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

[JeffDTD]

The capital expenditures of network expansion and modernization are hell on any carrier's profit and bottom line. In one hand, we demand densification, organic expansion, b26 and b41 on 100% of sites, and spectrum bidding "or else". In the other hand, we criticize sprints profit while we bathe in low rates. You can't have both. Sprint's profit will improve when it either is able to raise rates or slow network capex. Demanding both profit and network vision 2, 3, and 4 on an accelerated schedule is foolish.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Sprint's profit will improve when it either is able to raise rates or slow network capex. Demanding both profit and network vision 2, 3, and 4 on an accelerated schedule is foolish.

How about gain customers? lol Have you given up on that possibility?

[JeffDTD]

How about gain customers? lol Have you given up on that possibility?

Keep laughing, max. Lol. Hahaha. Jk. You guys. Stop. No really, stop. Jk jajajajaja.

#yolo #magenta4life #trollin

[lou99/maximus1987]

 Sprint's profit will improve when it either is able to raise rates or slow network capex. Demanding both profit and network vision 2, 3, and 4 on an accelerated schedule is foolish.

 

Sprint has plenty of money to pay plenty of people plenty of money to worry about how to become profitable.

I guarantee you Son/Marcelo/Legere/Adams/Randall are not worrying about your and my bill.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Keep laughing, max. Lol. Hahaha. Jk. You guys. Stop. No really, stop. Jk jajajajaja.

#yolo #magenta4life #trollin

 

So you have given up on Sprint gaining customers?

Why wasn't that part of your original post?

You'd think with so much spectrum, you'd have more confidence in Sprint.

[JeffDTD]

So you have given up on Sprint gaining customers?

Why wasn't that part of your original post?

You'd think with so much spectrum, you'd have more confidence in Sprint.

So now I'm the critic and youre the optimist? I'm gonna have to toss another "lol" back at you.

[lou99/maximus1987]

So now I'm the critic and youre the optimist? I'm gonna have to toss another "lol" back at you.

I believe sprint can survive by itself without needing a merger.

 

I don't want sprint or TMO to fail.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

 

 

T-Mobile did turn a profit over the last year (39 cents/share between Q2 2014 and Q1 2015). And while some of that came from a Verizon spectrum sale, Q4 2014 turned a profit without that spectrum sale -- so it's not a one-time occurance. And they're telling shareholders they expect a positive cents/share profit for the next three quarters.

 

Now, they're only just barely profitable. But they are "making profits".

Making a profit two out of the last 8 quarters( actually one because as you point out one quarterly profit can from selling assets) isn't a sign of a sustainable profits. If they are able to deliver on the next three quarters then I can remove T-Mobile from my statement. But sprint still hasn't and so the thrust of my statement remains. If three companies are making a profit and one is not it is hard to say the right number of carriers is four.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Making a profit two out of the last 8 quarters( actually one because as you point out one quarterly profit can from selling assets) isn't a sign of a sustainable profits. If they are able to deliver on the next three quarters then I can remove T-Mobile from my statement. But sprint still hasn't and so the thrust of my statement remains. If three companies are making a profit and one is not it is hard to say the right number of carriers is four.

Sprint:

Avg above 10mbps in all root markets AND. Root airports AND everywhere else, sparky or not;

800mhz lte, voice deployed everywhere

 

TMO:

All sites have at least GMO lte;

All 700a owned licenses fully deployed (only after 600 auction or concurrent agreement)

 

And THEN we'll start the clock to decide whether it's possible to have 4 carriers survive.

 

But to say "sprint is not making money today, therefore a merger is the only option" is… ignorant.

 

Ask digiblur about New Orleans, a ?top 50? Market?

 

Even once sprint achieves above "start click" triggers, it'll be done time till it can reverse its negative brand equity.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Sprint:

Avg above 10mbps in all root markets AND. Root airports AND everywhere else, sparky or not;

800mhz lte, voice deployed everywhere

 

TMO:

All sites have at least GMO lte;

All 700a owned licenses fully deployed (only after 600 auction or concurrent agreement)

 

And THEN we'll start the clock to decide whether it's possible to have 4 carriers survive.

 

But to say "sprint is not making money today, therefore a merger is the only option" is… ignorant.

 

Ask digiblur about New Orleans, a ?top 50? Market?

 

Even once sprint achieves above "start click" triggers, it'll be done time till it can reverse its negative brand equity.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sprint and T-Mobile haven't made a yearly profits for years. Almost all of the profits for the entire industry is concentrated in the Big Two and it has been that way for over five years. Bankruptcy, while a long way off isn't out of the realm of possibilities for sprint if SoftBank decides it can't make a return on investment. The CAPEX required over the next five years show no real signs of slowing down as the carriers begin Volte. There is a lot auguring for three carriers. It is not a position of ignorance but claiming that sprint and T-Mobile are simply not making profits today is.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Sprint and T-Mobile haven't made a yearly profits for years. Almost all of the profits for the entire industry is concentrated in the Big Two and it has been that way for over five years. Bankruptcy, while a long way off isn't out of the realm of possibilities for sprint if SoftBank decides it can't make a return on investment. The CAPEX required over the next five years show no real signs of slowing down as the carriers begin Volte. There is a lot auguring for three carriers. It is not a position of ignorance but claiming that sprint and T-Mobile are simply not making profits today is.

Why are profits concentrated at duo? Because they have truly nationwide coverage. Now TMO sprint are fixing that.

 

 

Actually CAPEX will def slow down. Volte is a software patch to the network. More relevant example is small cells. I guess we'll see what CAPEX for 2016 for !duo is.

 

Today they're not making profits. Once !duo can point to a 300mil map, that'll be the end of that issue.

 

Furthermore, Robert stated that where he lives people are dying for another option.

 

And softb. Who's gonna buy their 80% stake? Maybe comcast I guess.

Otherwise they're stuck and they'll continue benefitting sprint the same manner and amount as today.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Why are profits concentrated at duo? Because they have truly nationwide coverage. Now TMO sprint are fixing that.

 

 

Actually CAPEX will def slow down. Volte is a software patch to the network. More relevant example is small cells. I guess we'll see what CAPEX for 2016 for !duo is.

 

Today they're not making profits. Once !duo can point to a 300mil map, that'll be the end of that issue.

 

Furthermore, Robert stated that where he lives people are dying for another option.

 

And softb. Who's gonna buy their 80% stake? Maybe comcast I guess.

Otherwise they're stuck and they'll continue benefitting sprint the same manner and amount as today.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

 

I think you're overestimating gain of 600 vs 800; it's gonna require more towers no matter what.

Softbank, like any seller, will have to find a buyer.

 

How is 120MHz of 2.5ghz not enough reason for softb to stay?

[JeffDTD]

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

"Lose 20 billion"? You believe sale is the only option to avoid bankruptcy and loss of the entire investment? As though sprints assets are worthless? Softbank may very well decide to sell all or a portion of its ownership someday, but we aren't headed for bankruptcy folks. Get your head out of the pink sand.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Sprint: 16 of 30 rural LTE roaming partners have now launched LTE service

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-16-30-rural-lte-roaming-partners-have-now-launched-lte-service/2015-05-20

 

Have these shown up on map?

 

 

Since those 27 were announced in September 2014, Sprint has added three additional carriers, including United Wireless. The other two did not give Sprint permission to identify them, according to Norton.

 

 

huh?

[lou99/maximus1987]

Get your head out of the pink sand.

 

Seems sprint cheerleaders are saying Sprint can't survive in a 4-carrier environment.

[utiz4321]

"Lose 20 billion"? You believe sale is the only option to avoid bankruptcy and loss of the entire investment? As though sprints assets are worthless? Softbank may very well decide to sell all or a portion of its ownership someday, but we aren't headed for bankruptcy folks. Get your head out of the pink sand.

Stakeholders are last on the list in an asset sale from bankruptcy. The debt holders have first claim and since Sprint is 32 billion in debt, yeah softbank's investment is probably worth close to zero if Sprint was to go into bankruptcy. Also I have no love for T-Mobile so stop with the ad hominem.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Stakeholders are last on the list in an asset sale from bankruptcy. The debt holders have first claim and since Sprint is 32 billion in debt, yeah softbank's investment is probably worth close to zero if Sprint was to go into bankruptcy.

 

Which would only happen if softb allows this. Son is making plenty in his 3-carrier market; he should spread the wealth.

[utiz4321]

Which would only happen if softb allows this. Son is making plenty in his 3-carrier market; he should spread the wealth.

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

 

And what criteria will it use to decide this? You'd think having massive capacity-in-waiting would be enough.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

 

Given the state of sprint network today, you cannot use their customer net gains/losses to extrapolate anything.

Wait until they have lte on all sites - sometime in 2016 - >10mbps everywhere, 800mhz everywhere then wait 1 year to drain the negative brand equitiy AND THEN make a judgement.

[JeffDTD]

Stakeholders are last on the list in an asset sale from bankruptcy. The debt holders have first claim and since Sprint is 32 billion in debt, yeah softbank's investment is probably worth close to zero if Sprint was to go into bankruptcy. Also I have no love for T-Mobile so stop with the ad hominem.

Again, you propose that Softbank will be unable to meet Sprint's debt repayment requirements. Why?

[utiz4321]

And what criteria will it use to decide this? You'd think having massive capacity-in-waiting would be enough.

Look, I am not saying they would "pull the plug" What I am saying is that Sprint has to show signs of turning a profit to warrant another investment by Softbank. If Sprint can monetize their spectrum because the market want sustain 4 profitable carriers or Sprint can become one of the three in a four carrier market then no it is not a reason for Softbank to stick around.

[utiz4321]

Again, you propose that Softbank will be unable to meet Sprint's debt repayment requirements. Why?

Why would you as an investor give money to a company that you expect will never give you a return? If Softbank decides that Sprint will not turn a profit they will take the lose salvage what they can and invest the capital else where.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Look, I am not saying they would "pull the plug" What I am saying is that Sprint has to show signs of turning a profit to warrant another investment by Softbank. If Sprint can monetize their spectrum because the market want sustain 4 profitable carriers or Sprint can become one of the three in a four carrier market then no it is not a reason for Softbank to stick around.

Sprint won't turn a profit unless they can build out 2.5

 

Son had to know

1) getting the merger rejected was a possibility

2) Sprint's network wouldn't be competitive without 2.5 almost everywhere

3) Sprint would be burning cash for a long time

 

Therefore, Sprint would need more cash to build-out vis a vi more debt, asset sale or equity sale.

 

In the recent Chase thing, Eutenberg was asked directly about the "backing" of softb and replied 'it's not a written guarantee but a strong understanding'. I don't think there's a transcript yet.