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

[RedSpark]

The numbers are in line with what they had last year.  The number for Sprint could be misleading since they are targeting Sprint customers to go to prepaid.  Nevertheless, Tmo is still growing.  We will see what the rest of the carriers have to say.  

 

I expect Sprint to add around 250k in phone postpaid, but we will see.

 

 

We'll see what Sprint has to say on October 25th:

 

Sprint Corporation Schedules Fiscal 2016 Second Quarter Results Announcement 

[JimBob]

Sprint:  50% off promotion likely to last through the holidays

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-s-claure-50-off-promotion-likely-to-last-through-holidays

 

 

Competition:  Comcast to launch wireless service in 2017 with Verizon MVNO, 15M Wi-Fi hotspots

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-to-launch-wireless-service-2017-verizon-mvno-15m-wi-fi-hotspots

[Hmight]

Sprint:  50% off promotion likely to last through the holidays

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-s-claure-50-off-promotion-likely-to-last-through-holidays

 

 

Competition:  Comcast to launch wireless service in 2017 with Verizon MVNO, 15M Wi-Fi hotspots

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-to-launch-wireless-service-2017-verizon-mvno-15m-wi-fi-hotspots

 

Not exactly competition, Project Fi is way better than what Comcast wants to do.  Until they decide to purchase Tmo or Sprint, they cannot compete.  This is just comcast testing the water. 

[dnicekid]

Not exactly competition, Project Fi is way better than what Comcast wants to do. Until they decide to purchase Tmo or Sprint, they cannot compete. This is just comcast testing the water.

 

And Tmo is probably too expensive right now..... sooooo sprint on the other...... or dishes spectrum

[Hmight]

And Tmo is probably too expensive right now..... sooooo sprint on the other...... or dishes spectrum

Sprint is as expensive. I would argue even more expensive because of the spectrum Sprint has.  Comcast can always become a majority shareholder,  they do not have to buy Tmo or Sprint outright.  I can see Dish lease or sale their spectrum to ATT or VZ, or even Tmo. Comcast would be stupid to buy Dish's spectrum.  Comcast still has to build a network doesn't matter if they have a shit load of spectrum.  Building a network from scratch is not cheap. 

[Johnner1999]

Sprint is as expensive. I would argue even more expensive because of the spectrum Sprint has. Comcast can always become a majority shareholder, they do not have to buy Tmo or Sprint outright. I can see Dish lease or sale their spectrum to ATT or VZ, or even Tmo. Comcast would be stupid to buy Dish's spectrum. Comcast still has to build a network doesn't matter if they have a shit load of spectrum. Building a network from scratch is not cheap.

Sprint would cost less as SoftBank would see it as an opportunity.... sadly

 

But

 

Comcast is very accustomed to building out large scale networks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hmight]

Sprint would cost less as SoftBank would see it as an opportunity.... sadly

 

But

 

Comcast is very accustomed to building out large scale networks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I highly doubt Sprint is any less cheaper than Tmo. Sprint has stopped losing customers and is gaining customers by the hundred of thousands (with this quarter not to be any different if not better), and they don't need to spend money to acquire new spectrum.  It's a matter of time Sprint will turn FCF. Why would you sell a company with FCF, with more spectrum than anyone else, for less than your closest competitor who is profitable but has to borrow 6 billions from their parents company to purchase may be 20 mhz of spectrum. Tmo survival will depend on acquiring new spectrum to survive in the future of 5G. Tmo can gain thousands of customers, but they can also lose thousands of customers. Spectrum is finite and once its acquired, it is yours.  Tmo is only worth what their potential can hold. Sprint's spectrum holding itself is already worth more than Tmo when fully realized.  The more Sprint improves its network using 2.5 mhz. The more valuable that spectrum becomes. 

 

Softbank is known for holding subsidiary companies over a long period of time.  They did want to abandon Sprint because the merger with Tmo didn't go through, but if anything, if Softbank is ambitious and they are, Softbank will flex its muscles to purchase another entity in the US to turn Sprint into a conglomerate. US is the second biggest telecom market in the world for Softbank to grow. Sprint is only 4 and they have a lot of room to grow/gain, even if it's a very competitive environment. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Hmight

[lordsutch]

I'm mildly bemused that the big story today seems to be AT&T's "AirGig" proposal for millimeter-wave broadband, which is still in the lab, despite Sprint already demonstrating basically the same technology in public this summer. The more the merrier, I guess.

[banananuts87]

Can Softbank purchase Dish already.

[Johnner1999]

I'm mildly bemused that the big story today seems to be AT&T's "AirGig" proposal for millimeter-wave broadband, which is still in the lab, despite Sprint already demonstrating basically the same technology in public this summer. The more the merrier, I guess.

except AT&T has a better track record for deployment operations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IamMrFamous07]

http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/09/20/2016/cramer-underdog-sprints-good-run-isnt-over?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

 

 

Seems like Cramer and Marcelo are becoming besties lol

 

 

Also Sprint apparently has $11 billion in liquidity. I guess that's good

[WiWavelength]

except AT&T has a better track record for deployment operations.

 

What AT&T "better" track record is that?

 

U-verse deployment?  Not available in all areas.  Do not even get started on the FttP that AT&T does not want to deploy.

 

W-CDMA deployment?  Took only 5-6 years to deploy "3G," circa 2005-2010.

 

LTE deployment?  Still ongoing.  Not to mention, AT&T lied to regulators, saying that it would limit LTE deployment if it were not allowed to acquire T-Mobile.

 

The standard of measure seems to be that AT&T works "better" in Old Johnner's Woods, so its deployment must be "better."

 

AJ

[Trip]

Saw this in an article this morning that I can't repost: 

 

Claure also said Sprint plans to make larger investments in its network. “Yes, we’re going to increase” capital expenditures but “never to the tune of what’s been done in the past,” he said. “We’re in the business of getting better month after month and quarter after quarter.”
 

That sounds very discouraging, to me at least.  Unless he's just ruling out a second rip and replace.

 

- Trip

[RedSpark]

Saw this in an article this morning that I can't repost:

 

Claure also said Sprint plans to make larger investments in its network. “Yes, we’re going to increase” capital expenditures but “never to the tune of what’s been done in the past,” he said. “We’re in the business of getting better month after month and quarter after quarter.”

 

That sounds very discouraging, to me at least. Unless he's just ruling out a second rip and replace.

 

- Trip

I think the point Marcelo was making, based on the full transcript of his remarks from the event, was that Sprint overpaid for what it got in return in the past. He's being smart on how Sprint spends its capital for network improvements, and ensuring that Sprint gets the most return on the investment it makes now. Also, this densification and optimization program has an entirely different cost structure as Tarek Robbiati (CFO) has said in the past. Marcelo commented on the network options available to Sprint, and its ability to select different site structures (and either wired or wireless backhaul because of its unique spectrum holdings) as a way to be cost efficient for each site in this program.

[S4GRU]

 

 

What AT&T "better" track record is that?

 

U-verse deployment? Not available in all areas. Do not even get started on the FttP that AT&T does not want to deploy.

 

W-CDMA deployment? Took only 5-6 years to deploy "3G," circa 2005-2010.

 

LTE deployment? Still ongoing. Not to mention, AT&T lied to regulators, saying that it would limit LTE deployment if it were not allowed to acquire T-Mobile.

 

The standard of measure seems to be that AT&T works "better" in Old Johnner's Woods, so its deployment must be "better."

 

AJ

Heck, there are still AT&T areas that are EDGE only. And many AT&T sites without LTE. If we had AT&T maps like Sprint, we would see they have just as many non upgraded sites as Sprint.

 

It's amazing to me the phenomenon that too often AT&T gets a pass for their network deployment shortcomings.

 

 

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[S4GRU]

Saw this in an article this morning that I can't repost:

 

Claure also said Sprint plans to make larger investments in its network. “Yes, we’re going to increase” capital expenditures but “never to the tune of what’s been done in the past,” he said. “We’re in the business of getting better month after month and quarter after quarter.”

 

That sounds very discouraging, to me at least. Unless he's just ruling out a second rip and replace.

 

- Trip

Yes, I also interpreted it to mean that the high numbers paid in the past will not be seen again. Because the initial cost of NV1.0 was so high. And there are incremental and less expensive cap upgrades that will have a greater effect now. Focus on making every dollar have the greatest impact. Because dollars for them are more difficult to obtain in the past. That's how I took it.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[RAvirani]

 

Heck, there are still AT&T areas that are EDGE only. And many AT&T sites without LTE. If we had AT&T maps like Sprint, we would see they have just as many non upgraded sites as Sprint.

 

It's amazing to me the phenomenon that too often AT&T gets a pass for their network deployment shortcomings.

 

 

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Even with all of AT&T's non LTE sites, reliability is there. They get away with their non upgraded sites because they sit at the top of each tower broadcasting LTE12/17 at the absolute max power. We all know that the power levels on Sprint's 800mhz could be higher but they don't in increase them, regardless of reason. AT&T does. We also have to consider that AT&T's WCDMA/HSPA fallback network is a lot faster than Sprint's EVDO network. People usually complain about reliability when they can't connect to the internet, not when their phone doesn't say LTE ay the top. Almost always, when AT&T's LTE drops off, their 3G WCDMA/HSPA network is fast enough to stream video and browse the web. The same cannot be said about Sprint (at least here in Seattle).

[utiz4321]

Even with all of AT&T's non LTE sites, reliability is there. They get away with their non upgraded sites because they sit at the top of each tower broadcasting LTE12/17 at the absolute max power. We all know that the power levels on Sprint's 800mhz could be higher but they don't in increase them, regardless of reason. AT&T does. We also have to consider that AT&T's WCDMA/HSPA fallback network is a lot faster than Sprint's EVDO network. People usually complain about reliability when they can't connect to the internet, not when their phone doesn't say LTE ay the top. Almost always, when AT&T's LTE drops off, their 3G WCDMA/HSPA network is fast enough to stream video and browse the web. The same cannot be said about Sprint (at least here in Seattle).

AT&T network has problems, namely lack of spectrum in certain areas. In AZ for example there are several sites that are over burned in which you would be lucky to be able to use data to stream music.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

AT&T network has problems, namely lack of spectrum in certain areas. In AZ for example there are several sites that are over burned in which you would be lucky to be able to use data to stream music.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

"Over burned" seems fitting for AZ.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

Saw this in an article this morning that I can't repost: 

 

Claure also said Sprint plans to make larger investments in its network. “Yes, we’re going to increase” capital expenditures but “never to the tune of what’s been done in the past,” he said. “We’re in the business of getting better month after month and quarter after quarter.”

 

That sounds very discouraging, to me at least.  Unless he's just ruling out a second rip and replace.

 

- Trip

 

No more rip and replace. It was too ambitious an effort for a cash strapped carrier and very disruptive to customers. It should have been done as an LTE overlay like everybody else.

[RAvirani]

AT&T network has problems, namely lack of spectrum in certain areas. In AZ for example there are several sites that are over burned in which you would be lucky to be able to use data to stream music.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I was in AZ a few months back and I don't recall any problems other than the weak HSPA connection in my hotel - but data worked fine even on that...maybe I wasn't in the right area.

[bigsnake49]

Sprint would cost less as SoftBank would see it as an opportunity.... sadly

 

But

 

Comcast is very accustomed to building out large scale networks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They will do very well if they can acquire 10x10 of 600Mhz spectrum for coverage, supplemented by WiFi and LTE roaming in the beginning. Then they can buy Dish's spectrum.

[kg4icg]

I guessed no one noticed what the article really said about Comcast. 1 they sold the spectrum to Verizon a while back with the caveat that is happening by mid 2017 that Comcast will have a MNVO operation using Verizon and the Comcast Wi-Fi zones setup around the country including the hot-spot known as Comcast cable customers. They are not starting a new cell network, just piggy backing on Verizon.

 

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

[JonnygATL]

I guessed no one noticed what the article really said about Comcast. 1 they sold the spectrum to Verizon a while back with the caveat that is happening by mid 2017 that Comcast will have a MNVO operation using Verizon and the Comcast Wi-Fi zones setup around the country including the hot-spot known as Comcast cable customers. They are not starting a new cell network, just piggy backing on Verizon.

Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk

I thought that was made abundantly clear in the myriad articles on the subject. Maybe people didn't fully read the articles word for word? But, no, they absolutely are not building a new network, at least for the time being. Just a Verizon MVNO with a few tweaks.

[S4GRU]

Even with all of AT&T's non LTE sites, reliability is there. They get away with their non upgraded sites because they sit at the top of each tower broadcasting LTE12/17 at the absolute max power. We all know that the power levels on Sprint's 800mhz could be higher but they don't in increase them, regardless of reason. AT&T does. We also have to consider that AT&T's WCDMA/HSPA fallback network is a lot faster than Sprint's EVDO network. People usually complain about reliability when they can't connect to the internet, not when their phone doesn't say LTE ay the top. Almost always, when AT&T's LTE drops off, their 3G WCDMA/HSPA network is fast enough to stream video and browse the web. The same cannot be said about Sprint (at least here in Seattle).

How can you say that regarding the AT&T sites that are not even 3G upgraded, yet? AT&T still has EDGE only sites. I've seen at least 100 in my travels the past year.

 

I think you mean to say that you find AT&T's fallback to HSPA to be reliable in the places you go.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk