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

[TheCUJuan]

On 1/3/2018 at 4:33 PM, sleet said:

 

but if the coverage in your area is good and the speeds good enough for you then what do you have to lose?

Just my 2 cents through.

 

-J

The biggest thing I”d have to lose is that I would be relinquishing my Tmo plan - I pay $118/month taxes included for five lines. Then I get kickback on at least one line and I have One Plus (double international speeds)/HD pass on three of the lines - all included in that price. I guess I switched at a pretty sweet time. So this decision is pretty hard. At this point, I’m leaning to stay with Tmo for the time being.. their service seems to be better than it had been in my area, so we’ll see.

[sleet]

long term I think your current deal would be hard to beat.

If I was in your situation and happy with my current performance then I'd stay put.

[TheCUJuan]

4 hours ago, sleet said:

long term I think your current deal would be hard to beat.

If I was in your situation and happy with my current performance then I'd stay put.

Thanks, that’s the issue... my Tmo service has been extremely unreliable this past month. That said... it’s gotten slightly better and they are sending me a signal booster. They claim they are upgrading the towers near my house. I’ll try to wait it out and see what happens b/c as you said... I have a heck of a deal. 

[RedSpark]

https://www.recode.net/2018/1/6/16858802/sprint-marcelo-claure-uber-board-17-directors

Sprint’s Marcelo Claure will join Uber’s board, which is set to grow to 17 directors

Once on the CEO list, he’ll take one of two SoftBank seats — the other going to the Vision Fund’s Rajeev Misra.

[bucdenny]

13 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

https://www.recode.net/2018/1/6/16858802/sprint-marcelo-claure-uber-board-17-directors

Sprint’s Marcelo Claure will join Uber’s board, which is set to grow to 17 directors

Once on the CEO list, he’ll take one of two SoftBank seats — the other going to the Vision Fund’s Rajeev Misra.

Why would he be on Uber's board? Possible CEO changes in near future?

[Johnner1999]

Why would he be on Uber's board? Possible CEO changes in near future?

Could be — but he’s on Softbank’s board too.

And back to Uber I believe he’s got some actual say (above the typical board members).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr.Nuke]

31 minutes ago, bucdenny said:

Why would he be on Uber's board?

Because Softbank is buying 15% of the company....

[bucdenny]

Just now, Mr.Nuke said:

Because Softbank is buying 15% of the company....

I get that Softbank purchased the stocks. But why Marcelo on the board instead of Masa?

[Johnner1999]

I get that Softbank purchased the stocks. But why Marcelo on the board instead of Masa?

My theory isn’t to welcome here. But I’d say Sprint is either going to be fully purchased by SoftBank and then be reorganized heavily along with brand change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bucdenny]

6 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

 

My theory isn’t to welcome here. But I’d say Sprint is either going to be fully purchased by SoftBank and then be reorganized heavily along with brand change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I am for the name change.  Too many people had bad taste of Sprint and will never give them a second chance. Regardless how much Sprint has improved recently, the word of mouth that trashed Sprint cannot be healed.  This is based on all my families and friends that left Sprint.  

[Tengen31]

I am for the name change.  Too many people had bad taste of Sprint and will never give them a second chance. Regardless how much Sprint has improved recently, the word of mouth that trashed Sprint cannot be healed.  This is based on all my families and friends that left Sprint.  

You are right. I got laughed at by a family member when I say the name Sprint. He said he was going to try them out until other people told him about all the horror stories.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[derrph]

22 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

You are right. I got laughed at by a family member when I say the name Sprint. He said he was going to try them out until other people told him about all the horror stories.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I got the same by my friend one time. One day that same friend and I were waiting in line for entry into this concert and she couldn't even pull up her social media or webpages. Where the venue is located, there are also a lot of bars and stuff around that people go to on the weekend. Now my data service was humming along with no issues. So I made it a point and pulled up the same thing she was trying to so she could see it. I then made a sly remark and said " I can turn on my hotspot for you since my service is working." So she ended using Sprint service while in line, The same service she laughed at.  I thought it was pretty funny. Too, I'm in a pretty good market that Sprint can stand its own.

I would welcome a name change but I too have to think, how much of a difference would it make? People will still see it as Sprint. I think the network will need to be extremely together first and is actually competing with the other 3  from all aspects before a name change takes place. 

[Tengen31]

I got the same by my friend one time. One day that same friend and I were waiting in line for entry into this concert and she couldn't even pull up her social media or webpages. Where the venue is located, there are also a lot of bars and stuff around that people go to on the weekend. Now my data service was humming along with no issues. So I made it a point and pulled up the same thing she was trying to so she could see it. I then made a sly remark and said " I can turn on my hotspot for you since my service is working." So she ended using Sprint service while in line, The same service she laughed at.  I thought it was pretty funny. Too, I'm in a pretty good market that Sprint can stand its own.
I would welcome a name change but I too have to think, how much of a difference would it make? People will still see it as Sprint. I think the network will need to be extremely together first and is actually competing with the other 3  from all aspects before a name change takes place. 

Name change can't happen until fully true VOLTE cause I have heard some say they would come back and try if they had that. Sprint needs at least at&t coverage before a name change. If they got att coverage they could pass then on LTE.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[derrph]

15 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Name change can't happen until fully true VOLTE cause I have heard some say they would come back and try if they had that. Sprint needs at least at&t coverage before a name change. If they got att coverage they could pass then on LTE.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

100% agree. Match AT&T coverage and let your 2.5 shine and Sprint can really make and shake some moves then and get the reception they are looking for. 

[RedSpark]

11 hours ago, bucdenny said:

I am for the name change.  Too many people had bad taste of Sprint and will never give them a second chance. Regardless how much Sprint has improved recently, the word of mouth that trashed Sprint cannot be healed.  This is based on all my families and friends that left Sprint.  

A brand change would be very expensive to do. This money would be better used for improving the network in my opinion.

A brand change would also be ineffective in my opinion. People would remember the old brand name and reputation for a very long time. Given that there are only 4 Major Wireless Carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint), Sprint’s Legacy Branding and Reputation wouldn’t simply go down the Internet (or off-Internet) memory hole for the foreseeable future. There would be a slew of articles and press referring to Sprint’s rebrand which will continue the association with its legacy brand. The saturated wireless market would constantly refer to Sprint’s old branding and reputation. This is therefore not a near term fix nor a long term one, as it takes resources that could be better used for tangible improvements to the business and product.

In short, I’d expect a rebrand to have as much effect as Comcast trying to call itself Xfinity. Was this even a real rebrand? I’m still not sure. However, it didn’t work.

T-Mobile went through a terrible branding period... and it’s emerged fine on the other side. No rename necessary.

Here’s the solution and it’s nothing novel: Network, Network, Network.

Make the Network blow the other guys’ out of the water. Distribute flagship devices to prominent columnists (Sascha Segan, etc.) and have them write reviews on the Network. Share these reviews widely.

Here’s a start:

https://www.pcmag.com/review/358021/lg-v30

https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945682340105289729

https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945688172943593473

The customers will come if the product is better. People are savvy enough to see through a brand change and it would be a waste of money.

A brand change would be a waste because Sprint doesn’t have a perception problem as much as it has a product problem. Here’s what’s wrong with the product:

Sprint doesn’t have Band 41 on 50% of its towers (or about 30% of its POPS) . It doesn’t have Band 26 on many others. It needs thousands of more tower sites to improve coverage on its existing footprint and at the fringes where there’s been suburban development that has exceeded the capacity of the Network. It needs to get all three LTE Bands deployed on every site. Sprint doesn’t have VoLTE for simultaneous Voice/Data (and for good reason as we all know why, but Prospective Customers don’t and may not switch.).

[kg4icg]

This just caught my eye

 

[bucdenny]

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

A brand change would be very expensive to do. This money would be better used for improving the network in my opinion.

A brand change would also be ineffective in my opinion. People would remember the old brand name and reputation for a very long time. Given that there are only 4 Major Wireless Carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint), Sprint’s Legacy Branding and Reputation wouldn’t simply go down the Internet (or off-Internet) memory hole for the foreseeable future. There would be a slew of articles and press referring to Sprint’s rebrand which will continue the association with its legacy brand. The saturated wireless market would constantly refer to Sprint’s old branding and reputation. This is therefore not a near term fix nor a long term one, as it takes resources that could be better used for tangible improvements to the business and product.

In short, I’d expect a rebrand to have as much effect as Comcast trying to call itself Xfinity. Was this even a real rebrand? I’m still not sure. However, it didn’t work.

T-Mobile went through a terrible branding period... and it’s emerged fine on the other side. No rename necessary.

Here’s the solution and it’s nothing novel: Network, Network, Network.

Make the Network blow the other guys’ out of the water. Distribute flagship devices to prominent columnists (Sascha Segan, etc.) and have them write reviews on the Network. Share these reviews widely.

Here’s a start:

https://www.pcmag.com/review/358021/lg-v30

https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945682340105289729

https://twitter.com/saschasegan/status/945688172943593473

The customers will come if the product is better. People are savvy enough to see through a brand change and it would be a waste of money.

A brand change would be a waste because Sprint doesn’t have a perception problem as much as it has a product problem. Here’s what’s wrong with the product:

Sprint doesn’t have Band 41 on 50% of its towers (or about 30% of its POPS) . It doesn’t have Band 26 on many others. It needs thousands of more tower sites to improve coverage on its existing footprint and at the fringes where there’s been suburban development that has exceeded the capacity of the Network. It needs to get all three LTE Bands deployed on every site. Sprint doesn’t have VoLTE for simultaneous Voice/Data (and for good reason as we all know why, but Prospective Customers don’t and may not switch.).

Many people don't know and won't read these articles. The word of mouth of bad experiences prevents new customers from flocking over.  If there is a narrative that this is a new company, new ownership, and works great, people will likely give it a try.  But its same old Sprint, it will get trashed because too many people had bad experiences.  T-Mobile didn't have a tarnished name during her 4G era so the comparison is not the same.

People are looking for a carrier that will be as good as Verizon or AT&T, because that is people's prospective. T-Mobile was able to push out great marketing and many did switch.  Sprint can do whatever, they are known for no 4G LTE, slow data, missed texts, and dropped calls during her 4G era.

IMO, fix the network, make sure it is great and a new name.  The network is coming along but needs to shatter the competition by speed.  People need to be wowed by it.

Everytime I bring up Sprint let's say a family function, someone will always say wow you still with Sprint, on Sprint I had so many calls and texts and its slow.  Cannot argue because many did have Sprint.  Verizon shined during 4G era so people has the prospective she is better.

It's a fact, Sprint is lagging and needs to be great for people to see that prospective. Many of my employees did switch on BYOD 1 year deal and the first prospective was Sprint customer services is awful.  Name keeps getting tarnished because of the expectations Verizon had set.  And yes all switched from Verizon.

 

[Tengen31]

Many people don't know and won't read these articles. The word of mouth of bad experiences prevents new customers from flocking over.  If there is a narrative that this is a new company, new ownership, and works great, people will likely give it a try.  But its same old Sprint, it will get trashed because too many people had bad experiences.  T-Mobile didn't have a tarnished name during her 4G era so the comparison is not the same.
People are looking for a carrier that will be as good as Verizon or AT&T, because that is people's prospective. T-Mobile was able to push out great marketing and many did switch.  Sprint can do whatever, they are known for no 4G LTE, slow data, missed texts, and dropped calls during her 4G era.
IMO, fix the network, make sure it is great and a new name.  The network is coming along but needs to shatter the competition by speed.  People need to be wowed by it.
Everytime I bring up Sprint let's say a family function, someone will always say wow you still with Sprint, on Sprint I had so many calls and texts and its slow.  Cannot argue because many did have Sprint.  Verizon shined during 4G era so people has the prospective she is better.
It's a fact, Sprint is lagging and needs to be great for people to see that prospective. Many of my employees did switch on BYOD 1 year deal and the first prospective was Sprint customer services is awful.  Name keeps getting tarnished because of the expectations Verizon had set.  And yes all switched from Verizon.
 

CS needs a Hugh fix. I've heard that the put people in sales floor without training. I was a store once not long after the S8 came out. She was trying to sell me one. I said no thanks and, that I was possible waiting on the note 8. She laughed and asked if I heard about the Note 8 then laughed in my face and said I have it's not coming out then laughed again

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

17 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

CS needs a Hugh fix. I've heard that the put people in sales floor without training. I was a store once not long after the S8 came out. She was trying to sell me one. I said no thanks and, that I was possible waiting on the note 8. She laughed and asked if I heard about the Note 8 then laughed in my face and said I have it's not coming out then laughed again

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

The way to fix this is to have a nationwide secret shopper program run by an outside entity under the direction of Sprint management in order to document these issues for resolution by senior management. This program needs to run for the foreseeable future and the findings need to reach the highest levels of management for resolution.

[utiz4321]

The best way for sprint to rebrand is to densify and build out their network. The problem is that they have been talking about doing this for year's and in my opinion they have been misleading people about what their network plans have been. I am still very sceptical about anything that sprint management says with regards to their network investment.  

[Tengen31]

The best way for sprint to rebrand is to densify and build out their network. The problem is that they have been talking about doing this for year's and in my opinion they have been misleading people about what their network plans have been. I am still very sceptical about anything that sprint management says with regards to their network investment.  

I see what you're saying. However Marcelo was not with the company before 2014. So he deserves a chance. If he doesn't deliver then he should be out. If he does then he should stay. One claim is B41 on almost all towers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

11 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

The best way for sprint to rebrand is to densify and build out their network. The problem is that they have been talking about doing this for year's and in my opinion they have been misleading people about what their network plans have been. I am still very sceptical about anything that sprint management says with regards to their network investment.  

I agree. Improving the product will improve perception. Sprint doesn’t have the brand power or equity to rely on a rebrand. In fact, a rebrand would be a total disaster.

Sprint needs to do what Domino’s Pizza did:

You could essentially substitute Sprint Corporate folks for the Domino’s ones. Instead of crust, sauce and cheese, you talk about towers, spectrum, Speed/Coverage. This is what Sprint needs to do. I’d actually love to see a video like this from Sprint, shot on location in Overland Park HQ, in conjunction with actual progress of course.

We’ll hopefully get a better sense of where things stand in terms of Sprint’s plans/progress from Dr. Saw’s discussion at CES on January 10th at 2:45PM ET: http://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2018/Sprint-CTO-John-Saw-to-Speak-Jan-10-at-Citis-2018-Global-TMT-West-Conference/default.aspx

We’ll also learn more during Sprint’s upcoming Earnings Call, which I believe should happen at the end of January, so I expect details on that to be announced soon.

[utiz4321]

2 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

I see what you're saying. However Marcelo was not with the company before 2014. So he deserves a chance. If he doesn't deliver then he should be out. If he does then he should stay. One claim is B41 on almost all towers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I am talking about sprint under Marcelo. In 2015 there was talk after talk in conferences and earning calls about theit network plan as they were cutting CAPEX claiming they didnt need high CAPEX to density their network. The end result was a year of them claiming their network plans were on track while in reality no densification took place. In my opinion management came very close to lying to shareholders. 

[bucdenny]

46 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

I am talking about sprint under Marcelo. In 2015 there was talk after talk in conferences and earning calls about theit network plan as they were cutting CAPEX claiming they didnt need high CAPEX to density their network. The end result was a year of them claiming their network plans were on track while in reality no densification took place. In my opinion management came very close to lying to shareholders. 

Depending on markets, San Diego received many B41 and small cells in 2017. There was some work done but not enough. Maybe we will see more in 2018.

[Tengen31]

Depending on markets, San Diego received many B41 and small cells in 2017. There was some work done but not enough. Maybe we will see more in 2018.

My understanding was cut back to raise money for a higher capex in 2018. Some people talk about how well Tmobile has done all while Forgetting it was att's money that paid for that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk