Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 292

Thread: New York Attorney General and nine other states file lawsuit to block Merger

  1. #256
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,555
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s
    Carrier(s)
    Boom Mobile, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffaloTF View Post
    And Dish... they don't have to build anything. They inherit every Sprint site deemed redundant and their nationwide 800 MHz network. And Sprint's network was purpose-built with Network Vision to be a network host for anyone else....
    The Sprint sites are a start. They will still have to build out before the mandated MVNO access on T-Mobile expires. Also to use their owned spectrum that is not currently deployed.

    I've had Dish Satellite service before, and was generally happy with it. Their DVRs broke on occasion, but local cable ones break too. Which is probably why some cable companies are going to a streaming model. (My local cable company doesn't offer DVRs to new customers according to their web site. You can signup for their package of streaming). The last time I had Dish, the outside pole broke in a storm. I just moved back to the local cable company since their DVRs had improved (up to 6 channels at a time). I'm currently on Youtube TV.

    But based on their history with spectrum, I would need to see tangible evidence that they have changed their spots in this area.
    iPhone 11 is my current primary phone. But I have more phones than lines. Back to only Prepaid with the changes in the economy.

  2. #257
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Someone will buy Sprint when it's value drops further and debt is restructured. DISH doesn't have a network, and Charlie Ergen has the worst possible track record with building out wireless networks. We have to assume DISH will flop until it doesn't. Why the hell would T-Mobile want USCC or C-Spire? Those are allied mostly with Sprint, and T-Mobile already roams on a chunk of USCC's network.

    My sense is that USCC lives or dies, if it is dying, AT&T or Verizon will buy it divest the other half of it off to the other CLR carrier based on avoiding the same carrier owning two CLR licenses in a single market. They should work harder to ink more roaming deals and improve coverage on AT&T and Verizon, as well as more VoLTE for T-Mobile.



    You obviously didn't read my posts or use any common sense. USCC and Sprint are the literal opposites of each other. Sprint covers all major metros and most highways in the US, but doesn't have blanketed coverage much of anywhere outside of a few pockets in the Midwest, the Shentel area, and parts of the Carolinas. USCC, OTOH, is the exact opposite, with coverage only in a few mid-size metro areas, and really good, blanketed coverage in their handful of small, regional markets. This is still due to their legacy of being CLR vs. PCS carriers.



    Wow! What a combination of truth and nonsense in such a short post! They are nothing like USCC, and never will be. But they will focus on major metro areas, and probably trim back their network a bit in more rural/exurban areas. They have a few weird little arms and legs of coverage from the Nextel days that they could probably get rid of, although they have to keep some license protection sites.

    Sprint's path forward on it's own is focusing on providing decent 5G in major metros with a minimum of capital-intensive smalls and fully utilizing their 2.5ghz spectrum. From there, they can rely on T-Mobile and to a lesser extent AT&T and Verizon for roaming. Their target market is lower-middle to lower-income people, and they can keep ARPU up by offering huge hotspot allowances and relatively affordable plans priced between the prepaid and postpaid markets that allow people to use their Sprint phone as a replacement to home internet. They could also use their 2.5ghz spectrum to target rural areas for fixed wireless, although they don't have the synergy that other carriers have for this. They could also lease out spectrum in markets that they don't want to be in themselves.
    Your repeated mention of Sprint beng good in a few tiny points does not change the fact that they aren't nationwide. "Metro" or not, it's still a tiny network.

    Nor does covering a small amount of US highway miles. Sprint and USSC are the same in that they are both bush league.

  3. #258
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffaloTF View Post
    Prices for AT&T, Verizon and T-Mo are already at par. They can't raise them. T-mo comes ahead by absorbing the taxes into their pricing... that's the only difference that's existed since AT&T and Verizon brought back unlimited *before* this acquisition occurred.
    T-Mobile is priced a bit below Verizon and AT&T at face value, then then adding on the international pricing (even with full-speed passes) and taxes and fees, and the gap is quite significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Your repeated mention of Sprint beng good in a few tiny points does not change the fact that they aren't nationwide. "Metro" or not, it's still a tiny network.
    Sprint is nationwide. They cover Seattle and Miami, New York and LA, Chicago and New Orleans. You get the point. USCC doesn't. They only cover certain regions, and have those licensed areas blanketed with coverage.

    If you knew anything about history, you would know that Sprint was, in fact, the original nationwide network, as they bought nationwide PCS licenses while cellular carriers still used analog and had to roam from one carrier to another to provide service across the entire country.

    Nor does covering a small amount of US highway miles. Sprint and USSC are the same in that they are both bush league.
    Sprint and USCC are literally the exact opposite of each other. Let's get that fact through everyone's head. I don't know where this nonsense about USCC and Sprint somehow being similar came from. It's an idiotic notion.

    Let me repeat for those who didn't get it the first five times: USCC covers pretty much everything within regional areas where they hold licenses, while Sprint covers all major metros and most major highways across the entire United States. One last time to make it clear: Sprint and USCC are the exact opposite of each other.
    Last edited by SoxFan76; 08-17-2019 at 03:44 PM. Reason: typo

  4. #259
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Just to add to the fact that Sprint and USCC are exact opposites, USCC has a lot in common with a C-Spire or an LTEiRA partner network, just scaled way up to multiple regions of the US. They have virtually nothing in common in history or strategy with Sprint.

  5. #260
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    15,111
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post

    Of course you ignored the fact that Sprint has a far less capital-intensive path to 5G. If they can leverage that, then that could be a huge WIN for them.
    Far less capital-intensive path compared to other carriers perhaps. But no evidence, that they'll have the capital to even implement that. Or even if they tried to implement it, no evidence that it would be profitable. That spectrum was attempted to be used for Wi-Max and that was a flop. Then they've tried to roll out LTE on it. But due to the nature of the high frequency band, they have trouble getting an area fully blanketed with that spectrum for regular mobile use. So customers are constantly falling back to slower and more available band 25 & 26.



    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Sprint's path forward on it's own is focusing on providing decent 5G in major metros with a minimum of capital-intensive smalls and fully utilizing their 2.5ghz spectrum. From there, they can rely on T-Mobile and to a lesser extent AT&T and Verizon for roaming. Their target market is lower-middle to lower-income people,
    Why would lower-middle to lower-income people want 5G service that you advocate they build if they remain independent?

  6. #261
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    T-Mobile is priced a bit below Verizon and AT&T at face value, then then adding on the international pricing (even with full-speed passes) and taxes and fees, and the gap is quite significant.



    Sprint is nationwide. They cover Seattle and Miami, New York and LA, Chicago and New Orleans. You get the point. USCC doesn't. They only cover certain regions, and have those licensed areas blanketed with coverage.

    If you knew anything about history, you would know that Sprint was, in fact, the original nationwide network, as they bought nationwide PCS licenses while cellular carriers still used analog and had to roam from one carrier to another to provide service across the entire country.



    Sprint and USCC are literally the exact opposite of each other. Let's get that fact through everyone's head. I don't know where this nonsense about USCC and Sprint somehow being similar came from. It's an idiotic notion.

    Let me repeat for those who didn't get it the first five times: USCC covers pretty much everything within regional areas where they hold licenses, while Sprint covers all major metros and most major highways across the entire United States. One last time to make it clear: Sprint and USCC are the exact opposite of each other.
    there is no need to repeat five times what simply isn't true. Regardless of any differences in history and strategy, the results are pretty much the same. Neither network provides any real competition to the Duopoly. No amount of wishing this were true nor "repeat five times" stomping tantrums will make reality match what you are claiming. Nor will any of your arbitrary claims, "major" this, "major" that make Sprint's tiny coverage and tiny impact any more than it really is.

    It only drives home the point about how close Sprint is to US Cellular. Sprint is great within the tiny points that you say it is (other than you striking out on highways, as most highways don't have any Sprint at all, and major US interstate freeways are only partially covered here and there by Sprint).

    But once you go outside of these like you would with any actual nationwide network, your phone is dead. To go cross-country, you need a real nationwide network.

    Just like how US Cellular also works with its small areas. Regardless of different history and strategy, and probably due in large part to the incompetence that has always been Sprint management, US Cellular and Sprint have ended up in a situation that is more similar than different

  7. #262
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Also, Sprint has never been a nationwide Network at all. I presented the definition of "nationwide" earlier. Having decent coverage in only 10 American states does not meet the definition of nationwide. It never has, and with Sprint started out it it was even further from the definition.

    Only two or three of the American cellular networks meet the definition of nationwide. Only two or three of the American cellular networks are in any sort of position to compete with each other.

    The little networks down in the weeds play in a different league.

  8. #263
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Far less capital-intensive path compared to other carriers perhaps. But no evidence, that they'll have the capital to even implement that. Or even if they tried to implement it, no evidence that it would be profitable. That spectrum was attempted to be used for Wi-Max and that was a flop. Then they've tried to roll out LTE on it. But due to the nature of the high frequency band, they have trouble getting an area fully blanketed with that spectrum for regular mobile use. So customers are constantly falling back to slower and more available band 25 & 26.
    So according to your logic, 28ghz is going to have better coverage than 2500mhz? Where do you come up with this garbage?

    Why would lower-middle to lower-income people want 5G service that you advocate they build if they remain independent?
    You should try reading posts before making counterpoints that prove you didn't read them.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    there is no need to repeat five times what simply isn't true. Regardless of any differences in history and strategy, the results are pretty much the same.
    Ok, you're just trolling at this point. You picked the two most opposite large-ish carriers in the industry and are trying to say that they are somehow the same. That's insane.

    Neither network provides any real competition to the Duopoly.
    WRONG. USCC competes head on with AT&T or Verizon in almost all markets that they hold a Cellular license. Sprint does not. Totally different carriers, totally different places in the market.

    It only drives home the point about how close Sprint is to US Cellular.
    Of course when you say things are completely WRONG, then you can come to a completely WRONG conclusion.

    Just like how US Cellular also works with its small areas.
    That's just literally factually WRONG. US Cellular works just about EVERYWHERE within a select number of mostly rural markets. Sprint is exactly the opposite. They have a swiss-cheese network from sea to shining sea.

    I don't know why you're trolling with this asinine argument at this point. It's patently absurd, as I have both said several times over, and as common sense dictated in the first place. It's sad that your posts have gone downhill from fairly logical to this utter and complete nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Also, Sprint has never been a nationwide Network at all. I presented the definition of "nationwide" earlier. Having decent coverage in only 10 American states does not meet the definition of nationwide. It never has, and with Sprint started out it it was even further from the definition.
    Sprint is definitely nationwide. They have service in every major city nationwide, from Texas to California and Illinois to Massachusetts.

  9. #264
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    166
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Far less capital-intensive path compared to other carriers perhaps. But no evidence, that they'll have the capital to even implement that. Or even if they tried to implement it, no evidence that it would be profitable. That spectrum was attempted to be used for Wi-Max and that was a flop. Then they've tried to roll out LTE on it. But due to the nature of the high frequency band, they have trouble getting an area fully blanketed with that spectrum for regular mobile use. So customers are constantly falling back to slower and more available band 25 & 26.
    Money that Sprint can't borrow: https://www.wsj.com/articles/sprint-...ain-1452469045

    Quote from article:
    But those efforts still haven’t won over investors. Darren Hughes, who helps oversee the $1.2 billion Invesco High Yield Fund, said Sprint has taken on too much leverage and that competitors like T-Mobile have done a better job of attracting new subscribers.

    His fund has been trimming back its exposure, and he said bond buyers will likely be reluctant to lend the company more money.

    “The world’s just had enough of Sprint paper,” he said. “You can’t really put any more stuffing in the turkey.”


    https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/sprin...ng-junk-bonds/

    Sprint can't come up with the money needed to build out much of anything.

    As a matter of fact, the New T-Mobile will be a junk bond giant: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-bond-behemoth

  10. #265
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,201
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone X
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    T-Mobile is priced a bit below Verizon and AT&T at face value, then then adding on the international pricing (even with full-speed passes) and taxes and fees, and the gap is quite significant.
    Nah. They're definitely at par. Single line for T-Mo is 80 bucks. AT&T and Verizon are both 80 bucks + tax. These are the HD streaming plans with Canada/Mexico roaming -- the base ones are all 70. Family plans? It becomes tricky... depending on the number of lines, you'll find each has a number where they're the cheapest option.

    And you can't beat AT&Ts and Verizon's $10 per day 'like home' international roaming. If I'm not mistaken -- T-Mobile's is only data pass add-ons starting at 5 dollars a day to get out of the 128 or 256 kbps speed.

  11. #266
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffaloTF View Post
    Nah. They're definitely at par. Single line for T-Mo is 80 bucks. AT&T and Verizon are both 80 bucks + tax. These are the HD streaming plans with Canada/Mexico roaming -- the base ones are all 70. Family plans? It becomes tricky... depending on the number of lines, you'll find each has a number where they're the cheapest option.
    For the "standard" UDP 4-line plan:

    Verizon: $180/mo
    AT&T: $160/mo or $190/mo
    T-Mobile:$160/mo (including taxes)
    Sprint: $140/mo

    Part of the challenge is comparing plans, as they each have different features, and you could argue over which plan to compare.

    Still, T-Mobile's mainstream $160/mo offering with taxes and fees is a good deal. Verizon was $200/mo, but they reshuffled recently. You get into stuff like the 55+ and military plans, and T-Mobile has some insane deals.

    And you can't beat AT&Ts and Verizon's $10 per day 'like home' international roaming. If I'm not mistaken -- T-Mobile's is only data pass add-ons starting at 5 dollars a day to get out of the 128 or 256 kbps speed.
    AT&T and Verizon are a rip-off. They got rid of some of their lower priced global roaming plans, and now they have these absurd $10/day passes that end up being closer to $15/day with taxes and fees.

    T-Mobile offers free data at 128kbps or 256kbps depending on the plan, and if you want to get the high speed pass, it's $35 for 5GB for 10 days or $50 for 15GB for 30 days. T-Mobile is unbeatable on global roaming pricing, other than Project Fi, which runs off of T-Mobile's global roaming agreements.

  12. #267
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    15,111
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    So according to your logic, 28ghz is going to have better coverage than 2500mhz? Where do you come up with this garbage?
    I'm not comparing the coverage of the two. They're used for different purposes. I was specifically referring to the inability of Sprint to deploy band 41 very effectively and questioning their ability to deploy it any better in the future (even if using 5G). What other companies do or do not do with 28ghz is irrelevant.

  13. #268
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    So according to your logic, 28ghz is going to have better coverage than 2500mhz? Where do you come up with this garbage?



    You should try reading posts before making counterpoints that prove you didn't read them.



    Ok, you're just trolling at this point. You picked the two most opposite large-ish carriers in the industry and are trying to say that they are somehow the same. That's insane.



    WRONG. USCC competes head on with AT&T or Verizon in almost all markets that they hold a Cellular license. Sprint does not. Totally different carriers, totally different places in the market.



    Of course when you say things are completely WRONG, then you can come to a completely WRONG conclusion.



    That's just literally factually WRONG. US Cellular works just about EVERYWHERE within a select number of mostly rural markets. Sprint is exactly the opposite. They have a swiss-cheese network from sea to shining sea.

    I don't know why you're trolling with this asinine argument at this point. It's patently absurd, as I have both said several times over, and as common sense dictated in the first place. It's sad that your posts have gone downhill from fairly logical to this utter and complete nonsense.



    Sprint is definitely nationwide. They have service in every major city nationwide, from Texas to California and Illinois to Massachusetts.
    That's a nationwide something, but not a nationwide mobile phone carrier. a nationwide mobile phone carrier is based on coverage of wide areas, not coverage of just a few points here and there.

    Sprint simply has poor or no coverage in all but 10 states. Regardless of a few tiny arbitrarily picked points, a tiny number of American cities that have Sprint in them out of a total of thousands of American cities. to educate yourself, I suggest you look at each of the carrier maps, regardless of the question of how accurate they are. Coverage is King when it comes to cell companies. That's why they show these maps all the time instead of just give a typed up list of cities that happen to have the carrier.

    Again, I refer you to the actual definition of nationwide. You appear to have forgotten it. And I will leave it at that, you seem to take pride in your intentional ignorance.

    If cell carriers were like baseball teams, Sprint would be like the Toledo Mudhens. US Cellular would be like the Traverse City Pit Spitters. Like with US Cellular and Sprint, both of these teams are minor league, and have very different histories and goals. But they're both minor league, and hardly anyone will mistake them for the big leagues.

    Play ball! And it's Strike 3, Soxfan, and you'rrrrre out!

  14. #269
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I'm not comparing the coverage of the two. They're used for different purposes. I was specifically referring to the inability of Sprint to deploy band 41 very effectively and questioning their ability to deploy it any better in the future (even if using 5G). What other companies do or do not do with 28ghz is irrelevant.
    Well adding sites to densify 2.5 is going to be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than putting up small cells all over the place to make mmWave work or densify sufficiently for Verizon's sub-6 holdings.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    That's a nationwide something, but not a nationwide mobile phone carrier. a nationwide mobile phone carrier is based on coverage of wide areas, not coverage of just a few points here and there.
    They're nationwide. I didn't say they have great coverage everywhere, they don't, but they are a nationwide carrier. Anyone with eyes and a brain can figure that one out.


    If cell carriers were like baseball teams, Sprint would be like the Toledo Mudhens. US Cellular would be like the Traverse City Pit Spitters. Like with US Cellular and Sprint, both of these teams are minor league, and have very different histories and goals. But they're both minor league, and hardly anyone will mistake them for the big leagues.
    That analogy doesn't work. USCC is equivalent to AT&T or Verizon in the relatively small markets that they service. Sprint is nothing like AT&T or Verizon.

    Again, USCC and Sprint are literal opposites of each other. I'm not sure why you continue to troll, since this is clear and obvious, and has been discussed at length above.

  15. #270
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    Does this guy ever give up? Or does he go out on some sort of explosion and get banned and come back resurrected?

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2013, 06:55 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 07:12 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 01:10 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-06-2004, 12:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks