samwelltarley

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersedes anyone. I have said 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

"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

If you have followed what I have been saying I never said my preferences should supersedes anyone. I have said 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.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Those people are NOT complaining about broadband access or mobile coverage. You're arguing with a straw man that doesn't exist. You probably haven't had a real talk with any property owner who fight to protect their neighborhood and hence your lack of empathy. I encourage you to not see your opponents as despicable hypocrites and try to understand their viewpoints and rights a bit better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not the stealth macro sites that are the issue. It's the very fact municipalities and local governments apply the SAME rules for macro sites to small cells which are far separate in terms of leased areas, size, and height.

 

It makes no sense a singular low power all in one small cell strapped to a standard 30-40' wooden pole or light pole / traffic lights should go through the same extensive permitting and reviews as a high power macro site with backup battery cabinets, ground base stations, multiple fiber and coax cable runs, and multiple "high power" radome equipment. This is the primary issue now with a lot of municipalities that don't have experience with small cells.

 

Now if Sprint wants to be stupid and apply for 75-130' wooden poles that are sometimes taller than macro sites then it's on Mobilitie and Sprint being stupid.

I think popular opinion is pretty receptive to the 30-40' small cell poles and if the industry had stuck to those then the NIMBY defense would have gradually dissipated. The problem really blew up when Sprint hires Mobilitie to build those ugly 75-120' poles. The public opinion is 100% against those and so the entire industry's small cells rollout is stalled because of that stupid idea. If the industry had focused on lobbying local zoning laws to accommodate the "real small cells" (sub-38') we would have a lot more deployed by now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, speak for yourself. I am a home owner and NIMBY drive me nuts. I dont care about your personal aesthetic sensibilities, I care about having infurstructor running to my house. Wireless cites arent ofensive to me in the slightest, it would be like saying you dont want street lights because you dont like the way they look.

 

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.

 

In any case most of this stuff isnt going up in subdivisions but just out side of them or in parks and open areas with in them. So, what is the big deal?

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I think you're just making excuse for them. But in any case, if you think you have a strong argument for those small cells then I encourage you to be an activist and lobby for a change in zoning laws but I suspect your opinion will be vastly outnumbered. The preference of the minority cannot come at the expense of the majority, even if the minority doesn't understand the expense. Thank god for that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More than fine with it. If a person can't afford data, then maybe switch down to call and text only plan. Afterall, wireless isn't a necessity, it's a luxury.

 

I also wouldn't call it "hostage" either. They're more than welcome to not service the area. There's a reason why communities with strict zoning laws exist. Some people want to live in cookie cutter houses and will pay the premium to do so. They have every right to demand that their neighborhoods be kept a certain way. Anyone that doesn't like it shouldn't move to those neighborhoods.

 

I personally don't like homeowner associations, which is why I choose to live in an area without one. But I also respect the right of people who choose to live in an area with one.

People who don't own a home would never appreciate the importance of local zoning laws. Those are the loud voices that yell NIMBY whenever property owners try to protect their neighborhood from being defiled by unscrupulous telecom operators. They will eventually grow up so I would save my breath arguing with them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://imgur.com/a/Ue7Wd

 

Wanted to see if I can provoke some thoughtful discussion with some hard data points. I tabled some PCMag nationwide test data to compare the 2016 report to the 2017 report below that I think are stark. What do we think of the pattern? What about the theory that Sprint does not need to spend much on network because of its vast trove of spectrum? It looks like Sprint's network has gone backward while the other 3 kept moving rapidly forward.

 

 

Out west inside urban metros they seem to have wised up and is going mostly for existing infrastructure like light poles and telephone poles though sometimes they try for bs 70' poles in some area.

 

Out in the boonies though. They really try to push their luck and more often than not get smacked down hard after locals discover what they're doing.

 

Not very helpful in getting local municipalities on board when 70-120' poles appear out of nowhere.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

To say that "they really try to push their luck" is an understatement - they really try to push the boundary of what is legal: https://event-driven.com/sprint-approved-trial-for-contractor-mobilitie

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what was the conclusion? I watched the video. Are there Small Cells in Montgomery County today? Did Mobilitie get approved?

The fact is NIMBY's folks around the country are winning. It's a free country and property owners have the right to protect their home values. Besides Mobilitie is not earning any brownie points by deliberately doing illegal build. https://event-driven.com/sprint-approved-trial-for-contractor-mobilitie

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't you guys get it? The Magic Box is about VoLTE! Sprint knows millions of its customers fall to unreliable LTE or CDMA when they cross into their homes. T-Mobile had the same issue when they deployed VoLTE. But Tmo VoLTE hands off to WCDMA voice. Sprint VoLTE will not be able to reliably hand off to CDMA.

 

Sprint is focusing on densifying LTE inside its footprint. But even so, the place customers will most frequently cross the VoLTE/CDMA threshold will be walking in and out of their homes. People most often 'talk' on their phones at home than any other place.

 

Thus, being inside the home, or coming/going from the home is the most critical place for quality of LTE signal in a VoLTE network. It is also the most difficult place for any provider to get a consistent reliable VoLTE signal. Millions of individual locations. Tmo knows this, and thus provides the LTE Cell Spot. Since homes are in different locations and made of different materials, Sprint is wise to shore up something in homes regardless of their network condition.

 

Sprint is going the way of the Magic Box because it is a repeater. A repeater extends the macro network. A femtocell has a completely different route to the network, making handoffs more difficult. Ask me how reliable handoffs are from my Tmo CellSpot. Only about 80% in my instance. If you go directly from the macro network on repeater inside to the macro network not repeated outside, you're much more likely to keep your voice call.

 

Sprint is still going to offer LTE femtocells for those where it is a better option. But I have to stick my finger in the eyes of those of you who say Sprint is doing this as band aid solution instead of working on their network. This is a key thing to a quality VoLTE network experience for Sprint customers.

 

And for most of you who are complaining about this, you also complain about lack of simultaneous voice and data. And this is what this is all about. VoLTE.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Sprint can't get to VOLTE with these magic boxes. Say, even if 60% of Sprint customers are convinced to put these magic boxes up at their window ledges, thus creating indoor B41 connections, does it really allow Sprint to go VOLTE, thereby risking dropped calls and disruption over the other 40% of customer base? The only way to go VOLTE is to build near ubiquitous LTE coverage comparable to CDMA. These magic boxes just won't get you there. Anything short of 80% coverage is too disruptive to the voice experience. We all remember the Network Vision fiasco.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is a good deal.

 

My family will sign up for this plan tonight or tomorrow. Wifey works for Comcast. This is going to cut our bill significantly. You can have up to 5 lines and you can some on unlimited and others per GB.

 

Wife uses a ton of data so she will pay $45 for unlimited. The others don't use much data so they will be $12 per GB combined. I don't think the other 3 people will be using more than 2GB combined. So that would be $45 + $24. $70 for 4 lines is a good deal. They are now on AT&T and pay about $240 per month.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know for sure but I don't think Comcast as an MVNO can distinguish hotspot tethering traffic from normal traffic. So your family can tether to your wife's Unlimited line whenever possible to cut the GB consumption down to minimum.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think Dr. John Saw appreciates being employed? Even if the company is going to shit and his hands are tied, should he stop doing his job, which includes writing a blog post? What should he do? Declare the sky is falling? Quit? Or focus on the positives?

 

AJ

He's been spewing the same bullshit for long enough that everyone thinks he's phony. You're a liar even if you're merely ordered by your boss to lie publicly.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me too. I trust the raw data from RootMetrics more than most other reports. But about statistics: lies, damn lies and then statistics.

In the original report, they rank carriers in 5 categories: reliability, calls, text, data and speed. Sprint ranks dreadfully in DATA and SPEED (we all know that) categories but sprint always represents its wins in the other categories, especially calls and text. Sure it's just marketing, but I hope Sprint doesn't think it's okay that it ranks a distant LAST in data and speed when they promised to rank FIRST 2 years ago (and they should with the sea of spectrum that they constantly boast about)

 

But it's much much more costly to improve data and speed than on calls and text so they delayed the capex. I just hope they don't end up delaying that for too long. Sometimes it's easy to be fooled by your own marketing bullshit.

 

 

An overlooked analysis by Root: http://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/mobile-performance-in-the-us-part-3-performance-in-metro-areas

 

Rootmetrics do provide really good analysis on carriers' data speed. As you see below, Sprint is in a league completely of its own (in an unflattering way)

 

If you scroll down the report to see the carrier-by-carrier numbers, you'll see all 3 carriers other than Sprint have made progress from 1H16 to 2H16. But Sprint made no effort to improve speed, thus falling further and further behind. Can't Marcelo at least pretend he cares about his network promises?

I trust this report way more than Open Signal thats for sure. All Sprint needs to do is increase its data speeds, capacity and coverage and they will be golden. Easier said than done though.

Me too. I trust the raw data from RootMetrics more than most other reports. But about statistics: lies, damn lies and then statistics.

In the original report, they rank carriers in 5 categories: reliability, calls, text, data and speed. Sprint ranks dreadfully in DATA and SPEED (we all know that) categories but sprint always represents its wins in the other categories, especially calls and text. Sure it's just marketing, but I hope Sprint doesn't think it's okay that it ranks a distant LAST in data and speed when they promised to rank FIRST 2 years ago (and they should with the sea of spectrum that they constantly boast about)

 

But it's much much more costly to improve data and speed than on calls and text so they delayed the capex. I just hope they don't end up delaying that for too long. Sometimes it's easy to be fooled by your own marketing bullshit.

You can look forward to John blowing his top on twitter and going full ballistic. Can look forward to the root metrics denouncement on twitter soon.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

Lol. Sprint is still touting CALLS and TEXT reliability and completely silent of DATA and SPEED. They're still living in 2011. God help them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait is someone really saying less then 1/4 of sprint macro sites (~40,000) don't have 8t8r?

 

More than 5000 were deployed in the initial wave of 2013-2014 and deployment continued rapidly well into 2015 before it was halted en mass at the end of 2015 when Marcelo began his cost cutting.

 

Approximately a tad over half of sprints total LTE sites have 8t8r now and that number is increasing every day thanks to renew Capex expenditures at the later half of 2016 which included small cell orders, new B41 macro site colocation using mini macros (hello the previously undeployed southern states), adoption of DAS Node usage, and bringing GMO/ non LTE sites in house as high priority sites targeted for LTE activation.

 

Stuff is happening and did happen. To say otherwise is just rubbish. No one is happy about the what $60,000,000 (yes, that little, they knew exactly how much they were going to spend last year from the get go) they spent on network expansion for the entirety of 2016 but it is what it was and so be it but to say they're doing nothing now is rubbish and there's proof from multiple regions across multiple vendors all across the country.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Were you trying to refute my data points? It was certainly hard to tell when you're citing data points that are consistent with mine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may be true (I question it given churn data is available), but when you start doing basic math you see why they aren't doing much. Churn itself is obviously a measurable metric. We get it for every quarter lagging several months for the earnings announcement. I'm going to overly generalize the basic math to illustrate a point in the following. My math is most certainly an oversimplification. It clearly doesn't account for the costs of retaining a customer being less than attracting new ones among other factors. I fully acknowledge that. The math obviously gets a bit more complicated if they're churning higher than average ARPU customers and replacing them with new lower than average customers, which is unquestionably happening; and may happen more so with the recent rate plan war. That said…

 

Sprint has roughly 30 million post paid subs right now at an ARPU of roughly $50 dollars (the ARPU is irrelevant for this other than to establish a baseline revenue estimate). That yields $1.5 billion per month or $18 billion annually in revenue.

 

If you assume churn at 2% (they've been lower than this recently, but it is probable that it rises with the recent "changes" in the market), of Sprint's ~30 million subs they lose 2.4 million annually to churn. Keeping ARPU constant @ $50 that yields $16.5 billion in revenue post churn, down from the $18 billion.

 

Theoretically speaking say we give every post-paid sub a $5 a month "loyalty credit." Furthermore, lets assume said credit reduces churn by 50% i.e. 1.2 million subs are leaving instead of 2.4 million annually. That yields $15.552 billion in annual revenue or $1 billion less than if you let every churn customer leave and kept rates constant. Also known as an extra $1 billion in losses annually, something Sprint can obviously ill afford. Much like the CapEx a lot of it is Sprint not being in a fiscal position to do anything about it.

 

That said, when you start doing basic math given the current churn rates it becomes pretty obvious why Sprint isn't doing anything in the customer loyalty category. If we have 10 customers paying $50 a month and we lose 1 the revenue still equals 9 customers a month paying $45 per month. Marcelo and Sprint are constantly doing this math behind the scenes. If a loyalty credit made sense, they'd be doing it.

That is the logic of a manager who only thinks to maximize revenue for the CURRENT quarter with no regard to the future. And yes that's exactly how Marcelo thinks.

 

By the way churn is conventionally a monthly metric. From your math it's clear you mistook it as a quarterly one.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm thinking SoftBank already has a buyer. No merger. Sorry -- just my hunch.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would also be what Masa wants the world to believe.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the choice is between three really solid networks at slightly higher prices or four choices with two networks that are ok and 2 solid networks, I think market is saying they would rather have three.

 

I mean, imagine a company that has the CAPEX that can put all of sprint's assets in play. That is a carrier I would pay a premium to be on. Sprint will not be that company in a four player market.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe. I can imagine a lot of things. But I worry that Sprint is betting everything on the line on a merger. But a deal takes 2 to tango. If by some twist of fate the other side doesn't want to play ball then god help them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Sprint customers flee it is because Marcelo and Masa chose not to go to an extreme value position. Not because Dan Hesse didn't stay CEO.

 

I think Sprint should offer its latest pricing to existing customers. I think they are making a big mistake there, so far. And if millions leave, the Sprint network will improve just from their departure. Could be a silver lining for data performance. [emoji14]

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I know we're having a level-headed discussion and I appreciate it. If Marcelo had delivered even half of his promises on network they wouldn't have to do extreme discounts just to avoid massive defections to Verizon. He's been the CEO for 2.5 years and to rest laurels on the Pyrrhic victory of "network has improved a lot from its nightmarish state" is just unacceptable.

 

Let me remind you that they still haven't deployed 8T8R on at least a quarter of their macro sites and they have only deployed less than 1000 small cells. That's a far cry from his explicit and implicit promise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to give it to Sprint; calls and texts are very reliable. I have not had a dropped call when calling a land line or another Sprint user since NV swept through my area. The only time I have had calls drop or produce weird noises is when I'm calling T-Mobile or At&t users, but that's usually on them.

 

I'm currently debating on either buying out my ETF or waiting for Sprint to counter with their next move (i.e merger). I called Sprint to see if they could reduce my bill by either changing plans or offering loyalty credits but they said NO. I just can't believe that if I want to lower my bill, I have to port out to At&t or Verizon! Who would have though those words would ever be uttered??

 

The worst part about this is that if Sprint still offered 2 year agreements, I wouldn't even contemplate leaving.[emoji19]

Part of me believes that Verizon has been plotting this Unlimited all along and waited until Sprint eliminated contracts to launch it with maximum impact at their most vulnerable moment. But then I can't figure out why they didn't launch it at Super Bowl.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sprint's network is better and faster data wise in the past 18 months. There was very little B41 except Clearwire back then. Sprint 8T8R development, Clearwire upgrades to 8T8R, 2xCA, 3xCA and all hit the streets almost all after Marcelo came on board. So you can't say data has not improved under Marcelo. It's been a huge improvement since then. Not far enough for you, fine. But the improvement is not limited to calls and texts.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Some victories are pyrrhic in nature. If the improvement that you're referring to is relevant then Sprint customers wouldn't be fleeing in the weeks to come. We'll see soon enough.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not really accurate. The network is A LOT better now than the day before Marcelo took over. Way better. The everyday experience for the Sprint customers is so much better. And average speeds have more than doubled. Marcelo has targeted Sprint's investment in the most critical areas. Instead of remote places in under served markets.

 

Churn if you want to. You have that right. Sprint will not be the best provider for everyone. And I do hope that Sprint comes up with something much better to keep existing customers. They'd be foolish not to. But I disagree with your assessment here between the differences of Marcelo and Hesse. You say it as if Marcelo wasn't straddled with debt and hindered cash flow, just choosing for convenience not to upgrade everywhere and everything.

Let's face it. You and I know the network is only better in calls and text. Marcelo never had any intention to make the network deliver the data speed people expect. Doesn't matter. If Marcelo had done his job with the network, then customers wouldn't flock to join other carriers as soon as they all have Unlimited at comparable price points. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks. The proof is in the pudding. The excuses don't matter.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I liked the chart, but he certainly didn't win me over. Sprint has been far behind in network performance reviews, is delayed greatly in getting band 41 deployment, still angering customers with its rate plan issues, etc.

 

Hesse's team wasn't perfect, and there were issues with spending, but some of those issues were good for customers, as spending on network is a good thing. So, all these cutbacks Sprint has made since Marcelo may look good for its bottomline, it isn't the progressive stance Sprint really needs right now when it comes to the network, which is what Hesse's team was spending on.

 

What Marcelo's team is doing is making Sprint look better in terms of sale. The outlook now seems to have Masayoshi Son wanting to sell, after all.

That is marcelo's big accomplishment. He put lipstick on a pig to make it look appealing as a takeover target. Wall Street was fooled and he kept Sprint out of bankruptcy. Hesse wasn't nearly as wickedly smart. He thought you gotta invest in the network to change perception. What a simpleton!

 

He promised the moon and never intended to deliver.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I can tell, Marcelo doesn't seem to appreciate that he's comparing Sprint's promotional pricing, which is only available to new customers.

 

With Verizon's new Unlimited plan, it's as important to keep current customers as it is to get new ones... I hoping he'll pay attention to that.

The general doesn't know which battle he is fighting on the battlefield.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So when these new handsets come out, we don't need to worry about a device emitting at 400mW hugging our body (and brain) all day right? I'm a paranoid and I've always worried about my 200mW device attached to my body and I'm not sure how I would feel about these 400mW ones.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk