utiz4321

Tmobile has been exicuting on their plans quite well and are currently being rewarded in the market place for it. It maybe because they have an exit strategy (being bought out) but the subscriber numbers are impressive given it is a maturing industry. Att has just announced that it expects zero growth in profits in its mobile unit and this is largely do to the impact of tmobile. On the other hand Sprint has missed every network milestone they set for themselves (what ever the cause) and they haven't been as aggressive on price as many had hoped after the Softbank merger. Here again the subscriber numbers tell the story. There is now a real question as to weather Sprint can turn this around without a T-Mobile merger is a real open question. I don't think they can with in the next 4 years at least and even then what well their competition look like, what real advantage does an independent Sprint have in 2019? I don't see one.

You and Dan Hesse have both been saying substantially complete. Dan since the last quarterly earnings and in several interviews. The problem is Sprint is racking up a bad reputation that is going to take billions to repair at this point and it is largely do to the failure to exicute on the NV plan.

Sprint is fudging here. The original NV plaans had 1900 Lte substancially complete, this has changed to 3g substantially complete. Another delay, just one they don't want to declare out loud. It's unforntunate but I believe these delays have been so costly to Sprint that the company now needs the T-Mobile merger to survive.

I don't think Sprint will ever accelerate NV. They seem to be convinced that their plodding past is good enough, even though it seems to be squandering the one true advantage they have, a large quantities of sprectum they can use for Lte.

It shows excess capacity not overall capacity.

True enough, that is why this results are uninformative. The don't speak to user experience. Which is why many people here dislike them including myself.

What is the difference between 5mbs and 50 from a smart phone? In terms of use? The answer is none.

The 7 billion in capex Sprint has spent the last two years is about the same AT&T and Verizon spent for each of the last five years. This is the main arguement in favor of the merger vzw and AT&T can spend that much and still generate all the free cash flow of the industry.

Yes. The Chandler Blvd and 101 has had Lte down for about five days now. The tower servicing my home is a different one.

Same thing is happening at the Chandler and 101 tower and the tower that services my house is either overloaded from 7am to about 9pm or has some issues.

Hd voice and the completion of the 3g build would be my guess.

Unlimited data stricky means you can use as much data as you want. It makes no statement about data speeds. Data speeds are limited all the time signal quality and network conditions, now Sprint is going to exercise some control to shape traffic that does not mean your data is not unlimited. If they had promised unrestricted data you might have a point.

They are not cutiing you off from the buffet that would mean you have no service just making you go througblune slower. This could possibly improve average speeds of heavy users on congested towers by allowing useable data where none existed before. Calm down wait and see the impact. I am a heavy data user and will have to do the same thing.

Go to AT&T then. They are not punishing you , they are looking at ways to manage traffic. What is the difference between you being throttled because you are a heavy user then you seeing slow data speeds because the tower is over loaded? The are only traffic shaping on overloaded towers ie towers you would have experienced slow speeds on anyway. In any case we don't even know what throttling under those conditions means so maybe you should calm down and see how this will impact you and then go pay more at AT&T.

The six month delay in NV 1.0 and the fact that they kind of have to fudge to make it so they don't miss the new target hurt sprint bad.

I personally would easily pay 20 more than I am paying now for unlimited lte data when Sprint's deployment of all the spectrum they are sitting on is finished. If that day was today no one would need to worry about this policy change because Sprint would be a head of the data consumption curve. These changes are needed because Sprint isn't ahead of the curve and probably won't be getting ahead for a couple of years and that is not ideal for anyone. I don't see the point of blame people who rely on mobile data to a greater degree that most for that problem. I whole heartily agree that people complaining about it before they even know how it will effect them or even if it does reduce their network experience need to relax and figure out what option works best for them and go for that. I never understood peoples needed to complain about companies when you have choice, vote with you dollars.

I agree with what you are saying, but the tone of your commits feel hostile to heavy data users. Sprint has already indicated that they plan to raise the price of unlimited data in the future, who do you think will be willing to pay those premiums but heavy data users? Traffic shaping should be apart of sprint plan to maintain network quality, but I am sympathetic to people who are worried in areas where the network seems to alway be over burned seeing there network experience degrade even further because they rely on mobile data more. Especially when you consider that there would be far fewer over burned sites if not next to none if sprint had all the spectrum they plan to put in use in use. I get that Isn't possible and I am not saying sprint should already have everything deployed today. What I am saying is that if this negatively effects heavy users to the point that they have a bad network experience that is not ideal for sprint either. It is certainly better than everyone have a bad network experience but it is still not ideal. The ideal solution is to turn Sprint's pile of spectrum into a network as soon as possible.

So I am confused about what your position is on unlimited data. Should people who are with sprint for the purpose of having unlimited data from a smartphone should not be able to use there device as they need it?

I don't think sprint wants me to churn, they have made a calculation based on a cost benefit analysis and they believe the gain is greater than the loss. I am well aware sprint is deploying on all frequencies but I am also aware that sprint has not been deploying at the pace they had hoped. High usage unlimited customers are not as negative for sprint as you might at first think. They are far less likely to churn and less sensitive to price increases. For sprint to lose this segment of the customer base because the pace of their deployment is not something they are happy about, but something they believe they have to do based on how fast they can meet data demand. All things being equal they would rather keep high usage customers and have all their spectrum deployed then drive them away, hurt their reputation and struggle to finish NV late. As far as what the other 95% customers, they want a good end user experience, if sprint delivers it through throttling or deploying their spectrum they don't care.

That is true, but they are sitting on a ton of unused or underused spectrum and NV is taking far long than it was billed by sprint, so let's not let them off the hook so easily. That said this change seems like a reasonable network management tool, but for me if the number of over burdened sites I run into degrades my service to the point it isn't working for as a consumer I have choices.

The video prioritizing is kind of the key for me. If sprint pursues this module for higher users (1mbs on over burned towers) then to me this is perfectly fine. Web browsing, music streaming and even video calling will not noticeably be affected. Downloads and video streaming are the on two things that will be noticablly affected and video streaming is already throttled for most customers, so what will really changed in terms of end user experiance. If throttled means the same thing as it does for boost and virgin then I have an issue.

Do you mean their reputation getting better over the next five years, because that might be true. It takes along time to rebuild a brand, but if you are talking about the network taking five years to improve I think you time table is way off. You have addition 1900 carriers going online, small cells being deployed, 800 lte carrier being deployed and a dense deployment of 2.6 in the top hundred markets (not fast enough in my mind) over the next year and 8months. The next will be vastly improved in the next two years and in the top 100 markets great improvement.

Hesse is the CEO I would prefer. He did about as good a job as it was possible to do with given where it was at when he took over.

No they don't. That isn't even close to what is being discussed here. On towers where the traffic is heavy they will throttle users that are in the top 5% of data users. This only effects people on heavy traffic times and locations. Since I to recall the average WiMAX data user being at something like 7gigs I think the average lte user should be around the same. Meaning the top 5 % is probably significantly north of 7gigs (just a guess and it would include me).

Sprint already throttles video content on over burned sites to 1Mbs for every one (or at least reserves the right to). If they throttle the top 5 percent to 1Mbs that would be fine (speaking as someone who is on the heavy use side). If you think about it you don't need more than one Mbs for anything but video streaming. If this is the case it may just improve service with no discernible differance to the end user than the current t&cs allow.