RedSpark

On "My Sprint", several of my iPhone 7 lines now say we have an iPad as the device. We don't.... so that's definitely a bug. Sprint's most important distribution channel is the website. It's the one that most current/prospective customers interact with. It's gotten better, but there are still choke points where the user interface isn't what it should be.

Instead of adding more store locations, Sprint needs to improve or relocate its current ones. It also needs to improve its most important distribution channel: The Sprint Website One tower outage or a single tower overloaded and in need of an upgrade affects a limited set of people in a given area. The more remote the tower, the fewer people it affects. However, a bug-ridden feature/function on a website (or a poorly designed website overall) can affect everyone who does business with Sprint as a customer, or who considers doing business with Sprint as a prospective customer. Take Sprint's coverage map, which finally got an updated look and redesign in the past months/year. Prior to this update, the map window itself was poorly designed and sat stale for years. When your product is the network, the coverage map on the website (in addition to the other value proposition messaging and transactional steps for customer onboarding) is what engages prospective/current customers en masse... more than a single tower or retail location would ever do. Sprint's lack of CapEx funds to move as quickly as we'd like on tower upgrades/network expansion has its roots in past business or strategic failures, and it's been discussed pretty much in full here. However, where your current product is the network and the ad is the coverage map, it's a failure on a macro business level to effectively communicate a value proposition to a customer... and this failure has extended beyond the Coverage Map page into other sections as well. Who knows how many current or prospective customers were turned off by a poorly functioning website or poor impression of Sprint's value proposition... and it was avoidable in my opinion. Sprint finally seems to be getting this right. The website looks better overall. The BYOD Process is more clear. There's finally a "My Sprint" App for BYOD devices on Google Play. The website is the most important distribution channel Sprint has and it needs to be properly leveraged. Adding more retail locations doesn't improve the actual product sold... and it's a step backward. Sprint needs to improve the product sold, and that only comes with efficient, effective and committed spending on CapEx. Spending money on retail locations takes away from this. Sprint's current distribution channels are sufficient in my opinion.

Sales/Distribution isn't the issue. Network is the issue. Debt is the issue. Improve the product sold, and it will sell itself though existing channels, which are plentiful in my opinion. Except for the fact that Sprint should close an underperforming store and replace it with a store located in Union Station (Train Station) in DC. http://www.unionstationdc.com/leasing/ Verizon has one there. Sprint is missing out on a huge opportunity for sales and brand exposure by not having a store at Union Station.... and this gets to my broader point. Sprint needs to make better business decisions, which result in an appreciable Return on Investment. Sell a product people want. Put a store where a lot of people would pass by. The product sells. If the product doesn't sell, something is wrong with the product/pricing/messaging or the store location. D.C. United is getting a brand new soccer stadium here in Washington, D.C. Audi Field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2017/02/27/after-years-of-setbacks-d-c-united-finally-breaks-ground-for-new-stadium/ Hopefully Sprint has 3CA widely deployed here by then or supports a DAS in the Stadium!

How do you know that?

I agree with you.

More Sprint retail stores for Texas: Sprint Expands in Texas with 79 New Retail Stores Creating More Than 550 Jobs This doesn't make sense to me. Marcelo seems to still be running with his long held belief that Sprint has a distribution channels deficiency vs. the other carriers. Sprint doesn't have a distribution problem from what I can tell. There are already 350 stores in the State according to the release. People can order phones online or by calling and they usually get the best deals by doing so instead of going into a store... so I don't get what this accomplishes. This money should be going into Network CapEx or paying off high interest debt. Perhaps if a new macro site or small cell was being built on top of or near each new store, it would make more sense to me why Sprint is doing this... but I just don't get what this store expansion accomplishes when Sprint has other more pressing needs.

Hmmm.... interesting.... https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/855997936320348160 "Coming in next couple of weeks."

There's not one in the D.C. Area as far as I can tell.... which is surprising because Sprint has a major presence in Reston, Va.

Thanks!

Sorry for the basic question... What line(s) on this shows Carrier Aggregation?

What's involved in increasing it? Contacting the backhaul provider to up the capacity on the existing fiber?

Was it worse before you saw this addition of capacity?

I think Sprint should deploy a Speed Test server in every major metropolitan area. Aside from being useful, it serves as branding for brand awareness. It'll cost less money than Sprint spent on some other ventures in my opinion: NASCAR sponsorship, NBA sponsorship, etc.

"My Sprint" is now on Google Play and available for download! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sprint.care This has been a long time coming for Nexus, Pixel and BYOD users!

Sprint needs to deploy more of its own speed test servers across the country. I'm only seeing the one Sprint has in NYC. Are there others out there?

It's hard to tell how Sprint would stack up, but this is a specific communications strategy by T-Mobile. The only time that T-Mobile seems to mention Sprint at all is in the context of MetroPCS. That's very purposeful.

Thoughts on Sprint's new "Topher Brophy" ad campaign? I like it much better than the collaboration it did with "The Onion" on Paul. And probably the "longest" Sprint ad ever.... There are additional 7 second clips on Sprint's YouTube channel as well.

This is helpful for Sprint: FCC moves ahead with measure to ease small-cell deployments

Carriers said the same thing about Apple SIM for the iPad, but it's there. Verizon is the only holdout. Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T are onboard. Verizon may have to get onboard, just like it had to adopt Unlimited Data back in February. I've wondered this myself: Why get an AIRAVE instead of use WiFi Calling? Sprint's WiFi Calling: iOS: SMS is supported over WIFi Android: SMS and MMS are supported over WiFi. So I guess if you need/want MMS on iOS, you can get an AIRAVE. Sprint WiFi Calling can't do handoffs either way: WiFi to Network and Network to WiFi. If you have a device that doesn't yet support WiFi Calling (Pixel, Nexus, etc), the AIRAVE makes sense.

So that's about as well as you can do on an iPad on Sprint. Sprint is a participating carrier in Apple SIM. I don't see why it wouldn't do the same for the iPhone. I imagine the super long term goal for Apple is to remove the SIM Card slot on the phone altogether and have all carriers participate. Apple already got rid of the headphone jack. Either the charging port (for true wireless charging) or the SIM Card slot is next on the list. Perhaps the iPads have better reception due to more space for the antennas and a more robust design? Just taking an initial guess. I'll gladly defer to someone else on this! You've got to respect Sprint for being at the forefront on RCS, Apple SIM, etc. I just wish they handled the business processes better so that more money would be available for CapEx.

Which iPad do you have? Apple has been inconsistent about supporting carrier aggregation on its iPads and so it's not the true measure of Sprint's best network performance. Have a look at the iPad Pro for example: https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/specs/ The iPad Pro 12.9 inch doesn't support LTE Advanced, which means no 2CA support on Sprint as I understand it. It also doesn't even support Band 12 or Band 30. As Apple says: 20 LTE Bands, up to 150 Mbps via LTE. The iPad Pro 9.7 inch supports LTE Advanced, which means 2CA support on Sprint. It supports Band 12 and Band 30. As Apple says: 23 LTE Bands, up to 300 Mbps via LTE Advanced. vs. iPhone 7: https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/ Up to 25 Bands Up to 450 Mbps. 3x Faster LTE than iPhone 6... It supports 3CA on Sprint, but not HPUE. Which tells you that the iPad Pro 12.9 inch has the Modem from the iPhone 6 and the iPad Pro 9.7 inch has the modem from the iPhone 6s.... which is further confirmed by this: https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/, which says 300 Mbps for the iPhone 6s. This is just Apple being cheap with the Modems they use, so it's not a fair measure of the full potential of Sprint's network with 3CA (and now HPUE). iPads are always further behind the curve than iPhones. iPads essentially get last year's (or even older) modems. We'll see if the next generation of iPads has support for 3CA or HPUE on Sprint. Perhaps 3CA if the modem from the iPhone 7 (or an equivalent) is used. I wouldn't bet on HPUE though. We'll be lucky to see HPUE in the next iPhone this year. If Apple does right by Sprint this year on the iPhone, we'll see massive adoption of HPUE, which bodes well for Sprint's customer numbers. Of course, it's up to Sprint to throw the switch for VoLTE.

Requires two new lines or a new line + upgrade.

It's certainly possible! Verizon had to do something to reverse it... because that would have been approaching rate levels of customer loss that Sprint experienced during Network Vision. http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/former-sprint-ceo-hesse-unexpected-disruption-from-network-vision-was-very-painful-to-me So as you said, Verizon was on track for 800k of losses in a quarter if that rate/pace was sustained. On another point, reading more into that article, Hesse really fell on his sword.... actually, it seems he was pushed onto it.

Not necessarily a million... http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-1q-results-highlighted-strong-wireless-customer-loyalty-network-investment-and-growth Verizon was in huge trouble this past quarter. 398K/Quarter Annualized would be 4.776M customers for the year if the rate was sustained.

Verizon had to bring back unlimited in February because it was on a nosedive trajectory for the quarter.... https://www.cnet.com/news/verizons-unlimited-data-turnabout-pays-off-t-mobile-sprint/