Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 129

Thread: What will a plan b look like if no sprint?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,893
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    it's good that there is a Sprint- both for those who need it, and those like you and me who benefit from the competitive pressure they bring to bear
    Unlike Taco Bell, Sprint is not profitable. It's an economic inevitability that the lower rates that Sprint subsidizes will go away. The merger can be denied but the goal of whomever manages the Sprint assets, will be to make a profit. Whether Sprint continues to shrink and cuts costs by cutting out service to unprofitable areas, or they merge or their bought out, the new management will want a profit. And that won't be done by continuing to offer unprofitable service.

    So whatever benefit you think you're getting by having Sprint around to offer cut-rates, you should plan on losing it. Subsidizing losses is never sustainable.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,979
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Having said all that, it's good that there is a Sprint- both for those who need it, and those like you and me who benefit from the competitive pressure they bring to bear on the carriers they do use.
    They do not put competitive pressure on anyone. They practically give their service out for free yet still bleed customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    If the government blocks this corrupt and horrible merger, than life goes on for T-Mobile.
    Yes they go on being a distant third only forcing meager changes by the big 2 instead of forcing them to make MAJOR changes. The status quo is not acceptable anymore. We don't need more of that.

    Maybe they could try and merge with DISH again.
    Satellite is dying as well is linear TV any they don't need the hassle of running that part of the company. They'd only want Dish for their spectrum and they'd be better off offering Ergen enough money that he checks his ego and finally sells it.

    The Comcast idea is kind of loony, although it's possible.
    Only thing Comcast has is 600 MHz spectrum which they could simply buy. It's doubtful Comcast actually has plans for it.

    It's more likely that Comcast would want to buy Sprint along with Charter and Altice.
    Doubtful. While they have access to Sprint tower how about all the area Sprint doesn't have towers? Areas like mine. I live in a Charter area. You'd assume Charter would want to offer mobile service in their footprint. Which would requires towers and equipment

    Something will happen from an M&A perspective, but T-Mobile itself can keep going on profitably.
    A best maybe T-Mobile buys up some smaller wireless companies like they did with Iowa Wireless and scoops up all the 600 MHz from all the spectrum hoarders. Perhaps Dish which will have it's plans to start a wireless network taken away would be willing to sell it's spectrum to T-Mobile. Maybe they could convince US Cellular to sell. Maybe they still make profits and keep things going they way they are but that's not good enough.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    They do not put competitive pressure on anyone. They practically give their service out for free yet still bleed customers.



    Yes they go on being a distant third only forcing meager changes by the big 2 instead of forcing them to make MAJOR changes. The status quo is not acceptable anymore. We don't need more of that.



    Satellite is dying as well is linear TV any they don't need the hassle of running that part of the company. They'd only want Dish for their spectrum and they'd be better off offering Ergen enough money that he checks his ego and finally sells it.



    Only thing Comcast has is 600 MHz spectrum which they could simply buy. It's doubtful Comcast actually has plans for it.



    Doubtful. While they have access to Sprint tower how about all the area Sprint doesn't have towers? Areas like mine. I live in a Charter area. You'd assume Charter would want to offer mobile service in their footprint. Which would requires towers and equipment



    A best maybe T-Mobile buys up some smaller wireless companies like they did with Iowa Wireless and scoops up all the 600 MHz from all the spectrum hoarders. Perhaps Dish which will have it's plans to start a wireless network taken away would be willing to sell it's spectrum to T-Mobile. Maybe they could convince US Cellular to sell. Maybe they still make profits and keep things going they way they are but that's not good enough.
    Right, TMobile has only forced "meager" changes at Verizon
    https://gizmodo.com/verizon-very-pub...ans-1786940910
    https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/28/...witch-networks

    Verizon's 2015 plan offerings. These prices do not include the stupid "line access fee" of $20, all plans also are subject to an overage charge of $15 per gb you go over your limit. Yea, sucks TMobile only forced "meager" changes Name:  Screenshot_2019-12-31-18-22-21.jpg
Views: 159
Size:  16.9 KB


    Hey look at that, you could of gotten 18gb of data for $120 a month lol ohhh what a deal. Good thing TMobile and Sprint applied enough competitive pressure to get them to change that nonsense, otherwise they'd still be charging their customers those b.s. prices. This chart doesn't even show their best plan option, for a cheap $750 a month you could of gotten 100gb of data!!! What a deal!!! Lol


    Should we talk about how Verizon had to revamp military pricing to respond to TMobile?
    https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/0...ted-plans/?amp

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,709
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Unlike Taco Bell, Sprint is not profitable. It's an economic inevitability that the lower rates that Sprint subsidizes will go away. The merger can be denied but the goal of whomever manages the Sprint assets, will be to make a profit. Whether Sprint continues to shrink and cuts costs by cutting out service to unprofitable areas, or they merge or their bought out, the new management will want a profit. And that won't be done by continuing to offer unprofitable service.

    So whatever benefit you think you're getting by having Sprint around to offer cut-rates, you should plan on losing it. Subsidizing losses is never sustainable.
    Being that we live in the reality of nationwide pricing, I wouldn't worry too much. If Sprint survives and continues more or less as-is, (as many of us here believe), life goes on.

    If, instead, Sprint is mortally wounded and instead makes good on their testimonial "threat" of becoming a regional carrier, they'll divest their least profitable areas and retreat to their most profitable markets, which will likely be the most population-dense ones; NY, LA, Chicago, etc. That still keeps the other carriers in check in major markets, and I doubt the big 2 (3?) would want to go to tiered pricing structures for large/small markets.

    In either scenario, Sprint remains a competitive influence on the other carriers.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,709
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    They do not put competitive pressure on anyone. They practically give their service out for free yet still bleed customers.
    You think because Verizon or AT&T doesn't run a 4 lines for $100 promo, that Sprint isn't providing pressure? What do think Visible or Cricket is for?

    They're the Ford and Chevy to Verizon's and AT&T's Lincoln and Cadillac, and they exist as a response to the likes of Sprint/Boost/Metro. They are carefully neutered versions of the parent carrier designed to compete with the lower tier carriers without cannibalizing the parent carrier's less cost-sensitive customers.

    Visible and Cricket offer essentially unlimited Verizon or AT&T service for as low as $25/month. That's nothing if not a response to the continued competitive pressure of Sprint/Boost.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,893
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post

    In either scenario, Sprint remains a competitive influence on the other carriers.
    You leave out the part on how Sprint gets back on the path to profitability so that they can stay in business. In their last full fiscal year they had a net loss of $1.9 billion. In their last quarterly report they had a net loss of $274 million.

    https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

    Your premise is that they continue to offer service below cost and continue to lose money? Why would they continue to do that? Why would any business?

    You and the attorney generals are apparently presuming that Sprint's rates won't rise and their MVNO rates won't rise. I just haven't heard a rational explanation to justify such an assumption.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,709
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    You leave out the part on how Sprint gets back on the path to profitability so that they can stay in business. In their last full fiscal year they had a net loss of $1.9 billion. In their last quarterly report they had a net loss of $274 million.

    https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

    Your premise is that they continue to offer service below cost and continue to lose money? Why would they continue to do that? Why would any business?

    You and the attorney generals are apparently presuming that Sprint's rates won't rise and their MVNO rates won't rise. I just haven't heard a rational explanation to justify such an assumption.
    Two things: first, it's not my job to get Sprint back on the path to profitability, it's Sprint's. Sprint claims to do it they'll be forced to retreat into becoming a regional carrier. Fine- that shouldn't hamper their competitive pricing effect.

    Second, if they're selling service "below cost", or at least at an unsustainable rate, then so is Cricket and Visible, because Sprint's lowest promo rate right now, I believe, is currently $25/line for unlimited everything (with certain restrictions), just like Visible (and Cricket, if you buy four lines). The difference is that Sprint isn't hiding behind a prepaid brand to offer that price.

    Sprint's ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is about $44 postpaid and $36 prepaid- not significantly lower than T-Mo's ($46/$38). So if Sprint's $36 is "below cost" (or unprofitable), T-Mo can't be making very much at $38, can they?

    (Yet magically, thanks to the impending merger, $15/month for unlimited talk, text, and 2GB data will apparently be a perfectly sustainable price point...

    ...for three years, anyway!)






    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,893
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    it's not my job to get Sprint back on the path to profitability
    But it will be someone's job if the merger is not allowed. And under any economic principle, no business can continue to offer service below cost and lose money. Pricing will need to be increased to raise revenue. And there goes the continued low rates you were counting on.

    Second, if they're selling service "below cost", or at least at an unsustainable rate, then so is Cricket and Visible, because Sprint's lowest promo rate right now, I believe, is currently $25/line for unlimited everything (with certain restrictions), just like Visible (and Cricket, if you buy four lines).
    Good, you figured that out. So when Sprint inevitably raises their rates other competitors will also do it. AT&T and Verizon will stop subsidizing their money losing plans too.


    T-Mo can't be making very much at $38, can they?
    They're making enough where they're not losing money. But if the merger is successful, they'll have a better economy of scale to make profit on a similar level to AT&T and Verizon.

    (Yet magically, thanks to the impending merger, $15/month for unlimited talk, text, and 2GB data will apparently be a perfectly sustainable price point...

    ...for three years, anyway!)
    Well you answered your own point. They offered a money losing plan for 3 years if the deal is approved. It is of course not sustainable.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    629
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    But it will be someone's job if the merger is not allowed. And under any economic principle, no business can continue to offer service below cost and lose money. Pricing will need to be increased to raise revenue. And there goes the continued low rates you were counting on.



    Good, you figured that out. So when Sprint inevitably raises their rates other competitors will also do it. AT&T and Verizon will stop subsidizing their money losing plans too.




    They're making enough where they're not losing money. But if the merger is successful, they'll have a better economy of scale to make profit on a similar level to AT&T and Verizon.



    Well you answered your own point. They offered a money losing plan for 3 years if the deal is approved. It is of course not sustainable.
    LOL, the cost per line for everything is less than $5/per month.
    The CEO or CxO took a big slice for themselves from the profit/lost.

    Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    But it will be someone's job if the merger is not allowed. And under any economic principle, no business can continue to offer service below cost and lose money. Pricing will need to be increased to raise revenue. And there goes the continued low rates you were counting on.



    Good, you figured that out. So when Sprint inevitably raises their rates other competitors will also do it. AT&T and Verizon will stop subsidizing their money losing plans too.




    They're making enough where they're not losing money. But if the merger is successful, they'll have a better economy of scale to make profit on a similar level to AT&T and Verizon.



    Well you answered your own point. They offered a money losing plan for 3 years if the deal is approved. It is of course not sustainable.
    This is a hard argument to make, as there really is no cost per user per se in wireless when you are a MNO. The costs are in infrastructure and overhead. A person using 200gb of data costs the company no more than one using 2gb.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,709
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Well you answered your own point. They offered a money losing plan for 3 years if the deal is approved. It is of course not sustainable.
    Well, if this plan is truly unsustainable, seeing it is one of the deals proffered by T-Mo to insure the merger happens, we can assume two things:

    A) Most of not all of T-Mo's offers and promises relating to plans (this, first responders, free Internet for 10 million low-income families, etc.) and jobs are essentially short-term bribes that will all increase or disappear when their "deadlines" hit; and

    B) Prices WILL increase as a result of the merger. But not for a few years, and not for you and me*, since we're on grandfathered plans, so who cares about anyone else...

    (*Until they do, someday, via increased fees, or reduced service levels etc., but that's at least 3 years away, assuming T-Mo keeps it's bribe-promises. Below the line fees increased my grandfathered family plan about $10/month over the last few years.)

    [As an aside, should we point out the irony that can intentionally selling below cost is prohibited by anti-trust law?]

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,893
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    This is a hard argument to make, as there really is no cost per user per se in wireless when you are a MNO. The costs are in infrastructure and overhead. A person using 200gb of data costs the company no more than one using 2gb.
    Technically you are correct on this if analyzed on a direct cost basis. However, when Sprint offers a $25 per month plan or even their free for a year plan with a $3 monthly service charge, the total revenue generated does not cover their direct and indirect costs as illustrated by their long term net losses.

    It's silly to believe that if Sprint is prevented from merging that they will continue to offer such money losing plans indefinitely. If elecconnec chooses to believe such a thing, I trust that basic economic principles will prove him wrong in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post

    A) Most of not all of T-Mo's offers and promises relating to plans (this, first responders, free Internet for 10 million low-income families, etc.) and jobs are essentially short-term bribes that will all increase or disappear when their "deadlines" hit; and
    Certainly that's T-Mobile's choice to end such programs. T-Mobile will be under no more obligation than Verizon or AT&T to offer such cut-rates. If they want to make such generous offers in exchange for the merger being approved, then that will provide some cost savings to the consumer that they wouldn't otherwise have. There's nothing wrong with that.


    B) Prices WILL increase as a result of the merger.
    Prices generally go up over time for all items. There are exceptions as when technology advancements can sometimes lower prices for items. But generally speaking, prices rise over time. Government intervention to try to hold prices down (such as the AG's are doing), fail in the long term (or create market shortages.) But it doesn't mean politicians won't try to intervene if they think it will gain them favor at the polls or increased campaign contributions.

    [As an aside, should we point out the irony that can intentionally selling below cost is prohibited by anti-trust law?]
    It's pretty impossible to prove a violation in this case. As hofonewb9 pointed out, direct costs aren't tied directly to this usage. If that's what the anti-trust law prohibits, why isn't Uber sued by taxi companies. Uber is losing money by undercutting the taxis. Is anyone bringing anti-trust actions against them?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Technically you are correct on this if analyzed on a direct cost basis. However, when Sprint offers a $25 per month plan or even their free for a year plan with a $3 monthly service charge, the total revenue generated does not cover their direct and indirect costs as illustrated by their long term net losses.

    It's silly to believe that if Sprint is prevented from merging that they will continue to offer such money losing plans indefinitely. If elecconnec chooses to believe such a thing, I trust that basic economic principles will prove him wrong in the future.
    Depends what makes those plans money losing. Without studying their books, it's impossible to say. When you aren't turning a profit, you have 2 choices to turn it around. 1. Increase revenue. Sometimes easier said than done, and isn't always a fix for everything. 2. Decrease spending and costs. Again sometimes easier said than done. Would Sprint be profitable at their current pace if they went through a restructure and got some debt relief? Maybe? Someone who actually studied their books would know this better than me. The reality though is, we may find out. This merger is not a done deal and isn't certain by any means.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,006
    Carrier(s)
    Spectrum Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Androided View Post
    No need for Sprint... TMobile only wants it's customers and spectrum.
    Sprint is dead alone...

    Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
    I think Sprint will be dead as a nationwide carrier and will most likely become a regional wireless carrier operating in their more profitable markets with Verizon roaming for areas they no longer cover.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,006
    Carrier(s)
    Spectrum Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Androided View Post
    T-Mobile really hates to bring in Sprint customers, they have to change most their headsets for them for free to move to T-Mobile network.

    Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
    In the short term the shareholders of the combined entity will hate the fact they will be giving away free replacement phones that are not compatible with the T Mobile USA network but in the long term they should see their investment back with increased revenue due to the larger customer base.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What will my SERO bill look like? either online or printed?
    By 1unique280 in forum SERO/Discounts & Deals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 11:28 AM
  2. what will an unlocked phone look like?
    By smitty192 in forum Motorola
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-17-2007, 09:31 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 12:37 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2004, 10:16 PM
  5. What does your Windows desktop look like
    By GenXGuY in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 08-16-2002, 01:01 AM

Bookmarks