luvixuha

Old map data courtesy of dsatrbs posted to /r/sprint:

https://mega.nz/#!dcJEjRJS!2olvjpP-E699qe-bIENZykrfGtPKt8HdhNpSFfTMiTo

They also posted t-mobile tilesets and did a comparison map.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/3y546q/tmobile_1115_to_1215_bonus_sprint_maps/

(edit: They aren't very zoomed in, but maybe you can compare larger differences.)

...since VoLTE isn't tested by Root, that also means that their new Extended Range LTE assets are not fully tested when it comes to voice.

How is that not true? If you are being served by a Band 12 cell site (and no others), you can only place a call if VoLTE is turned on. Having VoLTE off is going to kill their "call blocking" statistics.

And very rude. But I'm sure Atlanta users will have another reason to sport Sprint now.

Telesales orders in Atlanta can get the deal, just not retail ... Not sure why.

I'm a little curious as to what entitles you to a very limited targeted rate plan for loyal customers on legacy rate plans. You've spoken plenty about network abuse, and this is billing abuse.

 

I'm all for getting a deal, but wasting internal resources time trying to hem and haw because you want to be treated special because you don't want to pay the going rate for what you want is abuse of the system.

 

As a postpaid customer of 11 years paying simple choice rates, what makes you more eligible for a special rate than I?

Meh. The guys life sucks if I'm recalling previous posts correctly, so I'm okay with him getting a good deal on a better network.

But it is a bit hypocritical to slam a company and its leadership so hard and then desperately try to get service there.

 

I'm considering bailing on the majority of my S holdings once/if we get back into the 4.50 range. My money would be better invested somewhere else once I hit a break-even. 

 

Why would you hold the dog instead of taking a capital loss and investing that money in a more worthwhile stock that could produce a higher return? You are falling victim to sunk costs.

T-Mobiles maps updated with gradients now. Much better than before.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

I agree, having gradients is much better. Plus now from desktop you can toggle 700MHz on or off by selecting "device" at the top right corner. Pick "Other phones" and then "My device is not in the list". (I think from Mobile you can do something similar)

Bad For Consumers

• 4 Lines for $120 @ 10GB each is now reduced to 6GB each.

 

4 for $120 is a limited time promo. Promos ending are always bad, but not unexpected in the least. The base non-promo rates were doubled from 3GB to 6GB.

Unlimited LTE customers finally got a gift... 14GB of LTE hotspot data included. 14GB!!

At T-Mobile, one man with a very Godlike presence about him decided to change all of this.

Praise be to Legere. May his blessings be upon you.

Asus RT-AC68U is a great router. If you want something cheaper and N-only, the Asus RT-N66U is a great performer.

Wow. Look at the entire state of Iowa for T-Mobile. That's a little scary.

T-Mobile has coverage in Iowa through iWireless, but they don't count it as native coverage on their maps (even though T-Mobile owns half of iWireless and they have no restrictions on roaming on the iWireless network).

Anyone know where to find the port ratios for T-Mobile?  Legere said Sprint's went down to 2.07, which is a lot better than the previous quarter (2.45).  I'm curious about what Verizon/AT&T's port ratios are against T-Mobile.

T-Mobile is port-positive against all carriers. In Q3 2015: 2.1 to Sprint, 2.0 to AT&T and 1.3 to Verizon

The opposite ratios are easy to derive.

(0.77 T-Mobile to Verizon, 0.5 to T-Mobile to AT&T and 0.47 T-Mobile to Sprint).

Are they just exaggerating the coverage areas where they are at or are they parsing some technical argument that gives them a claim to coverage that doesn't exist? I'm just curious.

160 million people (half of the US population) live in just the blue counties shaded on this map: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

300 million is trickier, but just imagine that another substantial portion of people live near/around those blue counties. The last 20 million people live in the boonies.

You say TMo is building up its rural network. Is it building out too?

T-Mobile is building out 300,000 square miles of brand new coverage by year-end 2015. This includes parts of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota (three states where they never had any presence), the northern half of Michigan including the Upper Peninsula, and new sites randomly throughout their existing markets to bulk up coverage. 700,000 square miles of LTE will be coming from 2G->LTE and HSPA->LTE conversions on their existing footprint.

CFO: "We have never had in-market roaming, so we don't have those costs like Sprint, which spent over over $500M last year to Verizon alone. Those cost savings are used in other areas."

Ouch.

In other news today, they are acquiring additional A-block spectrum from AB License Co.

Sprint...2.07% port ratio with Sprint.

 

"I would expect Sprint to post positive numbers for the quarter, they are doing a good job" - John Legere

No that's not 2.07%, that's 2.07x. For every 100 customers that go from T-Mobile to Sprint, 207 customers go from Sprint to T-Mobile.

They are shouting about it from the rooftops. Marcelo mentions it every time he speaks. He talks about the cost savings, the improved customer satisfaction all the time.

Then lets see some numbers, Marcelo. Analysts don't seem to like it.

the perception problem of a customer walking into a store that looks like it is busy

Yeah, the perception that the service is popular. That's a perception Sprint desperately needs.

That is moving the goal posts.  If you think Direct 2 You is "a great idea that arrived 5-6 years too late," then you no longer think it is a "a great idea."

I refer you to post #8545. "If we were in 2009-2010? Great idea."

There are great ideas that exist and are simply "before their time" or "after their time". Sorry if you fail to recognize that.

I'll say it again, but it is probably revenue generating or sprint sees it becoming revenue generating given Marcelo's approach to spending.

I believe that Sprint sees it as becoming revenue generating. Nobody knows for sure, but if it was a smash success or turned out to be a major revenue driver, I'm having a hard time believing they wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops.

On another note, what do you think the people who use direct 2 u would do if that service wasn't available once they got there phones in the mail? Read the activation instruction mailed to them and transfer all their content through whichever of the easy to use cloud services they choose to use? Nope. They would walk into a store, see a rep anyway and tie down the resources of the stores, which sprint wants to be focused on sales. It probably cost sprint just as much or more having these people come to a store.

There's the additional overhead of cars, equipment, logistics, etc. that are involved with the mobile service that you wouldn't have if you simply hired another person at a store. If there is an issue of tying up store resources, are the stores understaffed? Wouldn't that be a problem easier solved by hiring another person? Or improved demand planning/scheduling?

I am merely pointing out flaws in your argument -- of which the gist is "I think Direct 2 You is a stupid idea.  Therefore, it is a stupid idea."

On the contrary. I think it's a great idea that arrived 5-6 years too late.

This is why it's dangerous to use terms like "most." Only 55% of the US population has a smartphone. That's expected to climb to over 70% in the next five years. That's 45 million new customers for the carriers. That approaching the size of Sprint's existing customer base.

64% of adults in the US have a smartphone according to the latest Pew survey. This includes 85% of those 18-29 and 79% of those 30-49. The large untapped market of non-smartphone users? Age 65+, with 27% of those owning a smartphone. If Sprint wants to spend untold amounts of money targeting people with one foot in the grave, I guess everyone here thinks that's a smart business decision.

The problem is that neither of you has done any market research on Direct 2 You.  But Sprint has.  Neither of you has any usage stats on Direct 2 You.  But Sprint does.  And neither of you knows the cost structure of Direct 2 You.  But Sprint knows.  Thus, both of you are posting from positions of ignorance.

You don't have any access to that data either. For all you know, Sprint's internal data may very well show it to be a money losing proposition, but I am not using absence of evidence to base my argument. Do we really need to argue that the older, flip-phone owning demographic is probably not a goldmine?

I think if it wasn't doing well Sprint wouldn't keep expanding it.

It wouldn't be the first time a large corporation continued to throw good money after bad.

Its not that I just don't see any need for someone to drive up and teach you how to use your phone.

Direct to you is a waste of money. If we were in 2009-2010? Great idea. 2015? Everyone and their grandma has a smartphone now. I'd bet most current flipphone owners today don't have long for this earth, aren't gonna be long term customers. Not the market Sprint should be targeting.

Correct me if I am wrong isn't Sprint with the most unlimited data legacy Postpaid customers on its network? Even though Tmobile passed them on customer, Sprint stills has more Postpaid customers.

As of the end of Q2, Sprint had 30,016,000 postpaid branded subs and T-Mobile had 29,318,000 postpaid branded subs (Sprint has 698,000 more postpaid subs).

We know that Legere pre-announced his subscribers for Q3, they gained over 2.1 million net and had 1 million postpaid net adds. Even if Sprint announced that they doubled their net adds from last quarter, T-Mobile would still surpass them in Postpaid, Prepaid, Wholesale, and Total subs as of Q3, making Sprint solidly #4.

How much stock would Softbank need to purchase to have Sprint go private, and say the price they bought that amount of stock at, was $5 each, how much money would it cost at that amount for Softbank to make Sprint go private?

At $5/share, 2.96 billion dollars.

My armchair analyst opinion of this is that T-Mobile will bid heavily for 10x10 blocks nationally, including in major metros (as both AT&T and Verizon are screened from participating in the reserve portion there). The other 5x5 in the spectrum reserve will go to squatters. Verizon will try and pick up 10x10 or perhaps larger in the non-reserved portion. AT&T will probably bid cautiously, picking up a patchwork of spectrum.

http://i.imgur.com/4ZgGPoW.png

 

any thoughts on this hilariously inaccurate coverage map?

Well, it does have the disclaimer "Projected by end of 2015" and it is pretty similar to their DT Capital Markets EOY map, just stylized. We still have a little over three months to go. I'm sure they've been working on the expansion all year and we will see large pieces of it come online in the next few months.

How do you determine its "value"?

Well, it's currently trading for $3.20/share. If they swooped in today and gave you a $1 premium they could force the sale without issue.

Stock price going into the $2 range would be another bad hit to morale, though it would yet cause me to buy more shares.

And if it went into the $1 range it would be delisted. No use throwing good money after bad.

Such bullying by a majority owner you advocate is patently unfair, and thus corporate laws have actual "fairness" clauses that protect minority shareholders from a majority owner taking advantage of depressed prices and many other situations that would result in "burdening" the little guy.  SoftBank would be outright prevented from taking Sprint private or at least face long, massive lawsuits.

They may have to deliver a premium to you, but certainly not three times its value, and they can certainly force you out.

By the way for anyone looking, Sprint is now trading where it was pre-earnings and is looking like it will be going lower.