JustinRP37

You are making the assumption that it would be Sprint offering the package deal. I see nothing of the sort based on what the cable CEO's have said. The cable companies would be reselling the wireless service, not the other way around. I definitely do think Sprint's B41 would be awesome as a relay for cable, I really do. But again you have to focus on investors as they drive what a company does. Look at what they did to Verizon and FiOS! I am just saying to be cautious, especially with what I have heard from many people. I know a few people that do work with Comcast and I would say temper your expectations for a deal. As for bundling you are missing my point. Most people are not going to want their cable bill to go up the same amount as their current phone bill. People want to decrease their cable bills at all costs. Now if Comcast would say bundle with us and save, they would have to offer a discount on wireless service. This discount would have to be below what people current have to get them to switch. This means there would be even LESS margin for Sprint. Mean ARPU would still DROP to gain customers in a field that is already hyper competitive! Also, Comcast and Charter are not just going to infuse billions into Sprint for a buildout/densification. I just do not see a huge upside for cable in this deal unless they outright merge and take over Sprint, which is a possibility. I'm not trying to be negative in anyway, just tempering excitement etc. It would be great if cable would be able to rapidly help deployment, but I really do not see that happening. Maybe over the course of years +. Wireless is just too competitive right now to increase ARPU, which is what Sprint desperately needs to pay off debt and fund more CAPEX. Further here is a link from Comcast's last earnings (they do not seem keen on a acquisition or funding Sprint's buildout): http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-s-roberts-i-don-t-see-anything-industry-we-don-t-already-have-today

I do not see why a cable company would be able to accelerate permits which are largely in the hands of governments. Cable co's constantly complain about this as well, especially in neighborhoods with buried lines. The backhaul would be huge for Sprint though and that would definitely help them out. And I do not see customer acquisition being big at all merely because people want to rid themselves of the cable company, not bundle more services. If they were to truly gain more bundled customers, they would literally almost have to give away the wireless service. I just do not see as much upside from an investor's standpoint in a deal such as this, which is why I think it has kind of stalled out and the two month period has expired. It would be a bad deal for the cable companies' investors. There is much more upside for Sprint though than the cable companies. You have to look at it from both sides, not just the side that makes it more appealing to Sprint.

I honestly do not know how well a potential tie-up with cable would go. Yes Sprint might get some funding from them, but I really, and I stress REALLY, do not know many people that would want to give their cable company MORE business than they already have to. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the country (I actually enjoy their service when I visit places with it, and they improve their network). I won't place much stock in a reselling deal unless there are other guarantees just because I do not think it would be a great business model. For the cable companies, there isn't much margin in bundling wireless service and any negative cellular service would also then look bad for the cable company. For Sprint, they would get an influx of cash most likely (which could go to CAPEX or debt), but they also would not have the margins on those subscribers as they would if they just sold their product directly to the customers.

Verizon also posted a strong quarter and met and exceeded projections with postpaid net additions of 614k and a churn of just 0.94%. Now that the other big three have reported, it will be very interesting to see Sprint's numbers next week.

We will get this all next week on August 1st. Hopefully they do not do the same thing they did last year where they initially had a higher CAPEX but then lowered guidance throughout the year. If they do not add a tremendous amount of subscribers soon though, then I do not know what will happen with CAPEX. Latest murmurs are saying Verizon may have added postpaid subscribers this quarter (guidance is 125,000 additions), so that really does not leave much room for net postpaid gains. With their current offers, they should be bringing in a lot of subscribers. Yes Sprint did not advertise the free for a year online, but it did get picked up by several news articles on sites like CNN, USA Today, and Fox.

These are great points Redspark. I would say it is kind of mixed now in terms of what gets noticed more, slow/no data or dropped calls. In many instances a data loss can result in some major issues (i.e. not being able to purchase a Metro North ticket here in the NYC market, especially at stations that still lack ticket terminals (Waterbury come on!)). A dropped call can be frustrating as can something urgent not loading. This is where Sprint really needs to work on the network. The number of cases where you go from blazing fast speeds to sub 4Mbps speeds is still too high. Also, it will be interesting to see how the Sprint earnings look, especially with the free promo. Both TMUS and T have beaten Wall Street predictions this past quarter. AT&T ended up having a much better quarter than projected and only lost ~80,000k post paid subscribers, but gained a bunch of prepaid. AT&T also reported record low churn, while TMUS was port positive against all the other three. TMUS added a ton of subscribers (even without their funky DIGITS accounting). Verizon reports tomorrow and projects have been saying they did not have a bad quarter either (looks like they might have just narrowly beaten expectations). That doesn't leave many churning customers for Sprint to take in this past quarter. Maybe they were able to get more new smartphone customers! Let's hope!

Exactly this! They might not know it as voLTE, GSM, etc, but they will know others are able to send and receive email, map updates, iMessages, Whatapps, etc. I know businessmen that have let Sprint simply because of this. I also work in a laboratory that is jointly run by the state and a university and can say that simultaneous voice and data are huge for our field teams. You can talk them through data sets or GPS while on the phone.

They want to start using it because it is a selling point. Before I had voLTE, I never saw the need for it. After having used it now, it does have many advantages. Calls do sound better for sure. Verizon also lets user choose if they want to us it. They aren't forced onto it, which I believe is the right way to do it. Sprint will most likely follow this model (and they are with the two phones that do offer it). There are many markets that would be able to use voLTE reliably on the Sprint network and those users should be able to. I think voLTE will launch this fall along side iOS 11.

Exactly. Densification definitely needs a lot more work but it is happening on all networks. Hopefully Sprint keeps CAPEX up and really densifies LTE throughout the footprint.

But this argument still doesn't hold up when talking about a merger. If Sprint were to merge with T-Mobile, they would not add CDMA to T-Mobile towers, just like they won't add GSM to Sprint towers. They would simply keep pushing ahead with LTE rollout and densification. Sprint's lack of voLTE is not a positive at this point in time for the company, and they know it. That is part of the reason why I think the MagicBox is great. It is about densifying the network to prevent dropped calls from when they do transition to voLTE. Sprint knows people want voLTE, mainly for simultaneous voice and data (just look through Reddit and people discuss this all the time as a negative for Sprint). In cities like NYC Sprint can easily do voLTE now. Verizon has voLTE, but I can tell you it is not on par with the CDMA network for dropped calls outside of major metropolitan areas. On my Verizon phone I do turn voLTE off when I am in smaller towns because it is much more fragile than the CDMA airlink. I can see Sprint moving in much the same manner here.

See what I did there? I'm just trying to say despite him being a bit shady, he has done great (business wise) for the company. Love him or hate him, he did get the desired results. But I think my points are valid that all companies try to sell us all snake oil. All companies have their weak points, but its the marketing that makes the difference.

I didn't mention a merger in my post, so I don't now why you quoted me on this. As for network technology, that ship has sailed. All carriers in the USA will be primarily based on LTE very soon. CDMA will be sunset in less than half a decade, so this argument is not valid for much longer. This is why you are seeing Sprint roam on AT&T in some areas now. Sprint is last in enabling voLTE, but now that they are testing it, I would be shocked if they were not aggressive in the rollout of voLTE.

I have graded college finals that are shorter than this post^. Can we get the Cliff Notes version? But in all actuality people need to stop bashing John. I am not a T-Mobile fan, but again the results speak for themselves. Yes, he may have been selling some snake oil, but name one carrier that doesn't sell some snake oil. He may be crass, but he has done quite a bit with a struggling carrier, while managing to shake up an industry that was dominated by the top two players for almost a decade. If I was a shareholder, I would be very impressed with what he has done. Also, Guenther Ottendorfer is a great COO, but just because he is a great COO does not mean he would make a great CEO. It is a different skill set. Further, Marcelo has done wonders with Sprint's financials. We are talking about a company that most have had on its deathbed since the Nextel merger. He has been able to stabilize the financials and right the ship. Sprint is still far from being a 'health' company, but Marcelo has put them on a much more sustainable path.

Well we cannot understate that he took the number 4 carrier and made it the solid number 3 carrier all while improving the financials of the company and still expanding the network footprint. He has done many great things and in turn also forced Sprint to do many great things. Sprint as well has forced others to compete as well. Just a few years ago T-Mobile was the laughingstock of the wireless world and now every carrier once again as unlimited because of how many customers TMUS was poaching. Yes they raised prices now, but that is why competition is great. People will churn to the cheaper company.

I have to You make a good point about using what works for you and in the areas that you frequent. I will say however that this past weekend up in Vermont, our Verizon lines did perform much better than our Sprint lines data wise. Verizon's voice coverage though is really not much better than Sprint's in many areas. voLTE is also significantly weaker than their CDMA coverage, which is to be expected. To be honest, if I did not have such a good discount with Verizon, it would not be worth it for the better data coverage.

Touch ID generation 2 has been simply the best thing I have ever used. It is literally super fast at scanning and unlocking the phone. I also like that the data for the fingerprint is stored in the secure enclave.

This is a bit of an over stretch, especially when we (as a collective group, including Robert) at S4GRU have always said choose the provider that best meets your needs. There are many people that have donated to this site, provided insight, and truly want Sprint to succeed but cannot be a customer at this time because Sprint is currently not meeting their needs. I fully support the no complaints policy of the site and have found this quite possibly the most informative website regarding cellular communications on the web.

Arysyn, I think the reason you get a lot of flack is because you are always discussing switching providers. When someone said you are not an example of a normal consumer, this is what they mean. I have changed wireless providers only a couple of times in my life (and mostly on my iPad for that matter). In just the past year I can remember multiple switches from you. A lot of the issues you mention with each provider are not unique to any one provider.

Well I certainly won't disagree with you there. But I wouldn't say we are necessarily beating a dead horse. This horse is very much alive since the CEOs are talking. If it was just analysts and Wall Street speaking, then yes it would be a dead horse. After the it became clear it would not pass through the prior time, I think many were beating a dead horse when it was clear nothing would be done. Now, I think within the next year we will certainly see some action in this arena. Besides this, there really is not much happening other than Tidal and the LTE rollout, which quite frankly isn't news.

I do not think they would change guidance heading into a merger as that should help increase their asking price if they are the seller. If they are the buyer, then they would still be able to tout B41 as a major strength as a capacity carrier. I do think they would be able to have one hell of a network if they combine with T-Mobile if the merger was handled correctly. However, I personally enjoy the competition we have right now as I think all carriers are firing on all cylinders to retain and gain customers, it's just that T-Mobile and Sprint have been driving the majority of the competition right now.

It isn't a dead horse now that you basically have all four officials talking about it. Furthermore, if you are an investor, this is when things get going. The stock price is up over 1% today, when the rest of the industry is down because of these remarks after the closing bell yesterday. And official news is definitely news that comes out of the mouth of a CEO at a tech conference in Miami. I do not get the hostility of talking about a process, especially when the person this thread is named after is giving the remarks. As much as I love the thought of 4 competitors for the sake of competition, it seems like in the end we will see a merger.

It seems like it will happen at least some point down the road: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3273003-sprint-chief-claure-enormous-synergies-t-mobile-merger?ifp=0 When your CEO starts publicly discussing it, they are working on something.

When you tell those NIMBY folks that there are a whole bunch of satellites up there in orbit broadcasting TV and radio all over the USA as well as SAT-Phone service, their minds are blown. I just do not get these people. One of our campuses is in a town that basically does not allow cell phone towers, yet everyone complains of service. "Can you hear me now??" No, because you need towers!

This is a bit off thread and it doesn't need to be. All carriers upgrade constantly. One company's way isn't better than another's, except Springs rip and replace was far more disruptive and detrimental for a period of time. The goal is always to reduce the effects felt by the customer. Dan Hesse believe this rip and replace was more disruptive than he anticipated. This led to very large churn and ultimately led to Sprint becoming the 4th carrier. One can make the argument that with better planning during this phase they would not have fallen so far behind. But that is in the past. They have to dig themselves out during a hyper competitive time in wireless. They cannot do everything. It will take time to add density to LTE especially outside of major metros. Even their forecast CAPEX is still on the conservative side, but they have to be conservative.

Gaaahhhh, no! Stock options are still an expense! It most certainly is reported on financial reporting. I do not know why people believe that money and/or stocks can just be created out of thin air with no accountability. https://hbr.org/2003/03/for-the-last-time-stock-options-are-an-expense