Jump to content
IamMrFamous07

Sprint cable company deal?

Recommended Posts

The article mentions that it wouldn't be a buyout but an investment into Sprint's network in exchange for the opportunity to run an MVNO for cheaper than what VZW charges Comcast currently. That seems pretty fair.

 

THE ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A BUYOUT IS AN UNLIKELY SCENARIO.

 

*Edited and put in caps so that we don't start discussing the wrong thing like the people over on reddit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Comcast and Charter bites...

 

I suspect SoftBank will fully divest. And will move on TMO

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Comcast and Charter bites...

 

I suspect SoftBank will fully divest. And will move on TMO

 

Sent from my XT16A

Are you saying that Son will split Sprint into two and give one to Comcast and the other to Charter to then go after T-Mobile. I thought his goal was to have both Sprint and T-Mobile as one big company. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Comcast and Charter bites...

 

I suspect SoftBank will fully divest. And will move on TMO

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

I don't think so. I think ATT is having success with the purchase of DTV and cable is looking to achieve some of the same kinds of benefits while sprint is looking for money to build out it's network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that Son will split Sprint into two and give one to Comcast and the other to Charter to then go after T-Mobile. I thought his goal was to have both Sprint and T-Mobile as one big company.

Negative...

 

SoftBank would sell off all of its shares to a newly formed company newSprint where charter and Comcast own it.

 

I'll say it's as messy AF no doubt

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative...

 

SoftBank would sell off all of its shares to a newly formed company newSprint where charter and Comcast own it.

 

I'll say it's as messy AF no doubt

 

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Ummm... no. That makes no sense and if SoftBank bought T-Mobile they would have exactly zero credibility in the market place. I can't even think of an example that even comes close to what you proposing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't believe these rumors regarding cable company interest in wireless right now. Cable companies would be wasting their money trying to acquire a wireless carrier at this particular moment in time when there already are more important business venture m&a opportunities to be sought after. Particularly relating to their own business, cable internet, phone, and television. The latter two parts of their business is weakening, and in order to remain relevant, or even open for business, cable companies have got to merge and become nationwide entities.

 

If cable companies do not do this, they'll be without the ability to sell complete bundles nationwide for use in the wireless business. Not becoming national will be terrible for customers having to choose whether to save money by going with the only cable provider in their area that also sells cable, or go mixing services with different providers, which likely will cost them more. Competition is only good when it is fair competition. Having multiple companies only offering a few services differing between them while one offers more and can manipulate the price by that, isn't good.

 

I believe its better to have fewer national companies carrying multiple services, the same amount as one another, and selling purely by price, while having stricter governmental regulations and oversight to verify there aren't any price gouging or any monopolistic tactics being done. I'd like to see it broken down to two national companies serving all of these over shared cable, but using their own wireless spectrum, sites, equipment, etc., and having the same type of services available to them, but keeping them from gaining any high-band spectrum above band 41.

 

Instead, let the high-band spectrum go to local specialist carriers that can build a fast, Wifi-sharing network with other small local specialist carriers across the nation, using a new WiMax-like service for people to roam on these other networks as they travel. Let these local specialist carriers have the most small cell access for local build-up to provide a cheaper option for those who don't travel as much, but still want that back-up option I explained for those who do travel. Might cost more than the nationwide carrier option, but as I've said, this primarily would be local and serve local-area WISP for IP TV, IP phone, and internet as local-version competition to national carriers, without having to use the low-band and mid-band spectrum so important to nationwide, Macro-site services.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I posted in that thread with a post I went into a different direction about than I initially intended to do. I ended up giving my perspective of having two nationwide cable companies sharing the same cable for national competition, while each company has its own wireless network and spectrum up to band 41, along with their other services, such as one with Dish, the other with Directv, etc.

 

To aid competition, the high-band spectrum could be given to a few independent local companies offering their own WISP IP tv, phone, and internet, while utilizing roaming agreements with other local WISP companies for national connections in a new WiMax-like network using WiFi. The big nationwide carriers using Macro sites with low-band, mid-band, and 2000mhz-range high-band on LTE, while the small local companies using high-band on Small Cells.

 

Although in regard to what I was going to say about the news prior to talking about my thoughts on what I think would be interesting, I really doubt Comcast is going to buy Sprint. I think they'll hold off on that until there are more cable mergers to some degree. Charter may buy out an already combined Sprint/T-Mobile/Dish combination, though certainly much less likely without that combined package of services they can sell as a bundle.

 

Besides, as I mentioned on the other thread that led me in the direction I went into, cable companies really ought to merge before taking on wireless, or at least make pacts for nationwide cable sharing. Otherwise, many markets will be left without a fair choice in bundle options, with many customers going with the one company that can provide the best bunde, while the  other companies without cable, won't be able to offer that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the WSJ story on deal talks. You'll need a subscription to see the whole article.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sprint-enters-into-exclusive-talks-with-charter-comcast-on-wireless-deal-1498524087

 

 

Sprint Corp. -0.50% has entered into exclusive talks with Charter Communications Inc. CHTR 0.56% and Comcast Corp. CMCSA 0.23% as the cable companies explore a deal that could bolster their plans to offer wireless service, according to people familiar with the matter.

Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Son and the cable firms have entered into a two-month, exclusive agreement for discussions through late July, putting merger talks with T-Mobile US Inc. TMUS -0.39% on hold, the people said.

One arrangement that has been considered is for Charter and Comcast to invest in improving Sprint’s network in exchange for favorable terms to offer wireless service using the carrier’s network, the people said. Such a deal could involve the companies taking an equity stake in Sprint, some of the people said. The cable companies already have such a network-resale agreement with Verizon Communications Inc., but the Sprint deal could provide much better terms.

While thought to be the much less likely scenario, the talks also include the possibility for the cable companies to jointly acquire Sprint, some of the people said. Sprint has a market value of $32 billion and $32.6 billion of net debt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm... no. That makes no sense and if SoftBank bought T-Mobile they would have exactly zero credibility in the market place. I can't even think of an example that even comes close to what you proposing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is as wild as chasing goose in cyberspace. Your cap is on too tight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The possibility of cable cos investment/acquisition of Sprint has been suggested here in this forum for a while. I think it's a win/win situation for both parties. Sprint can get strand mounted WiFi/LTE small cell on cable cos cable plant, wifi calling on specially equipped routers, cheaper backhaul/fronthaul, tighter integration between fixed and wireless voice networks, access to content and some money to finish building the network. Cable cos get cheaper MVNO rates, extending of their cable plant wirelessly and get access to cord cutters to sell content, wireless backup to security systems, etc. Those are off the top of my head.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe sprint will spin off a new company for charter and Comcast to do wireless with. Then merge with tmo. Basically keeping competition by bringing in a potential powerhouse.

 

Divesting some of their spectrum to this new subsidiary of sprint/SoftBank that runs this "new" network/ company that involves charter/Comcast wireless.

Just a wild thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot to mention that LTE-U and LAA strand mounted hot spots/small cells in the 3.5 and 5GHz bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% good with this partnership. As has been mentioned earlier, it would be huuuuge for acquiring backhaul and could help speed up small cell/Macro deployment considerably. 

Also cannot ignore the huge potential for bundled wireless/home cable deals. New customer acquisitions is a big plus on both ends (more so on Sprint's side).

 

This synergy to me, makes a ton more sense than a Tmobile/Sprint deal. Which both parties can lend almost equal weight, whereas Tmobile/Sprint will require some serious consolidation in orders of magnitude

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Sprint part of a cable tie-up years ago? It broke up after sort fizzling out. Would this be a replay of that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Sprint part of a cable tie-up years ago? It broke up after sort fizzling out. Would this be a replay of that?

 

I was actually going to ask that same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Sprint part of a cable tie-up years ago? It broke up after sort fizzling out. Would this be a replay of that?

 

SpectrumCo

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% good with this partnership. As has been mentioned earlier, it would be huuuuge for acquiring backhaul and could help speed up small cell/Macro deployment considerably. 

 

Also cannot ignore the huge potential for bundled wireless/home cable deals. New customer acquisitions is a big plus on both ends (more so on Sprint's side).

 

This synergy to me, makes a ton more sense than a Tmobile/Sprint deal. Which both parties can lend almost equal weight, whereas Tmobile/Sprint will require some serious consolidation in orders of magnitude

 

A T-Mobile/Sprint partnership would make sense from a network deployment savings standpoint. Although with having to support so many bands, I am not sure of how much savings can be realized from a combined network. Maybe they can trade AWS for PCS or vice versa.  :P

Edited by bigsnake49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this comes to fruition what is Comcast going to do with the miserly 5x5 non-nationwide sliver of 600Mhz spectrum they bought at the auction? Can they buy the 10x10 near nationwide that Dish bought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this comes to fruition what is Comcast going to do with the miserly 5x5 non-nationwide sliver of 600Mhz spectrum they bought at the auction? Can they buy the 10x10 near nationwide that Dish bought?

800+600 CA wouldn't be bad.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

800+600 CA wouldn't be bad.

Comcast didn't win a nationwide license. Everyone allowed Tmobile to grab most of the spectrum.

 

http://maps.spectrumgateway.com/comcast-600-mhz.html

 

http://maps.spectrumgateway.com/t-mobile-600-mhz.html

 

This spectrum  will be great for indoors, VOLTE and coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comcast didn't win a nationwide license. Everyone allowed Tmobile to grab most of the spectrum.

 

http://maps.spectrumgateway.com/comcast-600-mhz.html

 

http://maps.spectrumgateway.com/t-mobile-600-mhz.html

 

This spectrum  will be great for indoors, VOLTE and coverage.

Im happy for TMobile, but I could still care less about 600mhz when 5G will be a thing by the time 600mhz is truly deployed.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im happy for TMobile, but I could still care less about 600mhz when 5G will be a thing by the time 600mhz is truly deployed.

You still need low band spectrum for coverage and  VOLTE.

  • Like 1

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

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Because you simply have to plug it in to a power outlet near a window. 
    • Except for a soft hand off to thw macro network. It can't do that, but other than that, there exactly the same. 
    • Because public WiFi has an ongoing maintance cost, plus the cost to set it up and properly isolate it from your network. The magic box is just easier. You aren't responsible for it. The magic box (via LTE) also has vastly superior QoS so that one person won't bog it down.

      My parents house is one place where a magic box works amazingly. Their only internet option is 3 mbps DSL. B26 only on phones, and that's upstairs only. The magic box latches on to b25 and provides 15-30 Mbps consistently. They actually use it now with a Sprint mobile broadband plan. For some people, the magic box is a better solution than an Airave or wifi calling (which won't work well on 3 mbps DSL if someone is using the internet). For businesses, it's a $0 cost, easy deployment to help customers. And they aren't responsible for what people do on it.

      Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

    • Because if you're not offering public WiFi, why would you go out of your way to set up a Magic Box??
    • I really don't see why it is that you think that if you don't have public wifi then you wouldn't use an MB. The MagicBox is a repeater for Sprint's network requiring essential zero exposure or expenditure for the retail provider beyond electricity. It is also zero maintenance or setup. It's a highly superior solution in my view.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×