utiz4321

Att and vzw have to protect their dividen yields both of which are rather high. That means they have to protect their margins until that becomes untenable. What will move vzw to become more competitive is an increase in loss of high margin customers, until then don't expect much from them.

Cost in the future will need to be raised but until sprint's spectrum is fully deployed they can maintain the current price level. With two 1900 carriers and one non-optimized 2.6 carrier lte is really good and consistent in a marked where sprint has a rather substantial market share. They still have at least two more 20 MHz 2.6 carriers, aggregations, optimization and b26 to deploy. Unlimited at these prices has a long runway.

To price is sensitive to the cost of delivering service, the perceived value derived by the consumer and the level of competition. The cost for sprint to expand capacity is reality let low compared to the competition because they still have vast amounts of undeployed spectrum. I think it is ironic a little that while the major cost for ATT and Verzion is maintaining the data network while for sprint it is about making a data network reliable enough to support VoLTE. That is a big driver behind the network densification, for sprint voice is the cost driver again.

Monopolies provided lower quality goods at higher prices. It doesnt matter if the monopoly is a government one or a private one with the exception of natural monopolies which are kind of like unicorns.

Why would you as an investor give money to a company that you expect will never give you a return? If Softbank decides that Sprint will not turn a profit they will take the lose salvage what they can and invest the capital else where.

Look, I am not saying they would "pull the plug" What I am saying is that Sprint has to show signs of turning a profit to warrant another investment by Softbank. If Sprint can monetize their spectrum because the market want sustain 4 profitable carriers or Sprint can become one of the three in a four carrier market then no it is not a reason for Softbank to stick around.

Which will only happen if Sprint shows signs that it will one day make a profit. Softbank is not in business to be charitable towards Sprint.

Stakeholders are last on the list in an asset sale from bankruptcy. The debt holders have first claim and since Sprint is 32 billion in debt, yeah softbank's investment is probably worth close to zero if Sprint was to go into bankruptcy. Also I have no love for T-Mobile so stop with the ad hominem.

Volte is going to require a more dense network which means more macro sites or 600 MHz in order to just match coverage. This means more CAPEX not less. SoftBank, like any other investor will only stick around for as long as a turn around story makes sense. They would rather lose 4 billion of their investment than all 20 billion.

Sprint and T-Mobile haven't made a yearly profits for years. Almost all of the profits for the entire industry is concentrated in the Big Two and it has been that way for over five years. Bankruptcy, while a long way off isn't out of the realm of possibilities for sprint if SoftBank decides it can't make a return on investment. The CAPEX required over the next five years show no real signs of slowing down as the carriers begin Volte. There is a lot auguring for three carriers. It is not a position of ignorance but claiming that sprint and T-Mobile are simply not making profits today is.

Making a profit two out of the last 8 quarters( actually one because as you point out one quarterly profit can from selling assets) isn't a sign of a sustainable profits. If they are able to deliver on the next three quarters then I can remove T-Mobile from my statement. But sprint still hasn't and so the thrust of my statement remains. If three companies are making a profit and one is not it is hard to say the right number of carriers is four.

Neither are making profits. That is the test of weather or not 3 or 4 national carriers are the right amount for the market.

Sprint is weak on low band spectrum. It has to be cheaper to add 600 to existing towers rather than densifying their network to match Volte to their CDMA network not to mention expanding their foot print with their existing spectrum portfolio.

I didn't really like the idea of sprint not showing up to the 600 auction. That would be short sighted of them. Does sprint need addition low band spectrum? Yes, yes it does. Can sprint afford to let competitors gain access to addition low band spectrum while they don't? No, no the can't.

It is about right. The lower Central Valley along the i5 is pretty awful. I use to work for ubiquitel. It was a fun little company.

And yet I am out of a sprint coverage area once in a blue moon.

Blame your city. Local resistance and regulations for new building permits and new cell sites is one of the most costly parts of new tower/upgrades.

I don't think so. They seemed to imply it was pretty close to a go and not a year away. If they hadn't costed it out before now they are not going to add it to their current capex numbers. Next quarter their capex will be revised upwards, I'll bet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marcelo said that it did not include NGN in the Q&A.

What I don't get is that these analysts seem to have missed is the 5 billion doesn't include the next gen network build.

"Sprint is looking at traditional network equipment vendors, Bye said, as well as "what we consider disruptive players" that bring a "new thinking about how to architect networks." Bye said Sprint will be "measured and pragmatic" in how it chooses its vendors going forward." Disruptive equipment vendors that bring new thinking about how to architect network is perhaps the most intriguing line in the article.

Why wouldn't they?

I don't think so. Investors want one carrier but investors don't dictate size of firms, a mix of government (through regulations) and consumers do ( through preferences). You are right that both companies are improving in lots of measures but it remains an open question as to weather one or both will become profitable. If despite all the improvement in network, subs, customer service ect.... Can't bring either or both to profitability it makes the case for merger stronger two years from now not weaker. They can say, look we tried to compete in a four carrier market and four carrier can't be sustained by the market because we can only compete by operating at a lost.

Right. But those where the decision of the ideological bent of the current FCC. In 2017 we are likely to have a different ideology governing the FCC, one that might be more inclined to listen to what the market seems to be saying. It does no good to have four national carriers unless they are all profitable, otherwise we end up with three or less anyway and have to go through bankruptcy rather than a merger to get there.