T-Mobile/MetroPCS Merger

[lynyrd65]

If Sprint buys uscc in retaliation that would be cool with me.

 

They could also bring their plans to uscc and let me use that new lte coverage with unlimited data.

 

sent from my 3VO from another EVO

 

 

[Rawvega]

Walter Piecyk, an analyst whose opinion I generally respect (unlike Muppett) even if I don't agree with him, suggests that Sprint's best recourse now is to acquire/merge with t-mobile USA.

 

But there’s one other potential move, here. Take a run at T-Mobile and acquire it before it’s too late. And that’s what BTIG Research analyst Walter Piecyk is looking for. “At this point it might make more sense for Sprint to consider purchasing T-Mobile USA,” Piecyk theorizes. “A T-Mobile deal would give the company much more scale and would materially increase the scarcity value of Sprint to Charlie Ergen’s Dish, which is looking for a wireless partner.”

 

http://allthingsd.co...TD_yahoo_ticker

 

An interesting theory, though I don't know how feasible it is. Between Sprint, MertoPCS and t-mobile, that'd be a heck of a lot of redundant sites. Cell site density in urban areas would likely be second to none assuming that they decommission the right sites. Hell, if this is really where we're at, Sprint might as well acquire Leap now and then a year or however long down the line just smash the whole thing together with t-mobile.

 

I don't know that we're really at that point yet....

[bigsnake49]

The reason for Sprint to have acquired MetroPCS and or Cricket is not necessarily for their subscribers or their spectrum, it is to keep that spectrum from their competitors. If T-Mobile starts offering unlimited LTE on 20x20 allocations what is Sprint going to do to counter them? They will run out of spectrum really quick and be forced to rely on Clearwire, which is something they did not want to do. Sprint will be losing their unlimited data marketing edge. Hesse was right to push for absorbing Metro and Cricket.

 

T-Mobile played this masterfully. Give them credit where credit is due. This puts pressure on Sprint.

[digiblur]

I know some Florida folks who will be happy when MetroPCS CDMA is shut down. In the regular account PRL, MetroPCS is a higher priority than VZW, and Sprint users have huge issues with incoming calls/texts while roaming on MetroPCS there.

[bigsnake49]

Maybe

I know some Florida folks who will be happy when MetroPCS CDMA is shut down. In the regular account PRL, MetroPCS is a higher priority than VZW, and Sprint users have huge issues with incoming calls/texts while roaming on MetroPCS there.

 

Maybe Sprint will fix their coverage problems in Florida. It's embarrassing to have to roam on Metro but they actually have a better network in some places.

[S4GRU]

I know I am in a minority here when I say this, but having the ability to deploy four 5x5 carriers is just fine with me over a single 20x20. Even though there is a slight capacity gain with one 20x20 over four 5x5's, the big advantage is speed.

 

However, I'm not sold on faster and faster speeds. How fast do we need? Really? It's a penis size measuring contest.

 

A 5x5 LTE carrier that is not over burdened and properly spaced will offer 15-37Mbps download. That's screaming fast. Its faster than 90% of Americans have for a home ISP. The average American home internet speed is less than 6Mbps. Sprint just needs to keep deploying those 5x5 carriers timely to keep speeds up, IMO.

 

So maybe a 20x20 carrier can offer 90Mbps. Does it matter? Can you use it in a way that it improves your wireless functionality? Is it really a marketing advantage? So T-Mobile can say it has the fastest 4G LTE network as a tag line to its commercials. I say big whoop. Let them have their moniker.

 

What most people want is a network that meets/exceeds their needs. And Sprint will still be offering that. Most people at home do not choose the fastest internet service available. Because they know that even for home service they don't need something so blazing fast.

 

And for those of you who have this fascination with penis size, don't forget that Clearwire TD-LTE carriers coming online next year are 20MHz wide too. Expected to have 60-90Mbps DL speeds. So there will be many places on the network to be able to get extremely fast speeds. But I'm still not sure how useful super mega speeds are over mega speeds.

 

I think consumers are going to fatigue of faster and faster wireless once it becomes ubiquitous. Because all the carriers will have networks that meet or exceed their needs. Once networks are largely LTE deployed, they will stop caring about faster top end speed and start caring about density and coverage areas and expansion.

 

This is just completely my opinion. Verizon has been able to compete with EVDO 3G, even though their 3G is slower than Tmo and AT&T. Because that technology met their customers needs.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[bigsnake49]

I know I am in a minority here when I say this, but having the ability to deploy four 5x5 carriers is just fine with me over a single 20x20. Even though there is a slight capacity gain with one 20x20 over four 5x5's, the big advantage is speed.

 

However, I'm not sold on faster and faster speeds. How fast do we need? Really? It's a penis size measuring contest.

 

A 5x5 LTE carrier that is not over burdened and properly spaced will offer 15-37Mbps download. That's screaming fast. Its faster than 90% of Americans have for a home ISP. The average American home internet speed is less than 6Mbps. Sprint just needs to keep deploying those 5x5 carriers timely to keep speeds up, IMO.

 

So maybe a 20x20 carrier can offer 90Mbps. Does it matter? Can you use it in a way that it improves your wireless functionality? Is it really a marketing advantage? So T-Mobile can say it has the fastest 4G LTE network as a tag line to its commercials. I say big whoop. Let them have their moniker.

 

What most people want is a network that meets/exceeds their needs. And Sprint will still be offering that. Most people at home do not choose the fastest internet service available. Because they know that even for home service they don't need something so blazing fast.

 

And for those of you who have this fascination with penis size, don't forget that Clearwire TD-LTE carriers coming online next year are 20MHz wide too. Expected to have 60-90Mbps DL speeds. So there will be many places on the network to be able to get extremely fast speeds. But I'm still not sure how useful super mega speeds are over mega speeds.

 

I think consumers are going to fatigue of faster and faster wireless once it becomes ubiquitous. Because all the carriers will have networks that meet or exceed their needs. Once networks are largely LTE deployed, they will stop caring about faster top end speed and start caring about density and coverage areas and expansion.

 

This is just completely my opinion. Verizon has been able to compete with EVDO 3G, even though their 3G is slower than Tmo and AT&T. Because that technology met their customers needs.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Robert, although I agree with you on some of these points, the central issue is not peak speed for an empty channel, it is the ability to sustain acceptable speeds for a number of users once the channels start getting crowded. That's where having a lot of spectrum will be advantageous. Again, the point of a Sprint buying metro would be to enhance Sprint's spectrum position but also to keep the spectrum out of T-Mobile's hands.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bigsnake49

[S4GRU]

 

Robert' date=' although I agree with you on some of these points, the central issue is not peak speed for an empty channel, it is the ability to sustain acceptable speeds for a number of users once the channels start getting crowded. That's where having a lot of spectrum will be advantageous. Again, the point of a Sprint buying metro would be to enhance Sprint's spectrum position but also to keep the spectrum out of T-Mobile's hands.[/quote']

 

Yes, but the capacity advantage between four 5x5's and one 20x20 is not huge. The problem for Sprint is that they really don't have many places they can deploy four 5x5's. In those locations, they will heavily depend on Clearwire's LTE to carry tonnage. Which is not a bad position to be in at all. The big issue here isn't, "OMG, what about Sprint?" The big issue out there is, "OMG, what about AT&T?" Sprint's position is just fine in my estimation. Like Ian pointed out above.

 

Also, if memory serves, most of the people around here were happy when the MetroPCS/Sprint deal fell apart because the board rejected it. Especially our core members. The timing was bad for Sprint, but also PCS is nowhere near as good of a fit for Sprint as it is for Tmo.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Rawvega]

Good point, Robert. I've often wondered how fast is fast enough? I see folks with VZW and at&t LTE 40, 50, 60 and very (very) rarely 70 Mbps speed tests and I think that's nice and all, but what are you really going to do with that throughput on a cell phone...especially when you have data caps! High speeds just mean you reach the cap faster. Now that isn't an issue at the moment for Sprint and T-mobile for the moment, but I'd rather see Sprint focus on capacity and maintaining unlimited data (even if they have to intentionally throttle densely populated areas down to say...12-15 Mbps; what can't you do on a cell phone with 12-15 Mbps???) and t-mobile can shoot for America's fastest 4G bragging rights.

[bigsnake49]

Yes, but the capacity advantage between four 5x5's and one 20x20 is not huge. The problem for Sprint is that they really don't have many places they can deploy four 5x5's. In those locations, they will heavily depend on Clearwire's LTE to carry tonnage. Which is not a bad position to be in at all. The big issue here isn't, "OMG, what about Sprint?" The big issue out there is, "OMG, what about AT&T?" Sprint's position is just fine in my estimation. Like Ian pointed out above.

 

Also, if memory serves, most of the people around here were happy when the MetroPCS/Sprint deal fell apart because the board rejected it. Especially our core members. The timing was bad for Sprint, but also PCS is nowhere near as good of a fit for Sprint as it is for Tmo.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Yes the timing was bad for Sprint then and it would have been bad for Sprint now because of their depressed stock price. I just hope that the Sprint board starts thinking strategically, not just operationally.

[bigsnake49]

Yes, but the capacity advantage between four 5x5's and one 20x20 is not huge. The problem for Sprint is that they really don't have many places they can deploy four 5x5's. In those locations, they will heavily depend on Clearwire's LTE to carry tonnage. Which is not a bad position to be in at all. The big issue here isn't, "OMG, what about Sprint?" The big issue out there is, "OMG, what about AT&T?" Sprint's position is just fine in my estimation. Like Ian pointed out above.

 

Also, if memory serves, most of the people around here were happy when the MetroPCS/Sprint deal fell apart because the board rejected it. Especially our core members. The timing was bad for Sprint, but also PCS is nowhere near as good of a fit for Sprint as it is for Tmo.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Don't look now but AT&T might be making some moves. They are quietly buying 700MHz spectrum and I'm sure they will be a participant in the 700MHz Verizon A&B sale. They are buying out WCS spectrum holders and I would not be surprised if they absorb Leap.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bigsnake49

[WiWavelength]

Yes, but the capacity advantage between four 5x5's and one 20x20 is not huge.

 

As I understand LTE, the total capacity difference between four 5 MHz FDD carriers and one 20 MHz FDD carrier is essentially zero. Resource Blocks scale linearly: a 5 MHz FDD carrier = 25 RBs, a 20 MHz FDD carrier = 100 RBs. So, put the same number of subs, all using data at the same time, on four 5 MHz FDD carriers, then on one 20 MHz FDD carrier, and they will all end up with the same average data rates. The advantage that the 20 MHz FDD carrier has is much higher peak data rates when the carrier is not heavily loaded.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

This is a telling slide from TMo's presentation as to how long it'll take to get MetroPCS spectrum integrated and 20x20 LTE up:

 

Ian, I saw that slide in the investor presentation yesterday and intended to write a post about it, but I am glad that you beat me to the punch.

 

I like the eventual spectrum outlook for T-Mobile (or, more accurately, NewCo), which is talking a great game right now. But did Sprint and Nextel not do the same seven years ago? Sprint-Nextel made themselves out to be the greatest combination since peanut butter and tunafish (I kid, I kid).

 

NewCo may think that it has learned from the Sprint-Nextel merger how to avoid harmonization challenges. But the integration process will almost never go as smoothly as planned. So, we should not just give NewCo the benefit of the doubt and assume that the transition will follow the professed timeline. Even it does, the timeline is, as you say, quite "telling." In 2015, NewCo will still be running GSM, CDMA1X/EV-DO, and W-CDMA underneath LTE.

 

To that I say, good luck. NewCo, you have your work cut out for you.

 

AJ

[bollar]

Bloomberg reports that Sprint is preparing a counteroffer for MetroPCS.

[Rawvega]

Bloomberg reports that Sprint is preparing a counteroffer for MetroPCS.

 

Oh damn, I was afraid of that....The fun's about to start now. DT prepared for Sprint's counteroffer. Somebody is about to overpay.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/sprint-said-to-eye-metropcs-bid-to-rival-t-mobile-offer.html?cmpid=yhoo

[bigsnake49]

Bloomberg reports that Sprint is preparing a counteroffer for MetroPCS.

 

Ooohhh, this is getting interesting but I hope they don't overpay. Maybe they can get some go away money or spectrum from DT.

[WiWavelength]

Paul Saleh, who was Sprint's CFO in 2005, apparently agrees with me that a tie up between incompatible network technologies is easier said than done.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-sprint-man-says-merging-wireless-tech-not-easy-2012-10-04?link=MW_latest_news

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Saleh has absolutely no right to speak. He and the previous administration got totally hoodwinked by the Nextel hoods, totally ignoring Alltel, totally ignoring opportunities to shore up their PCS spectrum holdings, etc., etc.

[JeffDTD]

The negativity taken towards sprint as a result of this merger is unwarranted.

 

Ill start worrying when tmobile has sufficient 3g coverage outside of metro areas.

 

Its as though everyone expects tmobile to have a magical network transformation and sprint to fail on everything it has planned. Its just unwarranted sour grapes. And "tmo guy" hates sprint? Who cares? Sprints the only reason tmobile brought back unlimited service. Sprint is the only reason anymobile calling exists, especially at tmobile.

[bigsnake49]

BTW, the smartest acquisition play right now for Sprint is to merge with Dish. They have $6-7B in the bank, a stable business, although mature and they have some 40Mhz of spectrum. They could definitely use that $6-7B.

 

Markets like headlines. Sprint has not made any.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bigsnake49

[bollar]

The Bloomberg article: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/sprint-said-to-eye-metropcs-bid-to-rival-t-mobile-offer.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeffDTD]

BTW' date=' the smartest acquisition play right now for Sprint is to merge with Dish. They have 6-7B in the bank, a stable business, although mature and they have some 40Mhz of spectrum. They could definitely use that 6-7B.[/quote']

 

Yep sprint needs that cash.

 

 

Counter offering metropcs is just going to cause deutche to overpay for someone else and inflate the bargain that every one of the other regionals tries to drive with suitors.

[WiWavelength]

Bloomberg reports that Sprint is preparing a counteroffer for MetroPCS.

Oh damn, I was afraid of that....The fun's about to start now. DT prepared for Sprint's counteroffer. Somebody is about to overpay.

 

http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo

 

While I hope that Sprint does not get into a bidding war over MetroPCS, I do think that a few interesting spectrum outcomes could emerge.

 

T-Mobile really does seem to want MetroPCS' CDMA1X prepaid subs to bolster its own flagging numbers, so that will be a point at issue. But T-Mobile should not want or need MetroPCS' PCS 1900 MHz spectrum, only its AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum. And Sprint should be just the reverse; it should not want anything to do with MetroPCS' AWS spectrum but could gain from its PCS spectrum.

 

Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Miami are three very large markets in which Sprint holds not a full 30 MHz but 20 MHz of PCS A/D block spectrum. In those same three markets, MetroPCS holds PCS C block spectrum: 20 MHz in Atlanta, 20 MHz in the Bay Area, and 30 MHz in Miami. A bidding war could force T-Mobile to consent to divest at least 10 MHz of PCS spectrum to Sprint in those three markets. T-Mobile already holds 30 MHz of PCS spectrum in Atlanta, 30 MHz in the Bay Area, and 20 MHz in Miami. T-Mobile does not need much, if any additional PCS spectrum in those markets, maybe an added 10 MHz in Miami. But T-Mobile, as a whole, is aligning itself more and more with AWS, not PCS, while Sprint is firmly a PCS carrier.

 

So, it would make sense -- for both T-Mobile and Sprint -- to divest some of MetroPCS' PCS spectrum.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Go

While I hope that Sprint does not get into a bidding war over MetroPCS, I do think that a few interesting spectrum outcomes could emerge.

 

T-Mobile really does seem to want MetroPCS' CDMA1X prepaid subs to bolster its own flagging numbers, so that will be a point at issue. But T-Mobile should not want or need MetroPCS' PCS 1900 MHz spectrum, only its AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum. And Sprint should be just the reverse; it should not want anything to do with MetroPCS' AWS spectrum but could gain from its PCS spectrum.

 

Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Miami are three very large markets in which Sprint holds not a full 30 MHz but 20 MHz of PCS A/D block spectrum. In those same three markets, MetroPCS holds PCS C block spectrum: 20 MHz in Atlanta, 20 MHz in the Bay Area, and 30 MHz in Miami. A bidding war could force T-Mobile to consent to divest at least 10 MHz of PCS spectrum to Sprint in those three markets. T-Mobile already holds 30 MHz of PCS spectrum in Atlanta, 30 MHz in the Bay Area, and 20 MHz in Miami. T-Mobile does not need much, if any additional PCS spectrum in those markets, maybe an added 10 MHz in Miami. But T-Mobile, as a whole, is aligning itself more and more with AWS, not PCS, while Sprint is firmly a PCS carrier.

 

So, it would make sense -- for both T-Mobile and Sprint -- to divest some of MetroPCS' PCS spectrum.

 

AJ

 

Yep, exactly what I was thinking. Go away money or go away spectrum.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bigsnake49

[iansltx]

AJ, the difference I see here between TMo-PCS and Sprint-Nextel is that TMobile has a plan right out of the gate for integration: shut down MetroPCS's network within 2.5 years.

 

As for the Sprint counteroffer, hopefully Sprint gets some PCS spectrum out of this deal in markets where MetroPCS has it and Sprint has less than 30MHz in A-F. Heck, maybe T-Mobile will wise up and shut down MetroPCS's CDMA side earlier and push Metro CDMA subs to roaming on Sprint for the time being, just to make sure Sprint leaves the MetroPCS deal alone (though to be honest it would work out in favor of T-Mobile this way, since they can use MetroPCS's spectrum that much sooner).