Jump to content

ase500

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ase500 last won the day on April 13 2018

ase500 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About ase500

  • Rank
    Member Level: 1xRTT
  • Birthday 09/30/1982

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Samsung Galaxy S9
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bemidji Minnesota
  • Here for...
    Sprint Fan Boy (or Girl)
  1. Um. I didn't compare anything. My point as was others is that complaining about not having 100+ speeds consistently is pointless. Especially as mobile devices do not contain memory that could use such a capability. 5G mobile at this point is essentially a gimmick. Until higher class memory prices come down there is literally no use for speeds above about 50 mbps. That is my point. In no way am I a fan boy. And yes it is downright Insulting for you to attempt to deflect your pointless criticism with such. My points are matters of FACT not of fanaticism. If you care to have a discussion of the t
  2. You sound a bit testy. I think the overall point is that based on current technologies that 100+ mbps is realistically pointless for mobile use. The reality is that the memory technology used in phones is not capable of that level of data transfer at a sustained rate. So it seems petty to criticize the network. Most people are not getting 100+ mbps on their wifi connections at home. Setup a speed test server on your own home network and try sustained speed tests, I guarantee you will not maintain 100 mbps connections for more than a minute or so.
  3. I came to sprint in 2006 on the Samsung mm-920. First smartphone would be the palm centro. I know they weren't called smartphones, let's be honest palm started it all.
  4. And this is why Tmobile is in trouble without Sprint. Tmobile 600mhz 5G will peak at 100mpbs and mm wave development is not practical for rural deployment. So Tmobile would be deploying 5G at roughly the same speeds as LTE and ten times slower than cable. This leaves them needing to compete on ONLY price. In turn they hemorrhage cash.
  5. How is this not civil? I in no way attack or belittled. I reacted and responded....
  6. LTE can not supply broadband for large geographic areas. The air link is SHARED bandwidth. Furthermore Tmobile does need Sprint. 5ghz would require tighter tower spacing and is massively over used. Most WISPs have used WIFI standards and most of them have BANKRUPTED. I have worked for a WISP and it is no way a workable solution. Do you honestly think that MM wave is about mobile applications? Do you really think MASSIVE MIMO is about mobile? 5G is absolutely about last mile broadband. The fact is that both Verizon and At&t are launching their 5g services with HOME internet connections. Qua
  7. You're not understanding the convergence happening in several markets. The merger is about 5g or more generally about data. Cable companies are moving toward being data companies not video content companies. This means that wireless companies will not only be competing for mobile users but also for fixed data connections. For many rural communities fiber optic connections are just to costly and companies simply will not invest in bringing broadband to these communities. 5g is about connecting these communities not about faster data to your phone. Without a merger Tmobile will not have the spec
  8. Ok, I know probably just my OCD here. You guys are tossing around three different terms that mean three very different things. City, Metro, and Market. Market is very subjective, a retailer, an event company, and a telecommunications company all may serve the same area and define the market differently. Metro is a conglomeration of cities or townships with a central city of more than 50,000 people. A city in most states is a municipality with more than 1,000 persons. Now to the point, the top ten cities do not contain 26 percent of the population, the top metros do, however that is completely
  9. Most of this garbled and incoherent. Softbank is not giving up much control. They get 2 seats on the board and voting stock. Had this deal just been about getting cash Softbank would have taken the deal before, when there was no seats and the stock was nonvoting. Mergers never save money in the short term, so it is always about longterm growth and overall profits. Political issues are completely nonsense, modern politics is about the short game. These are going to be freshman congressman.[FYI Congress is both the House and Senate so saying Senate or Congress makes you look ignorant] Congress h
  10. I am not sure why anyone thinks this merger is going to lead to job losses in the short term that would intersect with political issues. In the short term mergers nearly always generate job gains as the companies integrate. This will be especially true in this case as there is physical equipment to be moved. Long term yes jobs will be lost but why would any politician care about the long term. In this case we are talking a network integration time of 3 years and at the same time network upgrades. Feet on the ground will be needed. Many of this pool of labor is the voter trump would be trying t
  11. I don't think you really understand what is happening here. Number one the current situation is not particularly competitive for At&t or Verizon. The two have the majority of the customers. This has really lead to two tier market. Tier one being for customers who have more money than sense and the other for more price. Both Sprint and Tmobile have been able to siphon some customers off of the big two however, at the current rate it would take more than five decades for either Sprint or Tmobile to pick up enough to gain any real competitive momentum. I am sure market forces would bank
  12. So you have a 5gbps connection. May I ask who you get internet though and what router you use. Most SOHO routers will not handle anything above 1gbps on the WAN side and most wireless clients would never see above 1gbps at best. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
  13. I don't even know where to start. Price is immaterial at this point. You can own 99 percent of all the shares in a company and if those shares are nonvoting you have no say in how the company runs. As I have been saying forever the issue was never about price it was about the shares being voting or nonvoting. The Reuters article confirms that was and remains the issue. What has changed is that there are several clocks are now ticking and time is not on Tmobile's side. This is why talks are occurring again. Either Son believes he now has a better advantage or Tmobile realizes that they don't ha
  14. That's a rather simplistic view. It ignores much of the market pressures on each. Fewer doesn't change the external market forces. They still need to maintain their networks, pay down debts, invest in upgrades, and produce profits for investors. These pressures are the ones that drive companies to compete. Failure to compete for customers would also drive outside businesses to attempt to enter the market (think dish network). The reality of the situation is that current market pressures may force one of them out of business anyway. Unless DT is willing to continue to write off T-Mobile's d
×
×
  • Create New...