utiz4321

It is called ARPU. Promos are to grow subscribers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are missing is that is for new customers and not for existing ones. It is cheaper to keep customers that to acquire them. Look, I think the merger should have been allowed a couple of years ago. It seems like this is a three national carrier market. Sprint has wonderful assets but lacks the scale and funds to deploy them. They won't be able to gain traction until they can go to the consumer and give a reason other than price to use them. Can you think of one? Because I can't? They have the potential to make it speed but that requires putting all of their 2.5 assets on air ( I don't know why they haven't don't this since it is just software) and densifying. They need money to do that and they don't have it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think They have to beat VZW price by 25-30 percent. That would be five lines for 150. It sucks but sprint product is simply not as good in most places. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really. Read the last paragraph. It states Sprint expects CAPEX to accelerate in Q4 and into 2017. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it is a matter of them not getting, I think it is a matter of them being caught flat footed. I don't think anyone saw this coming, I mean it was leaked on Sunday and announced on Monday. I don't even remembering hearing about any kind of test markets for this. I don't think anyone thought VZW would be this aggressive. I am sure ATT did not. This has really put the whole industry on the back foot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I edited my post above to contain the link from Verizon that was posted earlier. It would be beyond surprising if VZW would be willing to destroy it's margins to gain market share at this point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not according to the link posted in this thread. http://www.verizon.com/about/news/get-unlimited-data-network-you-deserve-verizon Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know where you got that pricing but two lines is 80+45=125 and 45 a line up to 5 lines total. That is 260 for 5 lines. VZW isn't going to under cut T-Mobile or sprint, their brand is worth more. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vzw plans will not get you to 240 for seven lines. The maximum number of lines is five and five lines will run you 260. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On other treads and other times. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I think yours did. I clearly was referring to conversations we have had in the past. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Sprint could just offer one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have had this discussion before, I have no wish to have it again. I understand your sympathies rest with the NIMBYs. But no, people don't even notice huge monopoles unless someone who knows what they are points them out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or the can just use one or the other. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly what is wrong with city councils all across the country, they are dominated by white haired NIMBYs. When the one guy started going off about not supporting "that monstrosity" I think I vomited a little. People don't see cell sites until you point them out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing I don't understand is sprint has a ton of spectrum off air and it is relatively cheap to put it on air. Three carrier abrogation is a matter of software, yet it isn't ubiquitous across sprint's b41 network. Why not light up as many carriers of b41 as possible and expand 3 carrier aggregation everywhere they can. This seems to be a cheap way to enhance network performance, unless I am missing something? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course putting a ton of money into the network (provided they applied the funds in a reasonable intelligent fashion) would fix the network. Would it gain them market share? They seem to think there is better use for their funds, I am skeptical. In any case their negative reputation is almost entirely network related. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't checked but I have been hold LTE signal places I normally drop to 3G in the east valley. I will check tomorrow. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CAPEX situation is pretty alarming. I have stopped recommending sprint. In my area thy are letting the network go and the cuts in CAPEX signal they are ok with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't be hysterical. All net neutrality is a fight between content providers and infrastructure companies on who gets what profits. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go back and listen to the quarterly reports. They said again and again that the new network cost less and that was why CAPEX was lowered. Only in the last one did they change their story and they continued to mislead people on the subject of their small cell roll out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The management team presented these trials as a roll out and dodge the why is CAPEX so low question. If they didn't violate FTC rules, they came very close. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is completely untrue. LTE roaming is far more expensive because of the different levels of usage. If 90 percent of your traffic happens over lte it forces you to invest more in LTE capacity. This the marginal cost of add one more LTE user is greater than adding one more 3G user. T-Mobile has certain scale advantages being part of Deutsche telecom internationally. That would be my guess as to why they are able to pull it off. Vzw and ATT charge a grip for their international roaming. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTE roaming is likely far far more expensive. I don't expect to see that with any kind of reasonable price tag for a while. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, maybe this will be the long delayed start to making Sprint great again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk