utiz4321

Robert,

I think in comparing tmobile deployment of HSDPA+ Network vision comes out heads and shoulders above that project. But that was largely done under another CEO. But back haul will be largely in place when the band 41 roll out gets going in earnest.

 

So if we are going to compare roll outs in something like an apples to apples way we would have to compare it to tmobile lte rollout (back haul was also in place when this begain too). Here sprint's band 41 plans don't come off as well (as far as time is concerned, the network itself will be better). Now this isn't apples to apples either as sprint's plans include smalls cells and other densification aspects but it's closer.

 

I also don't see permitting as a choke point for most places. At least it wasn't for NV and that required at least as much in permits as band 41 will.

 

They need an NV type push with band 41 because it in conjunction with band 25 an 26 promises that consistent costumer network experience that we both agree will be the key to sprint's and every network operators success. Their current plans don't strike me as ambitious as NV and to me that is a mistake.

 

I know you disagree but that is my thought.

Johnny Legere is double talking this. Basically saying that Sprint has spectrum but can't build out a network to utilize it, but then saying that his team could fix it.

I hate to.say it but he might be right. Not that sprint cant build out a network to.utilize the spectrum but with fiber to be installed in basically all their towers by the middle of this year and 10000 or so clear towers that shoukd be easy to convert, a two year roll out time to cover only the top 100 markets is lack luster in the extreme. This is especially true given where the competition is and the fact that in many markets the one 1900 carrier is being overwelhemed. We will see what their plans look like after the 11th but so far they are rather disapointing.

Further fodder that will support an argument that sprint needs the magenta http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/2rlA1q4/2014-u-s-wireless-customer-care-full-service-performance-study-and-u-s-wireless-customer-care-non-contract-performance-study-vol-1.htm

 

And I hate it.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Studies like these are proof that Americans need more education in statistics. The spread between sprint and ATT (bottom and top) is so small that though JD power was able to get a statistically significant result (through a large sample size) the actually difference is meaningless. It's probably with in the error or not far out side of it anyway. The article's title should be JD powers finds not much difference between major carrier in..., like all their studies.

I wish this were true in all markets. It's just the known fact that 5mhz isn't cutting it in many places regardless of being a 100% LTE area. Band 26 will help a bit but that band 41 build out is needed quickly in many areas but that is a ways away for many.

I agree and with sprint's current band 41 plans I don't see that since of urgancy.

Read more at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-chief-tells-sprint-chair-000521569.html

 

So now supposedly the stink eye from the DoJ and the FCC. Perhaps it's time for Son to start thinking about whatever his 'Plan B' is.

I think so too. The US regulators seem to be insistant on 4 national carriers. It will be interesting. To see if tmobile continues their aggressive pricing or decides that they might need to become a viable company again.

Thing is Sprint has had the slowest roll out! No matter why or how much better it will be. It's the slowest - customers, analysts or the press don't care why.

 

In all honesty Sprint needs TMO And TMO needs sprint. Why? Because SoftBank wants it that way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sprint started late. The roll out has not been slow. In fact it is much faster that ATT of vzw. The problem with sprint's roll out is they missed their own dead line and had to push the project completion date back 6 months. But even with this their progress has been very fast.

I received this text yesterday. Ironically, not one of the three addresses on my family plan get LTE (all are within a few hundred feet of it). Even my office is a tease, in that almost the entire 10 acre facility gets LTE except my office and a handfull of others along the east side of the property. The only place I get LTE is when I'm driving, when I'm not supposed to be using the phone anyway.

 

Network Vision upgrades to existing equipment I fear won't help me, but is there any plan in the next 18 months for tower expansion in this market?

800 lte will help.

I will speak in multiple metaphors here. I understand that these new plans may not be ideal for all, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles. There will always be some collateral damage. So, I still say it is "foolish" to cling to an old plan because you are swimming against the tide. Subsidized upgrades are going away -- even if you continue paying built in monthly subsidies as part of your grandfathered plan. Additionally, "unlimited" data is going to cost you a substantial premium -- as it should because it is not sustainable for the masses.

 

The solution is to get with the program. Through self control and Wi-Fi offloading, get your data usage down to reasonable amounts. With the 3 GB tier, your example of the five line Framily plan can cut its costs by $50 per month. Better yet, it can double those savings to $100 per month with the default 1 GB option.

 

The writing is on the wall. You are going to pay full price for your device upgrades. And you are going to pay more than before if you want "unlimited" data. If you cannot make that work, then you probably should start looking at other wireless providers.

 

AJ

I think your math is off. 5 lines on framily with 3 gig cost (35+10)5=225. On the 1500 everything data 120+(30)4=240, a 15 dollar differences. But your general point is wright. The price for unlimited has gone up and really it has to. And it went up with the last plan changed sprint made.

 

I seriously don't understand people who don't get that wireless costs are going up. We use these device more than we ever have and for more than we ever have. why should the cost remain the same., especially when we are using up more of what is a finite resource.

That's the part that gets me.. It's like doing a voluntary repo so you can get into debt again with another. Is there any penalty for paying it off, keeping your equity, and getting another?

I think you are looking at it wrong. Since the cancele you last 12 payments they are in a sense buying the phone from you at a guaranteed price, 12xmonthly payments. If you think you can get a better price then you free to sell the phone and pay off the balance. Then to get a new phone your more than Likely going to do easy pay again (it's a better deal) so it amounts to the same thing.

I'm not happy with it because they've used it as an opportunity to raise prices. I'll be sticking with my Everything Plus plan as long as I can.

They raised prices with my way plans. Sprint has been losing money and customers for years. The lower prices haven't stopped customers from leaving so they had to raise prices to steam the loss of money. They are still cheaper than the big two and still more expensive than tmobile, they are just closer to the former and further from the latter now.

 

The only issue I have is that they continuing to charge an "upgrade" fee. Since you are not getting a subsidy it seems to me this is a financing charge now (as it only applies if you finance a device not if you BYOD). Which makes a mockery of their no finance charges claim. I fine with the fee if they want to charge it, I just not ok with them claiming no finance charges while charging the fee only when you finance the phone.

I think the bigger shift will have to be on Best Buy's part and how cell phone sales work into their overall business plan.

 

I imagine if retailers are buying phones for $350 - $375, they won't be able to mark them up $200 just because that's the profit they were earning previously. Once contract incentives go away, unsubsidized cell phones will sell like any other high dollar product - prices based on supply, demand, and the lowest they can sell it for while still earning a business sustaining profit.

 

Best Buy won't be able to sell a phone for $550 just to make $200 profit if Amazon and Wal-Mart are selling the same phone for $450.

 

Edit to add: This is, of course, not counting the supposed "Apple tax" or that the $200 estimates for how much the iPhone 5S costs to make doesn't really account for research and development - all dollar amounts are just examples!

They do now. But 200 may be to high. However, I think there will be a healthy margin on cell phones as long as people can "make it part of their plans" by putting on the bill and don't have to front the cost. The wildcard might be the carriers oddly enough. They don't really care all that much about making a mark up on the device. They care about subs and that might pressure them to sell the phones closer to cost.

Yes, that is correct. None of the carriers have incentive to do this right now. Hence the need for regulation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying other carriers are any better. But if providers are changing from subsidy to no subsidy model, then this really needs to happen in order for consumers to not lose money. Otherwise, it's just not a good deal if I can't take Sprint/T-Mobile/AT&T/Verizon phones to other domestic carrier when I paid retail price for the phone. Especially with a no contract model.

Could not disagree more. Regulation of this sort would only discourage the production of cheap devices and some people need cheap devices. By force every phone to support every technology and frequency you only drive the price up. It helps people who buy a high end device that don't want to bother with selling them and repurchasing a new device, but hurt people with low end handsets (ie people who don't care about phones or poor people), not my idea of fair. The nexus 5 and iPhone are out there for people for whom this matters and as long as there is a segment of the consumer base that wants a phone that can move between carriers the phones will get made, no regulation required. It may not be the phone you want but well that is why you have choices.

Maybe with the end of financing phones, we will actually be closer to their normal cost. Iphone 5s should not cost more than $300 contract free at Best Buy. That might even be too high.

According to the best guesses I have seen the 5s cost 200 to build. Add shipping cost and a 60 percent mark up (low apple probably will mark up over 80, just a guess though) that puts best buying the phone for around 350-375. Given that best buy makes any where between 200 and 400 per contract they light up (old and approximate numbers) and assuming they won't want to see a major hit, the entry level iPhone 5s should run about 550 at best buy off contract. And I think that is where it will end up.

With this change to paying for your phone, shouldn't the monthly service fee go down to compensate and ETFs go away? It frustrates me that I don't think either happened... Except on T-mobile.

It depends on the plan you look at. On the everything data plans the savings are marginal on the framily plans. With the max framily tier and five lines on everything data it's 45 vs 48 per line. But it is clear sprint wanted to raise prices and did so with their my way plans. When you compare these plans with framily the savings are more substantial. Further these plans give people who don't use much data more options so they are a bit more flexible. Either way these plans keep sprint right where they have been with regards to price, higher than tmobile but lower than ATT and verizon and I think that is where they want to be.

Exactly. We've picked around this conversation already, but gone will be the days of squirreling out of service with Sprint for $0 because they "raised the admin fees" or "stopped giving my company a discount!". Technically , "I'm moving my residence where you don't have service" isnt going to even matter. All can be answered with, "no prob, just pay off your device fianancing!". "Oh you don't want to, oh I'm sorry. Just sell it to us for less than its worth" "Oh you don't want to, I'm sorry..... I guess you will have to just try to re-sell it yourself AFTER you pay it off"

 

So imagine you financed $500 after a $150 downpayment... and 6 months later, found out you have to move into some abyss without Sprint. No problem, you've made 6 months of payments, just spend the $380 and pay off your device.

 

To me, the costs are logical and still recoverable. The public's clamor over these changes is just so short sighted. Softbank's scale will deliver us aggressive retail prices... the saving factor.

Yeah, welcome to the world where you pay for your mobile device. It is much like the world where you pay for your car, tv or anything else. If you move to the middle of SF or New York and the car your financing becomes impractical you sell it and move on with your life.

I was going to post this...Amazon/Best Buy might be hurting soon because they're going to be forced out of the commission they get from contract upgrades. Bestbuy's very reliant on it's mobile section and with this removal I'm interested in seeing what they'll do. The other bad is that with the removal of contracts (while still being bound by phone monthly payments), means Sprint/any other carrier can change terms and conditions on the fly because you're not in contract with them anymore. And now if T-Mobile leaves, Sprint will no doubt raise prices.

They can change prices but you are free to leave.

I actually hate this! I will never be buying a phone from sprint again.

 

When my upgrade was up i really wanted the HTC One, so i looked around and ended up getting up getting it from costco for $150.

 

When i went into sprint to talk about that framily thing i noticed that all the phones had a pay a small about now then pay the rest over 24 months. I asked if i could just do the one payment and the 2 year contract like before and they said no.

 

The Moto x was $20 now and $20 for the next 24 months.. So not only does that make my bill $20 more a month thats also $500! What a bad deal..

You pay for the phone subsidy in the price of the plan. So really all this is doing is making what was implicitly built into the plan explicit.

Can any of you who work for Sprint comment on what will happen to the folks who are on ED1500 or similar plans who have upgrades in April-June? Will we lose these upgrades? I am completely opposed to financing a phone. I want ownership of my phone. I want to sell it when I am done with it, not be forced to give it up and not be credited for the amount paid into it.

I do not work for sprint, but they have not announced the end to subsidies. Further, because you finance the phone it doesn't mean that you do not own the phone any more than buying gas on a credit card means that you don't own the gas. You do not need to turn in your phone to get an upgrade and you can sell your phone at any point. You still owe the amount that you agreed to pay for the phone until that is paid, that is the only implication of financing a phone.

The better question is this: why should you care?

 

Do you think magenta subs care that "uncarrier" is a financially unsustainable ploy to sell off T-Mobile USA? No, they just live in the now and enjoy their cut rate deals.

 

In the end, the more malcontents and data abusers who leave Sprint, the better the network gets because of less congestion. So, unless Sprint quarterly losses make your e-penis smaller and smaller, do not worry about it.

 

AJ

Unless your an investor.

It seems kind of silly that Sprint is replacing all the ev-do hardware and not going with Rev. b.

There is no ecosystem for rev B. All going to rev B will do for sprint will make the cost of handsets go up for them. The faster evdo data will not be a big gain as their entire network will have lte.

Just received this text message from Sprint.

 

SprintFreeMsg: Over the next month the new network will be largely completed in your area making it better than ever! http://sprint.us/network1

Umm... If this is referring to lte we are going to need a dramtic pickup in the number of acceptance.

I agree. That interview was done for a reason, and there are a few people in the upper echelon of Sprint that are coming up with a plan or are getting their resumes updated.

 

I suspect at this point these next couple quarters are going to be rough for Sprint, not outwardly for people that are satisfied with the service like I am, but the stock will take a beating and the upper c level will look different.

 

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Do you have a link to the interview or an article in which what he said was discussed. I have been unable to find anything about it.

I think the cues we get in the fourth quarter and year end earnings call will be very instructive. We should get a glimps in to managements mind set.

Here is the biggest thing...they are rigid and inflexible. The Network Vision plan was sound. But many problems occurred where Sprint needed to be strong and be willing to make changes. Also, the market changed beneath them. And they did not change.

 

If I felt they were adapting NOW, I would go back into complacency myself. But I am not detecting any urgency or changes now. They just seem keeping to the plan. Stick to plan. Do not deviate from the plan. If the plan slips, if the OEM's slip on equipment, if the city says come back next month, if the backhaul is delayed, if San Francisco stays a giant black hole void of LTE...do not make waves. Just stay the course. It will work out in time.

 

Problems happen. Mistakes happen. Adapt! I think Sprint executive management is so used to having its hands tied by funding that they don't even know how to spend a little extra money to solve their problems. To find a new way...a better way...a faster way. It's foreign to them now. They may be too close to the problem.

 

Masayoshi Son senses this. That is why he shot across their bow recently in a public interview. It's their last shot. Having a huge spectrum arsenal alone will not save Sprint. It just is the asset that keeps investors from losing all their money when the company goes bankrupt. Sprint must turn around in 2014. And it has to feel like it is well on its way by Mid Year.

 

Robert

This is almost exactly the way I feel about he sprint's management team. It seems to me that have this idea that they could just trend water until NV was complete and the industry is simply moving to fast. This is especially true on the offerings and customer service end of things. This might have been ok if they had managed to stick to the original NV time table and NV 1.0 was largely complete today.

 

In one sense I understand their thought process, they don't want to ramp up offers and marketing to have people switch to a network that is going to leave a bad tast in their mouths. But they should have and should be doing more to get a head of their competition and not just follow the industry lead. One place I do give tmobile credit is they have been reducing (or appearing to) consumers pain points and no one can really argue that it hasn't paid off for them in the short run. Sprint could learn a lot from tmobile on this end (not on the network side, except maybe in the since of urgency of getting ahead of the competition, I.e a more ambitious 2.5 deployment). They need to find and reduce their customers pain point because enduring the network upgrades is a massive one sprint can't really do anything about other than execute on NV.

 

The plan was for NV was a good one (the reAson I stay with sprint really) but execution has been poor. Which is a shame because I think Hesse and co have done just about as good as anyone mitigating the disaster that was the nextel merger.

 

Ps what is the problem with SF anyway. What is causing NV progress to be so slow there, if you know? (I am from that part of the world lol).

I say good riddance. The more subscribers that Sprint loses, the better. Really.

 

Now that Sprint is no longer in danger of going bankrupt, severe subscriber loss numbers will have two benefits. One, they will remove strain on the network. Two, it will cause a severe shakeup at Sprint to solve the existing problems as fast as physically possible. I think Sprint management is content knowing the solution is in place and letting it run its course until completion. Instead of being swift and adept, rolling with the punches and changing as necessary.

 

People are leaving Sprint because of the network. Network Vision just is not delivering on its promises yet. Sprint had two years to solve the problem...the life of one whole contract season. It didn't do that (for 100 valid and invalid reasons). And someone stepped up to make it very attractive for these discontent people to leave.

 

The problem is Sprint Executive Management. If subscriber losses substantially exceed internal estimates for Q1 2014, I expect heads to roll. Mr. Son will start cleaning house. And if that is what the result is going to be anyway, I'd rather he'd do that sooner than later. So I'm kind of hoping the subscriber losses are as big as Sprint can handle. It needs to hurt.

 

Robert

 

I am curious to here what you think the missteps of the sprint management team have been. Any time I have been critical of Sprint's moves (mainly what it has been doing to compete in an increasingly competitive market) it has been an obleack criticism of sprint's management team yet you never seem to agree. So just curious.