Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: T-Mobile + Sprint will cover 96% of Rural America

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    They already have that. It's called the T-Mo Lounge. It's located right here:

    https://www.howardforums.com/forumdi...320-Tmo-Lounge

    Please feel free to use it to post your daily attacks against T-Mobile such as:

    "to get one free, not-very-good, taco per week"
    "Two people traveling with me had T-Mobile which worked fine for them for voice and text, but the data was very slow"
    " T-Mobile re-labeling their W-CDMA/HSPA service as 4G because they didn't have a 4G LTE network to compete against Verizon."
    "I found that it some areas T-Mobile maps vastly over-state coverage"


    And don't forget to throw in some attacks against T-Mobile as a "second tier Network" because it doesn't provide service at your favorite campground.



    Oh yes, only a select few have the intelligence to converse with the supposed city councilman. Yes, we've heard it all before.

    Please take your own advice and utilize the T-Mo Lounge as you suggest.
    I'm sure it eventually will cover the campgrounds. I'm optimistic. Doing this is important, after all. No carrier wants to say "if you want to go to a campground, you will have to go with one of our competitors"

    Their coverage is expanding by leaps and bounds. Taco Bell tacos are good. I don't care about what has anyone re-labels as LTE: If it's fast enough to stream Netflix, I will call it LTE. T-Mobile maps tend to overstate coverage, but there's also a lot more yellow and blue and red painted on maps of areas that don't have coverage as well.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    I wish they would pass the deal already so TMobile can get to work. Wasn't it announced last April?
    Me too. Congress is meddling with it just because they can, and because they have nothing better to do. I guess that makes them a lot like city councilmen.


    Seriously, Congress should just rubber-stamp these things quickly unless there is a real and compelling reason to stop the merger. So far there hasn't been anything like that presented, and there never will be.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,301
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Visible
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by notabiot View Post
    me too. Congress is meddling with it just because they can, and because they have nothing better to do. I guess that makes them a lot like city councilmen.


    Seriously, congress should just rubber-stamp these things quickly unless there is a real and compelling reason to stop the merger. So far there hasn't been anything like that presented, and there never will be.
    bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,143
    Device(s)
    Pixel 2, 3a & 4xl; Moto X4 & 7; ZTE R2; iPhone XR
    Carrier(s)
    Google Fi; Visible
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    I wish they would pass the deal already so TMobile can get to work. Wasn't it announced last April?
    With the political climate the way it is and the resisters hard at it, I’m thinking 2020 before the merger is either approved or denied. If Trump declared the merger was good for business, the Congress would declare the merger as evil incarnate and probably say it would also contribute to climate change.
    Nexus 5x, Pixel 2, 3, 3a, Moto X4, G6 & G7 on Google Fi
    iPhone XR & ZTE R2 on Visible

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,063
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 9, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Seriously, Congress should just rubber-stamp these things quickly unless there is a real and compelling reason to stop the merger. So far there hasn't been anything like that presented, and there never will be.
    The issue is whether or not going from four national carriers to three national carriers will reduce competition and increase prices (or cause prices to not fall as much as they otherwise would). The government has to look at the long term picture, long beyond the three year promise that was made to not raise prices.

    All the evidence so far is that a merger would be good for T-Mobile and Sprint shareholders but that it would result in higher prices overall. That is the only compelling reason for which the merger might be rejected. "The proposed deal eliminates a provider that has been an aggressive competitor on price in its own right, offering deep discounts and promotions to lure customers. The reduction in competition could lead to higher prices. The general view on Wall Street is that as a result of this deal, there are likely to be job cuts and prices are likely to rise," said Blair Levin, a policy adviser for New Street Research. However. some point out that without the merger Sprint may eventually go bankrupt and its assets sold off to the highest bidder. Softbank would take big losses as a result.

    Everyone agrees that there would be significant job losses as a result of the merger, but job losses alone haven't been enough to block other large mergers in the past.

    You already see the competition lessening in anticipation of the merger, with promotions going away on both T-Mobile and Sprint. Not technically price increases, but to continue with the same amount of data users would have to switch to a more expensive plan. Prices may not go up immediately because of the three year promise, but you've already seen Legere hinting at some of the costly freebies, like Netflix, being reduced.

    Long term, if T-Mobile builds out its network, it may slightly increase price pressure on Verizon and AT&T, but the more likely outcome is that T-Mobile will no longer have to compete solely on price and they'll be able to go after customers that are not price sensitive.
    Last edited by smsgator; 03-04-2019 at 03:00 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,063
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 9, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peterfield View Post
    With the political climate the way it is and the resisters hard at it, I’m thinking 2020 before the merger is either approved or denied. If Trump declared the merger was good for business, the Congress would declare the merger as evil incarnate and probably say it would also contribute to climate change.
    There actually is only token resistance. CWA opposes the merger because there will be significant job losses for their members, but job losses have not been enough of a reason to stop mergers in the past. DISH opposes it, but they also opposed the AT&T-Time Warner merger without success. There's one dark money mystery group opposing it "Protect America’s Wireless," complaining that there are national security issues and that T-Mobile will use Huawei and ZTE equipment in their 5G buildout.

    AT&T and Verizon have been silent. They may be in favor of the merger because it will result in higher prices at the merged company (at least after three years), and fewer freebies like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. that entice customers away. A promise to not raise prices for three years did not include a promise to continue the giveaways. Legere has already said that on May 1st there will be a decision on Netflix due to the recent Netflix price increase. Of course we don't know how much T-Mobile is paying Netflix for each subscription.

    There's little chance of the merger not being approved. Read https://pocketnow.com/odds-up-sprint-t-mobile-merger.
    Last edited by smsgator; 03-04-2019 at 11:11 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    179
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peterfield View Post
    With the political climate the way it is and the resisters hard at it, I’m thinking 2020 before the merger is either approved or denied. If Trump declared the merger was good for business, the Congress would declare the merger as evil incarnate and probably say it would also contribute to climate change.
    You may be right. They plan to have a 2nd hearing and seem slow to reschedule it. I've been hearing that may not happen until this summer so the 180 day clock may just keep getting paused

    This seems to be putting T-Mobile in limbo for 5g. They need to know one way or another so they know what choices to make

    Is the clock officially running now or is it paused? I can't keep track

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by smsgator View Post
    There actually is only token resistance. CWA opposes the merger because there will be significant job losses for their members, but job losses have not been enough of a reason to stop mergers in the past. DISH opposes it, but they also opposed the AT&T-Time Warner merger without success. There's one dark money mystery group opposing it "Protect America’s Wireless," complaining that there are national security issues and that T-Mobile will use Huawei and ZTE equipment in their 5G buildout.

    AT&T and Verizon have been silent. They may be in favor of the merger because it will result in higher prices at the merged company (at least after three years), and fewer freebies like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. that entice customers away. A promise to not raise prices for three years did not include a promise to continue the giveaways. Legere has already said that on May 1st there will be a decision on Netflix due to the recent Netflix price increase. Of course we don't know how much T-Mobile is paying Netflix for each subscription.

    There's little chance of the merger not being approved. Read https://pocketnow.com/odds-up-sprint-t-mobile-merger.
    ...or the CWA opposes it because any new jobs will have workers that won't be forced to join the CWA. considering that the CWA is first and foremost an organization that forcibly takes campaign-finance money from someone, that is really all that matters to them. The only good job to them is one where workers are forced to pay campaign contributions ("dues") against their will.

    And by the way I disagree with your assertion earlier about "four national carriers". For years we have had two national carriers. T-Mobile has recently made itself a third. Sprint has a poor presence in most of the US, and is really only good in 10 US states. to call something that's only good in 10 states "nationwide" is really stretching it. It's pretty much irrelevant as is. But if T-Mobile is able to make effective use of the Sprint resources ...something that Sprint can't be bothered to do...then we will have a much better competitive situation of three very strong national carriers. Instead of only two very strong national carriers and one that is pretty close to the other two but weaker in terms of customers and total nationwide Network strength.

    Move over, GM. Now, it's what's good for T-Mobile is good for America.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,813
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I'm sure it eventually will cover the campgrounds. I'm optimistic.
    Once Legere has Sprint's resources and he can get his margins down due to the combined company, he's going to have more money to throw around he can start matching more coverage.

    I have a feeling that this merger could slow down their new coverage initially. I think they will put their engineering teams on whatever it takes to get the bulk of Sprint's customers onto the T-Mobile network without it getting overloaded and without a noticeable drop in coverage by the Sprinters. There may be some locations that Sprint covers that T-Mobile will need to put their own site at so that it will be an expansion.

    But I trust their engineering teams to move rapidly with this. They bought a lot of 600 spectrum so eventually they'll want to put it into use.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Once Legere has Sprint's resources and he can get his margins down due to the combined company, he's going to have more money to throw around he can start matching more coverage.

    I have a feeling that this merger could slow down their new coverage initially. I think they will put their engineering teams on whatever it takes to get the bulk of Sprint's customers onto the T-Mobile network without it getting overloaded and without a noticeable drop in coverage by the Sprinters. There may be some locations that Sprint covers that T-Mobile will need to put their own site at so that it will be an expansion.

    But I trust their engineering teams to move rapidly with this. They bought a lot of 600 spectrum so eventually they'll want to put it into use.
    ...and that sounds like a great plan. I don't think leaving Sprint sitting on top of all those squandered resources and lurking down in the weeds with USCC instead of running with the big dogs really does much of anyone any good.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,622
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by smsgator View Post
    I was on Cricket, 5 lines/$100, with one unneeded line but since it was free I took it. But my coverage at home was poor. I was waiting for AT&T to provision a fake tree tower that they are supposed to be sharing with Verizon, but I gave up waiting because they seem to have no intention of provisioning it in the near future. Total Wireless uses Verizon and I like the shared data better than the per-line data. Also they include tethering and there is no speed cap. Unbeknownst to me, my son away at college had been tethering on Cricket all along and they never complained, but they could have. Downside with TW is that it's giving Carlos Slim more money.

    As to coverage maps, yes they lie to some degree. But T-Mobile's maps do accurately show areas where they don't have any service, but they exaggerate quality of coverage in areas where they do have service. "Fair" really means "none." On Verizon I've had coverage in places where their maps show no coverage, especially up in the Sierra Nevada and surrounding foothills.
    Right, but if we want to play "anecdotes as data", there are plenty of "covered" areas on VZW's maps in the Colorado mountains where I was unable to get a Verizon signal on my PagePlus (VZW) phones.

    What disappoints me, is that T-Mo's maps used to be pretty spot-on accurate a few years ago, but they too started overstating their coverage relatively recently. Honestly, I can't blame them, though, since they were the only carrier of the top four with accurate online maps, based on my experience, which actually put them at a bit of a disadvantage. Like with politics, honestly doesn't work in business if you're the only honest one!



    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,437
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Me too. Congress is meddling with it just because they can, and because they have nothing better to do. I guess that makes them a lot like city councilmen.


    Seriously, Congress should just rubber-stamp these things quickly unless there is a real and compelling reason to stop the merger. So far there hasn't been anything like that presented, and there never will be.
    They are probably fishing for lobbyists to convince them it's a good deal with an all expense trip for them, their family and entourage to Australia or Rio so that they can witness a 3 carrier network in action for a few weeks. Seems legit.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,063
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 9, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Right, but if we want to play "anecdotes as data", there are plenty of "covered" areas on VZW's maps in the Colorado mountains where I was unable to get a Verizon signal on my PagePlus (VZW) phones.
    Must have been one of those Windows Mobile phones you were using.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,063
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 9, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    And by the way I disagree with your assertion earlier about "four national carriers". For years we have had two national carriers. T-Mobile has recently made itself a third. Sprint has a poor presence in most of the US, and is really only good in 10 US states. to call something that's only good in 10 states "nationwide" is really stretching it.
    Sprint depends on CDMA voice roaming on Verizon to claim "nationwide" status. They also increasingly have AT&T LTE roaming. If you compare coverage maps of native+roaming, Sprint has more voice and 3G coverage than T-Mobile, though not necessarily more LTE coverage.
    Name:  sprinttmo.jpg
Views: 163
Size:  62.0 KB
    Once Verizon CDMA shuts down at the end of 2019 (unless it's extended), Sprint will have to have a plan moving forward, which is another reason that the merger should be approved.

    Also, once Verizon shuts down CDMA, phone manufacturers are going to be making a lot fewer new phones that are CDMA capable since so few U.S. carriers will require it. Worldwide, the number of CDMA carriers is also shrinking, and many carriers have announced phase-out plans.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by smsgator View Post
    Sprint depends on CDMA voice roaming on Verizon to claim "nationwide" status. They also increasingly have AT&T LTE roaming. If you compare coverage maps of native+roaming, Sprint has more voice and 3G coverage than T-Mobile, though not necessarily more LTE coverage.
    Once Verizon CDMA shuts down at the end of 2019 (unless it's extended), Sprint will have to have a plan moving forward, which is another reason that the merger should be approved.

    Also, once Verizon shuts down CDMA, phone manufacturers are going to be making a lot fewer new phones that are CDMA capable since so few U.S. carriers will require it. Worldwide, the number of CDMA carriers is also shrinking, and many carriers have announced phase-out plans.
    It needs to be added that your roaming maps are for voice only and almost no data (a tiny amount, a couple hundred MB). If you look at real Sprint coverage (and remove the "not enough data to use" roaming on other carriers and Extended), it is actually quite small. I'm referring to the real Sprint territory where you can use the gigs of data you paid for on your Sprint plan. Roaming coverage isn't real coverage.

    The actual T-Mobile data footprint (real and native) is really a lot larger than Sprint now. I just went to the Boost site (a much better place for honest Sprint coverage data) and selected 4G or 3G in the map. The Sprint native coverage as of this minute is still quite poor: only about 10 states having good Sprint coverage (much more than half covered) and most US states having a rather small percentage of territory that has Sprint data coverage. California and New York are among the poorly-covered states, so it is not "just Montana". The only states with excellent Sprint coverage are found in New England and the northern Atlantic seaboard. Illinois and other states in the Great Lakes area are half covered: a poor showing, even if better than how Sprint blows off most of the 50 states

    The threadbare real Sprint map is below. With Sprint, you have 10 states that are good and the rest are poor. With today's T-Mobile, it is almost the opposite, more like 40 states that are good and 10 that are poor.
    Name:  sprintmap.png
Views: 147
Size:  72.5 KB

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:22 PM
  2. T-Mobile will cover 98% of USA after re-farm?
    By bluesamg in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-27-2012, 11:40 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-15-2005, 12:15 PM
  4. When will VZW Mobile web use 1x instead of dialing?
    By JohnnyK in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-26-2004, 06:43 PM
  5. Will Sprint EVER cover rural areas?
    By wldcat2 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2002, 08:44 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks