Page 39 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 935

Thread: Sprint to acquire T-Mobile in 2014?

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    mass.
    Posts
    1,058
    Device(s)
    htc/samsung
    Carrier(s)
    tmobile/sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by reuthermonkey View Post
    hence the "when deployed appropriately" There aren't a lot of cities in the United States with the population density to support proper 2.6ghz usage, but for those cities, Sprint's 2.6ghz is a LOT of good spectrum. San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia. The problem that Sprint's had is that they're deploying high-frequency spectrum to low-density places. The cells are too small thanks to the frequency, so to save money Sprint spreads the cells out further than they should be, increasing the number of users with poor reception. T-Mobile has figured out a way to deploy "high-frequency" networks without the years of issues that Sprint has had.

    It's not the spectrum. It's the (mis)deployment of services on that spectrum.



    Sprint made it clear in the different phases of nv that they would

    1)replace all base stations/ decommission towers not needed
    2)replace back haul
    3)upgrade 3g
    4)deploy lte 1900
    5)deploy 800 voice
    6)deploy 800/25/2600 lte
    7)go back fill gaps with small pico cells.. add 1900/800 lte to all wimax sites and 25/2600 to all 1900/800 that werent already co-located
    8)add an additional 8k-10k sites

    sprint has run into a lot of issues and screw ups, but that is why people believe when they ever do get it done the network will be great.

    most people dont truly understand how much work they have to do IF everything went right... It didnt so now it takes longer, hoprfully they get it done before the last sub leaves
    Batman
    Hit me up

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    mass.
    Posts
    1,058
    Device(s)
    htc/samsung
    Carrier(s)
    tmobile/sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by snatale1 View Post
    If they had any sense (I know) they move everyone from their dinosaur network to TMO's HSPA and LTE.
    It makes no sense to move to hspa,
    Lte is the common ground volte is next, thats when the 2 would completely be on one network.

  3. #573
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    7,116
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6 Plus, Galaxy S6, Nexus 5, Note 3
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Sprint made it clear in the different phases of nv that they would

    1)replace all base stations/ decommission towers not needed
    2)replace back haul
    3)upgrade 3g
    4)deploy lte 1900
    5)deploy 800 voice
    6)deploy 800/25/2600 lte
    7)go back fill gaps with small pico cells.. add 1900/800 lte to all wimax sites and 25/2600 to all 1900/800 that werent already co-located
    8)add an additional 8k-10k sites

    sprint has run into a lot of issues and screw ups, but that is why people believe when they ever do get it done the network will be great.

    most people dont truly understand how much work they have to do IF everything went right... It didnt so now it takes longer, hoprfully they get it done before the last sub leaves
    They're over committing and under delivering.

    How's all this commitment without results benefitting their subs? They're running away because there isn't a single major high density metropolitan area that has fully deployed 1900Mhz LTE. Let alone TDD-LTE.

    It sounds GREAT in theory, but practically its been a disaster and torture for 3+ years.

    When deploying mid-high band LTE it makes so much more sense attacking major metro areas and creating a solid coverage and user experience, and then expanding to suburban and rural areas. This satisfies the highest amount of their existing sub's, and gives something to hope for to those in rural environment.
    Verizon Wireless 20Mhz FDD LTE

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The 909, Southern California
    Posts
    9,949
    Device(s)
    Android
    Carrier(s)
    -T--Mobile USA|Get More
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Sprint made it clear in the different phases of nv that they would

    1)replace all base stations/ decommission towers not needed
    2)replace back haul
    3)upgrade 3g
    4)deploy lte 1900
    5)deploy 800 voice
    6)deploy 800/25/2600 lte
    7)go back fill gaps with small pico cells.. add 1900/800 lte to all wimax sites and 25/2600 to all 1900/800 that werent already co-located
    8)add an additional 8k-10k sites

    sprint has run into a lot of issues and screw ups, but that is why people believe when they ever do get it done the network will be great.

    most people dont truly understand how much work they have to do IF everything went right... It didnt so now it takes longer, hoprfully they get it done before the last sub leaves
    The problem is they keep making promises that get echoed over and over, forcing their customers to wait and wait.

    Look how T-Mobile has set realistic goals, and attained them, often ahead of schedule.

    Sprint should not be allowed to touch T-Mobile.

    Sent from my XT1080

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    mass.
    Posts
    1,058
    Device(s)
    htc/samsung
    Carrier(s)
    tmobile/sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by milan03 View Post
    They're over committing and under delivering.

    How's all this commitment without results benefitting their subs? They're running away because there isn't a single major high density metropolitan area that has fully deployed 1900Mhz LTE. Let alone TDD-LTE.

    It sounds GREAT in theory, but practically its been a disaster and torture for 3+ years.

    When deploying mid-high band LTE it makes so much more sense attacking major metro areas and creating a solid coverage and user experience, and then expanding to suburban and rural areas. This satisfies the highest amount of their existing sub's, and gives something to hope for to those in rural environment.


    I agree with you, and I have said sprint should have focused on it metro areas then headed outward.
    The only issue with sprint is they don't have a large amount of mid range (1900) In some areas they might have enough to do 10x10 but most are 5x5. That is their biggest problem in the midrange.

    They have gotten better over the last year but it might it has affected the sub base.
    If they purchase tmo, Things wont get worse it will get better. I am sure a lot of changes on sprints side will take place.....(Hesse) Some very high level tmo people will be kept (we know who)

    One thing I can say, though is tmo has gotten a lot better the last 12 months or so where I live, that is in direct relation to the cash from the att break up which gave tmo an instant infusion. Prior to that tmo/sprint were both terrible with either one winning on any given day.
    Now sprint got its cash infusion without new leadership (yet) so lets see what the next 6 months bring.

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    mass.
    Posts
    1,058
    Device(s)
    htc/samsung
    Carrier(s)
    tmobile/sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Antenna View Post
    The problem is they keep making promises that get echoed over and over, forcing their customers to wait and wait.

    Look how T-Mobile has set realistic goals, and attained them, often ahead of schedule.

    Sprint should not be allowed to touch T-Mobile.

    Sent from my XT1080

    Again, as a tmo and sprint sub, I agree somewhat with what you are saying but its not apples too apples when trying to compare their respective buildouts. Many people dont understand that and it causes more frustration with everyone.

  7. #577
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore area
    Posts
    1,363
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint $50 iPhone Plan
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    What worries me isn't the potential for the network, it's the potential for prices to skyrocket. When they have almost as many subs as AT&T, where's their incentive to compete? How do we know they won't raise prices to the level of AT&T or Verizon? The last thing we need is a Canadian-like monopoly with 3 branches.

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Murland
    Posts
    1,495
    Device(s)
    Nexus 6
    Carrier(s)
    MetroPCS
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mossme89 View Post
    What worries me isn't the potential for the network, it's the potential for prices to skyrocket. When they have almost as many subs as AT&T, where's their incentive to compete? How do we know they won't raise prices to the level of AT&T or Verizon? The last thing we need is a Canadian-like monopoly with 3 branches.
    ^ this is exactly what I'm concerned with. A report just came out last week saying that Sprint costs the second most expensive out of the big 4. What makes people think that this merger would have any bill reductions for customers? Yes, Sprint being able to compete is good, but the bottom line for consumers is monthly cost. I've yet to see a strong argument that this merger would allow Sprint to offer cheaper plans.

    Sent with the HoFo App
    nex·us [nek-suhs]
    noun, plural nex·us·es, nex·us.

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    7,116
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6 Plus, Galaxy S6, Nexus 5, Note 3
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Sprint made it clear in the different phases of nv that they would

    1)replace all base stations/ decommission towers not needed
    2)replace back haul
    3)upgrade 3g
    4)deploy lte 1900
    5)deploy 800 voice
    6)deploy 800/25/2600 lte
    7)go back fill gaps with small pico cells.. add 1900/800 lte to all wimax sites and 25/2600 to all 1900/800 that werent already co-located
    8)add an additional 8k-10k sites
    Oh and coming back to your list, it's been more than three years since this commitment, I've just realized that they haven't finished a single point out of this list.

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    296
    Feedback Score
    0
    The sprint name has been already spoiled and ruined. T-Mobile on the other hand is gaining momentum
    everyone know's sprint in Hawaii as the **** carrier

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,635
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Sprint made it clear in the different phases of nv that they would

    1)replace all base stations/ decommission towers not needed
    2)replace back haul
    3)upgrade 3g
    4)deploy lte 1900
    5)deploy 800 voice
    6)deploy 800/25/2600 lte
    7)go back fill gaps with small pico cells.. add 1900/800 lte to all wimax sites and 25/2600 to all 1900/800 that werent already co-located
    8)add an additional 8k-10k sites

    sprint has run into a lot of issues and screw ups, but that is why people believe when they ever do get it done the network will be great.

    most people dont truly understand how much work they have to do IF everything went right... It didnt so now it takes longer, hoprfully they get it done before the last sub leaves
    We do understand the work that takes place - the problem is, Sprint ignored it for years. Now, they're doing it, but it's still not even close to their projections. What's the reason? Sprint isn't very forthcoming to the public about any of this. They just keep acting as if they have a network as good as VZW and ATT with the prices of a prepaid. None of it is true though. You know the saying 'it takes money to make money'? Why not pay it forward to the consumers and give them a price break while you work out your network issues? Instead, Sprint raised prices or kept them the same and took away credits, discounts, and upgrades. Sure, the new Framily plan gets you to $25 a line, but that's with a lot of lines and matches Tmobile. Tmobile actually goes down to $22 a line at only 5 on a family plan.

    Next, the spectrum with Sprint - my god we should all have their heads about this. You point out they only have 5x5 on PCS in many markets - sure. But, they also have nationwide 800SMR (excluding the IBEZ stuff, so MORE issues for Sprint that they seem to ignore). They also have nationwide 2500/2600 (I'll get to this travesty in a minute). So, only 5x5 for LTE PCS is bad, but in any place they can supplement it with LTE on SMR and 2500/2600. In urban and suburban areas, if this isn't enough, then let's worry. Plus, Sprint could turn off some of that nasty EVDO on 1900 and put it to use for LTE.

    Sprint should also be in a hot seat for wasting 2500/2600. They had a major hold in clearwire and let that flounder. It's what, some 60mhz of spectrum in certain markets? That's amazing and would be so useful. Yet, wimax failed. No transition quickly away from a defunct technology at all. LTE is barely on this spectrum and Sprint's promise is to have about 100 million covered by year's end? What? That's a joke for nationwide spectrum that could easily carry most of their traffic. Yet, Sprint apologists act as if this is totally fine.

    Tmobile has a bigger LTE network with LESS spectrum, in LESS time, with LESS subscribers, and it's FASTER. As we discussed, it's also cheaper too! They've also been actively seeking more lowband spectrum with the recent purchase/trade for 700A. So, no, we don't want Sprint at all to purchase Tmobile.

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Baja California / Sinaloa
    Posts
    22,391
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max / Apple iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mossme89 View Post
    What worries me isn't the potential for the network, it's the potential for prices to skyrocket. When they have almost as many subs as AT&T, where's their incentive to compete? How do we know they won't raise prices to the level of AT&T or Verizon? The last thing we need is a Canadian-like monopoly with 3 branches.
    At this point I would rather pay Verizon Wireless or AT&T prices since I know my device will work nearly flawlessly in places I will use it the most. Sprint would have nothing to offer me at their price since I already know that for a little more than my device will work as it should. I don't have to worry about the potential of the new network since I already know AT&T works for me nor worry about prices skyrocketing because at that high price is very likely that AT&T or Verizon Wireless will still offer a better product.

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,687
    Device(s)
    Nexus 4, Galaxy Nexus (GSM)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Again, as a tmo and sprint sub, I agree somewhat with what you are saying but its not apples too apples when trying to compare their respective buildouts. Many people dont understand that and it causes more frustration with everyone.
    Elaborate on what obstacles are unique to Sprint which T-Mobile hasn't overcome.

    From what I see, Sprint has more spectrum, more subscribers, and more benefits than T-Mobile has had. They could rely on Verizon for nationwide roaming rather than patch together dozens of small regional and local networks. They were able to extend their first network (CDMA2000) for much longer, meaning they had lower CAPEX for the network than T-Mobile had to spend. They had 100+mhz of high capacity spectrum which could have been used to upend the wireless industry by deploying LTE in-masse (rather than going with WiMax, knowing that LTE would inherently have the larger ecosystem). Sprint mismanaged their Nextel network in a fashion unheard of in most industries, and dragged their feet for years before they started working with the government to change the spectrum restrictions on that network.

    Sprint has squandered every advantage they had in the industry 4-5 years ago. Sprint has been working on Network Vision for what, over 3 years now? Hesse announced it in October of 2010, and deployments began a year later. So since October of 2011, let's look at what T-Mobile has done. In that time, T-Mobile deployed 42mbps DC-HSPA+, they underwent a failed merger delaying network improvements, they refarmed their PCS network, they purchased/swapped spectrum from Leap and Verizon(2x), they purchased MetroPCS, they began deploying 5x5 and 10x10 LTE, and they began deploying 20x20 LTE. In 10 months, T-Mobile hit 203 million POPs covered with LTE - a goal which took Sprint 2 years and 2 months.

    I'm just not seeing what's taking Sprint so long, and their history doesn't give me much faith on their ability to execute anytime soon.

    ^ TMO LTE ^---------------|------St Louis-------|----------------^ ATT LTE ^

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The 909, Southern California
    Posts
    9,949
    Device(s)
    Android
    Carrier(s)
    -T--Mobile USA|Get More
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    Again, as a tmo and sprint sub, I agree somewhat with what you are saying but its not apples too apples when trying to compare their respective buildouts. Many people dont understand that and it causes more frustration with everyone.
    Then let them set gradual, more attainable goals in phases....Not mammoth goals that are years off

    Sent from my XT1080

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Baja California / Sinaloa
    Posts
    22,391
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max / Apple iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnicekid View Post
    I agree with you, and I have said sprint should have focused on it metro areas then headed outward.
    The only issue with sprint is they don't have a large amount of mid range (1900) In some areas they might have enough to do 10x10 but most are 5x5. That is their biggest problem in the midrange.
    I don't buy this excuse because T-Mobile had a 2x5 MHz LTE network for the initial rollout on a paired 1700/2100 band which isn't that much different in terms of characteristics of the PCS band. The initial 2x5 MHz LTE network for the first few months from T-Mobile was around 15-20 Mb for the downlink in my experience or as high as 25-30 Mb as others posted, which was just as good as their DC-HSPA+ network.

    It seems the biggest problem is #2 since Sprint was only doing it incrementally as needed to support iDEN and EVDO while T-Mobile was doing it support DC-HSPA+ 42. DC-HSPA +42 will benefit more from the increased back haul than iDEN and EVDO, the other thing I suspect is that Sprint allowed their network to languish or just wasnt proactive enough.

    #2 should have been done with a long time ago, instead of when you suddenly want to upgrade to LTE.
    #4 not a real problem initially , just needed #2 done first.
    Last edited by i0wnj00; 01-23-2014 at 01:45 PM.

Page 39 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sprint to acquire Virgin Mobile USA
    By Evan702 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 05:24 PM
  2. Will Sprint Acquire Virgin Mobile ....
    By vmobi in forum Virgin Mobile USA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 03:09 PM
  3. any sprint pcs AND t-mobile users here
    By timhorton1998 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2002, 01:15 PM
  4. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-11-2002, 12:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks