JustinRP37

 

 

In regards to your comment about Huawei being banned, that stuff has to do with the U.S. government's concerns over Huawei network equipment possibly being able to hijack important transmissions and whatnot. It has nothing to do with devices being sold here or not. If that were true what you said, then the Nexus 6p would never have been sold here, among all the other Asian manufactured devices. These bother Asian companies would not have a problem being able to sell their devices here in the U.S., if they wanted to. The issue is that the U.S. wireless market is not lucrative enough for these companies because smartphone sales growth is declining. People are not upgrading as much as they use to, because of factors I've mentioned in my previous response here. I'm advocating for something I believe would change this by making the U.S. wireless market better and more lucrative.

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 understand how spectrum is auctioned off and is very costly to the carriers. I'd much rather the FCC rework spectrum (this is my opinion, not intending to assume this is just going to happen because I'd like it to) and lease spectrum based on a certain amount of it over time at a much more affordable rate than what carriers pay in the auctions. Carriers have a lot of money tied into purchasing rights to spectrum use at auction. If these costs were a lot less, then a reasonable trade-off would be for an agreement not to have customer rates above certain levels on a variety of plan types. Carriers would be inclined to agree if the spectrum leasing rates were much more reasonable, there were less competition - three national carriers instead of four, which means more customers and more income from the reduced competition. Carriers would have more money to spend on network upgrades on equipment, sites, technology, etc.

 

Regarding customer device upgrades, the lower monthly rates carriers charge as an agreement with the FCC in exchange for much more spectrum at much lower cost for that spectrum, will allow carriers to afford giving customers a much better network experience at the lower rates customers will be paying. To be more specific, T-Mobile had a two-line unlimited promotional plan for $100 monthly, keeping in mind T-Mobile has the least amount of spectrum among the carriers to be able to offer such a great deal it really was to customers who very easily could take advantage of this and congest the network, regardless that it was just a limited time deal. I read online somewhere a while back that the amount of spectrum T-Mobile has averages around 90mhz nationally. I'm not sure how true that is, though regardless of whether or not they have that amount of spectrum, more, or less, I'd want the amount of spectrum to be triple that, at 270mhz per carrier.

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.

I really didn't intend to get into politics. What I've been saying is that corporations need less oversight with proper safety terms for consumers. I never said government ought to have any ownership in these companies. The point is to make things better for the wireless industry so that people can afford the advanced technology that would become available if carriers had more access to spectrum at cheaper rates with less competition so they'd have more money to spend on network equipment, site, and technology upgrades. That isn't socialism at all, its called making things better for business. The only added provision companies would need to follow in exchange for these terms, is lower rates for customers so they could afford better devices that would come around with these changes.

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

The issue is Facebook itself, not a comparison between the different carriers on Facebook. The user that feels the need to complain on Facebook is not the typical customer. That's like saying that political caucus participants represent the typical voter.

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".

It is not a representative of a a company's customer base as long as you don't have similar company to compare to.  In this case, if you go to Tmobile, Verizon or Att's facebook, they have a lot less unhappy customers unless these companies were able to delete those complaints.  I don't think they can only Facebook can.  

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.

What device are you using? 

 

I cant believe I'm going to say this...

 

But have you tried a PRL and Profile update? I had some handoff issues on my N6P and that immediately fixed the issue. 

 

If that does not helps hit up @marcicarris, @marceloclaure and @sprintcare on twitter, they will get on it right away..

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.

Don't worry about it. If it isn't an efficient way to organize a company they be punished for it.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

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. 

Sprint just announced a new President for Florida, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands:

 

Claudio Hidalgo Joins Sprint as President, Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Region

 

 

Marcelo has recruited some top talent for One Sprint. He's basically put a CEO in charge of each of the 4 geographical regions (West, Central, South, Northeast) and a manager in charge of 19 specific regions within those 4 areas.

 

It's remarkable how many of these Area and Regional presidents are senior management or CEO's from other companies, like Claudio. Marcelo has poached a number of regional presidents from Verizon too.

 

The thinking here is, we're going to put you (as a former CEO or senior manager with experience from another company) in charge of this Sprint area or region. You run it as if you are the CEO or manager. You report your results up the chain. I think it's a great idea.

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.

Yep. I'm in Farmington, CT getting LTE now.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

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 is not bad to be honest but they should tread a little light on the price increases only because of the rep Sprint has that people won't let go. The first thing that will be screamed is "they're charging me more, Sprint can't be trusted" I would assume sprint will notify those who are indeed getting the price increase.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

$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 didn't intend on writing such a long post previously, but I don't yet have my phone setup, which using a phone has helped me manage my writing on being shorter than when using a desktop. Although, I stand by most of my perspectives in that, which are my opinion, and was not a critical one of anyone here. I was writing my opinion of the article, something which everyone here has a right to write about wireless-related topics, so long as they are not violating site policy. To tell me or anyone else to go elsewhere, isn't very polite. And yes, I am happy with T-Mobile, but that doesn't mean I ought to not write anything here about it or Sprint, etc.

 

Again, I was fair in my post, not bashing Sprint or being critical of them. I think the advancements Sprint has made are very commendable. Still, I find some things in the article a bit disturbing, and felt proper to write about it here, as this is a Sprint-based discussion website. I think from that, it may become a topic eventually of comparison between what Sprint is now, compared to what it could have been, in terms or areas of Sprint which sadly are not improving, and what needs to be done to change that. I find it interesting many people here have been switching away from Sprint, and also mentioning here why that is.

 

I've said here many times I think it would be a great benefit for higher ups at Sprint to read S4GRU and learn from the ideas written here to help the company. Seeing as the article mentions the tour Marcelo Claure is on speaking with Sprint customers, I think he also ought to read this site and learn a lot from it as he is from his customers on tour. As it is, I've learned about the system he is using for rating that I was unaware of. So, there is a lot of value here on this site, and everyone here is a part of that and holds responsibility here. I believe I've done well with that, and as I'll conclude, I'm not critical of others here, and would appreciate the same respect. I will try writing shorter again, as I'm going to be going back to using a phone very soon, which as I mentioned, does help me with that.

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.

I mean it's not as though it isn't true. Sprint has data that shows that in LTE Plus markets Sprint is beating out AT&T and Verizon in app and web download speeds which is actually amazing. Their LTE ping times are also consistently the lowest nationwide. Different tests are showing different results but I think that the one thing we can all agree upon is that Sprint is definitely the most improved and best positioned going forward.

Network-wise I would agree. However that debt load is staggering and they are going to have to do some major rebranding. I have been talking to a lot of friends around NYC about having them give Sprint a shot and none will even consider Sprint. It is always shocking to me how many people are actually afraid of using their phones on Verizon and AT&T for fear of data overages. There are better ways of living folks! Hopefully people do start enjoying the network and spreading their positive user experiences, unfortunately people with unhappy experiences talk more frequently and louder than those with positive experiences.

OK.  Being nervous about Sprint is justified.  I interpreted your comment that you didn't feel comfortable posting at S4GRU because we may disagree with you.  No one should feel concerned about posting here.  Unless they are an idiot.  And clearly you are not.

Thanks, and I am comfortable posting. I guess it is the mind tricks that occur when writing a dissertation for a PhD.  I'll try to post more as it is good to clear my head and get away from science.  Does anyone still use the lounge? 

Were you referring to the ALL IN plans?  http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-387-updated-editorial-marcelo-thats-not-quite-what-we-were-thinking-all-in-would-look-like/

Yes, sorry about the misinformation earlier.  Too many plans to keep track of, especially since Marcelo took over!

You're afraid that I might disagree with you? You're afraid we see over hyping differently? You're afraid I might debate your ideas? Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

 

Am I supposed to read everyone's points and not respond if I disagree? It's supposed to be everyone else's opinion, but mine? Only one view point should be allowed?

 

I just don't think it was over hyped. And it's OK that some of you don't agree with me. I can handle it. Can you?

No, I'm not afraid that you might disagree with me and no I'm not afraid of debate.  We used to have a great time in the chatroom together way back in the day.  A lot has happened in life since then.  You are very open and honest with pretty much everything.  I rarely do post anymore and I do feel bad about it because I do miss the site.  I just am getting increasingly nervous about this company and its forward progress.  The financials are really not looking good and public perception is still in the toilet.  Somehow they need to get the message across. If T-Mobile can do it, there is no reason why Sprint can't!  

How was My Way revised?

They did not move forward with a hard throttle of streaming video.

He did prep for a Wednesday conference call. Why wouldn't he tweet about it? I'm sorry, but this was not over hyped. Not even close.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I would agree. He got the tech industry talking about it since the weekend, the Twitter hashtag was trending for a bit, and there were plenty of investor notes about it. You can also see the stock steadily increasing as more people wondered what it was going to be. While it was only a couple of days, there was a lot of hype about it. Just type in Sprint in a news search in Google. Apple has even updated hardware with less fanfare. I'm most upset because of the implications it has as an investor. I will say that the one thing T-Mobile has figured out is marketing. While I think the Sprint network is leaps and bounds above where it used to be, none of the commercials and announcements truly show this. If they had somehow turned Mr. Saw's LTE Plus blog post into an announcement stating that Sprint was going against the big two by getting rid of access fees and something else, that may have been a bigger announcement while appealing to Wall Street. Also, getting rid of activation fees for current subscribers would probably spur a lot of people to enter the leasing world, thus selling more phones.

I have been on this site since the initial WiMax days, but I have to say, I have been afraid to post some of my thoughts in the past because of how anything negative can be perceived. However, Sprint needs to figure out a way to rebrand themselves without seeming silly (the gimmicky countdown clock was silly). Right now the marketing team has just been horrible, and I'll be honest, I'd take the hamster advertisement over the 50% child ad from today. I'm sorry a 7 year old cannot read that much fine print. T-Mobile has done great with UnCarrier, and Verizon with the best network ads; while AT&T, well the number of people leaving speaks to their current marketing. The marketing for Sprint needs to focus on value and networking strength, with a much increased focus on the network. Sprint can throw all the freebies it wants, but the bottom line is when I recommend Sprint to people they still say 'that network is horrible'. Even though my phone is now faster than Verizon in many places around NYC. This is now the second 'major' announcement by Marcelo that has the tech world and the investment world scratching their collective heads. The last flop was MyWay, which thanks to this site was revised.

I would have been happier if they just announced LTE Plus and that for now there will be no activation fees.  Activation fees are literally the easiest way to increasing satisfaction.  Why should I have to pay $36 if I buy a phone outright for the privilege of you providing me service?  I understand there being a fee for buying the SIM card or porting your number, but the $36 for current customers should be waived.

Maybe we wait for the conference call before everybody freaks out.

Sorry, but looking at the website it does not look like anything else is coming.  Except fine print.  Maybe he discusses the network some in the phone call, which I hope he does as the network is really getting strong.  Listen, I love Sprint they have been great for me, but when you hype something up, you better deliver in the tech world.  Hence why I am very careful when I play tech stocks.  One miscue during a presentation an plummet the stock.

I second this. He mentioned something on twitter that there was.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

He did!  Just yesterday he was saying even current customers will love it!  I thought it would have been something not he device side!  I don't care about the rate plans.  I am fine with mine, but all the hype for this?!  A) it is not revolutionary, will decrease ARPU, C) it won't be enough to change a name that is badly damaged and may in fact make the name worse as people say "that was the hype"?

Half off....including T-Mobile this time!

Yes, but what about current customers?  You know the ones that stuck it out with a sub-par network?  This was billed as something major, and sorry but this is the second HUGE letdown that Marcelo has pulled out of his hat during his time as CEO.  The first one required a letter from S4GRU users to change!  Sorry, but I was expecting major changes today.  You know changes that would have lived up the the HYPE!

Oh God....  It's a celebration paint me underwhelmed.  What about current customers?!  The Twitter world is not impressed.  Why was this a big secret?