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

[Deval]

No more rip and replace. It was too ambitious an effort for a cash strapped carrier and very disruptive to customers. It should have been done as an LTE overlay like everybody else.

 

Impossible with the legacy equipment.

[lordsutch]

U-verse deployment?  Not available in all areas.  Do not even get started on the FttP that AT&T does not want to deploy.

 

Indeed, I think AT&T has basically decided not to bother expanding U-verse any more now they have DirecTV. Even in markets where it's "deployed" like Memphis it's not available in all areas, and it's completely missing in action even in mid-size cities like Macon so they've essentially ceded the broadband market to cable (Cox here), even in new developments with fiber.

 

Honestly in hindsight AT&T and Verizon should have been required to divest their ILEC landline operations when they were formed, but I don't think anyone foresaw the degree to which they could use wireless to avoid investing in landline operations and upgrades.

[jeffcarp]

Heck, there are still AT&T areas that are EDGE only. And many AT&T sites without LTE. If we had AT&T maps like Sprint, we would see they have just as many non upgraded sites as Sprint.

 

It's amazing to me the phenomenon that too often AT&T gets a pass for their network deployment shortcomings.

 

 

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Don't we already have those AT&T maps? Their coverage map has filters for 4G LTE, HSPA, 3G and Edge. It seems like they are being upfront about their coverage. My frustration with Sprint is that without S4GRU we have no idea where the pre-NV sites are because it's all advertised as LTE.

[S4GRU]

Don't we already have those AT&T maps? Their coverage map has filters for 4G LTE, HSPA, 3G and Edge. It seems like they are being upfront about their coverage. My frustration with Sprint is that without S4GRU we have no idea where the pre-NV sites are because it's all advertised as LTE.

Funny. I have discovered most of mine. AT&T has some of the least accurate coverage maps. Extremely overstative rural LTE shown. Most EDGE sites I've encountered show LTE coverage over them.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[tyroned3222]

I think the point Marcelo was making, based on the full transcript of his remarks from the event, was that Sprint overpaid for what it got in return in the past. He's being smart on how Sprint spends its capital for network improvements, and ensuring that Sprint gets the most return on the investment it makes now. Also, this densification and optimization program has an entirely different cost structure as Tarek Robbiati (CFO) has said in the past. Marcelo commented on the network options available to Sprint, and its ability to select different site structures (and either wired or wireless backhaul because of its unique spectrum holdings) as a way to be cost efficient for each site in this program.

And this has me wondering what Marcelo and his team could have done with that 24 billion that hesse spent on network vision

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

And this has me wondering what Marcelo and his team could have done with that 24 billion that hesse spent on network vision

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

Per the released Transcript from the recent Conference, here's what Marcelo had to say about Network Vision:

Okay. So what have we done? First thing we've done is we’ve optimized what Sprint did between 2013 to 2015 and for those of you who remember that was called network vision. So basically network vision we spend a lot of money. We spend the highest percentage of CapEx to sales of any carrier in America.

 

And what that gave us is a very solid foundation that allowed us to optimize the utilization of 800, 1.9 and 2.5. While that was a tough move every time we play, so you have to optimize and get the network better. The software team in Japan, we have Tiger team, Swat team and we actually optimized our network.

 

Secondly is when you have a really good base that where things get interesting is when you kind of start doing things that have come from software. So we did our 2CA and people were surprised with speed. Now we're doing our 3CA. So we call it, is being massive, is mainly optimizing our network and making software enhancements to our network.

 

So it is -- we have always said that it's a massive densification of our network and we're talking about tens of thousands of gear. And again it is not only small cells, there is micro cells, there is small cells, there is Phantom cells. It's a combination of different structures.

 

Technology has changed. The old way of building a network is basically go put a bunch of micro sites, contract with the power companies, outsource the way you mange -- outsource the way we deploy the network, that's what we did in Network Vision.

 

Today we have a complete entrepreneurial drive to build our network. Every single structure comes into a control tower in which we basically figure out what is the most cost efficient and the fastest speed that you can deploy a structure.

 

So you're looking our tens of thousands, first phase was to basically design a network. My Chief Network Masa played a very, very key role in helping us define the network. We had a lot of Japanese and American engineers all being led by Masa and John Saw and Günther. And we really -- it's the first time that I think these teams work so well together and we designed an awesome network that's going to be great.

 

Next step we filing applications and permits. We're in the process of doing that. We filed a lot and we're getting a lot of approvals and we're starting to put some on air to some cities in the U.S. that already have them on air. When the time is right we're going to announce how many we have.

 

We don’t like and I spoke to you earlier about this is it's not that we don’t want to disclose what our network plan is. We believe that we have a competitive advantage in how we're deploying our network and what is our cost to basically put a new gear and what's our cost to operate a network that we feel is not being good but just basically exposing our plan. It's very different than the way our competitors have deployed networks.

 

So it sounds like Network Vision had to happen to lay the foundation for what we're seeing now. Sprint's network needed a major overhaul to replace legacy equipment and run sufficient backhaul to support LTE at the tower sites.

[BlueAngel]

I like Marcelo's plan, I've seen optimization here in Philly. Albeit B26 could have a stronger signal, I guess bring on the small cells.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JWMaloney]

Indeed, I think AT&T has basically decided not to bother expanding U-verse any more now they have DirecTV. Even in markets where it's "deployed" like Memphis it's not available in all areas, and it's completely missing in action even in mid-size cities like Macon so they've essentially ceded the broadband market to cable (Cox here), even in new developments with fiber.

 

Honestly in hindsight AT&T and Verizon should have been required to divest their ILEC landline operations when they were formed, but I don't think anyone foresaw the degree to which they could use wireless to avoid investing in landline operations and upgrades.

It's definitely not dead. They're burying fiber all over my area right now for gigabit.

[bigsnake49]

Impossible with the legacy equipment.

 

How did Verizon do it?

[bigsnake49]

Funny. I have discovered most of mine. AT&T has some of the least accurate coverage maps. Extremely overstative rural LTE shown. Most EDGE sites I've encountered show LTE coverage over them.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Yep, I can vouch for that. They overstate their coverage on I-10, I-80, US 287, CA 128.

[bigsnake49]

Indeed, I think AT&T has basically decided not to bother expanding U-verse any more now they have DirecTV. Even in markets where it's "deployed" like Memphis it's not available in all areas, and it's completely missing in action even in mid-size cities like Macon so they've essentially ceded the broadband market to cable (Cox here), even in new developments with fiber.

 

Honestly in hindsight AT&T and Verizon should have been required to divest their ILEC landline operations when they were formed, but I don't think anyone foresaw the degree to which they could use wireless to avoid investing in landline operations and upgrades.

 

I fully agree with that. Or Sprint should never have gotten rid of their landline division. Quid pro quo.

[lilotimz]

How did Verizon do it?

Brand new Ericsson / Alcatel-Lucent EnodeB, new antennas, new backhaul just for their LTE equipment.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

 

 

What AT&T "better" track record is that?

 

U-verse deployment? Not available in all areas. Do not even get started on the FttP that AT&T does not want to deploy.

 

W-CDMA deployment? Took only 5-6 years to deploy "3G," circa 2005-2010.

 

LTE deployment? Still ongoing. Not to mention, AT&T lied to regulators, saying that it would limit LTE deployment if it were not allowed to acquire T-Mobile.

 

The standard of measure seems to be that AT&T works "better" in Old Johnner's Woods, so its deployment must be "better."

 

AJ

AT&T usually has more spectrum than anyone except Sprint, and much more of that is low and mid band. By this point AT&T should be close to having most of their customer base on VoLTE with 20x20 PCS over most of the country, and 3 channel carrier aggregation going. Yet they get beat by Verizon and T-Mobile on speed nationally when both T-Mobile have less spectrum.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

Yep, I can vouch for that. They overstate their coverage on I-10, I-80, US 287, CA 128.

I guess I wouldn't know - I don't leave the city all that often (except to go skiing that is). Something kind of interesting I noticed a few weeks back - when AT&T or Verizon have no service somewhere, it seems to be ok but when Sprint doesn't have service somewhere - people go on a rant. A few weeks ago, some friends and I were driving back from Mount Ranier on 12 and at one point in the drive, one of my friends saw I had Sprint 3G. He went on a rant about how Sprint didn't have any service outside the city and how bad their service was in general and then pulled out his AT&T phone which read "No Service". The discussion pretty much ended then with everyone in the car agreeing that there was just bad service on that highway (Verizon was roaming on US Cellular 1x). I thought it was kind of funny how much of a double standard there was between the big two and Sprint/T-Mobile.

[Deval]

How did Verizon do it?

 

lilotimz beat me to it, but like this: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6319-marcelo-claure-town-hall-meetings-new-family-share-pack-plan-unlimited-individual-plan-discussion-thread/page-819?p=490146&do=findComment&comment=490146

[BlueAngel]

I guess I wouldn't know - I don't leave the city all that often (except to go skiing that is). Something kind of interesting I noticed a few weeks back - when AT&T or Verizon have no service somewhere, it seems to be ok but when Sprint doesn't have service somewhere - people go on a rant. A few weeks ago, some friends and I were driving back from Mount Ranier on 12 and at one point in the drive, one of my friends saw I had Sprint 3G. He went on a rant about how Sprint didn't have any service outside the city and how bad their service was in general and then pulled out his AT&T phone which read "No Service". The discussion pretty much ended then with everyone in the car agreeing that there was just bad service on that highway (Verizon was roaming on US Cellular 1x). I thought it was kind of funny how much of a double standard there was between the big two and Sprint/T-Mobile.

I love those situations lol.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[bkco14]

The problem is that Sprint is known as the worst provider (between att, vzw, and sprint).

 

Take for example a baseball analogy. A team is 90-63 playing a team that is 63-90. What team is deemed better and which one is deemed worse?

 

If the 90-63 team loses one or two games to the 63-90 team does that mean the better team now sucks and the worse team is now the best? No, people still think the better record is the better team. Root metrics constantly has vzw and att at 1 and 2.

 

Too many places sprint is behind the other two. Yes, sprint is better or as good as the other 2 in some places. However, the majority of places, they are not. From experience, western Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska are brutal. Look at that coverage map. Roaming in 90% of those areas.

[bigsnake49]

Brand new Ericsson / Alcatel-Lucent EnodeB, new antennas, new backhaul just for their LTE equipment.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

So why couldn't Sprint do the same?

[JThorson]

So why couldn't Sprint do the same?

 

My guess would be $$$

[bigsnake49]

My guess would be $$$

 

Really? Network vision cost them $24B, I would think they could have spared a few billion to do what Verizon did.

[jeffcarp]

AT&T usually has more spectrum than anyone except Sprint, and much more of that is low and mid band. By this point AT&T should be close to having most of their customer base on VoLTE with 20x20 PCS over most of the country, and 3 channel carrier aggregation going. Yet they get beat by Verizon and T-Mobile on speed nationally when both T-Mobile have less spectrum.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

You can't really compare expected speeds across carriers when the utilization (number of customers) is different for each carrier.

[utiz4321]

Really? Network vision cost them $24B, I would think they could have spared a few billion to do what Verizon did.

I thought network vision ran 7 billion for the entire. Project.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

I thought network vision ran 7 billion for the entire. Project.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

Ha, ha, ha...

[Deval]

The problem is that Sprint is known as the worst provider (between att, vzw, and sprint).

 

Take for example a baseball analogy. A team is 90-63 playing a team that is 63-90. What team is deemed better and which one is deemed worse?

 

If the 90-63 team loses one or two games to the 63-90 team does that mean the better team now sucks and the worse team is now the best? No, people still think the better record is the better team. Root metrics constantly has vzw and att at 1 and 2.

 

Too many places sprint is behind the other two. Yes, sprint is better or as good as the other 2 in some places. However, the majority of places, they are not. From experience, western Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska are brutal. Look at that coverage map. Roaming in 90% of those areas.

 

Eh, what constitutes majority? 

 

For example, those areas you mention have less of a population than NYC, with 8 million local and 20 million in the market. 

[Deval]

So why couldn't Sprint do the same?

 

Because it would have left the legacy network to rot, and cost 2x per cell site to run.

 

CapEx vs. OpEx.

 

Would you pay two monthly car payments just to have a weekend car as well as a work car?