Softbank - New Sprint - Discussion

[Boosted20V]

If Sprint/T-Mobile were required to divest large amounts of T-Mobile spectrum and the network back to Dish, customers could just "stay" on the current network, thus negating the whole point of the merger. I don't see how they create a real viable 4th contender without doing something similar to that as otherwise it would take quite a while for Dish to get services up and running even with tower leases and backhaul in place. I don't see the DOJ letting something get through that would be favorable enough to Softbank to warrant doing.

[mozamcrew]

Sounds like you have an inside person! I didnt know there was that much detail out, good info!

 

If this merger goes through, will according to what you posted will Sprint stop deploying on 25/2600? Also, when you say tmo network I assume all of their spectrum as well or just 700 or aws or just their space on the towers?

 

I hope the Softbank people know what they are doing, it was my understanding that son wanted sprint/clear because of the 25/2600. I believe that Son can make it work, I just dont want Sprint to lose more than they gain in the  long term. 

 

 

 

Dont forget Dish is sitting on some useful 700, if I am not mistaken.

 

It looks real complicated, as Sprint is already offering tri-band now we could see octa- band? 

Possibly 

600 auction

700 tmo/dish

800 sprint

1700 tmo

1800 tmo

1900 sprint

2100? tmo

25/2600 roaming on Dish?

 

Maybe Sprint should just lease/host dish on some of the 25/2600 and use Dishes 700 buy what it can at the auction.

FYI, 1700/2100 are a single band, and there is not 1800 band in the US, so it's not QUITE that bad. Also, Dish's 700 Mhz is downlink only.

[mozamcrew]

If Sprint/T-Mobile were required to divest large amounts of T-Mobile spectrum and the network back to Dish, customers could just "stay" on the current network, thus negating the whole point of the merger. I don't see how they create a real viable 4th contender without doing something similar to that as otherwise it would take quite a while for Dish to get services up and running even with tower leases and backhaul in place. I don't see the DOJ letting something get through that would be favorable enough to Softbank to warrant doing.

Here are the conditions I imagine from the FCC.

1. Buildout to over 300 Million, compared to 250 currently.

2. Divesting most of AWS and PCS spectrum gained by the merger within X number of years.

(Thus the existing TMUS network will have to be merged with Sprint's, and TMUS sites will either be converted to Sprint NV/Spark  sites or closed. Maybe some Sprint sites will be closed in favor of using NV converted TMUS sites instead)

3. Agree to host a broadband network for Dish. Dish has its own spectrum, but maybe allow them to use a TD-LTE EBS carrier for capacity/overflow. 

 

Sprint would basically only keep the customers, the 700Mhz spectrum, and a small amount of the PCS/AWS spectrum.

[dnicekid]

Here are the conditions I imagine from the FCC.

1. Buildout to over 300 Million, compared to 250 currently.

2. Divesting most of AWS and PCS spectrum gained by the merger within X number of years.

(Thus the existing TMUS network will have to be merged with Sprint's, and TMUS sites will either be converted to Sprint NV/Spark  sites or closed. Maybe some Sprint sites will be closed in favor of using NV converted TMUS sites instead)

3. Agree to host a broadband network for Dish. Dish has its own spectrum, but maybe allow them to use a TD-LTE EBS carrier for capacity/overflow. 

 

Sprint would basically only keep the customers, the 700Mhz spectrum, and a small amount of the PCS/AWS spectrum.

If thats true,  i just don't see why the merger is so important now, unless they get all of the 600, which would then make the 700 useless?

[Johnner1999]

What if SoftBank buys TMO and changes to SoftBank. While running sprint as is

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

What if SoftBank buys TMO and changes to SoftBank. While running sprint as is

I would go to the "SoftBank" and make a big brown "deposit."

 

AJ

[tommym65]

Masayoshi Son has a strategy, count on it. No one on this forum knows what that strategy is -- count on that too. He admires and has supported Dan Hesse: It is therefore likely that Hesse will be significantly involved in whatever happens. Beyond that, quite frankly, none of us has any meaningful knowledge. While I would like to see a result favorable to Sprint (and to me persoanally), Mr. Son has demonstrated a unique ability to take underperforming companies and turn them around. There is a strong possibility that he will do the same with Sprint, but may do things that some or all of us distinctly dislike. Beyond that, everything anyone speculates in this thread is basically fluff. I mean no disrespect to anyone's else's opinions, but I think pretty much all we can do us wait, and see.

[bigsnake49]

If Sprint/T-Mobile were required to divest large amounts of T-Mobile spectrum and the network back to Dish, customers could just "stay" on the current network, thus negating the whole point of the merger. I don't see how they create a real viable 4th contender without doing something similar to that as otherwise it would take quite a while for Dish to get services up and running even with tower leases and backhaul in place. I don't see the DOJ letting something get through that would be favorable enough to Softbank to warrant doing.

 

The DOJ must also justify its decision on antitrust grounds. It cannot be just on whether it might raise prices for consumers. On strictly legal grounds they cannot deny this merger. They are blustering. Now the FCC might have some objections as to the amount of spectrum and will ask for divestment.

[mozamcrew]

The DOJ must also justify its decision on antitrust grounds. It cannot be just on whether it might raise prices for consumers. On strictly legal grounds they cannot deny this merger. They are blustering. Now the FCC might have some objections as to the amount of spectrum and will ask for divestment.

 

If they want it bad enough they will get it. It's a question of whether it's worth doing given the costs that will be imposed.

[tongboy]

The DOJ must also justify its decision on antitrust grounds. It cannot be just on whether it might raise prices for consumers. On strictly legal grounds they cannot deny this merger. They are blustering. Now the FCC might have some objections as to the amount of spectrum and will ask for divestment.

I would be careful assuming that the DOJ has to justify this. The DOJ has shown they have no problem throwing their weight around since if they sue, the deal is likely dead. Not dead because Sprint/Softbank will lose, they would probably win. It would take years for the case to work it's way out and that is an eternity with this big of a buy.

[JohnHovah]

I would be careful assuming that the DOJ has to justify this. The DOJ has shown they have no problem throwing their weight around since if they sue, the deal is likely dead. Not dead because Sprint/Softbank will lose, they would probably win. It would take years for the case to work it's way out and that is an eternity with this big of a buy.

On the thought of all these DoJ suits..... Does anyone know where all the money and fines go?

[WiWavelength]

The problem with the FCC and DoJ is political inconsistency.  Under the pro big business W. Bush administration, the FCC and DoJ allowed VZW and AT&T to enact a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy.  Acquire AT&TWS, Dobson, RCC, and Alltel, etc., in separate transactions, that is perfectly okay.  Fast forward to today, allow Sprint-T-Mobile?  No, that is not okay -- even though it would be smaller still than either of the duopolistic market shares that VZW and AT&T have been allowed to amass.

 

AJ

[mozamcrew]

The problem with the FCC and DoJ is political inconsistency.  Under the pro big business W. Bush administration, the FCC and DoJ allowed VZW and AT&T to enact a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy.  Acquire AT&TWS, Dobson, RCC, and Alltel, etc., in separate transactions, that is perfectly okay.  Fast forward to today, allow Sprint-T-Mobile?  No, that is not okay -- even though it would be smaller still than either of the duopolistic market shares that VZW and AT&T have been allowed to amass.

 

AJ

 

I guess I'm fine with those acquisitions, I just think they need to be much tougher on the divestments and conditions. For example, I would never let ATT or VZW own both sides of a cellular license in a market, or allow them to acquire too much of a spectrum position in a given market. To me these mergers are a perfect time for the FCC and DOJ to set higher buildout requirements and require divestments of spectrum or other assets that make competition impossible.

[WiWavelength]

I guess I'm fine with those acquisitions, I just think they need to be much tougher on the divestments and conditions. For example, I would never let ATT or VZW own both sides of a cellular license in a market, or allow them to acquire too much of a spectrum position in a given market. To me these mergers are a perfect time for the FCC and DOJ to set higher buildout requirements and require divestments of spectrum or other assets that make competition impossible.

Want to take a guess which administration abolished the Cellular cross ownership rule that had been in place for 20 years?

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

 

 

I would be careful assuming that the DOJ has to justify this. The DOJ has shown they have no problem throwing their weight around since if they sue, the deal is likely dead. Not dead because Sprint/Softbank will lose, they would probably win. It would take years for the case to work it's way out and that is an eternity with this big of a buy.

They can, but the problem with that strategy is that they can be sued for damages, personally!!! They have to have a really good case. Edited February 1, 2014 by bigsnake49

[gnoj]

The problem with the FCC and DoJ is political inconsistency.  Under the pro big business W. Bush administration, the FCC and DoJ allowed VZW and AT&T to enact a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy.  Acquire AT&TWS, Dobson, RCC, and Alltel, etc., in separate transactions, that is perfectly okay.  Fast forward to today, allow Sprint-T-Mobile?  No, that is not okay -- even though it would be smaller still than either of the duopolistic market shares that VZW and AT&T have been allowed to amass.

 

AJ

 

To be fair, the Obama Administration has also overseen a good degree of consolidation in the industry. Where they have drawn the line, however, is at having 4 "national" carriers. Why 4? Perhaps they're afraid of what's happened in Canada? In any case, if everything else is fair game, what's to stop Sprint from buying their own share of local and regional providers?

 

Acquiring USCC, nTelos, C Spire, Nex-Tech, and Union Wireless, to name but a few, would go much further to helping Son's goal of having Sprint match AT&T & VZW's coverage then T-Mobile would, with change left over for an organic buildout. All of those together would cost less and be more likely to pass regulatory muster than the TMUS deal. If Sprint has to divest so much of its valuable spectrum and take on more debt only to help cobble together a viable fourth national carrier (since the DoJ won't accept any less), then what's the point? Thanks to EBS/BRS, urban capacity is no longer an issue. Brand image and rural coverage are.

 

Want to take a guess which administration abolished the Cellular cross ownership rule that had been in place for 20 years?

 

That was a mistake, definitely. Who lobbied for that one? The duopoly together?

[S4GRU]

I like the discussion so far. But please be very careful about political discussions. I don't like them around here in general. They rarely go well.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[bigsnake49]

To be fair, the Obama Administration has also overseen a good degree of consolidation in the industry. Where they have drawn the line, however, is at having 4 "national" carriers. Why 4? Perhaps they're afraid of what's happened in Canada? In any case, if everything else is fair game, what's to stop Sprint from buying their own share of local and regional providers?

 

Acquiring USCC, nTelos, C Spire, Nex-Tech, and Union Wireless, to name but a few, would go much further to helping Son's goal of having Sprint match AT&T & VZW's coverage then T-Mobile would, with change left over for an organic buildout. All of those together would cost less and be more likely to pass regulatory muster than the TMUS deal. If Sprint has to divest so much of its valuable spectrum and take on more debt only to help cobble together a viable fourth national carrier (since the DoJ won't accept any less), then what's the point? Thanks to EBS/BRS, urban capacity is no longer an issue. Brand image and rural coverage are.

 

 

That was a mistake, definitely. Who lobbied for that one? The duopoly together?

 

They already roam on those companies, so no need to acquire them. It does not help their coverage at all.

 

Canada tried to establish 4 or more but that did not work very well because it is hard to overcome the lack of lower frequency spectrum plus the built in advantage of incumbents.

 

Dish is very hesitant to become a 5th provider, why? If competition is good with 4, why not with 5 or 6?

Edited February 1, 2014 by bigsnake49

[tongboy]

They can, but the problem with that strategy is that they can be sued for damages, personally!!! They have to have a really good case.

I'm sure your right but I cannot ever remember that ever happening successfully. I can't even imagine how damages would be calculated. Do you know of an example?

[bigsnake49]

I'm sure your right but I cannot ever remember that ever happening successfully. I can't even imagine how damages would be calculated. Do you know of an example?

 

No, I don't know of an example, but I'm pretty sure that economists can calculate the financial impact. Remember that the DOJ has to frame their objections or suit on antitrust grounds. There are no such grounds in this case, none that a reasonable observer can possibly discern. If the suit is to be framed in purely economic grounds, then all recent buyouts including MetroPCS and Leap should have been denied since they both eliminate a competitor. Or all mergers between companies in the same area.

[dnicekid]

FYI, 1700/2100 are a single band, and there is not 1800 band in the US, so it's not QUITE that bad. Also, Dish's 700 Mhz is downlink only.

Thank you for clarifying, if Dishes 700 isnt that useful, this could be the reason Dish is quiet. They might have the most to gain

[bigsnake49]

In reference to the DOJ, look what happened to the merger between American and US Air. Yes, the DOJ sued on anti trust grounds, the companies made concessions (gave up some timeslots/gates at La Guardia and Reagan and that was that!) The same will happen to this merger. There's always a lot of posturing before a major merger like this. I call it political theatre and opening salvos in a negotiation. I am sure they will look at each market and see if the combined company has an ungodly amount of either customers or spectrum. Don't expect a lot of customer divestitures. There will be some spectrum divestitures. Which reminds me, maybe Sprint can get rid of the 900MHz spectrum they own by giving it back to the FCC? Which can then turn around and make it part of the 900MHz ISM band?

Edited February 1, 2014 by bigsnake49

[dnicekid]

They already roam on those companies, so no need to acquire them. It does not help their coverage at all.

 

Canada tried to establish 4 or more but that did not work very well because it is hard to overcome the lack of lower frequency spectrum plus the built in advantage of incumbents.

 

Dish is very hesitant to become a 5th provider, why? If competition is good with 4, why not with 5 or 6?

It seems as if Sprint isn't left with any real alternatives other than to try and buy tmo or continue on its own, which in the short would be very expensive

 

1) continue NV

2) try to acquire 600 and build out 

3) gain customers/ capitol

 

Since buying the smaller carriers wouldnt make much sense, hosting Dishes broadband project, and possibly signing roaming agreements on the 25/2600 would be in Sprints favor.

[bigsnake49]

It seems as if Sprint isn't left with any real alternatives other than to try and buy tmo or continue on its own, which in the short would be very expensive

 

1) continue NV

2) try to acquire 600 and build out 

3) gain customers/ capitol

 

Since buying the smaller carriers wouldnt make much sense, hosting Dishes broadband project, and possibly signing roaming agreements on the 25/2600 would be in Sprints favor.

 

If this merger does not go through for one reason or another, then Sprint will have to do all those things you mentioned. They will also have to become a leaner, meaner company. So expect layoffs no matter what happens.

[dnicekid]

In reference to the DOJ, look what happened to the merger between American and US Air. Yes, the DOJ sued on anti trust grounds, the companies made concessions (gave up some timeslots/gates at La Guardia and Reagan and that was that!) The same will happen to this merger. There's always a lot of posturing before a major merger like this. I call it political theatre and opening salvos in a negotiation. I am sure they will look at each market and see if the combined company has an ungodly amount of either customers or spectrum. Don't expect a lot of customer divestitures. There will be some spectrum divestitures. Which reminds me, maybe Sprint can get rid of the 900MHz spectrum they own by giving it back to the FCC? Which can then turn around and make it part of the 900MHz ISM band?

How much of 900 do they have? 

 

Is it possible for Sprint to give up % of the 25/2600 the spec. the 900, and if the merger goes tmos 700, and in turn be awarded some of the 600?