Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 188

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

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,542
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Those positions are perfectly defensible, what is not defensible is blatantly lying about what removing competition from the market does, which at a very bare minimum, just removes the cheapest option, making people pick a more expensive one,.
    There is no "blatant lie". This is just another false allegation on your part.

    You're only providing wild speculation about what will happen to pricing. And that's fine if you want to speculate about pricing. But don't present your statements as somehow grounded in absolute fact when their not.

    I've already detailed that there is no way that you can know that Sprint's pricing model will be continued into the future even if the merger is declined. They have bad financial health. They just reported another $2 billion loss.

    Nor can you know how hard the new T-Mobile will compete for market share. They may very well use lower pricing to continue to poach more customers from AT&T and Verizon. It has certainly been Legere's state of mind to do that in the past. With a stronger network and better cost synergy from the merger, you provide no compelling reason he's going to change his mindset. Even if you did, it would only be your speculation. Not some fact.

    The bottom line is, it's fine to rationally present your opinion and your arguments about what will happen in the future. But when you start engaging in name calling of those who disagree with you and state that their in cults and such, perhaps the foundation of your arguments aren't really that strong after all.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,657
    Device(s)
    iPhone
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    You guys have derailed this post.

    This was about New York blocking the merger.

    With how New York is being lately politically evolved, including their Ocacio-Cortez queen... New York will appeal anything, along with their compadres in San Francisco the Ninth Circuit of appeals.
    I would not be surprised New York appealing how a peanut butter sandwich should be made.. or a hotdog.



    They want money, concessions from this merger, and nothing more. I dont think they even really care about it.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,425
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    In April Tmobile and Sprint set what I believe is a self imposed deadline date on the merger of this Saturday, June 29th.

    I'm betting they don't adhere to that.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,170
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 6S, OG Pixel XL, Apple iPad 3 (VZW variant)
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless (Verizon), T-Mobile, FreedomPop (AT&T)
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by offthegrid View Post
    In April Tmobile and Sprint set what I believe is a self imposed deadline date on the merger of this Saturday, JuneJuly 29th.

    I'm betting they don't adhere to that.
    Corrected, but still feel this might be true.
    My common forum nick: GenesisDH.

    R.I.P. Circuit City

    We are the Bor... the new AT&T: Your World, Assimilated.

    1000th post: Sept. 29th, 2008, 17:42 CDT

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    329
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    There is no "blatant lie". This is just another false allegation on your part.

    You're only providing wild speculation about what will happen to pricing. And that's fine if you want to speculate about pricing. But don't present your statements as somehow grounded in absolute fact when their not.
    Claiming that removing Sprint from the market isn't removing competition or that removing competition won't cause prices to go up is a blatant lie. The rules of basic economics don't just stop applying because it's T-Mobile and their CEO is a cool looking guy who wears a pink T-shirt and jeans.

    I've already detailed that there is no way that you can know that Sprint's pricing model will be continued into the future even if the merger is declined. They have bad financial health. They just reported another $2 billion loss.
    You're mixing up the "Sprint will fail" argument, which is a valid argument, as Sprint is not in good shape, with the lies described above.

    Nor can you know how hard the new T-Mobile will compete for market share. They may very well use lower pricing to continue to poach more customers from AT&T and Verizon. It has certainly been Legere's state of mind to do that in the past. With a stronger network and better cost synergy from the merger, you provide no compelling reason he's going to change his mindset. Even if you did, it would only be your speculation. Not some fact.
    There's going to be no incentive to compete significantly on price. They are already significantly cheaper than AT&T and Verizon, at the very best, they stay right where they are, while eliminating the lower cost option of Sprint.

    Again, that's a dishonest argument. It would be fair to argue that maybe a larger segment of the market should bail on postpaid entirely and go into the prepaid market instead, and many of Sprint's postpaid customers might be better served by prepaid on another carrier, but you're still taking away options, particularly in the postpaid space where there's a much bigger pricing gap than in the prepaid space. However, prepaid prices would likely rise as well due to less competition between the networks that serves to drive down the cost that MVNOs pay for access, with T-Mobile and Sprint keeping costs lower than AT&T and Verizon in that market, but all four having successful MVNOs and/or prepaid brands running off of their network.

    The bottom line is, it's fine to rationally present your opinion and your arguments about what will happen in the future. But when you start engaging in name calling of those who disagree with you and state that their in cults and such, perhaps the foundation of your arguments aren't really that strong after all.
    What is NOT ok is to make intellectually dishonest and false arguments in order to support your agenda. If you want to make an intellectually honest argument for T-Sprint, go ahead and do it. There are perfectly good arguments on both sides. But don't sit here and claim that prices won't go up, or that competition won't go down, because anyone who knows anything about economics wouldn't make such blatantly false statements.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by cr0w View Post
    You guys have derailed this post.

    This was about New York blocking the merger.

    With how New York is being lately politically evolved, including their Ocacio-Cortez queen... New York will appeal anything, along with their compadres in San Francisco the Ninth Circuit of appeals.
    I would not be surprised New York appealing how a peanut butter sandwich should be made.. or a hotdog.



    They want money, concessions from this merger, and nothing more. I dont think they even really care about it.
    It's actually 14 states a few of them with republican governors or AGs. Also don't bring up politics

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    329
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    It's actually 14 states a few of them with republican governors or AGs. Also don't bring up politics
    At least in principle, the conservative school of thought has more to lose with this merger. Conservative principles favor taking actions to encourage competition, i.e. blocking horizontal mergers in lieu of direct regulatory intervention in business. Some food for thought.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Claiming that removing Sprint from the market isn't removing competition or that removing competition won't cause prices to go up is a blatant lie. The rules of basic economics don't just stop applying because it's T-Mobile and their CEO is a cool looking guy who wears a pink T-shirt and jeans.
    I have choice of at&t, Verizon and T-Mobile. If the merger happens I'll have the same 3 choices. Where is this competition Sprint brings to me and millions of others? If Sprint was actual competition at&t and Verizon would be losing millions of sub per months as Sprint gives out their service for nearly free. Why hasn't this "competition" not forced at&t an Verizon to lower prices or offer better plans?

    There's going to be no incentive to compete significantly on price. They are already significantly cheaper than AT&T and Verizon, at the very best, they stay right where they are, while eliminating the lower cost option of Sprint.
    Once again tens of millions do not have Sprint as an option now and that doesn't change if the merger is denied.

    Again, that's a dishonest argument. It would be fair to argue that maybe a larger segment of the market should bail on postpaid entirely and go into the prepaid market instead, and many of Sprint's postpaid customers might be better served by prepaid on another carrier, but you're still taking away options, particularly in the postpaid space where there's a much bigger pricing gap than in the prepaid space. However, prepaid prices would likely rise as well due to less competition between the networks that serves to drive down the cost that MVNOs pay for access, with T-Mobile and Sprint keeping costs lower than AT&T and Verizon in that market, but all four having successful MVNOs and/or prepaid brands running off of their network.


    What is NOT ok is to make intellectually dishonest and false arguments in order to support your agenda
    Why do you assume anyone disagreeing with you is making an intellectually dishonest and or false argument? That is an awfully arrogant assumption on your part boarding on narcissism.

    I'm a Verizon customers I believe that this merger going through will help t-mobile actually push Verizon and at&t lower prices and/or offer better plans. And that in the end help those of us who stay with Verizon or at&t or T-Mobile having a better network gives us another choice. Now could I be wrong? Sure, but I do know for 100% the CURRENT 4 carrier situation has NOT produced those results. Nor will it if it's forced to continue to exist.

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,425
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Haas_Dave View Post
    Corrected, but still feel this might be true.
    Oops, I must have misread the link, thanks another month makes all the difference.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    There is no "blatant lie". This is just another false allegation on your part.

    You're only providing wild speculation about what will happen to pricing. And that's fine if you want to speculate about pricing. But don't present your statements as somehow grounded in absolute fact when their not.

    I've already detailed that there is no way that you can know that Sprint's pricing model will be continued into the future even if the merger is declined. They have bad financial health. They just reported another $2 billion loss.

    Nor can you know how hard the new T-Mobile will compete for market share. They may very well use lower pricing to continue to poach more customers from AT&T and Verizon. It has certainly been Legere's state of mind to do that in the past. With a stronger network and better cost synergy from the merger, you provide no compelling reason he's going to change his mindset. Even if you did, it would only be your speculation. Not some fact.

    The bottom line is, it's fine to rationally present your opinion and your arguments about what will happen in the future. But when you start engaging in name calling of those who disagree with you and state that their in cults and such, perhaps the foundation of your arguments aren't really that strong after all.
    Nor can you know that Sprint will fold if the merger fails, can you? It's speculation as well.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    156
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    Nor can you know that Sprint will fold if the merger fails, can you? It's speculation as well.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    His claims have financial/earning statements indicating such direction. All others have no data to back up any claims. There is a difference.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,542
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Claiming that removing Sprint from the market isn't removing competition or that removing competition won't cause prices to go up is a blatant lie. The rules of basic economics don't just stop applying because it's T-Mobile and their CEO is a cool looking guy who wears a pink T-shirt and jeans.
    Somehow you must have missed in basic economics, the principle of selling a product for less than it costs to produce and making a profit. Go back and read your textbook. You'll find that in there.

    Also find out what happens to an entity that continues to sell products for less than they cost.

    That's what Sprint's quarterly reports show.

    You don't want Sprint's low price point to be removed from the market? Too bad. It's "basics economics" like you said. Such cost structure is unsustainable by any economic theory you want to state.

    Now given that fact, I'm advocating for what I feel would be best for competition among the market which is for T-Mobile to use those Sprint assets to better compete with AT&T and Verizon. That is my position and my opinion.

    You can disagree with that position and advocate something different. But instead you want to use terms like "blatant lie" when I've made none. You also want to engage in name calling with those you disagree with

    There's going to be no incentive to compete significantly on price. They are already significantly cheaper than AT&T and Verizon, at the very best, they stay right where they are
    I disagree. T-Mobile will have significant motivation to offer lower prices than AT&T and Verizon and keep eroding their market share. Furthermore, the new T-Mobile will have lower costs due to greater cost efficiency and they can leverage that to do some major damage to AT&T and Verizon.

    but you're still taking away options
    Options are being taken away by the market. It's inevitable those options get taken away in some manner. Either by Sprint closing their doors, or Sprint realizing they have to raise their prices, or a merger with T-mobile or even one of your dream buyers buying them out. No new company is going to buy Sprint in order to keep losing money. A new owner will raise prices as well.

    You're under the mistaken idea that government regulation can force pricing below costs. And perhaps it can in the short term but that never lasts.

    What is NOT ok is to make intellectually dishonest and false arguments in order to support your agenda.
    I'm not doing that. That's just another false allegation on your part. My arguments are based on sound economic theory. You have failed to show otherwise. You just want to engage in a bunch of name calling because that's all you have.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,542
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    Nor can you know that Sprint will fold if the merger fails, can you? It's speculation as well.
    I can't predict that it will fold. Sprint can probably be run for many, many years in some form. Many corporations downsize and still keep their doors open. There are a lot of tricks that can be done.

    I mean look at this link---it still shows Radio Shack locations in existence!

    https://www.radioshack.com/pages/store-locator

    US Cellular keeps their doors open and they have a tiny market share.

    But what I can predict, and what I did predict in my reply to SoxFan76 is that Sprint won't be able to continue to offer the same quantity of products at the same price point they do now for the main reason that they are losing lots of money. It can't continue forever. The days of them being a viable nationwide carrier are coming to an end. Yes, the brand may stay in existence if the merger is blocked. But that doesn't keep their current business model going.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,170
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 6S, OG Pixel XL, Apple iPad 3 (VZW variant)
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless (Verizon), T-Mobile, FreedomPop (AT&T)
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I can't predict that it will fold. Sprint can probably be run for many, many years in some form. Many corporations downsize and still keep their doors open. There are a lot of tricks that can be done.

    I mean look at this link---it still shows Radio Shack locations in existence!

    https://www.radioshack.com/pages/store-locator

    US Cellular keeps their doors open and they have a tiny market share.

    But what I can predict, and what I did predict in my reply to SoxFan76 is that Sprint won't be able to continue to offer the same quantity of products at the same price point they do now for the main reason that they are losing lots of money. It can't continue forever. The days of them being a viable nationwide carrier are coming to an end. Yes, the brand may stay in existence if the merger is blocked. But that doesn't keep their current business model going.
    The RadioShack part of this post is slightly inaccurate (it’s a licensing brand now, every store is independent or tend to be multibrand retailers). However it makes for a few weirdly good points in this argument.
    First is that RadioShack’s brand reach upon emergence from Chapter 11 (again) is less than half of its pre-2017 bankruptcy size and about 10% of its pre-2015 bankruptcy size.

    Creditors of RadioShack Corporations’ assets in 2017 filed litigation against Sprint for breach of contract and using insider data to bulid directly-competing corporate stores to the co-branded stores. Sprint did eventually buy up 300 formerly co-branded stores as part of a settlement, many of which were underperforming. Sprint made a bad business decision, and even went rotten on that choice to which they got sued.

    The RadioShack debacle makes a very strong point that Sprint’s recent past is very telling of its future if it doesn’t merge with T-Mobile. It is a horrible business decision to partner with a failing company if your company is also underperforming.

    Look at the fate of Sears Holdings (old Kmart/Sears) as a good idea of what a lot of bad business decisions, lack of investment, and a not-so-great leadership do to a company. Sprint is toeing a similar line.

    US Cellular: They do actually make a profit, and a decent one with the relatively small number of customers they have (compared to the top 4 carriers). Though they also have plan pricing similar to T-Mobile. I know people in USCC areas opting for them over Sprint, even though Sprint has a roaming-as-native agreement. That is mostly due to Sprint’s network reputation.

    You do have the right idea across in that Sprint has basically three options, none of which are favorable to consumers in some way:
    1) Merge which will eventually increase overall pricing and likely remove a price competitor, even if it is merging with Dish or a cable company.
    2) Increase pricing to actually stay solvent and get money to actually increase capex; if you look at their current 5G plan pricing this is already happening. Though this will probably cause a repeat of this merger or bankruptcy conversation, as they don’t have a great network to compete with and they need to solve their debt problems.
    3) File for bankruptcy and pray they actually make it out alive. This could remove a competitor and T-Mobile (among others) may get some of what they want anyway at a lower acquisition cost.

    TL;DR
    Sprint can’t afford to keep doing what they have been doing for the last several years. It’s just not financially stable, hurts their position as a national carrier, and it will come back to bite them. Merging might actually be the best option, but any outcome will come at a cost to end users.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    329
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    I have choice of at&t, Verizon and T-Mobile. If the merger happens I'll have the same 3 choices. Where is this competition Sprint brings to me and millions of others? If Sprint was actual competition at&t and Verizon would be losing millions of sub per months as Sprint gives out their service for nearly free. Why hasn't this "competition" not forced at&t an Verizon to lower prices or offer better plans?
    This erroneous notion has already been debunked by other posters. AT&T and Verizon don't charge different prices to people in the middle of Manhattan versus those in the middle of a field or forest somewhere. Sprint is price competition to the big carriers, for a certain segment of the market. Just because they don't take over the entire market doesn't mean that they don't have a place in the market. That's again an erroneous notion that lacks an understanding of basic economics.

    Why do you assume anyone disagreeing with you is making an intellectually dishonest and or false argument? That is an awfully arrogant assumption on your part boarding on narcissism.
    WRONG. You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend my post. There are posters on here who are being intellectually honest and have a good-faith position that Sprint and T-Mobile should merge, which include the argument that Sprint couldn't survive on it's own, or that a combined carrier would make more efficient user of the spectrum, particularly B41. Then there are those who are arguing that the merger wouldn't raise prices, which is blatantly false, and not a good faith argument.

    I'm a Verizon customers I believe that this merger going through will help t-mobile actually push Verizon and at&t lower prices and/or offer better plans. And that in the end help those of us who stay with Verizon or at&t or T-Mobile having a better network gives us another choice. Now could I be wrong? Sure, but I do know for 100% the CURRENT 4 carrier situation has NOT produced those results. Nor will it if it's forced to continue to exist.
    This merger is unlikely to do much to T and Vz prices. It's possible that they will go down a little bit, but that doesn't do anything for the competitive argument, as TMUS is going to build out their network merger or not, and if you want lower prices, switch to TMUS. Removing S from the market, however, is guaranteed to take the lowest cost option off the market, as that's literally what the merger is, and is likely to cause TMUS's prices to rise as they build out their network.

    I'm also not convinced that T-Sprint is actually going to build out serious rural coverage. A good chunk of the current TMUS network is not well built. The towers are spaced too far apart, and B71 can only do so much when they're stretched out that much. T and Vz are using a lot of the original sites from the 850mhz AMPS days, and they have a LOT of spectrum deployed on them. There are also still huge chunks of the US where there are only the two cellular carriers. On top of that, even T and Vz still have huge disaster markets/ giant holes in their networks that they haven't bothered to patch up in the 6+ years that both have had nationwide or nearly nationwide low-band spectrum and now VoLTE.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Somehow you must have missed in basic economics, the principle of selling a product for less than it costs to produce and making a profit. Go back and read your textbook. You'll find that in there.

    Also find out what happens to an entity that continues to sell products for less than they cost.

    That's what Sprint's quarterly reports show.

    You don't want Sprint's low price point to be removed from the market? Too bad. It's "basics economics" like you said. Such cost structure is unsustainable by any economic theory you want to state.
    Sprint's most likely path forward is to be bought by someone. I believe that they can survive on their own if they can figure out how to get over the hump of fixing their network, possibly paring back some of the weird areas of coverage that make no sense, re-building their mess of a network, and building out 5G using their capital-efficient B41 spectrum, but I think being bought is a MUCH better option. I'd like to see Amazon buy them, but a Comcast/Charter/Altice combo has some huge advantages too, like strand-mount small cells in almost every major market in the US, along with cheap backhaul (T and Vz cheat on backhaul in their ILEC footprints, so why not Sprint nearly nationwide). Those three companies are basically cash printing machines at this point, so they can afford to lose money on Sprint for 5 years to rebuild their network, expand coverage, deploy 100,000 strand-mount small cells, and make Sprint awesome.

    Now given that fact, I'm advocating for what I feel would be best for competition among the market which is for T-Mobile to use those Sprint assets to better compete with AT&T and Verizon. That is my position and my opinion.

    You can disagree with that position and advocate something different. But instead you want to use terms like "blatant lie" when I've made none. You also want to engage in name calling with those you disagree with
    There is a fundamental difference between claiming that taking a carrier out of the market won't reduce competition and raise prices, which is a blatant lie, and supporting the merger with an honest and truthful reasoning, whether that's for 5G coverage on the B41 band, because you believe Sprint can't survive with their crappy network and $40B in debt, because you think that competition for rural and home broadband is worth the loss in the mobile market, or some other honest and truthful logic.

    I disagree. T-Mobile will have significant motivation to offer lower prices than AT&T and Verizon and keep eroding their market share. Furthermore, the new T-Mobile will have lower costs due to greater cost efficiency and they can leverage that to do some major damage to AT&T and Verizon.
    They already offer lower prices. What incentive would they have to drop prices further when they are already gaining a ton of customers? That makes no sense. The best case scenario is that they stay right where they are, significantly below T and VZ, but still above where Sprint is now. And since when has lower costs made anything cheaper? T and VZ have even larger scales of economy, but they charge more than the smaller carriers because the market will bear it.

    Options are being taken away by the market. It's inevitable those options get taken away in some manner. Either by Sprint closing their doors, or Sprint realizing they have to raise their prices, or a merger with T-mobile or even one of your dream buyers buying them out. No new company is going to buy Sprint in order to keep losing money. A new owner will raise prices as well.

    You're under the mistaken idea that government regulation can force pricing below costs. And perhaps it can in the short term but that never lasts.
    No. The market is not taking away options. This is again a lie. The government allowing T-Sprint would be taking away options. If Altice/Comcast/Charter bought up Sprint, rebuilt their network, expanded coverage moderately, made it rock solid within their MSO footprints, and streamlined the whole operation to make it more efficient, then Sprint would be a strong fourth competitor. The same is true if Amazon bought them and upgraded their network. Even if open-market postpaid prices jumped, either Amazon or Comcast/Altice/Charter would be offering bundles at a deep discount to subscribers of their other services.

    I'm not doing that. That's just another false allegation on your part. My arguments are based on sound economic theory. You have failed to show otherwise. You just want to engage in a bunch of name calling because that's all you have.
    Yes you are. You continue to re-hash points which were never true, have been debunked, and are obviously illogical. That's intellectually dishonest.

    I have the facts, economics, and basic common sense on my side, so I have no need to name call, and I would never do that anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haas_Dave View Post
    The RadioShack debacle makes a very strong point that Sprint’s recent past is very telling of its future if it doesn’t merge with T-Mobile. It is a horrible business decision to partner with a failing company if your company is also underperforming.
    Add it to the list lol. Nextel, WiMAX, Radioshack, the list goes on.

    US Cellular: They do actually make a profit, and a decent one with the relatively small number of customers they have (compared to the top 4 carriers). Though they also have plan pricing similar to T-Mobile. I know people in USCC areas opting for them over Sprint, even though Sprint has a roaming-as-native agreement. That is mostly due to Sprint’s network reputation.
    Here's another issue. Is USCC viable if T-Sprint happens? If T-Sprint happens, the economics of TMUS overbuilding USCC tilts much farther in the favor of overbuilding versus Extended coverage. Maybe TMUS keeps doing Extended, but with a much larger customer base, I wouldn't be too sure of that. If TMUS overbuilds them, they are toast, even if no one switches carriers, just from roaming revenue, which seems to be a HUGE part of USCC's revenue stream. They need to get on the ball with VoLTE and offer rates that are reasonable for Verizon and AT&T to fill in some of the idiotic gaps on their maps. Verizon needs USCC roaming in IL, WV, and possibly MO or ME. AT&T needs USCC roaming in IA, WI, and possible ME. They really should just both do it nationwide on USCC's network, as USCC is almost entirely rural, and there's always the odd site here or there where USCC has coverage and no one else does.

    Relying heavily on USCC coverage with Sprint service is awkward, as the phone sometimes gets stuck on a really weak a useless Sprint signal for a while before going to USCC.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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, 11:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks