Softbank - New Sprint - Discussion

[Bob Newhart]

Here is today's presentation:

 

The Promise of Mobile Internet in Driving American Innovation, the Economy and Education

 

That is nice and all, but as far them wanting to buy T-Mobile USA, I don't see the connection between the two? (not pointed at you Howard, them)

 

Can someone explain why they 'just have to buy t-mobile' to do all this good for the country?

[maxsilver]

No, really, T-Mobile raised prices because they want to stop losing money? Who would have thought ? And to hear all those pundits that thought that T-Mobile would start a price war. While I applaud them for decoupling the cost of the handset from the cost of service, it really hasn't done too much to lower prices overall. 

 

T-Mobile raising the price exclusively on the unlimited data plan price looks more like damage control for the unlimited data offering, and not any meaningful "price increase" (they didn't raise any other plans anywhere else in their offerings, and all current plans are getting extra data, extra international, or both, for free).

 

We've all seen people post crazy high 60GB+/month usage on their "unlimited" plans, on every carrier. I think T-Mobile wants to make those specific types of users pay more for all that extra usage, by separating the "normal heavy (3-6gb)" users from the "crazy ridiculous (50GB+)" people

 

I think AT&T and Verizon's reactions are what you are looking for. They've both either lowered prices, or increased data allowances, on prepaid and postpaid plans, as a direct reaction to T-Mobile / Sprint's lower prices.

 

That sounds pretty close to a "price war" to me.

[jamisonshaw125]

That is nice and all, but as far them wanting to buy T-Mobile USA, I don't see the connection between the two? (not pointed at you Howard, them)

 

Can someone explain why they 'just have to buy t-mobile' to do all this good for the country?

I agree. I don't know enough about this topic even after reading tons and tons of articles.

 

 

Is it basically the same concept that apple is gobbling up companies to improve their own. Except sprint needs to do it rather to compete with the big 2. But, will that not result in billions on network overhaul yet again? Seems like a rather long and tedious process that might or might not be worth it in the long run.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[OhioCalling]

Posted on Android Central.  Son says he will start a Masssive Price War if T-Mobile purchase is approved.

 

http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-chairman-claims-price-war-will-start-if-t-mobile-buyout-allowed-go-through

[S4GRU]

T-Mobile raising the price exclusively on the unlimited data plan price looks more like damage control for the unlimited data offering, and not any meaningful "price increase" (they didn't raise any other plans anywhere else in their offerings, and all current plans are getting extra data, extra international, or both, for free).

 

We've all seen people post crazy high 60GB+/month usage on their "unlimited" plans, on every carrier. I think T-Mobile wants to make those specific types of users pay more for all that extra usage, by separating the "normal heavy (3-6gb)" users from the "crazy ridiculous (50GB+)" people

I don't disagree with you. However, I wonder if you'd say the same thing about Sprint if they just raised rates on unlimited only. And whether you or I think so or not, I can guarantee you that it would be seen by the public as Sprint is raising prices. Even if limited to one group.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Bob Newhart]

Posted on Android Central.  Son says he will start a Masssive Price War if T-Mobile purchase is approved.

 

http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-chairman-claims-price-war-will-start-if-t-mobile-buyout-allowed-go-through

 

Why not 'a massive pricewar' before? or instead of? Is what I don't understand.

 

Massive is a very subjective word too, it could mean $1 off plans, it could mean anything.

 

Sprint has been raising prices over the last year, raising rates and raising fees, but they just don't have the coverage or quality of service of the big two to justify these prices. People expect less and pay less.

 

I don't see the connection.

[maxsilver]

I don't disagree with you. However, I wonder if you'd say the same thing about Sprint if they just raised rates on unlimited only. And whether you or I think so or not, I can guarantee you that it would be seen by the public as Sprint is raising prices. Even if limited to one group.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

You don't have to wonder -- I wouldn't say the same thing if Sprint raised their prices, but not for the reason I suspect your expecting.

 

 

Sprint's in this weird position, because they used to (in my opinion) to try to persist this "everyone should need unlimited" data pricing, which (in my opinion) doesn't reflect most peoples needs accurately.

 

For instance, if Sprint raised the price of Unlimited on the "My Way" plans, then your correct, I wouldn't be as forgiving, and I would claim that as "across-the-board" price increase. Because they are raising the price for almost everyone. You can't be a "mid-range" data user on "My Way" plans. Your either very low data user (1GB or less) or a 'everyone else' user ("Unlimited"). There's no middle grounds. If Sprint raised that Unlimited plan price, they're *really* raising almost everyone's price. 

 

However, if Sprint did something similar to T-Mobile, then I'd say the same thing. For instance, if Sprint took Framily and changed the current $20/mn "Unlimited" data feature to 5GB+tethering, and added a new $30/mn "Unlimited Plan", then I'd say the same thing about that as I did about T-Mobile above -- that it's not a price increase so much as they were targeting just the "crazy high usage" folks to properly pay for their heavier usage.

 

It's hard to say that, because historically Sprint's offered their plans in such a way that almost many users had to pay for "Unlimited", regardless of how much data they actually use, or really wanted. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Framily" is the first and only time to date, that they've offered a phone data plan larger than 1GB that wasn't "Unlimited").

 

I'm not trying to promote one carrier over another. However, it's not entirely fair to compare a Sprint "Unlimited" Plan price increase to a T-Mobile "Unlimited" Plan price increase, unless Sprint also offers a plan for mid-range users, because Sprint's price increase would force a lot more people to pay it, where as T-Mobile's doesn't.

[CaptainSlow]

Why not 'a massive pricewar' before? or instead of? Is what I don't understand.

 

Because a "massive price war" would be unsustainable over the period of several years it would take for Sprint to get as big as the other two. As has been now shown by T-Mobile, it can only be a short term strategy. Sprint would have to somehow get within striking distance of AT&T and Vz before it could launch a price war for that final growth burst to catch up with the two. Edited March 12, 2014 by CaptainSlow

[Bob Newhart]

Because a "massive price war" would be unsustainable over the period of several years it would take for Sprint to get as big as the other two. As has been now shown by T-Mobile, it can only be a short term strategy. Sprint would have to somehow get within striking distance of AT&T and Vz before it could launch a price war for that final growth burst to catch up with the two.

 

By spending the billions to buy T-Mobile, I know that does one thing, it gets rid of a company, they're out of the way. They don't need them, they just want them gone.

IMHO.

[twospirits]

Didn't Masa do it over in Japan, but doing a massive price cut and that helped him get customers. I'm curious as to how much of a price cut he did over there. Maybe that could be a sampling of what might entail in regards to a price war happening here.

 

TS

[JThorson]

Because a "massive price war" would be unsustainable over the period of several years it would take for Sprint to get as big as the other two. As has been now shown by T-Mobile, it can only be a short term strategy. Sprint would have to somehow get within striking distance of AT&T and Vz before it could launch a price war for that final growth burst to catch up with the two.

Well said. In order for Sprint to really compete with At&t and Verizon, it would be beneficial for them to buy T-Mobile because of the extra spectrum they could use and having a larger customer base. If Sprint tried a price war now, I don't believe you would see much of an increase of customer growth because everyone is going towards the other 3 at the moment. If the deal doesn't go through, I believe in able to compete would be to keep building up the network and improve performance, then start a price war. At least that way Sprint can entice people and say "we have an awesome network, come signup with us". 

[centermedic]

Why not 'a massive pricewar' before? or instead of? Is what I don't understand.

 

Massive is a very subjective word too, it could mean $1 off plans, it could mean anything.

 

Sprint has been raising prices over the last year, raising rates and raising fees, but they just don't have the coverage or quality of service of the big two to justify these prices. People expect less and pay less.

 

I don't see the connection.

I partially disagree here. While I also cannot see the rational of not starting a price war before a potential T-Mobile merger, I also believe that AT&T is very vulnerable when compared to Sprint. So much so that i now believe that it would have made more sense for Sprint to go after ma bell instead of T-Mobile. Sprint competes most directly with AT&T when it comes to coverage and Sprint is catching up on data speeds. Sprint has a window of opportunity that is closing. They need to strike sometime this year IMO.

[JThorson]

I partially disagree here. While I also cannot see the rational of not starting a price war before a potential T-Mobile merger, I also believe that AT&T is very vulnerable when compared to Sprint. So much so that i now believe that it would have made more sense for Sprint to go after ma bell instead of T-Mobile. Sprint competes most directly with AT&T when it comes to coverage and Sprint is catching up on data speeds. Sprint has a window of opportunity that is closing. They need to strike sometime this year IMO.

Why do you believe AT&T is vulnerable? Is it because Sprint is enhancing their network?

[centermedic]

Because Sprint coverage is comparable to AT&T. Voice quality is generally better. While Sprint mostly cannot compete on data speeds the network has at least become usable in most places with unlimited data still available AND in the near future Sprint will be able to compete on data speeds. In comparison we cant touch Verizon on anything but value and the only reason a T-Mobile user would move to Sprint would be because of bargain basement prices. While I still believe that Sprint should spark a pricing war they also do not need to severely undervalue their product. This makes AT&T the most vulnerable in my mind.

[IamMrFamous07]

I feel like Masa Son is preaching exactly the same thing when he was trying to acquire Sprint. Didn't he say with that Sprint + SoftBank + Clearwire alone can become the number 1 work in the world (maybe not in those exact words but that was message he was getting across)

 

 

And now he's making it seem, without tmobile Sprint can't compete. I know it's hard for sprint can really compete with other 2 but if Sprint alone can complete the network build and then start marketing Spark aggressively they can do seriously do damage

[Bob Newhart]

Because Sprint coverage is comparable to AT&T. 

 

Seriously?

[centermedic]

Seriously?

Yup. Look at the maps. I can add that in my experience I have better coverage then my friends who have AT&T and that is not just limited to my experiences in NY and NC. I was an over the road truck driver and the only service that consistently outperformed Sprint was Verizon. And yes, I drove 46 of the lower 48.

[bigsnake49]

T-Mobile raising the price exclusively on the unlimited data plan price looks more like damage control for the unlimited data offering, and not any meaningful "price increase" (they didn't raise any other plans anywhere else in their offerings, and all current plans are getting extra data, extra international, or both, for free).

 

We've all seen people post crazy high 60GB+/month usage on their "unlimited" plans, on every carrier. I think T-Mobile wants to make those specific types of users pay more for all that extra usage, by separating the "normal heavy (3-6gb)" users from the "crazy ridiculous (50GB+)" people

 

I think AT&T and Verizon's reactions are what you are looking for. They've both either lowered prices, or increased data allowances, on prepaid and postpaid plans, as a direct reaction to T-Mobile / Sprint's lower prices.

 

That sounds pretty close to a "price war" to me.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile's coverage and the difference between theirs and the Verizon/AT&T is priced in their respective plans. If coverage in the middle of nowhere in Kansas is important to you, then you pay the Verizon/AT&T coverage tax. If it isn't then you choose the other two. You don't think that extensive coverage is free do you?

 

Let's face it, T-Mobile's paying off your ETF is somewhat of a scam because you have to trade in your phone. If your phone is not up to par, then the payout is not going to be the maximum. I give them credit for foisting this scam on the unsuspecting public. Just like thei uncarrier thing. Do you think that the uncarrier thing is good for the public? Heck no, It's good for the carriers. You don't get the $200 phone discount.

Edited March 12, 2014 by bigsnake49

[bigsnake49]

Because Sprint coverage is comparable to AT&T. Voice quality is generally better. While Sprint mostly cannot compete on data speeds the network has at least become usable in most places with unlimited data still available AND in the near future Sprint will be able to compete on data speeds. In comparison we cant touch Verizon on anything but value and the only reason a T-Mobile user would move to Sprint would be because of bargain basement prices. While I still believe that Sprint should spark a pricing war they also do not need to severely undervalue their product. This makes AT&T the most vulnerable in my mind.

No freaking possible way Sprint coverage is equivalent to AT&T's. Maybe in two years, maybe outside IBEZ. Not now. If they acquire USCC maybe in certain areas

[bigsnake49]

Yup. Look at the maps. I can add that in my experience I have better coverage then my friends who have AT&T and that is not just limited to my experiences in NY and NC. I was an over the road truck driver and the only service that consistently outperformed Sprint was Verizon. And yes, I drove 46 of the lower 48.

 

Maybe with roaming voice coverage, but not native and definitely not data coverage of anything better than 1x speeds. 

[bigsnake49]

So does anybody what Masa said?

[jamisonshaw125]

Ahem. 

[JThorson]

Ahem. 

Well how about that. I'm not sure how accurate these maps are but sprint and at&t are very close in lte coverage. I would have never guessed.

[jamisonshaw125]

Well how about that. I'm not sure how accurate these maps are but sprint and at&t are very close in lte coverage. I would have never guessed.

There was a beautiful thread on it a little while ago. What irks me is how verizon still uses outdated maps in their commercials even though we know they have superior coverage.

[centermedic]

No freaking possible way Sprint coverage is equivalent to AT&T's. Maybe in two years, maybe outside IBEZ. Not now. If they acquire USCC maybe in certain areas

Never said equivalent. I said comparable. Big difference. There will always be areas covered by one and not the other or one does a better job then the other. In my experience I have had better coverage with Sprint then I would with AT&T. Your results may vary.