Jump to content
joshuam

Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

I honestly do not know how well a potential tie-up with cable would go. Yes Sprint might get some funding from them, but I really, and I stress REALLY, do not know many people that would want to give their cable company MORE business than they already have to. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the country (I actually enjoy their service when I visit places with it, and they improve their network). I won't place much stock in a reselling deal unless there are other guarantees just because I do not think it would be a great business model. For the cable companies, there isn't much margin in bundling wireless service and any negative cellular service would also then look bad for the cable company. For Sprint, they would get an influx of cash most likely (which could go to CAPEX or debt), but they also would not have the margins on those subscribers as they would if they just sold their product directly to the customers.

The benefits I see go beyond funding...

 

Having access to cable co's substantial backhaul.

Accelerating of permits where cable co already has existing infrastructure.

Also being able to create bundle deals on both ends.

Gaining access to exclusive video content, be it channels or programming.

Customer acquisition could potentially be BIG (but like you said, probably minimal margins)

Also would help accelerate Sprint's current deployment plans with massive densification much earlier than with current funding allows.

 

Clearly money is not the only benefit.

 

With Tmobile I just see way too much network overlap and a big mess that would take years to sort out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine every cable box be a airave or a magicbox. Would be a great step.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits I see go beyond funding...

 

Having access to cable co's substantial backhaul.

Accelerating of permits where cable co already has existing infrastructure.

Also being able to create bundle deals on both ends.

Gaining access to exclusive video content, be it channels or programming.

Customer acquisition could potentially be BIG (but like you said, probably minimal margins)

Also would help accelerate Sprint's current deployment plans with massive densification much earlier than with current funding allows.

 

Clearly money is not the only benefit.

 

With Tmobile I just see way too much network overlap and a big mess that would take years to sort out.

 

I do not see why a cable company would be able to accelerate permits which are largely in the hands of governments. Cable co's constantly complain about this as well, especially in neighborhoods with buried lines. The backhaul would be huge for Sprint though and that would definitely help them out. And I do not see customer acquisition being big at all merely because people want to rid themselves of the cable company, not bundle more services. If they were to truly gain more bundled customers, they would literally almost have to give away the wireless service. I just do not see as much upside from an investor's standpoint in a deal such as this, which is why I think it has kind of stalled out and the two month period has expired. It would be a bad deal for the cable companies' investors. There is much more upside for Sprint though than the cable companies. You have to look at it from both sides, not just the side that makes it more appealing to Sprint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see why a cable company would be able to accelerate permits which are largely in the hands of governments. Cable co's constantly complain about this as well, especially in neighborhoods with buried lines. The backhaul would be huge for Sprint though and that would definitely help them out. And I do not see customer acquisition being big at all merely because people want to rid themselves of the cable company, not bundle more services. If they were to truly gain more bundled customers, they would literally almost have to give away the wireless service. I just do not see as much upside from an investor's standpoint in a deal such as this, which is why I think it has kind of stalled out and the two month period has expired. It would be a bad deal for the cable companies' investors. There is much more upside for Sprint though than the cable companies. You have to look at it from both sides, not just the side that makes it more appealing to Sprint. 

Wireless is definitely the future, if the cable co want to really move beyond wirelines, teaming up with a company like Sprint (with massive spectrum) would allow them to move beyond the confines of their artificial borders.

With relay tech on B41 throwing something up in a window to supply internet and IP based set top boxes without a wire in sight is totally possible. 

 

So they have a ton of options, doesnt take a lot to see the upsides for both parties.

 

Also, everyone I know has cable, whether they use it as much as before is hard to say, but if Sprint offered a package deal (Like ATT is doing with DirecTV) I would totally jump on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wireless is definitely the future, if the cable co want to really move beyond wirelines, teaming up with a company like Sprint (with massive spectrum) would allow them to move beyond the confines of their artificial borders.

With relay tech on B41 throwing something up in a window to supply internet and IP based set top boxes without a wire in sight is totally possible. 

 

So they have a ton of options, doesnt take a lot to see the upsides for both parties.

 

Also, everyone I know has cable, whether they use it as much as before is hard to say, but if Sprint offered a package deal (Like ATT is doing with DirecTV) I would totally jump on it.

 

You are making the assumption that it would be Sprint offering the package deal. I see nothing of the sort based on what the cable CEO's have said. The cable companies would be reselling the wireless service, not the other way around. I definitely do think Sprint's B41 would be awesome as a relay for cable, I really do. But again you have to focus on investors as they drive what a company does. Look at what they did to Verizon and FiOS! I am just saying to be cautious, especially with what I have heard from many people. I know a few people that do work with Comcast and I would say temper your expectations for a deal. 

 

As for bundling you are missing my point. Most people are not going to want their cable bill to go up the same amount as their current phone bill. People want to decrease their cable bills at all costs. Now if Comcast would say bundle with us and save, they would have to offer a discount on wireless service. This discount would have to be below what people current have to get them to switch. This means there would be even LESS margin for Sprint. Mean ARPU would still DROP to gain customers in a field that is already hyper competitive! Also, Comcast and Charter are not just going to infuse billions into Sprint for a buildout/densification. I just do not see a huge upside for cable in this deal unless they outright merge and take over Sprint, which is a possibility. I'm not trying to be negative in anyway, just tempering excitement etc. It would be great if cable would be able to rapidly help deployment, but I really do not see that happening. Maybe over the course of years +. Wireless is just too competitive right now to increase ARPU, which is what Sprint desperately needs to pay off debt and fund more CAPEX.

 

Further here is a link from Comcast's last earnings (they do not seem keen on a acquisition or funding Sprint's buildout): 

http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-s-roberts-i-don-t-see-anything-industry-we-don-t-already-have-today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further here is a link from Comcast's last earnings (they do not seem keen on a acquisition or funding Sprint's buildout): 

http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-s-roberts-i-don-t-see-anything-industry-we-don-t-already-have-today

I think this is more of a poker face move, Cable co has been trying to gain access to the over 300 million+ potential customers offered by the wireless industry for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see why a cable company would be able to accelerate permits which are largely in the hands of governments. Cable co's constantly complain about this as well, especially in neighborhoods with buried lines. The backhaul would be huge for Sprint though and that would definitely help them out. And I do not see customer acquisition being big at all merely because people want to rid themselves of the cable company, not bundle more services. If they were to truly gain more bundled customers, they would literally almost have to give away the wireless service. I just do not see as much upside from an investor's standpoint in a deal such as this, which is why I think it has kind of stalled out and the two month period has expired. It would be a bad deal for the cable companies' investors. There is much more upside for Sprint though than the cable companies. You have to look at it from both sides, not just the side that makes it more appealing to Sprint.

 

Cable companies would be able to provide backhaul to Sprint more readily.

 

Also, Sprint could do strand mounts for equipment on cable co's infrastructure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the eff is going on with mobile video throttling?!

 

EFF comments (and Sprint receives some mild commendation):

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/throttling-mobile-networks-sign-things-come-unless-we-save-net-neutrality-now

 

AJ

While lately I've been leaning away from favoring speed caps, preferring a return to per gb data rates, it doesn't help the network any differently if a bunch of consumers decide just to purchase the data if they find the rates reasonable enough. If carriers did away with these throttling measures and just had an openly advertised speedcap for everything, it would help to decrease the negative publicity of being against net neutrality.

 

Carriers could have three such plans, one at 3mbps, one at 6mbps, and another at 9mbps, all with included tethering and no deprioritization. If priced reasonably enough this would become a great option for consumers who don't mind the moderate reduction in speed, while still getting what they want on whichever device, without any usage penalty. A faster 30mbps maximum plan could be introduced with a 9mbps tethering speed limit to give people who want that faster speed on their devices with the other benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm,  interesting that Softbank would control the new company being formed if the proposed merger goes through between Charter and Sprint.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm,  interesting that Softbank would control the new company being formed if the proposed merger goes through between Charter and Sprint.

 

If SoftBank winds up running the combined entity, this actually makes a lot of sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With other carriers gearing up for LTE-U LAA and higher spectrum .. where does this leave sprint ( there advantage was having the 2.5 GHz spectrum ) that's soon won't be that huge of a advantage anymore . As sprint/ SoftBank are still trying to figure what they wanna do with sprint.. will sprint just fall further behind ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With other carriers gearing up for LTE-U LAA and higher spectrum .. where does this leave sprint ( there advantage was having the 2.5 GHz spectrum ) that's soon won't be that huge of a advantage anymore . As sprint/ SoftBank are still trying to figure what they wanna do with sprint.. will sprint just fall further behind ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You cannot compare unlicensed spectrum with licensed for a ton of reasons..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot compare unlicensed spectrum with licensed for a ton of reasons..

It's true but as we have seen many times before if the other 3 carriers get behind it they make it work.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true but as we have seen many times before if the other 3 carriers get behind it they make it work.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I think its really a matter of not having much choice, especially for Verizon and Tmobile...

 

ATT is in a much more comfortable spectrum position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be great for sprint ..

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did you read the article you quoted?

 

 

Charter Communications Inc. isn’t interested in a merger with Masayoshi Son’s Sprint Corp. following a published report that the Japanese billionaire was seeking such a deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it dead on arrival yet until John Malone chimes in (if he does at all). It shouldn't be all that surprising that a company, much less one with a significantly higher market cap isn't overly keen on an initial offer to be essentially taken over. If there is any legitimacy to any of the reporting tonight, what Malone's sentiments are especially given the reported discussions between Masa and him, are arguably  more important than random anonymous source citing Charter not being interested.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I guess we'll see what happens, but it's interesting to see the back and forth in the press.

 

"According to a person familiar with the matter" and "citing unnamed people familiar with the matter" have become the new catchphrases for sources. They appear twice in the first two paragraphs.

 

The PR folks have figured out a way to add a level of plausible deniability to these public statements. It's story/narrative shaping, but perhaps it serves a purpose.

 

There are only a few people authorized to speak to the press on stuff like this. It's not hard to figure out that it's the company's main spokesperson or someone in senior management or legal, even if it's outside counsel. For whatever reason, the companies don't want a name attached to these positions. I guess it's a PR tactic but it's so cliched at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint isn't really the best "merger of equals" partner. For a suitor who outright acquires them, it's still a long game to profitability. In a merger of equals setting, it's playing with fire. Less about who's got the cash to buy them and more about "who's got the cash to really put their assets to work?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint isn't really the best "merger of equals" partner. For a suitor who outright acquires them, it's still a long game to profitability. In a merger of equals setting, it's playing with fire. Less about who's got the cash to buy them and more about "who's got the cash to really put their assets to work?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might not be reading your post correctly...

 

But I think too many people think Sprint would be buying Charter. If it were to happen, SoftBank is buying Charter and using it's US presence to be the tool. And I'd suspect the surviving name would be Charter or a whole new name.

 

But also as many stated here pure speculation. Hell maybe SoftBank is leaking this to worry or poke DT

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might not be reading your post correctly...

 

But I think too many people think Sprint would be buying Charter. If it were to happen, SoftBank is buying Charter and using it's US presence to be the tool. And I'd suspect the surviving name would be Charter or a whole new name.

 

But also as many stated here pure speculation. Hell maybe SoftBank is leaking this to worry or poke DT

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

The leaks say the merger go shot down. I dont think that would have the desired effect on DT.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×