Sprint Q4 2014 earnings report

[dkyeager]

How can the numbers be skewed?

The numbers on the maps can be skewed by disabling band 26 for root tests and disabling band 41 for sensorly tests since neither breaks them out by band for any carrier. The quarterly scores depend on root metrics phone selections.

[joshnys8913]

Posted in the "catch all" thread already http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6319-marcelo-claure-town-hall-meetings-new-family-share-pack-plan-unlimited-individual-plan-discussion-thread/?p=400396

Oh I see someone posted it before me, thank you for showing me that, sorry about that.

[runagun]

I love this guy. Can't beat them well just buy them. Lol

 

“Anything could happen with me. I may decide to buy Verizon if the government allowed,” Son joked.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Legere's first three quarters at T-Mobile weren't great, if I recall correctly. His "soon" was "wait until we get the iPhone." And it is correct to note the losses, but that backs up my point on rebranding. It has never been clearer. Wanting to move people to VoLTE is a good thing in the long run as well. I just don't know the purpose of Bye communicating anything about TDD-FDD carrier aggregation. It makes me question his judgement. Sprint should keep its network improvement program talk based more on what happens now. Get the backhaul to the 8T8R sites up off the bat. Max it out if Sprint/SoftBank must. Get as many fast results in the system as possible and put some faster samples in Ookla's system to get the e-penis crowd pleased.

 

The second tweet I would call Legere jockeying for position. I wouldn't be shocked if he himself started pushing for SoftBank behind the scenes. Only when he pushes for a merger it will be TMUS doing business as SoftBank in the U.S. He'll just brand SoftBank as the Uncarrier to curry favor with regulators. If this happens... Sprint as we know it will die.

 

The regulators don't care about branding. Hasn't the rejection of merger last year proven that?

Unless there's a binding clause on any merger, anything said to curry anything is total BS.

[lou99/maximus1987]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/sprint-chairman-son-may-sell-airwaves-to-help-fund-turnaround?cmpid=yhoo

 

This article says that they have valued the 2.5ghz between 80 to 100 billion

Why would you enable your competitors? Whyyyyyyy?

att vzw starved sprint tmo of lowband so shouldn't sprint want to starve them of high-band? Isn't this obvious?

[jroepcke51]

Why would you enable your competitors? Whyyyyyyy?

att vzw starved sprint tmo of lowband so shouldn't sprint want to starve them of high-band? Isn't this obvious?

Yes I would agree about starving them but not when they would pony up 15 to 20 billion for it (or leasing options). Think about the reciprocity that could occur.

[Fraydog]

The regulators don't care about branding. Hasn't the rejection of merger last year proven that?

Unless there's a binding clause on any merger, anything said to curry anything is total BS.

I am speaking of past 2017 as you can't seem to get that part of it. This FCC has enough problems to deal with as it is. I think Masa would be better advised waiting to see if Sprint can rescue itself over 2015/2016.

 

I just don't think your hero is all he is on the surface. John Legere the public anti-hero and John Legere the ruthless corporate CEO are the same person. You don't get that.

[Fraydog]

I know he's not a hero. He's the CEO of a company with the least marketshare doing what he can to stay alive. I know that if he were CEO of att or vzw he'd be instituting the same policies that he's making fun of.

And?

Good we're on the same page now. I wish we'd had the whole conversation before from this POV, but that's the past.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Good we're on the same page now. I wish we'd had the whole conversation before from this POV, but that's the past.

 

Ok. But do you see the only reason for all of the goodies Sprint has implemented - leasing, crazy-low unlimited everything - is because of a four carrier market? If the merger had been allowed to go through in 2014, choice would be duo or sprint and therefore no reason to go all crazy on prices AND innovate on pricing models. At best prices would not have increased. 

 

I won't repeat that huge post with the reasons why 3 carriers doesn't benefit consumers.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Yes I would agree about starving them but not when they would pony up 15 to 20 billion for it (or leasing options). Think about the reciprocity that could occur.

 

Please enumerate the benefits of doing this.

 

Here are the detriments:

ATT and Verizon would have the capacity to compete with Sprint on speed/capacity. With the additional (capacity) breathing room 2.5 would provide, they could afford - from a capacity standpoint - to offer super-sized data buckets and neuter sprint's only advantage.

 

My sister and her husband's family are on a 30GB for $100 on ATT. Husband said he sees no reason to switch to tmobile cause they never come close to using 30gbs.

 

If att, vzw obtain 2.5ghz, the above situation would be far easier for duo to replicate.

[Fraydog]

Ok. But do you see the only reason for all of the goodies Sprint has implemented - leasing, crazy-low unlimited everything - is because of a four carrier market? If the merger had been allowed to go through in 2014, choice would be duo or sprint and therefore no reason to go all crazy on prices AND innovate on pricing models. At best prices would not have increased.

 

I won't repeat that huge post with the reasons why 3 carriers doesn't benefit consumers.

If four carriers can be supported in a capital intensive industry I would be pleased. I just don't see it down the line. Wait until the Republicans undo this FCC. Then we go back to Square One.

[lou99/maximus1987]

If four carriers can be supported in a capital intensive industry I would be pleased. I just don't see it down the line. Wait until the Republicans undo this FCC. Then we go back to Square One.

Why not? Shall I quote att and vzw dividends and share buybacks for 2014?

[Ascertion]

Please enumerate the benefits of doing this.

 

Here are the detriments:

ATT and Verizon would have the capacity to compete with Sprint on speed/capacity. With the additional (capacity) breathing room 2.5 would provide, they could afford - from a capacity standpoint - to offer super-sized data buckets and neuter sprint's only advantage.

 

My sister and her husband's family are on a 30GB for $100 on ATT. Husband said he sees no reason to switch to tmobile cause they never come close to using 30gbs.

 

If att, vzw obtain 2.5ghz, the above situation would be far easier for duo to replicate.

Data use will be demanded more and more by consumers in the coming years with new content coming out.  ie: games, HD video, HD music, new streaming capabilites, etc.  With this, customers will definitely start using more data as they cannot afford to constantly be on WiFi all the time.  I guarantee you that monthly data per customer will rise as time progresses and it'll only be a matter of time before they start going over the 30GB share plans and will want unlimited/more data.  By then, Sprint will be in the best position, spectrum wise to afford the capacity that many demand and I wouldn't doubt Sprint being the first to roll out the 5G network (in the upcoming years.)

[Fraydog]

Why not? Shall I quote att and vzw dividends and share buybacks for 2014?

That only proves two players are strong right now. Two players who could sustain themselves in a price war for a long time.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Data use will be demanded more and more by consumers in the coming years with new content coming out.  ie: games, HD video, HD music, new streaming capabilites, etc.  With this, customers will definitely start using more data as they cannot afford to constantly be on WiFi all the time.  I guarantee you that monthly data per customer will rise as time progresses and it'll only be a matter of time before they start going over the 30GB share plans and will want unlimited/more data.  By then, Sprint will be in the best position, spectrum wise to afford the capacity that many demand and I wouldn't doubt Sprint being the first to roll out the 5G network (in the upcoming years.)

 

That doesn't answer my question: what are the benefits of selling/leasing 2.5 to duo and why do these benefits outweigh the risk of neutering sprint's only advantage?

[Rawvega]

It might make some strategic sense to talk publicly about the possibility of selling 2.5 GHz spectrum. However, I don't think that it would be prudent to actually follow through on that. It doesn't make sense to enable your competitors by shedding some your key differentiator for a short term financial boost. I think that's short-sighted. Band 41 is their special playground where only they're allowed to frolic (in the US). There's scale in Band 41 from SoftBank and China Mobile in addition to Sprint. It's a rocky road for squeamish investors, but Sprint needs to keep all of their spectrum and exploit it.

[lou99/maximus1987]

That only proves two players are strong right now. Two players who could sustain themselves in a price war for a long time.

It also proves there's a lot of wealth concentrated in two carriers. Obviously there won't be a simple division by 4 of the duo's dividends because tmo, sprint prices are lower but the only way we'll know if 4 players are "unsustainable" is when sprint and tmo have usable lte networks in most of the places the duo have.

 

Of course it depends what the definition of "sustainable" is.

Baldy and DT think it means that all carriers involved need to be able to pay out multi billion $ dividends per year.

[jroepcke51]

Why not? Shall I quote att and vzw dividends and share buybacks for 2014?

You are referring to two of the top 4 carriers. This is a dumb retort.  I appoligize for being forward.

 

If the profits were more balanced between the four, I could see four providers surviving.

[lou99/maximus1987]

It might make some strategic sense to talk publicly about the possibility of selling 2.5 GHz spectrum. However, I don't think that it would be prudent to actually follow through on that. It doesn't make sense to enable your competitors by shedding some your key differentiator for a short term financial boost. I think that's short-sighted. Band 41 is their special playground where only they're allowed to frolic (in the US). There's scale in Band 41 from SoftBank and China Mobile in addition to Sprint. It's a rocky road for squeamish investors, but Sprint needs to keep all of their spectrum and exploit it.

Does china use b41? Isn't b38?

[jroepcke51]

It also proves there's a lot of wealth concentrated in two carriers. Obviously there won't be a simple division by 4 of the duo's dividends because tmo, sprint prices are lower but the only way we'll know if 4 players are "unsustainable" is when sprint and tmo have usable lte networks in most of the places the duo have.

 

Of course it depends what the definition of "sustainable" is.

Baldy and DT think it means that all carriers involved need to be able to pay out multi billion $ dividends per year.

Beat me to it. 

[jroepcke51]

Does china use b41? Isn't b38?

China Mobile was making all of the new phones second half of 2014 Band 41 compliant.

[lou99/maximus1987]

China Mobile was making all of the new phones second half of 2014 Band 41 compliant.

 

In that case, there's nothing to be gained long term from giving up the 2.5; why give up some 2.5 for $10bil now when sprint could make many multiples of that in the near future. Obviously this strategy is only possible if sprint has enough liquidity but right now they have $7 or $9bil (i forgot which one) in cash+short term investments.

 

 

Even if sprint only deploys 120mhz and literally hoards the rest or "open sources" the rest, it's only fair given the game vzw att have played with spectrum and then roaming fees.

 

I'd much rather sprint think about leasing capacity on 2.5 when it's from a position of strength, not desperation.

[jroepcke51]

It also proves there's a lot of wealth concentrated in two carriers. Obviously there won't be a simple division by 4 of the duo's dividends because tmo, sprint prices are lower but the only way we'll know if 4 players are "unsustainable" is when sprint and tmo have usable lte networks in most of the places the duo have.

 

Of course it depends what the definition of "sustainable" is.

Baldy and DT think it means that all carriers involved need to be able to pay out multi billion $ dividends per year.

Lets not forget that this is a public company and investors have expectations. With a capital intensive company, dividends are expected as FMV increase is usually minimal b/c P/E ratio is really high.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Lets not forget that this is a public company and investors have expectations. With a capital intensive company, dividends are expected as FMV increase is usually minimal b/c P/E ratio is really high.

 

But it's not the govts. problem. It's the ceo's. Remember back to when the tmo/att merger was slapped down. TMO was in WAAAAAY worse position than now and maybe even worse than sprint and look where it is now. Sure profits aren't there but they're growing.

 

Also remember that CEOs WILL lie to get a merger past FCC.

 

Look at the att tmo merger. Att offered $39bil for TMO "to expand lte from 250 to 300 mil" yet this

http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/1678331~018ee90413e657e412818181a5d840ff/DOC.pdf

 

accidentally leaked document shows that going from 250 to 300 mil lte would cost att $3.9bil i.e. 90% cheaper than buying tmobile.

 

I don't believe

[jroepcke51]

But it's not the govts. problem. It's the ceo's.

Correct which is why I am frustrated at our government. However, proper oversight (limited at best) would have implemented a spectrum screen about the low band spectrum, but this is all another discussion

 

Edit. My public accountant self is coming out.