Jump to content
Nextel49

Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Arysyn said:

Regarding Shentel - not a company I know much about - but I really can't see why T-Mobile wouldn't buy them out. It makes sense just to unify the network and its customers in that region. Why Sprint didn't do that, I don't know. Then again, there is i-wireless, which I really think ought to just be T-Mobile.

I realize I come off sounding very much as if I hate local/regional wireless carriers, but I really don't. I just dislike them acting as non-nationwide MVNOs, nor do I particularly like that they essentially compete against nationwide carriers without really trying to be different.

You're not familiar with Shentel.  In its region, Shentel beats out the other three or four carriers hands-down.  In the recent state-by-state wireless company rankings, Sprint was tied for first place in exactly one state:  West Virginia. 

https://www.rootmetrics.com/en-US/rootscore/map/state/west-virginia/2017/2H

Shentel operates the network in almost all of West Virginia.  Getting rid of Shentel would be a very bad decision, in my opinion.

- Trip

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arysyn said:

Regarding Shentel - not a company I know much about - but I really can't see why T-Mobile wouldn't buy them out. It makes sense just to unify the network and its customers in that region. Why Sprint didn't do that, I don't know. Then again, there is i-wireless, which I really think ought to just be T-Mobile.

I realize I come off sounding very much as if I hate local/regional wireless carriers, but I really don't. I just dislike them acting as non-nationwide MVNOs, nor do I particularly like that they essentially compete against nationwide carriers without really trying to be different.

My idea is that national carriers should focus on macro sites, not small cells, though equipment such as the Magic Box is fine. Nor do I like the idea of national carriers getting into mmWave spectrum. I think the FCC should restrict national carriers from these, in exchange for allowing national mergers .

My preferred idea, if it were possible - which I know isn't likely, would be for AT&T to get T-Mobile and Dish, with some spectrum trades with Verizon, which would merge with cable companies. There would be those two national wireless carriers, while the FCC opens up an entirely new market for local carriers to thrive with cheap access to the mmwave spectrum for use with small cells that are better implemented on a local, WiSP-like structure.

These local carriers then would become the competition to the big nationwide carriers selling plans that would be for people who don't travel much, if at all past their local area, people who use wifi alot, and those who would like WiSP home internet services, rather than the wireline internet the national carriers sell.

Again, these local carriers would be competition to the big nationwide carriers - direct competition with complete restrictions on any sort of dealings between them. Instead, local carriers could offer roaming for their customers who may travel once in a while, by agreements with other local carriers throughout the country.

I-Wireless is T Mobile now. It hasn't officially closed yet, but T bought out their partner last October.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 5:13 PM, Trip said:

You're not familiar with Shentel.  In its region, Shentel beats out the other three or four carriers hands-down.  In the recent state-by-state wireless company rankings, Sprint was tied for first place in exactly one state:  West Virginia. 

https://www.rootmetrics.com/en-US/rootscore/map/state/west-virginia/2017/2H

Shentel operates the network in almost all of West Virginia.  Getting rid of Shentel would be a very bad decision, in my opinion.

- Trip

I wasn't trying to say anything negative about Shentel, and you're right I'm not all that familiar with it, but any connection with Sprint (or even T-Mobile now -possibly), it makes sense the national carrier would want full control over that area/region. I'm not saying its necessarily good nor bad for customers, just the matter in perspective of national carriers means of growth.

Again, as I realize I know I sound like I'm all for national wireless control without mentioning the local needs often enough, I do, just that it should be done differently, as I explained. There really isn't a need for a local/regional carrier to be covering the same business as a national one, when there are other ways of attracting local business by being in a more localized model - wisps, large local area wifi, etc. that could provide enough services for a good chunk of the population's needs where they don't necassarily need to choose a national carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

I wasn't trying to say anything negative about Shentel, and you're right I'm not all that familiar with it, but any connection with Sprint (or even T-Mobile now -possibly), it makes sense the national carrier would want full control over that area/region. I'm not saying its necessarily good nor bad for customers, just the matter in perspective of national carriers means of growth.

Again, as I realize I know I sound like I'm all for national wireless control without mentioning the local needs often enough, I do, just that it should be done differently, as I explained. There really isn't a need for a local/regional carrier to be covering the same business as a national one, when there are other ways of attracting local business by being in a more localized model - wisps, large local area wifi, etc. that could provide enough services for a good chunk of the population's needs where they don't necassarily need to choose a national carrier.

Old expression:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seems like it should apply here.

- Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trip said:

Old expression:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seems like it should apply here.

- Trip

That is an anti-innovation statement. Things can work and still be improved upon. The model T would work but i am glad someone decided to mess with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand how that works.  Shentel builds out better than any other carrier.  They are the leader in their region, they don't rest on their laurels despite that, and they continue building out and upgrading at a ridiculous pace.  I'm not entirely sure how it is anti-innovation to want the company that clearly knows what they're doing to continue being able to do so.

- Trip

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trip said:

I'm not sure I understand how that works.  Shentel builds out better than any other carrier.  They are the leader in their region, they don't rest on their laurels despite that, and they continue building out and upgrading at a ridiculous pace.  I'm not entirely sure how it is anti-innovation to want the company that clearly knows what they're doing to continue being able to do so.

- Trip

Just the statement "if it aint broke dont fix it". Not what it referred to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found an article. This one is kind of funny. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/05/03/verizon-ceo-sprint-t-mobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that we get to keep the penalty-free USCC LTE data roaming on the new T-Mobile. That's been one of the standout features over Verizon because Verizon only does 1x data roaming on USCC (Deep Creek Lake, West MD, etc.). I know T-Mobile has some LTE roaming on to USCC, but only in VoLTE areas far away from Deep Creek Lake and only specific phones.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MkVsTheWorld said:

I hope that we get to keep the penalty-free USCC LTE data roaming on the new T-Mobile. That's been one of the standout features over Verizon because Verizon only does 1x data roaming on USCC (Deep Creek Lake, West MD, etc.). I know T-Mobile has some LTE roaming on to USCC, but only in VoLTE areas far away from Deep Creek Lake and only specific phones.

T-Mobile offers it. Unfortunately they only do it where US Cellular offers VoLTE and it only works on T-Mobile branded phones. Also, since US Cellular only has VoLTE in Iowa, it falls behind iWireless in priority, so roaming is pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think soon any upcoming phones will contain all the essential bands / software to work on both networks (Sprint and T-Mobile).... I need a new phone and would rather wait until I can get a great devise that will be great for the convergence if it actually comes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Just the statement "if it aint broke dont fix it". Not what it referred to. 

I think the statement really ought to be "If it aint broke, but you don't keep up improving and innovating, it will wither and die. Then at that point you won't be able to fix it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Does anyone think soon any upcoming phones will contain all the essential bands / software to work on both networks (Sprint and T-Mobile).... I need a new phone and would rather wait until I can get a great devise that will be great for the convergence if it actually comes?

Samsung created one model for the entire U.S. with every band necessary for every carrier, so we know it can be done. But I don't think we'll see many devices besides flagships doing this until the merger actually goes through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What conditions would you like the FCC/FTC to impose on this merger? I would like for them to promise to natively cover rural America to match or exceed AT&T's coverage within 2 years from the close of the merger and match or exceed Verizon's coverage within 4 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

What conditions would you like the FCC/FTC to impose on this merger? I would like for them to promise to natively cover rural America to match or exceed AT&T's coverage within 2 years from the close of the merger and match or exceed Verizon's coverage within 4 years.

hmm that would be great because we need a stronger carrier that can match verizon if not out right preform better then them. but i see this merger getting looked at very carefully before they make a decision..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

Samsung created one model for the entire U.S. with every band necessary for every carrier, so we know it can be done. But I don't think we'll see many devices besides flagships doing this until the merger actually goes through.

Which model is that?   I wanted the S9+ (unlocked) but went on Samsung USA's site and it's missing certain bands (including 71) ... You have to get a T-Mob version to get that, but that one too is missing other bands...   I tried to look at the phone sites and Phonescoop...   Guess I just will wait and see.    Thanks for the info though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

What conditions would you like the FCC/FTC to impose on this merger? I would like for them to promise to natively cover rural America to match or exceed AT&T's coverage within 2 years from the close of the merger and match or exceed Verizon's coverage within 4 years.

I have a feeling Sprint and T-Mobile will have to give up some spectrum (if it's approved) or at the very least will be subject to extensive build out conditions (which I have no problem with)...DOJ or FCC might even say, you have to remain a value driven carrier and offer rurual areas plans for under $--.00 .       They will be in-between AT&T and Verizon for size... so they will be a new "Major Player".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dro1984 said:

Does anyone think soon any upcoming phones will contain all the essential bands / software to work on both networks (Sprint and T-Mobile).... I need a new phone and would rather wait until I can get a great devise that will be great for the convergence if it actually comes?

The next iPhone will likely have support for 600 MHz and HPUE.

As far as the the model breakdown:

Apple will either continue with the 2 separate models: GSM for AT&T/T-Mobile using an Intel Modem and CDMA/GSM for Sprint/Verizon/Unlocked using a Qualcomm Modem....

or

Apple will make a single model using only Intel Modems which are capable of both CDMA/GSM (or supplementing with Qualcomm to ensure supply if necessary).

If Apple leaves support for 600 MHz (or HPUE for that matter) off of the Sprint model handset, I’ll be pretty upset to say the least...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

I have a feeling Sprint and T-Mobile will have to give up some spectrum (if it's approved) or at the very least will be subject to extensive build out conditions (which I have no problem with)...DOJ or FCC might even say, you have to remain a value driven carrier and offer rurual areas plans for under $--.00 .       They will be in-between AT&T and Verizon for size... so they will be a new "Major Player".   

I wonder about the spectrum divestment issue too, as the total spectrum between the two carriers combined will massively exceed the spectrum of the other carriers.

I doubt in any way that the New T-Mobile will be willing to give up any band41, PCS, and AWS-1 spectrum. Actually, I think the company ought to look at the convergence to three national wireless carriers as a means to do more spectrum trading and working with other carriers in trying to mainstream spectrum portfolios across the country, giving each carrier to closest to an even level of spectrum throughout the nation. So that when a customer goes to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... they can expect their network will not be lesser quality in one area than the next because of spectrum-related issues.

Carriers ought to be focusing on wideband. I personally think the best way to do this is by having 20x20 on each set of spectrum, then having that be nationwide. The New T-Mobile would be in a position where they could divest their AWS-3 spectrum to AT&T, in exchange for filling in some areas of PCS and AWS-1 to give them 20x20. They could also divest their 700mhz spectrum to AT&T and Verizon to do that as well.

The main spectrum I think would be beneficial to the U.S. Government for the New T-Mobile to divest, is Sprint's 800mhz spectrum, which the U.S. Government to use for public safety, etc., just as the new T-Mobile trading 700mhz to AT&T could be put to use for FirstNet. Then if the New T-Mobile decided to try for Dish and got it to go through, they could divest the AWS-3 spectrum from there over to AT&T, and quite likely securing enough AWS-1 and PCS spectrum to have 20x20 each nationwide. Then the added 600mhz spectrum from Dish, along with trading overrun spectrum in markets over 20x20 for spectrum still left under 20x20 in a few places, ought to bring the number to 20x20 nationwide of 600mhz.

I think the ultimate "goal" of spectrum for the new T-Mobile ought to be :

20x20 600mhz spectrum

20x20 PCS spectrum

20x20 AWS-1 spectrum

20x20 AWS-4 spectrum

120mhz - band41 spectrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

 

 

The main spectrum I think would be beneficial to the U.S. Government for the New T-Mobile to divest, is Sprint's 800mhz spectrum, which the U.S. Government to use for public safety, etc., just as the new T-Mobile trading 700mhz to AT&T could be put to use for FirstNet.

 

Isn't the very 800mhz you speak of, the same spectrum band that has taken Sprint about 12 years to fix via rebanding/radio switches?  (Hello IBEZ)   OMG!   All that waiting by us IBEZ areas and the money spent by Sprint only to give it all back...  uuuummmmm... wow, that would make me crazy angry with Sprint and all the money spent. The only benefit from all that was didn't the FCC give Sprint some other 1900 spectrum in exchange for some of the 800 and 900mhz Sprint gave up.    I too, like many of you hope Sprint and T-Mobile will not have to divest in any of their spectrum, but what a stew it might be....   600, 700, 800, 1700, 1900, 2000/2100, 2400 mhz...    Hahaha!  Very nice! 

Edited by dro1984
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dro1984 said:

Which model is that?   I wanted the S9+ (unlocked) but went on Samsung USA's site and it's missing certain bands (including 71) ... You have to get a T-Mob version to get that, but that one too is missing other bands...   I tried to look at the phone sites and Phonescoop...   Guess I just will wait and see.    Thanks for the info though.  

The U.S. unlocked model is the G965U and it has 26 LTE bands including Band 71.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

The U.S. unlocked model is the G965U and it has 41 LTE bands including Band 71.

Really?  Fantastic... Now I know what my next phone will be!  Do I have to buy directly from Samsung or can I buy unlocked somewhere else?     Thanks Paynefanbro!  

Edited by dro1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dro1984 said:

Really?  Fantastic... Now I know what my next phone will be!  Do I have to buy directly from Samsung or can I buy unlocked somewhere else?     Thanks Paynefanbro!  

I made a mistake. I meant to write 26 LTE bands but no problem! I bought my unlocked GS9+ from Samsung directly but I think you can buy it from Best Buy too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MkVsTheWorld said:

I hope that we get to keep the penalty-free USCC LTE data roaming on the new T-Mobile. That's been one of the standout features over Verizon because Verizon only does 1x data roaming on USCC (Deep Creek Lake, West MD, etc.). I know T-Mobile has some LTE roaming on to USCC, but only in VoLTE areas far away from Deep Creek Lake and only specific phones.

 

 

 

 

Hey! Another West MD user. I feel they will keep this as USC roams on Sprint outside of native areas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Isn't the very 800mhz you speak of, the same spectrum band that has taken Sprint about 12 years to fix via rebanding/radio switches?  (Hello IBEZ)   OMG!   All that waiting by us IBEZ areas and the money spent by Sprint only to give it all back...  uuuummmmm... wow, that would make me crazy angry with Sprint and all the money spent. The only benefit from all that was didn't the FCC give Sprint some other 1900 spectrum in exchange for some of the 800 and 900mhz Sprint gave up.    I too, like many of you hope Sprint and T-Mobile will not have to divest in any of their spectrum, but what a stew it might be....   600, 700, 800, 1700, 1900, 2000/2100, 2400 mhz...    Hahaha!  Very nice! 

At one point alot of people here on S4GRU got upset that I suggested Sprint sell their PCS spectrum, but some who responded to me (though certainly not all, just some) seemed not to have listened to my reasoning for that, a few even using the excuse of "its what Sprint is known for, being SprintPCS". Well, its also what Sprint is given its bad reputation for not having enough of that spectrum to build a quality network with. Essentially its the "bad side" of Sprint, representing Sprint's past, whereas band41 is the "good side" of Sprint, representing Sprint's future.

Like T-Mobile, Sprint really needs more low-band spectrum. My suggestion at the time I mentioned selling PCS, which was back when Sprint mostly had 5x5 of it in use for PCS. Of course since then, Marcelo & team got working on it to grow the PCS spectrum portfolio to 10x10, and even in some areas to 15x15., and with that I'm no longer supportive of the idea for Sprint to sell its PCS spectrum. However prior to that, my idea was for Sprint to sell it to T-Mobile and possibly Dish, in exchange both for cash and an agreement to let Sprint have access to 20x20 of the 600mhz spectrum at the auction.

My belief is that Sprint could do very well on its own without any mid-band spectrum, just the 120mhz of high-band spectrum (band41), and if they were to have received the 20x20 of the 600mhz spectrum at the auction, that would have given Sprint the interesting position (among wireless carriers) of having the most streamlined of spectrum portfolios, while being plenty enough spectrum to operate exceedingly well for Sprint, had they also followed through with the necessary deployment and densification strategies needed in order to supply coverage to these areas using band41 first and foremost, then the 600mhz spectrum as secondary spectrum in order to provide necessary reach deep indoors, which serves an area better than by simply adding a bunch of magic boxes around.

However, now that things are the way they are, and say that the New T-Mobile were not to get Dish, but rather to simply buy the 600mhz spectrum Dish has, while leaving Dish possibly to go to Verizon - though I think Verizon will go to the cable companies, while perhaps Dish will go with AT&T. The New T-Mobile would do just fine without getting Dish, so long as they could get their 600mhz spectrum in order to have a nationwide 20x20 network of it, while divesting and trading their 700mhz, 800mhz, and AWS-3 spectrum for bits and pieces of PCS and AWS-1 spectrum to get (without Dish) :

20x20 of 600mhz spectrum

20x20 of PCS spectrum

20x20 of AWS-1 spectrum

120mhz of band41 spectrum

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

×