Sprint Reportedly Bowing Out of T-Mobile Bid (was "Sprint offer" and "Iliad" threads)

[bigsnake49]

I shared this in another thread, but I was about 60 miles outside of St. Louis on Highway 70 heading to Indianapolis and pulled pretty awesome speeds on B26. I'd be willing to bet T-Mobile fans wish they had these kind of speeds in suburbs, let alone in the middle of a corn-to-the-left, soy-to-the-right part of the interstate.

 

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1407421108.960879.jpg

 

They should do that on all interstates and major state roads.

[MkVsTheWorld]

The "TM is so cool crowd" probably never drives an hour outside of a city to notice how bad TM coverage is outside of the major area.

 

You hit the nail on the head. I live in an area with rich T-Mobile coverage between Baltimore and DC. I tried them out once and really liked the service, but the massive 2G markets on T-Mobile is not kosher in 2014. The people on T-Mobile must never travel. When you are in their EDGE areas, you might as well turn data off.

[sbolen]

They should do that on all interstates and major state roads.

That would be awesome - especially when you need to have reliable, fast data in a world of cloud storage and streaming.

[centermedic]

I wasn't being general at all. I was speaking about a very specific group of aggressive Tmo trolls defecating all over FierceWireless article comments. And that is my feelings about that very specific group of people.

 

And maybe I don't travel out of my own forums very often, but I typically see on Sprint topics folks explaining what Sprint is doing rationally and intelligently and then a whole lot of attacks commence against them. The poisoned Hate-erade people be drinking is messin' up their minds.

 

Americans are getting so polarized. Our egomaniacal over valued self worth and opinion is crossing bounds that it even infringes on others to have an opinion. Even something as trivial as an opinion over which wireless provider they use. We are finding our identities in brands and life themes, persecuting people who think differently. It almost feels like we are socially devolving to some extent.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Exactly. It puzzles me why people become attached to one brand to the point that a criticism against that brand is taken personally. Nothing is perfect. Even a loyal car buyer will admit that their car is not perfect and even give a nod to the "other guy" when they do something cool. What we see now is just getting ridiculous. We cant even have an intelligent discussion in this forum without somebody going to another forum using unflattering terms in refeerence to s4gru simply because we like to deal in facts and not hyperbole. 

[centermedic]

I was watching the soccer commentators on the Bar TV where Christina and I went to dinner after church tonight. I tried and I tried. But I just couldn't get into it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Just imagine the soccer ball is a big ole chicken! 

[bigsnake49]

Exactly. It puzzles me why people become attached to one brand to the point that a criticism against that brand is taken personally. Nothing is perfect. Even a loyal car buyer will admit that their car is not perfect and even give a nod to the "other guy" when they do something cool. What we see now is just getting ridiculous. We cant even have an intelligent discussion in this forum without somebody going to another forum using unflattering terms in refeerence to s4gru simply because we like to deal in facts and not hyperbole. 

Same here! I have AT&T for my personal lines and Sprint for my business line. Before that I had Sprint for personal+business. I have used an iPhone since 2007 but have had Palm and Windows Phone phones before. I don't let the brand of my phone or my provider define me. When I feel like my provider or my phone provider is not giving me what I want I will switch. I will vote with my money. Same thing with other things in life.

[mhammett]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2kege1ose7nnwz/800.bmp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6tm8qw0gowu33d/600.bmp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/657m3k4ogxgwbmf/1900.bmp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zbd4uxu362m3mtc/2500.bmp

 

 

 

Not much difference, though I am open to tweaks in my generation.

[S4GRU]

Hate-erade. Love it.

I thought that term might not be understood by our South African Wireless Nerd Brother. It can be tough learning American colloquialisms and culture references. Seems like you're already pretty well versed.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[irev210]

Sprint will do fine once they have their network in order. Do I think they will make inroads against Verizon/AT&T? Maybe they can buy a few million from them by offering loss making or break even plans or buying ETF's or offering devices at a discount. But in the long term neither Sprint nor T-Mobile will have  success against the big two. They are too entrenched. Whatever success Sprint achieves has to come from new uses of data: Connected cars, actually offering decent plans for laptops, etc. It amazes me that carriers think that laptops have to pay $60/month for a decent plan. Make it $30-$35/month and we are talking. 

 

The only way they can make inroads against the big two is to actually merge the networks so that they can spread both capex and opex over 100M people instead of 50M. Then they can concentrate on marketing against the big two. 

 

And if they merge, there is no incentive to compete against the big two because it will just be a big three.

 

You'll have AT&T, Verizon, and T-Bank acting as a tri-opoly.  If you want higher prices, less choice, worse services, etc. you would want only three carriers.

 

All T-Bank would need to do is just offer prices slightly below VZN/AT&T while having more spectrum to offer faster speeds to maintain their relative market share.  It would become the status quo.

 

While you always site how they need to "spread capex and opex over 100 million customers" to be profitable - you never really explain why they need to?

 

If they were both profitable last quarter during one of the most capital intensive periods of wireless history - why is it that they need to merge to be profitable?  Or is it that you just want them to be uber profitable like AT&T and Verizon?

 

I just don't understand "how profitable" they need to be for you to not want four national competitors.

 

What level of profitability would you like to see?  I think we need to start with that.  I asked before if you thought T-Mobile should spend $70k every year on each tower for capital spending and I didn't get a response

[S4GRU]

Could Sprint have had better results by focusing on major cities and then working on the rest of the network? Which really is what T-Mobile did. Consumers won't realize Sprint is upgrading their entire network, and not really prioritizing an inner city.

 

The "TM is so cool crowd" probably never drives an hour outside of a city to notice how bad TM coverage is outside of the major area.

 

But maybe this strategy would have helped Sprint get backhaul in sooner?

No. The issue here is not where, it's how they managed the backhaul contracts. Bidding, execution and deployment. Those failures would have just been isolated to cities instead of failing everywhere. I'm not sure how that would have yielded a better result.

 

Also, backhaul went much easier in the rural areas. So rural backhaul was not the cause of any delays in urban/suburban areas. Rural buildout really never siphoned work away that could have happened in the cities. That's a fallacy and maschination for egocentric city dwellers who think that those people work on that farmer's tower could be working on mine instead!

 

But the reality is that rural tower had easy to get backhaul and didn't require permits. So if they skipped the rural site and waited until the urban sites had permits and backhaul, they would have people waiting around that could be deploying something. Hell, they would probably still not be working in rural areas if they did it that way.

 

Sprint is rebuilding its entire network. Cities and rural areas. And they worked on every site the moment it was ready. Whether in the city or in a rural area. And that's the way it should be.

 

My complaint with Sprint in regards to backhaul is they should have released all the backhaul systemwide back in October 2011, while Network Vision plans were being finalized. However, they tried a just in time backhaul scenario plan instead of letting backhaul vendors get way out in front. Sprint did this for financial reasons, undoubtedly. But it really should have been figured in.

 

Additionally, Sprint should not have gone with the lowest priced backhaul providers that say they will meet their spec/schedule. There should have been a lot more emphasis to find the lowest priced vendor who can best meet the schedule. And last...all of it should have been better managed. When vendors got behind, they should have used the remedies allowed in the contract instead of giving them grace after grace.

 

But all this is really just Monday morning quarterbacking at this point. This phase is largely over. And the new guys under Masa are on it. These types of failures are just not going to happen like this ever again. Onward!

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[Azimuth]

I thought that term might not be understood by our South African Wireless Nerd Brother. It can be tough learning American colloquialisms and culture references. Seems like you're already pretty well versed.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Naaah. I've heard of Gatorade.

[S4GRU]

Just imagine the soccer ball is a big ole chicken!

Son, in my circles, if someone kicks perfectly good fried chicken, that's something beyond a penalty. More like a capital offense!

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[irev210]

No. The issue here is not where, it's how they managed the backhaul contracts. Bidding, execution and deployment. Those failures would have just been isolated to cities instead of failing everywhere. I'm not sure how that would have yielded a better result.

 

Also, backhaul went much easier in the rural areas. So rural backhaul was not the cause of any delays in urban/suburban areas. Rural buildout really never siphoned work away that could have happened in the cities. That's a fallacy and maschination for egocentric city dwellers who think that those people work on that farmer's tower could be working on mine instead!

 

But the reality is that rural tower had easy to get backhaul and didn't require permits. So if they skipped the rural site and waited until the urban sites had permits and backhaul, they would have people waiting around that could be deploying something. Hell, they would probably still not be working in rural areas if they did it that way.

 

Sprint is rebuilding its entire network. Cities and rural areas. And they worked on every site the moment it was ready. Whether in the city or in a rural area. And that's the way it should be.

 

My complaint with Sprint in regards to backhaul is they should have released all the backhaul systemwide back in October 2011, while Network Vision plans were being finalized. However, they tried a just in time backhaul scenario plan instead of letting backhaul vendors get way out in front. Sprint did this for financial reasons, undoubtedly. But it really should have been figured in.

 

Additionally, Sprint should not have gone with the lowest priced backhaul providers that say they will meet their spec/schedule. There should have been a lot more emphasis to find the lowest priced vendor who can best meet the schedule. And last...all of it should have been better managed. When vendors got behind, they should have used the remedies allowed in the contract instead of giving them grace after grace.

 

But all this is really just Monday morning quarterbacking at this point. This phase is largely over. And the new guys under Masa are on it. These types of failures are just not going to happen like this ever again. Onward!

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

Do you have any specific examples of the backhaul fiasco?  I would love to hear some stories/examples of how things went wrong - such as examples about bad contracts, or grace periods, or other things that really caused this issue.

 

I think it is an exciting time for sprint.  I'll be curious to see what Saw can do with Sprint's network and how the new CEO and finance guys can come up with new innovative pricing/services to lure customers back.

[Paynefanbro]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2kege1ose7nnwz/800.bmp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6tm8qw0gowu33d/600.bmp

 

Not much difference, though I am open to tweaks in my generation.

 

That map is so cool!

[KD8JBF]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2kege1ose7nnwz/800.bmp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6tm8qw0gowu33d/600.bmp

 

Not much difference, though I am open to tweaks in my generation.

 

Radio Mobile....good stuff...I love that program..I use it all the time for my Ham radio coverages, etc....Good PtP link calculations too by taking the topography into consideration...Nice

[mhammett]

Radio Mobile....good stuff...I love that program..I use it all the time for my Ham radio coverages, etc....Good PtP link calculations too by taking the topography into consideration...Nice

The land cover is quite valuable for me as most of my stuff doesn't penetrate foliage.

[S4GRU]

The land cover is quite valuable for me as most of my stuff doesn't penetrate foliage.

Sounds dirty when you say it. Wireless porn. Brown chicken, brown cow.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[bigsnake49]

And if they merge, there is no incentive to compete against the big two because it will just be a big three.

 

You'll have AT&T, Verizon, and T-Bank acting as a tri-opoly.  If you want higher prices, less choice, worse services, etc. you would want only three carriers.

 

All T-Bank would need to do is just offer prices slightly below VZN/AT&T while having more spectrum to offer faster speeds to maintain their relative market share.  It would become the status quo.

 

While you always site how they need to "spread capex and opex over 100 million customers" to be profitable - you never really explain why they need to?

 

If they were both profitable last quarter during one of the most capital intensive periods of wireless history - why is it that they need to merge to be profitable?  Or is it that you just want them to be uber profitable like AT&T and Verizon?

 

I just don't understand "how profitable" they need to be for you to not want four national competitors.

 

What level of profitability would you like to see?  I think we need to start with that.  I asked before if you thought T-Mobile should spend $70k every year on each tower for capital spending and I didn't get a response

I said share the network. I did not say merge. What do you have against that? I don't want a race to the bottom. Where the heck is Sprint going to find the money to pay back the loans they took against NV? Not by offering $100/month family plans. BTW, T-Mobile did not make money last quarter. Not only did they drew down on the cash abut the only way they made money is by counting the $731M from Verizon.

[SpenceSouth]

I said share the network. I did not say merge. What do you have against that? I don't want a race to the bottom. Where the heck is Sprint going to find the money to pay back the loans they took against NV? Not by offering $100/month family plans. BTW, T-Mobile did not make money last quarter. Not only did they drew down on the cash abut the only way they made money is by counting the $731M from Verizon.

They will be in a great place to generate revenue from international roaming within the Sprint network once VoLTE is up and running.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[irev210]

I said share the network. I did not say merge. What do you have against that? I don't want a race to the bottom. Where the heck is Sprint going to find the money to pay back the loans they took against NV? Not by offering $100/month family plans. BTW, T-Mobile did not make money last quarter. Not only did they drew down on the cash abut the only way they made money is by counting the $731M from Verizon.

 

Why don't you want a race to the bottom?  As a customer, don't you want the lowest bill possible?

 

How do you figure that $100/month family plans are not profitable for sprint?

 

Last quarter T-Mobile made 3.517 billion in gross profit, earned $2.113 billion before interest, taxes, and depreciation (29.4% margin), generated a net income of $5.4 million.  It generated $970 million in cash from operations, spent $940 million on capital projects, generating free cash flow of $30 million.

 

 

In a lot of cases, they lease from the same tower cos, get backhaul from the same ILECs and cable cos, etc.  There is a lot of sharing between the two.

 

I want competition - I want them figuring out new ways to drive the costs down.  T-Mobile has been really good at that.

 

To just say "well, a $100 plan isn't profitable" without explaining why it isn't profitable is sort of like saying "well, a $1000 plan isn't profitable".

[bigsnake49]

Why don't you want a race to the bottom?  As a customer, don't you want the lowest bill possible?

 

How do you figure that $100/month family plans are not profitable for sprint?

 

Last quarter T-Mobile made 3.517 billion in gross profit, earned $2.113 billion before interest, taxes, and depreciation (29.4% margin), generated a net income of $5.4 million.  It generated $970 million in cash from operations, spent $940 million on capital projects, generating free cash flow of $30 million.

 

 

In a lot of cases, they lease from the same tower cos, get backhaul from the same ILECs and cable cos, etc.  There is a lot of sharing between the two.

 

I want competition - I want them figuring out new ways to drive the costs down.  T-Mobile has been really good at that.

 

To just say "well, a $100 plan isn't profitable" without explaining why it isn't profitable is sort of like saying "well, a $1000 plan isn't profitable".

A race to the bottom does not leave enough money for capex. Mahatma Ghandi once said that an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.

[S4GRU]

Why don't you want a race to the bottom? As a customer, don't you want the lowest bill possible?...

I want to pay the lowest sustainable price that includes proper network growth and maintenance. I know that the lowest prices possible is not always in my best interest.

 

If it lowers it to the point that one or two of the four ends up on shaky financial footing, it's going to lead to less competition. When they go out of business or the Feds do end up allowing mergers to keep one from going bankrupt.

 

I have no idea where that threshold is. We are probably not there yet. But I have a feeling that Legere is willing to drive Tmo into the ground if necessary. He doesn't seem like he's going to blink. If Sprint does end up finding a price point to beat Tmo, Legere will just double down and go lower.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[bigsnake49]

Why don't you want a race to the bottom?  As a customer, don't you want the lowest bill possible?

 

How do you figure that $100/month family plans are not profitable for sprint?

 

Last quarter T-Mobile made 3.517 billion in gross profit, earned $2.113 billion before interest, taxes, and depreciation (29.4% margin), generated a net income of $5.4 million.  It generated $970 million in cash from operations, spent $940 million on capital projects, generating free cash flow of $30 million.

 

 

In a lot of cases, they lease from the same tower cos, get backhaul from the same ILECs and cable cos, etc.  There is a lot of sharing between the two.

 

I want competition - I want them figuring out new ways to drive the costs down.  T-Mobile has been really good at that.

 

To just say "well, a $100 plan isn't profitable" without explaining why it isn't profitable is sort of like saying "well, a $1000 plan isn't profitable".

Really? You want me to go into their whole cost structure? I would if they gave me all the data.

[sbolen]

Pretty fair write up in the WSJ:

Sprint Move Puts Pressure on T-Mobile

[jamesinclair]

 The people on T-Mobile must never travel.

 

No, the average american does not travel.

 

The average american spends most of their life within 20 miles of their home. What the coverage is like in bumbleville Alabama is of no significance to someone living in Kansas. What the network is like 40 miles out of NYC doesnt matter to Mr. Brooklyn.

 

And when they do travel, they go to LA, NYC or Orlando.

 

Tmobile has a weak rural network. Everyone knows that. The fact that theyre doing so well is because for most people, it doesnt matter.

 

Mind you, Im on Sprint precisely because a large (roaming) network DOES matter to me. It also matters to people like Robert, who travel for work all the time. So theres certainly value in having an expansive network. That doesnt mean you cant be very successful NOT serving that market.

 

I always thought those Verizon 4G network map ads were ridiculous.

 

You want maps that matter to people? Show and compare coverage in their home and work area codes. A half acre dead spot by my favorite lunch deli is a problem. 100,000 acres of dead spot in west virginia are of no significance to me.