newyork4me

On 8/11/2020 at 10:46 PM, JonnygATL said:

And TMobile has quite the temporal leg up on deploying said mid band, pre-existing spectrum with an already well seeded device portfolio that can take advantage of their 2.5 mid band spectrum. Will the other 2 eventually catch up? Probably. Money does talk, after all. But not before TMO enjoys its solitary vacation for 18 to 24 monts!

Verizon is currently deploying CBRS equipment faster than T-Mobile is doing 2.5ghz.  There's something like 80mhz unlicensed and they can bid on up to 40 MhZ for PALs...so, real spectrum advantages might be rather limited...

I just lost B41 LTE in downtown Los Angeles.  Can’t even get it by forcing band selection—everything is B25 now...

34 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Sprint is so far behind in Los Angeles, it's not even funny. I doubt they have more than 10% market share and than probably all prepaid. And yes, everybody. is using tall buildings' rooftops nowadays.

Bingo.  You are making my point for me.  They have no market share, but a network that is now better than it would reflect.  Their 5G launch will also put them way ahead of geographic coverage for 5G compared to their competitors too.

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

Both of you need to stop going to the two extremes. Take out NY, downtown Chicago and maybe downtown SF, let's say 30 Million people, take out another 30Million for rural areas (maybe a little generous) and what do you have left? 270 million people that live in suburbs. Those are the people that you have to worry about covering. Verizon and AT&T have about 85,000 sites to cover everybody, T-Mobile 65,000 and Sprint 45,000. That number for Sprint has not changed since probably 2010 to 2012. Yes small cells might help but you will not be able to make up for 20,000 or 40,000 macro sites with small cells. 

I think it's been reported that Sprint has more than that now, but yes, you often will make up for it with small cells.  Many of T-Mobile's cites are rooftop urban sites for density...that's all addressed by small cells.

Take Los Angeles...Sprint does not need more macros.  They can use small cells to make up for all of their remaining deficiencies...hek, it's rare to get a macro above 45ft in height these days anyway.  Instead, small cells are suitable to covering the canyons (more so than macros) and are better at spot coverage/capacity in certain neighborhoods (based on zoning issues).

4 million people live in Los Angeles City limits.  There's no reason Sprint cannot provide the best network for every single one of those people.  That's where Sprint has the true potential.  Major metros.  (And NY matters...they have 18 million folks in that metro area, and 19,000 small cells with Altice... Chicago has the density and good suburban network inherited from US Cellular).

Targeting just a few key metro areas and having the best network will pull in subscribers.  It's a strategy that has worked over and over.  Not everyone wants the VZW coverage map at VZW prices and VZW congestion.  Unlimited 4K streaming on Sprint 5G on the best urban network...that's a compelling value proposition.

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Like I said, that's not how the wireless industry works. Most spending already happens in urban areas. To suggest that half of Sprint's CAPEX should go towards rural areas for one year is a terrible strategy.

Dear goodness, please stop misrepresenting what I said.  For real.

I said half should go to urban areas, after another full year of urban-only spending.  Nowhere did I say the other half should go to rural areas.  Nowhere.  In fact, I said that was the flaw of Network Vision.  There's urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas.  Neither of the latter two were in my mind for the other half of the spending, two years out from now.

This, by the way, is the exact strategy T-Mobile used in 2013-2015, and it worked very well for them.  Sprint, in fact, has an advantage they did not going into it--they already have low-band in the metro areas, and they have a large swath of beachfront spectrum for 5G with technology to make it far more useful than it has ever been (beam forming, etc.)

6 hours ago, greenbastard said:

That's not a solution. In this industry, you can't just spend one year and hope that's good enough for the next few years. That's not how this works.

Doing what you're suggesting is the exact reason why Sprint is in the hole they are in to begin with. After NV 1.0, they left a lot of sites untouched in major urban areas and congestion crept up to them. B41 is great, but due to its coverage limitations Sprint needed to densify it's network. 

They didn't. And it bit them in the butt. You need consistent CAPEX in order to compete and gain customers (and keept those customers).

If you read what I wrote, it's literally the opposite of what your response tries to make it seem.

I said they need to spend all their CapEx the next year in urban areas only and then at least half of it dedicated to urban areas going forward.  NV 1.0 was exactly the wrong play, because it haphazardly spent resources (many times in rural areas that had no compelling reason).

Please don't create strawman interpretations of what I said.

2 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

They need to add 20,00 new sites to match just T-Mobile and most of T-Mobile's is urban. Good luck with that!

Again, I have to point you to Chicago and New York City as good examples of their density efforts.  They have about a thousand mini-macros coming online in Chicago and 20,000 strand-mount small cells deployed in the NYC area on Altice fiber.  It's cost effective and offers unmatched capacity.

3 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

I believe Sprint’s disclosures to the FCC, especially since they’re backed by highly sensitive information. I wish I had the same faith in their Investor disclosures. This doesn’t mean I support a merger. I don’t. But it means Sprint is finally telling the truth. 

I would never believe a sales-pitch argument to the FCC--that has almost no consequences for misleading statements--over those to investors that are subject to the threat of insurmountable criminal and civil liability.

But, that's just the perspective of a successful businessman and lawyer.

1 minute ago, RedSpark said:

According to their reported results from the Investor Update:

Postpaid phone net losses of 189,000 compared to net additions of 55,000 in the year-ago period and net losses of 26,000 in the prior quarter. (NOTE: The current quarter included 129,000 net migrations from prepaid to non-Sprint branded postpaid, compared to 44,000 in the prior year and 107,000 in the prior quarter.)

Postpaid phone churn of 1.82 percent compared to 1.68 percent in the year-ago period and 1.84 percent in the prior quarter.

Adjusted free cash flow* of negative $539 million for the quarter compared to negative $240 million in the year-ago period and negative $908 million in the prior quarter.

I don’t see these metrics as encouraging.

See quotes from their transcripts.

Quote

" Adjusted EBITDA of $11.9 billion for fiscal 2018 came in toward the high end of our guidance and improved by $846 million year-over-year. While, for the fourth quarter, adjusted EBITDA was $3 billion, an improvement of $183 million year-over-year. "

Quote

Network cash capital expenditures for the full year and fourth quarter of $5 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, were both up approximately 50% year-over-year as we continue to execute on our Next-Gen Network plan. With our continued deployment of Massive MIMO, and the commercial launch of mobile 5G coming soon, we do not expect material changes to our current level of capital spending in the near term, with cash CapEx in fiscal first quarter expected to be similar to the fiscal third quarter of 2018. Fiscal year 2018 net cash provided by operating activities of $10.4 billion improved by $367 million year-over-year and our fourth quarter results of $2.8 billion improved by $194 million year-over-year.

Adjusted free cash flow of negative $914 million was within our guidance range and declined year-over-year as a result of higher network investments. For the fourth quarter, adjusted free cash flow of negative $539 million was approximately $300 million lower than the year-ago period, due to higher network CapEx and lowering net proceeds of financings related to devices and receivables. We continue to have an adequate liquidity position with approximately $10 billion of general purpose availability, including $7 billion of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. In summary, I'm pleased with the team's ability to deliver our fiscal 2018 financial plan.

2 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

The network is better that’s a big fact.. what would you say about the future and sprint bad brand image to the public .. how is that fixed ?

EDIT: buddy of mine says they are now outperforming tmo in Phoenix

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is really true.  The image is a problem. I happened to have a free line that I was going to cancel to see the changes, and I've now kept it.

Sprint made some good decisions with partnering with laptop makers to add free Sprint LTE though...that'll get people convinced....200 Mbps on their Windows Tablet...$15/mo? Hek yes!

Otherwise, word of mouth.  Same thing T-Mobile went through with their tarnished brand.

1 minute ago, Brad The Beast said:

Could do a re-brand. 

Maybe.  But, also just get people to talk about their experiences.  For the first time, Sprint actually has a different network experience.

1 minute ago, tyroned3222 said:

Try more like 5 years of network improvement plans lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha.  Sprint is discounting their prior disaster of NV, etc., and just focusing on their John Saw network improvement plan when they talk about it.

I'm a believer.  If you go back in my post history, I didn't think Sprint could turn it around.  Los Angeles was a disaster.  They've bumped capacity like crazy, fixed coverage holes, and now have low-band LTE and VoLTE live.  It's night-and-day from a year ago.

4 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

On 40 billion in debt ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Verizon had about $120 billion in debt and AT&T over $110 billion.  It's not all due at once.  Within the next year, Sprint only has $4 billion maturing, and that's easily reissued.

3 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

From one of Sprint’s FCC Filings: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1041986365867/Sprint Standalone Ex Parte Revised - REDACTED - 4.19.2019 AS-FILED.pdf

Relevant statements about Sprint’s cash flow issues appear throughout it. See Pages 1,4,6,8,9,13,17,18,19,36,37,39,40,41 and read the main section about cash flow/debt from Page 36 - Page 42.

I've already read it.  Sprint is trying to use a failing firm argument to have their objectively verifiable competition-reducing merger approved.  It's hard to dispute the porting ratios, the HHI screen, and the spectrum screen, so they are doing the best they can by claiming they need it or else.

It's literally hogwash.  Read the earnings transcript from yesterday and closely pay attention to the words--Sprint is doing just fine.  They are one year into their network improvement plan and they are already noticing it is working.

Just now, tyroned3222 said:

So, it is not the DOJ's job to protect debt and equity holders? in telecom..doors dont close, debt gets restructured is the bail out I’m speaking off .. not a money bail out from the government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not.  At all.

And that is assuming an action nobody is seriously talking about--judicial restructuring.  Sprint can, on their own, reissue new notes to pay off their current ones.  That's not a restructuring; it's a retirement and reissuance.

4 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

You gotta convince me on this one, cause after all the gains quarter after quarter for tmo they only post about 618 million free cash flow which is pennies compared to what Verizon and att make


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, for their last quarterly results (reported yesterday), they generated $10.429 billion dollars in net cash from their operations in the year.  That means they had over $10 billion to invest in network CapEx, devices, or to service debt.

They are also having revenue growth as customers are upselling into the Plus and Premium add-ons as the network gets stronger.

14 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

I mean we can spin this to be really positive. Yes, the government will bail them out and restructuring for debt will keep happening. But how competitive does that make sprint? Customers are leaving almost 2/1. The adds this quarter came mostly from prepaid migrations they only gain roughly around 40k new adds. And some analysts are already predicting as soon as the merger is a no go that sprint cuts capex down between 2/3 billion no matter what sprint is saying And yes we can also say that they are owned by someone with 10 of billions of dollar if ya wanna throw that in as a positive

 

Its laugable to think that it's the DOJ's job to bail out a Japanese company that has tens of billions of dollars at their disposal.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Not allowing anti-competitive conglomeration is not a bailout.  Sprint will not be getting government money.  This post does not make sense.

3 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

In the long run, wouldn't roaming be more expensive?

Nah.  Voice roaming is just about free.  At the start of last year, it was down to just under 1 cent per minute.  Sprint can limit data to control those costs, but still likely less expensive.  The vast majority of their customers will not roam there.

2 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Just another reason to buy unlocked when using Sprint then you can switch when traveling. I'm thinking TMO on my next vacation

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Unlocked is always the way to go--especially in dual sim devices.

Just now, RedSpark said:

And how long can Sprint keep that up for without sufficient free cash flow?

Where is the notion they don't have sufficient cash flow coming from?  They are significant generators of cash flow from operations. 

4 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

I have been there and plan to go again. I was tied to a att hotspot when I when I when their last year as they wouldn't unlocked my phone. Roaming is terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They do not need to do that to serve you as an individual--that's the problem with coverage-build mentality.   Rural builds are not as profitable.  Sprint needs to focus on profitable urban builds to attract the greatest numbers.

28 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Accept if Sprint doesn't do anything outside merger areas then people will continue to leave coverage is a big deal and why I support the merger. Plus the fact that I'm using the S9+: and still can't use VOLTE. Both of these things are becoming deal breakers and if the Merger fails and I don't see any signs I'll ever get to use VOLTE I will be switching carriers for good. Sprint can't afford for people to keep leaving.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

This is incorrect.  Cricket (pre AT&T) and MetroPCS (pre T-Mobile) show customers are willing to have lower price for reduced coverage.  Sprint will absolutely have a winning strategy by building the best network in urban areas.  They would be fools to chase coverage, and their management said that yesterday.

EDIT:  Likewise I-90 coverage.  They don't need it.  They can roam for that.  I don't think I've ever been on I-90 up there enough to justify not roaming...nor has probably 95% of my neighbors in Los Angeles.  I go to LA, Chicago, New York, Miami, San Antonio, Vegas, Dallas, etc.   And, I travel a lot internationally....jet-setting urban crowds want the best network where they actually go.

Just now, Brad The Beast said:

If they could, why haven't they done it yet? I think that would be a good question to ask also.

It's a shockingly bad strategy that benefits nobody.  They should not.

Sprint has the ability to become the premier urban carrier at prices lower than the rest.  The money is in urban areas.  VZ and AT&T *need* the urban customers to subsidize their rural builds, so VZ & AT&T will compete on price to keep them.  This lowers prices for rural customers of theirs too.

Sprint trying to do coverage expansion without scale is a dumb idea..they have a mediocre network in urban areas and a poor network in rural areas and have no ability draw customers from the other carriers, reflecting rising prices for all.

Just now, Tengen31 said:

He's the question I have can Sprint Owen their own go back to their coverage expansion plans they had planned before the merger?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They shouldn't.  They should spend the $5 billion in the top 50 markets over the next year.  The following year they should probably split--$2.5 for rural and another $2.5 billion for the major metros.

The money is in urban areas. 

Just now, Tengen31 said:

Sprint is on track to do 15 Mil?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Billion.  With a B.

They are doing just over $5 billion/year right now.  Over 3 years would be $15 billion.

Just now, tyroned3222 said:

He’s talking about a massive restructuring of their debt which is what it would to make this happen as sprint is 40 billion in debt.. sprint spends 2.6 billon per year servicing their debt( imagine if they could spend that on the network). Sprint churn is raising, gross add shares are falling too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Sprint just cut over $1 billion from ongoing OpEx...they have the money.  No matter how much you might try to deny it.  Sprint will be perfectly fine and thrive on their own.

1 minute ago, Tengen31 said:

What will the combined capex be under New Tmobile?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They are claiming $40 billion in 3 years.

Given Sprint is on track to do about $15 billion on their own, and T-Mobile a little more than that...it's an increase of a few billion.  But I *highly* suspect that's largely a pull-forward and just a smoke screen for timing related sales pitch.

Just now, RedSpark said:

Sprint has a churn bomb combined with a debt bomb on the horizon. It said that in its FCC Filing.

The engine is leaking oil faster than Sprint can pour it in... and it’s going to get harder to get more oil.

This is the vantage point of someone who knows nothing about business.

Tesla also had a massive "debt bomb" this past quarter.  They paid it off and did a new debt issuance.  Happens.  All.  The.  Time.