exaggerated statements on it's network investments.i think you are wrong on the brand issue but even of it was slightly better that T-Mobile at it worse, how much debt did t-mobile have when it started it's network investment and rebranding campaign? Far, far less that Sprint, where is their degrading money going to come from? Sprint has two roads to walk down, the cheap city carrier like what cricket and metro use to be or the merger. The merger gives us a killer 5g network that is truly nationa wide. I vote for that. 

37 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

I don't think anyone is anti merger.. 1st not 1 carrier currently at this point is bringing 5G to other areas other then the city that we're annouced and even in those cities its questionable how widespread it will be so your argument on that part is irrelevant.. 2nd. Massive Mimo isn't cheap to install, so that would happen over time. Sprints brand is showing signs of live again in the last few Quarters nothing crazy, but it's something

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Sprint's brand isnt good. It is far, far behind every carrier. The can brand about being most improved but when you start negative and people view you slightly less negative that doesnt make your brand good. 

I know massive mimo isn't cheap and sprint doesnt have the resources to deploy it properly. That is my argument. The merger has to happen if we are going to have at least one carrier that will deploy 5g on what any reasonable person would understand to be a national level. 

5 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Your post is referring to scalability..volte will have issues just like any other carrier but Sprint can't afford to have that bad rep again so they're allowing you to opt out if it's really bad nothing wrong with that

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Volte will not work in my market at all. You lose LTE signal about 10-15 percent of the time outside and 30-40 percent inside and I live in the 6th largest metro area in the US. This goes far beyond any issues others had with VoLTE. 

1 minute ago, Paynefanbro said:

Let's not pretend that every carrier didn't have opt-in VoLTE. Verizon had opt-in and AT&T started with even fewer markets than Sprint is starting with. The only exception was T-Mobile and that was because they had a fallback option. Even then their call reliability was horrible for years until they managed to fill in the gaps. To your point about not having the resources to build out a proper 5G network, I'm confused about what that even means when they're deploying a proper 5G network right now. And while yes the Sprint brand is tarnished that doesn't mean they can't fix that. T-Mobile's brand was in an even worse position than Sprint's at one point and to some T-Mobile is still a brand they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole but they are doing fine now.

I dont think so. It is onky being deployee in urban cores. Not even suburbs are getting 5 g love by enlarge. If they were serious about building a 5g network 75 percent of their towers would be palmed for massive Mimo upgrades, as it is it is closer to a quarter.  You anti merger people live in a fantasy world if you think sprint will be anything more than a metro or cricket circa 2013 if the merger doesnt go through. 

P.s.. There brand is still trash compared to even T mobile worst year. And T-Mobile recovered after billions and years of rebranding. Where are those billions going to come for sprint? 

Just now, Paynefanbro said:

It's not one city though. Sprint just chose to highlight their largest market this time around. City after city is showing average download speeds nearly doubling according to RootMetrics.

It also doesnt give them the resources to build out a 5g network properly, restore their brands or come up with a market place niche. I was asking back in 2014 why would someone buy sprint amd cam only come up with price. That is still the case. How is VoLTE going to work on their network across most markets? There is a reason people have to opt. Into it. 

On 8/16/2018 at 6:44 AM, tyroned3222 said:

I thought I'd do the honors lol and whats crazy this is only the beginning.. this seems to be their first real big push towards improving the Network across the Nation

 

https://twitter.com/SprintCTO/status/1030080324217102336?s=19

 

 

Still need the merger ?

 

Well, Sprint gets to check this one off as a big win

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. One city doesnt make a competitive nation wide network. 

10 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:

Wanted to give a quick summary on what sprint has done since the merger was announced and see what you guys think :

 

Q1 Sprint spent 1.1 billion capex on network improvements. In Q2 ( Sprint is rumored to spend 1.5 billion) much needed..

 

Sprint is aggressively pushing towards network competition.. Sprint has been very close to at&t on national average speeds..this was when band 41 was around 50% complete

Now Sprint should be able to pass at&t as they get close to 70% and beyond

As Terrell pointed out higher uplink is active in his market Ericsson

 

I've been seeing people post that Sprint in adding new tower in Reno Nevada which they havent done so in 10 years.. and now also confused as to why Sprint is merging with TMO

 

 

Marcelo was recently interviewed on Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-08-09/softbank-coo-claure-talks-turnaround-efforts-t-mobile-deal-video

And he was asked what if the merger is not approved.. and he said we have Analyze That.. and I think part of the analyzing was what they are doing now on the network in case the merger doesn't go thru... But Sprint is making strides now they should of made in 2015/2016

 

Wasn't he CEO in 2016? 

2 hours ago, dro1984 said:

I saw in the news headlines today, from Law 360 news,  that Senator Mike Lee from Utah has asked the FCC and DOJ to weight the benefits of the proposed Sprint and T Mobile merger.     The article seemed to state that the Senator is on the same side as Sprint and T Mobile (pro merger?)

This might be a good positive for the merger!  

once in,  You can hit the "x" to read the partial article.   

Senator Lee (Utah) wants the DOJ and FCC to weight the benefits of merger. 

Mike Lee is very libertarian when it comes to economics. I would have been surprised if he didn't weight in positively. 

3 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

First off, I don't know what part of my comment your protesting? Sprint going at it alone? Or my speculation on how much market share they could end up with 3-5 years down the road with the proper investments from Softbank into Sprint as a standalone company?

 All of my comments are based on speculation, and my guestimations are just that, guesses. Sorry if you intercepted them as facts, that's on you.

Don't see them (Softbank) pumping $20B+ into the Sprint network having three other competitors to fight and end up with just over a quarter of the market share.

Softbank's intentions are now clear, Sprint needs to self sustain until the merger is approved. They are not going to invest further into Sprint until they have no other option.

These are my opinions, simple as that...

No one has any intension of pumping 20 billion into sprint because they won't get a return on their money. I am 95 percent confident of that. 

Obviously I objected to the part of your statement the "100 percent" was refering to as i called that out. 

5 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

They can 100% go at it alone, but I kinda understand Softbank point of view, they do not want to go on a 3-5 year journey for 30% marketshare.

What do you base this on? What market research? I'll bet zero. Nothing is 100 percent in business or in life.

8 hours ago, dro1984 said:

DOJ now is ok with 3 National Wireless carriers per Washington Post

 

Feds Provide boost to the Sprint / T-Mobile merger chances

That is the NY post. A much more reliable source than the washington post. Lol. 

Was the New CFO an AI program? He certainly sounded like it. 

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Unexpected development here...

Not really, how hard is it to changes some signage after the merger? 

2 hours ago, Flompholph said:

Because you don't get a better network everywhere. Look at rootmetric WV map are you telling me tmobile gives a shift about where I live and play. Tmobile doesn't care about rural areas how will the merger help it won't it will hurt.

Not according to their stated plans. Part of the sale to regulators is a rural build out. If they don't do that, I would imagine they would run into problems with regulators. 

1 hour ago, BlueAngel said:

Don't know why people would leave the merger is going to be great for service I look forward to seeing B41 and B26 properly optimized plus all of the goodness that comes along with T-Mobile and their 600MHz.

This exactly. If the merger goes through t-mobile has committed to giving sprint customers the same plans or better ones and both customer bases get a better network. Why would you leave? Seems like a stupid move. 

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Because if you're not offering public WiFi, why would you go out of your way to set up a Magic Box??

Because you simply have to plug it in to a power outlet near a window. 

6 hours ago, greenbastard said:

You know what else works great? WiFi. It can do everything the MagicBox does today.

Nobody is questioning if the device works. I'm simply questioning its purpose. The box should have never been deployed for residential purposes. Retail? Sure. But giving these away to residential customers was just a waste of money and a fast way of getting your customers to abuse your network.

Hopefully T-Mobile makes these devices obsolete and uses the entire swath of EBS/BRS spectrum for 5G purposes. 

Except for a soft hand off to thw macro network. It can't do that, but other than that, there exactly the same. 

42 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Good Article online about the Sprint / T-Mobile merger:

It's complementary to Sprint and how far they've come in the last couple years....

Why the Sprint and T-Mobile merger could be good for you

The best part is:  “Sprint holds a massive 150 MHz of nationwide 2.5 GHz spectrum, which uniquely positions them to provide an outstanding consumer experience,” he wrote. “To date, most of that spectrum has been underutilized due to lack of funding, changes in leadership and unorthodox deployment strategies.”   Unorthodox   ... ?

You know it is funny, i think anyone that has wrote an MSM article about sprint actually uses Sprint. 

2 hours ago, JThorson said:

We don't know the reason behind it so you can't just blame Sprint. For all we know it could be T-Mobile as well.

It doesnt matter who's fault it is, sprint, more specifically Marcelo, made a commitment and failed to delivery onve again. 

4 hours ago, BlueAngel said:

Nope still roaming on Verizon when I lose service which isn't often.

Another failure of execution I guess. Anyone who thinks sprint can survive as an independent company should look to it track record. 

Has anyone experienced T mobile roaming yet? I think we are past the 60 day mark now. 

14 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Sprint does not need to be ultra competitive in every single market to be successful. They just need to be the fastest in the big cities (which they can achieve in almost no time considering they have all the building blocks in place) All the other carriers are running on ALL CYLINDERS, while Sprint has tons and tons of headroom. (4x4MIMO, Massive MIMO, 4xCA, 5xCA etc) If Sprint went balls to the wall starting TODAY in most major cities, they would easily match or surpass the competition.

But unfortunately, that will not bold well for their pity tour in congress. You know "funding" is a huuuge issue, also, why would they do that at this stage in the game? It would take YEARS to build up customer base to a substantial level where Softbank is comfortable.

 

This is only true is sprint wants to be a leap wireless of 5g.  Unfortunately, that will leave us with two national players and two leaps. That woukd be an awful market. Sprint and T mobile are not competitive on their own. I admired what t mobile was able to do, but it lacks a road map to 5g with out sprint and sprint lacks the resources with out T mobile. 

The 4 national carrier market is a fantasy and the market keeps telling us this. It is 2 national carriers and 2 leap/metro type carriers or 3 national carriers in the 5g world. I think three national carriers is a better rout and so does the market. 

7 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Exactly.

Given SoftBank’s original intent was always to merge with T-Mobile, it should have provided the necessary capital to ensure Sprint would have the majority/controlling stake should it happen or to be a stronger competitor should the merger fail. It’s inexplicable to me why Masa didn’t ensure this.

It is easy, because investing in sprint as a stand alone player in 2013 didnt make any sense. Masa said as much, he said that if AT&T had bought tmobile he wouldnt have invested in Sprint. Sprint would have been more attractive as a stand alone player covering the low in market under a market where they only had to compete with AT&T and Verizon. He wanted to get the market to three equal players and reap the rewards of creating that third player, there was no other oppertunity in the US wireless market. They spent the last 5 years proving that. We are getting to three players, one way or the other. The good news is, that if their is a market opportunity created by only having three players dish is out there still. 

20 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

If Sprint kept its capex at its current level for the next two or three quarters (highly unlikely at this point) they would be perfectly fine and in a good position to launch 5G in a big way.

 Sprint could spend 7 billion a year for the next 5 years and their is no guarantee or even likelihood of them catching up to or surpassing the big two becauee they will be spending 10 billion a year. A dollar of CAPEX is a dollar of capex and sprint doesnt have access to any better engineers than anyone else. 

Even if their network improved on their foot print to become substantially better than their competition they would still have to compete on price because their foot print wouls be substantially smaller that everyone else's. Sprint, as a stand alone company, will go the way of leap wireless. 

4 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Adding another 5x5 swath of spectrum that a tiny portion of your users can take advantage of for years makes no sense. Sprint can barely walk and chew gun at the same time. Why delay or slow down deployment of B41 to deploy spectrum that will be congested almost instantly. 

The cost of purchasing and deploying 600mhz will end up costing upwards of 10billion dollars. I'd way rather see that 10billion be spent on forward thinking established B41 than 600mhz.

Hopefully they don't attempt to chew gun, that would likely end badly.