Softbank - New Sprint - Discussion

[centermedic]

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

Lets not get into the lte hspa 3g 1x edge argument. Lets just take coverage as coverage.

[Bob Newhart]

Lets not get into the lte hspa 3g 1x edge argument. Lets just take coverage as coverage.

 

Including roaming?

[centermedic]

Including roaming?

I think excluding roaming is fair since it can be very variable. Although it would be interesting to know if the average consumer even knows when and what roaming is.

[MacinJosh]

I think excluding roaming is fair since it can be very variable. Although it would be interesting to know if the average consumer even knows when and what roaming is.

AT&T users generally do not know when they are roaming, granted that has been getting smaller and smaller, but places I know are roaming always showed AT&T/Cingular on my phones when I was on that carrier.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[Johnner1999]

I assume SoftBank doesnt want a pricewar unless he can grab T-Mobile first ~ inorder to have more subscribers which will look better in marketing share revenue

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

You know when you're roaming on AT&T, because your head snaps back with sudden whiplash when you go from 8Mbps Faux G to sudden EDGE speeds. You don't need a triangle or R next to the signal strength indicator to know. You'll know. I have repetitive stress injury from it. Whock-chaw!

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[bandwithhog]

You know when you're roaming on AT&T, because your head snaps back with sudden whiplash when you go from 8Mbps Faux G to sudden EDGE speeds. You don't need a triangle or R next to the signal strength indicator to know. You'll know. I have repetitive stress injury from it. Whock-chaw!

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

T-Mobile should be called MetroPCS because they have not really any faux-G or 4G coverage outside major cities. It already pains me when I think about driving between Las Vegas to the Bay Area

[Johnner1999]

T-Mobile should be called MetroPCS because they have not really any faux-G or 4G coverage outside major cities. It already pains me when I think about driving between Las Vegas to the Bay Area

That should be Son's money shot. In that T-Mobile cant really be competitive

 

You know im even starting to doubt the merge. In that its not completely needed....

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

 

[bandwithhog]

That should be Son's money shot. In that T-Mobile cant really be competitive You know im even starting to doubt the merge. In that its not completely needed.... Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

 

Spectrum is the new gold and people want more and more. Removing T-Mobile would make sense to Sprint because it reduces pressure on the low end of the market yet would provide additional spectrum.

 

I think there is a deal in the works were Dish gets something to be No.4 in the market and Sprint takes T-Mobile.

[richy]

I could complaint see a scenario where dish either acquires tmo's sites in a sprint tmo merger or sign a network hosting deal with sprimo. Then we have 4 players,  dish gets a head start and sprint reaps some serious economies of scale with tmo. They could even divest some 2500/2600 to dish.  I guess it all depends on what Dish plans to do with its spectrum and how many brown envelopes stuffed with cash Son manages to lose in lobbyists offices. 

 

I don't think Sprint needs the merger but I think they could make it work to their advantage. 

[Bob Newhart]

I think excluding roaming is fair since it can be very variable. Although it would be interesting to know if the average consumer even knows when and what roaming is.

 

Well if Sprint's coverage includes roaming, then it would include a lot of VZW, which would limit the number of minutes and amount of data. VZW has the best coverage in the country.

 

To think that Sprint's coverage is anything close to that of AT&T is bizarre to say the least.

 

I have both AT&T and Sprint, I go places that unless I am in need of warming my pocket for an hour, I turn off the Sprint phone.

This include rural Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Washington, basically outside of a city.  

 

I feel that Sprint should spend the bzillions on adding towers and not doubling up with T-Mobile.

 

The guy Son is starting to sound like T-Mobile's CEO, not living in reality.

[S4GRU]

I am an AT&T and Verizon customer.  All throughout the West, Verizon has far better coverage than AT&T.  I believe Sprint can organically at least come darn close to matching AT&T's coverage for probably just $4-$5 Billion.  Converting all the unique iDEN and WiMax Protection Sites to full NV with CDMA 1900/800 and LTE 1900/800 would be a good start.

 

If Sprint could claim coverage to the extent that AT&T does and get NV2.0 complete, it could compete with the duopoly on that alone.  People stay with the duopoly because of coverage.  Otherwise, all the providers are really just fighting over those price sensitive subs who will jump ship only because of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

I meet lots of Verizon customers who hate their prices.  And they would love unlimited back.  But they will continue to pay for Verizon until Sprint offers a consistently good data experience and a coverage footprint that meets their needs.  Even when visiting their parents on the farm or while camping in the foothills.

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  A quick number crunching and just converting 1,000 unique iDEN and 700 WiMax Protection sites to CDMA/LTE would be approximately $200M.  That's chump change in the grand scheme of Network Vision.  They need to just do that now.  That would start making some headway right away and would resolve most of their G block building requirements.

Edited March 12, 2014 by S4GRU
Added Edit section

[jefbal99]

I am an AT&T and Verizon customer.  All throughout the West, Verizon has far better coverage than AT&T.  I believe Sprint can organically at least come darn close to matching AT&T's coverage for probably just $4-$5 Billion.  Converting all the unique iDEN and WiMax Protection Sites to full NV with CDMA 1900/800 and LTE 1900/800 would be a good start.

 

If Sprint could claim coverage to the extent that AT&T does and get NV2.0 complete, it could compete with the duopoly on that alone.  People stay with the duopoly because of coverage.  Otherwise, all the providers are really just fighting over those price sensitive subs who will jump ship only because of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

I meet lots of Verizon customers who hate their prices.  And they would love unlimited back.  But they will continue to pay for Verizon until Sprint offers a consistently good data experience and a coverage footprint that meets their needs.  Even when visiting their parents on the farm or while camping in the foothills.

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  A quick number crunching and just converting 1,000 unique iDEN and 700 WiMax Protection sites to CDMA/LTE would be approximately $200M.  That's chump change in the grand scheme of Network Vision.  They need to just do that now.  That would start making some headway right away and would resolve most of their G block building requirements.

I think you need to send this to dan@sprint.com plus it would make my service so much better.

[JeffDTD]

  Converting all the unique iDEN and WiMax Protection Sites to full NV with CDMA 1900/800 and LTE 1900/800 would be a good start.

 

 

 

After the softbank purchase, I really expected we would have received word officially from sprint of an organic network expansion by now.  

 

If the mindset is "lets consolidate and then organically expand when we have a consolidated network plan" I suppose Son may be thinking of offering guaranteed expansion as one of the incentives for merger approval?  

[S4GRU]

I suppose Son may be thinking of offering guaranteed expansion as one of the incentives for merger approval?  

 

This is what I'm thinking as well.

 

Robert

[utiz4321]

I am an AT&T and Verizon customer. All throughout the West, Verizon has far better coverage than AT&T. I believe Sprint can organically at least come darn close to matching AT&T's coverage for probably just $4-$5 Billion. Converting all the unique iDEN and WiMax Protection Sites to full NV with CDMA 1900/800 and LTE 1900/800 would be a good start.

 

If Sprint could claim coverage to the extent that AT&T does and get NV2.0 complete, it could compete with the duopoly on that alone. People stay with the duopoly because of coverage. Otherwise, all the providers are really just fighting over those price sensitive subs who will jump ship only because of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

I meet lots of Verizon customers who hate their prices. And they would love unlimited back. But they will continue to pay for Verizon until Sprint offers a consistently good data experience and a coverage footprint that meets their needs. Even when visiting their parents on the farm or while camping in the foothills.

 

Robert

 

EDIT: A quick number crunching and just converting 1,000 unique iDEN and 700 WiMax Protection sites to CDMA/LTE would be approximately $200M. That's chump change in the grand scheme of Network Vision. They need to just do that now. That would start making some headway right away and would resolve most of their G block building requirements.

From everything I have heard/ read out of sprint directly it looks like they are going to stay with about 55,000 macro cell sites for the foreseeable future. So I don't think expanding their coverage is in the cards.

 

I would be happy with evdo roaming off vzw and a soft cap of about 1 gig. I don't know how feasible it would be, but it seems like if sprint leverage current FCC rules they could make the financials work on such a deal.

[lilotimz]

From everything I have heard/ read out of sprint directly it looks like they are going to stay with about 55,000 macro cell sites for the foreseeable future. So I don't think expanding their coverage is in the cards.

 

I would be happy with evdo roaming off vzw and a soft cap of about 1 gig. I don't know how feasible it would be, but it seems like if sprint leverage current FCC rules they could make the financials work on such a deal.

Guess what.

 

60% of Clearwire sites which are staying is about 8000 towers. Sprint has 40,000. Where is the 6000-8000 macro sites coming from to get that 55,000 coming from then? Think about that.

 

It's going to have to be new sites or iden conversions IMHO.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

 

[S4GRU]

From everything I have heard/ read out of sprint directly it looks like they are going to stay with about 55,000 macro cell sites for the foreseeable future. So I don't think expanding their coverage is in the cards.

 

 

I have heard the same thing.  A couple of points though:

1. WiMax Protection Sites are already counted in those 55,000.  Adding 1,000 unique iDEN sites would not really substantially alter their projections of 55,000 sites.  Also, once done reducing the 40% of Clearwire redundant sites, that would provide room to add about 6,000 new organic macro sites without having to go beyond the 55k sites.  So there is a way to grow the network footprint and still hold true to the 55k number.  I don't think that's what they're planning, but hey, I can see a roadmap of how to do it and not exceed 55,000 sites.
2. If it is as I suspect and Masa is holding out network coverage expansion as a possible negotiating nugget in future battle with the feds, then I don't think they would discuss numbers beyond 55,000 now.  Even if they planned to add 10,000 new organic sites.  They would be strictly forbidden to discuss that.

I don't really think Sprint will try to match AT&T's footprint.  However, it is doable.  And it won't even bankrupt the company.  I do believe that Sprint should do it.  And they might, especially as a negotiating tactic.  So I'm not willing to rule it out.  And they should at a minimum convert the WiMax Protection Sites.

 

Robert

[utiz4321]

Guess what.

 

60% of Clearwire sites which are staying is about 8000 towers. Sprint has 40,000. Where is the 6000-8000 macro sites coming from to get that 55,000 coming from then? Think about that.

 

It's going to have to be new sites or iden conversions IMHO.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

Density for the 2.6 network. They have also indicated that expanded service into new areas is not a priority for them. I am sure they will do some but I don't get the impression that a massive push in rural coverage is any where on the horizon.

[centermedic]

Well if Sprint's coverage includes roaming, then it would include a lot of VZW, which would limit the number of minutes and amount of data. VZW has the best coverage in the country.

 

To think that Sprint's coverage is anything close to that of AT&T is bizarre to say the least.

 

I have both AT&T and Sprint, I go places that unless I am in need of warming my pocket for an hour, I turn off the Sprint phone.

This include rural Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Washington, basically outside of a city.  

 

I feel that Sprint should spend the bzillions on adding towers and not doubling up with T-Mobile.

 

The guy Son is starting to sound like T-Mobile's CEO, not living in reality.

Results may vary. No one argues that Sprints coverage in the mid west is sparse at best. However, I lived in Columbus MS and drove many miles in MS, LA and eastern AR without any issues unless I was really in the sticks.

[centermedic]

I am an AT&T and Verizon customer.  All throughout the West, Verizon has far better coverage than AT&T.  I believe Sprint can organically at least come darn close to matching AT&T's coverage for probably just $4-$5 Billion.  Converting all the unique iDEN and WiMax Protection Sites to full NV with CDMA 1900/800 and LTE 1900/800 would be a good start.

 

If Sprint could claim coverage to the extent that AT&T does and get NV2.0 complete, it could compete with the duopoly on that alone.  People stay with the duopoly because of coverage.  Otherwise, all the providers are really just fighting over those price sensitive subs who will jump ship only because of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

I meet lots of Verizon customers who hate their prices.  And they would love unlimited back.  But they will continue to pay for Verizon until Sprint offers a consistently good data experience and a coverage footprint that meets their needs.  Even when visiting their parents on the farm or while camping in the foothills.

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  A quick number crunching and just converting 1,000 unique iDEN and 700 WiMax Protection sites to CDMA/LTE would be approximately $200M.  That's chump change in the grand scheme of Network Vision.  They need to just do that now.  That would start making some headway right away and would resolve most of their G block building requirements.

Exactly my point. Sprint really is not that far away from AT&T in terms of coverage. I stand by the statement that the two networks are comparable.

[jamisonshaw125]

Pretty sure the only reason ATT is so "reliable" is because of its low frequency bands. Literally nothing will prevent Sprint from having similar coverage with b26 when it's launched.

[utiz4321]

Pretty sure the only reason ATT is so "reliable" is because of its low frequency bands. Literally nothing will prevent Sprint from having similar coverage with b26 when it's launched.

Cell site density is another explanation at least in Phoenix. Att has about 20-30 percent more cell towers in the valley than does sprint. In Phoenix ATT voice and HSDPA network runs off 1900.

 

Sprint starved the network of capital for years and that included add new sites. 800 will bring them up to par in terms of voice but data coverage will require 2.6 and densifying the network.

[bill875]

Converting the iDen sites that are in areas where Sprint does not currently have service would help immensely in NC.

[JThorson]

Converting the iDen sites that are in areas where Sprint does not currently have service would help immensely in NC.

I think it would help everywhere. Don't be so spoiled