newyork4me

Just now, RedSpark said:

Look at Page 20 of the Investor Update which shows its liquidity vs current maturities: https://s21.q4cdn.com/487940486/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2018/Q4/Fiscal-4Q18-Sprint-Quarterly-Investor-Update-FINAL.pdf

Then take a look at its debt schedule here: https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

Does that change your opinion?

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 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Even if cash flow positive.. how is sprint going to cover debt payments that are coming due.. plus a bigger return on investment needs to happen. A churn of 1.81% can’t continue.. and once cash flow positive the numbers are going to be small


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

20 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

And just on que, another lost of $539M in free adjusted cash flow.

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.

2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

From the 3rd Quarter 2018 report:

"Net loss of $141 million in the quarter compared to net income of $7.2 billion in the year-ago period, as the fiscal year 2017 third quarter results included a $7.1 billion non-cash benefit from tax reform."

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.

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

Great but they will lack the Capex to innovate. Metro was able to do it because they targeted a lower income demographic and covered those cities using DAS. Sprint can't. Can they survive? Yes. Thrive no. How much money is Sprint making on my $15/month unlimited BYOD plan? How much out of that can they devote to Capex? 

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. 

On 5/4/2019 at 10:39 AM, IrwinshereAgain said:

The Att and TMobile merger would have left us with 2 large carriers and an underfunded Sprint. The Sprint and T-Mobile merger could provide a third strong competitive carrier.  That seems like the difference to me.  Is there another way to look at it?

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.

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. 

31 minutes ago, bucdenny said:

Would you be able to check engineering screens?

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. 

On 9/8/2017 at 1:43 AM, Brynn0823 said:

Anyone have any news to report about band 26 for SoCal or small cells in Orange County,riverside county etc...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

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!

16 hours ago, bigmachine said:

This is the first Mobilitie small cell that I've seen in the West San Fernando Valley.  This one is in Reseda.

Is that off Etiwanda? 

Damn i know you guys in PR got more pressing issues to worry about, but heres some good Sprint network news, first Band 13 device...

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-422-teaser-lifes-good-with-the-v30/

 

 

Stay safe!

Other than all the recent iPhones?

 I believe it is possible Verizon might make an offer to buy Sprint, while DT/T-Mobile makes a move for Dish, to buy Dish, not the other way around. Verizon could end up merging with Comcast later on, creating a national television service for them using the combined Verizon/Sprint networks, which such spectrum assets would be great on.

Let me help you out: there is 0% chance of Verizon merging with Sprint.

And T-Mobile is stealing the spotlight again on Jan. 5th, 2017 with their NEXT Un-Carrier event. 

Totally agree man. Yes SoCal badly needs B26 LTE as well as BC10 CDMA. I know some areas have BC10 CDMA but its just rare and totally random when you connect to 1x800. Tmobile probably has better indoor/outdoor coverage now in SoCal since they have been actively deploying B12 LTE all over LA/OC counties.

They for sure do...sadly, at this rate, the 600mhz spectrum might be clear for use before SMR. Lol

I can't find the source but I'm sure I remember reading that someone picked up 3xCA on an HTC Bolt and pulled 200mbps...

3xCA hasn't been spotted anywhere yet. 3rd carrier however, is widespread in Ericsson/Nokia markets and Samsung markets. I haven't seen much in ALU/Nokia markets (which covers OC) so far. 

Marcelo's twitter feed. It's live in NYC @ The World Trade Center.

 

I've been wondering if the new administration happens to be pro-merger, if there is a possibility that AT&T will get T-Mobile, while Verizon will get Sprint.

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. 

Can anyone answer me this If tmobile can do it. why hasnt sprint advertise 2xlte coverage with b26...

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. 

 

 

Or FCC and Congress, get serious.  Screw capitalism -- it has failed American society in this industry.  Stop the ungodly expensive war mongering overseas, and use that money to build a goddamn national fiber network, which will support wired broadband and small cells.  Take control of the infrastructure, just like roads and schools.  But let many, many providers sell over the top services.

 

AJ

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. 

Some of the towers are leased and, the leases are good for years and years and they can't true abandon that.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

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. 

You can cite specious T-Mobile POPs statistics.  But as Trip suggests in an earlier post, do you really believe them?  T-Mobile has reintroduced rudimentary signal gradient maps, and they are not pretty.  Lots of "Fair Signal."  Not consistent, not reliable.

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.

Not to go wildly off subject, but... really?  I didn't think anyone actually believed T-Mobile's numbers.  I know I don't.  Way too many holes in the coverage (when you think about how wildly overstated the maps are) to actually reach that many people in a serious way.

 

By contrast, at least Sprint roams in places where it has no coverage.  True, I see T-Mobile native in more places than I see Sprint, but I have nTelos (which will soon be Sprint) and US Cellular and the RRPP members to fall back on (albeit in 3G--beats "No Service").  T-Mobile may be moving in that direction, but nothing is announced yet.  I have that on Sprint today.

 

- Trip

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.

I completely understand the viewpoints of those mentioning to me to wait until the official launch, as it makes sense that the option to change binge-on from the account shouldn't really be available until then.

 

The thing is though on my account, the option to do so was there, just as gusherb and a few others mentioned. The reason shown when I went to try changing the option, was something to do with needing to enter the last four digits of the SSN, rather than something like a pin number, or a verified passcode like other sites such as PayPal use when you go to change a setting.

 

Making this matter more odd, is that I can do a number of different other security sensitive things on our T-Mobile account without needing the SSN. PayPal doesn't even require a SSN and when I spoke to a very nice and helpful PayPal representative once over the phone with concerns I had from an email I received supposedly from them, the representative told me quite seriously about how PayPal never would ask a customer for SSN on most things.

 

So then, why would T-Mobile ask that, even require it just to turn off binge-on, especially when I can still view plenty of other security-sensitive information on our account. Furthermore, the T-Mobile Executive Relations representatives never mentioned anything about this having to do with it not being the official release.

 

Again, I'm not saying that I don't believe anyone here responding to me saying to wait until then. It does make sense after all. Problem here is with T-Mobile and their dealings that is what I wanted to address, using my latest situation with them as an example. Overall though, it isn't that I'm happy with them anyways, as I haven't been. My mother typically has though until recently, and I'm happy that she is finally seeing it for what it is, so we can switch out. If it were my own account though, I would have done so a long time ago.

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. 

This may be my one and only post on the so called "hype."  Yes, this move is major and worthy of the hype -- for new subscribers.  Had VZW, AT&T, and/or T-Mobile offered a deal to cut your Sprint bill in half for equivalent plans, many of you would be out of here in a heartbeat and on that deal like flies on shit.

 

#DoubleStandard

 

AJ

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...

It really is completely ridiculous. Sprint really isn't even an option for those folks in SoCal compared to the other big 3. Just too many holes without 800. And until that changes there is no way I'd use Sprint if I lived there. The times I've been in Los Angeles and San Diego, I was appalled at how inferior the Sprint network was out there compared to here in the Southeast.

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.

Which town?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.