Jump to content

jamesinclair

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,134

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jamesinclair

    Network Vision/LTE - Lower Central Valley Market (Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia)

    in Markets

    Posted

    Yeah, and there's a ways left to go. I'm getting a VZW 5S from work on Monday; I am excite. That'll hold me over until I figure out whether or not it's worth renewing the Sprint contract when the 6 comes out.

     

    After 3.5 years with Sprint, my mom finally had the last straw after having another work call go straight to voicemail. She switched to Verizon this weekend and ate the $100 ETF.

     

    Amusingly enough, her new S5 was a dud, so shes exchanging it for another one.

     

    If I still lived in Fresno theres no way I would have renewed last Fall. Quite frankly, Im surprised anyone in the market would, especially since the tmobile price war escalated over the holidays.

     

    Shell actually be paying less with Verizon than she was paying with Sprint.

    Sprint Reportedly Bowing Out of T-Mobile Bid (was "Sprint offer" and "Iliad" threads)

    in General Topics

    Posted

    That 1 Billion dollar breakup fee could sure get a lot of B41 sites running.

     

    The entire idea of a break up fee is garbage.

     

    Hey I want to buy this truck. OK, but if financing doesn't go through, you owe us 2 grand anyway.

     

    Sent from my HTC M8

     

    Tmobile plan?

     

    -Lure Sprint into deal

    -Petition FCC to deny deal

    -Deal denied

    -Make $1 billion on the cost of $250,000 in lawyer fees

    -PROFIT

    • Like 3

    Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

    in General Topics

    Posted

    This is a genius move by Sprint. Utter brilliance. Think about it this way...

     

    It does not affect 95% of their customers. So 19 out of every 20 customers will see no difference. None.

     

     

    As I mentioned earlier, it does though. It affects everyones peace of mind. Even if you only use 1GB a month, you might have chosen Sprint because you COULD use more. You were paying for that safety buffer - and now it's gone. We all know of people who are completely bound to the idea of unlimited simply because of the possibility that they MIGHT one month use a billion gigs.

     

    Theres people with 4 year old phones on Verizon who use 500mb a month but dont want to give up their unlimited just in case they ever need it.

     

    It affects the reputation of the company. No longer is Sprint "truely unlimited". And I personally think thats a huge loss.

     

    I fully expect Tmobile to roll out ads capitalizing on that,

     

    Im not a shareholder, but if I were, id be nervous. I think this is going to put a serious strain on attracting new customers and holding onto existing ones.

     

    Without "true unlimited" and without significantly different pricing, what competetive advantage does Sprint have overall?

     

    If the REAL data hogs were an issue, than Sprint could have done something like set a 25GB limit. 5GB hits just a little bit too close to home, especially with AT&T and Verizon flooding the airwaves with ads that mention 10GB. Its apples to pineapples, but people see 10GB in one ad, they see 5GB in the AP headline....and they do the math. 10 > 5. Verizon > Sprint. For some (many) people, its that simple.

     

    (And again, this is coming from someone who has never gone over 2.5GB)

    • Like 1

    Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

    in General Topics

    Posted

    IMHO Sprint is been unlimited for too many people for too long. Going back in the last five years - so called the smartphone age - Sprint has been practically shoving unlimited to its users. True for a while they were the only ones to offer truly unlimited data and that was their only differentiator, however it has now become clear in retrospect that those other carriers were correct in that it is basically impossible to support unlimited data for such a cheap price.

     

    Even T-Mobile under then CEO Philip Humm discontinued unlimited data only to be brought back under John Legere, in T-Mobile's case - and I believe this is the correct model for unlimited - they recently upped the price of unlimited data however and added a slot towards the higher end (the old unlimited data price point) for 5 GB of high-speed data. I believe the much smaller subset of T-Mobile's subscribers are on unlimited data making the network in my opinion more manageable by making them pay up for future upgrades to the network.

     

    I know many people on this forum hate T-Mobile, however the fact remains that for many people they are able to access T-Mobile LTE in most of their locations they frequent, and I don't think there's any dispute that generally, currently, T-Mobile has much faster data than Sprint. I therefore believe that Sprint should follow a similar tact in which they should offer more tiers of data and increase the price of unlimited data, that way the people to truly abuse the towers are at least paying for Sprint to upgrade the network more quickly.

     

    Wasnt that what framily was?

     

    A price hike for new users AND  video throtelling.

    Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

    in General Topics

    Posted

    I would appreciate it if someone would be willing to sample in other major forums and comment sections what the popular response is to this new top 5 percent throttling policy, then report back the consensus and some highlights.  I would do it myself, but I fear the worst from uninformed, angry people, and that just might cause me to have an aneurysm.

     

    AJ

     

    Here is a good example. It is a videogame forum, their off topic section. Generally people who know a lot about tech, but not necessarilly cell phone technology (ie, theyll watch the press conference about a new phone, but not know anything about the network).

     

    User base is global. Moderation is extremely strict - can take months to get account approved, and they hand out bans like candy

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=815203

     

     

    First reply:

     

    I had sprint for 4 years and it was already unbearably slow at non throttled speeds. I know many want to see them do well since they still have unlimited data plans, but all they do is waste a lot of spectrum that someone else could put to good use.

     

     

    "You used upwards of 750K at 1.2kbps last month, time to throttle your speed."

     

     

    Ick. I was all set to switch to Sprint, but now I don't know. Maybe I'll do T-Mobile then, but who knows if they'll just get swallowed whole by Sprint anyway...

     

     

    Not a lot of Sprint hating, but general comments about how slow the Sprint network is, and how unattractive this policy change makes them.

     

    I think anouncing a policy change like this, when the network is still under cosntruction is a huge failure.

     

    Someone sitting in Fresno or Sacramento or Hawaii, that doesnt have 4G, and is maxing out at 300kbs on a legacy network is going to read the headline, and its going to be the last straw for them - even if they don't crack 1GB a month. 

     

    Why? Their reaction is "theyre going to make my speeds even SLOWER!?!"

     

    Thats the problem with a policy change like this - even if it doesnt personally affect them, people get upset.

     

    IE: Imagine youre a city and you anounce that parking meters will be in effect from midnight to 3am. All of 4 people might park at a meter during those hours, but you know the mobs and pitckfroks will be out. Why? Because the policy MIGHT affect you - and thats powerful.

     

    In reality, only 5% of the users (or less) actually get affected. Problem is, 100% of users get a sour taste in their mouth.

     

    What some people call "abuse" is what I consider "the cost of doing business".

     

    Yes, people who use 20GB a month slow down the network. But for every one of those, how many users do nothing more than check email and max out at 500mbs a month? Why does Sprint get to punish the users who are doing exactly what they bought into, but not reward those who arent?

     

    Buffets dont charge people different rates. When someone gets 7 plates, the restaurant sucks it up because someone else will get half a plate, and the pricing reflects the balance.

     

    So as a company,you suck it up, and you deal with these power users because it lets you market yoruself as unlimited. And thats extremely powerful for a lot of people.

     

    We all know Sprints reputation is not great. Many people, including lots of posters here, are on Sprint because of their unlimtied data policy.

     

    You toss that, and now you have a company that has been "rebuilding from the ground up" for too long, and with pricing that is no longer significantly more enticing than their competitors.

     

     

    One last note: Those power users? Theyre the ones telling everyone how amazing Sprint is, because Sprint is the only network that lets them do what they want to do. Theyre out recommending Sprint to Jack and Jill and boasting about how many GBs theyre taking in.

     

    Thats good for Sprint, because Jack and Jill will sign up and use 1GB each.

     

    Now you anger your power user? Guess what, theyre going to go out there telling people how terrible Sprint is for "screwing them over".

     

    Again, the power user is the cost of doing business. The benefit is a network promoter.

    • Like 4

    A$$hole with a jammer.

    in General Topics

    Posted

    My blood pressure rises just thinking about someone driving 55MPH in the left lane while attempting to pass a person in the right lane who is driving 54MPH. They just ride side-by-side while traffic backs up behind them. :frantic:

     

     

    Central California, two lane highway, one tractor trailer tries to pass another....

     

    So bad.

    • Like 1

    Sprint Q1 2014 Earnings

    in General Topics

    Posted

    I would be interested to understand what the average sprint data usage of the churning customers looks like. My fear is that it is lower than sprints typical metric. Make no mistake, the price aggressions from sprints competitors is playing a role in the churn. Its not 100% network disturbance. I worry that as sprint churns its course through 2014, we are losing more profitable "light to moderate" data users and hanging on to the hogs. The time to bask in the glory of NV 1.0 is also gone. Its all Spark now and it cant wait 3 or 4 years.

     

    Hoping we will hear something of Son's thoughts and strategies in the next few weeks

     

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

     

    100% anecdotal, but my mom is a very light user (250mb a month or less) and shes leaving Sprint when her contract ends in June because the Fresno market is still in 2007. Her problem isnt even how unreliable data is - its the year+ of dropped and missed calls because NV 1.0 hasnt even rolled into town. At this point, price isnt even on the radar, she just wants dependable service. Shes been with Sprint for almost 4 years. (two phones).

     

    I think it would be interesting to see a market breakdown. Id expect areas that have their NV act together (Boston, Chicago) would see an increase or hold steady, while places like Fresno, Sacramento, Hawaii etc would see (significant) losses. You can only hear "NV coming soon!" for so long before you want to throw your phone at the wall.

     

     

    Im fine with my service (central jersey market), but I see the good part of Sprint losing customers - it gives them a kick in the ass to do better. I still dont understand pushing through the framily price hike when the network updates werent done yet. I think that was a very poor business decision. Meanwhile all the competitors have responded with lower rates.

     

    Im saddened that the Japanese takeover hasnt resulted in any short-term customer retention strategies or incentives. If things hold steady, Id expect the same for next quarter.

    • Like 3

    Network Vision/LTE - Lower Central Valley Market (Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia)

    in Markets

    Posted

    You don't seem to understand the bureaucratic red tape that carriers have to jump through in order to get permits for stuff like this. Many cities don't like cell towers because they are "grotesque" in visual appearance compared to a standard city skyline. In those cities, there is more red tape to fight with, and extra engineering that has to take place in order to secure the permits necessary. Take Henderson, NV for example. They hate cell towers, and many of them are "stealth" sites that have to be done a certain way, i.e. monopalm, monopine, "flagpole". So you see, Fresno is one of those picky cities, and as Oedipus has posted many pictures of, the RRU's are on racks by the equipment cabinets because of the extra expense of making fake trees bigger or flagpoles that can't fit the RRU's.

     

    Id buy that if everyone but Fresno launched, but the entire Fresno circle, ie, the area one contractor gets, has not launched.

     

    The problem is the contractor, not just the city. Unless youre claiming that Freno, Clovis, and the county are all conspiring to fail.

     

    I think it's fair to say that the local contractor is a dud. Is there any other major city where not even a single 3G upgrade has been launched? Thats not a backhaul issue, thats incompetence.

×
×
  • Create New...