Sprint <-> Nextel M2M silliness

Scott wrote:

> Its not an affiliate- it is a separate company with specific boundaries. I
> know that calling a "Nextel" customer in Buffalo, NY is going to be in
> Partners territory. I know that a "Nextel" number in Omaha, Nebraska is a
> Partners number.

I would not have thought Buffalo wasn't Nextel corporate. There is a large
enough population there and throughout Western New York that I'd expect the
larger cities to all be covered natively by Nextel. Omaha, maybe, but even
Omaha is still a decent-sized city.



--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

---

› See More: Sprint <-> Nextel M2M silliness

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I was at the mall, and Sprint now has a couple kiosks there (they used
to
> only have one)... so I wandered around and looked at some of the phones
they
> had, and picked up an M2M brochure.
>
> And I read that Sprint M2M minutes only count on calls to phone lines in
> Nextel corporate markets, not affiliate ("partner") markets. That leaves
out
> roughly half the country. Nextel users in those markets can't call Sprint
> phones using M2M minutes either.

While this leaves out roughly half of the country geographically, it only
impacts about 15% of Nextel users. Nextel Partners has chosen to not
participate in M2M, just as they choose what promos they will run or not
run.
>
> And it struck me as silly. I mean, Sprint makes no distinction for Sprint
> affiliate markets, right? If you call a Sprint user in an affiliate
market,
> it's still mobile-to-mobile.
>
> One would hope they're only doing this because, perhaps, current
contractual
> obligations with Nextel partners force them to do so. OTOH, Sprint's
> executives have proven to be dumber than a box of rocks lately, so who
knows?
>
> All I know is that I was very amused that about a month after I left,
things
> changed so that I could've called my father's Nextel phone for free.
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
>

Scott wrote:

>> Some of the largest merged companies completed their systems integration
>> within 1-2 years of the merger's closing (Cingular being a very notable
>> exception, but my commentary on Cingular is well known).
>
> Examples? And please make them pertinent- merging inventory management
> services is not the same thing.

Of course it is and you know it. It's the same economies of scale, in
fact if NOT complicated than a mere billing or accounting system.
Adding qualifications without offering reasons is a poor way to try and
win an argument.

There's the financial industry as well. Bank of America, Wachovia, and
Soon Washington Mutual are all examples of megacorps integrating
efficiently, and it can be pretty handily argued that the banking
industry has significantly higher pressure put to it to ensure such a
transition goes smoothly.

>> So.... *what* was the point of this merger again? Ah, right, knee-jerk
>> reaction to industry developments, and little else. Certainly the term
>> "synergy" in this merger was never intended to be taken seriously.
>
> Other than the costs associated with a consolidated billing platform
> (elimination of duplicate systems and support groups, unified care, etc.),

And what of the costs to cross-train employees on two incompatible
networks, merger of features (particularly when feature codes don't
match up), and management of SIM/IMEI stocks on one side and the
ESN/MeID transition on the other?

> dramatically improved buying power,

Dealing with Motorola for a singular set of equipment based on a
proprietary, single-vendor standard does not equate into strengthened
buying power, especially when Sprint's CDMA-based relationship with
Motorola has been a historically bad one AND they are telling said
vendor that they intend to drop their proprietary standard in 5-6 years
or so.

And iDEN doesn't mean squat to Samsung, Nokia, Nortel, Sanyo or LG.

> improved cost per subscriber

How does marketing two networks instead of one, in addition to
eventually working on a migration path from one network to another,
equate into improved cost per subscriber?

>, lower sales costs

Let's assume they merge billing systems. Great! But all stores must
now be saddled with two device inventories, marketing materials and
servicing procedures for two networks instead of one. That doesn't
sound like a bargain to me.

> and many other metrics, you are right. However, I have yet to
> see anybody (including you) show any material disadvantage to the merger-
> all I see is doomsaying.

I'm not doomsaying. I'm not saying Sprint is going bankrupt anytime
soon. But it's going to be a long, long time before this merger gives
them any traction, if it does at all. Meantime any purported benefit to
consumers, save for being able to switch from one network to another
without a termination fee, is just smoke and mirrors. I'm still
convinced that until 2010, being two networks to all people will be more
a liability than an asset. Let's just hope this very expensive gamble
pays off in five to six years as they obviously must hope it will.

>
> Nextel Partners DOES want to be bought and is trying to artificially inflate
> the value of the company.

Hmm, so much for that final cost being well-calculated.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>>> Some of the largest merged companies completed their systems
>>> integration within 1-2 years of the merger's closing (Cingular
>>> being a very notable exception, but my commentary on Cingular is
>>> well known).
>>
>> Examples? And please make them pertinent- merging inventory
>> management services is not the same thing.
>
> Of course it is and you know it.

It most certainly is not the same thing, and Isaiah has no hands-on
experience to state otherwise. Unless he can read minds Isaiah also
doesn't "know" what Scott thinks.


> It's the same economies of scale, in
> fact if NOT complicated than a mere billing or accounting system.
> Adding qualifications without offering reasons is a poor way to try
> and win an argument.
>

Spewing inconsistent--and in this case incoherent--rants is a sure way
to lose one.


> There's the financial industry as well. Bank of America, Wachovia,
> and Soon Washington Mutual are all examples of megacorps integrating
> efficiently,

First, some of the above examples did not go as smoothly as Isaiah is
claiming. Second, it's an apples to antelopes comparison. Absurd.


<snippage occurred>
> them any traction, if it does at all. Meantime any purported benefit
> to consumers, save for being able to switch from one network to
> another without a termination fee, is just smoke and mirrors.

Amazingly, Isaiah wrote the following, less than two-weeks-ago:

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Haven't started? Funny that. Sprint stores and Nextel stores are
> already capable of serving either network's customets. Cross-network
> M2M is already in place. Each formet network's respective calling
> plans were COMPLEMENTED with the benefits of each side (i.e. Fair and
> Flexible with unlimited incoming minutes), rather than simply throwing
> away
> good existing plans and forcing people to confirm to more expensive
> rates. And the ability exists to switch from one system to another,
> WITHOUT
> any upgrade or termination fees, is standard practice.
>
> That seems like a hell of a good start to me, and far better than
> Cingular's initial attempt.

If Isaiah keeps digging himself into holes like this he's gonna need a
bigger shovel!


--
Mike

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> And the average Nextel consumer is going make that distinction?
>>>>
>>>> They sure are.
>>>
>>> What is your justification for saying that?
>>>
>>
>> Its not an affiliate- it is a separate company with specific
>> boundaries. I know that calling a "Nextel" customer in Buffalo, NY
>> is going to be in Partners territory. I know that a "Nextel" number
>> in Omaha, Nebraska is a Partners number. There is no overlapping
>> coverage. And it doesn't take a PhD in Cartography to be able to
>> quickly identify about 95% of Partners territories.
>
> But how do I, Joe Average who never heard of Nextel Partners until two
> weeks ago, know any of this?
>

If you are losing sleep over this monumental issue, by all means print
out this page and carry it wherever you carry your phone:
http://www.nextelpartners.com/about/OurTerritories.aspx

Now this might not tell you, for sure, where all Nextel Partners' phones
are. But it sure can tell you where they're not. For instance...

Should you need to call a Nextel user who lives in, say, Beaumont, TX
you can tell from the map that that might be a Nextel Partners phone (or
not; but why take the chance?).

Now if you need to call a Dallas, TX user you'll know for sure from the
map that it's in native Nextel territory.

Macon, GA? Nextel Partners. Atlanta, GA? Nextel.
Buffalo, NY? Nextel Partners. NYC, NY? Nextel.
Evansville, IN? Nextel Partners. Indianapolis, IN? Nextel

Spotting a trend here yet?


> Am I *supposed* to delve in and know everything about this?
>
> "Hi Sprint, I have a call to a Nextel phone here, and it got charged
> against my airtime...that shouldn't happen." You think 99.9% of the
> complaint calls won't go exactly like that?

No. I don't think a single call will go "exactly like that." I don't say
"Hi Claire," and I somewhat respect her. But I certainly am not gonna
act like I just fell off the turnip truck and say, "Hi Sprint" to
Rakesh--even if he doesn't know what a turnip truck is. Still, whatever
works...


--
Mike

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>
>>> Some of the largest merged companies completed their systems integration
>>> within 1-2 years of the merger's closing (Cingular being a very notable
>>> exception, but my commentary on Cingular is well known).
>>
>> Examples? And please make them pertinent- merging inventory management
>> services is not the same thing.
>
> Of course it is and you know it.

Actually, I know no such thing

> It's the same economies of scale, in fact if NOT complicated than a mere
> billing or accounting system.

Same economies of scale as what? Adding qualifications without offering
reasons is a poor way tp try and win an argument.

> Adding qualifications without offering reasons is a poor way to try and
> win an argument.

Reasons? Try these:

-Do both networks round and bill minutes and seconds the same way?
-Is the Convergys system used by the old Sprint capable of handling the
billing of Direct Connect traffic?
-Is the Amdocs system used by the old Nextel capable of handling the billing
of Sprint directo connect (can't remember the name of it right off hand)
traffic?
-Does either system have the functionality built in at this very moment to
handle all of the features of the other's rate plans?
-One system uses SIM and IMEI for registering the phone to the network. The
other uses ESN to register the phone to the network. One set of phones
comes with a SIM and IMEI. The other set comes with an ESN.

Enough reasons, or do you want more. I can telll you with 100% certainty
that the answer to the first four questions is "NO". That creates issues-
not insurmountable, but issues that take time to resolve.

>
> There's the financial industry as well. Bank of America, Wachovia, and
> Soon Washington Mutual are all examples of megacorps integrating
> efficiently, and it can be pretty handily argued that the banking industry
> has significantly higher pressure put to it to ensure such a transition
> goes smoothly.

Moving dollars and tracking dollars is a far cry from capturing and billing
used minutes. There is also only one network in this country (the Fed) to
deal with when moving money- all financial transactions between insitutions
use the same network.

One of the worst examples of comparison I've ever seen here.

>
>>> So.... *what* was the point of this merger again? Ah, right, knee-jerk
>>> reaction to industry developments, and little else. Certainly the term
>>> "synergy" in this merger was never intended to be taken seriously.
>>
>> Other than the costs associated with a consolidated billing platform
>> (elimination of duplicate systems and support groups, unified care,
>> etc.),
>
> And what of the costs to cross-train employees on two incompatible
> networks,

Not an issue- though the networks are different, the problems encountered by
customers are the same type on both networks. And the cost of cross
training is dwarfed by the savings of having fewer employees handling the
networks down the road.

>merger of features (particularly when feature codes don't match up)

Not a merger issue- this was happening at Sprint long before the merger.

>, and management of SIM/IMEI stocks on one side and the ESN/MeID transition
>on the other?

Inventory management is the easy part.

>
>> dramatically improved buying power,
>
> Dealing with Motorola for a singular set of equipment based on a
> proprietary, single-vendor standard does not equate into strengthened
> buying power, especially when Sprint's CDMA-based relationship with
> Motorola has been a historically bad one AND they are telling said vendor
> that they intend to drop their proprietary standard in 5-6 years or so.

And if you want to concentrate on just the phones, be my guest. Antennas,
tower equipment, advertising, switches, employee costs, borrowing rates....
there is much more to the business than the cost of equipment that the
customer ultimately pays for anyway.

>
> And iDEN doesn't mean squat to Samsung, Nokia, Nortel, Sanyo or LG.

Point?

>
>> improved cost per subscriber
>
> How does marketing two networks instead of one, in addition to eventually
> working on a migration path from one network to another, equate into
> improved cost per subscriber?

They are marketing one company, not two networks. A single commercial or
printad covers both networks in the same breath. What was two
advertisements a years ago is now one. When a single billing plateform is
decided upon and migrated to, the costs associated with supporting two
platforms is cut dramatically.

>
>>, lower sales costs
>
> Let's assume they merge billing systems. Great! But all stores must now
> be saddled with two device inventories, marketing materials and servicing
> procedures for two networks instead of one. That doesn't sound like a
> bargain to me.

And yet the indipendent dealers are quite successful saddling themselves
with how many device inventories? I didn't realize that the corporate store
employees were more retarded than the independents.

>
> > and many other metrics, you are right. However, I have yet to
>> see anybody (including you) show any material disadvantage to the merger-
>> all I see is doomsaying.
>
> I'm not doomsaying. I'm not saying Sprint is going bankrupt anytime soon.
> But it's going to be a long, long time before this merger gives them any
> traction, if it does at all.

They've already got traction- 3rd quarter was better for the combined
company than last year for the two separate companies.

>Meantime any purported benefit to consumers, save for being able to switch
>from one network to another without a termination fee, is just smoke and
>mirrors.

Could an old Sprint customer get free incoming minutes six months ago? Was
F&F an option for an old Nextel customer six months ago? Could a Sprint
customer call a Nextel customer for free six months ago? No smoke and
mirrors here- all of these are material benefits.

I'm still
> convinced that until 2010, being two networks to all people will be more a
> liability than an asset.

And you are wrong, but I'm not surprised. Your posts are all supposition
and opinion.

>Let's just hope this very expensive gamble pays off in five to six years as
>they obviously must hope it will.

It is already paying off, to the tune of a few BILLION dollars a year in
savings.

>
>>
>> Nextel Partners DOES want to be bought and is trying to artificially
>> inflate the value of the company.
>
> Hmm, so much for that final cost being well-calculated.

Who said they would be successful in inflating the price? I said they were
TRYING. Their stock price would indicate that they are not having much
luck. And yet though your eyes, Sprint is run by a bunch of uneducated and
inexperienced people who would never be able to see such a thing coming.
There you are wrong- this was all figured into the price of acquisition.