Jump to content

ericdabbs

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,973

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ericdabbs

  1. ericdabbs
    It says on the Google Play Store website that it will be $5/month for users that don't have SDC now.
  2. ericdabbs
    Sure Sprint can do a prelaunch of LA Metro and that would be fine. I guess they can just be in prelaunch mode for a month or two. But my point was realistically LA won't be LTE market ready to provide sufficient coverage for launch until end of December. I just think Sprint needs to be careful of declaring any market LTE ready when it only has 20% of its sites especially since LA covers such a huge area. The first 4 markets launched did not have a prelaunch period that extended more than 1 week. We all understand here at S4GRU.com that coverage and consistent performance will improve over time as more and more towers get completed but I am trying to put myself as the common Sprint customer or a potential new customer who doesn't understand Network Vision that when a market is launched that not all sites will be ready so don't expect consistent performance throughout the city just yet.
  3. ericdabbs
    It is almost near the end of October and I highly doubt Sprint is going to declare LA Metro market launch ready since looking at the sponsor maps it appears that Alcatel Lucent has a long way to go especially the eastern suburbs of downtown LA that have yet to have a single tower of NV goodness. Until NV hits in every area including the edges of LA Metro, I don't think it would be wise for Sprint to launch LTE in LA. I would be willing to wait until the end of December if that meant that by market launch we can see 30-35% of all towers NV complete. But given the current ramp of production and only 19% towers done. I need to see a sites completed update that has over 100 LA sites completed for me in that week to be convinced it has a chance of making it there. Chicago had theirs this week and I hope to see LA and NYC have theirs as well. Sprint really needs to get LA, NYC and Chicago rolling or else they will fall further behind Verizon and AT&T.
  4. ericdabbs
    I understand for the first 4 markets they launched in Texas and Atlanta that under 20% of all NV towers completed was ok at the time to launch. However very quickly there was bad press that in most of 4G LTE launch areas, people were only able to retain LTE for 2 mins before dropping back down to 3G. If you are Sprint PR and you hear those type of things from tech blogs, Sprint customers, your competitors in AT&T and Verizon, this must be irritating and stressful to live up to the proposed 4G LTE coverage maps that they have posted on their website. In big cities like Chicago, LA, and NYC, Sprint cannot afford to declare any of these big cities as LTE launch ready when only 2 out of every 10 towers only have LTE. I understand as being a heavy follower of this site that coverage will improve over time but first impressions make a huge difference especially if Sprint is trying to draw new customers away from Tmobile, Verizon and AT&T to offer unlimited 4G LTE data that is actually usable for more than 5 mins of driving around. It will be useless if its only usable for a short distance. Smaller cities can get away with the 20% launch and be ok but big cities like Chicago, LA and NYC need at least 30-40% of its towers IMO to be safe for market launch. Chicago does not have this problem since they are well above 50% of all towers launched with LTE but LA and NYC are so far away from being launched that even a mid December might be a stretch.
  5. ericdabbs
    There is no way that NYC will be ready by end of November. I am thinking a mid to late December release will be better for first impression and overall stability of the LTE network. Looking at the latest update on the deployment running list thread, it has NYC at 14% of all NV towers completed currently which is not enough. I think a minimum of 25-30% launch market policy should be adhered to for the largest market in the US. The same goes for Los Angeles. I know it says an October launch but due to the wide area that LA covers, I think they should hold off launching the market until mid to late December since they only have about 19% of all NV towers completed currently which is not much more than NYC has.
  6. ericdabbs
    I wish Sprint could get more spectrum in the SMR band. I would love at some point for Sprint to basically get the entire SMR band would be nice from 806-824 MHz. However I think it is only a pipe dream until all public safety can all be converted to LTE and migrated to the 700 MHz public safety band. If that ever does happen, I think it would be wise for Sprint to go after the 806-816 MHz, 851-861 MHz spectrum to bolster their SMR band spectrum holdings.
  7. ericdabbs
    I really want the spectrum priority to be 2500->1900->800. I don't think that by Sprint simply controlling the Clearwire board that they can amend a contract that was agreed upon by both parties back in Nov. However with a complete buyout of Clearwire then of course the current deal is off the table and Sprint can prioritize their spectrum as needed for their network while honoring the current contracts for tonnage for the other wholesale providers that Clearwire has signed for LTE access.
  8. ericdabbs
    I agree that AT&T won't be deploying LTE on Cellular frequency band but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability or intention to not do it eventually. Same with Verizon. The way I look at things is whether a wireless carrier has the capability and the intention to eventually deploy LTE and both AT&T and Verizon do plan to deploy LTE on all spectrum bands eventually. Both companies have more than enough of their share of overall spectrum as well as the dominance of < 1 GHz spectrum. They have no right to complain. Just because AT&T is stuck with using the Cellular band for voice and 2G technologies is not an excuse to be able to acquire more spectrum. AT&T has made strides to be able to use 20 MHz of WCS spectrum for LTE which is enough for a 10x10 LTE carrier. It is AT&T's fault for not trying to push people into 3G and 4G technologies sooner and they should have to deal with the consequences. If that were the case then Sprint can easily argue that hey we are taking control of Clearwire's board but we don't plan to deploy all 150 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum in the near future so it should not be a threat to AT&T. Sprint made a firm stance to shut down iDEN by June 2013 despite a ton of folks in construction that rely on Nextel Direct Connect and decided that the 800 MHz spectrum would make better use for CDMA and LTE.
  9. ericdabbs
    AT&T has no right to be butthurt about its spectrum position since they'll be able to deploy LTE on 700 MHz, Cellular, AWS, PCS and WCS spectrum. What more do they want? The problem with AT&T is that they still have to support an old 2G GSM/EDGE network that I am sure they would love to convert that into LTE but can't until they have some sort of sunset period. If I were the FCC, I would ignore AT&T's complaints since they seem to still be very butt hurt about losing the Tmobile transaction. The FCC has been more than generous with them bending rules to give AT&T the ability to launch LTE in WCS spectrum.
  10. ericdabbs
    Sprint needs to deploy more HD voice devices. Having just the EVO 4G LTE phone with HD voice is not enough. Sprint needs to spread the love of more HD voice devices so that more and more Sprint customers who talk to each other can reap the benefits.
  11. ericdabbs
    You do know that Sprint already plans to add 2.5 GHz support to their LTE phones in 2013 right? I mean its not like Sprint is even debating on whether they should do so. Starting July 2013, Sprint plans to start paying Clearwire for their TDD-LTE service on its 5000 sites even before the Softbank deal even existed so Sprint better have LTE devices that support the 2.5 GHz band. Now with this Softbank deal, I am sure the Japanese are looking and advising Sprint to buyout Clearwire when it seems right so that they don't have to pay for their services and would be a subsidiary to Sprint.
  12. ericdabbs
    Wow what a turn of events. Looks like MetroPCS shareholders are not happy with the reverse IPO merger of the two companies. I'll be interested to see how this unfolds. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57532960-94/metropcs-shareholders-sue-over-t-mobile-merger/ http://www.phonenews.com/metropcs-shareholders-file-suit-over-t-mobile-reverse-merger-21608/
  13. ericdabbs
    I am really afraid of a Sprint LA LTE launch by end of October. It seems like Sprint hasn't made enough progress especially out in the LA suburbs to say its market deployable. I think a December launch would be better so that Sprint can get at least 25% of its sites up. Right now at 16% sites completed to me is just unacceptable since the land area is just too large in LA. Had Sprint actually spread out the 16% sites all over the LA Metro market, I would say it might be ok but I still would tread cautiously if I were Sprint.
  14. ericdabbs
    Hmm 20 billion for a 70% stake is a lot to infuse into Sprint. At 12.8 billion Softbank that was originally reported I would say that what Sprint got is getting the low end of the stick but at 20 billion, I think its more fair if Softbak is going to get a 70% controlling stake of Sprint. With 20 billion, Sprint can easily snatch up Clearwire and make a play at MetroPCS itself away from Tmobile or the Tmobile/MetroPCS new co in 2 years. I just want Sprint to speed up Network Vision because to me its getting a bit slow given all the delays experienced. Cities like NYC and LA do not look LTE deployable ready especially LA if its set to launch by end of October. I think for NYC and LA, December is more likely a better time to launch LTE in those markets since hopefully it will have more coverage.
  15. ericdabbs
    Yeah yeah I know all about New Orleans and Baton Rouge . I heard enough from you and 4ringsbnr a long long time ago about the lack of coverage in Louisiana.. Besides Louisiana, I would say what I stated is true.
  16. ericdabbs
    No only 9600 of the 30000 sites have been decommissioned so far since the Nextel network is not shut down yet until June 30, 2013. Keep in mind all the towers that are being decommissioned are Nextel sites and not Sprint sites which for the most part are located in areas where Sprint coverage overlaps. Don't think of Nextel and Sprint towers as being strategically located where they don't overlap each other and cover a lot more area. I am not sure about the statistics but maybe Robert can comment on this but I would guess that at least 70-80% of the Nextel towers are located in areas that Sprint overlaps in their coverage. With Sprint putting antennas on Sprint towers to use the 800 MHz frequency after Nextel shuts down it would appear as if it no tower was lost in terms of coverage.
  17. ericdabbs
    Good luck OP...as in good luck finding a signal... outside the metropolitan area. Anyways you have to do what is best for you and live with your decisions.
  18. ericdabbs
    Oh please...if anyone is seriously thinking that Softbank will rename Sprint to Softbank after the deal is out of their minds. Keep in mind that Softbank wouldn't own Sprint outright since they would only be buying about 70% stake. That shouldn't give them the right to change the name. The Japanese are smarter to not to mess with a brand that is on the uprise and is known in the US. Even if Softbank could rename the company it would be dumb to put their branding in the US when no one has even heard about Softbank until 2 days ago.
  19. ericdabbs
    HA and they say CDMA 1x Advanced is outdated. VoLTE is no where near ready. I love how these carriers like MetroPCS and Verizon Wireless talk big like they have some aggressive plan to move everyone to VoLTE and ditch CDMA. I am glad that Network Vision contains the deployment of 1x Advanced because I have a feeling we will be using it for a while and is worth the investment.
  20. ericdabbs
    Terrible idea of renaming Sprint to Nextel. People associate Nextel with PTT and old ancient iDEN technology that is about to be torn down forever. Not to mention that people think that Nextel was a failure which is why it had to merge with Sprint and how that company has ruined Sprint. To me Nextel gives off a negative connotation as a brand. Sprint has reinvigorated its brand since Hesse has taken over with being the first carrier to launch 4G, Network Vision, unlimited data. If Softbank and Sprint get a deal for a majority stake, there are way more important things like how to strategize to compete against Verizon and AT&T, infuse a ton of money to speed up Network Vision and Clearwire to help them speed up the TD-LTE buildout. Changing the name from Sprint to Nextel would be a waste of time and certainly unnecessary. When Cingular bought out AT&T wireless they changed the name to AT&T because AT&T has been a long time established brand in telecommunications. In that case it makes sense.
  21. ericdabbs
    I would think it has to do with why have antennas that are not as efficient as the NV ones as well as having unnecessary operating costs like power. The RRUs and Antennas take up enough power as it is. Sprint needs to be aggressive in trying to lower its operating costs because it is affecting their balance sheet. With Sprint trying to shed 30,000 towers from 68,000 to about 38,000 is going to save Sprint a ton of operating costs in power, tower leases, backhaul, etc.
  22. ericdabbs
    I wonder if Softbank and Sprint situation goes through if they would still try to counter offer for MetroPCS from Tmobile. If that were to happen, watch out because Sprint will be a force to reckon with a majority owner with infusing cash and trying to bring Clearwire from the grave to expose its massive 2.5 GHz spectrum holdings.
  23. ericdabbs
    I absolutely think it will be a horrible idea to rename Sprint back to Nextel. When people think of Nextel they think PTT as well as how badly it failed as a company. I think keeping the Sprint brand name is what they should do given that Network Vision is associated with Sprint and not Nextel. No need to make unnecessary changes when the focus should be on how to catch up to Verizon and AT&T and how to infuse cash into speeding up Network Vision as well as Clearwire so that they can build out their TD-LTE network much faster.
  24. ericdabbs
    Sprint is not backing off entirely from the MetroPCS deal. They are just saying that they are not going to make a counter bid offer to MetroPCS for now until they get a better understanding of how the Tmobile deal works. Also Sprint is a wait and see until MetroPCS investors have to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the proposed Tmobile/MetroPCS deal. Deals like this aren't approved over night and certainly before anything becomes official, the FCC has to bless it to ensure competition is not harmed by the merger. Sprint has plenty of time to mull over any proposed counter bid and hopefully Sprint stock will continue to rise a lot over the next few months which would make a stronger case for a MetroPCS bid since their stock price is higher while hoping the MetroPCS stock goes lower or stays the same. This is a better article to read than the one you posted since the one you posted is a small excerpt that doesn't explain what Sprint's position is. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-10/sprint-is-said-to-hold-off-on-metropcs-counterbid-for-now.html
  25. ericdabbs
    Unfortunately I am working in Salt Lake City on business for the next several months.
×
×
  • Create New...