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

[payturr]

If you think relative size means nothing, you have a lot to learn bud...

Business major friend, it's all about market share

[nexgencpu]

Sprint's current financial state traces back entirely to the Nextel merger which resulted in massive transfer of assets and creation of new liabilities just to write off majority of the purchase weeks later, which they're still paying for today, as well as the failure of WiMAX (although that didn't have as huge as a negative effect - it was more like tripping and landing on your already broken leg). While I'm sure paying for fiber doesn't help, it definitely isn't the barrier preventing Sprint from turning a profit.

 

Had Sprint's management focus on acquiring spectrum through Clearwire, FCC auctions, and network quality, Sprint would probably be the number 2 network now and this forum wouldn't exist.

Also if Heese were allowed to pick up Metro PCS, it would have been a different landscape, plus who knows in what direction Nextel would have gone if it weren't for Sprint picking it up. 

 

Sprint needing backhaul late in the game was just another notch on the already difficult path.

[nexgencpu]

Business major friend, it's all about market share

I don't understand your point, your saying because T mobile had little market share they were at an advantage!?

[kg4icg]

Sometimes a business merges with another because of assets. Market share has little affect in that decision. There is a reason why people didn't wat to be with company a that bought company b. Now that company a did buy company b, company a has to let the market share of customers that don't want to be there go. Later on company b finds out that company a only wanted it for the assets and basically starts shutting things down and sends a lot of pink slips while telling the market share to play by our rules or leave.

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[payturr]

I don't understand your point, your saying because T mobile had little market share they were at an advantage!?

No, I'm saying they were ALWAYS a competitor because they had market share - 30M sounds small compared to 50M but it's still a percent of the overall market, so they did matter to VZ and AT&T. If anything, T-Mobile got good prices on fiber not because of their size but because the demand for fiber was very different at the time they began building.

[Jones]

The FCC has looked into this issue:

 

FCC moves forward with special access reforms, marking a win for T-Mobile and Sprint

That ruling is huge for Sprint (and T-mobile) and explains why Marcelo has been in DC so much as of late. It will only help Sprint return to profits, and at the same time, upgrade to fiber without having to pay exorbitant early term. fees.

[kg4icg]

That ruling is huge for Sprint (and T-mobile) and explains why Marcelo has been in DC so much as of late. It will only help Sprint return to profits, and at the same time, upgrade to fiber without having to pay exorbitant early term. fees.

Case in point. Verizon/XO merger

 

 

Sent from my LGLS996 using Tapatalk

[NYC126]

I just wonder when Sprint will make a breakthrough in network performance across the US, and not just 4 or 5 markets.

 

The whole advantage of Spectrum will disappear as competitors are reframing, doing sector splits, getting ready to deploy AWS-3, and toying with the idea of milliwave 28hz etc.

 

Sprint massive network investments should had happened in 2014 and 2015 while 2016 would had been the results.

[nexgencpu]

I just wonder when Sprint will make a breakthrough in network performance across the US, and not just 4 or 5 markets.

The whole advantage of Spectrum will disappear as competitors are reframing, doing sector splits, getting ready to deploy AWS-3, and toying with the idea of milliwave 28hz etc.

Sprint massive network investments should had happened in 2014 and 2015 while 2016 would had been the results.

I don't believe all those tricks will make up for the lack of spectrum in general. Only buy time.

[Fraydog]

I just wonder when Sprint will make a breakthrough in network performance across the US, and not just 4 or 5 markets.

 

The whole advantage of Spectrum will disappear as competitors are reframing, doing sector splits, getting ready to deploy AWS-3, and toying with the idea of milliwave 28hz etc.

 

Sprint massive network investments should had happened in 2014 and 2015 while 2016 would had been the results.

It may be a slower improvement given there's only the capital to focus on large cities. If it is deemed that 3 billion is going to be the capital expenditures for 2016, better to focus on the top 20 or so markets. That means Sprint is still going to be behind everyone else on rural for the conceivable future.

 

I get that Sprint has to be more efficient given their past deployments. That said, I wonder if 3 billion is enough even if Sprint is being run more efficiently.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Jones]

I get that Sprint has to be more efficient given their past deployments. That said, I wonder if 3 billion is enough even if Sprint is being run more efficiently.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

That's likely. Maybe this is part of a clever ruse saying 3 billion then at the end of fiscal 2016 actually spending 6 billion, thereby fulfilling their newly created ethos of underpromising and overdelivering.

They did give themselves leeway stating that they could spend more if opportune.

[payturr]

I don't believe all those tricks will make up for the lack of spectrum in general. Only buy time.

 

I don't know, with adding spectrum, adding capacity through new sectors and small cells, and increasing levels of MIMO and QAM, the other carriers are very threatening - especially since they have far more sites and greater densification than Sprint. Marcelo should be throwing as much cash at small cells and new macros as possible.

[RedSpark]

Sprint is pursuing "a bold new creative strategy":

 

Sprint Names Exec Creative Director to Run New In-House Agency

 

 

In his new role, Mr. Bennett will oversee the creative direction of Sprint, which the company said will be taking a new direction in 2016. He is "is the new leader of Sprint's creative vision for 2016," the company said in an email. "Whether in public relations or the political arena, the music business or digital media, his award-winning, 20-year career as a creative communicator is as eclectic as it is unique."

 

At YellowFan, Mr. Bennett will pursue "a bold new creative strategy" this year, including a "re-imagination" of social media, branded content, experiential marketing "and an exciting new focus on consumer storytelling," Sprint said. The agency "has full creative responsibility for the Overland Park, Kan.-based mobile carrier providing film and print production, design and all other creative services," it said.

 

Sounds good to me!

[payturr]

Sprint is pursuing "a bold new creative strategy":

 

Sprint Names Exec Creative Director to Run New In-House Agency

 

 

Sounds good to me!

Here's hoping they can give the Sprint name some new good value!

[sbolen]

I'm glad they're going in-house. The big problem with agencies is that stakeholder priorities aren't always aligned.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deval]

Sprint's current financial state traces back entirely to the Nextel merger which resulted in massive transfer of assets and creation of new liabilities just to write off majority of the purchase weeks later, which they're still paying for today, as well as the failure of WiMAX (although that didn't have as huge as a negative effect - it was more like tripping and landing on your already broken leg). While I'm sure paying for fiber doesn't help, it definitely isn't the barrier preventing Sprint from turning a profit.

 

Had Sprint's management focus on acquiring spectrum through Clearwire, FCC auctions, and network quality, Sprint would probably be the number 2 network now and this forum wouldn't exist.

 

The road to network upgrades is paved with mistakes and oversights and financial limitations. 

 

When Sprint was still trying to come above the water with the Nextel merger, T-Mobile was quietly upgrading all their core urban sites to fiber, in preparation for their HSPA+ launch. Their rural and suburban sites were left on T1s and broadcasting EDGE only.

 

Verizon and AT&T used their national advantage as the LEC to get fiber to their LTE sites relatively quickly, leveraging their existing last mile services. Verizon also used microwave in urban markets to quickly deploy sites.

 

Sprint, along with various cable companies, Google, and Intel came together to fund Clearwire to launch WiMAX, which was supposed to be the competitor to both LTE and HSPA+ in terms of speeds, availability, coverage, range. The idea was envisioned to be an open access (bring your own device), hence why Intel embedded WiMAX in every single WiFi card in every single laptop sold over almost a 3 year period. The plan was to utilize WiMAX as the data-load layer, so there was no need to upgrade the 3G part of the network. Similar to how Verizon launched LTE, where they basically put up new equipment with new backhaul and left their legacy 3G equipment to rot.

 

When the world turned to LTE as the standard for 4G/NextGen network, Sprint was forced to kick off their Network Vision project. I was personally in the room when Dan Hesse and the team announced the project, the ROI, the rip and replace, and know exactly how the market felt. Thankfully Sprint had 5mhz of greenfield spectrum they could dedicate for LTE, as well as 5mhz of 800 SMR, with the Clearwire LTE migration providing the data intensive layer (80-100mhz of spectrum available). 

 

As we stand now, over 90% of the original NV project is complete, with almost all the sites upgraded with Ethernet backhaul (fiber, microwave, etc.) which can now be scaled up as newer technology is added. 

 

I know everyone compares Sprint's LTE deployment to T-Mobile's, but what they fail to realize is that it was a completely different deployment strategy. Backhaul was already in place, switch sites were already upgraded, core network switching was already in place, etc. A lot of the work was physical site work, rather than core work for T-Mobile. Something else to consider is that site location and access availability. In urban markets like New York City, for example, it is quite common to see a rooftop with co-located equipment (T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon). Even getting building access provides a challenge, something I have seen first hand. 

 

At the end of the day, Sprint's going full stream with small cell deployment, under the radar, while still lighting up B41 second carriers in the markets where equipment supports it. I know for example in the NYC market that a significant number of sites have both carriers on air, and I have personally experienced better service due to the extra capacity.

[RedSpark]

I'm glad they're going in-house. The big problem with agencies is that stakeholder priorities aren't always aligned.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

However, there's a risk of having an "echo chamber" where the branding/messaging sounds good in-house, but doesn't translate well outside for media/customers/prospects. Remember that it was Yellow Fan Studios that brought us the now infamous Listening Tour "Ghetto Moment" on YouTube.

[Fraydog]

That's likely. Maybe this is part of a clever ruse saying 3 billion then at the end of fiscal 2016 actually spending 6 billion, thereby fulfilling their newly created ethos of underpromising and overdelivering.

They did give themselves leeway stating that they could spend more if opportune.

I doubt that.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Deval]

I just wonder when Sprint will make a breakthrough in network performance across the US, and not just 4 or 5 markets.

 

The whole advantage of Spectrum will disappear as competitors are reframing, doing sector splits, getting ready to deploy AWS-3, and toying with the idea of milliwave 28hz etc.

 

Sprint massive network investments should had happened in 2014 and 2015 while 2016 would had been the results.

 

Refarming, or as I call it, robbing Peter to pay Paul, can only go so far. Unless a carrier is ready to invest millions in new macro sites, small cells and other related network builds will pave the way for the future. At a certain point T-Mobile will have to go back and fill their B12 and B2 gaps by adding new sites or small cells. The question will be when/if they choose to do so. AT&T and Verizon will have to refarm faster in order to meet the data demands of their customers, or continue to lose them. 

 

As for a breakthrough on Sprint's part, I really believe we will hear less and less in terms of upgrades, and more and more about customer reports of better service. In theory Sprint could light up 200 small cells within an area, and every customer would benefit, and those results would be reflected in the next RootMetrics drive or Nielsen testing.

[Deval]

I don't know, with adding spectrum, adding capacity through new sectors and small cells, and increasing levels of MIMO and QAM, the other carriers are very threatening - especially since they have far more sites and greater densification than Sprint. Marcelo should be throwing as much cash at small cells and new macros as possible.

 

It's beyond ridiculously expensive to just throw up macro sites, unless they are warranted. You could get the same ROI by putting 3 small cells to cover a gap at 1/10 the cost.

 

Macros are good if you're going to expand the network beyond the base. If your goal is to blanket existing footprints and fix gaps within said footprint, small cells are the way to go.

[payturr]

I know everyone compares Sprint's LTE deployment to T-Mobile's, but what they fail to realize is that it was a completely different deployment strategy. Backhaul was already in place, switch sites were already upgraded, core network switching was already in place, etc. A lot of the work was physical site work, rather than core work for T-Mobile. Something else to consider is that site location and access availability. In urban markets like New York City, for example, it is quite common to see a rooftop with co-located equipment (T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon). Even getting building access provides a challenge, something I have seen first hand. 

Wow, really well said and put Deval. Top notch post and I appreciate that you shared your record of being in the room! Also thank you for indirectly backing my point about the backhaul.

 

Going into the future of the Sprint network, things look pretty bright so long as execution of small cell deployment goes well for those of us not feeling the speedy grace of B41.

[Deval]

Wow, really well said and put Deval. Top notch post and I appreciate that you shared your record of being in the room! Also thank you for indirectly backing my point about the backhaul.

 

Going into the future of the Sprint network, things look pretty bright so long as execution of small cell deployment goes well for those of us not feeling the speedy grace of B41.

 

I think we all have to eat spoonfuls of reality in terms of B41 availability, especially in buildings and households. Sprint's not in the business of consumer ISP services, so customers will have to acknowledge that WiFi should be their primary when in their homes or places of work, where available. 

 

Small cells will help with gaps, but the reality is that customers have to understand their limitations. 

[WiWavelength]

The road to network upgrades is paved with mistakes and oversights and financial limitations. 

 

When Sprint was still trying to come above the water with the Nextel merger, T-Mobile was quietly upgrading all their core urban sites to fiber, in preparation for their HSPA+ launch. Their rural and suburban sites were left on T1s and broadcasting EDGE only.

 

Verizon and AT&T used their national advantage as the LEC to get fiber to their LTE sites relatively quickly, leveraging their existing last mile services. Verizon also used microwave in urban markets to quickly deploy sites.

 

Sprint, along with various cable companies, Google, and Intel came together to fund Clearwire to launch WiMAX, which was supposed to be the competitor to both LTE and HSPA+ in terms of speeds, availability, coverage, range. The idea was envisioned to be an open access (bring your own device), hence why Intel embedded WiMAX in every single WiFi card in every single laptop sold over almost a 3 year period. The plan was to utilize WiMAX as the data-load layer, so there was no need to upgrade the 3G part of the network. Similar to how Verizon launched LTE, where they basically put up new equipment with new backhaul and left their legacy 3G equipment to rot.

 

When the world turned to LTE as the standard for 4G/NextGen network, Sprint was forced to kick off their Network Vision project. I was personally in the room when Dan Hesse and the team announced the project, the ROI, the rip and replace, and know exactly how the market felt. Thankfully Sprint had 5mhz of greenfield spectrum they could dedicate for LTE, as well as 5mhz of 800 SMR, with the Clearwire LTE migration providing the data intensive layer (80-100mhz of spectrum available). 

 

As we stand now, over 90% of the original NV project is complete, with almost all the sites upgraded with Ethernet backhaul (fiber, microwave, etc.) which can now be scaled up as newer technology is added. 

 

I know everyone compares Sprint's LTE deployment to T-Mobile's, but what they fail to realize is that it was a completely different deployment strategy. Backhaul was already in place, switch sites were already upgraded, core network switching was already in place, etc. A lot of the work was physical site work, rather than core work for T-Mobile. Something else to consider is that site location and access availability. In urban markets like New York City, for example, it is quite common to see a rooftop with co-located equipment (T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon). Even getting building access provides a challenge, something I have seen first hand. 

 

At the end of the day, Sprint's going full stream with small cell deployment, under the radar, while still lighting up B41 second carriers in the markets where equipment supports it. I know for example in the NYC market that a significant number of sites have both carriers on air, and I have personally experienced better service due to the extra capacity.

 

I do not quote long posts very often.  And I do not "Like" posts very often.  I am discretionary, even stingy in both regards.

 

However, this may be Deval's best post ever, thus warrants both accolades.

 

The people who criticize Sprint -- for Nextel, iDEN, SMR rebanding, Clearwire, WiMAX, BRS/EBS, etc. -- need to read Deval's post over and over again.  Those people tend to look only at results and through their biased glasses.  They do not consider strategies, which may be well played gambits, though they may not pay off always.  Sometimes, though, they do.  And those strategies also may be long term rather than short term.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

I'm amazed at how much of Sprint's strategy was locked in by Gary Forsee and how little it has really changed in essence. Sure, Hesse tried, but he didn't change the fundamental parts of it. He couldn't. 

 

Is anyone holding Gary Forsee out as a shining light of corporate management? Forsee was only about long term bets. How many of those worked out? 

[Deval]

I do not quote long posts very often.  And I do not "Like" posts very often.  I am discretionary, even stingy in both regards.

 

However, this may be Deval's best post ever, thus warrants both accolades.

 

The people who criticize Sprint -- for Nextel, iDEN, SMR rebanding, Clearwire, WiMAX, BRS/EBS, etc. -- need to read Deval's post over and over again.  Those people tend to look only at results and through their biased glasses.  They do not consider strategies, which may be well played gambits, though they may not pay off always.  Sometimes, though, they do.  And those strategies also may be long term rather than short term.

 

AJ

 

I appreciate that buddy. 

 

We live in an instant gratification world, and that expectation has now spread into industries where it never existed. Customers now expect things without a thought or care in the world of how it actually happens.

 

We've all experienced the changes that Sprint has gone through, myself more than most perhaps. I became a Sprint customer in 2000, when flip phones were the norm. I remember PCS Vision being announced, the first color screen phones, the first camera phones soon afterwards. When EVDO (Power Vision) was announced, I drove in circles around Newark Airport just to experience the speeds. When WiMAX was first announced I drove 3 hours to Philadelphia and had lunch near Independence Hall just to experience high speed internet for the first time. 

 

A lot of what Sprint has done could be looked as mistakes or missteps, but so much has been innovative to a fault. Customers today don't want innovation, they crave imitation, and Sprint isn't in that business, was never their strong suit. Some of the most intelligent engineers work at Sprint, on average submitting 100 patents a year for innovations in wireless and wireline.

 

At the end of the day Sprint's not going anywhere. They are continuing to invest in the network, work out new deals, and upgrade the network. Sure it will never be 100%, no one is. But it will be 100% for the 80% who need it and use it the most, and that's the benchmark they need to hit.