ase500

What. That isn't even close to what I said. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Many of the highest earner get cell service from their employers. I would also argue that Sprint service in those areas is still probably better than say Verizon's in say northern MN. There are areas larger than RI that have no service from any provider. Get out to day Northome MN and see what spotty service really is. It's an expectation game. You simply expect more. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Out of those four states only one can have a large ignored area as only one is a large enough to have a large area at all. You are also assuming that density of population has anything to do with profit. All of those four states are also have one thing in common. Higher than average per capita income. Most are not looking for a deal and are probably going to stick with the big two. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I myself was told this by the retention rep I talked to. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Extra butter? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I don't think there many that want a subsidized phone any more. It really isn't a good deal anymore. What most want is a way to transition out of the contracts that doesn't penalize them for being a loyal customer. Once the wholesale cost of the phone is paid, sprint doesn't stand to lose anything by allowing the customer off contract. In fact they could allow the customer off and sell them on an upgrade at retail. There by turning it into a profit situation, rather than a loss. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The name for that attitude is called bankrupt. I help operate a 120 million a year operation for one of the largest companies on earth. And that statement alone would have gotten you fired. Every customer counts. In a connected world one angry customer, no matter how small the profit can make huge dent in your bottom line as they lampoon you on facebook and Twitter. It is quite clear many of you here don't understand business. I really hope none of the people at Sprint share your view. If they share such an anticustomer view the company has earned its reputation for poor customer service and it will not make a full turn around. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Banging head against wall. How can they lose money on if they passed the Break Even point. Bro Do you even business. The only loss they can have at that point is the loss of revenue from loss customer. I will restate this once more the devices subbed to put them in the hands of the customers so they could sell the service. They are not a retailer. Once the wholesale cost is paid, the profit comes from the sale of the service. Get it yet? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

It's like talking to a wall. Retention is the point. NOT ENTITLEMENT. No offense but I hope you don't run a business. With that logic you'd be bankrupt. Most customers wil just quietly leave and give someone else their money. Sprint is in business to make money. They can't make money without customers. It is quite clear either you don't understand P/L or are driven by a petty need to be right, either way, I am done trying to give you a tutorial in business models and the economics of said business models. Have a good night. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

OMG it just flies right over your head. RETENTION. They won't make any money on the phone or the plan if they don't RETAIN THE CUSTOMER. The contract plans are NOT SWEETHEART DEALS. Based on comparison they are hands down some of the most expensive. And you missed the math yet again. Based on 12.50 per month for 3 phones for BE point and a difference 45 dollars per month from current plans to mine, they already made GREATER THAN RETAIL price. Now factor that across 12 years. I am sure that it would be in the best interest to retain me as a customer. Hence the reason why they are calling me to try and retain me. HOWEVER, my original point was the inconsistentancy of how they go about it and how it would be better be proactive rather than reactive on RETENTION. As the cost of new customers is higher than RETENTION, of current ones. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

SMH. It isn't about the cost of the phone. Phones where subsidised back in the 1980s because the cost of the phone was to high for customers to pay. Granted a method that should have been gone a decade ago. Let me break it down in numbers for you. I have 3 subbed lines two S7s wholesale price at the time of purchase was 400 dollars each, my upfront cost was 250/ea leaving 150 dollars subed per phone. The third is an S6 which had a wholesale price of 250 dollars at the time, and was subject to black Friday manufacturer rebate of 150 dollars (Sprint recouped 150 of the cost) and I paid 150 upfront. That means my total subed cost would be 300 dollars across 2 years. A break even figure of 12.50/per month for my entire account. Based on the cost of my plan vs current plans, I paid for my phones and then some. And my wholesale figures come from DH wholesale, who buy a lot less phones than Sprint, I am sure Sprint paid less than what I can buy wholesale. So again I will say this again. It is about retention. The phones are paid for and their costs don't go down if they lose me as a customer. It's not like they shut down a tower if I leave. Furthermore the people on contracts are generally speaking the bread and butter. Like me most are upper middle income, excellent credit and buy top line phones. Retention, Retention, Retention. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

You are missing the fact that you pay a large part of the cost down on a subsidised phone vs a financed phone. I also know exactly what the wholesale on a phone is as well as the manufacturing cost. Kinda one of the areas I make my living. As I said before though that isn't even the point. The point is to retain customers. Verizon did what it did very strategically, it understood the flaw with Sprint's current billing structure and knew that it could exploit it. Sprint however, blew the response, which is what Verizon wanted. From a retention standpont sprint has two options to retain the contract customers, maintain the contracts and subsidised phones (bad idea) or forget the subsidised phones, waive the fees and covert the current accounts. With the second option they can upsell those customers on new phones and monetize them allowing more free cash flow. This all the while under cutting Verizon to its current customers. If they do not do this churn is going to go up massively. You will also be surprised at how once phone makers are forced to compete, how the prices will drop. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Your comparison is a bit off. The difference is how things are being financed. With subsidised plans the provider would buy the phones direct at a massive discount compared to the full price. When cell service first came about the phones would be about 1500 in today's dollars and the customer would pay zero up front. Now a top of the line phone is 650-700 retail and wholesales for about half of that, with a customer paying 250 up front, that leaves about 50-100 in real cost to the provider. Now the cost of the phone is factored into the plan month by month, at a pretty hefty premium. Easy pay is a whole different ball of wax. The provider is selling you a phone at retail price and making money doing so. They then have the option to monetize that payment by selling it up as an account collectible. Similar to how banks sell mortgages as derivatives. At any rate it isn't about entitlement it is about retention. Walmart doesn't have to sell you big screen TVs at a loss either, but they do to get you to buy the much higher mark up accessories. That is the way business works, sometimes you take a loss on one thing to make a profit on another. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The one I talked you refused to waive them. I have been with them for 12 years. The sheer lack of communications at sprint is just sad. I have had one tell me they can't do something then call back a few minutes later and have a lower level rep do whatever I wanted right away. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other is doing. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yeah the retention rep I talked to seemed a bit frazzled. I told them straight out they just need to pull the plug on ed1500 plan and just forgive the contracts. Just convert everyone to the new plans and forget the 25 sub charge. But, they just don't seem to get it. Either give me the subsidised phone or let me move off the plan either one. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

As a ED1500 customer I can tell, I do not want to return to the days of these plans. What I do want is a smooth transfer forward out of the Subsidized plan. However, If I try online to move up to a better plan it only converts one line up to a new plan at a cost of 90 dollars per line. If I call them, they push me to stay on the current plan. What bugs me is that two simple options are left for them to ease us off of the plans. One is to simply do away with the subsidy charge and simply convert all ED customers to the new plan, just out and out be done with contracts. Granted a possibly expensive root as they eat the remaining cost of the devices but, less expensive than loss of the customers. The Second option is simply to add the feature that is the value difference between the two plans(hotspot) to the ED plans as a loyalty feature, just like the Unlimited minutes and phase out the contract and allow them to run out and convert the accounts after the contact is up. The Second option helps them save face with existing customers, while allowing them to continue to pay down the devices on subed plans. Smooth Transition is all I ask for and so far have been met with stunning levels of ignorance, miscommunication and indifference. It is astounding at just how bad the communication is at Sprint.

I have to be honest here. This is the most absurd conversation on audio I have ever read. I own studio equipment and use AKG headphones and I am going to tell you this. The average person can't tell the difference between Mp3 320 and FLAC and the average Audiophile doesn't stream music. We (audiophiles) love music, we take our FLAC files and put them on our phones. Also most of us don't expect the same level of quality of sound from our phones. This is why phones that focus on audio sell so poorly even to audiophiles. There simply is no way to have the same quality of audio in a portable device as one would have with professional level audio systems. I am never going to expect a portable device to power a 300 ohm pair of headphones nor do I think semiopen back headphones are going to be practical for public spaces. With all of this in mind I don't think sprint is going to have a bunch of angry audiophiles on it's hands. End of discussion. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Please read 3gpp rules for 5g. They haven't even committed to hearing anything above 6 Ghz let alone 30-60 Ghz. They aren't considering it for 5G. So there is no point in this discussion until they agree to consider such things. And 3 years isn't much experience any how. That places you a decade behind me in the technology industry. Either way I am done with this. And this harassment is out of line. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Either way I am getting tired of this back and forth. It has become annoying and off topic. It has gotten out of hand and rather pointless. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

No, but I would give a bit more weight to your argument. It is unlikely you would be making the same argument though. I am actually giving you credit with the age thing. I am saying you are smart but inexperienced. If you where older and making the same arguments, I might think you weren't that smart. I am chalking up much of the argument to inexperience. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Trip age has a lot to do with falling for hype. The older you get the less you fall for companies blowing smoke up your well you know what. Age has to do with experience and understanding. How can you grasp the process if you aren't old enough to have seen it? The brain doesn't full develop until 25 so of course I put less faith in what some under 25 says. And I am certainly not alone there. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

5 years is when we see draft of the standards not when it gets to market. Your skipping several steps. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

No we, several of us told you it would be at least 10 years off. And we are about 5 years from the first 5G specs and another 5 from there to large deployment. You can look into Verizon's test data. And I ment upto 6 ghz. But, no the entire 6Ghz spectrum is not being used for sat and p2p. Futher Verizon has already been hinting at the fact they may deploy 5G in a way to compete with wireline services. This would also explain why they have been so eager to unload FiOs. I don't think what you think is going to happen is what these companies have in mind. They are well aware of the mobile market and how little room for growth there is in it. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Gee look at that a summary of what we have been telling you. However, it is unlikely to see anything above 6 Ghz in the standards, and "5G" test radios currently being tested are currently in the 3-6 Ghz range. Remember that 28 Ghz test was beam formed and with a single client that is a very different situation than several hundred users. Current tests in the 6 Ghz range are in the 10s of Gbps with samsung equipment. So why would Verizon and ATT or anyone else start tossing money at 39-60 Ghz?

28 Ghz is further away from 39 Ghz than 800 Mhz to 2.5 Ghz by several times over and you can see how the propagation differs. 2 years is very very VERY telling, if they were able to make even 28 Ghz stable they would be shouting it from the rooftops. Yet we hear nothing and we see nothing. In the entire world we see only a single demo of a single P2P connection that isn't in the same range as you are talking about and we see nothing else. We see them use the term 5G and yet it hasn't been defined.... This is what I mean when I say Hype Vs Reality. You can't seem to tell the difference.