Jump to content

ase500

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ase500 last won the day on September 2 2016

ase500 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About ase500

  • Rank
    Member Level: iDEN *chirp*
  • Birthday 09/30/1982

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Samsung Galaxy S5
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bemidji Minnesota
  • Here for...
    Sprint Fan Boy (or Girl)
  1. No, he said he had sought mergers. That goes to scale. The reports you read were speculative chatter from wall street. AND selling a company doesn't mean selling a company... Think back to Lampert, he sold his controlling share in sears to buy Kmart then used Kmart to buy back Sears and merge them. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  2. Never did he try to sell the company. He said that he wondered if he had gotten in over his head. He said he misjudged the regulatory environment in the US. Time and time again he has stated that he considers Sprint very important. Many of the things he has said recently would have been to lay the groundwork for a merger. Stop and really give this some thought. He bought ARM, he is building robots, and working on AI. If he really wanted out he could have divested to the open market. Sprint it is much better shape than it was when he bought it. He is buying more of it and spending more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  3. I don't think this is confusing. He never really wanted to sell the company. He wanted to give Sprint scale. If you pay attention to many of the deals he has made, he uses any means necessary. I am thinking his goal was to gain control of the merged company after the merger by buying much of the open market stock. However, I am thinking that DT wanted to give him nonvoting stock. This would never give him the opportunity to control the combined company. I don't think it was ever his intention to give up control permanently. He was trying the backdoor. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  4. I would say so. I meant that Sprint sevice in the aforementioned States is still better than any provider even Verizon in much of northern Mn. Areas around Red Lake, Northome, Big fork have no service from any provider. The square miles of that are is larger than some of the states mentioned. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  5. What. That isn't even close to what I said. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  6. Many of the highest earner get cell service from their employers. I would also argue that Sprint service in those areas is still probably better than say Verizon's in say northern MN. There are areas larger than RI that have no service from any provider. Get out to day Northome MN and see what spotty service really is. It's an expectation game. You simply expect more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  7. Out of those four states only one can have a large ignored area as only one is a large enough to have a large area at all. You are also assuming that density of population has anything to do with profit. All of those four states are also have one thing in common. Higher than average per capita income. Most are not looking for a deal and are probably going to stick with the big two. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  8. I myself was told this by the retention rep I talked to. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  9. Extra butter? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  10. I don't think there many that want a subsidized phone any more. It really isn't a good deal anymore. What most want is a way to transition out of the contracts that doesn't penalize them for being a loyal customer. Once the wholesale cost of the phone is paid, sprint doesn't stand to lose anything by allowing the customer off contract. In fact they could allow the customer off and sell them on an upgrade at retail. There by turning it into a profit situation, rather than a loss. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  11. The name for that attitude is called bankrupt. I help operate a 120 million a year operation for one of the largest companies on earth. And that statement alone would have gotten you fired. Every customer counts. In a connected world one angry customer, no matter how small the profit can make huge dent in your bottom line as they lampoon you on facebook and Twitter. It is quite clear many of you here don't understand business. I really hope none of the people at Sprint share your view. If they share such an anticustomer view the company has earned its reputation for poor customer service and it will not make a full turn around. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  12. Banging head against wall. How can they lose money on if they passed the Break Even point. Bro Do you even business. The only loss they can have at that point is the loss of revenue from loss customer. I will restate this once more the devices subbed to put them in the hands of the customers so they could sell the service. They are not a retailer. Once the wholesale cost is paid, the profit comes from the sale of the service. Get it yet? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  13. It's like talking to a wall. Retention is the point. NOT ENTITLEMENT. No offense but I hope you don't run a business. With that logic you'd be bankrupt. Most customers wil just quietly leave and give someone else their money. Sprint is in business to make money. They can't make money without customers. It is quite clear either you don't understand P/L or are driven by a petty need to be right, either way, I am done trying to give you a tutorial in business models and the economics of said business models. Have a good night. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  14. OMG it just flies right over your head. RETENTION. They won't make any money on the phone or the plan if they don't RETAIN THE CUSTOMER. The contract plans are NOT SWEETHEART DEALS. Based on comparison they are hands down some of the most expensive. And you missed the math yet again. Based on 12.50 per month for 3 phones for BE point and a difference 45 dollars per month from current plans to mine, they already made GREATER THAN RETAIL price. Now factor that across 12 years. I am sure that it would be in the best interest to retain me as a customer. Hence the reason why they are calling me to try and retain me. HOWEVER, my original point was the inconsistentancy of how they go about it and how it would be better be proactive rather than reactive on RETENTION. As the cost of new customers is higher than RETENTION, of current ones. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
  15. SMH. It isn't about the cost of the phone. Phones where subsidised back in the 1980s because the cost of the phone was to high for customers to pay. Granted a method that should have been gone a decade ago. Let me break it down in numbers for you. I have 3 subbed lines two S7s wholesale price at the time of purchase was 400 dollars each, my upfront cost was 250/ea leaving 150 dollars subed per phone. The third is an S6 which had a wholesale price of 250 dollars at the time, and was subject to black Friday manufacturer rebate of 150 dollars (Sprint recouped 150 of the cost) and I paid 150 upfront. That means my total subed cost would be 300 dollars across 2 years. A break even figure of 12.50/per month for my entire account. Based on the cost of my plan vs current plans, I paid for my phones and then some. And my wholesale figures come from DH wholesale, who buy a lot less phones than Sprint, I am sure Sprint paid less than what I can buy wholesale. So again I will say this again. It is about retention. The phones are paid for and their costs don't go down if they lose me as a customer. It's not like they shut down a tower if I leave. Furthermore the people on contracts are generally speaking the bread and butter. Like me most are upper middle income, excellent credit and buy top line phones. Retention, Retention, Retention. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
×