JustinRP37

If you can figure out how to handle the debt load in a market that is slowing down and access to capital is decreasing while increasing CAPEX, well by all means send your resume and cover letter to SoftBank! Not to sound harsh, but Sprint has been downgraded several times over the past few years. This makes it much harder for them to get funding for additional projects. They have already pulled the magical bunny from the hat multiple times by setting up these leasing agreements. Sometimes you have to make cuts to stabilize before you can move forward. Sprint CANNOT burn more cash and then have the market collapse again. You have already seen how volatile the markets are this year.

This paragraph is not actually true in the least. The United States market still drive the majority of profits in the smartphone world, so I do not understand why you would say that. The bigger problem is most likely the amount of litigation they would have to go through to show that patents were not blatantly ripped off. And I know about the Huawei ban on network equipment. My point is still valid for the smartphone arena as the USA is hostile towards the company. Plus, you never addressed the patent violations. You really have not answered many of the questions I posed, specifically WHAT TECHNOLOGY do you want to see that is available in the Chinese market that is not present here? Also, the Nexus 6P is designed by Google and Huawei, with Huawei being the manufacturer. Not fully 'Huawei'. Further you say that you would be open to allowing Xiaomi sell devices here? Tell me do you really think it would be right to allow a company that has impinged on so many patents held in the USA, specifically Apple patents? Furthermore, I understand that your posts are you opinions. However, this is a site for serious discussion. I will not reply further to this topic as what you have outlined is impossible. It does not make sense from a business standpoint nor does it make sense from a government standpoint for a government operating in the free world. I would suggest that we even form a thread for topics about what wireless carriers would look like in a the most ideal world and use this thread to discuss Sprint. You even mention you would have three national carriers with T-Mobile going to AT&T and the rest of the CDMA carriers to Sprint. Why would it be that way? Also, if all the carriers were the same, had the same quality, same prices, same phones, what the hell would they be competing on? Seriously, what incentive would they have to lure you as a customer? Blah, sorry if I seem like a jerk, but I am not trying to be. I just want to hear real solutions to a VERY complicated system, not fantasy.

I'm not going to quote your whole post because it is really long. However, you are forgetting another major cost in the wireless industry and that is building out the network. Again, you are pushing an ideal world where a carrier is going to get cheap spectrum, magically deploy that spectrum, and then pass on any savings to the consumer. As we have seen with Verizon and AT&T that likely would never happen. Plus it sounds like your plan is to get T-Mobile more spectrum at what really would be a disadvantage to the other carriers. Furthermore, leasing spectrum from the government? So basically you are going to put the government in charge of setting the price that they think is fair for the spectrum? A government that could at anytime increase the pricing of the spectrum? And I am sure that while they were at it, they might put other stipulations into a carrier using the spectrum they are leasing from the government. Does not sound like a win/win for the consumer. Also more Asian companies would be selling their phones in the USA? I do not know if you have realized, but exactly where are your smartphones coming from? Apple is really the only major designer of smartphones in the USA and those are manufactured in China. Just about every other device you will buy is designed and manufactured in Asia. Regarding their technology in smartphones being so far ahead of us, what do you mean? The devices we are being shipped are their latest and greatest. And if our technology is so far behind, why is Apple still on of the more popular brands in the Asian market? Yes their networks may be fast, but again if you look at big cities that is the case. Go to a rural part of China and you will most likely be dealing with spotty service (oh and you will ALWAYS be behind the Great Firewall, since the government controls the internet and spectrum). One area where they are much further ahead is the adoption of wireless payment, something USA consumers are still more hesitant about. What phone do they currently have that you want? Huawei phones are not sold here most likely because the USA government banned them from bidding on government contracts for concerns of possible espionage. Also, it looks like they may have also violated some patents held in the US, but that is another sticking point. Finally, most people do not want to upgrade once or twice or more a year. Techies and people that would come to sites like this do, but you cannot equate that to the average person. You are projecting your wants and desires among the rest of the customers. Most customers want a phone to text, have reliable data to stream music and video, and make a phone call. Most people do not know what a speed test is nor would they care. According to Apple's latest environmental report, they have seen the number of years a person will hold on to their phone from just over two years to now just over three years. This is a big change as people are now seeing the 'true cost' of a phone and not the standard $99-$299 upgrade price. Furthermore, imagine the sheer amount of waste generated if everyone upgraded their phones every 6 months. Not only would we be misallocating economic resources but the reselling market would most likely collapse as well. If everyone is buying the latest and greatest, who is going purchase your used device? The current leasing system is designed on the company being able to sell the phone down the line. Also, have you not noticed the massive slow down in the tech sector? Things are pretty terrible right now in the tech sector. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Cisco, IBM, etc are in the midst of slowdowns. People do not seem to upgrading, worldwide, like they used to be. Most people feel their technology IS doing enough for them. I am a techie, so I always want more, but you have to be careful when thinking about YOUR wants compared to the average less technology-wise person.

You cannot make the wireless industry more affordable by doing the things are mention. Spectrum is auctioned off, so the only price control would be setting the pricing floor for the auction. The carriers are not paying for spectrum the way you are making it seem. Furthermore, if you think that decreased costs would be passed down to consumers then you are mistaken. A company will never agree to limit its pricing unless it is a regulated utility that is forced to do so. Companies have to be able to adjust pricing up and down. Imagine is a natural disaster occurred and they had to rebuild the network, surely they will feel pressure to increase ARPU to help defray the cost as insurance would only go so far. And when you mention 'so that people can afford the advanced technology', what does that even mean? Nobody NEEDS the latest and greatest technology (aka the latest phone) every time a phone comes out, especially if you are implying that the company decreases the cost of the upgrade. This would lower margins and shareholders would revolt. The carriers do not set the prices they pay for the phone from the suppliers. The carriers can only adjust how much they charge the consumer. They still need to make a profit on the device. The carriers really do not care if you upgrade all they time, they just want you to subscribe. In the past past when phones were subsidized, you may have seen a carrier offer a reduced upgrade fee to someone that had not upgraded in a long time. This is not because the company wants the subscriber to have the latest technology, but those with older tech were far likelier to churn.

This is a good article about it: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/04/22/full-one-sprint-leadership-management-list.html

That is the point I was trying to make. People are far more likely to tell you about their negative experience than their positive experience. I have never really seen someone post "OMG I just LOVE paying my cell phone bill each month! The service is totally amazing".

Really? I see tons of complaints about all the carriers on Facebook. Go to Verizon and you see A LOT of billing complaints. Go to AT&T and you see dropped call complains and billing complaints. Go to T-Mobile and you see tons of complaints about slow service, problems with the bill, and coverage. Seems like they all have their issues. Yes Sprint has a lot of complaints too.

iPhone 6s. Yeah, the ##UPDATE# was the first thing I tried. My wife had the same issues in the same location. Luckily on the train it is only about 5 minutes long, but just sucks to have even radio drop out.

That is the problem though, they cannot take much more punishment. The company really cannot afford to make ANY mistakes at this point.

Has anyone noticed that since the network failure a few weeks ago, some towers have just not come back online? The Bronx has been having trouble ever since that day along the Metro-North tracks. Wakefield to Mount Vernon West is particularly bad. I reported it and they say they are investigating it and I am not the only one to notice the slow down.

I too wonder how much all these 'top-notch' executives are being paid. We have seen many companies become top heavy in the past and get bogged down in mindless executive speak. They need one vision for the whole company. The balance sheet is still a mess, they still have plenty or network issues, and the competition is only getting tougher. This is a company that cannot afford to make anymore costly mistakes or they are toast. I do think Craig Moffet though had to be abused by someone at Sprint as a child because I do not understand his hatred towards the company. Sprint is still 100x better than they were just a few years ago, but it is a dangerous road right now, and hopefully Marcelo is able to get them to better times.

What are you doing in Farmington? That is pretty dang close to where I grew up!

Yeah it is very bad in Westchester county at the moment. No LTE and off and on 3G. The phone cannot authenticate with any data network at the time being.

$10 per line is $120 a year for 1 line. If you have four lines on your account, your yearly bill just went up $480. That is a pretty steep increase. And to put it in a percentage, that is a 16.7% increase.

I am sure that the higher ups at Sprint have visited this site numerous times. In fact, I would be shocked if they had not read through it. Part of being a CEO is not only knowing your customer, but knowing about your rivals and the general public. Marcelo most likely searches for news about Sprint and his competitors daily. I mainly read this site a lot and have since the WiMAX days, but I post far less now, just because of life. Everyone on this site has been critical of Sprint at one time or another. Judging from a lot of your posts, I know that you change wireless carriers quite frequently, or it at least seems this way. While you may be critical of the article, many analysts are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. It is still going to be a tricky road, much like the road T-Mobile is on as well. It is a very competitive field right now and T-Mobile also has to look out for dropping ARPU.