Mr.Nuke

If it continues you can enjoy a "lazy" vacation from this site. Spend the extra minute to fully type out a post out of courtesy for everyone else that has to try and read random capitalized gibberish.

Please also make an effort to type out proper sentences.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V8ZUMfwyI8YJ:www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/docs/PDS_Staff_Directory.xlsm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

WE WILL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT!!!!!

It is literally the second rule of the site.

If you think it is possible your post might be "confused" for negativity perhaps one might rethink what they are about to post. Otherwise "honestly" may result in discipline.

Please attempt to watch your post lengths. This post could've been made in about a paragraph. Thanks.

Softbank currently owns ~83% of Sprint. The tender offer is triggered at 85%.

Do you mean like one that still wants a subsidized phone?

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/forum/45-equipment-spotting/

No one here to my knowledge (Hi Marcelo if you are visiting) is privy to Sprint's capital planning. That said there is plenty of anecdotal evidence like Omaha, mobilitie interacting with various local government entities and actual deployments popping up that work is ongoing. Per Sprint's last earnings call the lowering of guidance from "less than $3 billion" to between $2 and $2.2 billion for FY 2016, still indicates an expansion in spending. And you should have a pretty good idea on spending at that point as you're only projecting a quarter. For the first 3 quarters of 2016, Sprint averaged $473.6 million. If they're going to spend between $2 and $2.2 billion that means $579 to $879 on CapEx for Q4. That is a 22% to 85% increase over the average of the first 3 quarters. In May we'll see what they spent for Q4 and what the guidance is for 2017.

They're doing it to an extent here. After years of T-Mobile running only a protection network in Omaha they've shown signs of a full build. Even with reduced capex for Sprint, over the past 3 months we've had 21 8t8r installs in the Omaha metro with another 14 permitted.

I too am curious as to how you are coming to this conclusion. Sprint's post-paid subscribers per account as of 12/31 was 2.75. I'm going to round that up to 3. 3 Subscribers under the (years outdated) ED1500 plan was $110 + $19.99 + $19.99 = $149.98 /3= ARPU $49.99 or essentially the same ARPU as an individual SERO (years outdated) Premium subscriber. As the Brits would say by sure happenstance this also is Sprint's ARPU. Anything over 3 lines on an ED1500 plan is drag on Sprint's ARPU average. That doesn't indicate a high value customer to me. If we are talking some hypothetical metric like ARPPPB (average revenue per person paying bill) that I think I might have just made up; then there is a more valid argument.

Both of you two knock it off right now. Neither of you is completely right here, but one is way more on the right track than the other. Comparing T-Mobile's 2016 to Sprint's 2015 isn't an apples to apples comparison as you've only got one quarter that actually overlaps (T-Mobile's 1st Quarter for 2016 and Sprint's 4th Q for 2015). What you need to do when two companies have different fiscal years is something to normalize the reporting period you are looking at. With T-Mobile's year ending on a more traditional 12-31, and especially with that being the most recent reporting quarter for both companies, something much more appropriate to do would be to take Sprint's trailing-twelve-months (TTM). That is much more of an apples to apples comparison than soon to be year old data versus data concluding 2 months ago. It was $311 million for the latest quarter though hence his confusion. To him, you were either comparing Sprint's quarter ending 12-31 (their 3rd) to T-Mobile's entire year ending 12-31 (2016) or you were comparing Sprint's 2015 fiscal year operating income ($310 million) to T-Mobile's 2016. Neither looks great on an apples to apples scale...

Running a business.

This may be true (I question it given churn data is available), but when you start doing basic math you see why they aren't doing much. Churn itself is obviously a measurable metric. We get it for every quarter lagging several months for the earnings announcement. I'm going to overly generalize the basic math to illustrate a point in the following. My math is most certainly an oversimplification. It clearly doesn't account for the costs of retaining a customer being less than attracting new ones among other factors. I fully acknowledge that. The math obviously gets a bit more complicated if they're churning higher than average ARPU customers and replacing them with new lower than average customers, which is unquestionably happening; and may happen more so with the recent rate plan war. That said… Sprint has roughly 30 million post paid subs right now at an ARPU of roughly $50 dollars (the ARPU is irrelevant for this other than to establish a baseline revenue estimate). That yields $1.5 billion per month or $18 billion annually in revenue. If you assume churn at 2% (they've been lower than this recently, but it is probable that it rises with the recent "changes" in the market), of Sprint's ~30 million subs they lose 2.4 million annually to churn. Keeping ARPU constant @ $50 that yields $16.5 billion in revenue post churn, down from the $18 billion. Theoretically speaking say we give every post-paid sub a $5 a month "loyalty credit." Furthermore, lets assume said credit reduces churn by 50% i.e. 1.2 million subs are leaving instead of 2.4 million annually. That yields $15.552 billion in annual revenue or $1 billion less than if you let every churn customer leave and kept rates constant. Also known as an extra $1 billion in losses annually, something Sprint can obviously ill afford. Much like the CapEx a lot of it is Sprint not being in a fiscal position to do anything about it. That said, when you start doing basic math given the current churn rates it becomes pretty obvious why Sprint isn't doing anything in the customer loyalty category. If we have 10 customers paying $50 a month and we lose 1 the revenue still equals 9 customers a month paying $45 per month. Marcelo and Sprint are constantly doing this math behind the scenes. If a loyalty credit made sense, they'd be doing it.

Why do people think they have a better economic understanding of a company's business than the CEO?

Sounds like a Donald Trump tweet exclamation point at the end and all...

They did two weeks ago. That isn't good enough?

Where?

This is a thread for a member seeking help about rectifying a bad purchase. Lets avoid turning it into a thread about a hypothetical business model. That said Swappa is a market that facilitates peer to peer transactions. Your suggestion requires having a huge amount of inventory, staffing, and other overhead. Something Swappa's business model is set up to deliberately avoid.

What does swappa's esn checker show? And no you'll be fine through paypal. As part of listing the device for sell there you have to provide an ESN that is clear and comes back to the device model you are trying to sell. That is why I'm a little curious as to what their internal ESN checker shows.

No...

An EARFCN on its own tells you nothing about carrier aggregation.

Yeah I'm pretty sure they've held that the whole time. We just didn't expect a city of about 25,000 to get band 41 any time soon.