Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall

On 2008-05-07, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2008-05-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
>>> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
>>> guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
>>> an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
>>> time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.
>>
>> I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
>> Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
>> MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
>> area is not too wonderful.
>
> Yes, my mistake. MetroPCS leases infrastructre from Sprint, but they are
> not an MVNO. Their coverage is worse than a Sprint MVNO's because they
> are using a subset of Sprint's towers. You're still using Sprint sites
> only, just not all of them.

Somehow that just doesn't sound right. I found a MetroPCS phone someone
left in a cafe not too long ago, and I took a look at the system menu
before turning it in. It was connected to SID 5037 and operating on
a PCS block C channel, so they aren't sharing Sprint's CDMA base stations
or operating in Sprint's spectrum. The only MetroPCS cell site I happen
to know the location of (in East Palo Alto) is on a tower all by
itself; the Sprint cell site is on a building on the other side of the
highway. I find it hard to believe Sprint is providing them backhaul
since Sprint itself is short of that around here; they frequently whine
to the California PUC about how much AT&T charges for that. And Sprint
and MetroPCS don't seem friendly at all, in fact MetroPCS is one of the
very few US CDMA operators which Sprint's PRL blocks roaming on.

So what infrasture does MetroPCS lease from Sprint? I believe they
share towers some places just because everyone shares towers some
places; Sprint, AT&T and Verizon share a tower in the parking lot where
I work. Beyond this I don't see, and have never heard of, the connection,
though I may have missed something.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-05-08, Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> It also happens that people move or change jobs, and THEN find that
> coverage elsewhere discribed as everywhere ISN'T.

Happened to my bro-in-law, moving up to California City, near Edwards AFB.

Sprint let him out of contract. No ETF, no hassle.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

"Ron" <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:t4n524pjh27e24bpgitem0113i77ovnltc@4ax.com... >

> Don't like the message, INSULT the messanger.
> It's not trolling to post the truth.

You posted some truth? I must have missed it...

> THE TRUTH:
>
> Sprint for many years in a row now has rated WORST by
>
> Consumer Reports

And? No one is disputing Sprint has problems- if you do back to the start
of this thread, I suggested that those problems had nothing to do with Qwest
dumping them all of a sudden. An old 5-year contract was expiring early
next year, and Qwest is getting out of the MVNO business to be a Verizon
seller.

Then the thread twisted when you jumped on SMS' "1900 MHz is inferior"
bandwagon and used that to prop up your tired claim that Sprint's coverage
stinks, which it doesn't, despite your belief that this sprintpcs NG is
teeming with coverage complaints (which it isn't, unless we count your
multiple complaints.)


> J.D. Power

Ranks "customer care" not coverage. T-Mobile, the carrier with arguably the
worst coverage of every national carrier usually walk away with the J.D.
Power award. No one here is defending Sprint's CS!

> The Yankee Group.
>
> when they do unbiased scientific studies of consumer preferences.

Also ranks CS, not coverage.

> SPRINTPCS is BAD, And it's Churn, and loss of customers deomstrates
> that. Now its trying to get some customers by being the lowest price
> provider.
>
> http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...own-churn.aspx
>
> The Minnesota AG sued Sprint, saying:
> "In some cases, Sprint extended the contract when customers called
> to complain or to get new batteries or small repairs for the phone,"
>
> http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-ce...ons-29588.html
>
> Things are so bad for Sprint that its been in the news this week
> that its in discussions to sell itself.

Again, where does ANY of that point to coverage issues? That's what we're
talking about here- COVERAGE. Anyone who reads this group knows all about
your history with Sprint back when you were "Phillipe." Why not stick to
those facts- their CS stinks, they burned you, and you take any opportunity
to take a swipe at them. If Sprint's R&D department came up with a cure for
cancer, you'd complain that they were causing overpopulation.

> http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol..._with_tmobile/
>
> And of course with have the title of this thread with Qwest adandoning
> Sprint.
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=207501987
>
> And of course the stock market fully reflects Sprint's woes,
> with its stock crashing in the last year from 23 to under 6, and now a
> "dead cat" bounce to 9.

Funny how it's a "dead cat bounce" because it's Sprint, rather than,
perhaps, the beginning of a recovery.

> Spint keeps changing CEOs in hpes
> of making Wall Street happy,

"Keeps changing CEOs?" Hesse is the first change since the Nextel merger.

> but in the long run, its numbers, not personalities that count.

That remains to be seen- Hesse is a smart guy, and knows wireless better
than almost anyone. (He invented "One Rate" for the old AT&T Wireless,
which revolutionized wireless, and is still the basic rate plan type all
carriers use to this day.)

If anyone can turn Sprint around, it's Dan Hesse. He even looks better in a
trenchcoat than the last Sprint adman did... ;-)


> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=S&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Please don't remind me- I placed a nice limit order to buy Sprint at $5.50
that didn't get filled, and my greed made me wait for it drop again before
trying to buy. Now it just keeps going up... When it's $15 next year, I'll
really be po'ed I didn't buy it when I should have!


> So Todd show your childishness by insulting me, but the FACTs support
> what I say.

No, the facts support what everyone ELSE here is saying- Sprint has
problems. Only YOU are extrapolating them to support your "bad network"
position. Customer problems don't neccessarily equate to "bad network"
despite your insistence it does. Look at T-Mobile- they easily have a
smaller network than Sprint, but they're making money, reducing churn, and
adding subscribers. And no matter how much YOU may hate Sprint, you, I, and
all wireless consumers are far better off with the competition of four major
players then they would be with three, so I wish Sprint a fast turnaround.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Yes, that's correct. In fact the Consumer Reports survey covers
> three markets where Verizon is a 1900 MHz carrier: Miami, Tampa
> and Dallas. Verizon's coverage is rated no worse there than anywhere
> else in the country. And a couple of the very worst coverage scores in
> that survey are for AT&T in Washington, DC and Boston, where AT&T is a
> cellular operator.

Last time I was in South Florida (where I am originally from) in
December 2006, I roamed onto AT&T AMPS with my Verizon phone out in the
Everglades. Kind of amusing that the AT&T GSM customers had no coverage
at all out there, nor did the Verizon customers with digital-only
phones. Now of course, presuming AT&T turned off both of their AMPS
network, Verizon and AT&T have equal coverage out there, which is none.

But as to the reason Verizon is not hampered by 1900 MHz in those
markets, it's probably because you don't have the kind of local
opposition to towers you have out West.