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

[S4GRU]

If they lose there spectrum holdings advantage it is game over.

Sprint competes against Tmo, AT&T and Verizon right now because of their spectrum holdings advantage? No way. They have still held on despite not even being able to fully use its spectrum advantage. No matter how much spectrum Sprint has, it makes no impact on whether other providers keep their networks going.

 

Tmo's big win in 600MHz allows them to maintain their current status quo and plan, and not lose ground gained because of spectrum limitations. They already had low band spectrum allowing them to grow their network footprint. This new win allows them to use a wider low band channel (good for growth areas and existing footprint), and allows them to keep performance up with wider channels. They have been starting to falter in performance. Even right here in the home market of the Puget Sound.

 

But there is nothing inherent in this that changes their footing against Sprint's spectrum. T-mobile's plan is the same, it just now has more spectrum assets to keep capacity going into the future. Sprint's spectrum advantage you cite really is not really in play. And they aren't losing it. They still have their spectrum. And it's still double the amount of Tmo's new additions. Sprint's spectrum position just allows them to keep performance going. Customers expect a good experience, regardless of provider. If it meets their needs, they're happy. They don't worry about what a provider has in reserve. How does it work today?

 

Tmo did come up with a good solid win. We should be happy for that. We need there to be healthy competition against the Duopoly. It would have been plum awful if AT&T and VZW won most of it. We can be happy for Tmo without resorting to ridiculous positions about Sprint.

 

Good job, Legere. Next subject...

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[Mr.Nuke]

I still don't believe that 70% story at all. If 70% of all Sprint sites had b41 equipment then most markets would be 80% covered and thats not the case at all. You look at that coverage map and tell me if you see 70% LTE Plus. I know I don't see it.

So we are going to disregard a statement by the COO of a publicly traded company for your anecdotal observations of a coverage map? Got it....

[Paynefanbro]

Also we have a whole T-Mobile thread so I'm confused why it was posted twice, once in that thread and then here.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[kg4icg]

And now, for something completely different. 

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-and-the-onion-debut-online-video-series-exploring-nationwide-obsession-with-former-verizon-customer-who-switched-to-sprint.htm?view_id=8696

[swintec]

What was the basis for Günther's statement then? The "70%" number had to be based on something from Sprint's internal reports.

 

 

He was simply quite literal with his wording.  ""70% of our LTE sites have 2.5GHz..."  So, only the sites with LTE right now, 70% of THOSE have 2.5GHz.  That allows him to completely write off the many GMO sites that have nothing but 3G still at this point in time.

[JustinRP37]

And now, for something completely different. 

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-and-the-onion-debut-online-video-series-exploring-nationwide-obsession-with-former-verizon-customer-who-switched-to-sprint.htm?view_id=8696

 

Some of these are funny, some of them are meh. Overall, I have not been a huge fan with the whole Paul marketing campaign. It is too easy for the big two to poke holes in. I really do wish the promotional pricing was not just for new customers, or at least offer long time customers something special too. Sprint couldn't beat the price Verizon quoted us since we have FiOS as well, which made it an amazing deal.

[RedSpark]

He was simply quite literal with his wording. ""70% of our LTE sites have 2.5GHz..." So, only the sites with LTE right now, 70% of THOSE have 2.5GHz. That allows him to completely write off the many GMO sites that have nothing but 3G still at this point in time.

Good catch.

 

If we're able to discuss here, what percentage of Sprint sites are LTE?

 

If not, I understand.

[lilotimz]

What was the basis for Günther's statement then? The "70%" number had to be based on something from Sprint's internal reports.

 

What's the truth here, if we can discuss it in this general open thread? I understand if we can't of course b/c of site rules.

70% of total sites include the clear sites integrated into sprints network. 70% of 50,000 macros.

 

It's a tad more now since sprint are doing 2.5 macro deployment predominatelyusing the new mini macro on macro strategy.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

Some of these are funny, some of them are meh. Overall, I have not been a huge fan with the whole Paul marketing campaign. It is too easy for the big two to poke holes in. I really do wish the promotional pricing was not just for new customers, or at least offer long time customers something special too. Sprint couldn't beat the price Verizon quoted us since we have FiOS as well, which made it an amazing deal.

I think if they were 1/3 as long, they'd be three times as funny. Needs more Paul and less fake Paul.

 

This ad series totally missed the mark in my opinion. Whatever it cost should have been spent on CapEx instead.

[Qu3st]

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

70% of total sites include the clear sites integrated into sprints network. 70% of 50,000 macros.

It's a tad more now since sprint are doing 2.5 macro deployment predominatelyusing the new mini macro on macro strategy.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

Perhaps we'll also get a figure from Sprint how much of its network is 3xCA capable at this point. As I recall, these mini macros are not 3xCA capable.

[Terrell352]

What was the basis for Günther's statement then? The "70%" number had to be based on something from Sprint's internal reports.

 

What's the truth here, if we can discuss it in this general open thread? I understand if we can't of course b/c of site rules.

I truly believe he meant pops covered even though he said sites. I could be wrong. There is no solid proof of this except my observations in the southeast and mid west parts of the country. Example being when network vision was 70% complete I seen LTE over 50% of the time anywhere I went whether Memphis, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta or the middle of nowhere. I don't see that even today on b41. So if he was indeed telling the truth then I am unimpressed with how much further b25/26 can go compared to b41. I mean most of the time I clearly see the towers don't have the equipment but still.

Sprint competes against Tmo, AT&T and Verizon right now because of their spectrum holdings advantage? No way. They have still held on despite not even being able to fully use its spectrum advantage. No matter how much spectrum Sprint has, it makes no impact on whether other providers keep their networks going.

 

Tmo's big win in 600MHz allows them to maintain their current status quo and plan, and not lose ground gained because of spectrum limitations. They already had low band spectrum allowing them to grow their network footprint. This new win allows them to use a wider low band channel (good for growth areas and existing footprint), and allows them to keep performance up with wider channels. They have been starting to falter in performance. Even right here in the home market of the Puget Sound.

 

But there is nothing inherent in this that changes their footing against Sprint's spectrum. T-mobile's plan is the same, it just now has more spectrum assets to keep capacity going into the future. Sprint's spectrum advantage you cite really is not really in play. And they aren't losing it. They still have their spectrum. And it's still double the amount of Tmo's new additions. Sprint's spectrum position just allows them to keep performance going. Customers expect a good experience, regardless of provider. If it meets their needs, they're happy. They don't worry about what a provider has in reserve. How does it work today?

 

Tmo did come up with a good solid win. We should be happy for that. We need there to be healthy competition against the Duopoly. It would have been plum awful if AT&T and VZW won most of it. We can be happy for Tmo without resorting to ridiculous positions about Sprint.

 

Good job, Legere. Next subject...

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

I'm not hating on Sprint. I see work is being done like the 15x15 and other innovative things. I'm just saying that other carriers tend to move faster than Sprint in most situations when it comes to execution and it shows in LTE reliability. I have never seen a carrier neglect towers for as long as a period that Sprint will. My point does still stand that Sprint has more towers that have not been upgraded for years than any other carrier. I know of tons and tons of towers that have had the same capacity for the last 3 years and that's just the towers I have seen. I'm just saying Sprint cannot afford to ramp down capex anymore and expect to have happy customers.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

I truly believe he meant pops covered even though he said sites. I could be wrong. There is no solid proof of this except my observations in the southeast and mid west parts of the country. Example being when network vision was 70% complete I seen LTE over 50% of the time anywhere I went whether Memphis, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta or the middle of nowhere. I don't see that even today on b41. So if he was indeed telling the truth then I am unimpressed with how much further b25/26 can go compared to b41. I mean most of the time I clearly see the towers don't have the equipment but still. I'm not hating on Sprint. I see work is being done like the 15x15 and other innovative things. I'm just saying that other carrier tend to move faster than Sprint in most situations when it comes to execution and it shows in LTE reliability. I have never seen a carrier neglect towers for as long as a period that Sprint will. My point does still stand that Sprint has more towers that have not been upgraded for years than any other carrier. I know of tons and tons of towers that have had the same capacity for the last 3 years and that's just the towers I have seen. I'm just saying Sprint cannot afford to ramp down capex anymore and expect to have happy customers.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Günther was pretty specific in his phrasing, and lilotimz further clarified it. I don't think he meant POPs.

 

This upcoming Earnings Call will be telling as far as Sprint's CapEx plans for this year. We're either going to be satisfied with their answers or we won't be. I don't want to prejudge, but Sprint needs to figure out how to really open the spigot and not spend its money on satire videos which have pretty low view counts. Seriously, look at the channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7VOn09ACtvRfMPQzazOZzw) and see the number of views for these videos. No comments last I checked either.

 

 

The metrics don't lie on customer engagement, no matter how many times they run the ads.

 

UPDATE: Here's the Video View Count 3 Hours after uploading:

 

76 Views

61 Views

68 Views

113 Views

83 Views

126 Views

 

The channel itself has 6,872 Subscribers.... which is not very many at all.

 

Now look at the view counts of the other posted videos on that page. Except for a handful that really took off and got thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of views, it's pretty low numbers. I just don't see these ads "going viral". I just don't. What a waste of time and money in my opinion.

[JonnygATL]

Günther was pretty specific in his phrasing, and lilotimz further clarified it. I don't think he meant POPs.

 

This upcoming Earnings Call will be telling as far as Sprint's CapEx plans for this year. We're either going to be satisfied with their answers or we won't be. I don't want to prejudge, but Sprint needs to figure out how to really open the spigot and not spend its money on satire videos which have pretty low view counts. Seriously, look at the channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7VOn09ACtvRfMPQzazOZzw) and see the number of views for these videos. No comments last I checked either.

 

 

The metrics don't lie on customer engagement, no matter how many times they run the ads.

 

UPDATE: Here's the Video View Count 3 Hours after uploading:

 

76 Views

61 Views

68 Views

113 Views

83 Views

126 Views

 

The channel itself has 6,872 Subscribers.... which is not very many at all.

 

Now look at the view counts of the other posted videos on that page. Except for a handful that really took off and got thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of views, it's pretty low numbers. I just don't see these ads "going viral". I just don't. What a waste of time and money in my opinion.

Agreed.  I find this honestly just...bizarre.  It leaves a general taste of profound "WTF???" in one's mouth.

[JonnygATL]

I truly believe he meant pops covered even though he said sites. I could be wrong. There is no solid proof of this except my observations in the southeast and mid west parts of the country. Example being when network vision was 70% complete I seen LTE over 50% of the time anywhere I went whether Memphis, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta or the middle of nowhere. I don't see that even today on b41. So if he was indeed telling the truth then I am unimpressed with how much further b25/26 can go compared to b41. I mean most of the time I clearly see the towers don't have the equipment but still.

I'm not hating on Sprint. I see work is being done like the 15x15 and other innovative things. I'm just saying that other carriers tend to move faster than Sprint in most situations when it comes to execution and it shows in LTE reliability. I have never seen a carrier neglect towers for as long as a period that Sprint will. My point does still stand that Sprint has more towers that have not been upgraded for years than any other carrier. I know of tons and tons of towers that have had the same capacity for the last 3 years and that's just the towers I have seen. I'm just saying Sprint cannot afford to ramp down capex anymore and expect to have happy customers.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

They do need to execute better.  For that, they definitely need more $ though.  I guess it's sort of akin to Tmobile's initial focus on urban markets (to gain more customers and, ergo, more $ to funnel into capex) before moving into suburban and rural areas.  I'm glad for Tmo...I really hope they do meet or even, ultimately, exceed Verizon's coverage footprint.  It would be an interesting development as it pertains to competition.  

 

But to revisit Gunther's "70%" remark, I honestly never found that the least bit confusing.  It was quite clear and obvious what he was referring to, as others have also pointed out.  He was not at all talking about 70% of total Sprint sites but, rather, solely 70% of Sprint's sites that were LTE-enabled at that point, as he clearly said.

 

So, say only half of Sprint's sites are LTE enabled (the # is greater than that).  Say that # is 25,000.  So 70% of 25,000 (LTE enabled sites) is 17,500 (sites with band 41 enabled).  So if Sprint's total site count were 50,000 then that means that some 35% of ALL of Sprint's sites have band 41 active.  This is all fairly simple math. 

 

I don't understand why anyone found that confusing.  But, yes, that # needs to expand greatly..and quickly.

[RedSpark]

Agreed.  I find this honestly just...bizarre.  It leaves a general taste of profound "WTF???" in one's mouth.

 

 

I'd like to know the actual "conversion rate" (people who watch these ads that become new Sprint customers) or the "save rate" (Sprint customers who watch that stay Sprint customers and would otherwise leave).

 

We could get this info with a survey.... and of course, doing a survey costs money for the participants as compensation. However, since we're dealing with such low view numbers for the videos so far, I don't think it really matters at all what these rates are. This is barely even a blip at this point. I agree with you completely. Makes no sense.

[nexgencpu]

Just started picking up 3XCA in NYC a couple weeks ago, and Marcelo just tweeted pics from the area I tested in.

 

Speeds are nice!

 

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/852973843673219076

[RedSpark]

Just started picking up 3XCA in NYC a couple weeks ago, and Marcelo just tweeted pics from the area I tested in.

 

Speeds are nice!

 

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/852973843673219076

With enough CapEx and HPUE, this can happen nationwide. Hopefully Sprint gives us some more details about its network build/spend plans during the Earnings Call.

[Jones]

I wonder if with HPUE the importance of band 25 will diminish to sprint. Maybe, with enough execution on B41, B25 could be a bargaining chip if a merger was proposed.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[ericdabbs]

I wonder if with HPUE the importance of band 25 will diminish to sprint. Maybe, with enough execution on B41, B25 could be a bargaining chip if a merger was proposed.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

Not until Sprint network fully phases out CDMA/EVDO and is 100% LTE.  Sprint would be dumb to give up any PCS spectrum at this point.  There are also phone holdouts who have not upgraded to a Spark LTE phone that do not have B41 LTE access.

[Tengen31]

Not until Sprint network fully phases out CDMA/EVDO and is 100% LTE. Sprint would be dumb to give up any PCS spectrum at this point. There are also phone holdouts who have not upgraded to a Spark LTE phone that do not have B41 LTE access.

B25 should never go away.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

B25 in Illinois

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

For some reason signal check isn't identifying this 10x10 carrier

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

B25 should never go away.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

In fact, B25 has been getting additional channel widths in a number of markets across the country.

 

The goal with HPUE is to have B25/26 be the fallback for B41, especially with HPUE boosting B41 Outdoor Coverage area to nearly match B25 coverage outdoors and B41 indoor coverage to 90% penetration of B25 indoors. The idea is to have users on Band 41 all the time.

 

Since new HPUE handsets are required to utilize HPUE, this device uptake number will be something to keep an eye on.

 

S8/S8+ and LG G6 so far.

 

We'll see what HTC and Apple come out with.

 

Perhaps the next Pixel as well.

[WiWavelength]

I wonder if with HPUE the importance of band 25 will diminish to sprint. Maybe, with enough execution on B41, B25 could be a bargaining chip if a merger was proposed.

 

Arysyn, is that you?

 

AJ