Jump to content

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


joshuam

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, RedSpark said:

This merger doesn’t need to happen. Sprint has finally turned the corner on its network build. We just got a bunch of new extended coverage as well as an announcement from Gilat on October 16, 2016 about Sprint expanding its Contract to a Three Year Managed Services Project:

https://www.gilat.com/pressreleases/sprint-expands-gilat-contract-to-a-three-year-multi-million-dollar-managed-service-project/

Original announcement by Gilat was made on October 26, 2016:

https://www.gilat.com/pressreleases/gilats-satellite-based-cellular-backhaul-solution-selected-by-sprint-to-extend-lte-services-to-metro-edge-and-rural-areas-in-the-us/

This Gilat coverage can be deployed quickly it seems.

What would happen to that agreement in the case of a merger? Would Sprint senior management, who I assume are in a position to know about any pending merger announcements, really sign off on a Three Year Managed Service Project of this scope for Sprint less than 10 days before an Earnings Announcement?

I agree with you but sprint still has improvements that need to be made on the network. i was at a wedding over the weekend and could not keep LTE was pretty much on 3G other 3 were on LTE. Then Sunday i was at a amuzement park had LTE fine there was it was slow and useless. All in a metro area,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

I agree with you but sprint still has improvements that need to be made on the network. i was at a wedding over the weekend and could not keep LTE was pretty much on 3G other 3 were on LTE. Then Sunday i was at a amuzement park had LTE fine there was it was slow and useless. All in a metro area,.

sprint has paid off debt .. but they are still recovering and improving and thats a hard balancing act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2017 at 11:49 PM, Dkoellerwx said:

Still about 39 billion dollars left if I am reading this right. That's still most of it left to pay off.

http://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

The fixed income tab section breaks down Sprint’s debt.

Total debt: $38,378 Billion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

http://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

The fixed income tab section breaks down Sprint’s debt.

Total debt: $38,378 Billion

This is the problem that Hesse and that incompetent board didn't start to address in 2008. They just kicked the can down the road just like US presidents do with this country debt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quarter was not a ‘great’ quarter. It was a highly mixed quarter. Yes, losses were not as bad as predicted, but revenues also fell short of what was predicted. There was still a net loss. Remember, they are still giving lines of service away for free to gain customers against the competition. In my opinion, this adds fuel to the a merger is needed camp. While I would rather have competition and 4 national carriers, they will use this to say they need to merge to strengthen synergies. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

The quarter was not a ‘great’ quarter. It was a highly mixed quarter. Yes, losses were not as bad as predicted, but revenues also fell short of what was predicted. There was still a net loss. Remember, they are still giving lines of service away for free to gain customers against the competition. In my opinion, this adds fuel to the a merger is needed camp. While I would rather have competition and 4 national carriers, they will use this to say they need to merge to strengthen synergies. 

Any time they have a positive free cash flow is OK by me but if they just accumulate cash by not spending on the network then it is a problem. Unless they are accumulating cash so they can spend it on the network :).

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

The quarter was not a ‘great’ quarter. It was a highly mixed quarter. Yes, losses were not as bad as predicted, but revenues also fell short of what was predicted. There was still a net loss. Remember, they are still giving lines of service away for free to gain customers against the competition. In my opinion, this adds fuel to the a merger is needed camp. While I would rather have competition and 4 national carriers, they will use this to say they need to merge to strengthen synergies. 

Just to be clear, again, customer acquisition cost of the "free" service deal is almost nothing. No cost of buying out devices, no device subsidy, no advertising and no in-store training...

Marcelo and Tarek both made it clear it's only a tiny percentage of post paid net additions this past quarter.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Just to be clear, again, customer acquisition cost of the "free" service deal is almost nothing. No cost of buying out devices, no device subsidy, no advertising and no in-store training...

Marcelo and Tarek both made it clear it's only a tiny percentage of post paid net additions this past quarter.

Yes but again, Sprint is still competing on price. The bottom line is these numbers will be used by Sprint and T-Mobile as why they need to merger. Yes, losses were not as bad as projected, but the flip side is revenues also fell short. Even competing on price, the net additions to both Sprint and T-Mobile are not enough to scale up to the duopoly. Do I think a merger is good? No, I am primarily a consumer (not a wireless investor), and 4 major carriers would be much better than 3 for consumers. But from a market perspective this adds fuel. Now if both Sprint and T-Mobile beat on revenues, profits, and net additions that would add fire to the feds to say no, you are doing fine on your own. This one can still go both ways though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting this here so that the most people (that can probably help) will be able to see it. I have tried preordering an iPhone X for the past two days, and every time I try to I am presented with an error. First I was trying on Apple's website, because I would like to do it through the iPhone Upgrade Program so that AppleCare+ is baked into the monthly cost, rather than paying 200 bucks up front. After putting in my phone number and account pin (so that Apple can "contact Sprint so that I don't have to"), I am greeted with a page that says that I am on an ineligible plan and need to go through either sprint.com/iphone or call *2 to order from Sprint. Okay, not what I want to do, but okay.

 

I go on Sprint's website, and after sorting out an upgrade eligibility issue with my line, I go through the process of ordering a X and even select the full price option, and when I check out, I get a page saying that Sprint is unable to text any of our account's devices for two factor authentication, and that I need to go to a store to order, and I have gotten this error both yesterday and today. Not at all what I want to do, and I'm definitely not going to do that.

 

So can anyone tell me what is going on, and why Apple/Sprint do not want my money (digitally)? Lol. I appreciate any help.

 

-Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, anthony.spina97 said:

I go on Sprint's website, and after sorting out an upgrade eligibility issue with my line, I go through the process of ordering a X and even select the full price option, and when I check out, I get a page saying that Sprint is unable to text any of our account's devices for two factor authentication, and that I need to go to a store to order, and I have gotten this error both yesterday and today. Not at all what I want to do, and I'm definitely not going to do that.

 

So can anyone tell me what is going on, and why Apple/Sprint do not want my money (digitally)? Lol. I appreciate any help

I got that same issue the night of the release. It kept asking me to send a text to verify my account. I did it three times in a row and on the fourth try it told me to call or visit the store because of the same reason you saw (very weird). At the point, I gave up and went to bed thinking I wouldn't get the iPhone X until December. 

The next day, I checked and Sprint still had stock (yay for me, worrisome for Sprint), so I logged back in through Chrome incognito mode and everything went smoothly.

Give incognito mode a try. If not, call Sprint sales. 

Edited by greenbastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, greenbastard said:

I got that same issue the night of the release. It kept asking me to send a text to verify my account. I did it three times in a row and on the fourth try it told me to call or visit the store because of the same reason you saw (very weird). At the point, I gave up and went to bed thinking I wouldn't get the iPhone X until December. 

The next day, I checked and Sprint still had stock (yay for me, worrisome for Sprint), so I logged back in through Chrome incognito mode and everything went smoothly.

Give incognito mode a try. If not, call Sprint sales. 

Incognito is working for me for Sprint now, but I'm still getting the same issue on Apple's website as before, not that I thought that would change. I would rather buy from apple because of the included in the monthly payment AppleCare, and also because my father pays for the Sprint account and I don't really want to have to pay him every month for just my phone payment since the payment would be attached to my line, for which he pays for.

 

Does anyone know if there is a way to pay the installment payment separately from your monthly bill?

 

-Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heck of a storm in new england last night.  power is out for thousands.  "My" 3 primary towers that cover about 5 or 6 towns all died within a few hours of losing power in each of their respective areas.  Problem I have found is that sprint simply does not bother to keep up with their generators at cell sites around here.  I suppose someone did the math and the number of subs is not really worth trucking fuel out to the sites.

The newly rolled out USCC native LTE coverage is coming in very handy and their sites remain up and functioning fine.  Verizon appears okay and while AT&T is up, they appear to be having data issues depending on the site connected to.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...