irev210

This has been a very interesting thread.

I think it really shows that Dan Hesse seemed to be a big believer that overages were the #1 cause of voluntary churn - so no hard caps - when you are charging on parity with AT&T/VZN, this makes sense.

Masa is obviously taking a different approach focusing more on price and stripping out some of the services, which makes sense.  I think the new lower price points are pretty interesting.

I don't think one way is necessarily better than another but I will say as a Sprint subscriber, roaming has really saved my arse more than once and it's one of the big reasons why I've never left sprint.  That being said, I don't think I'll have issues having 300MB of roaming - most of the time it's used for google navigation driving through rural areas.

Just installed it today.  I'll report back.

Just a follow up - not a big difference.

That's what I'm using now. Not much of a difference from KTU84P

Just installed it today.  I'll report back.

They've got Band 41 fired up in Copley Square. 30 mbps down and 10 mbps up! This used to be a pretty badly congested area.

B25 is beyond cooked in Copley Square.  B41 has been a savior.

The last issue has been Prudential Center... it's still rockin' 3G which is really odd.  Not sure if it is a DAS issue or what.

Who said anything about running a charity. The last time that I checked Verizon made over 50 GP or close to it. That's loads of money being made. I am not against anyone making money period! The structure of most companies on the stock market is structured to pay bonus, and the premium share holders. When profits are this high they attract investors and the drive to MAKE MORE BONUS DRIVES  INCENTIVES TO EXTRACT MORE OUT OF CUSTOMERS TO REACH THAT GOAL!

 

Am I mad at them for doing this ...no.1 As a consumer you choose to buy or not buy. You have your opinion on this and I have mine we can agree to disagree.

I think you just fail to realize that if a company is public or private, the goal is be profitable.  A non-public company isn't just trying to be "sort of profitable" while a publicly traded company's goal is to be "extremely profitable".

Verizon extracts as much as they can from their customers.  Regardless if Verizon was a privately-owned company or a publicly traded company, if Verizon could charge $1,000/month per customer, they would.  That's my only point.  The reality is, they can't, so they don't.  They charge as much as they can to get the most out of the subscriber base.

It's not like being a publicly traded company gets magical fairy dust incentive to charge more to get a bigger bonus...

For example, look at Cargill (a private company) vs. Archer Daniel (a publicly traded competitor).  The privately held company is bigger and more profitable.  If the publicly traded company's goal is to make more bonus and extract more out of customers, why is the privately held company making more profit?

Here, CL is a former Qwest network. I don't know if that makes a difference. Also, I wonder if your internal network is a contributing factor. My CL fiber connection is being connected to the head end unit at the demark. I have no idea how it will perform at my desk, by the time the building is complete.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Very good point - not sure how much our internal stuff slows things down.

I'll take a picture of the fiber work that's being done outside.  It REALLY puts it into context as to why it takes so long for backhaul providers to get fiber to a basestation in urban environments.

CenturyLink fiber works great, when and if you can get it. In my latest project, we are using CL fiber, and I can ping the CL switch with 0ms ping. I can ping Level 3 in Denver with 3ms. I can ping S4GRU in 8ms. Crazy. If your office uses CL copper, then I would wonder too.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

That's a lot different than my experience.  I would say my home internet (comcast or RCN) typically outperforms my centurylink experience at work (100mbit symmetrical fiber).

That being said... up until 2008 or so, we only had two T-1's providing internet for the whole office.  It was awful downloading at 1.5mbit/sec.

I've been watching a fiber contractor digging up a street for a few weeks now outside my office attempting to connect RCN fiber to something.  It's been amazingly slow.  It's nice watching them mark up the street with the orange spray paint so you can see all the fiber providers.  I like that Level3 has their logo on their manholes.

Sadly, in our office, we use Centurylink for internet.  I have no idea why.  I know it took a century for them to get the whole thing setup.  We have Level3, Verizon, and probably a bunch of other FTTP providers closets down in the parking garage.

It made me want to buy towerstream stock.  Seems like a great idea.

Some of you guys are pie in the sky fools. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Lower plan prices, maintain "unlimited" data, increase bandwidth deployment, expand native coverage, retain problematic subs. Give me a break. Think about what you are saying. You cannot have everything including the kitchen sink without financially running Sprint into the ground. Lower prices will mean some sacrifices, including some subs who are poor fits for Sprint.

 

AJ

I think you need to balance this in the context of reality.

I'll start off by saying that the old loose roaming terms were a recipe for abuse and I am glad they are formalizing them.

But you need to look at this from a business point of view.  You need to balance the value of the subscriber against the cost of roaming provision.

Say "Nancy" is a high value customer that travels for work.  She spends 95% of her time in native sprint coverage and roams 5% of the time.  She doesn't care if she is spending $100 a month for service for unlimited sprint deluxe package or $120 a month for verizon everything-better-plus-blast!-edge-extreme service... she just wants service to make phone calls.  Nancy doesn't care about spectrum rules or legacy cellular licenses, etc.

I remember reading that Sprint pays something like a billion dollars a year in roaming costs.  That would be 2.7% of sprint's total revenue or so.

So say Sprint pays 5%, on average, of Nancy's bill for roaming charges.  The alternative is Sprint making zero dollars off of Nancy and having Verizon land the profitable subscriber.

Sprint's native network isn't as strong as Verizon's.  Free roaming was (and still is) a good way to keep customers satisfied with Sprint service who would otherwise switch to Verizon.  Sprint just balances this between the cost of roaming and the cost of losing the subscriber.  It's not having cake and eat it too, it's just do what's most profitable.  Sometimes offering free roaming is the profitable thing to do.

Every carrier is stock market based....that is the problem! The premium investor must get his piece of the pie, and then CEO's, and direct subordinates must get their bonuses. We are paying for the big bonus, and investor premiums.

You are wrong.  You realize that Verizon isn't a charity, right?  Regardless of being a public or private company, it's going to still attempt to be as profitable as possible, right?

Verizon makes a ton of money because people who subscribe to verizon feel like they offer a service(s) that competitor(s) do not.

It's one of the reasons why was against the merger between Sprint/T-Mobile and why I am always baffled by posts worried about competition driving down prices and how it will not make wireless carriers profitable in the US.

We have a lot of fat to trim in the US wireless word.

Step 1) Trimming wireless subsidy out of the wireless bill

Check

Step 2) Wait for T-Mobile and Sprint to finish building out their LTE networks

In progress

Step 3) Watch people realize that they can save a bundle switching while still receiving solid service

**fingers crossed that people will figure this out**

Step 4) Watch AT&T/Verizon scramble to match prices

**fingers crossed that AT&T/Verizon lobbying dollars don't stop competition**

Step 5) Watch US customers profit as prices go down

Has anyone tried KTU84Q radio?

We will not use Bitcoin. It's also associated with some pretty shady organizations/criminals and more likely to get us investigated or on some watch list.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

I am hoping you will reconsider this.  Considering major vendors like Dell, Newegg, Overstock, etc etc etc all accept bitcoin I think you can take comfort with what it is doing.

US Dollars (and every other major currency) is associated with some pretty shady organizations/criminals.  At least with bitcoin you are not enriching paypal/mastercard/visa.

Sorry that is not correct. Att throttle the top 5 percent of the unlimited data users once they hit 3 gigs of 3g or 5 gigs of lte.

 

But that is not forcing people off unlimited either. The data was still unlimited the speeds changed depending on whether or not you where in the top 5 percent of data users.

Further Sprint 's unlimited guarantee included throttling right off the bat with no restrictions on increasing the circumstances when you could be throttled.

Unlimited data doesn't mean unlimited data at a given speed, it simply means you can use as much as you want and not pay coverages and again no carrier has forced people away from that.

Didn't know that - thx for the correction.  Not sure why I thought it was throttle after 3GB.

The unlimited guarantee was always just marketing anyway. No carrier has forced people off unlimited, they have encouraged people to switch to new plans, placed restrictions on unlimited plan, but never forced people off. Sprint 's guarantee never said it wouldn't engage in the same kind of encouragement other carriers engaged in. I just don't see Sprint being the only carrier to force people off unlimited.

While Verizon didn't, AT&T sure did.

Old AT&T unlimited customers are limited to 3GB before being throttled.

Edit: nevermind, looks like I am wrong

One good thing that Sprint is doing here is working to get phones that are actually reasonably priced when their price isn't bundled into the plan's subsidy. The Aquos phone is a prime example of this: $240 per year = $10 per month = not a huge premium for the device fee on top of what you're paying for the plan.

 

Now, so is T-Mobile, with stuff like the Galaxy Avant, the Lumia 635 and the Galaxy Light. But Sprint is getting on the bandwagon here, and will probably promote the less expensive devices more, and work more to get interesting ones, because that's how they're positioning themselves.

I agree - outside of people  upgrading to iPhones, I suspect that equipment manufacturers are REALLY going to start competing on price.  I expect the samsung/HTC/LGs of the world are going to REALLY get squeezed - first from China's up and coming low cost manufacturers and second from a new demand for low cost phones that have a lot of value to customers.

The wireless world keeps getting more interesting.

$60/unlimited without a subsidy is a great idea.

It's simple.

I think they should have offered 1-2GB of hotspot as well, since T-Mobile offers something.  Keep it competitive.

Glad phone subsidies have been removed from the wireless equation now.

I wonder if this is going to impact churn.

If you start turning off data to customers who typically use more than 300MB/month they might just leave.

It would be interesting to know the cost/benefit of letting those roamers churn off.

The old tactics of gigs and gigs of roaming to get out of contract was stupid - I am glad sprint is ending this.

So I've been thinking about the new offerings a lot over the past day.

Here are my thoughts:

• Promotional pricing seems like a bad idea - spend a lot of money to acquire subs for them to likely churn off when the promotional period ends.
• Sprint's pricing is somewhat confusing.  They really need to move towards SIMPLE.
• Offering more data doesn't really help their cause.  You are only attracting high usage subs.  You are basically hoping that new subs don't use their 20GB a month so you get the same $ per sub.
• Not offering value to existing subs.  This continues to be a huge problem for sprint.

What they should have done:

• I think that Sprint could have really been a leader on adding devices to an account.  If you are paying for 20GB of data, they should really offer the value on the device side of things.  $5/month for a tablet, $10/month for a phone, free hotspot, etc.
• Make things SIMPLE.  A bunch of different data tiers, blah blah blah.  It's just stupid.  You need to be DISRUPTIVE.
• Get as many people onto one SIMPLE, EASY to understand plan.  AT&T has done a great job with this to actually DRIVE margin expansion.  T-Mobile offers to pay customer ETFs and it really doesn't cost T-Mobile anything to do this (you are required to turn in your old device, which they resell and ends up washing out most of the ETF they pay).

I think if they just focused on one message driving significant customer value they could have a chance.  Instead, they copy what their competitors are doing, toss in a promotional period, and offer double the data (with their fingers crossed that subs won't end up using it).

No, show me that IGZO has been utilized in any iOS devices.  It has been talked about, no doubt.  But my understanding is that it has yet to be implemented.

 

AJ

There are tons of references on google.

http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_3.htm

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170970-igzo-display-tech-finally-makes-it-to-mass-market-ipad-air-now-high-res-laptops-and-desktops-next

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/05/apples-ipad-air-adopts-igzo-technology-for-thinner-lower-power-displays/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/11/19/apple-likes-to-say-its-products-have-the-best-displays-it-can-stop/

Not IGZO.  You are over simplifying/generalizing this.  Reports are that the Aquos Crystal handsets will use IGZO technology screens.  Whether that proves correct and IGZO provides an advance over IPS type screens remain to be seen.  But, either way, the result can support my points about "specsmanship" and screen resolution.

 

AJ

While Apple has had good success with IGZO in the air - it's likely combined with Apple's excellent factory calibration that's giving the superior result.  I don't really think it is a game changer.  Google's Nexus line which is also very well factory calibrated is right behind Apple without IGZO.

I don't think working towards building a better product is specsmanship.  I can say unequivocally that my Nexus 5 is a FAR FAR FAR better phone in terms of display, performance, battery, and radio, etc.

I can't wait for the 1440p or whatever comes out next combined with the new snapdragon 805.  So far, I have never purchased a new generation of phones and thought to myself "jeez, this phone has a bunch of upgraded specs but really isn't any different than my last device."

While on the laptop side of the world, i3/i5/i7 processors, 4GB vs 8GB ram, etc aren't as important in my daily work routine.  Even Intel is aware of this, hence their movement towards scaling down to mobile devices where people are looking to do more on smaller devices.

I am just really surprised that you think we've reached an inflection point where new devices aren't meaningfully better than the last generation of smartphone devices.  I don't think we'll hit that point for a long long long time.

Specs wise, though, how much do we really need?  And how much is "specsmanship" that arouses the e-penis, sells handsets, but provides little useful gain?

 

For example, on a smartphone, can you really tell the difference between a 720p screen and a 1080p screen?

 

Along those same lines, what if the 720p screen is new Sharp IGZO technology with greater contrast, better color fidelity, and lower power consumption?  Then, which is preferable -- 720p or 1080p?

 

AJ

Specs wise, I'll always take the better phone.  The biggest jump in specs nowadays is the "hurry up and go to sleep" mantra that Intel is selling anyhow.  A faster SoC will allow the operation to complete faster so the SoC can go back to a deep sleep state.

Going down to a 20nm process, offering big.LITTLE, and a bunch of other nifty features aren't about being faster - it's about being more efficient.  Make my apps/web pages load faster while using less battery life.  Let my phone handle new features and updates that Google and app developers will take advantage of.  All while the end user gets huge battery improvement gains.

Sharp LCDs are already used on many mobile phones that are not sharp branded (iPhone comes to mind).  LCD specifications are separate from who is actually making the LCD - otherwise it would be impossible for apple to diversify panel manufacturers.

For example, if you compare the Nexus 4 display to the Nexus 5 display, not only do you get a MUCH sharper display thanks to going from 720P to 1080P, you also get a display that is much better calibrated.

Looks like T-Mobile is going to start cracking down on users who illegally tether for P2P purposes:

 

/via

I am honestly surprised that they've let it go this long.

I wonder if T-Mobile's network in certain areas is starting to fill up in terms of capacity.

In my neighborhood, the poles carry electric and  coax cable for comcast and RCN.

Telephone and fiber is actually underground, oddly enough.

I don't see any fiber on the poles.

I know centurylink was having issues today.  Could not access s4gru

I hate centurylink...

One of the nice things about the iPhone is the sapphire lens cover. Much more scratch resistant then gorilla glass.

I hope other phone makers follow apple to prevent your issue.