NOTICE: this post definitely exceeds 2000 characters, although a little shorter than War & Peace. If you're not interested in a deeper look behind the scenes at what may have happened to CellNuvo in August, don't bother reading it.
Nothing here is intended to deny that there are ongoing problems and issues at CellNuvo. I acknowledge many of the same, understand some, don't understand others. I'm simply not addressing them here.
This post was constructed in response to a lengthy discussion in a thread about "no text", and also relates to a new thread, 'Phone Number Restored Directly From Sprint'. In order not to derail either discussion, I've chosen to post this as a new thread:
I'm not sure that the CellNuvo service interruption update was intended to be a complete factual description, nor that it should have been. The intent was to give members a quick, broad overview of what was going on. Keeping accurate to the spirit of what was happening is important, and maybe the exact details were not. The more I look at this, I'm still convinced Tom was telling the truth.
If I understand JTSR71's core arguments correctly (and I've had plenty of opportunities to read them), it's this:
- Tom/CN can't be trusted because he lied about a supplier shutting down, so nothing else can be trusted.
Evidence to support this view: Mobile Matterz is still in business. - No other evidence in the industry of an MVNO enabler going out of business, so Tom must not be telling the truth. .
- Any entity involved as an MVNO enabler would have been willing to continue the relationship long enough to get CellNuvo safely to the other side, so Tom must not be telling the truth.
(And perhaps #4-- I don't like CN despite never having used it, so Tom must not be telling the truth.)
Good catch on the mention of Mobile Matterz JTSR71! For those who didn't follow the original link (provided I believe by arrynrob) the link goes to a supportive comment left on a public webiste (prepaidphonenews) about the shuttering of RingPlus, from one of the principles of Mobile Matterz. While praising CellNuvo as an option, Lind Martin mentioned that CellNuvo was "powered by" Mobile Matterz
[b]Regarding:
- Tom wasn't telling the truth because Mobile Matterz is still in business.
True enough: but there's a big difference between being 'in business', and 'being in the same business'.[/b]
Here's a link to Linda Martin's post in the PrepaidPhoneNews comment section: (You know, down at the bottom section where 95% of the users are named Anonymous, and you can say anything you want without verification. Still, I don't have any difficulty accepting Martin's comment as "essentially true".)
http://www.prepaidphonenews.com/2017/02/sprint-threatening-to-shut-ringplus.html?showComment=1486390558442#c7839834828954823850
Here's a Wayback Machine capture of the Mobile Matterz home page on June 15, 2016.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160615082145/http://www.mobilematterz.com:80/
Looks like a great fit for CellNuvo! It's all about MVNO enablement, backoffice possibilities, alternative revenue streams, wholesale cellular access, etc.
By Sept 2016, captures indicate a focus on video streaming, health apps, "brand identity", but no direct mention of enabling MVNOs.
Here's the current website: [url=http://mobilematterz.com/]http://mobilematterz.com/[/url
(Essentially the same home page that's existed since Oct 2016 after one "transition" version.)
Lots of flowery prose that seems to be about content creation, monetizing of streaming video, etc.-- but no mention at all of MVNOs that I could find. As a matter of fact, the only mention of MVNO enablement I could find on any currently existing page, updated within the last year, featuring Mobile Matterz is that PrepaidPhoneNews comment I've looked at their website, their promo materials for industry trade groups, LinkedIn, Facebook, Squarespace, their twitter feed, etc.
It's clear that whatever happened around September 2016, Mobile Matterz decided to not only 'not pursue', but also to actively distance themselves from the MVNO-enablement market. Still in business, yes. Still in the same business? No.
Of course, it's possible that Mobile Matterz had handed the MVNO-enablement business uphill sometime in late 2016 to it's parent company, PC Management. (With Linda Martin also as an executive.) The focus there seems to be on MVNOs, although there's little evidence of aggressive marketing that I could find-- it's possible that PC Management is more of a holding company for MMZ, and other controlled entities, including a sister company of MMZ: Limitless Mobile LLC.
Limitless Mobile LLC, formerly Keystone Wireless, may well be the literal 'keystone' in PC Management (and subsidiaries) providing MVNO services. Keystone Wireless was founded to provide fixed and mobile cellular service to underserved areas in Rural Pennsylvania. It's that company that positioned Linda Martin as somewhat of a mover & a shaker in the mobile industry. Although not large in subscriber numbers, their wholesale agreements with the major carriers seems to have fueled the inroads into the groups MVNO-enablement business. Keystone/Limitless needed access to roaming/wholesale agreements for their customers, and the major carriers needed coverage in rural Pennsylvania. I ran across a federal filing where Keystone/Limitless was pressuring AT&T to provide preferential wholesale rates necessary for Limitless to have a "nationwide presence", and noting that similar agreements were already in place with T-Mobile and Verizon.
http://limitlessmobile.com/
In particular, check out their "Wholesale" section, which is targeted at MVNO enablement.
It's possible that Mobile Matterz, PC Management, and Limitless Mobile LLC all negotiated separate wholesale agreements with the big carriers. It seems more likely that the other entities piggybacked on the preferential "nationwide" rates negotiated by Limitless Mobile.
(Footnote: Tracking Limitless Mobile ownership gets a little murky, since they formed new partnerships during an aggressive build-out expansion, and with a European company specializing in MTM and IOT, marketing in the US & Europe. The list of similar entities include at least Limibless Mobile LLC, Limitless Mobile Group, Limitless Mobile Holdings. Bloomberg still identifies Limitless Mobile LLC as a subsidiary of PC Management, with Linda and Richard Marin as key executives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=3624592 )
Which brings us to original point 2)
2) No other evidence in the industry of an MVNO enabler going out of business, so Tom must not be telling the truth.
Well, actually, there is. At least 3501 bits of evidence.
3500 is the number of the sum total of retail customers of Limitless Mobile who awoke sometime in November 2016 to find that their service had been discontinued, without prior notice.
The "01" comes from the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing of Limitless Mobile LLC on Dec 2, 2016.
https:/http://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2016/limitless-mobiles-bankruptcy-hits-contractors-towercos-and-suppliers/
In the filing, Limitless Mobile acknowledges that it will shutter it's retail operation (I believe they have since released their tower leases, and sold off key transmitting equipment, and possibly negotiated over the sale of FCC licenses, to satisfy creditors), but hoped to reorganize to continue enabling MVNOs.
There have been 2 amendments to the bankruptcy filed in early to mid-October. Regardless of their hopes, it seems likely that the creditors and court may have some input into whether or not Limitless can reorganize minus the retail branch. Perhaps more importantly, it seems likely that the major carriers may not be (or may not have been?) willing to continue providing preferential wholesale access rates based on the "nationwide presence" needs of a retail provider that is no longer providing the services the preferential rates were based on.
Additional pieces of evidence of "going out of business" are probably out there-- but we'd be looking more at a bunch of ripples as more experienced MVNOs changed MVNE providers, while perhaps only more naive operators would have stayed with MMZ/PC Management/Limitless until things came crashing down.
Regarding 3):
3) Any entity involved as an MVNO enabler would have been willing to continue the relationship long enough to get CellNuvo safely to the other side, so Tom must not be telling the truth.
Unless they couldn't (see above, plus indications that parent company PC Management may be largely defunct.). Or unless they wanted to insulate themselves from the shrapnel (see above). Or unless they saw it as a dead-end market with only 1 remaining client that didn't justify the overhead. (see above).
Regarding the possible #4)
(And perhaps #4-- I don't like CN despite never having used it, so Tom must not be telling the truth.)
Sorry, I've got nothing to dispute that argument.
(edit: to correct a spelling error Sorry about the super-long hyperlink error-- I'm afraid to try to correct it!)