utiz4321

So, none of the mergers in the 2000s was good for consumers? Sorry but that is nuts. Tell me how you even get to 3g with 7-8 players?

How do you know 4 in 2025 isnt going to be the same as 7 in 2017? These companies are looking at this everyday and the market, which is alot smarter than both of us, has been trying to get the national carriers down to three for a while now. The fact is for The two years after this one sprint is likily to cut capex drastically. It is hard to see how they compete going forward. Would it be better to take a 3 player market because of a merger or risk a 3 player market do to a bankruptcy?

Wireless service in Canada is expensive because Canada has a huge land area with a small population spread out across it. Why would you think wireless service in Canada would be the same price as here? The fixed cost are only slightly less and the customer base to spread those cost across are tiny compared to the US.

No. You are not based in reality if you think the wireless market is going to stagnate if Sprint and T-Mobile merge. 5g is coming and will be pushed by everyone in the market place. The question is weather you want it to follow the same pattern LTE did or not. Would you like the big two to deploy a really solid 5g network and the other two to deploy an uneven networks or 3 solid th networks? You anti-merger people dont understand the role capital intensive industries play in shaping such markets. If a market is capital intensive it is more efficient with fewer players. Imgaine if the market still looked like it did in 2003, we would have plenty of players and regional plans with not even 3g deployed. Sprint has 30 billion. They are able to increase CAPEX this year because they don't have much maturing this year. This is not the case the next two years which means they are likely to starve their network again over that time. Mean while the big two aren't going to stand still. Sprint isn't growing top line income fast enough to make themselves viable on their own.

I am extremely pro-merger. I would have rather 3 very good networks than two good networks and 2 hit and miss networks, even if prices go up(this isnt a for sure thing). Further, with the amount of spectrum the new company would have (and hopefully the capital to deploy it!) They could compete against traditional fixed line broadband, a plan masa aluded to last time he attempted to merge the two companies. The low end of the market can be served by MVNOs. Remember this is a capital intensive business, which means the market is better served by fewer players with larger scale and there is another round of massive capital expenditures right around the corner.

I don't think it matters to 99.9 percent of end users. I use a lot of data and it never impacts me in any meaningful way.

No. You paid for the device cost the carrier ate in the plan. No free lunch. And again the smart phone of today isnt the smart phone of 2013. Want proof, look at the pictures you took then and now.

Yes, because the smartphone of today is the same as the smart phone of 2013.

I think marketing companies need to come up with better names for their marketing strategies. There is just something about a marketing strategy called "influencers" that is just a little on the creepy side. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

He said an answer on the merger talk will take longer. He never said it was less likily. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Rub it in. ;p Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Maybe they get priority but they will be sendinf it out to those joe schmos too. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Competitors were using those maps to sell their own service. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

This is exactly why i like it. Of all the rumors i really like the idea of a third party injecting 10-20 billion for resell rights but this is a close second. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I like this one. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I don't think it will be that low. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

The leaks say the merger go shot down. I dont think that would have the desired effect on DT. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

I think he said next few weeks. Whatever that means. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Because of the way the promotion works. The promotion pays off cancellation fees or phone pay off and you have to trade in your old phone. Most people who are switching dont owe 650+ and those that do have phone worth more on a trade. The total cost of the program is payout+overhead-trad ins resell- people who don't follow up on the paperwork- people that leave with buyser remorse. This probably averages out to between 100-200 dollars, but that is just my guess based on the amount of money they spent advertising it when it first started. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

How are debt laden companies going to cut her reduce their revenue streams and manage to stay in business? More specifically how is sprint, a company that hasnt posted a profit in over 10 years? Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Up to 650 and part of that is covered by the customer trading in their old phone. Most people are getting far less than 650 and most of it is being covered by the phone trade it. If I had to guess, I would say this program adds no more than 200 to the cost of acquisition, probably far less. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Only COEM customers. It is hard to say how many of those are in the mix. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Hyperbole, I am sure. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Anyone else excited for the earnings call? Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

That is why I said it can't be a loan. No one in their right mind would loan sprint 10 billion . Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk