utiz4321

I used to be on the side of the four carriers but the lack of profits for sprint and T-Mobile has convinced me that we should have 3. 80 percent of the industries profits are controlled by the big two if this continues we will have three carrier regardless of what regulators want.

What would be the impact of being found to have acted inbad faith?

While it was really awesome to see them turn around on day one, this article does highlight how stupid it was to have put it the 600 Kbps limit in the first place.

This is a dumb move, the first under the new the new management.

Who? The plan really already exists. I don't mind them raising prices but it seems rather dumb to make it the center of a big announcement and marketing push.

It is not really all that "big" though.

Is this the big news sprint tweeted about you think. If so it is a snooze fest.

The industry just needs to kill off subsidies.

I frankly don't want them to lower prices any more. I am fine with the price I pay and would be more interested in network news.

My guess a large phone. Sprint's announcements have been rather disappointing.

Yeah but there is a huge difference between a 10x10 deployment on 700 and a 5x5 deployment on 1900. In my city Att had lte for about a year longer than sprint did and is still probably only has it deployed on ~85-90 percent of there towers but given their greater cell density and the difference in the spectrum that makes for a nearly ubiquitous lte network. Sprint being 95 percent complete is no where near as complete an lte network. Even when my county gets their act together and gets off b26 the cell site density and the 3G only/ no NV 1.0 will mean that sprint will still have noticeable holes in lte coverage. I don't think you would say NV 1.0 from the perspective of Sprint as a company has been a success story. It hasn't really been a failure but the delays, have hurt the company. Let's put it this way if NGN goes the same way as NV 1.0 and we add another year or year and a half onto Marcelo's 18-24 month claim I think sprint will have some pretty major problems. And I don't think tech writers who are wondering when sprint is going to achieve this really good network the company has been saying is right around the corner are simple displaying an anti sprint bias, it is a good question.

No it isn't. You are miss understanding what i am getting at. Sprint made this investment to see a return, the original timetable was decided on because it maximized the return to their investment. Since they missed their time table so badly they didn't achieve that benefit. The fact that it is stil not complete continues to prevent them from seeing the full benefit of NV 1.0. There network has improved but it stil under performs the other carriers in most markets and all you have to do is look at root to see that. Their share of the root awards has jumped but they still have the fewest. Also, in some of the markets they lose in the gap between them and the rest is wider than in markets the perform well in.

Look NV 1.0 by any fair assessment was a something of a small failure. It was over budget, delivered far less benefit to Sprint than was forecasted and wasn't finished on time (it still hasn't been finished). Has there been substantial improvement in their network? Yes, but it comes way late to the game and their competition have maintained their networks for the most part. Is sprint's network on par with that of the other choices out there in most places no. I like sprint as a company and use their service. That doesn't mean they didn't for the most part fall flat on their faces with NV 1.0. The author of the article is right when he says that sprint has a long history of a great network just around the Conner, someday soon and never quite getting there.

It's a bit whinny, but it has some fair points on sprint's failure to execute. NV under delivered and took much longer and that has hurt sprint's brand. Sprint needs to both finish NV 1.0 and execute on NGN.

Well I am glade that Every one you know .....ect. But that isn't proof of anything. The number is closer to 5 percent than to 44. 44 is mathematically impossible given no new subs have unlimited after August of 2010 even assuming a an absurdly low churn rate of less than 1 percent for the entire 5 year period. That is not even counting he people that have made the switch to Mobile share value from unlimited. Another data point that makes this number absurd is the up take on next which is running around 70 percent.

There is no way 44 percent of Att customers are on the unlimited plan. It hasn't been offered for five years even at 1 percent churn the customer base has seen a massive turn over. The real niumber is closer to 5 percent.

I think AT&T's is afraid of the hit their brand would take. Sprint took a surprising big hit for letting go of 4000 people that called Sprint customer care on average of 8 times a day. Besides they are general high Arpu customers.

No. The FCC is completely wrong. Unlimited data doesn't mean unlimited 4g data. 4G wasn't around when Att stop selling unlimited data. You don't have a right to that plan and whatever condition Att wants to impose is their right, if you don't like the terms exercise your right and do business with another company.

Well, if the markets go from 60-90+ percent complete you would have to be unlucky to be near a site that doesn't have lte. Sorry for the bad luck, man. But there is always wifi.

Yeah, but sprint needs to get all of their spectrum assets deployed.

It really is one of the best podcasts out there, especially if you have a background in economics.

This is a pretty stupid statement. Investments are meant to improve a companies profitability by generating a return. Unless the investment tanks there no reason why this would impact what SoftBank could do with the 600 MHz auction.

Marcelo said the 5 billion number did not included NGN. The capes number for sprint will go up.