Home  ›  News  ›

Sprint CEO: 'Disruptive' Prices Coming Next Week

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 12 replies

Honestly

T Bone

Aug 15, 2014, 8:40 AM
For a company struggling to make a profit, and Sprint has not generated a net profit for even one quarter since the Nextel acquisition in 2005, to be talking about slashing prices seems very irresponsible. This is like the fabled executive who thought that if he simply gave his product away free he'd be able to make it up on volume.
...
acdc1a

Aug 15, 2014, 8:47 AM
Price point is not why Sprint is losing money. They're still outlandish. What's killed Sprint's profitability is one dumb business move after another starting with the Nextel merger.

If Sprint can have the kind of success adding subscribers that T-Mobile is having, in a couple of years they could have the scale to compete. If they continue to bleed customers due to poor coverage and sub-standard rate plans, they stand no chance at all. Better to go down swinging then to go out without a fight.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 15, 2014, 9:25 PM
Exactly. Sprint has no chance to compete with Verizon and AT&T on coverage. They have to sell what they have now. Selling what they hope to have next week or next year is a recipe for disaster.
...
T Bone

Aug 15, 2014, 11:43 PM
Well I am currently working selling phones and we sell Verizon, at&t and Sprint, so I'm familiar with the plans for all the carriers, and the truth is that Sprint's competitive edge of pricing is really not that great. For the vast majority of customers they will only save $5 a month by switching from at&t or Verizon to Sprint, and in return, you get vastly inferior coverage.
...
crood

Aug 15, 2014, 10:40 AM
Profit isn't the only way businesses make money. In fact, in many cases, growth is more important. Growth is what increases the value of a company as a whole. If you increase the value of what a company is worth in a sale, that translates to stock price. It also gives them more borrowing power to expand fast and to negotiate lower interest rates.
...
Shakezula84

Aug 15, 2014, 12:10 PM
Thats exactly what tmobile has been doing and while they still dont turn a profit they have more customers and slowly building a positive rep (even if you consider the fact removing contracts was a hidden price increase).
...
cellwatcher

Aug 15, 2014, 4:02 PM
Sprint trying to sell for "just under" Verizon & AT&T with a network that is "WAY UNDER" Verizon & AT&T doesn't seem to be working for them. Boost & Virgin at $55 & $60 are a RIP now similar with throttling & similar pricing to the "much-better-in-the city" T-Mobile & "better-everywhere" Verizon & AT&T's MVNOs. Straight Talk or Cricket with FAR superior coverage via AT&T or Verizon (look at Boost/Sprint Native coverage map particularly out west...PATHETIC!). There isn't ONE SPRINT TOWER in all of Montana! How else but to compete on price or just go out of business? I think Sprint postpaid needs unlimited everything (including data & hotspot) for maybe $60/month & their no-roaming MVNOs should be at $35 or $40 for unlimited with throttli...
(continues)
...
WhySoBluePandaBear

Aug 16, 2014, 12:15 AM
cellwatcher said:
Sprint trying to sell for "just under" Verizon & AT&T with a network that is "WAY UNDER" Verizon & AT&T doesn't seem to be working for them. Boost & Virgin at $55 & $60 are a RIP now similar with throttling & similar pricing to the "much-better-in-the city" T-Mobile & "better-everywhere" Verizon & AT&T's MVNOs. Straight Talk or Cricket with FAR superior coverage via AT&T or Verizon (look at Boost/Sprint Native coverage map particularly out west...PATHETIC!). There isn't ONE SPRINT TOWER in all of Montana! How else but to compete on price or just go out of business? I think Sprint postpaid needs unlimited everything (including data & hotspot) for maybe $60/month & their no-roaming MVNOs should be at
...
(continues)
...
cellwatcher

Aug 16, 2014, 11:24 AM
OK? Just almost 1 million people most of whom are paying every month to Verizon or AT&T & NONE OF THEM are giving ANY money to T-Mobile or Sprint. Ever wonder how Verizon & AT&T have over 100,000,000 customers each & T-Mobile & Sprint combined fall well short of that? Could it be that Big Red & Big Blue reach pockets like Montana all across America? My point is if T-Mobile & Sprint had compatible coverage & compatible speeds to VZW/ATT over that ENTIRE coverage area (not just in cities) they would have A LOT more customers!!
...
T Bone

Aug 16, 2014, 4:16 PM
For a lot of people in the area where I live, their only real options are Verizon, or a Verizon MVNO like Straight Talk

If you wanna know how at&t and Verizon got to be the duopoly they are, it is by trying to provide coverage absolutely everywhere in the country, even in isolated rural communities like Montana. So many people sign up to at&t or Verizon because they literally have no other option. If T-Mobile or Spring could move in and offer coverage, they would clean up.
...
WhySoBluePandaBear

Aug 19, 2014, 8:19 PM
T Bone said:
For a lot of people in the area where I live, their only real options are Verizon, or a Verizon MVNO like Straight Talk

If you wanna know how at&t and Verizon got to be the duopoly they are, it is by trying to provide coverage absolutely everywhere in the country, even in isolated rural communities like Montana. So many people sign up to at&t or Verizon because they literally have no other option. If T-Mobile or Spring could move in and offer coverage, they would clean up.


They actually wouldn't - solely based on pricing doesn't mean squat when you can't offer the same level of services. Pay $20 more a month and get a REAL network.
...
Slammer

Aug 16, 2014, 12:30 PM
Building out an infrastructure is a daunting task as well as very expensive. With a smidgen above a million in total population, it would be very unlikely that Sprint or Tmobile would fork over cash to expand in areas where they would probably acquire only 10% of the customer base that AT&T and Verizon have. To cover the complete state would cost billions. AT&T and VZW acquired the areas by acquistions. If not, they most likely would not have spent the money either.

John B.
...
gloopey1

Aug 19, 2014, 11:02 PM
Slammer said:
Building out an infrastructure is a daunting task as well as very expensive. With a smidgen above a million in total population, it would be very unlikely that Sprint or Tmobile would fork over cash to expand in areas where they would probably acquire only 10% of the customer base that AT&T and Verizon have. To cover the complete state would cost billions. AT&T and VZW acquired the areas by acquistions. If not, they most likely would not have spent the money either.

John B.

Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but...you completely crushed my argument, but...I'll keep on because hateraid drinkers gotta hate.

Just thought I'd beat all the "but heads" to the punch - the hateraid punch, that is. :w...
(continues)
...

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 Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.