All Sprint acquisition discussion (was "Japan's Softbank in talks for $12.8 bln Sprint stake")

[dedub]

Also @ http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-fcc-approves-softbanks-216b-offer-sprint/2013-07-03

[linhpham2]

The Hill says that 2 out of 3 are in favor of the deal. But that they're still negotiating with last one. Negotiating for what? Spectrum divestments?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/309109-majority-of-fcc-backs-softbank-purchase-of-sprint

[newyork4me]

The Hill says that 2 out of 3 are in favor of the deal. But that they're still negotiating with last one. Negotiating for what? Spectrum divestments?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/309109-majority-of-fcc-backs-softbank-purchase-of-sprint

 

It's been fully approved by 3 out of 3.

 

The last member had concerns about the language used regarding spectrum ownership.

[gr8nuguy]

It's been fully approved by 3 out of 3.

 

The last member had concerns about the language used regarding spectrum ownership.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/309237--softbank-wins-fcc-approval-to-buy-sprint

[utiz4321]

So, should they wait until NV is completed or start rebranding right away?

[WiWavelength]

So, should they wait until NV is completed or start rebranding right away?

Rebranding from Sprint Nextel to just Sprint?

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

Rebranding from Sprint Nextel to just Sprint?

 

AJ

New sprint..... One with out the negative reputation and a broken data network.

[WiWavelength]

New sprint..... One with out the negative reputation and a broken data network.

 

That is not really rebranding, just marketing.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

That is not really rebranding, just marketing.

 

AJ

Not to quibble (ok maybe a little) but rebranding is just marketing in any case lol

[WiWavelength]

Not to quibble (ok maybe a little) but rebranding is just marketing in any case lol

 

Yes, rebranding is an extreme form of marketing.  But that does not make all marketing rebranding.  Bell Atlantic becoming Verizon, SBC becoming AT&T -- that is rebranding.

 

But Sprint has no plans to rebrand itself Starburst II or SoftBank, for example.  And thank goodness, as those names have no relevance to American consumers.  Even in Japan, SoftBank is a silly name for a mobile operator.

 

So, Sprint will likely change its marketing message to emphasize a new network that fully replaces its old network.

 

AJ

[IamMrFamous07]

Wait so the FCC approved the merger with SoftBank/clear/sprint?? I thought clearwire shareholders still needed to officially approve the deal?

[DaQue]

Wait so the FCC approved the merger with SoftBank/clear/sprint?? I thought clearwire shareholders still needed to officially approve the deal?

They do, but the FCC new of the offer and others were complaining so they did it all at once. Dish tried to bring up Sprint buying Clear to block Softbank.

[Rukin1]

It's gonna happen. Just can NOT WAIT:D

[GUESS2528]

So now thats its offical what do you guys think will come from this? http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9621A220130703?irpc=932

[dedub]

awesome, heres another http://gigaom.com/2013/07/05/fcc-approves-sprint-softbank-and-clearwires-three-way-tie-up/

[Romeo]

The FCC has approved the merger. :jester:http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/federal-communications-commission-approves-softbanks-investment-in-sprint-and-sprints-acquisition-of-clearwire.htm

 

 
 

[bucdenny]

FCC 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0705/FCC-13-92A1.pdf

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0705/FCC-13-92A2.pdf

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0705/FCC-13-92A3.pdf

[GiantJay]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496636/softbank-buyout-of-sprint-sprint-buyout-of-clearwire-both-approved-by

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[supert0nes]

We can comment on AT&T's policy blog!  Looks like AT&T wanted to make some fireworks of their own this weekend.

 

http://attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/inconvenient-facts-and-the-fccs-flawed-spectrum-screen/

 

 

 

Posted by: Joan Marsh on July 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Today, the FCC approved SoftBank’s acquisition of Sprint and Sprint’s acquisition of the remainder of Clearwire.  After it takes over Sprint/Clearwire, SoftBank has asserted that it will provide Sprint with an infusion of capital and expertise that will be used to deploy Clearwire’s 2.5 GHz spectrum – the key asset in play in this transaction – more effectively.  Softbank and Sprint have also alleged that the 2.5 GHz spectrum (the same band Softbank uses for its LTE network in Japan) will be made even more valuable through its combination with Sprint’s 1.9 GHz and 800 MHz spectrum holdings.

In fact, Clearwire’s 2.5 GHz spectrum portfolio is so valuable that in recent weeks it set off a bidding war.  In late May, Dish Network raised its bid for Clearwire to $4.40/share, representing a 29 percent premium over Sprint’s revised offer of $3.40, causing Sprint to revise its bid once again to $5/share.  This makes clear how valuable – and pivotal to the deal – the 2.5 GHz spectrum portfolio really was.

This value was also readily recognized by analysts commenting on the deal.  Baird Equity Research noted that gaining full access to Clearwire’s almost 140 MHz of nationwide spectrum provides significant bandwidth opportunities and solves Sprint’s spectrum shortage.  And Clearwire itself has long publicly touted the value of its approximately 140 MHz of spectrum on average across its national footprint and up to 160 MHz of spectrum on average in the 100 largest markets.

Yet, in reviewing the transaction, the FCC ignored all this and concluded that no adjustment to the spectrum screen was needed, even though the FCC today counts only 55.5 MHz of the 2.5 GHz spectrum in the screen, a tool that is designed to consider all spectrum available for wireless use.  The FCC reached this conclusion despite the fact that it is directly contrary to the FCC’s own assertions, in both its Wireless Competition Reports and in a February 2013 FCC White Paper, that all 194 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum is available for mobile wireless use.  Indeed, the FCC has acknowledged in those reports that Clearwire is currently using this spectrum to provide mobile broadband services.

This refusal to acknowledge and account for all available BRS/EBS spectrum is neither rational nor defensible.  Not only is it inconsistent with the FCC’s own findings elsewhere, but it is directly contrary to the manner in which the FCC treated the neighboring WCS band at 2.3 GHz.  When AT&T acquired those licenses, the FCC found that the spectrum was usable for mobile wireless services and promptly adjusted the screen.  Yet here, when Softbank acquires far more substantial spectrum rights in the 2.5 GHz band, the FCC ignores the ground truth and refuses to make the appropriate screen adjustment with little justification.

To be clear, AT&T took no position on the underlying transaction.  Our argument is solely with the FCC’s determination to avoid the inconvenient facts about its current spectrum screen.  The screen framework has been and can continue to be an effective tool for assessing competitive impact, but until that framework is updated by the FCC to reflect ALL spectrum that is available and usable – and in this case currently being used – for mobile wireless services, the framework is a significantly flawed tool that seeks to advantage some competitors to the disadvantage of others.

[WiWavelength]

We can comment on AT&T's policy blog!  Looks like AT&T wanted to make some fireworks of their own this weekend.

 

http://attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/inconvenient-facts-and-the-fccs-flawed-spectrum-screen/

 

Oh, good old Joan is probably going to get a comment from me.

 

 

AJ

[supert0nes]

I like the name of this article because AT&T seems to be ignoring more facts than the FCC in this case.

 

I would say that

BRS owned != EBS leased

AT&T likely would not be limited from buying AWS(Including Dish)/PCS or some 600(5x5).

Sub GHz spectrum vs High spectrum can't be ignored the way AT&T wants.

If they like EBS licenses, they can probably still buy them from Sprint.

 

AT&T isn't worried about >GHz spectrum constraints after so nicely giving so much AWS to T-Mobile.  Not every company has the same problems.  The smaller 2 have the opposite problem, so the FCC should have an understanding of the entire wireless industry, not just the pitfalls AT&T is running into.

 

Maybe AT&T is just complaining about the awesome plan T-Mobile has come up with for the 600 auction, without directly addressing it.

[Rawvega]

Oh, good old Joan is probably going to get a comment from me.

 

 

AJ

 

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY

AT&T pre-moderates comments on our blog before they are published. This means there will be a delay between the time a comment is submitted and it appears on the post. Profanity, or topics that are not germane to the post will not be approved for posting.

 

 

I have my doubts that your comments will ever see the light of day on at&t's blog page.

[supert0nes]

Well maintain a good tone and only present the most important facts, don't get caught up in the smaller feuds and see what happens.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Well maintain a good tone and only present the most important facts, don't get caught up in the smaller feuds and see what happens.

 

Here you go, my comment awaiting moderation...

 

Joan, is it an “inconvenient fact” to disclose that the reason the FCC considers only 55.5 MHz of BRS 2600 MHz spectrum against the screen is that exactly 55.5 MHz is contiguous? The other 18 MHz of BRS is fragmented and/or adjacent to high power video operations — the latter, something that AT&T itself has vexed over with its opposition to Lower 700 MHz band 12/17 interoperability.

 

Is it also an “inconvenient fact” to broach the subject that EBS 2600 MHz spectrum is entirely leased, not licensed to CMRS operators? Hence, EBS is exposed to the vagaries of the actual licensees — the educational institutions — not to mention, subject to educational use obligations.

 

Finally, is it an “inconvenient fact” to reveal that AT&T holds 30 MHz of WCS 2300 MHz spectrum in many markets, but only 20 MHz of that counts toward the spectrum screen? That remaining 10 MHz of WCS does not count toward the screen because it is now there largely for the protection of SDARS operations.

 

So, maybe, the FCC is justified in counting only 55.5 MHz of BRS 2600 MHz spectrum toward the screen — though, that may be an “inconvenient fact” for AT&T.

 

http://attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/inconvenient-facts-and-the-fccs-flawed-spectrum-screen/

 

AJ

[JeffDTD]

ATT is always patiently waiting for the next opportunity to be bitter over something the FCC does.  As stated already, their spectrum screen hard-on has more to do with fear of their competitors than anything else. Fear that their money alone won't ensure the duopoly can lock Sprint and Tmo out of future low spectrum auctions.   My biggest rub is...  does ATT honestly believe their own argument? And do they think the public is lapping it up as fact?   ATT lies just as much today as it did when it told us it had to have Tmo to deploy LTE.   At least Verizon keeps its mouth shut and conspires when it doesn't like something that happens in the industry.. meanwhile ATT rubs its nips and whines.  I just can't stand them.