JeffDTD

I can't wait to see Uncle Charlie all dressed in pink, standing and saluting the magentan army, hugging and giggling with Legere, saving our wireless and satellite souls from higher prices and finally building out the biggest network on these states we call America. I am also interested in hearing about the combined company's debt load, revenue and exactly what they plan on doing with unlimited data.

Its often more that these "people" don't WANT Softbank to stand behind Sprint. Predictions of any kind of improvement at sprint are always met with agitation to convince the public of the opposite, reference article today http://www.bidnessetc.com/44411-heres-why-morgan-stanley-thinks-sprint-corp-stock-might-tumble-to-alltime-l/ predicting a $2.00 stock price while sprint stock actually surged this morning all while one of the largest and wealthiest telecommunications corporations in the world remains Sprint's owner with no stated or inferred intent to sell. In fact, they still want to acquire more US presence.

Well, if were going to go down the -Softbank aint gonna pay- path again, that would imply sprint couldn't joint bid either.

If the FCC wants to side with ATT/Verizon's wishes on how much is set aside for smaller players, fine. But in that case they need to reconsider the decision to prohibit joint bidding. If Uncle Charlie is allowed to bid and he has the $$$, he's going to jam as many bidders into the mix as he can with the goal of eliminating one of the two small players from success for his nefarious network dreams. Until we hear about him striking a deal with someone, you can rest assure his greed and penny pinching negotiation tactics are why he hasn't found that partner thus far.

I agree with everything you said. Individual lines have a lot of room for growth.

I love the data bucket size that Sprint has offered. Its more than generous and an easy sell if a user has good coverage. It sounds like Marcelo and Son have realized that good coverage + value will win more users than "swiss cheese network +budget priced unlimited ". They're right. I consider a single user who is sucking down more than 10-15gb a month to carry a *heavy* usage trend. Waaaay more than average and by no means entitled to " blow it out" because sprint was desperate or low enough to sell unlimited. At the same time, expect sprint to allow you to keep your unlimited plans, with asterisks. Throttling, more expensive new devices, etc. Switching your streaming quality back to normal instead of HD and only streaming movies when you have wifi is not the end of the world and certainly not the way the current networks have been designed to service all users. And I guess Sprint could always pull more tmo or cricket tricks to maintain the illusion of unlimited. Could pull roaming coverage and enforce a permanently throttled speed after a certain usage point.

Yes, can't blame him. It was a hard sell at the time because it created more debt for Sprint, increased the network modernization tasks at hand, brought yet another prepaid sub-brand into the fold, and Sprint really didn't *need* the spectrum it would have brought. You have to go with Hesse's realization that allowing MetroPCS to go to anyone else, specifically its closest competitor, strengthened the competitor more than it harmed Sprint.

Hesse's 7 year tenure saw lots of marketing strategies, different marketing firms, etc. Like the larger two, many in the industry, and plenty of us here back when, Hesse didn't expect Tmobile's device financing and uncarrier marketing to *sustain* the growth that it has. It really didn't represent much of a discount for the average consumer. It just shuffled around the way that the cost is perceived. While we can knock him for not realizing how influential it would become, also remember that he negotiated and rubber stamped a buyout of Metro PCS that the board of directors at Sprint refused. I've no doubt he realized the other potential suitor was Tmobile. As we've read about, after softbank initially took over, Sprint still operated slow and meticulously as its board of directors had required. I'm glad a fresh, young CEO was brought in too... Just don't forget that Son also approved Framily and the marketing that went with it.

Hesse *saved* sprint from financial demise, convinced investors to fund NV, and orchestrated the sale to Softbank, one of the richest sugardaddy's we could ever ask for. He is more than a -decent- ceo

Worried, for sure. [emoji27]

If Verizon sells LTE only devices, I would expect those devices to priced lower, at least at first, to spur sales....as well as a strongly worried T&C that forces you to accept that your chosen device may not have the same voice coverage.

At least you agree that Chapter 7 Corporate Bankruptcy (liquidation of all assets) isn't a rational prediction for a subsidiary of a multinational telecommunications corporation with a 9.5 trillion market cap and more than 500 Billion in net income in 2014. If Sprint is the "odd man out" in the coming spectrum auctions (seems to be the best dig anyone has on them here lately) AND that ends up putting Sprint at a disadvantage, what you have is a dialogue to justify consolidation. Softbank was ready two years ago to drop another 40B to integrate two carriers. The idea that Softbank's future in the US hinges on whether or not Sprint's financial health improves significantly in the next two years is not rational. Whether intentional or not, the bankruptcy / doom and gloom prophecies here or elsewhere feed the same narrative that the average local Tmo, ATT , or Verizon store sales person might sell you when you tell them you are switching to Sprint = "Those guys? They're going out of business"

Again, you propose that Softbank will be unable to meet Sprint's debt repayment requirements. Why?

"Lose 20 billion"? You believe sale is the only option to avoid bankruptcy and loss of the entire investment? As though sprints assets are worthless? Softbank may very well decide to sell all or a portion of its ownership someday, but we aren't headed for bankruptcy folks. Get your head out of the pink sand.

So now I'm the critic and youre the optimist? I'm gonna have to toss another "lol" back at you.

Keep laughing, max. Lol. Hahaha. Jk. You guys. Stop. No really, stop. Jk jajajajaja.#yolo #magenta4life #trollin

The capital expenditures of network expansion and modernization are hell on any carrier's profit and bottom line. In one hand, we demand densification, organic expansion, b26 and b41 on 100% of sites, and spectrum bidding "or else". In the other hand, we criticize sprints profit while we bathe in low rates. You can't have both. Sprint's profit will improve when it either is able to raise rates or slow network capex. Demanding both profit and network vision 2, 3, and 4 on an accelerated schedule is foolish.

That makes me sad.

More mobile video news and entertainment? Yawn. Nothing eats my data bucket quicker than streaming video on Verizon LTE. Hopefully there are some valuable patents being acquired here. The AOL name is dead to millenials and all I think about when I think of AOL is the sound of an old dial up modem

The premium price Charlie Ergen would demand isn't supported by Dish's existing revenue. The value is hedged entirely on the future opportunity of the spectrum. There will be huge buildout costs behind using that spectrum... And they're not supported by rural wireless broadband revenue either. Charlie may be amassing a package that can't be reasonably bought by anyone without significant divestment to multiple others, even if he abandoned his premium price.

I loved the old fair and flexible plans. They were one of our first enticements to "un-limit" mobile phone usage without devastating consequences. Until the per GB price is $1 or less, I'm convinced that the word "unlimited data" will always be used by a mobile network carrier in the US... to what degree of speed is the $$$ question. Under the current regulatory environment, as the carriers build faster networks, we could easily see the more advanced devices released with specific rate plan requirements, akin to what Sprint did years ago with better phones. Basic high speed access will become cheaper, but the carriers will figure out how to make us pay more for what is considered premium.

Last fall, tmo claimed average data per user of 2.7GB. Anyone using 9 or 10 times that amount on a single line falls into the heavy usage category and probably in to top 10%

If there is a concentration of redheaded people living in a large community, state, geographic designation in our country, then yes marketing specifically to them would make sense. The analogy is wrong, however. There is real growth opportunity with Latinos and minorities in general when a business does directed marketing to their communities to distinguish itself among brands. Boost is a fantastic example of successfully selling the exact same network to a targeted audience. Verizon also pursued Latinos with the "Viva Movil" effort featuring Jennifer Lopez. It was abandoned, but would have never been funded had the data not shown a real opportunity.

Has Tmo discussed their average per user data consumption lately? That would be interesting to know, given how they've grown and invited data hogs. (Remembering Legere's porn comment a year or two ago). Would like to know what kind of consumption the top 3% are doing.

Isn't the Nexus 6 compatible with all of Tmo's LTE bands? While all the literature says the service will switch between between Tmo and Sprint, just flipping between Sprint, Tmo and Project Fi maps, the Fi map appears that: 1)Sprint LTE is preferred and shown in full 2)Chunks of LTE coverage shown on Tmo's own maps don't show up on the Project Fi map 3)Tmo roaming coverage is available in some places 4)Sprint roaming coverage is not available. Was the map pieced together market by market? I'm very eager to hear reviews of the usage experience, especially in fringe areas and roaming.