Phone Scoop

printed July 31, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=13600&fh=3273974

Home  ›  News  ›

Sprint No Longer Sure About T-Mobile Bid

Article Comments  

all discussions

Well, it's clear...

Slammer

Feb 10, 2014, 1:28 PM
---"U.S. officials have, however, made it abundantly clear they prefer to have four national carriers and not three."

The above statement verifies my thoughts all along. The only companies to remain in control of the country's wireless industry, are VZW and AT&T. The two have been able to manipulate the industry by leverage of financial pork for merge after merge until they have consumed almost every last tiny carrier. Now that the realization is in view to help quell the insanity, no other large merge will be allowed.

Now it is Sprint or TMO to remain distant third and fouth without ever having the chance to grow. For those that think four major carriers is the ideal scenerio, you will have allowed the two largest to win and never be ...
(continues)
...
acdc1a

Feb 10, 2014, 1:50 PM
John we frequently agree on this forum but in this case, there's no way.

T-Mobile is grabbing customers at a record pace. Most of them are not from Sprint. They are forcing AT&T and Sprint to act and eventually Verizon will as well in order to retain customers.

There is enough spectrum out there to support 4 carriers if allocated properly. Dish is sitting on a ton of it.

If T-Mobile continues to add 1 million per quarter we still have a ways to go before they get to Death Star or Big Red numbers. If those two carriers start losing customers over that time it becomes a real 3 way race.

Unfortunately I don't see Sprint in that scenario above. Allowing Sprint to acquire T-Mobile just for the sake of customers won't fix the cu...
(continues)
...
DarkStar

Feb 10, 2014, 2:49 PM
Yeah the problem with your theory is that there is no indication that the big 2 are losing customers. They have been growing and growing every quarter. So how does that help T-Mobile?
...
acdc1a

Feb 10, 2014, 3:25 PM
T-Mo has added more subscribers than AT&T in Q2, Q3 and Q4. Q3 was downright embarrassing for AT&T.

Now, let's throw in T-Mobile buying out contracts. How do you think Q1 will look? Will Verizon finally start to slow the adds in addition to AT&T? We shall see.
...
DarkStar

Feb 10, 2014, 3:45 PM
What do you mean T-mobile is buying out contracts. They still are doing contracts.
...
turnman34

Feb 10, 2014, 6:14 PM
he's talking about t-mobile paying you etf's to leave other carriers to come to them..
...
acdc1a

Feb 10, 2014, 7:04 PM
You are correct.

What's incorrect are the people in their little cell phone kiosks trying to explain that an equipment installment plan is the same as a service contract. I have 4 lines of service and 0 EIPS. I can leave at will.

Next he'll tell me that if I buy my phone on a credit card it's the same as a service contract because I have to pay back American Express.
...
DarkStar

Feb 10, 2014, 8:39 PM
Its a contract for the phone. Maybe not for the service but it is still a contract.
...
WiWavelength

Feb 10, 2014, 8:50 PM
DarkStar said:
Its a contract for the phone. Maybe not for the service but it is still a contract.


A well known industry writer certainly thinks so.

http://bgr.com/2014/02/04/t-mobile-no-contract-bs/ »

AJ
...
acdc1a

Feb 11, 2014, 9:27 AM
I suppose you didn't bother to read the comments on the article you sent...
...
WiWavelength

Feb 11, 2014, 11:32 AM
acdc1a said:
I suppose you didn't bother to read the comments on the article you sent...


I did read many of the comments. That people do not like the writer's perspective does not change the point of the article. And I will take veteran industry writer/editor Zach Epstein's opinion over anonymous comments from a mostly under informed peanut gallery. The same goes for the comment section here.

AJ
...
acdc1a

Feb 11, 2014, 3:33 PM
You sure give a tech blogger a lot of credit...yeah I said it.

If you spend a lot of time there I'm sure you know that Brad Reed has reported on T-Mobile's killing of the wireless contract.

A blog like BGR isn't journalism, it's click bait for advertising clicks. If you believe what you read there, Apple is both dominating the mobile market and losing share and the same can be said about Samsung.
...
Slammer

Feb 11, 2014, 4:08 PM
BGR is an oxymoron of info. Bipolar if you will.

The reporters seem to contradict each other when it comes to reporting. Each digging deep to find biased information hidden in corridors. Then taking this info to elevate their personal favorites. I trust no "opinionated" editorial. To find the relevancy of an article, one must sift through the news articles that are hot topic and are directed towards constructive views. It doesn't matter what we feel about Zach or Brad. It is up to us consumers to weed the garden and view the soil.

Zach has a legitimate point on TMO's landscaped marketing. A consumer is still held financially responsible for paying down a commitment made at point of sale when speading the payments out. In some cases, i...
(continues)
...
DarkStar

Feb 12, 2014, 2:04 AM
First we must define what a contract is.

Contract: a written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

The installment agreement is just as binding as a cellular agreement or contract if you will. A matter of fact when you fill out the information for a contract on Verizon or AT&T or Sprint it doesn't say contract on the letterhead. It says consumer agreement.

Please tell me how T-mobile has gotten rid of contracts when the installment agreement is a de facto contract?
...
acdc1a

Feb 12, 2014, 9:10 AM
Quite simple. Buy your phone outright or bring in your own and you have no agreement to keep service with them. You are billed after you use the service just as you always have been. Compare that to prepaid where you have to pay in advance and be shutoff if you ever are forgetful.

If you enter into an equipment installment plan, pay off your equipment and LEAVE. Better yet, do the responsible thing and don't buy what you can't afford.

Until recently if you entered Sprint or Verizon (apparently not AT&T) even with your own phone you had to sign a service agreement, go prepaid, or accept the 1 plan with 200 minutes that Sprint had available month to month.
...
DarkStar

Feb 12, 2014, 9:36 PM
acdc1a said:
Until recently if you entered Sprint or Verizon (apparently not AT&T) even with your own phone you had to sign a service agreement, go prepaid, or accept the 1 plan with 200 minutes that Sprint had available month to month.


That is where you are wrong. You have always been able to buy a phone outright or bring in your own phone ,as long as it is compatible with that service, and not have a contract.

No one is forced into a contract but $600 for a phone is rather expensive and hard to do.
...
acdc1a

Feb 13, 2014, 8:08 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Until Sprint as you go, you couldn't go into a Sprint store and get any plan except a 200 minute plan for $29.99. In fact you can go pull all of the Sprint, Verizon, and yes...even T-Mobile collateral that shows rate plans from anytime in 2011, 2012, and the first part of 2013. Go to the back, it's OK, I can wait.

Now on the back in the fine print, what does it say? PLANS REQUIRE A 24 MONTH SERVICE AGREEMENT.

I sure hope you're not in the wireless industry because you show very little knowledge of what the competition is doing.
...
DarkStar

Feb 13, 2014, 1:53 PM
I've been selling phones for over 10 years. With Sprint about 8 years ago you could absolutely buy a phone off contract but it would cost you $10 extra a month, but you use the same plan everybody else had. They stopped that about a year later. The brochure does say 2 year agreement required. But that is for when you get a discount on a phone.

But I have helped many people on all the companies start a new line of service without a contract because they paid full retail price for a phone.

I have first hand knowledge. You obviously don't work in the industry.
...
Zpike

Feb 14, 2014, 12:14 PM
Really? I sold Sprint plans for years and every phone activation came with a new 2 yr contract. I can remember customers coming in because they lost or broke their phones and wanting to activate a used phone given to them by a family member. As soon as that device activated, their 2 yr agreement restarted on that date. I even remember one customer who lost an unused discount as a result. I remember complaining to BrightPoint and being told that there was nothing I could do about it. Bottom line was that in those days you did not activate a device on Sprint's network without a contract. Now granted, I haven't been in retail since about the time the original iPhone launched... but that hasn't been 8 years.
...
DarkStar

Feb 14, 2014, 12:51 PM
Ever since sprint upgraded to the snap program for 3rd parties which was over 5 years ago there was an option to change the contract term. So if someone brought in their old phone and wanted to start a new account then you can set the terms to zero months.
...
johnhr2

Feb 11, 2014, 1:08 PM
Yes it is still a contract you agree that if you leave you will pay the remaining balance off. That sounds like a contract to me.
...
Slammer

Feb 10, 2014, 9:18 PM
Correct. If the customer decides to leave early, they are still responsible to pay the remaining balance of what is owed on the device.

John B.
...
ReaperXero

Feb 11, 2014, 8:23 AM
And to add.. if you were CEO and had to increase the Termination fee ask yourself "How do you do it and have the public thank you" Term fees are the existing price of the phone you choose. If your phone was 650.00 and you cancel say in 2 months your fees equal the payoff. so you go from a normal 350.00 Term fee to 600.00 payoff. do the math. funny.
...
Slammer

Feb 10, 2014, 8:09 PM
At the risk of ruining our agreement record, I must disagree. Lol. While TMO's credential standing for adding new subs appears "promising", I fear the clientele it is attracting with these new promotions, is exactly the type that VZW and AT&T could care less about. Non-competitive if you will. This doesn't provide what's needed to wake up the two largest carriers. TMO is giving away too much that needs far more in returns than just adding subs. Who will pay for what is being sacrificed or given away? TMO is offering temporary solitude for a short term solution. Long term needs a more strategic financial outline and solid plan for healthy growth.

John B.
...
WiWavelength

Feb 10, 2014, 8:48 PM
Slammer said:
At the risk of ruining our agreement record, I must disagree. Lol. While TMO's credential standing for adding new subs appears "promising", I fear the clientele it is attracting with these new promotions, is exactly the type that VZW and AT&T could care less about.


T-Mobile has a history of courting sub prime consumers. But the "uncarrier" strategy is also surely pulling away prime consumers from the other three big operators. The recent quarterly numbers bear that out. However, the longer term issue may be retaining those subs.

The "uncarrier" perks sound great to most wireless consumers, and they will attract people for whom the T-Mobile native and roaming coverage limitations are un...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Feb 10, 2014, 9:37 PM
---"The "uncarrier" perks sound great to most wireless consumers, and they will attract people for whom the T-Mobile native and roaming coverage limitations are unsuitable. The stay at T-Mobile for those people may be short lived before they return to one of the other big three."---

Not being employed within the wireless industry has its disadvantages. Not fully recognizing the type of clientele migrating from one carrier to another, is one of these shortcomings. And of course your insight to the industry functions is truly masterful. I do, however, feel VZW and ATT agree with your above logic and may perceive TMO's strategy as more liquidity. Short term loss may then equate to non-threatening from those perched on top.

John B.
...
acdc1a

Feb 11, 2014, 9:31 AM
"... VZW and ATT agree with your above logic and may perceive TMO's strategy as more liquidity."

If that were the case, AT&T and to a lesser extent Verizon wouldn't be responding. The fact that they are should tell you everything you need to know.

As far as the sub-primes go, T-Mobile still has a deposit for the credit challenged. I don't see them taking the prepaid, or credit challenged customers. Frankly prepaid has been competitive rate-wise for years. They're taking high value, contract customers. Churn could be a problem for those who frequently travel to the sticks. I see that as T-Mobile's biggest issue right now.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
2