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

[utiz4321]

4 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

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
 

I am talking about what the company did in 2015. My post makes that clear. The company was not honest about what they were doing with the network.  if they had played the same game with the financials that they did with network investment people would have gone to jail. 

[Johnner1999]

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

Att didn’t pay off that much money....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kg4icg]

I guess people forgot that Sprint still had to pay out for frequency rebanding , some jurisdictions being a pain in the butt wanting more money for the effort, trying to get Sprint to help there  budgets. California going  broke. 

[RedSpark]

4 hours ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

Att didn’t pay off that much money....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

It was actually quite a bit:

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/att-and-t-mobile-whats-2-billion-among-friends/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/att-admits-defeat-on-t-mobile-takeover-will-pay-4-billion-breakup-fee/

and it started the ball rolling on T-Mobile’s LTE Network build:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/t-mobile-takes-3-billion-att-breakup-fee-builds-4g-lte-network/

[Johnner1999]

 
It was actually quite a bit:
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/att-and-t-mobile-whats-2-billion-among-friends/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/att-admits-defeat-on-t-mobile-takeover-will-pay-4-billion-breakup-fee/
and it started the ball rolling on T-Mobile’s LTE Network build:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/t-mobile-takes-3-billion-att-breakup-fee-builds-4g-lte-network/

I wouldn’t call three billion in cash nearly 7 years ago a huge amount over the last 7 years.

Oh yes it was needed cash they needed no doubt about it. Along with a hefty bucket of free roaming.

But I’d have to look up each year - I have feeling their Capex was much more than that the following years.

The excuses never end lol.

Seriously though you have to give TMO a slow clap [emoji122] at least. They had the most fragile network of the four. The least amount of subs. Yet leaped frogged over Sprint in subscribers. And have won many battles against vzw.

Now back on topic to see how Sprint can finally turn it around. I really hope with tower build out it’ll bring us back to 3rd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

1 hour ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

 

I wouldn’t call three billion in cash nearly 7 years ago a huge amount over the last 7 years.

Oh yes it was needed cash they needed no doubt about it. Along with a hefty bucket of free roaming.

But I’d have to look up each year - I have feeling their Capex was much more than that the following years.

The excuses never end lol.

Seriously though you have to give TMO a slow clap at least. They had the most fragile network of the four. The least amount of subs. Yet leaped frogged over Sprint in subscribers. And have won many battles against vzw.

Now back on topic to see how Sprint can finally turn it around. I really hope with tower build out it’ll bring us back to 3rd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

It was essentially free money and spectrum, minus the billed attorney fees of course... but T-Mobile definitely hit the jackpot and that’s what gave it momentum to snowball to where it is today.

Sprint still has plenty of time to turn this around, and win customers back, but it needs to do it with a better network product or they won’t come back. If 2018 is really Sprint’s year to shine, it will need to get Band 41 on the ~50% of its sites that don’t yet have it and it will have to blanket other areas with small cells as fill-in or densification until new macro sites are added or upgraded. I’m a believer it can be done, but Sprint needs to have substantial committed CapEx for the foreseeable future to get the Network there. I hope accelerated work is already underway that Dr. Saw can talk about tomorrow at CES.

[Paynefanbro]

Beyond T-Mobile getting money from AT&T, they also got an influx of 9 Million customers and a bit of spectrum from MetroPCS. Dan Hesse wanted to buy them first but the board told him no. T-Mobile jumped at the opportunity to buy them and it paid off.

[Tengen31]

Beyond T-Mobile getting money from AT&T, they also got an influx of 9 Million customers and a bit of spectrum from MetroPCS. Dan Hesse wanted to buy them first but the board told him no and T-Mobile jumped at the opportunity and it paid off.

The board was Dumb. Wonder if they had the chance if they would do it now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

From today’s discussion with T-Mobile’s CFO:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-execs-lament-failure-sprint-merger-but-you-never-say-never

“This team was highly convicted that we had a unique opportunity for value creation with the Sprint deal,” said T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter. “Very conservatively, there were at least $37 billion of hard synergy [in the now-collapsed deal]. Mostly in the network. You know, Neville [Ray, T-Mobile’s CTO] and his team for 4-5 months built the most detailed Newco [combined T-Mobile and Sprint] network model—it was a thing of beauty. … But it wasn’t meant to be.”

Added Carter: “Could something happen in the future? You never say never.”

————

I wonder what that network model looked like.

AND

“It’s a shame it didn’t happen,” he said, noting that T-Mobile’s leadership team formed tight relationships with their counterparts at Sprint during months of negotiations between the two companies. Indeed, he said he plans to go fishing with Sprint’s outgoing CFO Tarek Robbiati in New Zealand sometime this year.

However, Carter said that the value of a potential merger between Sprint and T-Mobile is going to decline as Sprint continues to invest in improving its network. “Some of those synergies will dissipate,” Carter said.

————

Interesting how Sprint’s continued network investment would negatively impact synergies for a merger. Was CapEx slowed down for this reason?

 

[utiz4321]

11 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

From today’s discussion with T-Mobile’s CFO:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-execs-lament-failure-sprint-merger-but-you-never-say-never

“This team was highly convicted that we had a unique opportunity for value creation with the Sprint deal,” said T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter. “Very conservatively, there were at least $37 billion of hard synergy [in the now-collapsed deal]. Mostly in the network. You know, Neville [Ray, T-Mobile’s CTO] and his team for 4-5 months built the most detailed Newco [combined T-Mobile and Sprint] network model—it was a thing of beauty. … But it wasn’t meant to be.”

Added Carter: “Could something happen in the future? You never say never.”

————

I wonder what that network model looked like.

AND

“It’s a shame it didn’t happen,” he said, noting that T-Mobile’s leadership team formed tight relationships with their counterparts at Sprint during months of negotiations between the two companies. Indeed, he said he plans to go fishing with Sprint’s outgoing CFO Tarek Robbiati in New Zealand sometime this year.

However, Carter said that the value of a potential merger between Sprint and T-Mobile is going to decline as Sprint continues to invest in improving its network. “Some of those synergies will dissipate,” Carter said.

————

Interesting how Sprint’s continued network investment would negatively impact synergies for a merger. Was CapEx slowed down for this reason?

 

It definitely was. Sprint's plan was to make the company as strong as possible (in revenue, stock value and subscriber terms) while investing as little as possible and then merge the two companies with Masa having strategic control of the new company so that he could integrate it with his other investments. That would explain the company's  2015 and 2016 talk about densification with while not actually densifying campaign. 

 

Masa just believe the control of sprint is worth more that ~40 percent of 32 billion of value. He is either epically wrong or a genius. 

[derrph]

From today’s discussion with T-Mobile’s CFO:
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-execs-lament-failure-sprint-merger-but-you-never-say-never

“This team was highly convicted that we had a unique opportunity for value creation with the Sprint deal,” said T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter. “Very conservatively, there were at least $37 billion of hard synergy [in the now-collapsed deal]. Mostly in the network. You know, Neville [Ray, T-Mobile’s CTO] and his team for 4-5 months built the most detailed Newco [combined T-Mobile and Sprint] network model—it was a thing of beauty. … But it wasn’t meant to be.”

Added Carter: “Could something happen in the future? You never say never.”

————

I wonder what that network model looked like.

AND

“It’s a shame it didn’t happen,” he said, noting that T-Mobile’s leadership team formed tight relationships with their counterparts at Sprint during months of negotiations between the two companies. Indeed, he said he plans to go fishing with Sprint’s outgoing CFO Tarek Robbiati in New Zealand sometime this year.

However, Carter said that the value of a potential merger between Sprint and T-Mobile is going to decline as Sprint continues to invest in improving its network. “Some of those synergies will dissipate,” Carter said.

———— Interesting how Sprint’s continued network investment would negatively impact synergies for a merger. Was CapEx slowed down for this reason?  

Quite possible yes in hopes that a merger between the two would take place. That is indeed interesting that Carter did say that. It was like he was almost saying that as Sprints network gets stronger, they really wouldn’t need anyone else let alone another carrier to merge with. They have the tools to go it alone, the ability branch off into different areas outside of cellular with their Spectrum and will be more than fine.

I did see that in the article there was a mention that an M&A is still an option for T-Mobile. Realistically, couldn’t T-Mobile go it alone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

16 hours ago, RedSpark said:

 

It was actually quite a bit:

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/att-and-t-mobile-whats-2-billion-among-friends/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/att-admits-defeat-on-t-mobile-takeover-will-pay-4-billion-breakup-fee/

and it started the ball rolling on T-Mobile’s LTE Network build:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/t-mobile-takes-3-billion-att-breakup-fee-builds-4g-lte-network/

Not to mention that the parent corp forgave $5B when Metro and T-Mobile merged.

[bigsnake49]

11 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

The board was Dumb. Wonder if they had the chance if they would do it now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

The board was epically wrong. They should have merged with not just Metro but Leap. Influx of 15M customers and strengthened midband spectrum. Just like they were epically wrong not to merge with Alltel.

[Tengen31]

The board was epically wrong. They should have merged with not just Metro but Leap. Influx of 15M customers and strengthened midband spectrum. Just like they were epically wrong not to merge with Alltel.

Alltel was the biggest one. If they had done that, that would have given then way more coverage and it's possible Sprint would be the largest carrier these days.  Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bigsnake49]

1 hour ago, derrph said:

 

Quite possible yes in hopes that a merger between the two would take place. That is indeed interesting that Carter did say that. It was like he was almost saying that as Sprints network gets stronger, they really wouldn’t need anyone else let alone another carrier to merge with. They have the tools to go it alone, the ability branch off into different areas outside of cellular with their Spectrum and will be more than fine.

I did see that in the article there was a mention that an M&A is still an option for T-Mobile. Realistically, couldn’t T-Mobile go it alone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think it is very stupid that the Sprint/T-Mobile did not merge over control of the combined entity. 

[Tengen31]

I think it is very stupid that the Sprint/T-Mobile did not merge over control of the combined entity. 

I'm Glad they didn't merge we need 4 carriers. I would like to see them merge with USCC.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

3 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

I'm Glad they didn't merge we need 4 carriers. I would like to see them merge with USCC.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

We don't need 4 carriers. It is wasteful to have 4 carriers covering the same sparsely populated areas that can barely support one carrier.

I am all for them merging with USCC and partnering with Dish or the cable cos. Anything to create value.

Edited January 10, 2018 by bigsnake49

[Tengen31]

We don't need 4 carriers. It is wasteful to have 4 carriers covering the same sparsely populated areas that can barely support one carrier.

All 4 carriers have the holdings to cover everywhere. Att 12/5 vzw with B13 Sprint will band 26 and T-Mobile with B12/71

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

7 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

All 4 carriers have the holdings to cover everywhere. Att 12/5 vzw with B13 Sprint will band 26 and T-Mobile with B12/71

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Oh everybody has the spectrum but when you are basically covering farmland does it make sense financially to have all 4 cover it? One farmhouse every 500 acres?

Edited January 10, 2018 by bigsnake49

[Tengen31]

Oh everybody has the spectrum but when you are basically covering farmland does it make sense financially to have all 4 cover it? One farmhouse every 500 acres?

If 3 out of the 4 cover it then yes all 4 should. Some people if they can't get a signal that can be a deal breaker.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Trip]

35 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Oh everybody has the spectrum but when you are basically covering farmland does it make sense financially to have all 4 cover it? One farmhouse every 500 acres?

That is why roaming was invented.  Compete where it makes sense, and cooperate where it doesn't.

- Trip

[Tengen31]

That is why roaming was invented.  Compete where it makes sense, and cooperate where it doesn't.
- Trip

Accept people don't like roaming. Most people want it gone. That's why some have called Sprint a MVNO.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

52 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Accept people don't like roaming. Most people want it gone. That's why some have called Sprint a MVNO.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

People dont hate roaming, they dont even notice except when some services are missing. Roaming agreements make alot more sense that haveing four carriers spending the money to compete for 500 customer of some town in the middle of nowhere. Let one or two players offer service to the locals and other players rent their network when ond of their customers accidentally wander in to those areas.

 

Ps. People that call sprint an MVNO are ignorant of simple definitions. 

[jebr]

People don't like roaming if the experience is terrible when they're roaming. A lot of Sprint's roaming is terrible when it comes to data (1x speeds.)

However, if the experience is seamless, people really don't care too much, or at least I can't imagine why people would. When I'm roaming on US Cellular, my data works beautifully and it feels like native service. I honestly don't care if I'm on Sprint or USCC roaming, because both experiences feel the same. Most people don't care about the technical side of how their phone service works; they just want it to work.

Roaming in extremely rural areas makes sense, especially for a budget carrier. There's not enough money to be made to invest in towers absolutely everywhere. However, that experience should feel similar to on-network usage, at least for a limited usage timeframe/usage amount. If that was the case everywhere, then most people would be fine with a little roaming here and there, especially if the cost savings were decent or the on-network experience was better than the other carriers.

[Tengen31]

People don't like roaming if the experience is terrible when they're roaming. A lot of Sprint's roaming is terrible when it comes to data (1x speeds.)

However, if the experience is seamless, people really don't care too much, or at least I can't imagine why people would. When I'm roaming on US Cellular, my data works beautifully and it feels like native service. I honestly don't care if I'm on Sprint or USCC roaming, because both experiences feel the same. Most people don't care about the technical side of how their phone service works; they just want it to work.

Roaming in extremely rural areas makes sense, especially for a budget carrier. There's not enough money to be made to invest in towers absolutely everywhere. However, that experience should feel similar to on-network usage, at least for a limited usage timeframe/usage amount. If that was the case everywhere, then most people would be fine with a little roaming here and there, especially if the cost savings were decent or the on-network experience was better than the other carriers.

USCC is Native coverage now. Roaming onto att and VZW is what I'm talking about. Sprint needs at least 2 million sqaure miles of Native at least. Native roaming is fine. Att and VZW is not.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk