Sprint Q3 (Q2 Fiscal Quarter earnings) Discussion (Scheduled Nov 3rd)

[lilotimz]

Exactly my thoughts.  The fact that they didn't mention it means they haven't started it yet.  We'll see what happens February but I am betting we won't hear any details until Spring.

 

They have. They're just mum about it. Mass deployment like Verizons small cells deployment has not begun  yet but a few are reportedly out there. 

[ericdabbs]

Nervous too. T-Mobile has won way more awards than Sprint on rootmetrics. Sprint is improving but always 2 steps behind the competition. Even the media is kind of ignoring Sprint. Last week every tech site had T-Mobile numbers and praising them this week for Sprint I only found 3 tech sites besides analyst sites doing the same for Sprint even though they added a impressive amount of customers. I just want Sprint to have its year to shine already. Every year I say this is the year and every year it's not. I think 2017 will be Sprint's true year because by then at least 60% of Sprint sites should have band 41 and at least 2xCA. While Verizon will continue to get slower. At&t still has a lot of spectrum to deploy and T-Mobile still has band 2 and could possibly have 25x25 band 4 is some places eventually. Verizon is in deep doodoo until they get AWS-3 deployed.

 

I think Sprint it is still 2 years out from getting the praise that you desire from the tech blogs in many markets (not just 1).  Truth is that Sprint's density needs to improve dramatically because there are still a lot of gaping holes for where data coverage and voice coverage is abysmal (partially because 800 MHz CDMA/LTE cannot be deployed in So Cal yet) and that is what the goal of NGN is to help fulfill those gaps.  Sprint's sacrifice of the 600 MHz auction better be worth it to skip out on that.  Hopefully in Q4 when Clearwire Wimax network finally gets shut down on 11/6 that the 2nd B41 LTE carrier will be refarmed and up and running quickly within the next 2 months to provide more LTE capacity on Clearwire sites.

 

Tmobile gets the praise because their cell site density in urban markets is very good.  I have just started a Samsung test drive device on Tmobile and so far I am impressed.  They have very fast data speeds and I seem to get LTE data coverage everywhere outdoors.  Haven't had a chance to test indoor coverage so I can't attest to that yet.  In fact I have been able to get B12 LTE in So Cal which I can't I say I have had low band on B26 on Sprint due to SB county lagging. 

[Mr.Nuke]

The fact that they didn't mention it means they haven't started it yet.

Poor logic.

[WiWavelength]

Tmobile gets the praise because their cell site density in urban markets is very good.

 

Maybe in your market.  But do not generalize.  If T-Mobile urban site density were "very good" in all markets, then T-Mobile would not have the deserved poor reputation for in building coverage and reliability.  If we generalize across the entire country, Sprint beats T-Mobile in both of those qualities.

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

Maybe in your market. But do not generalize. If T-Mobile urban site density were "very good" in all markets, then T-Mobile would not have the deserved poor reputation for in building coverage and reliability. If we generalize across the entire country, Sprint beats T-Mobile in both of those qualities.

 

AJ

I would have to say that both Sprint and Tmobile suffered with poor in-building coverage so what happened in the past doesn't really matter at this point. Also I did not say all markets, I said urban markets because I know rural areas still blow on Tmobile.  Both companies had poor leadership management prior to Legere and Marcelo. That is why both carriers needed low band spectrum to help compete with the big 2 because their in-building coverage just sucks.

 

Now that both carriers have low band spectrum although Sprint has nationwide 800 MHz spectrum while Tmobile is still acquiring more 700A block licenses and will acquire all the remaining 700A licenses eventually and not to mention the impending 600 MHz auction. It will be interesting to see how both companies do in terms of improving in-building penetration using their low band spectrum.

[JThorson]

As others have said, I believe Marcelo is keeping mum for good reasons. It doesn't mean they haven't started or making progress but as he knows Sprint used to be one to over-promise and under-deliver and he is trying to change that; better to stay mum and then surprise everyone then say x and y will be done by z and then have that fall through.

[dkyeager]

As others have said, I believe Marcelo is keeping mum for good reasons. It doesn't mean they haven't started or making progress but as he knows Sprint used to be one to over-promise and under-deliver and he is trying to change that; better to stay mum and then surprise everyone then say x and y will be done by z and then have that fall through.

 

I think the quietness is primarily due to the hyper-competition in the wireless industry. Once they figure out where Sprint spends its limited resources, the Duo will try to counter.

[Ascertion]

They have. They're just mum about it. Mass deployment like Verizons small cells deployment has not begun  yet but a few are reportedly out there. 

I'm still looking in each of the market threads.  Hopefully somebody somewhere will find something related to NGN before the end of this year.

[smooth25]

Maybe Marcelo is waiting for the Wimax shutdown to go through before any network announcements. It would look bad if he announces a plan only to be stopped by the lawsuits.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I would have to say that both Sprint and Tmobile suffered with poor in-building coverage so what happened in the past doesn't really matter at this point. Also I did not say all markets, I said urban markets because I know rural areas still blow on Tmobile.

 

Nope, you are not getting away with that.  It is the tired trope of all that matters is T-Mobile's bright future, all that matters is Sprint's bad past.  It is a double standard.

 

And I limited the scope of my assertion to urban markets.  Just look at objective metrics and anecdotal reports.  T-Mobile is and has been notorious, the worst of the four major operators for in building coverage and reliability.  Even before SMR 800 MHz, Sprint has been better in those regards.  Now, your market may be an anomaly.  Because T-Mobile did not build it -- PacBell did.  So, again, do not generalize from your limited experience.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I like Sprint for the most part (except their retail stores) and I'm definitely on their side with this whole Mobile Be-a-con-citizen crap. However, the NGN plans just don't seem to be in the go. I understand Sprint wanting to underpromise and overdeliver, but this has been going on for the past several months of very little information regarding their NGN plans.

 

Whereas T-Mobile announces basically almost every tech upgrade they do and the same with expansions. When they announced that huge amount of added coverage a while ago, along with their projected coverage map, I was here on S4GRU saying no way can they do that. Yet in the media inline the other day, it was announced T-Mobile is expected to cover the same pop as Verizon. So, kudos to T-Mobile for doing as they said they'd do.

 

On the other side, I just don't understand how Sprint can't do the same. Forget about how in the past it failed or was late in doing so. That was the past with Sprint, with a much different management, etc. The new team needs to be able to do at least as much as T-Mobile, if not more. At least communicate with the public like T-Mobile does, except without the immaturity, foul language, and annoying CEO dolls creeping over fake tombstones.

[ericdabbs]

I like Sprint for the most part (except their retail stores) and I'm definitely on their side with this whole Mobile Be-a-con-citizen crap. However, the NGN plans just don't seem to be in the go. I understand Sprint wanting to underpromise and overdeliver, but this has been going on for the past several months of very little information regarding their NGN plans.

 

Whereas T-Mobile announces basically almost every tech upgrade they do and the same with expansions. When they announced that huge amount of added coverage a while ago, along with their projected coverage map, I was here on S4GRU saying no way can they do that. Yet in the media inline the other day, it was announced T-Mobile is expected to cover the same pop as Verizon. So, kudos to T-Mobile for doing as they said they'd do.

 

On the other side, I just don't understand how Sprint can't do the same. Forget about how in the past it failed or was late in doing so. That was the past with Sprint, with a much different management, etc. The new team needs to be able to do at least as much as T-Mobile, if not more. At least communicate with the public like T-Mobile does, except without the immaturity, foul language, and annoying CEO dolls creeping over fake tombstones.

 

I would give Sprint another quarter first before they need to start announcing some NGN progress.  I don't think Sprint has made any significant progress yet on NGN for anything to report.  Give them Q4 and wait until Feb 2016 at the Q4 CC to give us some more color on the updates on NGN progress especially since by then the Wimax network will be shut down and Sprint has more flexibility on how to work with their 2.5 GHz spectrum.  It would have been nice to hear something at the Q3 CC today but oh well.

[Arysyn]

I would give Sprint another quarter first before they need to start announcing some NGN progress. I don't think Sprint has made any significant progress yet on NGN for anything to report. Give them Q4 and wait until Feb 2016 at the Q4 CC to give us some more color on the updates on NGN progress especially since by then the Wimax network will be shut down and Sprint has more flexibility on how to work with their 2.5 GHz spectrum. It would have been nice to hear something at the Q3 CC today but oh well.

I've given this some thought since earlier, and as I've posted in the Artemis pcell thread, I'm hoping a big part of the lack of updates involves preparing for some sort of pcell deployment. If pcell works really well, it would make sense on many levels for Sprint to wait a bit on NGN, at least of what we know about it.

 

Financially, if Sprint could use pcell and not have to install so many towers, it would save Sprint alot of money, while seemingly to work much better according to what Artemis is claiming. This especially is beneficial to both companies, due to Sprint's large amount of TDD, the technology pcell apparently works best on.

 

Although, as much as I really love the pcell concept, for which Artemis has my full support, I can't help but also really want a major change to spectrum banding, so that wireless carriers could have much more spectrum, along with some major swapping between companies, in order to streamline the spectrum holdings each carrier has.

[dnicekid]

Nervous too. T-Mobile has won way more awards than Sprint on rootmetrics. Sprint is improving but always 2 steps behind the competition. Even the media is kind of ignoring Sprint. Last week every tech site had T-Mobile numbers and praising them this week for Sprint I only found 3 tech sites besides analyst sites doing the same for Sprint even though they added a impressive amount of customers. I just want Sprint to have its year to shine already. Every year I say this is the year and every year it's not. I think 2017 will be Sprint's true year because by then at least 60% of Sprint sites should have band 41 and at least 2xCA. While Verizon will continue to get slower. At&t still has a lot of spectrum to deploy and T-Mobile still has band 2 and could possibly have 25x25 band 4 is some places eventually. Verizon is in deep doodoo until they get AWS-3 deployed.

If sprint moves slow 2017 still won't do it. Didn't Verizon announce 5g deployment next year?? So by the time they get 2xCa everywhere still might be to late . But honestly sprint just needs to density b41 to make a lot of noise.

IF they could buy USCC That would get the ball rolling for sprint publicly. I am sure all the analysts would start swinging back to sprint as that would be the best news in years as well as a smart move. The numbers just might put them back in 4th

[Ascertion]

If sprint moves slow 2017 still won't do it. Didn't Verizon announce 5g deployment next year?? So by the time they get 2xCa everywhere still might be to late . But honestly sprint just needs to density b41 to make a lot of noise.

IF they could buy USCC That would get the ball rolling for sprint publicly. I am sure all the analysts would start swinging back to sprint as that would be the best news in years as well as a smart move. The numbers just might put them back in 4th

I heard Sprint's doing 3xCA starting next year.  The snapdragon 820 should support it.  Once they get 3xCA with enough optimizations, it could very well be Sprint's 5G network.

[Terrell352]

If sprint moves slow 2017 still won't do it. Didn't Verizon announce 5g deployment next year?? So by the time they get 2xCa everywhere still might be to late . But honestly sprint just needs to density b41 to make a lot of noise.

IF they could buy USCC That would get the ball rolling for sprint publicly. I am sure all the analysts would start swinging back to sprint as that would be the best news in years as well as a smart move. The numbers just might put them back in 4th

If they basically will not have NGN started til the 2nd quarter I can't see Sprint having a big advantage but I will believe when I see it when it comes to Verizon 5G next year. Verizon is very capable but I don't even think the 5G standard is set so how will they deploy?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

If they basically will not have NGN started til the 2nd quarter I can't see Sprint having a big advantage but I will believe when I see it when it comes to Verizon 5G next year. Verizon is very capable but I don't even think the 5G standard is set so how will they deploy?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

As far as I can tell, Verizon's gonna implement LTE-A features for faster speeds (i.e. CA) and just call it 5G. IIRC none of the major standards bodies have begun formal consideration of what constitutes as 5G. It's gonna be AT&T faux-G all over again, but with Verizon leading the way this time. I'm not looking forward to it. :/

 

*I will say Sprint is probably pretty well-prepared for a fake "next-gen" push this time around though.

[DanielB]

I would have to say that both Sprint and Tmobile suffered with poor in-building coverage so what happened in the past doesn't really matter at this point. Also I did not say all markets, I said urban markets because I know rural areas still blow on Tmobile.  Both companies had poor leadership management prior to Legere and Marcelo. That is why both carriers needed low band spectrum to help compete with the big 2 because their in-building coverage just sucks.

 

Now that both carriers have low band spectrum although Sprint has nationwide 800 MHz spectrum while Tmobile is still acquiring more 700A block licenses and will acquire all the remaining 700A licenses eventually and not to mention the impending 600 MHz auction. It will be interesting to see how both companies do in terms of improving in-building penetration using their low band spectrum.

 

Not trying to pick a fight, but at least in the markets I've been with Sprint and T-Mobile phones, Sprint is a much better in-building performer. Now that their 800 MHz spectrum is rather widely deployed, they simply wipe the floor with T-Mobile when it comes to in-building coverage....and I say this with complete conviction based on my own personal experience with side-by-side tests.

[JimBob]

Objectively, Sprint's Q3 was bad.  Claure claims net 237K postpaid adds, but that was due to cannibalizing 199K from their prepaid customer base.  Thus, the meager "win" of 38K adds was dearly bought by the severe plan discounts (free year for DirecTV customers!), giveaway offers (iPhone 6s for $1!), and other costly gimmicks such as Direct2U and RadioShack leasing we have recently witnessed.  These seemingly constant desperate tactics were reflected in the continued revenue drop and fast cash burn.

 

Meanwhile, lack of concrete info on NGN and leasing facilities for another quarter adds to future network and financial uncertainty.  A somewhat clear outlook is needed if Sprint expects lenders to continue letting them add to and finance its $32+ billion in debt.  Claure has gone ahead and initiated plans for massive cost cuts, but confidence is hard to be acquired when employees are running out the door whether voluntarily or involuntarily while a lot of work is still needed to be done to move Sprint from last place.

 

Subjectively, we of course hope for the best.  We take heart at Claure's "inflection point" speech. Sprint's turnaround is right now or just around the corner.

[Mr.Nuke]

I think the quietness is primarily due to the hyper-competition in the wireless industry. Once they figure out where Sprint spends its limited resources, the Duo will try to counter.

Yep. People get excited somehow every quarterly earnings call that it is going to be the magical day where Sprint tells all about their network plans. That day is never going to come.  It is typically Sprint spinning their financial results on the most positive light possible (see JimBob's post above mine about their postpaid adds), Marcelo picking a root metrics report to highlight (Denver), etc,  and if you are lucky one targeted analyst question about the network.

 

"because in talking to the tower companies, it doesn't seem to be that a plan for small cells or new macro cells has really been communicated to them and so I wanted to just kind of get clarity on that"

Marcelo's response

And the network team has been working very hard and not only finalizing Network Vision, but I would say that the key we're working a lot had been in optimizing, doing a lot of optimization work. Now as we work towards the future, we'd continue to execute our plan to densify our network. We don't share our plans with all the network companies. We are using, in many cases, alternate vendors in the densification of our plan, and I can report that we are having – we're in steady progress and we're very happy with the results that we have so far as we continue to build our network.

Maybe Marcelo is waiting for the Wimax shutdown to go through before any network announcements. It would look bad if he announces a plan only to be stopped by the lawsuits.

Wimax and the impending shutdown doesn't have a huge effect* on Sprint's near-term LTE strategy outside of a few markets where it may have been preventing a second carrier. That said Claure noted 90 markets already have the second carrier yesterday.

 

*We may see some LTE capable sites switch over after the shutdown, but that remains to be seen.

[jamesinclair]

Claure claims net 237K postpaid adds, but that was due to cannibalizing 199K from their prepaid customer base.

 

Off topic but this always bother me.

 

Pre-paid, you pay in advance of the month.

 

Post-paid you, uh, also pay in advance of the month.

 

Why do they call it this :/

[Ascertion]

Off topic but this always bother me.

 

Pre-paid, you pay in advance of the month.

 

Post-paid you, uh, also pay in advance of the month.

 

Why do they call it this :/

Postpaid customers have a lot lower churn than prepaid.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[Jones]

The (potentially) lower postpaid churn is the only bright spot I see in the conversion of pre-paid to post-paid. Per the conference call those customers don't really seem to pay Sprint more money but are less likely to leave and maybe/eventually buy new phones/add lines/up thier data.

[kg4icg]

Off topic but this always bother me.

 

Pre-paid, you pay in advance of the month.

 

Post-paid you, uh, also pay in advance of the month.

 

Why do they call it this :/

You are half right, post paid, you pay after the month you received service.

[joshuam]

You are half right, post paid, you pay after the month you received service.

 

That's not how Sprint's billing works. Your first Sprint bill is much higher for a reason, they are billing pro-rated portions of current month, and a full month for the next.

 

T-Mobile handles it in an even weirder way. When you sign up for post paid service on T-Mobile, you bill cycles in 3 days after you activate a line. So you pay for 3 days of service, then a full month of service.