Re: Sinking ship... You clearly missed the point I was insinuating. Everything Sprint touches turns to "Crap".
Re: Sinking ship...
said by iansltx:Except, with Sprint, it's "all or nothing." My wife and I are on T-Mobile's unlimited everything plan, with (what they call) 4G limited to the 1st 500MB. $80/mo. for the two of us, before discounts, taxes and surcharges.
T-Mobile is $10 cheaper than Sprint for a relatively comparable plan.
In my "test month" with TMO, on a pre-pay plan, I didn't use but half of the 500MB at "4G".
Never mind that Sprint's coverage, since they started upgrading the area to NV, has actually gotten much worse for me. That was really what prompted our move to T-Mobile. My phone was becoming increasingly useless as a phone. Add to that the great T-Mobile deal, unlocked handsets we bought off eBay, and no contract? It was an easy choice.
And the 500MB? That's 500MB each. And we can upgrade the lines independently of one another.
I wish Sprint well, but we're gone. VZW is way too expensive and I wouldn't use the thing that calls itself "at&t" if they were the last wireless carrier on the planet. Btw: I have only one RL friend on Sprint. He's leaving when his contract is up, too. Same reason as prompted our move: Lousy coverage.
Fifteen years I'd been with Sprint...
Re: Sprint is horrible to work for SteelerRaw, I am not sure if the CEOs contract extension is an endorsement of their current CEO by Softbanks leadership. To me, the article you link to reads as if the CEOs future pay will be about the same as it is now.
Softbank dropped US$20B+! Upsetting that apple cart is the last thing Softbank wants to do. Changing leaders is a MAJOR upset of any companies applecart, especially one as fragile as Sprint. Keeping the current CEO allows for post merger continuity within Sprints leadership ranks. In my career experience, when the leader is removed (be it manager, director, VP, or C level) that former leader's direct report go political to get more power, or leave to avoid being stripped of power.
An example to illustrate my view was the Sprint/Nextel merger. After dropping $US30B+, Sprint released or encouraged Nextel's leadership to leave. Although there were other factors that lead to the SprintNextels failure, the new companys leadership, made up of mostly former Sprint leaders, discovered they did not have what it took to run a proprietary national wireless network.
By keeping the current Sprint CEO, Softbank gives itself time to learn what they have within the current Sprint leadership ranks and to understand the new US market they have entered. Additionally, the post merger release the Sprint CEO will cost Softbank US$8-10M--chump change after dropping US$20B.
Just my US0.02; with inflation, it is worth even less.