Jump to content

Analysts: Sprint to lose 150K subs in Q4


IamMrFamous07
 Share

Recommended Posts

"In terms of postpaid subscribers, the analysts expect Sprint to report losses of 150,000, higher than their previous estimate of 75,000. At Sprint stores the analysts noted slower holiday traffic. They also noted that Sprint is continuing to emphasize it unlimited smartphone data plans over all other options."

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-sprint-lose-150k-subs-q4-verizon-add-15m/2014-01-16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think those numbers are way off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they lose 2-3x those numbers.  Now I'm debating rather to sell my shares and buy them back at a lower price.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think those numbers are way off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they lose 2-3x those numbers.  Now I'm debating rather to sell my shares and buy them back at a lower price.  

That may not be a bad idea. We always knew that there would be several periods where the stock may stall and devalue. We may be coming up on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think those numbers are way off. It wouldn't surprise me if they lose 2-3x those numbers. Now I'm debating rather to sell my shares and buy them back at a lower price.

I think you are right about the lost subscribers. T-mobile recently reported gaining something like 1.6 million customers and said that the majority of those ports were from Sprint. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe those numbers are low. Hesse hinted in 3rd quarter reporting , iirc, that there would be further cdma churn as a result of delayed closure of business accounts as a result of iden shutdown.

The quick transition away from the myway plans implies a bloodier number.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am just miffed because they are pushing the smart phone thing, and thus, dont have the basic phones....

 

i have 5 people on my 10 lines that dont want, cant use, or dont want to pay for the data.....BUT...the choice of basic phones suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my sister just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile (long story but she had a bad experience with Sprint and wouldn't consider it) and I went to the T-Mobile store with her.

 

Every single person in there was switching from other carriers and walking around (okay, eavesdropping) most were from Sprint. I think people are really underestimating the effect that the ETF payoff will have on people under contracts. I know my experience is anecdotal but I was honestly shocked how many people were switching from Sprint. I fully believe the subscriber losses will exceed that 150,000 number in Q1 2014. 

 

I actually really like Sprint but it will be an uphill battle winning subscribers back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my sister just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile (long story but she had a bad experience with Sprint and wouldn't consider it) and I went to the T-Mobile store with her.

 

Every single person in there was switching from other carriers and walking around (okay, eavesdropping) most were from Sprint. I think people are really underestimating the effect that the ETF payoff will have on people under contracts. I know my experience is anecdotal but I was honestly shocked how many people were switching from Sprint. I fully believe the subscriber losses will exceed that 150,000 number in Q1 2014. 

 

I actually really like Sprint but it will be an uphill battle winning subscribers back.

 

 

I agree. I actually this 150K is on the low end, and it will be much worse. The people on this forum, have the information, that things are changing quickly for the better. We are a minority. The subscriber base does not care to wait, the want it now.  I understand their point of view too. They are spending over 100+ a month, for unusable service. So at this point, Sprint may not be the best option. In the future, once NV phase 1, and Spark start to roll out,  that could change, who knows. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my sister just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile (long story but she had a bad experience with Sprint and wouldn't consider it) and I went to the T-Mobile store with her.

 

Every single person in there was switching from other carriers and walking around (okay, eavesdropping) most were from Sprint. I think people are really underestimating the effect that the ETF payoff will have on people under contracts. I know my experience is anecdotal but I was honestly shocked how many people were switching from Sprint. I fully believe the subscriber losses will exceed that 150,000 number in Q1 2014. 

 

I actually really like Sprint but it will be an uphill battle winning subscribers back.

I say good riddance.  The more subscribers that Sprint loses, the better.  Really.

 

Now that Sprint is no longer in danger of going bankrupt, severe subscriber loss numbers will have two benefits.  One, they will remove strain on the network.  Two, it will cause a severe shakeup at Sprint to solve the existing problems as fast as physically possible.  I think Sprint management is content knowing the solution is in place and letting it run its course until completion.  Instead of being swift and adept, rolling with the punches and changing as necessary.

 

People are leaving Sprint because of the network.  Network Vision just is not delivering on its promises yet.  Sprint had two years to solve the problem...the life of one whole contract season.  It didn't do that (for 100 valid and invalid reasons).  And someone stepped up to make it very attractive for these discontent people to leave.

 

The problem is Sprint Executive Management.  If subscriber losses substantially exceed internal estimates for Q1 2014, I expect heads to roll.  Mr. Son will start cleaning house.  And if that is what the result is going to be anyway, I'd rather he'd do that sooner than later.  So I'm kind of hoping the subscriber losses are as big as Sprint can handle.  It needs to hurt.

 

Robert

 

  • Like 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is (or may/will be) that son will buy tmo and merge them both in to sprint-mobile or T-Sprint and all those customers who got away from sprint will be brought back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think Bob Azzi should be the first out the door.

 

It seems so, since he is the head of networks.  However, we just don't know what the cause is from the outside looking in.  Did he want to do more and make some strategic deployment changes but was shot down by Dan Hesse, the Board, financial reasons?  We don't know.  So I don't feel comfortable making a specific judgment call like that without more information.  I mean, this is a real guy after all.

 

The problem definitely exists at the top.  How far down does it go?  Who knows from our perch?  But even if Bob Azzi is the worst guy in the world to be the head of the Sprint Network, he has a boss.

 

Here is another problem with Sprint...they are all good guys.  They are likable guys.  Guys that you want to be your neighbors.  They are friendly folks.  Nobody wants to be the one to kick them in the teeth.  But I think SoftBank is preparing to do exactly that.  Between now and the beginning of summer, Sprint needs to get the following things done to stop subscriber losses caused by the network:

  • Every site needs to be converted to Network Vision and functioning.  If the site cannot be permitted, install it as a GMO temporarily.
  • CSFB needs to be done in 30-45 days over the entire Sprint network.  And this is physically possible given how far Samsung is along.
  • Backhaul needs to be expedited to every site.  Every single one.  Hire a backhaul team for every market that will run down any temporary backhaul solution for each site where the original backhaul is more than 60 days out.  There are all kinds of temporary copper, AAV, microwave or other wireless backhaul solutions that can be instituted at each site.
  • Install LTE at every GMO site where you can get temporary upgraded backhaul to.  Including the new temporary GMO sites discussed above.
  • Install CDMA 800 and LTE 800 in separate crews at every site where you have the license available and the spectrum cleared.  This can be done in 30-45 days if you can get the carrier cards.  Which the OEM's should have had ready and waiting six month ago if managed correctly.
  • Speed up the Band 41 deployment on WiMax sites.  Get the remaining WiMax network converted in 6 months.  Don't tell me it cannot be done, because this is similar to Tmo's scope.
  • Get started on Band 41 deployment on Network Vision sites hard.  Hit every Top 100 market with every resource you have.  And start with the ones with little to no permitting.  You probably could get those banged out in 6 months and they can move on to the ones that need permitting after that.
  • AND THEY NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT ALL.  When and where they are doing what.  Be so thorough that it makes S4GRU redundant and puts us out of business!

I don't buy where we are at now that these things can't be done.  They can.  They just cost a lot of money and take a lot of damn effort to expedite and manage.  But they have crossed a threshold now.  They cannot try to pick up pennies here on the remaining deployment.  It's now a war for their survival.

 

Doing the things outlined above will cost a lot more money than just naturally letting the existing NV plans carry out to their eventual conclusion.  However, Sprint is losing a lot of money right out the doors with current subscriber losses.  It stands to lose a lot more in lost customer revenue and even further diminished brand value.

 

Yes, Sprint may end up buying Tmo.  But they cannot put anything on hold or take anything for granted in the interim.  They must plan as if they are in a fight for their lives.  Their customers want them to fight for them.  I'm tired of telling people if Sprint doesn't meet their needs, then go.  Because Sprint could meet their needs.  Sprint could meet the needs of 90% of Americans.  But the network has got to change.

 

No more excuses.  This is not a rant.  And this is not a breach in the rules to open the floor for complaints.  It is constructive criticism directly from the head of S4GRU.  Please do not spring board off this post to rant.  However, feel free to discuss my points or the merits of my personal cursory plan to save the Sprint network.

 

Robert

  • Like 47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it could've been said any better than that. Now put that in a document and mail it to Hesse and Son. Lmao

 

It's what I do for a living.  Planning and managing large scale projects.  I am available to Sprint for consultation or employment.  ;)

 

Robert

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go into the issue about transparency... I feel if they would just tell customers this is what's happening, this is why, and this is what we are doing to fix it then people would feel more compelled to stay with sprint. But saying, oh it's coming in 90 days hur durrrr here and there isn't working. People like actual results, and when other providers can say we have what you want, there is not much of a reason for them to stay. Transparency could fix that, at least temporarily, and combine that with everything else and bam sprint has been revived.

 

As an example: I give myself. The only reason I stayed with sprint is because of this website. Had I not found answers I would've been long gone. The same applies to sprint being transparent. It could reassure people and prevent some of them from leaving. I mean I hate switching phone providers... It's the last thing I want to do and I feel other people feel the same.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say good riddance. The more subscribers that Sprint loses, the better. Really.

 

Now that Sprint is no longer in danger of going bankrupt, severe subscriber loss numbers will have two benefits. One, they will remove strain on the network. Two, it will cause a severe shakeup at Sprint to solve the existing problems as fast as physically possible. I think Sprint management is content knowing the solution is in place and letting it run its course until completion. Instead of being swift and adept, rolling with the punches and changing as necessary.

 

People are leaving Sprint because of the network. Network Vision just is not delivering on its promises yet. Sprint had two years to solve the problem...the life of one whole contract season. It didn't do that (for 100 valid and invalid reasons). And someone stepped up to make it very attractive for these discontent people to leave.

 

The problem is Sprint Executive Management. If subscriber losses substantially exceed internal estimates for Q1 2014, I expect heads to roll. Mr. Son will start cleaning house. And if that is what the result is going to be anyway, I'd rather he'd do that sooner than later. So I'm kind of hoping the subscriber losses are as big as Sprint can handle. It needs to hurt.

 

Robert

 

I am curious to here what you think the missteps of the sprint management team have been. Any time I have been critical of Sprint's moves (mainly what it has been doing to compete in an increasingly competitive market) it has been an obleack criticism of sprint's management team yet you never seem to agree. So just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Install CDMA 800 and LTE 800 in separate crews at every site where you have the license available and the spectrum cleared.  This can be done in 30-45 days if you can get the carrier cards.  Which the OEM's should have had ready and waiting six month ago if managed correctly.

 

Why not have all of the LTE live sites receive both upgrades from one team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious to here what you think the missteps of the sprint management team have been. Any time I have been critical of Sprint's moves (mainly what it has been doing to compete in an increasingly competitive market) it has been an obleack criticism of sprint's management team yet you never seem to agree. So just curious.

 

Here is the biggest thing...they are rigid and inflexible.  The Network Vision plan was sound.  But many problems occurred where Sprint needed to be strong and be willing to make changes.  Also, the market changed beneath them.  And they did not change.

 

If I felt they were adapting NOW, I would go back into complacency myself.  But I am not detecting any urgency or changes now.  They just seem keeping to the plan.  Stick to plan.  Do not deviate from the plan.  If the plan slips, if the OEM's slip on equipment, if the city says come back next month, if the backhaul is delayed, if San Francisco stays a giant black hole void of LTE...do not make waves.  Just stay the course.  It will work out in time.

 

Problems happen.  Mistakes happen.  Adapt!  I think Sprint executive management is so used to having its hands tied by funding that they don't even know how to spend a little extra money to solve their problems.  To find a new way...a better way...a faster way.  It's foreign to them now.  They may be too close to the problem.

 

Masayoshi Son senses this.  That is why he shot across their bow recently in a public interview.  It's their last shot.  Having a huge spectrum arsenal alone will not save Sprint.  It just is the asset that keeps investors from losing all their money when the company goes bankrupt.  Sprint must turn around in 2014.  And it has to feel like it is well on its way by Mid Year.

 

Robert

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not have all of the LTE live sites receive both upgrades from one team?

 

They can.  When I say separate, I mean new additional crews than the ones currently working on deployment.  The new crews can do CDMA 800 and LTE 800 at the same time at each site where backhaul is ready.  If there is not backhaul, they would install both CDMA/LTE 800, but only the CDMA would go live until the backhaul arrives.

 

Robert

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masayoshi Son senses this. That is why he shot across their bow recently in a public interview. It's their last shot. Having a huge spectrum arsenal alone will not save Sprint. It just is the asset that keeps investors from losing all their money when the company goes bankrupt. Sprint must turn around in 2014. And it has to feel like it is well on its way by Mid Year.

 

Robert

I agree. That interview was done for a reason, and there are a few people in the upper echelon of Sprint that are coming up with a plan or are getting their resumes updated.

 

I suspect at this point these next couple quarters are going to be rough for Sprint, not outwardly for people that are satisfied with the service like I am, but the stock will take a beating and the upper c level will look different.

 

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually have heigh hopes for sprint. Maybe it's because im truly a positive person but i feel this year will be a successful year from them. For them to say "2014 will be our year" is very bold for them to say. I just hope they can excede their deployment goals for band 41 and 26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems so, since he is the head of networks.  However, we just don't know what the cause is from the outside looking in.  Did he want to do more and make some strategic deployment changes but was shot down by Dan Hesse, the Board, financial reasons?  We don't know.  So I don't feel comfortable making a specific judgment call like that without more information.  I mean, this is a real guy after all.

 

The problem definitely exists at the top.  How far down does it go?  Who knows from our perch?  But even if Bob Azzi is the worst guy in the world to be the head of the Sprint Network, he has a boss.

 

Here is another problem with Sprint...they are all good guys.  They are likable guys.  Guys that you want to be your neighbors.  They are friendly folks.  Nobody wants to be the one to kick them in the teeth.  But I think SoftBank is preparing to do exactly that.  Between now and the beginning of summer, Sprint needs to get the following things done to stop subscriber losses caused by the network:

  • Every site needs to be converted to Network Vision and functioning.  If the site cannot be permitted, install it as a GMO temporarily.
  • CSFB needs to be done in 30-45 days over the entire Sprint network.  And this is physically possible given how far Samsung is along.
  • Backhaul needs to be expedited to every site.  Every single one.  Hire a backhaul team for every market that will run down any temporary backhaul solution for each site where the original backhaul is more than 60 days out.  There are all kinds of temporary copper, AAV, microwave or other wireless backhaul solutions that can be instituted at each site.
  • Install LTE at every GMO site where you can get temporary upgraded backhaul to.  Including the new temporary GMO sites discussed above.
  • Install CDMA 800 and LTE 800 in separate crews at every site where you have the license available and the spectrum cleared.  This can be done in 30-45 days if you can get the carrier cards.  Which the OEM's should have had ready and waiting six month ago if managed correctly.
  • Speed up the Band 41 deployment on WiMax sites.  Get the remaining WiMax network converted in 6 months.  Don't tell me it cannot be done, because this is similar to Tmo's scope.
  • Get started on Band 41 deployment on Network Vision sites hard.  Hit every Top 100 market with every resource you have.  And start with the ones with little to no permitting.  You probably could get those banged out in 6 months and they can move on to the ones that need permitting after that.
  • AND THEY NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT ALL.  When and where they are doing what.  Be so thorough that it makes S4GRU redundant and puts us out of business!

I don't buy where we are at now that these things can't be done.  They can.  They just cost a lot of money and take a lot of damn effort to expedite and manage.  But they have crossed a threshold now.  They cannot try to pick up pennies here on the remaining deployment.  It's now a war for their survival.

 

Doing the things outlined above will cost a lot more money than just naturally letting the existing NV plans carry out to their eventual conclusion.  However, Sprint is losing a lot of money right out the doors with current subscriber losses.  It stands to lose a lot more in lost customer revenue and even further diminished brand value.

 

Yes, Sprint may end up buying Tmo.  But they cannot put anything on hold or take anything for granted in the interim.  They must plan as if they are in a fight for their lives.  Their customers want them to fight for them.  I'm tired of telling people if Sprint doesn't meet their needs, then go.  Because Sprint could meet their needs.  Sprint could meet the needs of 90% of Americans.  But the network has got to change.

 

No more excuses.  This is not a rant.  And this is not a breach in the rules to open the floor for complaints.  It is constructive criticism directly from the head of S4GRU.  Please do not spring board off this post to rant.  However, feel free to discuss my points or the merits of my personal cursory plan to save the Sprint network.

 

Robert

AMEN!

maybe we could email a part of this to somebody at sprint???

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • AND THEY NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT ALL.  When and where they are doing what.  Be so thorough that it makes S4GRU redundant and puts us out of business!

 

I will remember that reason if/when I have to file for unemployment from S4GRU.

 

;)

 

AJ

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...