We first caught wind of Sprint's plans to launch a couple dual-mode CDMA / WiMAX devices
under the "Sprint 4G" brand a couple days ago, but we're thinking about it a little more, and we're struck by the carrier's decision to run its 4G services as an MVNO on Clearwire's
new Clear network. Sprint's balance sheet is
basically upside-down at the moment, so we sort of understand why it's not eager to directly invest in a build-out of 4G infrastructure, but at the end of the day, leasing access to a network for general voice and data services is a totally failed business model -- there's a reason we have an
MVNO graveyard. We're not saying Sprint's turning itself into the next Helio, but you just don't see the other major carriers doing things like
selling off almost all of their existing towers and then letting a spinoff handle their 4G buildouts. We'd say there's some deep juju going on behind the scenes here, and with company spokespeople saying things like
"nothing's off the table," it feels like some radical changes are about to hit Overland Park. We'll see how it shakes down
soon enough, we think -- the status quo doesn't seem like it can last much longer.
posted Dec 9th 2008 5:16PM
Here's my theory...Google is either going to heavily invest in Sprint/Nextel or they are going to buyout Sprint/Nextel. Just my 2 cents.
They're just trying to cut costs and get cash in hand. It's that simple. They're doing extremely badly, in large part because of technology decisions taken starting around 13 years ago and continuing today that have always crippled the network to a certain extent and are preventing Sprint from either solving its reliability problems or selling modern, integrated, services.
The worst decision they've taken thus far is to treat Nextel as the obsolete system they want to get rid of rather than using it as the basis of a move to UMTS, which iDEN shares a lot of commonality with. WiMAX is a last ditch attempt to try to get some success by scoring a "first", by a management in denial that really doesn't want to admit it got it wrong with its major technology choices.
They need to get it over with. Break them up. Sell the iDEN network to AT&T or T-Mobile. Sell the CDMA2000 network to Verizon. Disentangle themselves from the whole Clearwire mess, or at least prepare it for an eventual migration to LTE. Verizon knows how to run a CDMA2000 network and can keep it going for as long as there's demand. AT&T and T-Mobile will find it easy to integrate iDEN with their GSM networks, whose backends are compatible. Dual-mode iDEN/GSM phones will work a hell of a lot better and more transparently than dual-mode iDEN/CDMA2000.
For now I suspect part of the organization knows this is coming, but is being hampered by a part that's convinced itself that continuing what it's been doing will eventually work out, like a gambler putting more and more money in a slot machine desperately hoping for a payout.
I agree with somewhat with your first paragraph, but not with the rest. First, WiMAX is NOT a last-ditch effort. As part of the Nextel acquisition, Sprint was required to have a 4G Broadband solution in the 2.5GHz spectrum (that came with the merger) serving at least 30 million people by Summer 2009. Sprint had no choice but to go WiMAX since it was the only 4G technology ready at the time. LTE was, and still is, in testing and UMB was pretty much abandoned by everyone.
Also, what are you talking about Sprint should sell iDEN and their CDMA network? What the hell are they going to have their subscribers running off of..a couple of cans and some really, really long string? Or are they support to hand all 50 million of their subscribers to Verizon, putting them at over 140 million subscribers and them along holding over 50% of the US's cellular population...
Sprint isn't have problems in their CDMA sector, mainly in their iDEN. Out of the 1.2 million subscribers they lost last quarter, 1.1 million were iDEN. Also, GSM and iDEN are NOT compatible. Just because they both are based off TDMA does not mean they can be easily interchanged; hell, Nextel, before the merger, was going to go with CDMA as their upgrade path for iDEN.
Sprint did a lot of things wrong with the merger, mainly with their whole attitude about how to treat Nextel which lead to an entire cluster**** of CS issues, network reliability (primarily on iDEN, especially with Boost killing capacity just before the merger), management/cultures (Sprint forcing their methods/ways, completely abandoning Nextel's), etc. which lead to their current shotty reputation. Heck, people even associate horrible coverage/quality with Sprint now due to Nextel's issues even though their CDMA network quality/coverage easily rivals Verizon's.
4G hasn't been standardized yet (according to current draft ITU specs, neither WiMAX nor LTE are technically 4G), it'd be fairer to say they were required to roll out broadband on those frequencies.
WiMAX is one of several technologies Sprint investigated, another being UMTS-TDD. The latter would have fit neatly into a transition to LTE. They picked WiMAX despite the overwhelming evidence that it was always going to be an also-ran technology for everything other than point-to-point FLoS ISPs.
I'm saying Sprint should break itself up. You seem to be missing the point of my comment, believing my suggestion is that Sprint should continue to exist in some way. I don't think it has any viability at this point. It has a history of myopic management which has always been more interested in marketing than putting together a solid network, and has infrastructure that can only be made to work as part of different environment. The iDEN network would sing if given to a GSM operator prepared to integrate it into their networks. Verizon has proven they can make CDMA2000 work, in part because they have the dual band capabilities that makes it easier to provide indoor coverage without "breathing" causing indoor users to get a second class experience during periods of peak usage.
What you end up with by divesting those two networks are happy customers of the CDMA2000 and iDEN networks, money to put into Clearwire to give it the resources to transition to LTE when the time is right, and a way to avoid certain bankruptcy.
Oh, and I never said iDEN and GSM are compatible (indeed, I implied the exact opposite several times), and I most certainly did not make any claim based on their air interfaces - which while TDMA are nonetheless entirely different and designed with different philosophies. I said SPECIFICALLY that their backends are compatible. Which is true. Motorola didn't re-invent the wheel. From Wikipedia:
> The interconnect-side of the iDEN network uses GSM signalling for call set-up and mobility management, with the Abis protocol stack modified to support iDEN's additional features. Motorola has named this modified stack 'Mobis'.
iDEN fits extremely well into GSM networks. In theory at least an iDEN user can switch from GSM to iDEN and vice versa (if using a compatible dual-stack phone) mid-call without interruption. It never made sense to me for a company like Sprint to buy them, except as part of an eventual move to GSM, but Sprint management's blind hatred of the latter (or perhaps recognition that choosing a GSM technology would mean admitting that their previous choices might have been less than sane) meant that was never on the table, and almost certainly explains the rejection of UMTS-TDD.
Nextel wanted to be bought by someone. They knew iDEN was dead-end tech beyond 2G and were independently exploring CDMA/EvDO as a 3G solution, so it made sense that they allowed themselves to be bought by Sprint. It's a shame the way it worked out.
well from what ive read most companies sold a majority off towers before sprint ever did.. and the mvno thing, now im no expert but leasing 4g access from a company you OWN and using your own voice and 3g is much different than leasing voice and data from a competitor.. i really cant see the current uses for consumer cell phones with 4g most consumers wouldnt even notice the difference between 10 and 100mbs at home or work let alone on a cell phone.. i think this wimax is sprints answer to vzw fios because that is starting to dig into dsl cable and satelite here in so cal.. no one cares about the differences between dsl cable and fiber optic they are all hi speed plug in technologies.. they want the one with the best price and features.. same with wimax and lte no one will care about the diffs when it comes to home and laptop cards which will leave sprint open to jump on the lte bandwagon if need be and honestly tmob and at&t dont seem to be havin much trouble gettin specific 3g phones made so sprint might not either.
Just hurry up and die already. Your customers deserve to be on real networks with real, workable plans fo the future.
Weak, dude.
I've been on just about EVERY service provider there is, and as a mobile consultant I have to keep up to date with devices and deal with all service providers, and I personally recommend Sprint over all others as far as value for your dollar. ATT and Verizon get away with highway robbery every day since they are the most popular, T-mobile is good to their customers but far too behind tech wise IMO. Sprint is a smart choice, and it saddens me to see them failing in their business plan. If they go under or get bought by Verizon, etc, they will be severely missed.
Yeah, there are plenty of Sprint fans out there (myself included). Not everyone hates Sprint. In fact, I'd venture to say that the most hard-core Windows Mobile users have found a happy home on Sprint. In fact, I think Sprint and WinMo have a lot in common - incredibly powerful but not easy to use.
Sprint has a great network but historically crappy CS. I find that just about anywhere you go, people hate their carrier regardless of who it is (grass is not always greener). I have been a happy Sprint customer for over 8 years - I hope they survive b/c nothing gets me excited about VZW or ATT (both are typically more expensive too).
My GOD how many times are you guys going to stick to your *thoroughly debunked*, *obviously incorrect* story about Sprint selling off "nearly all" of its towers? Your source botched the facts, but you aimlessly repeated them despite an outcry from your readers. Repeatedly.
You could at least just read the *first* comment of your bogus story (which you once again linked to as if it were true) at get a reasonable amount more informed.
Then move along to the *second* comment and finally get a decent grasp of the real situation.
I'm sorry, but this had to be said. Again.
It's not the selling off the towers, it's the selling off the towers AND running WiMAX as an MVNO that's interesting. You don't see Verizon and AT&T selling off infrastructure and letting someone else handle their LTE buildouts. I should've made this more clear; I wasn't counting on the link making that clause seem more important than the other.
@ snowenloe yea your right do deserve a real network... Thats WHY we are on sprint lol.. You ever heard of jd power like the most respected company that rates fortune 500 they said sprint is the best company overall in so cal where i live and number two in network, and one in cust serv and price everywhere else.. lol do you guys purposely not read the positive sprint stories.. yes sprint is doing terrible they gambled on nextel and lost with the avg price of us mins going down and 3g with its multimedia features expensive to add consumer ptt is not a viable business plan.. qchat took too long to rescue it and combining two cs depts was too expensive.. all the customer loses is nextel becoming strictly business and pre paid..
I respect that you like your service provider and I wouldn't be bashing Sprint unless I had years of experience with them once being mine. Sprint worked well in big cities and on major highways but I could never get reception where I really needed them. For years I was a ski/snowboarder instructor and I took advantage of the freedom the lifestyle provided me and moved from ski resort to ski resort whenever I felt the urge. They worked great in Vail but didn't at all in Mammoth Lakes, where I finally took my business to Verizon. When I met my wife, she too was with Sprint and their customer service was atrocious. They didn't provide her service at Stevens Pass, which is right smack in the middle of WA HWY 22, so I added a line of service, cancelled with Sprint and we have never looked back. I've driven from Alaska to Texas and back, criss-crossed this beautiful country of ours and have never had service availibility problems with Verizon, except in the most isolated of spots in New Mexico and parts of Wyoming.
All I am saying is that for my needs Sprint couldn't cut it. That coupled with the fact that they are not joining the rest of the civilized world with their 4G plans makes them a no-go now and in the forseeable future.
Yes. The towers. Sell a couple out of your thousands or hundreds (doesn't matter here)and mobile news site tries to crucify you. Is the writer of this story incompetent(with the facts) or just biased against Sprint.
@celz I'm 100% with you on sprint being the real network. I've been with sprint for a good 7, maybe 8 years now and I've never had a problem with service in Upstate NY. I even had service for the most part in the depths of the catskills (I credit my handy Sanyo 8300 for that, though).
Customer Service did at one point suck mostly as a result of the Nextel purchase, but I have seen a significant change in the past couple of years. It's nice being able to call them up, ask to have your account flagged for a PRL update, and the tech knows what you mean, and does it. At 12:30am ET.
I hope sprint lives on for a long, long time personally. I'd hate to have to move to a no-service company (T-Mobile or AT&T in the North East), or a phone crippling provider (Verizon--I'm an HTC fan now)
Ah just ask for a Gov't Bailout. Nobody wanted it starting with the banks, and now it's in the auto industry and word is it's been apporved. So, maybe Sprint does have something up it's sleeve, A BAILOUT!!!
To all the people bashing Sprint and wishing it would "go away", you need to stop drinking the Sprint Haterade. I find it really funny how people like to compare coverage to the other big 3; You need to stop, take a look back, and give them a little credit. Have you all forgotten that Sprint is the ONLY provider to have 2 separate networks that were built completely from the ground-up BY THEMSELVES? Yes, before Nextel was Sprint, they had the first all-digital nationwide network, and Sprint built the first coast-to-coast 1900mhz CDMA network, and they did it beautifully without having to monopolize rural areas by buying out other carriers (Hey, Verizon fans - Primeco, GTE, worldcom, airtouch, and now ALLTEL ring a bell??) Yes it's an easy way to gain some coverage/customers that they love to add to their numbers, but I bet a ton of them wouldn't prefer to be with vzw, and they simply have no other choice. It leaves a lot of angry customers forced to switch to a company they would probably not prefer to have. I'm not saying these people should switch to Sprint (obviously they would have if they had the choice), but I'm saying you can't look at a networks subscriber base and assume they are all there willingly.
I've personally seen a huge jump in satisfaction with Sprints customer service in the past 3 years I've had them. Give them a little credit for actually being different and doing things on their own. Yeah it will take some time for them to straighten it out, but in the meantime I have no problem taking advantage of their across-industry lowest fam. plan pricing, on top of the fastest/largest 3g network for the price. I'll stick to my un-crippled devices, too...
"I'll stick to my un-crippled devices, too..."
How's MMS working out for you on those Sprint BlackBerrys?
> You need to stop, take a look back, and give them a little credit
Ok, step one: recognize that most of us are criticizing a history of poor management and poor technology choices.
Step two: This is not about hating Sprint (I'm sure some people hate it, I don't. I used to be a Sprint PCS customer, I loved their customer service and almost felt guilty leaving them, but their technology sucked. Call drops inside buildings, especially at peak times, and "having to ask permission to switch phone" were both absurd. When GSM came to the Treasure Coast, I felt compelled to switch.)
Step three: This is not a "credit" game. You either make decisions that leave you with a viable business in the long term or you don't. Sprint doesn't have a viable business, so while one can celebrate the amount of work they've done, at the end of the day we're still left with the question of what to do with Sprint's assets.
> Sprint is the ONLY provider to have 2 separate networks that were built completely from the ground-up BY THEMSELVES
This is not true. If you consider Sprint a company without the companies it's bought, then it's built most of one network by itself (like, er, all mobile operators.) If you consider Sprint the merged whole of the several companies its bought, then every mobile phone company has built at least one, in many cases two or three networks by themselves. AT&T's AMPS/D-AMPS and GSM networks would be one example. One could go either way on whether their UMTS network is yet another network.
> Yes, before Nextel was Sprint, they had the first all-digital nationwide network, and Sprint built the first coast-to-coast 1900mhz CDMA network
And it sucked.
Which brings us back to the decisions they've made. The problem with the above is the "1900MHz CDMA network" part. It's why Sprint doesn't have much viability.
Sprint decided, back in the mid-nineties, to adopt a technology whose primary advantage over the competitors was that it was "cheap" - it required less towers to be built for the same capacity over, say, GSM, though both the standard, and the decision to keep the number of towers at a minimum, would lead to a much less reliable network. They were helped by the fact that Qualcomm was running a concerned campaign, in many cases using planted shills, promoting the CDMA as some kind of be-all and end-all of mobile telephony. "It's more reliable!" Qualtards would argue, "Because of our soft-handoff approach, you'll never get a dropped call again! And power usage is way lower!"
Neither "fact" was true, and Sprint's network was far and away the least reliable "national" network in the US. But it had coverage, and a concerted word-of-mouth marketing campaign worked to try to sow doubts in the minds of customers that the alternatives were, actually, more reliable. In the end, only Alltel and Verizon managed to get the damned technology to work, and they did so because of two advantages they had over Sprint. First, as B-operators, they had 800MHz spectrum, and so they were able to work on indoor coverage that didn't suffer from CDMA's "breathing" issues. And second, they started off with a lot of analog towers in a lot of places, and so when they rolled out CDMA each newly covered area started off with high density coverage. In both cases, there were few blackspots, and breathing wasn't an issue.
Sprint's way to succeed given this awful state of affairs was to stay honest and low on the pricing side, and to sell new capacity to MVNOs. This approach kept them in business, but the low and honest pricing undoubtedly kept their customers loyal, but after a while nobody in their right mind is going to stick with a network where they expect dropped calls and blackspots as a matter of course. And so the edges have been bleeding. Customers are leaving Sprint, and they're not going back.
In the meantime, Sprint purchased Nextel, which had its own problems. The only operator in the business that did what it did, Nextel was massively oversubscribed and didn't have the spectrum to grow. Rather than fix these issues, Sprint has spent enormous amounts of time trying to overcome its hostility to all things related to GSM. iDEN's GSM backend could have formed the basis of a migration away from the technologies that was killing Sprint, with both the CDMA and iDEN networks migrated, over time, to a GSM+UMTS platform, but instead the Nextel network was lead to rot. Stories were constantly circulated reporting that Nextel's customers would be forced to switch to modified CDMA2000 phones, and Sprint demonstrated a CDMA2000 PTT system that drew criticism from most Nextel customers. Capacity was not improved in any way, and services got worse for Nextel's customers.
Enormous numbers of subscribers are leaving Sprint. They're leaving it not because they "hate" Sprint, but because Sprint doesn't have a network that they find usable. All things being equal, Sprint's superior talk plans and ubiquitous 3G coverage should make it the #1 network. But it isn't, because the network itself is a disaster. They don't want to fix the situation for Nextel customers. They don't have the ability to fix the CDMA2000 network. They're too proud to admit that the latter might, possibly, just have been a bad idea from the start. They have no plans to migrate from iDEN or CDMA2000 to anything reliable.
It's not hatred to point that out, it's just observing the obvious.
squiggleslash, you make some good points.
However, you're mistaken about one- Sprint's customers are *NOT* leaving because of a crappy network.
The network is actually pretty damned good now, and they have excellent roaming agreements in places where there may be holes (upstate NY/catskills was notoriously only covered by Verizon, but sprint has service there too now because they roam on it, making them the only 2 who have reliable coverage there).
In fact, I don't know many people who've left because of dropped calls. That may have been true 5 years ago, but their network quality has vastly improved due to new towers and roaming agreements.
They ARE leaving, however, because of Customer Service. The CS has been notoriously awful for Sprint until recently- the new management has really turned that around but its only starting to show. Most of the damage has already been done, and those who had bad experiences calling for help fled to other providers who claimed better customer satisfaction.
In all honesty, Sprint is pretty darned good now network-wise. Sure, in a decade from now CDMA may have proven a bad choice of technology, but for now its still solid.
If only they could be more profitable, they could rival the top names.
I have to agree with Mobile Enthusiast on this one. Squiggle, your points are well-thought-out and competently argued, but they seem to be based on information and opinion that is woefully out of date. It may very well be that you had issues with Sprint's network in the past, and there are innumerable parts of the country where Sprint's network(s) could use a lot of improvement ... but to say that these shortcomings are the principle problem behind Sprint's subscriber performance these days just isn't true. And, if I may say so, you're beginning to sound like a bit of a GSM cheerleader.
IMO, Sprint's subscriber losses stem primarily from their terrible CS, bad reputation in the marketplace as a result of said poor CS, faulty management ("myopic," Squiggle, I agree), and the bevy of problems that came from purchasing Nextel -- a formerly-brilliant shining star in the mobile world that was threatened by a storm Sprint apparently didn't anticipate: their Boost- and rebanding-related network problems. Couple that with disastrous choices in the post-merger management, branding strategy, and --once again-- CS implementation, not to mention the aforementioned waffling attitude toward the exploding-into-flames iDEN network ... and you have Sprint Nextel in 2008, trading at a little over two bucks.
Nothing to do with 1900MHz, nothing to do with CDMA.
IMO, of course.
I understand you both sincerely believe Sprint has a good network right now - I have to assume based upon personal experience - and there are clearly some CS problems of late. However, you need to ask yourselves whether people really do flee from a network in droves, in the massive quantities that are leaving Sprint, on the basis of not being entirely satisfied after a call to customer service.
I've been with a variety of networks - AT&T Wireless (back before they went GSM), Sprint PCS (for about four years), Cingular (back when it was BellSouth), AT&T Wireless (post-GSM), Cingular/AT&T Mobility (after it bought AT&T Wireless), and T-Mobile. Sprint PCS I left despite excellent customer service. AT&TWS went through various patches of extreme awfulness and relative calm. Cingular I can't say I dealt with much. T-Mobile can't give me a straight answer to a straight question, I'm amazed T-Mobile regularly end up top of the JD Powers surveys and have to assume that they're measuring against a very low bar.
I know that there have been massive complaints at all of these providers over their customer service. What I don't recall is any of them suffering quite in the same way as Sprint.
So to me it seems improbable that any of this has to do with customer service. If you have a reliable cellphone, if the talk plans are good (and Sprint's are arguably the best of all the national carriers. You have to go to MetroPCS and Cricket for better deals), then it takes an enormous amount to persuade most people to quit. Most people don't call customer service. For these defections to be the result of poor customer service suggests to me that every single person who's calling CS is so furious at the end of it they immediately resolve to quit Sprint.
I don't think that works. And I suspect the poor experience most people I know with Sprint's network, who are mostly sticking with it because it's cheap, is probably a greater factor.
I don't doubt you're having good service from Sprint's network. The reality is these things can be very regional, and people will swear up and down that their network is better than anything they've tried believing it to be so when national figures show otherwise. The reverse is also true, of course. Verizon has an absolutely abysmal network here on the Treasure coast, but is considered extremely strong nationwide.
My strong belief is that my friend's, and my own, experience is more typical than yours. People are leaving it 'cos Verizon, AT&T Mobility, and T-Mobile are just plain awesome, Sprint's network remains, for most, a network of limited reliability and quality, and it's worth paying a little more to get a reliable phone.
Mobile, VCI, and Squiggle I have a lot to agree with you on, but I guess I'm a little confused at the same time...
@ Mobile - Thanks for bringing up the huge jump in roaming agreements, something I forgot to mention. Not only has voice roaming improved in the past 5 years beyond belief, they have the most data roaming I've seen personally among using all CDMA providers. Most CDMA roaming agreements just allow voice/sms ("D" Service) - Example: When I (Sprint) roam on USCC in rural midwest, I still jump on 1x data even though friends VZW and Alltel phones get D service only in the same spot roaming on the same USCC tower. Same happens when I roam on VZW and Alltel - but it's not always vice-versa.
@ VCI - You brought up a good point about the iDEN reputation, which leads to my question for squiggle:
@ Squiggle: You put a ton of blame in your first post on the CDMA side and why you believe it was a bad choice, I can only understand that side of the argument when it's simply your bad personal experience with it. You have to keep in mind that 92% of the churn last quarter was from the iDEN, not CDMA side - that brings your argument down a little bit. But I will definitely agree with you on the fact that it is entirely regional, and personal experience/usage will vary so you have a great point. My story completely opposes yours; I can name 3 places off the top of my head where my indoor Sprint coverage allows full usage, where my ATT (post-gsm) only had enough juice for sending SMS and voice calls were a no-go, if I was lucky. But again, all personal experience. Also -
> "This is not true. If you consider Sprint a company without the companies it's bought, then it's built most of one network by itself (like, er, all mobile operators.) If you consider Sprint the merged whole of the several companies its bought, then every mobile phone company has built at least one, in many cases two or three networks by themselves. AT&T's AMPS/D-AMPS and GSM networks would be one example. One could go either way on whether their UMTS network is yet another network."
Couple things about that:
1) My point was that Sprint never even have to do that, what companies did Sprint buy at all since their existence, let alone to help their CDMA build-out?
2) I tried to relay the point that Sprint was the FIRST carrier of any digital technologies to do so "nationwide". Not that other companies didn't have some type of network they had in place before Sprint or even during Sprints days. Sprint was shortly followed by Voicestream (now T-mobile) in early 2000 with the first nationwide GSM network. AT&T, Cingular (Cellular one & Dobson), etc. were still on TDMA & AMPS at this time, TDMA not carrying IP services, and AMPS not being digital; leaves Sprint with the first "truly-digital (including IP/OTA services), ground-up (without buyouts/mergers), coast-to-coast, single-operator network".
However; you're right - that's not a reason for anyone to stick with or flock to Sprint, but I simply am "giving them credit" for being the first to do so 10 years ago, and now AGAIN with the first up and running 4G network (I'll give you the fact that they did this WITH a merger (Clearwire), but it's more of a partnership than a takeover. I just like to play devils advocate and give Sprint some benefit of the doubt that they can pull through this hard time when a lot of people just like to bash them, we NEED to keep them in the game for competition - I would hate to see the cellular industry turn into another baby bell monopoly situation, and now (at least in my area), cable TV choices...No hard feelings, just my 2 cents.
Oh and as for the "un-crippled" MMS comment, yes that is a PITA - but it's not "crippled", they aren't trying to make more money out of you by disabling it and having you go through one of their proprietary services - it's simply just lack of support ;-) ... stupid decision on their end I totally agree.
you guys are all making good points, but your forget about the customer service and network both those things are alright (actually they have the best network where i live). What about the phones? Sprint has so few good phones. I'm on Sprint and currently looking to upgrade but they have so few choices! They have no exclusive big name phones like the iPhone, G1, and Storm. The only new good phone they have is the HTC Touch Pro, and they can't even keep it in stock!
Aaron,
When the iPhone, G1 and Storm were first released, they couldn't keep it in stock either!
The touch pro happens to be an excellent flagship phone, however VZ and ATT both have it now as well. Phone selection isn't Sprint's downfall, however lack of aggressive flagship advertising may be. They've been pushing the Instinct down people's throats, however it failed to deliver. Meanwhile, they don't aggressively market the Diamond and Tpro, which are arguably the most powerful mobile devices to be carried by a US network (feature-wise, not ease-of-use-wise).
Meanwhile, I'm sorry squiggle, but you're not going to find many people agreeing with your side on this one. The more you try to argue your case, the more it becomes apparent that your thoughts are biased by a bad personal experience from many years ago.
Sprint's customer service problems have become the things of legend, consistently ranked on the bottom of every poll of carrier CS. More so than *any other carrier*, period. I'm surprised that someone like you who seems to be so interested in mobile politics hasn't heard about this. It is very widely known to be the reason Sprint is suffering, and the reason Dan Hesse has made such a stink to repair it.
Their network, however, has excelled tremendously. And I'm not just talking from local personal experience- I actually travel up and down the east & west coasts rather frequently, and I've always found a strong Sprint signal. I'm not going to lie and say I have service 100% of the time, but I DO have service everywhere that I'd expect to (populated cities) and very often in places ATT & T-mobile do not.
"Most people don't call customer service." - This is just plain false. You've NEVER called CS during the duration of your contract? Ever? Never had a question on a bill or a charge you thought wasn't fair? Never had a question about a policy? Never called retentions? If so, I find it hard to beleive that you have a cellphone at all!
All it takes is for an innocent question, such as "will I be charged for using Sprint TV" to get an incorrect answer ("What do you mean I have a $30 charge for premium channels, I was told it was included in my data plan!") which can very easily become escalated to class-action lawsuit level problems.
There are stories of people who got bogus charges, like double-charging the purchase price of a handset, and finding no help from CS, after being on hold for hours at a time. I personally have called Sprint for clients years ago, and was astounded that tech support had a 1hour 58 min hold time until someone answered who barely spoke English. Guess what- they still couldn't solve my problem. This sort of frustration drives people to either
a. leave right away or
b. wait out their contract, and switch.
Note: this has changed. Last month I called tech support to issue a ticket for data provisioning, and they answered in 2 rings, with a perfect American accent. My clients on Sprint are much happier with the support than ever before. However, many are still leaving because of reason b. above- it doesn't matter how much better Sprint gets, they've wanted out for months, and g0d help if anyone gets in their way.
There is hope for Sprint. I really hope they don't fail.