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

[JustinRP37]

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.

 

I'm not going to quote your whole post because it is really long. However, you are forgetting another major cost in the wireless industry and that is building out the network. Again, you are pushing an ideal world where a carrier is going to get cheap spectrum, magically deploy that spectrum, and then pass on any savings to the consumer. As we have seen with Verizon and AT&T that likely would never happen. Plus it sounds like your plan is to get T-Mobile more spectrum at what really would be a disadvantage to the other carriers. Furthermore, leasing spectrum from the government? So basically you are going to put the government in charge of setting the price that they think is fair for the spectrum? A government that could at anytime increase the pricing of the spectrum? And I am sure that while they were at it, they might put other stipulations into a carrier using the spectrum they are leasing from the government. Does not sound like a win/win for the consumer.

 

Also more Asian companies would be selling their phones in the USA? I do not know if you have realized, but exactly where are your smartphones coming from? Apple is really the only major designer of smartphones in the USA and those are manufactured in China. Just about every other device you will buy is designed and manufactured in Asia. Regarding their technology in smartphones being so far ahead of us, what do you mean? The devices we are being shipped are their latest and greatest. And if our technology is so far behind, why is Apple still on of the more popular brands in the Asian market? Yes their networks may be fast, but again if you look at big cities that is the case. Go to a rural part of China and you will most likely be dealing with spotty service (oh and you will ALWAYS be behind the Great Firewall, since the government controls the internet and spectrum). One area where they are much further ahead is the adoption of wireless payment, something USA consumers are still more hesitant about. What phone do they currently have that you want? Huawei phones are not sold here most likely because the USA government banned them from bidding on government contracts for concerns of possible espionage. Also, it looks like they may have also violated some patents held in the US, but that is another sticking point.

 

Finally, most people do not want to upgrade once or twice or more a year. Techies and people that would come to sites like this do, but you cannot equate that to the average person. You are projecting your wants and desires among the rest of the customers. Most customers want a phone to text, have reliable data to stream music and video, and make a phone call. Most people do not know what a speed test is nor would they care. According to Apple's latest environmental report, they have seen the number of years a person will hold on to their phone from just over two years to now just over three years. This is a big change as people are now seeing the 'true cost' of a phone and not the standard $99-$299 upgrade price. Furthermore, imagine the sheer amount of waste generated if everyone upgraded their phones every 6 months. Not only would we be misallocating economic resources but the reselling market would most likely collapse as well. If everyone is buying the latest and greatest, who is going purchase your used device? The current leasing system is designed on the company being able to sell the phone down the line.

 

Also, have you not noticed the massive slow down in the tech sector? Things are pretty terrible right now in the tech sector. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Cisco, IBM, etc are in the midst of slowdowns. People do not seem to upgrading, worldwide, like they used to be. Most people feel their technology IS doing enough for them. I am a techie, so I always want more, but you have to be careful when thinking about YOUR wants compared to the average less technology-wise person.

[derrph]

Is there a forum or a picture of the small cells that Sprint is installing? I may have seen one but not sure. Below is my alleged "small cell" but it could be something else or of another carriers.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

Is there a forum or a picture of the small cells that Sprint is installing? I may have seen one but not sure.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-404-sprint-enters-the-relay-race/

 

That's the wall article on the band 41 relay cells Sprint is using, but they're using a couple other types as well for band 25. You pretty much need a phone connection confirmation to tell whether a given small cell is Sprint at this point. All of the small cells I'm aware of have no visible carrier branding and their appearances differ pretty widely from region to region and depending on how old they are.

 

Edit: oh. You added an image. That doesn't look like a 41 relay but again it could be a 25 small cell.

[derrph]

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-404-sprint-enters-the-relay-race/

 

That's the wall article on the band 41 relay cells Sprint is using, but they're using a couple other types as well for band 25. You pretty much need a phone connection confirmation to tell whether a given small cell is Sprint at this point. All of the small cells I'm aware of have no visible carrier branding and their appearances differ pretty widely from region to region and depending on how old they are.

 

Edit: oh. You added an image. That doesn't look like a 41 relay but again it could be a 25 small cell.

 

Thank you for that link. I have an iPhone so I'm sure the required info will not come up in the field screen.

[Overstew]

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

What makes you say this?  Looking at Sensorly (which doesn't exactly have all of the coverage mapped), it does show additional coverage, especially within the Dakotas.

[caspar347]

Thank you for that link. I have an iPhone so I'm sure the required info will not come up in the field screen.

I don't think they show up any different from a normal site. They might have special GCI patterns, but just look for really good signal when you're next to one.

[kg4icg]

A little something that just came in from the newsroom.

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-improves-liquidity-by-more-than-3-billion-with-two-new-transactions.htm?view_id=8696

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

A little something that just came in from the newsroom.

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-improves-liquidity-by-more-than-3-billion-with-two-new-transactions.htm?view_id=8696

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

 

That's pretty important news.

 

Sprint is taking this MLS Transaction as on-balance (vs. the prior one which was not on-balance).

[kg4icg]

That's pretty important news.

 

Sprint is taking this MLS Transaction as on-balance (vs. the prior one which was not on-balance).

Which I'm taking from your point that it will help the bottom line.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

Which I'm taking from your point that it will help the bottom line.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

 

Depends on how you look at it. As I understand it, this will be on Sprint's books as debt instead of off of them. However, Sprint will be able to depreciate the phones and have a more favorable EBITDA performance. Most importantly, this debt will be more manageable than its existing obligations, and definitely on more favorable terms than going to the debt markets.

 

See Sprint's Debt Maturities: http://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

 

Under "Fixed Income".

 

The Investor Relations section of Sprint's Website looks new and shiny. About time!

[Overstew]

Does Masa Son still have this stance?

 

 

Sprint will shrink down to MetroPCS size if not allowed to merge with T-Mobile: We might be able to survive if we scale down, if we become a small player, like Metro PCS used to be.

Via http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-06/we-need-scale-softbanks-masayoshi-son-on-sprint-t-mobile-and-alibaba

[RedSpark]

FYI: This is the Presentation from the first MLS Transaction back in November 2015.

 

Great read.

 

Also see this Presentation from August 2015, which compares Subsidy, EIP and Leasing.

 

Source: http://investors.sprint.com/why-sprint/default.aspx

[utiz4321]

Does Masa Son still have this stance?

Via http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-06/we-need-scale-softbanks-masayoshi-son-on-sprint-t-mobile-and-alibaba

Based on sprint's moves, no.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[derrph]

Does Masa Son still have this stance?

Via http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-06/we-need-scale-softbanks-masayoshi-son-on-sprint-t-mobile-and-alibaba

Oh God I hope not. The media will be all over that and Sprint will be the laughing stock not to be removed.

[RedSpark]

Does Masa Son still have this stance?

 

 

Via http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-06/we-need-scale-softbanks-masayoshi-son-on-sprint-t-mobile-and-alibaba

 

A merger could happen under a different administration... One never knows.

 

However, I agree with the others. Son is all-in at this point on Sprint. He's spoken to that multiple times and backed it up by increasing SoftBank's ownership stake in Sprint even higher (Note that SoftBank can't go over 85% ownership of Sprint or SoftBank will be required to buy the remaining shares of Sprint per the Merger Conditions).

 

Mandatory Offer to Purchase. At the effective time of the SoftBank Merger, the New Sprint certificate of incorporation will provide that, in the event that the combined voting interest of SoftBank and its controlled affiliates in New Sprint exceeds 85% of the outstanding voting securities of New Sprint, then SoftBank or a controlled affiliate will make an offer to acquire all the remaining shares of New Sprint common stock at a price not less than the volume-weighted average closing price of New Sprint common stock for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately preceding such offer.

 

 

See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/softbank-s-sprint-buying-spree-adds-7-billion-to-market-value

[NYC126]

Oh God I hope not. The media will be all over that and Sprint will be the laughing stock not to be removed.

That was back on 2014,a lot has changed in the last two years.

[Arysyn]

I'm not going to quote your whole post because it is really long. However, you are forgetting another major cost in the wireless industry and that is building out the network. Again, you are pushing an ideal world where a carrier is going to get cheap spectrum, magically deploy that spectrum, and then pass on any savings to the consumer. As we have seen with Verizon and AT&T that likely would never happen. Plus it sounds like your plan is to get T-Mobile more spectrum at what really would be a disadvantage to the other carriers. Furthermore, leasing spectrum from the government? So basically you are going to put the government in charge of setting the price that they think is fair for the spectrum? A government that could at anytime increase the pricing of the spectrum? And I am sure that while they were at it, they might put other stipulations into a carrier using the spectrum they are leasing from the government. Does not sound like a win/win for the consumer.

 

Also more Asian companies would be selling their phones in the USA? I do not know if you have realized, but exactly where are your smartphones coming from? Apple is really the only major designer of smartphones in the USA and those are manufactured in China. Just about every other device you will buy is designed and manufactured in Asia. Regarding their technology in smartphones being so far ahead of us, what do you mean? The devices we are being shipped are their latest and greatest. And if our technology is so far behind, why is Apple still on of the more popular brands in the Asian market? Yes their networks may be fast, but again if you look at big cities that is the case. Go to a rural part of China and you will most likely be dealing with spotty service (oh and you will ALWAYS be behind the Great Firewall, since the government controls the internet and spectrum). One area where they are much further ahead is the adoption of wireless payment, something USA consumers are still more hesitant about. What phone do they currently have that you want? Huawei phones are not sold here most likely because the USA government banned them from bidding on government contracts for concerns of possible espionage. Also, it looks like they may have also violated some patents held in the US, but that is another sticking point.

 

Finally, most people do not want to upgrade once or twice or more a year. Techies and people that would come to sites like this do, but you cannot equate that to the average person. You are projecting your wants and desires among the rest of the customers. Most customers want a phone to text, have reliable data to stream music and video, and make a phone call. Most people do not know what a speed test is nor would they care. According to Apple's latest environmental report, they have seen the number of years a person will hold on to their phone from just over two years to now just over three years. This is a big change as people are now seeing the 'true cost' of a phone and not the standard $99-$299 upgrade price. Furthermore, imagine the sheer amount of waste generated if everyone upgraded their phones every 6 months. Not only would we be misallocating economic resources but the reselling market would most likely collapse as well. If everyone is buying the latest and greatest, who is going purchase your used device? The current leasing system is designed on the company being able to sell the phone down the line.

 

Also, have you not noticed the massive slow down in the tech sector? Things are pretty terrible right now in the tech sector. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Cisco, IBM, etc are in the midst of slowdowns. People do not seem to upgrading, worldwide, like they used to be. Most people feel their technology IS doing enough for them. I am a techie, so I always want more, but you have to be careful when thinking about YOUR wants compared to the average less technology-wise person.

 

I'll try making my response short here, as I really don't like making long posts unless there is a significant need to explain important information as I had to do in a post responding to AJ. Keep in mind again as I've been saying, these are my opinions. I'm not debating fact here and I've clearly admitted that I understand realities. What I'm ultimately saying though is that I wish these realities could be changed and made more sensible, practical, etc. In my opinion from all that I've been saying about this lately here are these points :

 

I want all carriers to be given an equal amount of spectrum that would be more than they currently have while costing much less so they can afford to upgrade their networks, sites, equipment, etc., to make their networks much better. This would improve the U.S. wireless market as it is pro-business and would attract more business to customers using these U.S. networks, though not alone. More things ought to be done, such as having three national carriers instead of four. I suggest to merge T-Mobile into AT&T then merge all of the remaining local CDMA carriers into Sprint. This would give the three national carriers more customers whose monthly payments would make up any sort of loss from the cost cap negotiations. Again though, I'm not suggesting the government set prices for the carriers, only ensure affordability for their customers to have more money to spend on devices. Sprint and T-Mobile already are very near to the idea I mentioned about what that cost figure might be. Lowering these costs to customers won't even be that big of deal for carriers since there costs will be a lot less considering the spectrum given at a much more affordable rate and the less competition giving them more customers on whose networks will be chock full of available capacity.

 

I am not advocating for any stipulations other than a reasonable cost cap that I've said the carriers will be able to afford considering all things here. There would be a simple agreed upon leasing price the same among all three carriers for the same amount of spectrum. No rate hikes or anything. As long the carriers abide by paying that rate, the government lets them keep that spectrum. So with that, the carriers can build their networks to be much better for consumers in the U.S. market with all that spectrum paying less for service while getting a much better quality network experience. Customers then could be enticed to upgrade more regularly, which in turn that, among there being this much better U.S. wireless market, should entice certain Asian manufacturers such as Vivo, Oppo, Meizu, Xiaomi, LeEco, among others, to sell their devices in the U.S. wireless market. Many of these companies' devices are more advanced than those sold here from Samsung, LG, HTC, and in some ways even Apple, although Apple has some unique qualities which these Android devices cannot match. It'll be mostly competition for the Android market. Although I imagine those using Apple who are not with Apple out of brand loyalty or love for its operating system may very well be enticed by these Asian companies' advanced Android smartphones.

 

In regards to your comment about Huawei being banned, that stuff has to do with the U.S. government's concerns over Huawei network equipment possibly being able to hijack important transmissions and whatnot. It has nothing to do with devices being sold here or not. If that were true what you said, then the Nexus 6p would never have been sold here, among all the other Asian manufactured devices. These bother Asian companies would not have a problem being able to sell their devices here in the U.S., if they wanted to. The issue is that the U.S. wireless market is not lucrative enough for these companies because smartphone sales growth is declining. People are not upgrading as much as they use to, because of factors I've mentioned in my previous response here. I'm advocating for something I believe would change this by making the U.S. wireless market better and more lucrative.

[laqn1283]

Sprint's situation reminds me Rite Aid.  During the financial crisis 2009, Rite Aid stock went down to 30 cents.  With heavy debt load and fierce competitive pressure, everyone assume they would go under.  But they brought in new management and financial officer, they cut expense, refinanced debt to lower rate, interest expense went down and now they are bought by Walgreen.  I even think that Rite Aid was in a much more precarious condition because of the highly competitive industry compared to Sprint. Sprint operates in an industry where there are only 4 large carriers.  They can cut down capital expenditure to minimum to save cash and pay debts.  This option was not really available for Rite Aid since its capex was already too low to begin with.  I think Sprint was in a real mess when Son took over.  With spending on network more than tmobile, but somehow their network is still not as good as tmobile especially in the cities.  I really have no idea how they will become number 1 or 2 in about 11/2 year from now.  Lots of promises but never live up to the hype.  I wonder if this time is any different.

[JustinRP37]

 

 

In regards to your comment about Huawei being banned, that stuff has to do with the U.S. government's concerns over Huawei network equipment possibly being able to hijack important transmissions and whatnot. It has nothing to do with devices being sold here or not. If that were true what you said, then the Nexus 6p would never have been sold here, among all the other Asian manufactured devices. These bother Asian companies would not have a problem being able to sell their devices here in the U.S., if they wanted to. The issue is that the U.S. wireless market is not lucrative enough for these companies because smartphone sales growth is declining. People are not upgrading as much as they use to, because of factors I've mentioned in my previous response here. I'm advocating for something I believe would change this by making the U.S. wireless market better and more lucrative.

 

This paragraph is not actually true in the least. The United States market still drive the majority of profits in the smartphone world, so I do not understand why you would say that. The bigger problem is most likely the amount of litigation they would have to go through to show that patents were not blatantly ripped off. And I know about the Huawei ban on network equipment. My point is still valid for the smartphone arena as the USA is hostile towards the company. Plus, you never addressed the patent violations. You really have not answered many of the questions I posed, specifically WHAT TECHNOLOGY do you want to see that is available in the Chinese market that is not present here? Also, the Nexus 6P is designed by Google and Huawei, with Huawei being the manufacturer. Not fully 'Huawei'. 

 

Further you say that you would be open to allowing Xiaomi sell devices here? Tell me do you really think it would be right to allow a company that has impinged on so many patents held in the USA, specifically Apple patents?

 

Furthermore, I understand that your posts are you opinions. However, this is a site for serious discussion. I will not reply further to this topic as what you have outlined is impossible. It does not make sense from a business standpoint nor does it make sense from a government standpoint for a government operating in the free world. I would suggest that we even form a thread for topics about what wireless carriers would look like in a the most ideal world and use this thread to discuss Sprint. You even mention you would have three national carriers with T-Mobile going to AT&T and the rest of the CDMA carriers to Sprint. Why would it be that way? Also, if all the carriers were the same, had the same quality, same prices, same phones, what the hell would they be competing on? Seriously, what incentive would they have to lure you as a customer? Blah, sorry if I seem like a jerk, but I am not trying to be. I just want to hear real solutions to a VERY complicated system, not fantasy.

[red_dog007]

If you want an Asian phone, go get one.  Can use it on TMobile or AT&T.  Though support will suck and you'll never get an update.  Half those phones won't even support a bunch of apps very well or just won't work at all.  Many of those devices are NOT more advanced.  If anything, they are just cheaper.  But people don't want to upgrade because there is less need too.  We are past the days where a single feature will get someone to upgrade.  When smartphones were coming out, a SOC speed increase, more RAM, screen size, screen resolution, HSPA, LTE, battery life, etc, just a single one of these would get people to upgrade.  But we are past the point of dimensioning returns.  It seriously isn't as worth it to the average consumer to upgrade so frequently anymore.

 

As far as spectrum stuff, that is such a pipe dream that it really isn't worth discussing at all.  Now going to three big carriers is a possibility, but that won't bring reduced prices. Look at AT&T and DirecTV merger.  What was the first thing they did, hmmm...  oh yea, they increased TV rates 2~8% for every single customer!  What happened to that bargaining power???  Carriers merging might be a lot more expensive because that actually involves network and asset consolidation which won't be cheap.  Probably even a lot of terminated contracts.

[Arysyn]

This paragraph is not actually true in the least. The United States market still drive the majority of profits in the smartphone world, so I do not understand why you would say that. The bigger problem is most likely the amount of litigation they would have to go through to show that patents were not blatantly ripped off. And I know about the Huawei ban on network equipment. My point is still valid for the smartphone arena as the USA is hostile towards the company. Plus, you never addressed the patent violations. You really have not answered many of the questions I posed, specifically WHAT TECHNOLOGY do you want to see that is available in the Chinese market that is not present here? Also, the Nexus 6P is designed by Google and Huawei, with Huawei being the manufacturer. Not fully 'Huawei'. 

 

Further you say that you would be open to allowing Xiaomi sell devices here? Tell me do you really think it would be right to allow a company that has impinged on so many patents held in the USA, specifically Apple patents?

 

Furthermore, I understand that your posts are you opinions. However, this is a site for serious discussion. I will not reply further to this topic as what you have outlined is impossible. It does not make sense from a business standpoint nor does it make sense from a government standpoint for a government operating in the free world. I would suggest that we even form a thread for topics about what wireless carriers would look like in a the most ideal world and use this thread to discuss Sprint. You even mention you would have three national carriers with T-Mobile going to AT&T and the rest of the CDMA carriers to Sprint. Why would it be that way? Also, if all the carriers were the same, had the same quality, same prices, same phones, what the hell would they be competing on? Seriously, what incentive would they have to lure you as a customer? Blah, sorry if I seem like a jerk, but I am not trying to be. I just want to hear real solutions to a VERY complicated system, not fantasy.

 

I actually don't think you are being a jerk. I think the issue here is misunderstanding between us, or possibly I'm not explain this as well in writing. I think I could do better if I were vocally explaining this, such as on a YouTube video. Hence, I'm not trying to be a jerk either, nor to frustrate you. I have my opinions on things, though all in good intentions, sincerely.

 

I was never referring to profits in the overall world with the U.S, market leading in that. Actually, I had a discussion about this with a friend on Skype yesterday, which he brought up the profit issue at one point. He mentioned how companies here sell devices frequently with huge margin differences, while its also true some don't. However, I don't like getting into financial specifics regarding devices, and it isn't really a factor to me how much profit device manufacturers make from here currently. I'm thinking mostly on how to grow the U.S. wireless market.

 

If you were to look online international technology sales websites that sell the various brands I've mentioned. Look at the specifications on some of those models. The Vivo XPlay 5 Elite is like an audio enthusiasts' supercharged Galaxy S7 Edge. It has the latest ESS Sabre dacs, two of them actually, along with 3 amplifiers all built into the device. Then there is the new Huawei P9. with both a high-end Leica branded color rear camera and a b&w rear camera that does some amazing shots in low-light conditions. There are some other devices sold there with 6,000mah and even 10,000mah batteries, yet those smartphones really aren't much bigger than those sold here in the U.S.

 

While you are right about my ideas leading to more similarity among the carriers, they'd still be responsible for building onto their own networks. The spectrum amount would be the same so that carriers would have the room to grow, but they'd still have the responsibility to grow their networks, especially every time there is a technology upgrade. Then there still would be competition in price,, despite a limit on how expensive those charges could be. This is to ensure customers can afford quality wireless service and also afford their devices. Whether or not they choose to upgrade regularly is up to them. However, with carriers focused more on network building with less worry over spectrum limitations, that should advance the movement of network building which also would further advance the need for new devices. If consumers could afford these new devices with lower service costs, they should be inclined to do so. This in turn, would further device development and increase sales and even more competition in the device marketplace, something which should matter more to consumers as devices are increasingly becoming more and more important as personal assistance to many aspects of peoples' lives. A wireless network is not so personal, as its often considered by people to be just a dumb pipe. 

[Arysyn]

Sprint's situation reminds me Rite Aid.  During the financial crisis 2009, Rite Aid stock went down to 30 cents.  With heavy debt load and fierce competitive pressure, everyone assume they would go under.  But they brought in new management and financial officer, they cut expense, refinanced debt to lower rate, interest expense went down and now they are bought by Walgreen.  I even think that Rite Aid was in a much more precarious condition because of the highly competitive industry compared to Sprint. Sprint operates in an industry where there are only 4 large carriers.  They can cut down capital expenditure to minimum to save cash and pay debts.  This option was not really available for Rite Aid since its capex was already too low to begin with.  I think Sprint was in a real mess when Son took over.  With spending on network more than tmobile, but somehow their network is still not as good as tmobile especially in the cities.  I really have no idea how they will become number 1 or 2 in about 11/2 year from now.  Lots of promises but never live up to the hype.  I wonder if this time is any different.

 

That is a good analogy. I was unaware of the Rite Aid issue, though I'm really hoping Sprint does not end up badly. I'm beginning to think there needs to be a different management, if Masa could find a way to sell Sprint to a company that would not harm Sprint's good qualities. I say this, because I'm not so fond of/assured by what Marcelo is doing lately, and I'm surprised by the general lack of news regarding Masa taking any action of his own in Sprint, as if he's given it up entirely to Marcelo in a way. Whereas originally, Sprint was going to be Masa's big important project piece in the Softbank wireless system.

[IamMrFamous07]

Earnings call is Tuesday. I really hope we hear something about NGN since NGN was announced about a year ago, and the deployment hasn't really started (few small cells here and there)

 

I actually care more about NGN than 3x CA.

[nexgencpu]

Earnings call is Tuesday. I really hope we hear something about NGN since NGN was announced about a year ago, and the deployment hasn't really started (few small cells here and there)

I actually care more about NGN than 3x CA.

Its more than here and there, I wouldn't be surprised if there already hundreds already up. If you look deep into certain threads. Small cells and mini macros are coming online in multiple markets at once.

[IamMrFamous07]

Its more than here and there, I wouldn't be surprised if there already hundreds already up. If you look deep into certain threads. Small cells and mini macros are coming online in multiple markets at once.

That's good. And I guess I should have looked at the threads before I posted that lol. I expected them to be further in their deployment by now but I know they had some set backs.