Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[lou99/maximus1987]

I felt like he was talking non sense saying they don't need to go to the 600 auction. 800mhz can be brought to its knees with relative ease. 2500 will take much longer to deploy. He said WiFi was everywhere and I had to laugh. Walmart doesn't even have WiFi and there are so many places where WiFi is locked or you have to ask for the password. Its just not as convenient as your own home network yet. If Sprint for some reason decided not to get in that auction I will be very concerned.

It's all bs. Verizon too when they said "we may not BS bs bs bs"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

Yeah, unfortunately all the carriers are bluffing about 600MHz, because they all have a special interest they are trying to get the FCC to blink over. And they think that their best leverage is to keep sounding like they are disinterested in 600MHz.

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

[NYC126]

Maybe they are acting like that because they want to catch the competitors off guard. Maybe Softbank already put the funds on the side.

 

That 600mhz auction is extremely important for the future of wireless.

[Deval]

But of course Fabian over on Fierce jumped all over it.

 

The comments make my eyes hurt.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Yeah, unfortunately all the carriers are bluffing about 600MHz, because they all have a special interest they are trying to get the FCC to blink over. And they think that their best leverage is to keep sounding like they are disinterested in 600MHz.

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

The fcc isn't that dumb, is it Trip?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

Maybe they are acting like that because they want to catch the competitors off guard. Maybe Softbank already put the funds on the side.

 

That 600mhz auction is extremely important for the future of wireless.

 

No one is off guard. Everyone needs more low-band. Period.

[tybo31316]

Hopefully the 600 spectrum isn't turned into multiple bands like the 700 spectrum. I'm hoping they keep it as one band.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[jamesinclair]

Called Sprint Global. They confirmed that all texting is free in Mexico (ie, to local number) and I should not be able to roam into paid data by accident. However, I got conflicting information on how the number should be dialed from my phone when in Mexico and texting a Mexican number.

 

I also did not get confirmation if I should enable GSM roaming only or also CDMA roaming.

 

Hopefully it all works out and I dont have to complain on the phone for any refunds...

 

Ill report back next week after my trip.

[Arysyn]

That's exactly why a co-worker moved from Sprint to Verizon: he bought a WiMax phone and never got 4G so now he happily pays way more for 4 lines on Verizon.

 

Laugh but there are many in that situation; Sprint lost them for a few years at least.

 

 

Or some kind of hey check out our service program they can come up with. So how would they know if things have changed. I agree 100%

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

While I think some sort of network/service testing program is a better idea than the current 14-day grace period is at reaching potential customers who haven't tried Sprint in the past, I seriously doubt it would be enough to reach customers who have a negative view of Sprint from their past experiences with the company.

 

Sprint needs to continue receiving excellent reports from network testing reporters in the media, along with great reviews from people who join Sprint and stay with them. Lower churn will continue to help things too. Although I think one of the best ideas for Sprint to consider, is having a stronger connection to the public by being open about its past, and what its doing for the future. Sprint's latest "getting better every day" advertisement is a good start, but could benefit from more open public communication, in a more "professional" form of what T-Mobile is doing, without the rebellious immature tone to it, of course.

[Arysyn]

They may not have any financial backing from Softbank, so they're answering in the most vague way possible to prevent stock holders/customers from becoming upset.  I'd say Sprint should bid on spectrum in locations that need work (there's a handful of markets where 600Mhz would benefit Sprint.)

 

This brings up an excellent point I've had in mind for awhile, but have neglected to mention in my posts regarding Masa/Softbank's continued interest in Sprint. I want to make a disclaimer here though, before I go on talking about this. I'm not at all speaking against Sprint by saying this, only about what I'm thinking Masa/Softbank might be considering for their part in Sprint's future. Nor am I speaking in favor of T-Mobile by bringing them up here.

 

Masa clearly wanted T-Mobile to become a part of Sprint, which we all now know isn't going to happen. I also agree with many here that this doesn't mean Sprint can't still grow on its own, something I hope strongly for. However, what I'm seeing here with these reports coming both from Sprint and various media about Sprint pertaining to Masa/Softbank's interest in Sprint, which when I say "interest", I'm not referring to financial, but in terms of motivation, it doesn't seem to me that Masa/Softbank are truly in this for the long run. I'm getting the impression they want Sprint to grow just enough so they can sell it for a gain on their initial investment, but not for the same vision Masa once had for it.

 

If Softbank doesn't invest in the 600mhz auction, this ought to prove my theory correct. However, if they do invest in the auction, it might mean that I'm wrong, or it could mean that they are doing so to save Sprint from what could very well lead to a competitive disaster for the company, especially if T-Mobile is very successful in their bids, which T-Mobile's success could be several times stronger without competition from Sprint in that auction. If T-Mobile can overlay their network with plenty of 600mhz, Sprint's network will have difficulty competing against it. Again though, I'm not speaking in support of T-Mobile by saying this, just mentioning the reality of the situation.

 

Sprint needs the 600mhz spectrum, even if their spectrum portfolio is strong in other areas, this low band spectrum will still help in a major way, both to its network and from a competitive nature, as I mentioned before. Although, it just doesn't seem Sprint is very interested in it, which I'm not getting the impression is because of a lack of desire for it, but rather because of the realities of ownership, what their owners want. If Sprint doesn't participate in this auction, then Softbank has lost all the desires for building Sprint into a major competitive network, and far from the original visions of it Masa had.

[nexgencpu]

After the AWS-3's outrageous auction numbers, I believe these companies are putting on their poker faces. If AWS-3 is any indication, 600Mhz is going to bring in some huge numbers.

 

Also, Sprint's strong stance on the rules of the auction does show some intention to participate.

 

 

Another thing to keep in mind, everything is pointing towards Sprints densification plan coming to fruition. 

[jroepcke51]

Masa clearly wanted T-Mobile to become a part of Sprint, which we all now know isn't going to happen. I also agree with many here that this doesn't mean Sprint can't still grow on its own, something I hope strongly for. However, what I'm seeing here with these reports coming both from Sprint and various media about Sprint pertaining to Masa/Softbank's interest in Sprint, which when I say "interest", I'm not referring to financial, but in terms of motivation, it doesn't seem to me that Masa/Softbank are truly in this for the long run. I'm getting the impression they want Sprint to grow just enough so they can sell it for a gain on their initial investment, but not for the same vision Masa once had for it.

I disagree. The merger won't happen now but under a different administration it could. Don't be naive to think that just b/c it didn't happen once that it won't happen. Personally, I don't want it, but Softbank could pull that trigger next summer.

[Arysyn]

I felt like he was talking non sense saying they don't need to go to the 600 auction. 800mhz can be brought to its knees with relative ease. 2500 will take much longer to deploy. He said WiFi was everywhere and I had to laugh. Walmart doesn't even have WiFi and there are so many places where WiFi is locked or you have to ask for the password. Its just not as convenient as your own home network yet. If Sprint for some reason decided not to get in that auction I will be very concerned.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

I forgot to mention the wifi issue in my last post, though I was trying so much not to write a long post. I have so much to say about these issues that its difficult to get it all said in a small amount of space.

 

I think this whole wifi thing is a cheap excuse for carriers not to upgrade their networks. Wireless companies need to provide better experience to their customers, people who are paying them to provide service, not to some isp providing wifi. Besides, wifi is not continuous. As you drive, you move away from public wifi spots that aren't that plentiful as it is. Of course, that isn't the real issue anyways, its about getting wireless networks more advanced so that wifi isn't needed.

 

Besides, it was companies such as Verizon who fought against public wifi in the past. So now they are realizing that it costs more to build proper wireless networks than what they make in revenue from it, that now its okay to use public wifi instead. How nice.

[Arysyn]

I disagree. The merger won't happen now but under a different administration it could. Don't be naive to think that just b/c it didn't happen once that it won't happen. Personally, I don't want it, but Softbank could pull that trigger next summer.

 

I actually hope you are right about it happening under a different administration, but it depends if that administration is much different than the one currently in place. The bigger issue than that right now though, is Masa/Softbank's desire to seek an alternative way for Sprint to grow, in case that doesn't happen. The 600mhz spectrum is just that, which they don't seem very interested in even trying to obtain. That tells me they just are not that driven to help Sprint with the drive they need to truly succeed. Instead, they seem aimed to grow Sprint just enough with what they have so they can sell Sprint off to another company. If Softbank had any more desire than that, they'd back the 600mhz auction as a resource Sprint needs to meet the plans Masa once had for Sprint, which is a true alternative in case the T-Mobile merger doesn't happen.

[Terrell352]

I completely agree with you.

 

I forgot to mention the wifi issue in my last post, though I was trying so much not to write a long post. I have so much to say about these issues that its difficult to get it all said in a small amount of space.

 

I think this whole wifi thing is a cheap excuse for carriers not to upgrade their networks. Wireless companies need to provide better experience to their customers, people who are paying them to provide service, not to some isp providing wifi. Besides, wifi is not continuous. As you drive, you move away from public wifi spots that aren't that plentiful as it is. Of course, that isn't the real issue anyways, its about getting wireless networks more advanced so that wifi isn't needed.

 

Besides, it was companies such as Verizon who fought against public wifi in the past. So now they are realizing that it costs more to build proper wireless networks than what they make in revenue from it, that now its okay to use public wifi instead. How nice.

I feel like Joe might need to be replaced. He is one of the Hesse boys after all.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I actually hope you are right about it happening under a different administration, but it depends if that administration is much different than the one currently in place. The bigger issue than that right now though, is Masa/Softbank's desire to seek an alternative way for Sprint to grow, in case that doesn't happen. The 600mhz spectrum is just that, which they don't seem very interested in even trying to obtain. That tells me they just are not that driven to help Sprint with the drive they need to truly succeed. Instead, they seem aimed to grow Sprint just enough with what they have so they can sell Sprint off to another company. If Softbank had any more desire than that, they'd back the 600mhz auction as a resource Sprint needs to meet the plans Masa once had for Sprint, which is a true alternative in case the T-Mobile merger doesn't happen.

You hope we go from 4 carriers to 3 carriers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

I disagree. The merger won't happen now but under a different administration it could. Don't be naive to think that just b/c it didn't happen once that it won't happen. Personally, I don't want it, but Softbank could pull that trigger next summer.

The election is next year which means any merger review - 6 months - wouldn't start so close to end of a term.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

You hope we go from 4 carriers to 3 carriers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

The election is next year which means any merger review - 6 months - wouldn't start so close to end of a term.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

To me, it isn't about how many carriers there are, but rather how good the network is. If it were up to me, I'd have one nationwide network, which all carriers competed on price only, not who has the better network. Everyone in the nation deserves excellent network coverage and quality speeds. However, knowing that isn't how things are, I understand the concerns with too few carriers. Unlike popular opinion about too much consolidation with there only being three carriers, I don't think it is a concern until it goes down to two. If the concerns are correct, with prices rising and all, then the FCC can take a look into the situation and remedy whatever problems there are. If they don't, then well the public can protest it, which probably will fail as so many protest do.

 

In the meantime, three carriers mean a better network for the third, and for some time, at least, competition will be fierce. It is a good thing for consumers, and for those who have Sprint and T-Mobile.

[lou99/maximus1987]

To me, it isn't about how many carriers there are, but rather how good the network is. If it were up to me, I'd have one nationwide network, which all carriers competed on price only, not who has the better network. Everyone in the nation deserves excellent network coverage and quality speeds. However, knowing that isn't how things are, I understand the concerns with too few carriers. Unlike popular opinion about too much consolidation with there only being three carriers, I don't think it is a concern until it goes down to two. If the concerns are correct, with prices rising and all, then the FCC can take a look into the situation and remedy whatever problems there are. If they don't, then well the public can protest it, which probably will fail as so many protest do.

 

In the meantime, three carriers mean a better network for the third, and for some time, at least, competition will be fierce. It is a good thing for consumers, and for those who have Sprint and T-Mobile.

Conoetition is not fierce with 3 carriers.

France - 3 equal carriers until 2012 - had the highest prices in Europe.

 

Then Free mobile launched and now they definitely don't have the highest prices.

 

The fcc doesn't have power to lower prices in a supposed 3 carrier market no matter how much they would want to.

 

Empirical evidence shows that 3 carriers leads to horrible prices and 4 carriers lead to awesome prices.

There's no reason why a merged TMO sprint wouldn't pass on the savings to consumers … except human nature.

 

If Marcelo were hired to vzw CEO, he'd keep the same sky high prices and same goes for Legere. Their goal is to make as much money as possible while mine and yours is to save money. With sprint and TMO, those goals align.

 

If everyone cared about network quality then we would all move to vzw like tomorrow. But TMO's city coverage is still good enough for some people.

 

This idea "we have to allow 4 to 3 mergers so EVERYONE can have a 'good' network" is very elitist; people can chose their own networks just fine thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Conoetition is not fierce with 3 carriers.

France - 3 equal carriers until 2012 - had the highest prices in Europe.

 

Then Free mobile launched and now they definitely don't have the highest prices.

 

The fcc doesn't have power to lower prices in a supposed 3 carrier market no matter how much they would want to.

 

Empirical evidence shows that 3 carriers leads to horrible prices and 4 carriers lead to awesome prices.

There's no reason why a merged TMO sprint wouldn't pass on the savings to consumers … except human nature.

 

If Marcelo were hired to vzw CEO, he'd keep the same sky high prices and same goes for Legere. Their goal is to make as much money as possible while mine and yours is to save money. With sprint and TMO, those goals align.

 

If everyone cared about network quality then we would all move to vzw like tomorrow. But TMO's city coverage is still good enough for some people.

 

This idea "we have to allow 4 to 3 mergers so EVERYONE can have a 'good' network" is very elitist; people can chose their own networks just fine thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Both Sprint and T-Mobile need to improve their networks in order to compete with Verizon, which is what Masa has essentially stated when he wanted to see Softbank/.Sprint become the #1 wireless company. That can't happen without a network that can compete with Verizon. The quickest way of achieving this, would be to merge Sprint and T-Mobile. The next step would be to keep the customers they have and then to gain more customers away from Verizon and AT&T. They can't do this without keeping the prices low, as the moment they raise prices, people will leave for Verizon and AT&T, especially since AT&T and Verizon would feel the competitive nature of wireless being much stronger with Sprint and T-Mobile merged into one company, and they would need to lower their prices or else lose their customers to a strong Sprint/T-Mobile network.

 

Comparing the U.S. wireless situation to other countries is a bit difficult to do fairly, as there are plenty of differences involved. One being population. Competition will be a lot stronger the more people there are to give service too, because the more money is at stake. A company may be satisfied at around 100,000 customers, but the enticement of having, say 50,000 more customers through a competitive edge is even stronger. With three carriers competing for those kind of numbers, its still a very strong game. Although any less than three might end up in such a situation you described. Three though is plenty for there to still be fierce competition between strong networks and lower prices.

 

By the way, everyone does care about network quality in the area they use it the most. If the network quality isn't there, they will leave the service for another, regardless of price. That is why so many people are on Verizon, stay on Verizon, yet still complain about the price while keeping them. The moment a similar quality network comes along with a better price, the moment they leave Verizon for that. And yes, everyone should have a good network to be on. That isn't elitist at all, but fair for everyone. If it takes a merger to provide that, so be it. Although to be clear, I've stated many times that Softbank ought to keep funding and supporting Sprint even without T-Mobile. The problem is here, it seems as they just don't have the drive to do so, considering the merger didn't happen. Otherwise, Joe Euteneuer wouldn't be making statements saying that public wifi is enough not to need 600mhz spectrum.

[tybo31316]

First off merging T-Mobile and Sprint will not increase either company's coverage. Also both companies are making subscriber gains without a merger and less of a foot print of the big two. At this moment any merger would send both companies in a downward spiral as far as network investment. Iirc when AT&T attempted to buy T-Mobile they (T-Mobile) halted their network plans in hopes that AT&T could get the merger approved. I feel that 4 national carriers is best for competition and the consumers. 3 national carriers would just all raise prices within 5 bucks of one another and take advantage of our pockets.

 

Edit- I didn't mention the amount of debt the two would have and the fact that the combined company would have over 100,000 cell sites. Also decommissioning overlapping sites. Brand new gear that the companies spent tens of millions on.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[utiz4321]

First off merging T-Mobile and Sprint will not increase either company's coverage. Also both companies are making subscriber gains without a merger and less of a foot print of the big two. At this moment any merger would send both companies in a downward spiral as far as network investment. Iirc when AT&T attempted to buy T-Mobile they (T-Mobile) halted their network plans in hopes that AT&T could get the merger approved. I feel that 4 national carriers is best for competition and the consumers. 3 national carriers would just all raise prices within 5 bucks of one another and take advantage of our pockets.

 

Edit- I didn't mention the amount of debt the two would have and the fact that the combined company would have over 100,000 cell sites. Also decommissioning overlapping sites. Brand new gear that the companies spent tens of millions on.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

Neither are making profits. That is the test of weather or not 3 or 4 national carriers are the right amount for the market.

[mozamcrew]

The time for a merger was before TMUS made all their upgrades and bought AWS3 spectrum. I just can't see it making financial sense now, even if the political winds change. The window for that has passed for the next 4-5 years. Frankly, unless Dish decides to enter the market as a 5th carrier (or does it in combination with Google), I don't see the FCC letting any of the big 4 merge. The only way we get to three will be if one goes bankrupt.

 

I predict Sprint WILL participate in the 600 Mhz auctions with its partners (Shentel, RRPP), unless the FCC decides to completely neuter the reserved spectrum requirements. I think this talk from big E is just Sprint making it clear that it can't and won't pay the "arm and a leg" prices you just saw in the AWS3 auctions. The more expensive the 600Mhz spectrum becomes, the less it becomes economically advantageous versus increasing your site density. The economics of this will vary from market to market. In places where the RRPP partner has the 700Mhz A block license, plus the 5x5 band 26 spectrum from Sprint, I can actually see them not willing to pay much at all. 

[maxsilver]

Neither are making profits.

 

 

T-Mobile did turn a profit over the last year (39 cents/share between Q2 2014 and Q1 2015). And while some of that came from a Verizon spectrum sale, Q4 2014 turned a profit without that spectrum sale -- so it's not a one-time occurance. And they're telling shareholders they expect a positive cents/share profit for the next three quarters.

 

Now, they're only just barely profitable. But they are "making profits".

[maxsilver]

That can't happen without a network that can compete with Verizon. The quickest way of achieving this, would be to merge Sprint and T-Mobile.

I don't know that that's accurate.

 

The quickest way to inflate your subscriber count is to merge. But a merged Sprint/T-Mobile isn't inherently competitive with Verizon on their network at all. They still have to do the almost the same work they were previously doing, depending on which companies network gets kept. They might save a token amount of cash by puling assets between them, but it would probably take 2+ years for that to take effect. (As seen in Sprint/Nextel, Sprint/Clearwire, T-Mobile/MetroPCS, AT&T/Cricket-Leap, etc)

 

The only significant changes I see from a merged Sprint / T-Mobile is an easier time taking on debt, and less need/desire to compete. Neither of which I would consider "good".

 

There is an aspect of "networks are cheaper per user, the more users you divide the cost by". But that seems greatly overstated, and only really applies to rural coverage.

 

Competition will be a lot stronger the more people there are to give service too, because the more money is at stake.

 

I'm not sure that's true either. Sprint was a significantly worse company (in terms of pricing / policies / service quality) when it had larger market share previously, than it is now with less market share. 

 

I think we're making some really big assumptions that carriers (out of the goodness of their heart?) will continue to compete when they have more subscribers. But history seems to show the opposite in many  markets -- the smaller a company is and the more competitors they have, the harder they compete. 

 

---

 

I think the vast majority of what we're seeing is simple mismanagement. AT&T struggled greatly during the early iPhone days. T-Mobile struggled for a long time under Humm and the merger. Sprint's struggled for a long time. All of these seem pretty clearly management issues, stemming from various bad decisions. (And AT&T looks poised to fall back into that, getting distracted with DirectTV)

 

I don't see any evidence that we can't have 4 profitable cellular providers -- there's plenty of money in all of these companies revenue statements. All I see is evidence that it's easy for executives to mismanage cellular companies.