cdiao

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I learn from every post on this forum

because you know "prepaid" i.e. pay for in advance. whereas off-network roaming is billed in arrears, often a couple of months later. by that time, assuming that you even had a mechanism to bill your prepaid customer, he may be long gone.

Roaming is accomplished by the customer "prepaying" for a certain bucket of off-net minutes -- use or lose, sort of liek those car rental companies that make you buy gas up-front.

Not saying that Sprint shouldn't at least give it a shot.

How much ground does USCC Cellular licenses cover anyway

but why, except for Chicago, USM is in no other top 30 market. yep, that's right ZERO. so it largely has cellular frequencies in markets where spectrum isn't scarce (relatively speaking). look at this link but scroll down and click "US Cellular Licensed Markets"

http://www.uscellula...-data-maps.html

Except as a distraction, US Cellular offers nothing to move the dial for Sprint, and perhaps it is relatively less crappy than Leap because at least USM has some post-paid subs. But again, the Carlsons are simply not going to sell -- there's massive tax leakage that will result because the of two level corporate ownership structure. Right now the corporate structure is a "poison pill" that limits any transaction. If you see TDS spin-off USM to its shareholders, then that may signal their readiness to consider some strategic options, but even after that they have to wait 12-24 months after completion of spin-off BEFORE initiating any discussions otherwise the IRS will hold out its hand for 40% of the gain.

Any of these deals to contemplate acquiring the dwarfs are a distraction and could impair Sprint's ability to pursue the transaction that ultimately makes sense which is to merge with the new T-Mobile Newco. Metro isn't "gone" -- it is simply being warehoused in this Newco entity for an eventual T-Mobile combination with Sprint that will create true strategic scale with significant synergies that will become more realizable. Most of the others (at least USM and LEAP) are noise and a distraction from Sprint execuitng on Network Vision with little to be gained, and alot to potentially risk. Sprint should strengthen itself during 2013/2014 and then see if T-Mobile tripped up with the Metro integration -- and frankly, it would be better if in fact T-Mobile assimilated Metro smoothly to lower the risk of a subsequent t-mob/Sprint combination. by that time, VoLTE should be well seasoned which will allow even easier cross platform network integration.

Yeah Cricket not paying their bill almost does seem like a way of trying to force Sprint's hand, sorta like when Clearwire threatened to default on a payment and got Sprint to step. Not the exact same scenario, of course, but similar in a way.

 

I guess it likely depends on what the actual dollar amount of "acquired on the cheap" turns out to be.

that is soooo funny. like the bank robber in Dog Day Afternoon (or was it Blazing Saddles) who turns the gun at his own head and proclaims "dare me to shoot". Leap is not "not paying their bills" -- it's actually trying to weasle out of the annual minimum commitments it made to Sprint but paying current amounts that it has used. ever wonder what happens when Sprint adds the network message to Cricket customers when they get blocked: "Sorry you cannot access the Sprint Now Network at this time. Please call your network carrier, or if you would like, please call Virgin Mobile or Boost Mobile to immediately reinstate service." I doubt that Sprint has the balls to go all the way, but you get the idea. Leap has no leverage in this equation.

BTIG analysts just estimated that the MetroPCS deal was valued at $11/shr with the "hope" for future synergies, and that at the same 5x EBITDA valuation for Leap, would not be sufficient to cover Leap's debt. Leap has $3.3B of debt, plus $1.7B of tower obligations and $500MM market cap (after its 20% decline today). At the same valuation that Verizon paid for SpectrumCo (69c per mghz-pop), Leap's 3B mhz-pops of spectrum would not cover its debt, let alone the substantial tower obligations (not even counting the $900MM of purchase commitments to Apple and $600MM of MVNO obligations to Sprint). So when you say "cheap", it's not clear that at zero for the equity, that would be cheap enough. Maybe that's reason why it dropped 20% today when people realized that Leap kind of stuck in the corner, and in fact, the "growth synergy" discussed in the T-MobileUSA/MetroPCS merger conference call, was teh plan for Newco to propagate the MetroPCS brand and distribution model, using the T-Mobile GSM/HSPA/LTE network to "white spaces" where Metro currently doesn't operate. Guess who gets a "bulls eye" painted on their forehead in that scenario.

So what company is going to take on the job of acquiring US Cellular? Verizon lines up the best spectrum wise, but would probably get rejected by the FCC. Also they were told to dump 700 a and b and this would have them acquiring more.

 

Sprint would have to sell off AWS and Cellular(850), and 700 just to get some PCS

AT&T makes sense, would the FCC allow it?

T-Mobile is not CDMA, but that doesn't seem to stop them. It would be their first cellular 850 spectrum to maintain, however, and 700 block spectrum. In a lot of ways it would make them a powerhouse, but only in certain geographic areas.

 

US Cellular might just be too hard to integrate and that's probably the reason they are still independent.

Hard for me to imagine that the Carlson family, who controls both TDS and USM, through super-voting shares, would ever sell USM,....until it's too late, like American Paging, which was another TDS split off. That's why USM trades cheap (and TDS that owns 73% of USM, even cheaper), because the street concludes that there is never a take-out opportunity.

Didn't the engadget article say that deal was to be canceled?

Engadget should probably stick with reviewing new products where its reporters may have some distinctive competency....

http://www.rttnews.com/Story.aspx?ID=1976891 - here's Crown Castle press release

DT will be getting $2.4B in tower proceeds that has not closed yet but which will be distributed to DT, just like $1.5B cash that is being distributed to MetroPCS shareholders. Essentially they are combining their houses and levering up with home equity loans and taking out $3.9B cash distribution. In addition, DT will pull out $1.2B a year by virtue of holding $15B of notes from Newco -- I would expect DT to periodically sell these notes into the debt markets to turn that principal amount into cash. Counting the prior break-up fee that was distributed to DT plus tower proceeds, and the gradual monetization of the $15B in notes, plus interim interest thereon, DT will take out $20B+ back to Germany (more monies to help buy vacation spots in Greece?).

DT then will retain another $10.5B in equity of NewCo (if you take MetroPCS' current $5B market cap adjust for $1.5B to be distributed, so with $3.5B pro forma equity market cap for MetroPCS, and DT's pro forma ownership would be 3x Metro's shareholders ownership interest -- thus approximately $10.5B at current prices for MetroPCS stock which will be the new shares for this NewCo). So this deal is $8.5B lower than what AT&T's offer of $39B in cash was, but still about $5.5B higher than the $25B valuation that was rumored to be the deal that Sprint was discussing pre-AT&T link-up.

What's also interesting is the claim of 20x20 LTE in major markets at AWS freq (although not clear when this happens since they don't expect to shut down Metro's CDMA network until end of 2015), and the fact that they will overlay DT's own version of Network Vision over 37K cell sites (tower-top radios, better backhaul, etc). They are simply following Sprint but 2 years behind. They should be positioned for iPhone 5S (or 6) in late 2013 after the merger closes when DT will have refarmed 1900 for HSPA+ and deployed LTE on AWS (200 million pops).

Then the last major deal in this industry will be the merger of NewCo with Sprint to form a more formidable #3 in 2014/2015..... that's what my crystal ball says... :-)

Gotcha. Two different subjects being discussed in this thread and got my wires crossed. If their device doesn't have the capability to roam on VZW 850, then, they would miss out on that aspect, but could still use it on the network. However, if Metro Prepaid customers wanted to come to Sprint, they most likely would be drawn to a Sprint Prepaid brand, right? Which they do not offer off Sprint network coverage the last time I checked.

 

Robert

Metro's targeted demographics and distribution footprint is heavily urban. In fact if you have MetroPCS on Google News Alert, at least once a week is another story of a hold-up or robbery at a Metro PCS store (since it is cash collection point for bill pmts for customers who do not have checking accts or credit/debit cards). For the 1%-3% of Metro customers that ever roam on Verizon 850, they will simply be part of the 3%+ monthly churn that goes elsewhere.

Good point, I saw that regarding T-Mobile owning a majority of the shares in the new company.

Ha. T-Mobile isn't "acquiring" MetroPCS; it's a path to exit for DT. They are using MetroPCS as a means of spinning off TMOB-USA and going public in the US with separate stock listing. "Mergers" are frought with integration complications and challenges and this one certainly will as well. TMOB can't get access to Metro's spectrum until you chase off the 10mm PCS subscribers onto GSM handsets (or maybe migrate to new VoLTE ones). The network integration has my head spinning, all the while when TMOB is supposedly re-farming its 1900mhz to deploy HSPA+ and building out LTE on AWS, and so let's throw in the integration/migration of Metro's network as well. Where have I seen this movie before.......

BTW, this does not preclude a subsequent TMOB/PCS merger with Sprint in 2014/2015 -- by that time TMOB/PCS will probably have lost the 10mm subs from PCS due to network integration.

IMO, Sprint needs Leap like a hole in the head and Leap's AWS spectrum is of minimal strategic value to Sprint (only islands of AWS coverage) other than perhaps to trade it to TMOB for some of its PCS1900 spectrum. In the meantime, Sprint can suck the economic life blood out of Leap via their existing MVNO agreement.

Even though the Sprint and Verizon iPhone 5 is the same on the inside, they are locked to the particular carrier. I imagine there's branding/marketing materials in the box for each company as well. Maybe those carriers requested the lock so that it's difficult to switch to the other CDMA carrier?

 

The article is saying that enough people are buying the ATT and Verizon iPhones to be sold out completely, while the Sprint version may be available as fewer are buying that model.

Let's assume that each device is ESN-locked which means that Apple is allocating production output among the Big 3 -- thus Sprint's market share is essentially determined by Apple's produciton allocations, as this will force more buyers to buy Sprint iPhones if they cant buy any of the others. So we really wont know how competitive Sprint is and how successful it can be against the other guys since its iPhone market share is somewhat arbitrary and has been pre-determined by Apple.

Maybe more folks being introduced to the Now Network based upon how Apple wants customers to split the volumes. :-)

.

Why does this article suggests that you can only get Sprint version of iPhone 5, implying that the Sprint version is in the least in demand.

http://www.bgr.com/2012/10/01/apple-iphone-5-sales-sprint/#.UGmdy5tGCyM.email

What is curious to me is that while it admits that the hardware for the CDMA versions are identical between Verizon and Sprint, it says that somehow only the "Sprint version" is available at Apple Stores. Is there some form of CDMA lock that precludes Sprint version from being interchangeable with Verizon version? What makes no sense to me is because the two versions share the identical SKU numberr and Apple's whole purpose is to minimize need to stock multiple SKU's by developing common hardware models.

My point being, would there be any other reason that Apple could be directing more iPhone sales, i.e. some pre-determined allocation of loading between the major Big 3 carriers. That doesn't make much sense to me but I am scratching my head in why Apple would suggest different availability for Sprint vs Verizon versions of the same model number iPhone 5.

I am curious what the assessment of IPhone 5 LTE connectivity is for those of you in the early LTE launch markets such as Houston, KC, Dallas, Baltimore (I presume that these have the most robust coverage) that have been playing with your iPhone 5 since last weekend. Does it seem to pick up as well as hold an LTE connection well?

HTC EVO seems to have challenging software issues (which should be fixable) -- does anyone know hether the HTC One X is having similar issues on Verizon LTE or on AT&T's LTE? Trying to figure out whether HTC simply wont play nice with Sprint's LTE (at 1900mhz) or simply won't play nice at all with any LTE even at 700mhz

UBS Analyst cant seem to do math or otherwise attributes a ridiculous price for WCS at 3x what AT&T just paid to Nextwave. Sprint supposedly has100mhz-pops of WCS (1mhz on average over 100mm pops). At the same price that AT&T paid to Nextwave for a much larger position in WCS (i.e more usable) -- which was estiamted at $0.40/mhz-pop, this results in around $40MM valuation, which is aobut 1/2 month's interest on Sprint's $10B NV project (both capex and opex). Of course, if Sprint's WCS spectrum has hold-up value (if it prevents AT&T form getting benefits fo contiguity for example), it could choose to extract a premium from AT&T -- but arguably it may be worth more to Sprint to make sure AT&T's WCS spectrum is impaired (and cause AT&T to spend more capital to deploy WCS) than to try to extract some chump change from AT&T. Sprint sits on $7.6B of cash with another $1B+ in undrawn credit facilities; and took less than 2 hours to recently raise $1.5B in new bonds. Sprint doesn't own enough WCS to extract much value and whatever "hold-up" value will go up in time the more AT&T invests in the WCS band. Just IMO.

My experience was a bit more variable. Up in the mountains in Blacksburg, nTelos was decent outside but if you got inside one of those Hokie Stone buildings on the VT campus you might as well be in a Faraday cage. My apartment was half-underground and 3G signal was usually in the -95 to -110 dBm range on my OG Evo, occasionally getting kicked onto 1X (which was horrid).

 

If I had to guess on what happens regarding nTelos, it probably involves a Sprint buyout in 2014 or so, or at the very least getting subsumed into an affiliate relationship like Shentel; I could also see Shentel taking them over with Sprint's blessing. They have some nice chunks of 15+15 PCS that could be useful for LTE expansion once customers are moved onto Sprint's overlapping PCS holdings, even without touching the AWS they have (which could probably be dumped off onto T-Mobile or someone else).

In those rural geographies, Ntelos could really use some of Sprint's 800mhz SMR frequencies to dramatically improve network coverage... The Strategic Network Alliance Agreement between Sprint and Ntelos currently is schedueld to end in July 2015 but according to company, the exclusivity terms require Sprint to give 18 month notice before it can begin construction of an alternative CDMA network. In the past, they've reworked the agreement and extended it (generally a couple yrs before expiration) so we are about due soon for some resolution. Presumably LTE is part of that agenda and current discussions. I agree with you that at some point Sprint must evaluate the "own vs. rent" decision as the two companies are inextricably tied together --- the company also split itself into 2 last year: Ntelos and Lumos Networks, separating wireline from wireless with the stated strategy of having more flexibility to pursue strategic opportunities (presumably with different suiters) once separated. You can think of this as a "network sharing deal" in that Sprint/Virgin/Assurance/Boost and Ntelos/Frawg brands all share the same network and Ntelos is the network operator in those market territories.

Actually, there is no Roanoke market. The area along the I-81 Corridor from just north of Bristol, VA all the way up into Pennsylvania is controlled by a Sprint affiliate called Shentel. This includes Blacksburg, Roanoke, Charlottesville, Staunton, Harrisonburg, etc. In that area, your phone will run on Shentel as native service everywhere you get a Shentel signal. Shentel has pretty good coverage. When you are off Shentel, you may roam on USCC (for 1x and possibly 3G).

 

Shentel is rolling out Network Vision and LTE with Alcatel Lucent. They are already under way. They will have approximately 40% of their sites live by the end of the year. They will finish the other 60% in 2013. Sprint LTE devices will run on Shentel's LTE service as native.

 

Shentel's sites are going to be mostly fiber backhaul. They should run very well. It will probably be better in the Shentel areas than in Sprint areas.

 

Robert

Robert, I may have to disagree with you in that part of Virginia, I am pretty certain Sprint rides on Ntelos' pcs 1900 ev-do network. See attached IR presentation

http://ir.ntelos.com/Cache/1500036160.PDF?D=&O=PDF&IID=4110676&Y=&T=&FID=1500036160

The good part is that large portions of Ntelos' CDMA EV-DO network is being upgraded to fiber back-haul (because its sister company Lumos Networks provides this tower backhaul as it is the largest regional fiber network in that part of the country).

Shentel operates as a Sprint Affiliate further north in Virgina along i-81 up to parts of Pensylvania. Shentel is mirroring a Network Vision build out over its entire footprint. Ntelos on the other hand has yet to complete its negotiations with Sprint as to how its network will migrate to LTE (whether using Sprint's G-block or on Ntelos' own PCS spectrum and how 800mhz SMR spectrum can be deployed in Ntelos' footprint - or not at all depending upon how the two parties evolve their relationship).

At any given moment in time, regardless of whatever the situation may be there will always be mad customers that will feel betrayed and leave whatever carrier they are on.

I alternate between getting mad at Time-Warner Cable and Verizon FiOS and threatening to leave one for the other, depending who was the last customer service I had to deal with, but I still need cable TV/broadband so I have to deal with some carrier (can't get away from them). Except during football season when I have to stay on Verizon in order to stream NFL Redzone games to my Sprint smart phone (so I make it a point not to call Verizon Cust Svc lest they piss me off). The things that we do to accomodate our lives to the carriers that we are beholden to.

I would be perfectly happy to pay more if I got 800mhz coverage and in-building penetration and 20mhz-40mhz "fat pipes" (i.e. overlayed broadly with CLWR's TDD-LTE),... well maybe just a bit more. In reality, I know that I really can't move to AT&T or Verizon so am only left with T-Mobile to play nice with.

These all seem to be software implementations without the PTT "button" on the hardware. I find it amusing that they refer to it as AT&T's "iDEN" network as if Motorola's iDEN is as generic a name for PTT as Kleenex.

Any many of us were doing all of those things on wireless phones years before smartphones became de rigueur.

 

AJ

but wait, you mean that I am not supposed to be watching NFL Redzone on my WiMax Epic while at the carwash which was streamed to me from my Slingbox at home. ... and the world used to be flat too I think. :-)

Hmmm, I get impression from this thread that iPhone 5 Version 2 supports LTE on 850(800)/AWS/1900 but it has no CDMA on AWS band at all.

Query, how does Cricket sell a prepaid iPhone in those of its markets with AWS where it doesn't have 1900 CDMA? I am scratching

my head, unless I guess it's running iPhones in those markets on Sprint as an MVNO - or simply not selling an yiPhones except where it has 19000 band CDMA.

AJ/Ian: I seemed to recall that the MDM9615 chip supported both FD and TD for LTE, but it seems that these radios in iPhone 5 will not support CLWR's band class (nor others using 2.5/2.6ghz), so despite the processor being capable for TD-LTE these versions of iPhone are unlikely to support Sprint devices on CLWR when it gets its hot spot TD-LTE network up. Is that a correct conclusion?

Of course, since Apple introduced 3 versions already, it doesn't preclude a 4th or 5th flavor to come subsequently, I guess.

Am I also reading correctly that this iPhone 5 will in fact support Sprint 1xCDMA 800 for voice coverage when it's rolled out for NV?

Feech, you are correct that I probably misinterpreted your post as implying that Sprint can't compete effectively against the other LTE carriers. I don't doubt that competition and highlighting of LTE as a competitive value proposition is driving Sprint's messaging, whether it's because of the iPhone, or it's simply a response to Verizon's ads and even Metro PCS talking about its LTE network as the "fastest network technology". The fact of the matter is that Sprint would love to rebuild its NV network as fast as its OEM's can deploy, but alas is dependent upon those OEM's to execute.

Clearly the announcement of the additional "100 cities" was a marketing driven PR initiative. But it couldn't happen unless there were a substantial number of markets that it could "count" on to be launched, and I believe the 100 was a nice "round number" of cities that could qualify for the message (whether it was 98 or 109, the 100 would be a sound number). I don't know whether it's because of the iPhone per se, but I believe that the SPrint would have had to announce its near term launches in any case as its cumulative installed base of LTE-capable devices grew large enough where it had customers constantly asking "when will we get LTE in our market"? But I do believe that Verizon pounding the table on its LTE coverage head start it its marketing probably also lit a fire under Sprint's marketing department to counter that message.

I think the relative gross add market share will not be much different than last year's 4Q -- recognize that AT&T no longer has its low-cost advantage 3GS (free on contract) as each of Verizon and Sprint now enjoy parity of product line range with both the iPhone 4 and 4S in addition to the iPhone 5. While many people will be focused on the iPhone 5, the IPhone sales reported by the carriers actually include the whole product range of iPhones, and their subsidies on the lower end are actually less than on the newest generation iPhone.

Last I recall average data usage was less than 300mb per month per sub and if you believe AT&T and VErizon, 98% of users were less than 2 GB. I doubt that the "typical" consumer that's using less than 300mb (remember that's the "mean", so many more are less than that if some are skewed above 2GB) per month is doing any streaming or interactive mobile gaming. Words with Friends doesn't improve with 10 mbps. My main point was that the user experience difference between 500kbps and 1.5mps is pretty noticeable while only high bandwidth intensive applications will differentiate the higher speeds and the "typical" consumer may not be using as many of those apps as power users (as evidenced by the usage stats that describe the "average" smartphone user while mobile).

So I was just thinking about the press release today about the markets that are going to be launched "within months" While most of us already knew most of what was announced, it does seem to be a departure from how Sprint and most carriers operate in most cases. So my question is why? Why would Sprint suddenly change how they normally operate and the answer I think will come on Wed.

 

Everyone is pretty sure that when the new iPhone is announced it will include a LTE radio, and it will sell based on previous years but how can Sprint compete with Verizon and AT&T when they have a jump in LTE markets and add the fact that Sprint made a big gamble on the sales of the iPhone.

 

This is just my opinion but I don't think we can count out the importance of the iPhone release and the direct correlation of the accelaration of Sprints LTE network build out. If Sprint can get customers to hang in there while the network is being put in place by making todays press release, then it would explain alot. Any thoughts?

But what's the difference between that and Sprint competing with AT&T who has been advertising its iPhone as being on the largest 4G network for quite some time now -- in fact it lights the "4G" icon on the iPhone when data is riding on AT&T's HSPA+ network. That hasn't prevented Sprint from taking significant gross add share among iPhone gross additions. By end of this year (2 1/2 months from now), Sprint's LTE coverage of approximately 120 million pops is not going to be materially different than AT&T's 150 million pops by year-end, albeit both will be substantially behind Verizon's 250 million pops.

Plus do you really believe that this is the last announcement that Sprint will make about new markets? You actually can see the deployment schedule market-by-market on this website and keep track of cell site by cell site upgrades that's going on. I doubt that there's going to be a news blackout betweeen now and the end of 2013 from Sprint. Based upon the large inventory of NV activity that have already started in other markets and which are scheduled to continue, would you not expect that the next round of market launches (let's call it 30-50 cities each quarter) that would launch in 1Q 2013 would similarly be announced toward the end of this year (let's say mid-December for example) when the visibility of those launches can be better confirmed, and then again in successive quarters as well.

In the mean-time, every Sprint tower site that gets improved back-haul during the NV deployment, whether the LTE is lit up or not, gets dramatically improved 3G, to a reasonable 1.5mbps expereience. Frankly IMO, I simply do not believe that for most applications other than streaming video, the typical consumer is going to notice much difference between a 1.5mbps experience and a 10 mbps experience.

Customers who are desperate for LTE today will/should go to Verizon, which then will charge them an arm and a leg for the overage (and yes with faster bandwidth, you will use more to drive higher resolution screeens etc), but for average consumers who may not feel the urgency, they may respond to a different value proposition (from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint) ---- all the better if that means that helps to keep the average usage lower (if Sprint gets less demanding customers) on Sprint's network and will extend the timeline for "truly unlimited" for all of us. From a purely selfish standpoint, I want all the other "power users" desperate for LTE to leave so that I can have more of the network for myself. ;-)

I found this link in the Trib article which is video of Azzi interview describing the "seam" which we all know is the problem of hand-off between new Samsung NV equipment and adjacent legacy Motorola cell sites in the Chicago NV deployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/72106446/Business/Sprint-upgrades-network

At least they are coming out of the closet with it and trying to manage the PR to explain it better to the public to manage expectations.

Hold on Chicago, you will have LTE maybe even before the Bears clinch NFC Central Division! ;-)

Me jealous.

Chicago Tribune this PM -- the Sprint PR crew seems to be on overdrive lately.

http://www.chicagotr...0,3787175.story

this is the first public statement by Sprint that confirms that Chicagoland is on the near-term road map for Sprint's LTE market launch... although I believe that Robert's schedule had estimated the market being elligible for "launch" sooner, maybe October. But that may have been a function of overall percentage of completion estimates based upon number of NV sites cut-over (40%-50%) but given how Chicago market is being rolled out, in waves from outside into the loop, perhaps this will push the actual official "launch" closer to end of year.

of course it could be that Azzi was simply sandbagging in the article (under-promise and hopefully over-deliver) given the difficulties that Samsung has had in the Chicago market in deploying NV.

saw this article across the news about Baltimore speedtest by Computerworld up to 15mbps down. good to have some positive press for Sprint network finally.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230454/Sprint_expands_LTE_to_Baltimore_downloads_measured_at_15Mbps

I wouldn't hold your breath. Unless you can go out and find said tower and see they have been doing work on it.

Haha, CSR's blaming everything on NV now. reminds me when i was traveling through pakistan and india after college, and the whole world was transfixed about Skylab falling to earth. It seemed that everything was being blamed on skylab, as "we dont have the room ready", or after taking so long for our dinner order to arrive, it was always "because of skylab" -- then I realized the whole staff was watching tiny television in the back waiting for Skylab to fall from the sky and end human existence as they knew it. Luckily Network Vision is less dramatic impact.

So it is now with Network Vision when you call Sprint customer care -- every possible network problem is because Network Vision work is being done. I guess if it works to get folks off the phone. For me I just move to a different spot to use my Sprint phone,...or even use my wireline phone sometimes. :-)