utiz4321

5 minutes ago, though said:

I know enough about how bandwidth works to know what works best for my needs, as well as many others. 2 Bazillion down and 1 trickle up simply doesn't make sense for everyone's needs. HEYYY look how fast our network is..... we can pump out 200Mb/s down!! (but cough cough, upload peaks out at 8Mb). So when you are in a congested area or a spotty service area (which there's plenty), you might have a 3Mb/s download speed (which is ok for most everyone), however upload is at .20 Mb/s which blows.

I'm not speaking for everyone, however fast upload speeds and low ping times makes a world of difference in the real world of the internet...

Your not speaking for anyone. Sprint's job is to manage the network it a way makes sense for their user base and they do a good job of it. If you are up loading a picture spoiler it can continue to happen when you put it in your pocket.  Video calls are about the most taxing thing you can do on the upload side and it works just fine with sprint's current configuration. 

12 minutes ago, though said:

Ya, no thanks. Sprint must know something that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile don't??? I don't think so...

Nope. Please learn about what you are talking about before you start posting nonsense all over the public space. The other carriers dont have the option of allocating spectrum the war sprint can or they would. It has nothing to do with what one of the companies "know" amd the others do not and all about the way the spectrum is used. 

3 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Wouldn't it also be the case that if Sprint didn't do this, it wouldn't perform as well in the RootMetrics/OpenSignal/Ookla Download rankings, which is what most people seem to pay the most attention to?

Yup

3 hours ago, though said:

You sound like the retentions dept. of my Cable provider when i switched to Fiber 

Stick with them, they sound intelligent :). 

2 minutes ago, though said:

Some may say that, others don't. If you are constantly sharing/uploading videos and pics, upload is where it's at...

No. The math says that. Which is why the designed their network the way they did. The amount of data used in uploads are a fraction of downloads. 

6 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

Can't they design it to be faster for uploads as well?

Why would they? They dont need the bandwidth on the upload side. You down load far more than you upload. 

35 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

What is wrong with Sprint why is it so slow?

It is a deliberate choice on the part of sprint on how it uses it's 2.5 spectrum. They can allocate the spectrum Used in their channels in multiple ways and they have choosen to maximize download speeds because you simply don't need as much band width on the upload side. 

24 minutes ago, JThorson said:

We don't know it will actually go through...

If it doesnt 5g is really going to suck. 

My v30 just got done with doing a network update and resetting on its own. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to test the roaming anytime soon. 

21 minutes ago, dnicekid said:

Let’s not. Let’s just keep it simple. Son was hoping for a quick turnaround... it didn’t work rather than take a chance he chose to get out. 

Your point about Warren is exactly what I am saying. Many kept pointing to Sprints debt, as you mentioned earlier (point) debt isn’t the only part. He chose to get out. 

You my missed my point. Sprint's debt is burdensome, to the point that they wont be able to pay it back and continue to invest. Sprint is me, VZW is warren buffet. I thought that was clear but maybe not. 

11 minutes ago, dnicekid said:

Son just wanted out.  I keep hearing about debt, if Sprint has 34billion and vzw $120bil in debt what’s the problem? Sprint has the spectrum to get better whereas vzw can only buy more then deploy.  My point is in comparison they all have about the same amount of debt in relation to the size of their companies. -Son just wanted out because it’s a long term investment not a quick turnaround in the American market like he thought.

Yeah, let's not look at the free cash flow, revenues, dividen payouts or anything else when we think about how burdensome the respective debt loads are. Let's just look at total debt, because that is the whole story. Look, warren buffet has more debt than I do, I must be doing better than him!

1 hour ago, jamesinclair said:

I hope the government shuts this down again

 

LOL, thats not how mergers work.

 

(laughing at the corporate line, not the messenger)

 

 

Yup we should have keep 8 wireless carriers with an average of 40 MHz of specturm each because of the job lose the mergers created. Those poor people, they never got another job again. Can you imagine how terrible that world would be? 

6 hours ago, SprintNYC said:

Hey let’s announce dual headquarters just to trick the DOJ that we won’t kill high paying jobs when in reality one of the reasons of this merger is to save billions on labor. 

This thing will happen unless the DOJ shot it down but it will be a win win to T-Mobile regarless because Sprint management will halt all deployments as soon this transaction is announced. Massa Son is the ultimate vulture capitalist. Having said that all the signs were there from the start. Marcelo was brought in to cut the fat and get the company ready for a merger.

Mass should have been able to buy T mobile right from the start. Sprint wasted years producing a network that was inferior to the competition. 

9 minutes ago, SprintNYC said:

The same case they used in 2011 with ATT and the same case they used in 2014 with both of these exciting companies. 

Nope. The case in 2011 was T would be to dominate and the market would become two a player market. In 2014 no case was made, just a threat. 

I dont get people's fears here. We Will probably get a new fix home ISP player out of the merge and it is more rational for the wireless market. Either sprint or tmobile are going away during the transition to 5g, why not create a kick ass company instead of watching one slowly bleed out. 

Does anyone here remember when there where 7 national carriers? Imagine trying to keep 7 players going into a 4g world, it would have been a disaster. 

25 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Looks like a deal has been reached .. sprint is valued at 26 billion .. offical annouce should be Sunday .. rumors is the DOJ is already looking to block on anti- competitive grounds

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/27/t-mobile-sprint-merger-near-value-at-26-billion.html

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

It is hard to see the case that the DOJ would make. This is really a better structure for the market. We can either have 2 dominate players and two low end players or three major players. 

4 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Anyone else find it suspicious that neither Sprint nor T-Mobile have announced their respective Earnings Calls yet?

Sprint Investor Relations: http://investors.sprint.com/Home/default.aspx

T-Mobile Investor Relations: http://investor.t-mobile.com/

I was just going to comment on that. It is probably a very good sign that the talks are pretty advanced and near a deal. 

2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

That article is as muddy as heck. The only thing I got out of that is that DT will have the most voting shares whereas Softbank will have the most shares some of them non-voting.

That doesnt seem like mass getting what he wants given that he said he wanted control. The other way around would seem to fit more with both companies stated interests. 

27 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

For all the enthusiasm about 5G, Huawei is trying to temper expectations about the nascent technology:

Chairman Eric Xu said that while 5G was faster and more reliable, consumers would find no “material difference between the two technologies”. The technology has been hailed as a necessity for the coming age of autonomous driving, and the billions of connected devices making up the internet of things. But Mr Xu pointed out that “even today we have the technology that can support autonomous driving”. Analysts said Huawei’s reversal echoed a broader sense of gloom among telecoms operators and kit manufacturers. “Pessimism about 5G has been growing behind the scenes in the mobile industry but Huawei is the first large infrastructure company to state it explicitly,” said Ben Stanton, analyst at Canalys. “The reality is that 5G will be incredibly expensive for operators to deploy, requiring tens of thousands of new base stations per country. And the industry is yet to uncover a killer-use case for the 5G network.” Mr Stanton also noted that it was “becoming clear that oft-cited use cases, like IoT and self-driving cars, are actually more dependent on computing power built into the device itself, rather than the network”.

https://www.ft.com/content/a4dc54a6-4225-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fd

I personally think that private networks such as on a company floor maybe the killer application for 5G. Low latency, reliability is what the industrial sector is looking for.

As far as IoT, it is amazing how little bandwidth IoT takes. If you're thinking about making money from IoT, think again. 

As far as I am concerned there is no killer use case for 5G. It will be just more of the same, more bandwidth. We can get Gigabit bandwidth right now. 

The killer use case is capacity. Imgine if the carriers didnt have to build an entirely new network every 5 years, that would be your use case. 

11 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Sprint is on its way to being viable competition.

I don’t see Sprint going bust. People have been saying this would happen for years, and it hasn’t happened in spite of the waste, bloat and management mistakes that have happened over the years.

No way to pay off its debt? That’s what free cash flow is for, and that’s happening. Sprint’s cost structure is finally under control. Sprint also has been able to be creative with its financing through SpectrumCo.

Marcelo has finally righted the ship (with credit due to Hesse as well) and Sprint has a viable plan to lead on 5G. I see good things ahead.

That is a rosy outlook. They are not going to leverage 100 percent of their spectrum and that is coming to an end. The brand is terrible and needs about a billion in investment to bring it back up to snuff, they are on their 4th network plan and no one can say with confidence that they will follow through, they are adding customer but topline revenue continues to shrink, sprints moves in the market place goes almost unnoticed by it's competitors (T mobile can but not always) and unless they start growing top line revenue they I dont think they will generate enough Free cash flow to pay off the debts without starving the network. 

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

And what I’m saying is that you can’t view this potential merger as only a benefit to the company (or companies) and not a potential detriment to consumers and the market as a whole.

AT&T is fully capable of generating its own competitive appeal for customers. It didn’t need to acquire T-Mobile for that.

Same goes for Sprint. This doesn’t have to happen. What’s supposedly “good” for Sprint isn’t necessarily good for us. Sprint is capable of making it on its own steam... and it should.

And that is what I said. An ATT/TMOBILE would have given the company alot of market power. Tmobile and sprint on their own compete on price alone. Their networks are no where near the quality of the big two. A combined T mobile and sprint would have two huge, powerful players to compete against. ATT/T mobile would have had one. 

The market is going to three players one way or the other. It Will either be sprint/T mobile or T mobile and the big two. Sprint alone goes bust or becomes a metro type player. It has no way to pay off its debt and as interest rates rise that will become harder and harder. 

7 hours ago, RedSpark said:

What’s the necessary ROI on a $39 Billion expenditure to warrant it vs a Capital Spend of $3.8 Billion to accomplish the same, which they were clearly capable of doing?

Fair enough, I was against the AT&T merger too... and I’m against this one for the same reasons. We shouldn’t trade short term synergies for long term market consolidation, which will for the modern era, be irreversible.

I just don’t see the benefits here. Sprint could accomplish this on its own, especially now that more 2.5 GHz Spectrum is going to be available: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/ebs-portions-2-5-ghz-band-headed-for-big-update-at-fcc.

A merger shouldn’t be an escape path for Masa to bail and leave the market more consolidated than when he came in.

A 39 billion dollar investment that brings with it, 120 mhz of spectrum, 50 million subs, 50,000 towers, operation cost savings of 2 billion a year, increased market power, ECT..  probably has a much higher ROI than 3.8 billion to compete over 20 million subs. In fact, I would imagine alot higher. 

You cant simply look at the cost side and not the benefit side to see if an investment makes sense. 

The sprint/t-mobile merger gives the new company all the same advantages without the vast increase in market power. Given the billions and billions of investment that 5g will require I think it is going to happen at some point. 

10 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Remember how AT&T was willing to spend $39 Billion to acquire T-Mobile?

https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/12/leaked-fcc-doc-reveals-details-of-atts-strategy-for-t-mobile-deal/

AT&T said it needed T-Mobile to increase LTE network coverage from 80% to 97% of the population, and it was willing to spend $39 Billion to acquire it. Of course, we now know that AT&T didn’t need T-Mobile to accomplish that. It had to arrive at 97% simply to keep up with Verizon... and this is aside from DirecTV and other things that it’s done since to be competitive.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-ATT-Letter-Demolishes-Case-For-TMobile-Merger-115652

Not only that, the leaked material showed the cost stated by AT&T to expand its LTE coverage from 80% to 97%: $3.8 billion.

That’s ~1/10 the amount. So why do you think AT&T wanted to acquire T-Mobile?

First, you are only looking at the cost side of ATT LTE roll out and not how long ATT thought it would take to get a return on their investment. 

Second, I was against AT&T buying Mobile and called the DOJ shooting it down.

Third, anyone that knows the spectrum holdings, balance sheets, the last five years of these companies history and their network performance compared to the big two can see the obvious benifits to the consumers. The benefit to the consumer was no where near as obvious with a ATT and tmobile merger. That is one of the main reason ATT hammered home the dual LTE expansion, it was the only comsumer benifit they could come up with. 

15 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Here’s an interesting take:

The DoJ’s corruption investigation of Verizon and AT&T could save us from a Sprint-T-Mobile merger

Save us from having a third company with the scale, money and spectrum to build an insanely awesome 5g network? Let the DOJ save you from it, let me have it. 

Yeah, I dont get it. VZW has a great reputation in the valley but they have started to slip a bit, ATT IS mediocre and Tmobile has a pretty bad network in the east valley at least. If sprint made the commitment in the network here this could be a growth market for them. 

5 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:

Any updates out of Phoenix..? I plan on making another trip that way ..

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

It has been pretty quite here. I have noticed some mini macros in phoenix itself. But out side of that not much has changed in the last year. 

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

It boggles the mind for me why major retail chains don’t ensure that they have good wireless coverage in their stores, especially if they invest in having a Mobile App which is a core feature of their business for coupons, payment, prescriptions etc.: CVS, Walgreens, Safeway, etc. Sprint’s Magic Box is a great tool that can be widely deployed to address this issue.

If it’s not already underway, Sprint needs to meet with the regional heads of these companies and work out a deal of some kind to place these boxes.

People have certain types of coverage issues: Home, Work, Errands/Travel. Any of these can cause someone to churn out, but I think Errands/Travel Coverage has the most impact on churn/satisfaction, especially since WiFi Calling is usually available at home (except for Nexus/Pixel people) and perhaps slightly less available at work.

This is aside from the fact that customers will spend more time (and more money) where they have good coverage.

Sprint needs to follow through with one of the 4 network plans it has come up with over the last couple of years.