Why the Concept of a Sprint / T-Mobile Merger is Absurd

Posted by Thursday, January 30, 2014 , , , , , , , , , ,


What can be said about a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile?

It won’t happen, that’s what.


Let me dive into the heart of an announcement I’ve been mulling over for the past few days. Recently there has been small-talk in the wind about a potential merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint, whom are the fourth and third largest wireless carriers in the United States respectively. This announcement comes on the heels of an already-completed merger between MetroPCS and T-Mobile US which was finalized at the end of 2013. Both Sprint and T-Mobile US have expressed an interest in merging forces to take on ATT, who (despite direct marketing attacks against them from T-Mobile) still continues to show positive growth in last year’s 4th quarter earnings.

Although I can see the logic in another merger by T-Mobile US (especially a merger with a company larger than themselves) I don’t see the sense in choosing Sprint. Granted, T-Mobile US is aware that they have a lot of ground to cover in order to regain lost market share; prior to the merger with MetroPCS, poor management and advertising led to a sharp drop in new subscribers which ultimately forced the hand of T-Mobile US’s parent company, Deutsche Telekom, to either drastically re-invest in the American portion of their market or bail. Their ultimate decision was to go balls-to-the-wall and reinvest. Deutsche Telekom bought US prepaid carrier MetroPCS as their first move in a hard push to rebuilt their American market.

It seems the MetroPCS merger worked out well for T-Mobile US, so why don’t I see any sense in choosing Sprint as the next merger-buddy?  Although it isn’t common knowledge (or perhaps as common as it should be), Sprint and T-Mobile are currently operating on two completely different and incompatible wireless technologies.

Let me explain. There are three major technologies in wireless phones right now: GSM, CDMA, and LTE – the last of which you have probably heard of, if nothing else. What these acronyms stand for is essentially irrelevant; what is important to know is that each carrier uses either CDMA or GSM services as their backbone and then LTE service is applied on top of the backbone to provide next generation (or 4G) service.

For example, Verizon uses CDMA service as their backbone. CDMA provides Verizon customers with talk service, and 2G/3G data. From there, Verizon has applied LTE service on top of their CDMA service. When you’re in range of a Verizon tower that has had LTE service added to it – boom! You have 4G speeds.

It is important to note that carriers can only have one backbone. In other words (going back to our Verizon example) if Verizon uses CDMA as their backbone, their devices cannot detect or use GSM towers. This seems to be silly, but the two technologies are so completely different that there just isn’t enough room in phones to build in a radio for both services (Nerd moment: there are, of course, some exceptions to this rule and I'm sure one or two tech-savvy people will point that out to me. I'll squash that argument now by saying that if a carrier were to hypothetically use two backbones, it would need all of its phones to be dual-SIM and those phones would be financially unfeasible to market. Therefore, arguing that Sprint and T-Mobile could migrate over to a dual-SIM environment is not an option). There are a lot of reasons for this including the way in which the receivers are constructed and the frequency that each service uses in the air, but we won’t get into any of that here. After all, knowing why the two technologies aren't compatible isn’t necessary to understand why a Sprint and T-Mobile merger makes no sense.

Anyway, GSM and CDMA each have their own unique advantages. GSM uses SIM cards, meaning that you can easily carry your number from one phone to another and even from one carrier to another assuming that carrier uses GSM technology. CDMA, however, does not use SIM cards and therefore carrying your phone to another carrier is virtually impossible on a CDMA service. Additionally, GSM has greater 3G speeds and is the only of the two technologies that has the capability to talk on the phone and use data at the same time. CDMA, however, is cheaper to implement and can therefore cover a much broader area with much lower maintenance costs. This explains why Verizon has been able to advertise their reliability for so long – they simply have more towers because their towers are cheaper to mass produce – and why AT&T has been able to advertise the speed of their data network for so long.

(If you’re not a tech nerd who didn’t already know that, some lights should be going on in your head regarding all the confusing commercials you’ve seen about wireless service – but let’s get back to the point)

So, hang on a minute here – as far as “customer satisfaction” goes, GSM sounds like its superior. Even though CDMA is cheaper, shouldn’t every carrier be using GSM?

When CDMA was introduced it promised the ability to lock down a phone to a carrier – something Verizon really wanted to do. Why, you ask? The answer actually has to do with the way phones are sold in America. In the United States, carriers offer phones at low prices by locking you into a contract which brings down the price of the phone. We are the only country in the world that does that (and if you’re curious as to why, it can be found in my blog post here). Although this helps American customers to get very expensive devices at a low cost, it has proved to cause one major problem: if a subscriber cancels his service early, the carrier actually loses money on the deal. This happens because of the way contracts are structured and can be clarified by reading the blog post linked above. Although I could give you a clear explanation here, the reality is that I’ve rambled enough already. So, suffice it to say that subscriber cancellation in America = a loss of money, and losing money is bad.  

So what does this mean for us? Since every cancellation in America is a net loss, carriers want to give as few reasons as they can to subscribers that would be an incentive to cancel their service, and CDMA carriers use an inability to transfer your phone to another carrier as a cancellation deterrent. It sounds kind of underhanded, but it’s true.

Let me get to the point. There are two CDMA carriers in the United States: Verizon, and Sprint. Everyone else uses GSM (and prepaid carriers just mooch off of the towers that the big carriers put up, so they don't count). Everyone, including T-Mobile US, uses GSM. This means that Sprint and T-Mobile US would be merging two mutually exclusive networks and trying to somehow duct tape them together to make one network.

How would they do this? The only logical answer is to use the LTE service.

The only way to make a Sprint and T-Mobile US merger work would be to not merge their services, but instead share capital and patents to work towards a massive-scale LTE rollout.

Clarification: LTE, although currently being used as a service laid on top of either a CDMA or GSM backbone, can operate as a standalone backbone itself. LTE service has the ability to handle phone calls, data, and anything else a subscriber can throw at a mobile network. Therefore, Sprint and T-Mobile US would only have one reason to merge – to surpass Verizon’s coverage and then make a massive push to phase out their CDMA and GSM services altogether and migrate their network solely to LTE.

In the end, I just can’t see this happening. LTE rollouts are a massive undertaking. If they weren’t, we would have it everywhere by now. For Sprint and T-Mobile to try and make some kind of underdog push from behind and then magically become so efficient that they could beat Verizon to a full LTE conversion would be one heck of a feat – a feat that I just can’t see happening.

In my opinion, if either of them actually had the internal structure to take on Verizon’s rollout-pace they would have done it already.

So the verdict in all of this? Two wrongs won’t make a right. There is no way that a T-Mobile and Sprint merger would be financially or operationally feasible and to stand behind the notion that a push for a full LTE rollout would be a valid reason for a merger is not only lacking in common sense, but it’s something that the FCC will never buy. After all, the same argument was made just last year when AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile and the FCC didn’t buy that, even for two companies who would have to do far less work to successfully merge, as they already currently run on the same backbone.
The long and short is simple: let’s not get our hopes up. My prediction is that Sprint and T-Mobile US will see the FCC’s early skepticism and come to their senses, and that will be the end of that.

Image source can be found here

The Offical Breakdown of the iPhone 5s: A Surprisingly Solid System

Posted by Friday, September 13, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
After doing a lot of reading on the iPhone 5s, this device seems to be pretty good on paper. It's one of those things that I hate to admit (because I'm not typically a fan of Apple) but I believe in being fair.

For the past few days I have been yearning to do some research on the iPhone 5s and how its changed; I am particularly interested in the details of the fingerprint scanner, but other ventures have sucked away my time. So at long last I have finally been able to take a look into the yet-to-be-released phone.

The changes of the new iPhone can be summed up into two categories: technical changes in the phone, and other changes, which I will hence be dubbing "iFluff" - things that have been added just because they're easy to market as "cool". The major iFluff upgrade? The fingerprint scanner.

Yes, Apple has added the much-talked-about fingerprint scanner to it's new phone, but to be honest it's probably the least interesting upgrade on the list. However, I will be going into great detail about it. I really wasn’t interested in looking into the fingerprint scanner because I thought it was cool, though; more realistically I wanted to bash it (because I think it’s nothing more than a novelty) and bash it I will.

At the end of the day, the rest of the iPhone 5s has very little to be negative about though, and all-in-all despite the fact that the advertising over-glorifies it to the point of puking rainbows, I would give the device a healthy 9/10 in terms of it’s features and hardware.

That means a lot coming from me. I don’t really like Apple, but fair is fair. It’s a good phone and for the rest of this blog I'll be breaking down what makes it something to talk about.

First: This phone is the first device - ever - to run on a 64 bit processor and operating system.

This doesn’t mean much to people who are non-technical, so let me break this one down real quick. In terms of computer processors, there are two types: 32-bit and 64-bit. Saving all of the technical mumbo-jumbo, what you should walk away with from this paragraph is that 64-bit systems are the newer, faster ones. You should also know that regular computers have been off of 32-bit for about five years now. So why hasn't this technology moved to smartphones yet? It has been difficult to get that technology down to smartphone-size and I definitely give Apple kudos for doing it first. 

To the consumer, the whole "32-bit vs. 64-bit" thing doesn’t mean much – right now. The problem is that 64-bit systems don't really work faster unless the programs on that system are optimized for it.
What does that mean? Well, it means that there is an inherent problem with the initial transition to 64-bit: the software now has to come up to meet the hardware, meaning that most apps won’t even take advantage of it yet. In other words, we probably won’t even feel the difference of 64-bit until the iPhone 6 is on the horizon. However, Apple is setting themselves up to continue to be a smartphone player in the future by making the switch now. IN the end, it will mean that Apple will be the first to optimize, the first to get faster and this will mean that Apple stays in the lead when it comes to the speed and fluidity of their devices. It seems that while everyone else was revolutionizing the accessory market with smartwatches, Apple was working on a 64-bit phone. Well done. I still think Apple needs a new toy to prove they can continue to innovate in the overcrowded smartphone market, but that’s a point I’ve already made.

Second: iOS7 is really very nice.

Even though this isn’t really an iPhone 5s-specific thing, I have to give it mention. I am very, very pleased with the iOS7 system. It’s brighter colors, flatter look and more robust set of features bring it (finally) up to par with the android systems in terms of “cool-things-my-phone-can-do” stuff, and these little gadgets suck in new users better than any marketing method. Case and point: the main selling point of the Galaxy S4 is its ability to track your eyes. It’s a novelty, but its just one more cool thing it can do to allow its owner to say “my phone is cooler than yours”

iOS7 is finally supporting lock screen notifications (those things that tell you when you have messages, voicemails, etc. that you see when you first turn on your phone), a radio service similar to Google Play or Spotify, and quick-switches for phone features like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. These are things that android has had for years now, so it’s about time Apple jumped on the band wagon.

Third: The Camera got a much-needed update

For those who aren’t familiar with the issue, the iPhone 5 has a major camera problem when in sunlight. Apple opted to use a sapphire lens on its camera on the iPhone 5; sapphire is a good choice because of its thinness and durability. However, the small size of the camera on the iPhone 5 caused the sapphire lens to make photos, well….sapphire-colored, when in direct light. Therefore, the iPhone 5s received a wider lens. This should correct that issue.

All in all, this whole group of things stacks up well. New features, a new chipset running on a 64bit architecture and a fixed camera mean the only thing consumers will be worrying about is the durability of the phone, which still lacks. Oh, right, and the fact that the phone keeps a record of your fingerprint.

So, let’s move on to that fingerprint reader.

This so called “revolutionary security device” gave me a good laugh today while I was catching up on the details of its function.  I’m disappointed that Apple centered its focus of changes around it when so many other, more significant things changed in the iPhone 5s.

First off, let me start by saying that Apple’s fingerprint scanner is by no means revolutionary. The Motorola Atrix HD had a fingerprint reader back in 2011, and there are even a handful of other devices that have had it since then. Heck, even computers running windows 7 have had fingerprint readers for years. Fingerprint authentication isn’t anything new and if you’re attentive you’ll note that you really don’t see them on anything nowadays, simply because they were expensive to produce and didn’t really change anything.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s move on to Apple’s device, which is apparently “revolutionary” now that it’s in an iPhone and not in the hundreds of other devices they’re already in. The fingerprint scanner itself is known as “Touch ID” and saves your “fingerprint data” in an encrypted section of the processor. Apple is doing this because they are ensuring us that reading a fingerprint is more secure than typing in a passcode.

Except, Apple doesn’t believe it’s more secure than a passcode. As it turns out, if you reboot the phone or wait longer than 48 hours between successful unlocks, the phone reverts to a “backup passcode” that you have to use to unlock the phone.

Apple’s reasoning for this “feature”:  To prevent phone-thieves from “stalling for time while they figured out a way to circumvent the fingerprint reader”.

What?

So, Apple, what you’re saying is “Fingerprint reading is less secure, but it’s cool so we’re going to put it in. However, to keep your phone secure, we’re going to make it so that you have to get into the phone the old fashioned way if it gets hijacked”.  Now, that’s just funny to me. Also, the Touch ID is already being reported to have spotty functionality at best when hands are “sweaty, wet or dirty” and you essentially have to poke the home screen dead-on for the phone to work, so forget one-handed unlocking.

So, what is the verdict on the Touch ID system? Fail. Also, I’m not happy with Apple claiming to keep my fingerprint data in the wake of all the news about the NSA hacking into everything. For all I know, they’ve hacked into my cat by now. The last thing I want them getting is my fingerprints – not cool. Now before everyone tells me I’m overreacting, I should note that I fully understand how the Touch Id system works: I understand that it’s kept on an encrypted part of the chip, and never gets transferred over the internet, etc. etc. But, if the NSA can get into a Blackberry – which is certified in security far beyond any Apple product - I trust nothing.

At the end of the day, the iPhone 5s is a solid device wrapped in a package of fluffy iSheep wool. Despite this, I would still recommend the device to a consumer, especially if you’re already an Apple user – this one really would be worth your money if you're looking to upgrade. If I were you, though, the first thing I would do once I unboxed it would be to turn off Touch ID. It’s useless. As for the second thing? Put an OtterBox on it. The iPhone 5s still retains classic Apple fragility, and besides - TouchID doesn't even work with an OtterBox. How could it, when the OtterBox cases cover the button?
 
Image Source Found Here

Microsoft: The World’s most Massive Jigsaw Puzzle

Posted by Saturday, September 7, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
As we all press endlessly into the future, we cannot help but wonder what it holds for us and when it comes to technology, people like myself try as best as possible to see into the future.

Why?

It’s fun.

That being said, I have always been one to keep an eye on Microsoft and their antics, especially lately with the Nokia Buyout and the rumors that Microsoft could potentially be in the market to buyout blackberry as well. Microsoft has been the dominating presence of technology in the past but is still struggling to regain its foothold after the mobile paradigm shift of the last decade.

In the wake of the recent buyout, what is Microsoft going to do during the course of the next five years? The company is in a churning state of change and as of right now, investors are worried (and so am I) about its future.

Though I think I’ve officially put it all together.

You see, in recent news there seems to be a leak of Microsoft’s latest software update to Windows Phones known as GDR3 (or General Distribution Release 3). This leak, which was a craigslist find, seems to outline some major changes that lay the foundation for what is known as Windows Blue, the grandiose update supposedly linking all of the different Microsoft platforms once and for all, thus unifying the new platform across all devices.

It’s interesting that we hear news about this now, right after the acquisition of Nokia, and in the wake a new rumored Nokia device, the1520, which keeps up with the large-screen trend by upping to a phablet.

So what can we expect?

Well, here’s my theory. Many people believe that the surface branding is going to die; I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe that the Lumia line is what Microsoft is going to kill. Microsoft is going to do it’s best to keep the branding under one name: Microsoft. As I said in a previous blog, Microsoft’s most difficult challenge is going to be to bring the branding issue under control that has been plaguing them. Therefore, Microsoft is going to rebrand the next Nokia device (likely the 1520) to “Surface Phone” or something along those lines, and will make it the transitional device on a slow step-down to a 4.5in surface device. Once this is done, Windows will release the “Blue” update and unify all of the devices, thus making the interface the same across all of them. During this time, I’m expecting to see one or two more companies scooped up, namely Dell and Blackberry, as Microsoft drops third party support and brings hardware production under one roof. Sub-brands like Dell, AlienWare and blackberry will be integrated into the Microsoft brand, and suddenly we will see a very apple-like, IT-and-Business-Friendly, all-1st-party Microsoft.

While all of this is plausible, it is of course quite a distance off in the future and could be massively interrupted by the change in management that is on its way. Furthermore, my prediction hinges on Microsoft’s ability to bring the desktop and laptop market in-house – something that could spur a lot of problems, but also potentially open up the market for other up-and-coming operating systems like Ubuntu Edge and Chrome. Things like this could spell death for companies like Acer and HP though, who have already seen a few woes in this new mobile universe we live in.

All-in-all, I think one thing is for sure: Microsoft cannot keep living on the edge of first party – they will have to tip one way or the other, and continuing to trust other companies with their Operating system is not something that I believe Microsoft wants to continue doing. The advent of bloatware and other issues with Windows PCs is putting a blemish on their name that only going 1st party can eliminate. Since this is most likely their goal, I have based my prediction off of what is most likely to need to occur, and then judging what I believe to be the only logical steps to get there.

In short, this is my prediction, based on a little research and mostly intuition.  I’m sticking to it, so let’s see what happens in the next several months.
Photo Source found Here