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

[JeffDTD]

Look, I am not saying they would "pull the plug" What I am saying is that Sprint has to show signs of turning a profit to warrant another investment by Softbank. If Sprint can monetize their spectrum because the market want sustain 4 profitable carriers or Sprint can become one of the three in a four carrier market then no it is not a reason for Softbank to stick around.

 

 

At least you agree that Chapter 7 Corporate Bankruptcy (liquidation of all assets) isn't a rational prediction for a subsidiary of a multinational telecommunications corporation with a 9.5 trillion market cap and more than 500 Billion in net income in 2014.

 

If Sprint is the "odd man out" in the coming spectrum auctions (seems to be the best dig anyone has on them here lately) AND that ends up putting Sprint at a disadvantage, what you have is a dialogue to justify consolidation. Softbank was ready two years ago to drop another 40B to integrate two carriers. The idea that Softbank's future in the US hinges on whether or not Sprint's financial health improves significantly in the next two years is not rational. Whether intentional or not, the bankruptcy / doom and gloom prophecies here or elsewhere feed the same narrative that the average local Tmo, ATT , or Verizon store sales person might sell you when you tell them you are switching to Sprint = "Those guys? They're going out of business"

[Arysyn]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

I think what you said could very well be true, if it turns out that way. There is a very strong argument to be made about there being fewer competitors in just about every sort of product and service, causing worse quality/higher prices. Although, the blame ought to be put on management operating under worse conditions for the consumer if they choose to do that with less competition, rather than blaming the nature of mergers and acquisitions. Companies could, ought to, and should continue to operate for the benefit of both themselves and the consumer in any environment, but particularly with less competition, as there is indeed fewer choices in that regard.

 

As long as the company does right, and the government makes sure it does right, along with the company making sure the benefits of consolidation they had promised, still do happen after the consolidation is complete. When the government allows a company to merge, they are giving that company a tremendous advantage in business. That company then has a greater responsibility to do business in a fair and just manner for the public. When they do the opposite, the government ought to step in and do something about it. When they do not do so, the public has a duty to protest both the government and the company in question. Where there a gross injustices due to the overbearing power of a company and/or a government, then there becomes a societal issue. 

 

However, this shouldn't mean that all consolidations are bad, even if there is a history showing that many, or even say the majority in any particular field in question, such as telecommunications, have been negative. For instance, most people would agree that the current state of the U.S.,  is much better that when the country was divided by the confederacy. That being a very different kind of example, yes, but then most people would say their network coverage is much better with companies such as At&T and Verizon from the mergers, than they were when their were multiple regional carriers. Both examples, while each at extreme opposites from each other, have one major thing in common, being that people would agree that the consolidation has been beneficial of both varieties.

[Arysyn]

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

 

I'm agreeing with many of your posts here. Same about Softbank's willingness to lose some money just to get out of losing more. However, I think they will get out of Sprint with some money, perhaps from an investor such as Dish or Google, though at this point I'm thinking more likelihood of Google than Dish, since I think Dish will either purchase T-Mobile, or be bought out by Verizon, to compete with AT&T/DirecTv.

 

Sprint is doing well for itself, though they don't seem to want to push as hard anymore for that wireless glory Masa once spoke of. The fact they aren't actively going after the 600mhz spectrum shows me that Masa is content with what Sprint has to do well enough for itself to the point he can sell Sprint off to another company and still make back what he spent buying Sprint, at the very least.

[lou99/maximus1987]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-37011

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/altice-to-buy-controlling-stake-in-suddenlink-in-deal-worth-9-1-billion-1432105992

 

Altice bought suddenlink and DT, softb might buy time warmer cable

 

The golden age of telecom will soon arrive!

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[twospirits]

Interesting articles. 

[Arysyn]

Obviously Softbank, if they have the money to purchase TWC, then they have enough money to invest in the 600mhz spectrum auction for Sprint. Although I doubt it will purchase TWC, same as I doubt DT will. Yet, it would make for a simple name change for T-Mobile, if DT wanted to show the TW affiliation in it. TW-Mobile, led by a cartoon character come to life, in John Legere.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Obviously Softbank, if they have the money to purchase TWC, then they have enough money to invest in the 600mhz spectrum auction for Sprint. 

 

Obviously.

[nmartine3]

http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/the-sprint-network-is-getting-better-every-day.htm

It was good first quarter for Sprint.   

[BenChase7]

http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/the-sprint-network-is-getting-better-every-day.htm

It was good first quarter for Sprint.   

That is certainly impressive.  Sprint the most improved over the last year? I say, Yes.

[cortney]

http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/the-sprint-network-is-getting-better-every-day.htm

It was good first quarter for Sprint.   

It's good so far and there's many markets to be released (namely 90% of the ones I've wanted to see xD)

 

I have a feeling a lot more will improve in the 2H tests of this year, too. I'm still quite curious at how well Sprint will do on the state reports this quarter. They should come closer to the big two in several states and win more awards in that category.

[BenChase7]

It's good so far and there's many markets to be released (namely 90% of the ones I've wanted to see xD)

 

I have a feeling a lot more will improve in the 2H tests of this year, too. I'm still quite curious at how well Sprint will do on the state reports this quarter. They should come closer to the big two in several states and win more awards in that category.

Absolutely! The gap is closing.

[RedSpark]

Hopefully, Kevin Crull as Sprint's new Chief Marketing Officer (taking over on May 31, 2015) can better communicate these successes.

 

See: http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-names-kevin-crull-chief-marketing-officer.htm

 

Sprint offers cutting edge technology at a great price. People should know about that... but they don't.

 

The shame of it is that this page: http://www.sprint.com/netdotcom/index.html?ECID=vanity:network#!/ , which lists Sprint's technology, is essentially hidden as it's only accessible via http://newsroom.sprint.com/presskits/sprint-network-vision-information-center.htm, an out-of-date Press Kit from February 2015.... and...

 

This Press Kit is only accessible if you go to http://newsroom.sprint.com/presskits.cfm and scroll down the list into the bowels of the archive.

 

How useless. I swear, Sprint is its own worst enemy sometimes.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Despite the vote of confidence in CDMA, Shammo did add that Verizon Wireless remains on track to rollout LTE-only smartphones beginning early next year that can take advantage of the carrier’s growing voice-over-LTE service. The VoLTE service, which carries voice traffic as data over LTE, was launched last fall and according to Shammo was serving “several million” customers.

 

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150519/carriers/cdma-remains-on-verizon-wireless-radar-600-mhz-auction-strategy-in-flux-tag2

 

1) I thought vzw volte coverage sucks?

2) will all vzw phones, starting with the above mentioned, lack CDMA? Will this affect spribt's phone costs?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

I take everything that Shammo says with a grain of salt... based on his comments in this article:

 

However, he said Wi-Fi calling was "never a top priority" for Verizon. "We built our voice platform so extensively [that] there was never a need for us to tell our customers, 'Oh, our network is not good enough so you need to go on Wi-Fi to complete your call.'"

 

Says the man whose company sells a Samsung Network Extender for $249.99. WiFi calling is free... so why would Verizon be in a rush for you to have that instead? (Of course, Verizon says WiFi calling is coming in Mid-2015.... I'll believe it when I see it.)

 

Despite the vote of confidence in CDMA, Shammo did add that Verizon Wireless remains on track to rollout LTE-only smartphones beginning early next year that can take advantage of the carrier’s growing voice-over-LTE service. The VoLTE service, which carries voice traffic as data over LTE, was launched last fall and according to Shammo was serving “several million” customers.

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150519/carriers/cdma-remains-on-verizon-wireless-radar-600-mhz-auction-strategy-in-flux-tag2

1) I thought vzw volte coverage sucks?
2) will all vzw phones, starting with the above mentioned, lack CDMA? Will this affect spribt's phone costs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Verizon claims its VoLTE coverage is good. According to other articles I've read, Verizon's LTE footprint is essentially its 3G footprint at this point.

[travismheim]

 

 

I take everything that Shammo says with a grain of salt... based on his comments in this article:

 

 

However, he said Wi-Fi calling was "never a top priority" for Verizon. "We built our voice platform so extensively [that] there was never a need for us to tell our customers, 'Oh, our network is not good enough so you need to go on Wi-Fi to complete your call.'"

Says the man whose company sells a Samsung Network Extender for $249.99. WiFi calling is free... so why would Verizon be in a rush for you to have that instead? (Of course, Verizon says WiFi calling is coming in Mid-2015.... I'll believe it when I see it.)

 

 

 

Verizon claims its VoLTE coverage is good. According to other articles I've read, Verizon's LTE footprint is essentially its 3G footprint at this point.

That network extender is just like the airave Sprint gives to qualified customers. Their LTE footprint is good, but 1X is better and more reliable for calls. I wonder if they will have a LTE femtocell made for LTE only phones, or try to rely on WiFi calling when its rolled out for poor indoor coverage situations.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

That network extender is just like the airave Sprint gives to qualified customers. Their LTE footprint is good, but 1X is better and more reliable for calls. I wonder if they will have a LTE femtocell made for LTE only phones, or try to rely on WiFi calling when its rolled out for poor indoor coverage situations.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I'd be very surprised if Verizon developed an LTE Femtocell. Verizon's going to launch WiFi calling and say how great it is even though T-Mobile and Sprint have offered it for quite some time.... except in the case of iPhones which is recent for T-Mobile, and even more recent for Sprint.

 

It'll also be interesting to see if Verizon decides to offer its own version of Sprint's WiFi Connect Router for free to qualified customers.

[Sprke]

I have my VZW S6 locked to LTE only and have had no problems with VoLTE in my area. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a LTE only phone.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[maxsilver]

Verizon claims its VoLTE coverage is good. According to other articles I've read, Verizon's LTE footprint is essentially its 3G footprint at this point.

I have my VZW S6 locked to LTE only and have had no problems with VoLTE in my area. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a LTE only phone.

 

Yeah. From a practical standpoint, VoLTE is not nearly as unreliable as some claim. I think VoLTE gets most of it's "unreliable" reputation due to some of T-Mobile's blocked call issues, not because VoLTE itself is actually unreliable in any significant way. 

 

For instance, in the 2015-1H RootMetrics Report for Ann Arbor, Sprint shared 1st place in calling with AT&T while T-Mobile took last place in calling.  But in the report notes, they say both AT&T and T-Mobile dropped no calls at all during all of their testing (presumably Sprint did), while Sprint had no blocked calls (presumably AT&T + T-Mobile did).

 

The penalty T-Mobile incurred in "Call Performance" is entirely in call setup / "blocked" call issues because they never dropped a single call during testing. And even hitting that problem is relativity rare (they only came in 0.1 points lower than Verizon's call performance)

 

AT&T has VoLTE on that handset and in that market. So unless RootMetrics disabled VoLTE (or blocked the update), AT&T's VoLTE+GSM is presumably the service they tested that tied with Sprint for #1 call performance.

 

--------

 

TL/DR: VoLTE being "less reliable", while technically true, is often way over exaggerated. RootMetrics testing backs that claim up fairly objectively.

 

And this is just a guess on my part, but by the time a VoLTE only phone launches on Verizon, VoLTE reliability will be indistinguishable from CDMA for the vast majority of users. They appear to be pretty close to that already, nearly everywhere except rural areas.

[milan03]

I'd be very surprised if Verizon developed an LTE Femtocell. Verizon's going to launch WiFi calling and say how great it is even though T-Mobile and Sprint have offered it for quite some time.... except in the case of iPhones which is recent for T-Mobile, and even more recent for Sprint.

Let's just clarify WiFi Calling in the U.S. market place.

 

T-Mobile's WiFi Calling is the Next Generation VoWiFi defined in Release 12 with IP address preservation between Cellular (VoLTE) and WiFi bearers, providing an opportunity for operators to seamlessly extend their voice applications between two different environments, while fully leveraging AMR-WB or HD Voice. It requires modifying the edge of the IMS core by adding ePDG.

 

Since Verizon has nationwide VoLTE I'm guessing that's what they're in the process of doing as well, but there hasn't been solid confirmation so far.

 

Sprint's WiFi calling is an older implementation without call continuity and other IMS features.

[Sprke]

Yeah. From a practical standpoint, VoLTE is not nearly as unreliable as some claim. I think VoLTE gets most of it's "unreliable" reputation due to T-Mobile's blocked call issue, not because VoLTE itself is actually unreliable in any significant way.

For me it's more reliable then CDMA calls...I live near the border of VZW native coverage and a LTEiRA operator. Calls would always drop going between the 2 now the dropped calls are gone as the hand offs are seamless between the 2 networks. Works very well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

 

And this is just a guess on my part, but by the time a VoLTE only phone launches on Verizon, VoLTE reliability will be indistinguishable from CDMA for the vast majority of users. They appear to be pretty close to that already, nearly everywhere except rural areas.

 

So will this affect sprint in any way?

Phone pricing, network gear, push it to do VoLTE faster?

[RedSpark]

So will this affect sprint in any way?

Phone pricing, network gear, push it to do VoLTE faster?

 

Sprint's new equipment as part of its Network Vision overhaul should readily accept a VoLTE upgrade AFAIK. I'm glad the other carriers are good competition, and they are pushing Sprint to be smart and nimble.

 

Sprint is supposed to be done with its 800MHz LTE buildout by the end of 2015 in areas where rebanding is complete. I wouldn't expect VoLTE to appear until at least that's completed. Probably at least a year off so that the buildout can be further densified.

[RedSpark]

Let's just clarify WiFi Calling in the U.S. market place. 

 

T-Mobile's WiFi Calling is the Next Generation VoWiFi defined in Release 12 with IP address preservation between Cellular (VoLTE) and WiFi bearers, providing the operators an opportunity to seamlessly extend their voice applications between two different environments, while fully leveraging AMR-WB or HD Voice. It requires modifying the edge of the IMS core by adding ePDG.

 

Since Verizon has nationwide VoLTE I'm guessing that's what they're in the process of doing as well, but there hasn't been solid confirmation so far.

 

Sprint's WiFi calling is an older implementation without call continuity and other IMS features.

 

Great explanation. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps Sprint's implementation will be upgraded in time?

 

What "LTE Release Version" is Sprint operating on now for its Network Vision gear?

[BlueAngel]

So coverage in my area is lacking, data wise that is. My voice and text is amazing now thanks to 1x800. Problem is LTE or lack thereof, if I am out and about I am connected about 75% of the time, otherwise I am on unbearable 3G. I can be on LTE on B25/B41 at ~105dBm and walk into a store and be stuck on 3G. The problem is B26 has the same signal strength as B25/B41 so I am suffering from basically no low end spectrum. They had their network techs do a local drive by and they said everything is working as it should, which is obviously bs.

 

So in the short term they said they increased the B41 signal by my house which basically did nothing it's still spotty. They asked me if I wanted an airave lol, like that would totally solve my data issues. Then they said it's my phone that is the problem, obviously not my friends suffer from the same issues. So I contacted Marcelo Claure on Twitter and he got back to me saying he will try to help, haven't heard anything yet. Now obviously B26 is not optimized, seems like it's about 50% of what it can be but they say otherwise. I more or less called their network techs idiots, it's be a long while now since B26 has been turned on, yet coverage has stayed the same. I guess I'm just getting tired of seeing no improvement but they play stupid and say things are fine. Thoughts? [emoji13]

[cortney]

1) I thought vzw volte coverage sucks?

2) will all vzw phones, starting with the above mentioned, lack CDMA? Will this affect spribt's phone costs?

 

VZW cannot reliably deploy VoLTE nationwide without having an LTE network as dense as their CDMA network, which they do not have, especially in non-urban areas. They don't have a nationwide LTE network, they have a majority-of-their-nationwide-CDMA-network overlayed LTE network. 

 

No carrier without fallback and or release 10 upgrades can deploy VoLTE, regardless.  

 

They also cannot remove CDMA from their phones yet, as that would disadvantage many VZW users in areas where there is limited/no LTE yet, or where the CDMA is already barely dense enough.