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

[RedSpark]

But what's the uptake?  Have they announced how many customers actually use that option?

 

- Trip

 

See Page 7 of this PDF:

 

At the end of the first quarter of 2016, 13.7 million customers were enrolled in T-Mobile’s JUMP! programs, up from 13.3 million at the end of the fourth quarter of 2015 and 10.3 million at the end of the first quarter of 2015.

 

The chart on that page shows growth in this program.

[avb]

T-Mobile lets people upgrade to a new device up to 3 times per year: http://explore.t-mobile.com/jump-on-demand-phone-upgrade

 

Seems that enough people want it/do it to warrant the program.

 

See here for Upgrade Program Comparison Chart: http://explore.t-mobile.com/phone-upgrades

 

That's a great marketing tool, but people are holding onto their phones longer nowadays.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/customers-hold-smartphones-longer-apple-samsung-could-challenge-carriers-up/2016-03-21

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3015494/smartphones/the-smartphone-upgrade-path-may-be-fizzling.html

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2985483/smartphones/consumers-are-keeping-smartphones-tablets-and-pcs-longer.html

[RedSpark]

That's a great marketing tool, but people are holding onto their phones longer nowadays.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/customers-hold-smartphones-longer-apple-samsung-could-challenge-carriers-up/2016-03-21

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3015494/smartphones/the-smartphone-upgrade-path-may-be-fizzling.html

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2985483/smartphones/consumers-are-keeping-smartphones-tablets-and-pcs-longer.html

 

On a macro level they might be, but there's growth in T-Mobile's Upgrade Programs.

 

And if it's a great marketing tool, it seems to be working based on T-Mobile's overall performance this past quarter.

 

I'm hoping we see and hear good things from Sprint at the May 3, 2016 Earnings Call.

 

I still believe that Sprint will be one of the greatest business turnaround stories in history.

[kg4icg]

The one thing about using t-mobile's jump option, is that jumping up also jacks up your monthly rate of what your paying. People do it once and come across sticker shock wondering why they are paying more each month in which they are hesitant to do another jump again. You get what you pay for.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[NYC126]

On a macro level they might be, but there's growth in T-Mobile's Upgrade Programs.

 

And if it's a great marketing tool, it seems to be working based on T-Mobile's overall performance this past quarter.

 

I'm hoping we see and hear good things from Sprint at the May 3, 2016 Earnings Call.

 

I still believe that Sprint will be one of the greatest business turnaround stories in history.

I agree with your sentiment, but Tmobile is not holding back one bit. They are already talking about 3 carrier aggregation with 4x4 MIMO tech to produce 300 Mbps speeds. This is one of the issues I have with Sprint, they brag a lot regarding being spectrum rich, and now the scrappy carrier is going to the front lines about deploying extreme speeds.

 

Will Sprint win the LTE speeds war? possible, but the pink carrier is not holding back. They are extremely aggressive when it comes to deployment of new LTE techs.

[RedSpark]

I agree with your sentiment, but Tmobile is not holding back one bit. They are already talking about 3 carrier aggregation with 4x4 MIMO tech to produce 300 Mbps speeds. This is one of the issues I have with Sprint, they brag a lot regarding being spectrum rich, and now the scrappy carrier is going to the front lines about deploying extreme speeds.

 

Will Sprint win the LTE speeds war? possible, but the pink carrier is not holding back. They are extremely aggressive when it comes to deployment of new LTE techs.

 

Sprint talked about upcoming 3 Carrier Aggregation on the Galaxy S7 back in March: 

 

Sprint Demonstrates Speeds of More Than 300 Mbps on Samsung Galaxy S7

[utiz4321]

Yeah. Sprint has a consistent issue with talking a big game and then not delivering, going back to wimax. I still can't see them meeting their " first or second in 80 percent of markets" goal by the end of the 18-24 months.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

I agree with your sentiment, but Tmobile is not holding back one bit. They are already talking about 3 carrier aggregation with 4x4 MIMO tech to produce 300 Mbps speeds. 

For once, Sprint isn't so much talking as they are doing. Third carrier has been showing up everywhere around the country. Meaning 3XCA is imminent. 

[lilotimz]

For once, Sprint isn't so much talking as they are doing. Third carrier has been showing up everywhere around the country. Meaning 3XCA is imminent.

Not everywhere and no not imminent unless one thinks late summer is imminent.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[nexgencpu]

Not everywhere and no not imminent unless one thinks late summer is imminent.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

That's "soon" enough..

 

Personally I think 3XCA is great and all, but its more marketing leverage than actual necessity (except in very crowded areas) Considering that 2XCA is performing very well in most areas, densification is more important, but its nowhere near as sexy as advertising super fast speeds.

[NYC126]

Sprint talked about upcoming 3 Carrier Aggregation on the Galaxy S7 back in March:

 

Sprint Demonstrates Speeds of More Than 300 Mbps on Samsung Galaxy S7

Talking and being deployed commercially are different things. Two years ago they even had a 2 gigabits trial with Nokia in the lab. Customers are not interested in labs PR stunts.

 

Being the first carrier deploying 200 to 300 megabits down commercially score you a lot of positive feedbacks especially when your reputation is the slower carrier in America.

[NYC126]

For once, Sprint isn't so much talking as they are doing. Third carrier has been showing up everywhere around the country. Meaning 3XCA is imminent.

 

I understand the third carrier is appearing everywhere, but it's not aggregated yet. Sprint needs to win some network PR stunts against Tmobile.

[lilotimz]

I understand the third carrier is appearing everywhere, but it's not aggregated yet. Sprint needs to win some network PR stunts against Tmobile.

No sprint does not need to win pr battles now.

 

Sprint needs to continue to try and make a reliable network. The PR epeen stunts will come later when the vast majority of subscribers can experience the epeen and not just a few Marque markets.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[ingenium]

 

 

No sprint does not need to win pr battles now.

 

Sprint needs to continue to try and make a reliable network. The PR epeen stunts will come later when the vast majority of subscribers can experience the epeen and not just a few Marque markets.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

Exactly. They need to increase site density, whether that's with small cells or new macros.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

[Arysyn]

... are you living in the same universe that I am?  As I recall, China's economy is currently slowing down rapidly to the point it threatens the economy of the entire planet.  All while having the central planning of a dictatorship with the government owning large pieces of most major companies in the country.  I'm not sure pointing to China as an example is going to sell anyone on your opinions.

 

In any case, you didn't actually answer the question.  What makes you think that people are going to upgrade phones every six months just because more phones are available for sale?  I find upgrading phones to be a huge hassle, and I'm very technically literate; why would the common person want that hassle more often, exactly? 

 

- Trip

 

I actually never meant to imply that people would purchase new phones every six months just because there are. That is why I made the comparisons in the advancements of phones in Asia where there are an abundance of new, consistently advancing smartphones where there actually is some purpose to upgrading regularly, whereas here in the U.S., advancements in smartphone devices are declining. Certainly there wouldn't be enough reason for people to upgrade often here even if they could afford it, as the devices available really don't justify much added expense, regardless of how low monthly rates could go. However, if companies expanded their smartphone presence at the rate of advancement in Asia to the U.S. and if there is a change in the structure of the wireless industry as I've exampled, there could be a great development to take place where people would want to upgrade and be able to afford to at the same time.

 

Instead though, as an aspect I saw in Terrell's comment, there are too many people making things out to be better than they really are here in the U.S. Things definitely won't change for the better with people constantly satisfied with mediocrity.

[Arysyn]

The very thing you just said is called socialism. Sorry but the government and companies together doesn't make a good mix and never will. Get the government out of the freaking way and the economy will take care of itself. Money and jobs are scarce now because the government is meddling. One big example. The affordable care act, which made health insurance not so affordable anymore.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

 

I don't support either socialism nor capitalism in their full form, though I believe certain aspects of both do need to o-exist. With wireless, I'd like to see fewer carriers with larger networks, more customers, and given much more spectrum at much cheaper rates in the form of an even-level amount lease, along with a provision ensuring lower rates for customers. If that were done, carriers would still be able to afford network upgrades, with fewer costs going to spectrum (and less taxes I support also) with more customers paying in that covers any losses from lower rates. Not much lower rates though, just sensible ones where people can afford to lease devices using upgrade terms more frequently that would encourage companies from Asia to invest into the U.S. wireless market with their technologically advanced smartphones not currently sold here in the U.S.

 

If these actions were done, it would enhance further business development in the U.S. wireless market. I'm also in favor of some other business-friendly ideas that would encourage manufacturing here in the U.S. That also could help to develop the U.S. wireless market with some U.S.-built smartphone options. This would all go toward giving people something to actually be proud of here.

[kg4icg]

I don't support either socialism nor capitalism in their full form, though I believe certain aspects of both do need to o-exist. With wireless, I'd like to see fewer carriers with larger networks, more customers, and given much more spectrum at much cheaper rates in the form of an even-level amount lease, along with a provision ensuring lower rates for customers. If that were done, carriers would still be able to afford network upgrades, with fewer costs going to spectrum (and less taxes I support also) with more customers paying in that covers any losses from lower rates. Not much lower rates though, just sensible ones where people can afford to lease devices using upgrade terms more frequently that would encourage companies from Asia to invest into the U.S. wireless market with their technologically advanced smartphones not currently sold here in the U.S.

 

If these actions were done, it would enhance further business development in the U.S. wireless market. I'm also in favor of some other business-friendly ideas that would encourage manufacturing here in the U.S. That also could help to develop the U.S. wireless market with some U.S.-built smartphone options. This would all go toward giving people something to actually be proud of here.

Just like when the government took over GM, boy did a bunch of people get screwed on that. And what you getting to say is exactly what they are doing in China. It is still socialism anyway you try to re-label it. Innovation is the motivator of a individual who wants to make things better. You get government involved then innovation goes out the window. Government bureaucracy is a hindering effect. How do you think companies like LG and Samsung can make the things they do, because the South Korean government stays out of there way being creative, not like the US government and the environmentalist that try to stop anything from being developed or built. In other words freedom to innovate is the best thing, which means government keeps there nose out of it.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[grapkoski]

Just like when the government took over GM, boy did a bunch of people get screwed on that. And what you getting to say is exactly what they are doing in China. It is still socialism anyway you try to re-label it. Innovation is the motivator of a individual who wants to make things better. You get government involved then innovation goes out the window. Government bureaucracy is a hindering effect. How do you think companies like LG and Samsung can make the things they do, because the South Korean government stays out of there way being creative, not like the US government and the environmentalist that try to stop anything from being developed or built. In other words freedom to innovate is the best thing, which means government keeps there nose out of it.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

 

Let's all drop this political banter.

[kct1975]

Unfortunately, I don't have a YouTube video link, but it is on a publicly accessible Facebook page. You don't need a Facebook account to watch the video.

 

Marcelo talks a lot about his experience going from Brightstar to Sprint, and how he's trying to reinstall an entrepreneurial "winning culture" at Sprint, similar to that which he had at Brightstar. According to him, Sprint has been gaining customers every day. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers pan out at the Earnings Call.

Thanks for the additional analysis!

 

I actually won't be able to view the video you linked to here. Due work reasons, I am prohibited from accessing Facebook or other similar social media sites.

 

But I might try to Google it if I feel like it. However your proved such an excellent analysis, that most likely I won't need to do that. [emoji106]

Facebook isn't that terrible....

 

But that won't happen. It can't. (At least... not for a good number more years). Because there is still a good percentage of people that don't have (and may never have) a Facebook account. So I wouldn't worry about it.

Sorry to disagree with you, but Yes, for my situation...Facebook is that bad.

 

But I do agree, thinking about it rationally, that Facebook linking with Sprint wouldn't happen for awhile.

[kct1975]

That's a great marketing tool, but people are holding onto their phones longer nowadays.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/customers-hold-smartphones-longer-apple-samsung-could-challenge-carriers-up/2016-03-21

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3015494/smartphones/the-smartphone-upgrade-path-may-be-fizzling.html

 

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2985483/smartphones/consumers-are-keeping-smartphones-tablets-and-pcs-longer.html

Exactly what I was saying! [emoji120]

[Arysyn]

Just like when the government took over GM, boy did a bunch of people get screwed on that. And what you getting to say is exactly what they are doing in China. It is still socialism anyway you try to re-label it. Innovation is the motivator of a individual who wants to make things better. You get government involved then innovation goes out the window. Government bureaucracy is a hindering effect. How do you think companies like LG and Samsung can make the things they do, because the South Korean government stays out of there way being creative, not like the US government and the environmentalist that try to stop anything from being developed or built. In other words freedom to innovate is the best thing, which means government keeps there nose out of it.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

 

I really didn't intend to get into politics. What I've been saying is that corporations need less oversight with proper safety terms for consumers. I never said government ought to have any ownership in these companies. The point is to make things better for the wireless industry so that people can afford the advanced technology that would become available if carriers had more access to spectrum at cheaper rates with less competition so they'd have more money to spend on network equipment, site, and technology upgrades. That isn't socialism at all, its called making things better for business. The only added provision companies would need to follow in exchange for these terms, is lower rates for customers so they could afford better devices that would come around with these changes.

[Paynefanbro]

Verizon finally updated the map on their website! By Verizon's analysis, Sprint covers 651,000 square miles. However they couldn't really refute Sprint's claims of fastest network in LTE Plus areas besides saying "It's fast when you need it to be, not just every now and then."

[WiWavelength]

Verizon finally updated the map on their website! By Verizon's analysis, Sprint covers 651,000 square miles. However they couldn't really refute Sprint's claims of fastest network in LTE Plus areas besides saying "It's fast when you need it to be, not just every now and then."

 

The Sprint map clearly is depicting LTE native + roaming.  Look at Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.  Much of that is Nex-Tech Wireless and USCC.

 

Of course, VZW shows its LTE in Rural America partner coverage.  I am not sure whether roaming or partner footprint is shown in the AT&T and T-Mobile maps.  But the T-Mobile map is a fabrication, a massive overstatement.

 

AJ

[JustinRP37]

I really didn't intend to get into politics. What I've been saying is that corporations need less oversight with proper safety terms for consumers. I never said government ought to have any ownership in these companies. The point is to make things better for the wireless industry so that people can afford the advanced technology that would become available if carriers had more access to spectrum at cheaper rates with less competition so they'd have more money to spend on network equipment, site, and technology upgrades. That isn't socialism at all, its called making things better for business. The only added provision companies would need to follow in exchange for these terms, is lower rates for customers so they could afford better devices that would come around with these changes.

 

You cannot make the wireless industry more affordable by doing the things are mention. Spectrum is auctioned off, so the only price control would be setting the pricing floor for the auction. The carriers are not paying for spectrum the way you are making it seem. Furthermore, if you think that decreased costs would be passed down to consumers then you are mistaken. A company will never agree to limit its pricing unless it is a regulated utility that is forced to do so. Companies have to be able to adjust pricing up and down. Imagine is a natural disaster occurred and they had to rebuild the network, surely they will feel pressure to increase ARPU to help defray the cost as insurance would only go so far.

 

And when you mention 'so that people can afford the advanced technology', what does that even mean? Nobody NEEDS the latest and greatest technology (aka the latest phone) every time a phone comes out, especially if you are implying that the company decreases the cost of the upgrade. This would lower margins and shareholders would revolt. The carriers do not set the prices they pay for the phone from the suppliers. The carriers can only adjust how much they charge the consumer. They still need to make a profit on the device. The carriers really do not care if you upgrade all they time, they just want you to subscribe. In the past past when phones were subsidized, you may have seen a carrier offer a reduced upgrade fee to someone that had not upgraded in a long time. This is not because the company wants the subscriber to have the latest technology, but those with older tech were far likelier to churn. 

[Arysyn]

You cannot make the wireless industry more affordable by doing the things are mention. Spectrum is auctioned off, so the only price control would be setting the pricing floor for the auction. The carriers are not paying for spectrum the way you are making it seem. Furthermore, if you think that decreased costs would be passed down to consumers then you are mistaken. A company will never agree to limit its pricing unless it is a regulated utility that is forced to do so. Companies have to be able to adjust pricing up and down. Imagine is a natural disaster occurred and they had to rebuild the network, surely they will feel pressure to increase ARPU to help defray the cost as insurance would only go so far.

 

And when you mention 'so that people can afford the advanced technology', what does that even mean? Nobody NEEDS the latest and greatest technology (aka the latest phone) every time a phone comes out, especially if you are implying that the company decreases the cost of the upgrade. This would lower margins and shareholders would revolt. The carriers do not set the prices they pay for the phone from the suppliers. The carriers can only adjust how much they charge the consumer. They still need to make a profit on the device. The carriers really do not care if you upgrade all they time, they just want you to subscribe. In the past past when phones were subsidized, you may have seen a carrier offer a reduced upgrade fee to someone that had not upgraded in a long time. This is not because the company wants the subscriber to have the latest technology, but those with older tech were far likelier to churn. 

 

I understand how spectrum is auctioned off and is very costly to the carriers. I'd much rather the FCC rework spectrum (this is my opinion, not intending to assume this is just going to happen because I'd like it to) and lease spectrum based on a certain amount of it over time at a much more affordable rate than what carriers pay in the auctions. Carriers have a lot of money tied into purchasing rights to spectrum use at auction. If these costs were a lot less, then a reasonable trade-off would be for an agreement not to have customer rates above certain levels on a variety of plan types. Carriers would be inclined to agree if the spectrum leasing rates were much more reasonable, there were less competition - three national carriers instead of four, which means more customers and more income from the reduced competition. Carriers would have more money to spend on network upgrades on equipment, sites, technology, etc.

 

Regarding customer device upgrades, the lower monthly rates carriers charge as an agreement with the FCC in exchange for much more spectrum at much lower cost for that spectrum, will allow carriers to afford giving customers a much better network experience at the lower rates customers will be paying. To be more specific, T-Mobile had a two-line unlimited promotional plan for $100 monthly, keeping in mind T-Mobile has the least amount of spectrum among the carriers to be able to offer such a great deal it really was to customers who very easily could take advantage of this and congest the network, regardless that it was just a limited time deal. I read online somewhere a while back that the amount of spectrum T-Mobile has averages around 90mhz nationally. I'm not sure how true that is, though regardless of whether or not they have that amount of spectrum, more, or less, I'd want the amount of spectrum to be triple that, at 270mhz per carrier.

 

Doing so, would nearly eliminate congestion, or at least still give double digit speeds to customers most of the time making unlimited data plans more practical. My idea of the lowest rates given in contrast with the promotional plan I mentioned, would be two lines for $90 monthly. Although my preference is for a low rate of $35 monthly per line and $1 per gb, or $15 monthly per line and $3 per gb. While those rates are quite a bit less than what AT&T and Verizon charge, those rates are not too much less than what Sprint and T-Mobile charge. The carriers will still make plenty of money, especially there being three national carriers instead of four, with less competition in the way of making more money by getting more customers.

 

Speaking of customers, while it could be agreed that most customers don't need to upgrade regularly, something I consider to mean no less than once every six months, if people could afford to upgrade once every six months to every year, there would be the desire to do so for many customers. Not everyone though, but still there are a lot. I know this from reading many people mention wanting to do so from several comments and posts online throughout the past decade of my reading various wireless technology sites since then, though not consistently active at it all of that time. I'll admit that it does seem a lot of people are less interested in upgrading regularly in the past year and a half or so than they were prior to that. I attribute that change to a variety of possible reasons. Most notably in terms of affordability, the perceived need for upgrading as the U.S. wireless media makes it seem like U.S. devices are the best anyone here could ever want and little enthusiasm for upgrading regularly, then tied into that reason a bit is that the more advanced technology is being made and sold in Asia not carried here in the U.S.. There use to be much more advancements in smartphone technology here in the U.S. some years ago and people here were more excited about them than now and they use to want to upgrade more regularly because of it. Nowadays, in Asia is where the smartphone advancements are being made and sold regularly.

 

My point is, if these changes I mentioned were to be made in the U.S. wireless industry and people started upgrading more regularly even on the more limited tech than what is being offered in Asia, then device manufacturers in Asia seeing a growth in the U.S. wireless industry would likely begin selling their devices here, which would sell very well here under the better conditions of the U.S. wireless industry. With the rate of development that goes on in Asia then going on here n the U.S., while many people would still wait on upgrading regularly, many others would. These advancements, along with the affordability for it in a lot of cases, very likely would bring back the excitement in smartphone technology people had some years ago when many people talked about upgrading regularly.

 

With many people doing this, which again I'm talking about once or twice every year, not once a month, week, day, etc., companies selling these advanced devices here in the U.S. would make money from it. However, most important to my point, particularly from my original post here regarding the subject of overstated claims to customers by the carriers and the media here regarding their products and services, there would be more accuracy and better reasoning to these claims. In particular, it would likely reduce the media from making such a big deal regarding devices here that really are not that greatly advanced. As there would be many more devices being sold here that are competing against each other on a far greater range of advancements than currently are here, the media would have to be more fair and accurate in their review reporting than they are nowadays.