Jump to content

newyork4me

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    120

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by newyork4me

  1. newyork4me
    No. Because Sprint does not intend on retiring all their debt. They'll reissue it...corporate notes are a little like credit cards. Sure the full balance may come due every month ("mature"), but a whole lot of people let the vast majority of it roll over to the next month ("reissue a new corporate note").
  2. newyork4me
    Oh, boy. Sprint has almost $10 billion liquid right now. And, most of the time, debt is not retired. It's reissued. A little knowledge of business is a dangerous thing, it seems.
  3. newyork4me
    Did you read the reports and listen to the earnings call? Sprint, while still trying to look like a failing firm to get the merger approved, acknowledged they would have been cash flow positive except for a non-recurring pressure from timing of investment decision. Sprint also said that without the merger they will continue to invest in network CapEx at the same ~$5 billion/year rate they are on right now...which took them from 0 to 30,000 small cells and 0 to 1,500 MIMO deployment and 60-80% deployment of 2.5GHZ equipment. Another year of that, and Sprint will look like a different carrier. Oh, and Sprint management also said that if the merger does not go through, they will refocus their network efforts on major metro areas--which is exactly what I said their strategy should be and would be successful. This management gets it. Seriously, everyone should read their financials. Sprint will do better than ever as a standalone company and force the other carriers to compete like a mofo--urban areas is and has always been what drives pricing pressure.
  4. newyork4me
    I don't have the time, energy, or desire to try to explain accounting, but net loss/income means literally nothing. It's effectively made-up paper numbers, as it includes significantly large amounts of non-cash items. They are recognizing substantial depreciation charges, which is a non-cash "expense" item that signifies absolutely no money leaving Sprint's control. It's reflective of spending on capital assets they did a while ago. Stating a net loss precludes them from having money to invest in CapEx is a bit like saying eating an apple in the morning means you can't send a text message that day. They really aren't related.
  5. newyork4me
    No they don't. Sprint generated $7.582 billion NET cash flow from operating activities in 3Q18 YTD. That gives them substantial room for investing activities (CapEx). That's Sprint's problem. They should have a $40/mo unlimited basic single line plan and a $50/mo unlimited plan with HD video. No activation fee. They'll pull Metro subscribers over...and, remember, it doesn't take much CapEx to focus most heavily on metro city centers. The $15/mo unlimited BYOD is still making them money though, as long as you don't call into care a lot. Their marginal cost is about $0 for providing that line...it's permanently de-prioritized, so it is just offering excess network capacity that they are monetizing.
  6. newyork4me
    Yes, the other way to look at it is that for the first time in over a decade, Sprint actually has what is required to become a strong, viable competitor in all the large metro areas. Removing that as a competitor will ultimately result in higher prices. Think about it this way: Sprint is about to turn on 5G NR 64MIMO in spectrum sharing B41 in over 1,000 sq miles. That's huge for delivering an amazing network experience. Consider that MetroPCS was able to build to 1.6 million subscribers in Los Angeles and a million subscribers in New York City and Miami, etc. They had a tiny, terrible, and slow network in those areas but competed on price. There are A LOT of customers that don't travel much from home. Sprint can cover them VERY well and is becoming the gold standard for network in those areas. They still have a mediocre network elsewhere on top of that...it's a super compelling value proposition. They should be able to eat a lot of other carriers for lunch in those metro areas--especially T-Mobile/Metro. That keeps price pressure on T-Mobile and the other providers.
  7. newyork4me
    There should be strong hope for us L.A. folks shortly. I believe SB 649 was allowed to go into law today without the governor's signature--this is the bill that allows small cells (basically everywhere) and for no more than $250/YEAR rent charge. With those favorable attributes, Sprint/Mobilitie should be able to put a small cell on every corner. EDIT: Disregard. It got a late night veto.
  8. newyork4me
    When I go back next month, I will. I didn't actually expect to have it discover any B26, so I wasn't looking at my Sprint phone.
  9. newyork4me
    I drove to Temecula yesterday with CellMapper on my Sprint line (Unlocked Galaxy S8)--it showed 2 new B26 LTE connections on the 91 in Orange County and a half-dozen B26 LTE connections on the 15 between Corona/Temecula in Riverside. Maybe it's COMING SOON!
  10. newyork4me
    Is that off Etiwanda?
  11. newyork4me
    Other than all the recent iPhones?
  12. newyork4me
    Let me help you out: there is 0% chance of Verizon merging with Sprint.
  13. newyork4me
    And T-Mobile is stealing the spotlight again on Jan. 5th, 2017 with their NEXT Un-Carrier event.
  14. newyork4me
    They for sure do...sadly, at this rate, the 600mhz spectrum might be clear for use before SMR. Lol
  15. newyork4me
    Marcelo's twitter feed. It's live in NYC @ The World Trade Center.
  16. newyork4me
    I think AT&T merging with T-Mobile and Verizon merging with Sprint is as likely as you getting hit by lightning while winning the lottery and giving birth to a unicorn, after drinking beers with a leprechaun. Actually, the latter scenario is probably a bit more likely.
  17. newyork4me
    Well, for one, the CMA with the largest number of people (Los Angeles-Long Beach-San Bernardino) won't have B26 LTE for likely at least another year.
  18. newyork4me
    Yea, that'll work well. /sarcasm Our public schools are underperforming, with places like LA public schools trying for 50-60% graduation rates. Our public roads are literally crumbling before our eyes. Meanwhile, our private schools are a beacon of success for college preparation and our toll roads are generally well maintained. But don't let facts get you down for your Bernie love-fest rally later today.
  19. newyork4me
    Nonsense. This happens all the time --> We've seen MetroPCS walk away from about 8,000 leases when they were integrated with T-Mobile, and Nextel left many leases behind too. The carriers just pay a fee to the tower company and head out the door. You statement is tantamount to: customers can't leave Verizon because they have a 2-year contract.
  20. newyork4me
    You incorrectly assume that "fair" does not allow for a reliable signal. Numerous people have stated that "fair signal" actually means what it says--not "if you stand on your head and do a rain dance you might be able to send one text out" like a certain yellow-branded carrier uses it to mean. For example, this user is reporting new coverage: https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3t6p4y/new_tmobile_native_coverage_in_roxboro_nc/ . And he plainly says: "Not sure why it says Fair Signal as I was getting 5-4 bars." And, yes, I absolutely believe them. I have a handful of Verizon lines with unlimited everything (voice/text/un-throttled data), yet I find myself carrying my T-Mobile line as primary. I have no issues whatsoever with network coverage now, and I get better service in large metro areas (such as Los Angeles) because T-Mobile started with the best cell grid and then overlaid low-band on top. The porting ratios don't lie, and since Sprint is cheaper than all the carriers, there's pretty much only one other reason for people to leave--the network.
  21. newyork4me
    Let's be clear: the difference between the 280 million POPs that Sprint and T-mobile had at the start of the year (and Sprint still has now--rounding up in their favor, no less) and the 304 million POPs that T-Mobile has now is 1,000,000 sq miles of new coverage. Even if the maps are overstated in some places--much like Sprint does too--that's 1,000,000 sq miles, or 1/3 of the geographic area of the continental US. Not all of that is "overstated". T-Mobile's network is vastly larger; there is no question about that. And, T-Mobile offers roaming on a lot of AT&T where they don't have service and roam-like-home on Viaero in Nebraska & iWireless in Iowa too. Not in-market everywhere, but with the 100mb roaming limit on Sprint, that's quite a bit of a red herring on that side. But, again, today's promotion is largely meaningless. Sprint was already the cheapest carrier. For someone to have not chosen them to begin with, it had to be a reflection of their network greatly lagging the other carriers. And they already offered half off any Verizon & AT&T bills. So, today's announcement offers half-off to T-Mobile subscribers only; the same T-Mobile subscribers who already made a conscious decision to pay more for T-Mobile to have a better network. Thus, the only incremental add they will get are the very few people who are willing to downgrade in network quality to save a small amount of money for a few years--or should I say, save a slightly larger amount of money over that which they would have prior to today's announcement. This does not appear well thought out, to say the least. Oh well, I'm sure some people thought it quite valuable to rearrange the deck chairs during the Titanic's final moments too.
  22. newyork4me
    This is ridiculous. If all the problems can be solved by entering the last 4 digits of your SSN, you are asking for any problems by refusing to do so. If you don't want to provide your SSN to a carrier, use prepaid.
  23. newyork4me
    T-Mobile's network covers 304 million POPs with LTE now. AT&T and Verizon both cover more than that. Sprint's does not come close. That's the difference. Sure, if Sprint works better for someone who had another carrier before, this could be a good deal. But Sprint was already the cheapest, and this announcement does nothing for current customers. So it's only of value to people who already weren't using the cheapest option--and it entices them to give up more coverage with...cheaper prices? Which is what they had before. I somehow doubt this will do much to stop the near 3-to-1 porting ratio of Sprint to T-Mobile in Southern California, for example. That's largely a coverage/network based reaction (T-Mobile has a network that rivals Verizon in the Southland now that they've turned on Band 12). Pricing your way to poverty isn't going to bring back those subscribers...
  24. newyork4me
    You are so right. Sprint was a mediocre choice like T-Mobile before either low-band in SoCal. T-Mobile had a better native network (much more dense grid) but Sprint allowed for 1x roaming. Either were cheaper than AT&T/Verizon. Now that T-Mobile has low-band that they've deployed LTE on, Sprint is basically not even a choice for most of SoCal...T-Mobile has a fantastic network and can compete on price. Sprint...well, as poor as their network performs here....let's hope the timeline speeds up a bit.
  25. newyork4me
    Two actually: First is Hannibal, MO in the NE area of Missouri. T-Mobile's got native LTE; Verizon is "Extended 1x". It's the birthplace of Mark Twain and a fairly popular tourist destination for his literary followers. Second is Hermann, MO in the mid-central area of Missouri. T-Mobile's got native coverage; Verizon again is "Extended 1x". The area has very good wineries and scenic overlooks and is an extremely popular weekend getaway for the urban/suburban St. Louis resident.
×
×
  • Create New...