I feel dirty

[Duffman]

Where I am is AT&T DSL or..... Nothing. I just noticed they have put a 150GB cap on my account.

[WiWavelength]

I have been with sprint for over 10 years and lets face it, they have made some very bone headed decisions over the years and the reason why they are in the situation that they are in right now is solely based on their own mistakes.

 

I hear this all the time, and it is just naive, superficial analysis. It rates the quality of Sprint's decision making based solely on outcome but fails to take into account circumstances surrounding and following those decisions. Rather, Sprint does not operate in a vacuum. It has to contend with the anti competitive Twin Bells. Blaming Sprint for all of its "very bone headed decisions over the years" is like telling the scrawny kid to stop hitting himself as the bully forces the scrawny kid to repeatedly hit himself in the face.

 

For another perspective, list some of those "bone headed decisions" that Sprint has made. Now, imagine that VZW had made those same decisions. Would they still have been "bone headed"? My point of contention is that VZW would have made those decisions succeed because VZW is too big to fail at almost anything it does.

 

That is no fault of verizon or at&t, they are a business(for profit after all) just like sprint and they have made decisions that put them in a position to be #1 and #2 in the industry.

 

Actually, as I contend above, Sprint's problems are in large part due to VZW and AT&T, as they have bought up antitrust worthy market share and spectrum bandwidth through acquisitions and exclusive contracts. They are #1 and #2 because they are simply too big not to be #1 and #2. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

As a consumer and a business man my decisions are based on how it affects me and my family and not how it affects sprint.

 

Unfortunately, your decisions may eventually affect you and your family in a negative way if/when the Twin Bells succeed at their goals of buying out Sprint and T-Mobile or rendering them irrelevant. Acting in your own self interest now can act against the public interest, and that can ultimately return in a negative feedback mechanism to harm your self interest.

 

The situation is somewhat akin to living in a small town and shopping at Walmart. It seems great at first, but then you watch local businesses fail, people lose their jobs, and much of your economy come to revolve around Walmart. By choosing Walmart, you harm the overall strength and vigor of the local economy, which presumably you also rely on for your livelihood.

 

Now, do not get me wrong. I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. Rather, I am only trying to get people to think critically about their actions. Like it or not, leaving Sprint for VZW or AT&T is helping make an already anti competitive wireless industry that much more consolidated. And as wireless is necessarily a closed market with many almost insurmountable barriers to new entrants, if we lose/abandon the competitive foils that we have now, real competition and consumer choice are likely gone for good.

 

AJ

[lrmcgarvey]

AJ,

You have a good philosophy, but sadly it just doesn't work in the real world. I am all for helping out the little guys, and it is one reason I try to always buy all my hardware supplies from our local general store instead of the lowes or walmart a little ways away.

 

But your ideals only have merit when the little guys offer a product that can compete with the big two.

 

Lets say in my town there are three hotels. A Hilton, a Holiday inn, and Bobs motor lodge. Bobs motor lodge is a bit cheeper, has a bed, shower, desk. everything you need and they are not the hilton or holiday inn so you give them a try.

 

Two days later you find that your whole family has crabs and some skin rash you can't get rid of because Bobs doesn't wash sheets but once a month.

 

According to you. You should continue to make your family suffer and put them at risk for the sole reason that Bobs motor lodge is not holiday inn or the hilton. And come hell or high water you will continue to put you and your familys quality of life at risk for the sake of bob who you've never met. All because the hilton and holiday inn have more hotels than Bob does,

 

I'm sorry but thats just not the way it works for me in the real world. I will go to where I get the best service that fits my needs at a resonable cost. In the business world you have to compete. And while I do show some loyality to places, thats only as long as they offer the service I need.

 

I really like Sprint, wish them all the best, and I am trying my hardest to stay with them and make it work. But as a company they are really horrible at managing themselves. Even t-mobile who bleeds customers constantly still turns a profit. they just don't offer the coverage where I need it.

 

So I am left really with at&t, verizon and sprint. at&t I just really don't like. So we'll say verizon or sprint.

 

Verizon is a huge duopoly,cost more, but they take thier money and pour it back into thier network to not only mantain a standard of service and provide a constantly good wireless quality but to massively improve on that network and footprint.

 

Sprint cost a bit less. and in the years I have been with them. Have constantly lost money, not upgraded or serviced thier equipment beyond the bare minimum needed, and thier speeds and service have dropped a good 10 fold in that time. Its no longer a matter of them compeating. They can not even maintain minimum standards.

 

sorry for the long ramble.

 

Loyalty is good, and supporting the small guys is great. But there comes a point to where that loyalty and support needs to be at least rewarded by those companies offering to at least try and meet some kind of mimimum standards.

[4ringsnbr]

Ouch! Get those slow EVDO speed crabs away from me!! Very interesting analogy used, and I agree. A "duopoly" still fosters competition. AT&T and Verizon do not coordinate their plans-- they compete with one another. Would VZW had restarted double data less than 4 weeks after it had finished if AT&T hadn't increased their 2GB 25 plan to a 3GB 30 plan for data?

 

AT&T one-upped VZW on the data limit per price and VZW had to run a promo again. Same with AMAT... AT&T has it in some places which forces VZW to have it in some places as well. The bigger the company gets, the more leverage it will have to provide better services (due to greater revenue). Ultimately, the consumer has choice and will vote with his pocketbook.

 

It was seeking the goal of being bigger that caused Sprint to make its biggest blunder: The purchase of Nextel. Back in 2004, Sprint was smaller that AT&T and VZW, but not by nearly as great a margin. They went after Nextel to grow and gain all those corporate accounts that meant greater revenue and fewer customer complaints; they brushed off concerns about the incompatible, outdated network in need of an upgrade to a newer generation technology. They also foolishly decided to spinoff their wireline division in to Embarq (which later became CenturyLink), so now they had to buy backhaul from a third party unlike the big two. I think the big two may have had many advantages out of the gate, but Sprint (or T-Mobile) could've crushed them if they had played their cards right and not made so many foolish decisions.

 

Most people don't realize that Alltel, whose acquisition really gave VZW a huge boost in this area, was an evolution of Cellular One which grew from 360 Communications, which was part of the Western phone / Sprint original charter. There are many twists and turns that happen to any company-- and anything is possible in the future. That is what makes life interesting. I hope Sprint and T-Mobile can find success, but everyone has to choose the best carrier to meet their needs for the money.

[pyroscott]

Very well said, I was trying to think of an analogy with cars and all I could think of was driving a little death trap that had a top speed of 30. OK for around town but worthless on the open road.

 

The other thing is that unless you put a value on unlimited data, sprint is not much cheaper than the "two evils" and for some they are more expensive. They have stripped all the benefits that made them the "customer service carrier" now they are just another carrier offering sub par service to anyone who is not lucky enough to be in a wimax service area.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[themuffinman]

AJ,

You have a good philosophy, but sadly it just doesn't work in the real world. I am all for helping out the little guys, and it is one reason I try to always buy all my hardware supplies from our local general store instead of the lowes or walmart a little ways away.

 

But your ideals only have merit when the little guys offer a product that can compete with the big two.

 

Lets say in my town there are three hotels. A Hilton, a Holiday inn, and Bobs motor lodge. Bobs motor lodge is a bit cheeper, has a bed, shower, desk. everything you need and they are not the hilton or holiday inn so you give them a try.

 

Two days later you find that your whole family has crabs and some skin rash you can't get rid of because Bobs doesn't wash sheets but once a month.

 

According to you. You should continue to make your family suffer and put them at risk for the sole reason that Bobs motor lodge is not holiday inn or the hilton. And come hell or high water you will continue to put you and your familys quality of life at risk for the sake of bob who you've never met. All because the hilton and holiday inn have more hotels than Bob does,

 

I'm sorry but thats just not the way it works for me in the real world. I will go to where I get the best service that fits my needs at a resonable cost. In the business world you have to compete. And while I do show some loyality to places, thats only as long as they offer the service I need.

 

I really like Sprint, wish them all the best, and I am trying my hardest to stay with them and make it work. But as a company they are really horrible at managing themselves. Even t-mobile who bleeds customers constantly still turns a profit. they just don't offer the coverage where I need it.

 

So I am left really with at&t, verizon and sprint. at&t I just really don't like. So we'll say verizon or sprint.

 

Verizon is a huge duopoly,cost more, but they take thier money and pour it back into thier network to not only mantain a standard of service and provide a constantly good wireless quality but to massively improve on that network and footprint.

 

Sprint cost a bit less. and in the years I have been with them. Have constantly lost money, not upgraded or serviced thier equipment beyond the bare minimum needed, and thier speeds and service have dropped a good 10 fold in that time. Its no longer a matter of them compeating. They can not even maintain minimum standards.

 

sorry for the long ramble.

 

Loyalty is good, and supporting the small guys is great. But there comes a point to where that loyalty and support needs to be at least rewarded by those companies offering to at least try and meet some kind of mimimum standards.

 

Awesome analogy, very well said.

[S4GRU]

I like the hotel anaology, to a point. The crabs is just too much for me. Ewwww.

 

Anyway, maybe a more fitting hotel analogy is a bed? In some markets the Sprint hotel has a deluxe Heavenly bed, in other markets the bed is uncomfortable and insufficient for your needs and in some more markets, your Sprint hotel has no bed at all (like in Baton Rouge)!

 

 

The bottom line is that AJ is right. We should do everything we can to keep a vibrant and competitive wireless ecosystem. We all benefit from it. However, I recognize that for some people there is only so much you can tolerate. And you pay hundreds of dollars per month for a service you should be able to use. Some stories of how great these new NV markets are performing is going to be necessary soon to keep some of these people that are teetering. Because Sprint is also competing just to keep their current customer base.

 

But if we all jumped to VZW or ATT, we would all be regretting it in a few years. We just are all hoping enough AJ's stay and keep the lights on over at Sprint. There are no easy answers. But Sprint is now making some of the best decisions it ever has...all things considered. And we all know soon enough if they are going to carry the day.

 

Posted via Forum Runner

[themuffinman]

The bottom line is that AJ is right. We should do everything we can to keep a vibrant and competitive wireless ecosystem. We all benefit from it. However, I recognize that for some people there is only so much you can tolerate. And you pay hundreds of dollars per month for a service you should be able to use. Some stories of how great these new NV markets are performing is going to be necessary soon to keep some of these people that are teetering. Because Sprint is also competing just to keep their current customer base.

 

But if we all jumped to VZW or ATT, we would all be regretting it in a few years. We just are all hoping enough AJ's stay and keep the lights on over at Sprint. There are no easy answers. But Sprint is now making some of the best decisions it ever has...all things considered. And we all know soon enough if they are going to carry the day.

 

Posted via Forum Runner

 

So far I think everyone has brought up some valid points but at what point do we stop doing everything we can? Each and every one of us have had different experiences with sprint, what I am able to tolerate or put up with would be different to the next person. Many of us are hoping that sprint makes the necessary changes but what if that doesn't happen? I can assure you that if Sprint doesn't step up their game with in the next two years most of us will be going to who ever else can provide the necessary service that meets our needs at a reasonable cost and at that point are some of you going still believe in supporting Sprint? At some point we will all have to make that ultimate decision which won't be based on the little guy but will be based on our own personal needs. Many of us are on sprint, not because they are a little fish in a big pond, but because for years they were the best bang for the buck.

 

As far as having enough AJ's in the world, I used to be one of them. Like I said previously, I am a long time sprint customer and I was also a long time stockholder with sprint up until a year or so ago when I sold off all my remainding stock in sprint. Back then I basically would have agreed with everything AJ had said but that was the investor side of me talking and not the logical side. I don't know how long AJ as been with sprint but for me, I am at the point where I can't take it any more. I have gone above and beyond to so call help the little guy and I am at the end of the road. If network vision doesn't work out then I will be leaving right along with most of you, little guy or not.

 

EDIT:

 

To: AJ

 

I understand your walmart analogy. The reason why people would go to walmart isn't because of who they are but because of the value and options they give to consumers. In the end the small mom and pop stores simply can't compete because they don't have the variety and they don't have the volume to compete with lower prices. This is a different scenario when it comes to sprint. Its not like att/verizon have lower prices than sprint and can pull customers away easily. Your typical att/verizon monthly service contract(feature for feature compared to a sprint contract) is way higher on those two carriers compared to sprint. Sprint is losing their value added advantage because of lack of proper management and not because of att/verizon throwing their weight around.

[4ringsnbr]

if Sprint doesn't step up their game with in the next two years most of us will be going to who ever else can provide the necessary service that meets our needs at a reasonable cost and at that point are some of you going still believe in supporting Sprint? At some point we will all have to make that ultimate decision which won't be based on the little guy but will be based on our own personal needs. Many of us are on sprint, not because they are a little fish in a big pond, but because for years they were the best bang for the buck.

 

 

This is the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith talked about and the reason why unfettered capitalism always works: everyone makes decisions in their best self-interest and the company that meets their needs the best (and cheapest) or offers the best value will always be rewarded with their business. WIth increased business comes the ability do do even better-- it's a snowball effect. The companies that provide the best service for the money and treat their customers the best will ultimately perform the best. The company's self-interest is to be the best so they keep earning more (and repeat business). Unfortunately, with more and more government regulation and subsidies (in some cases), most of what happens in America today isn't true capitalism: the big guys can hire enough people to fill out all the government's forms and work their bureaucracy, and small businesses don't usually have this advantage. The Government does stack things (generally) to favor larger companies, which isn't really fair and it interferes with an otherwise self-regulating system.

[S4GRU]

This is the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith talked about and the reason why unfettered capitalism always works: everyone makes decisions in their best self-interest and the company that meets their needs the best (and cheapest) or offers the best value will always be rewarded with their business. WIth increased business comes the ability do do even better-- it's a snowball effect. The companies that provide the best service for the money and treat their customers the best will ultimately perform the best. The company's self-interest is to be the best so they keep earning more (and repeat business). Unfortunately, with more and more government regulation and subsidies (in some cases), most of what happens in America today isn't true capitalism: the big guys can hire enough people to fill out all the government's forms and work their bureaucracy, and small businesses don't usually have this advantage. The Government does stack things (generally) to favor larger companies, which isn't really fair and it interferes with an otherwise self-regulating system.

 

And also I would add that we have crony capitalism. The corporate friends of whomever is in office gets their bureaucracy largely waived, getting an unfair advantage over their competitors. This is why AT&T is so indignant. AT&T (and its previous owner SBC) were huge friends of the Bush administration and received all the perks associated with that. They cannot now grasp why things are just not being handed to them.

 

And the Obama Administration has its friends now too who benefit. Like General Electric. The winners and losers just change with whomever is in charge. And some corporations find a way to ally themselves with all Administrations.

 

In a subverted capitalistic system like this, the self regulating system by consumers is indeed thwarted. And there is not an easy solution to keep wireless competitive in this type of environment,

 

- Robert

[pyroscott]

And also I would add that we have crony capitalism. The corporate friends of whomever is in office gets their bureaucracy largely waived, getting an unfair advantage over their competitors. This is why AT&T is so indignant. AT&T (and its previous owner SBC) were huge friends of the Bush administration and received all the perks associated with that. They cannot now grasp why things are just not being handed to them.

 

And the Obama Administration has its friends now too who benefit. Like General Electric. The winners and losers just change with whomever is in charge. And some corporations find a way to ally themselves with all Administrations.

 

In a subverted capitalistic system like this, the self regulating system by consumers is indeed thwarted. And there is not an easy solution to keep wireless competitive in this type of environment,

 

- Robert

 

Maybe the government will give Sprint a bailout???

[Duffman]

This is the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith talked about and the reason why unfettered capitalism always works

That could not be more wrong. Unfettered capitalism has historically always resulted in the unfair concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few unless the goverment intervenes.

[4ringsnbr]

That could not be more wrong. Unfettered capitalism has historically always resulted in the unfair concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few unless the goverment intervenes.

 

Typical Marxist lie. Government intervention stacks the deck into those who play their game (or fund the select politician's campaigns). Another Marxist lie: fairness-- life isn't fair-- people are all born with different gifts and some use them more than others to their advantage. There will always be the very wealthy and the very poor; the difference is that in every capitalistic (or semi-capitalistic) country, the very poor will have cell phones, microwave ovens, 2-3 TVs, and usually a car. In the socialist countries where "everything is fair", the only wealthy / powerful ones are in the government-- everyone else stands in a bread line. How did that economic system work out for the Soviet Union? In the end, you run out of other people's money. Sorry for the out-of-topic rant here, but the Government should only guarantee fairness in the application of all laws; when it starts trying to force fairness of outcomes, there will be no motivation to succeed and all will fail.

[WiWavelength]

Typical Marxist lie. Government intervention stacks the deck into those who play their game (or fund the select politician's campaigns). Another Marxist lie: fairness-- life isn't fair-- people are all born with different gifts and some use them more than others to their advantage. There will always be the very wealthy and the very poor; the difference is that in every capitalistic (or semi-capitalistic) country, the very poor will have cell phones, microwave ovens, 2-3 TVs, and usually a car. In the socialist countries where "everything is fair", the only wealthy / powerful ones are in the government-- everyone else stands in a bread line. How did that economic system work out for the Soviet Union? In the end, you run out of other people's money. Sorry for the out-of-topic rant here, but the Government should only guarantee fairness in the application of all laws; when it starts trying to force fairness of outcomes, there will be no motivation to succeed and all will fail.

 

Terrible straw man. The jump to Marxist or socialist countries is an utter, extreme red herring. Drop the blind allegiance to capitalist dogma and keep the discussion relevant to wireless mass communications, which is not an "unfettered" open market, never has been an "unfettered" open market, and never can be an "unfettered" open market. Rather, it is necessarily a closed, regulated market due to the limited supply and public ownership of wireless spectrum.

 

AJ

[lrmcgarvey]

well I'm not getting into the whole capitalist/ marxist thing. They are both good systems, but once you add the human eliment they start to have problems(same with anything it seems).

 

It basically comes down to People have a level of service they want and expect. And will simply choose the company who best fits thier needs with the least amount of compromise.

 

Brand loyalty does play a part, as people will tend to overlook some minor flaws in a brand they are loyal too, and they will also look for major improvments in a new brand to move to thier services.

 

Also when it comes to wireless it makes it more difficult because wireless services from the same company vary wildly due to location. Its not like doing walmart compairisons where every walmart everywhere is exactly the same. Or cars, where a bmw in cali is the same as a bmw in NY.

 

And with Sprint this is even more so. You have some Sprint champions on other forums that go crazy when anyone complains. Of course they are the same ones that brag about thier 1+meg 3g speeds all day long. Of course you have a lot of others that complain when they have no reason too. I noticed these are mostly new iphone users who came from AT&T. Who complain and bitch even when they are getting great 3G cdma speeds.

 

I think the best example of this was when someone who stuck up for sprint went on a business trip and stayed in one of the bad markets (like mine). His whole outlook changed, to where after those few days/week of carrying a cell phone but having it be totally useless, That Sprint champion even admitted that there is no way in hell he could stay with sprint with that kind of performance.

 

I guess I am saying Don't feel Dirty looking around and shopping. Everyone has to make the best decision that fits thier needs and the needs of thier familys based on the service they require and thier location.

 

But Don't get hung up on some lie like company loyalty. Personally I will only show loyalty to a company that shows some loyalty back. And over the last year Sprint has thrown customer loyalty out the window.

 

Sadly While I used to love Sprint. Over the past 2 years the only things that have changed are that my cell phone bill has continued to go up. While service has continued to go down. (and perks were trashed all together.)

 

Whats worse is I am the one thats insane. As I continue to pay hundereds a month for wifi only "cell" phones and continue to think that the company might eventualy fix things enough to where my phones are usuable again.

[Duffman]

Imagine how it feels to work for Sprint with such a spotty network...