WSJ: Sprint looking at T-Mobile purchase

[david279]

Could this be the end of CDMA voice?

 

Sent from my One using Tapatalk

 

 

[richy]

I think a lot of people are over reacting. This can be a great thing for sprint, they can possibly gain spectrum and customers for slightly more than what they would have to pay for spectrum alone.  I dont see this merger being completed by say.. april 2014?!

Some people seem to feel like it would knock sprint off its current path. So lets say the merger is approved by june... its gonna take awhile to decommission towers, etc, etc.. we prolly wouldnt really see anything until mid to late 2015....It wouldnt just happen overnight.. nextel was smaller than tmo people wise and look how long it took until they finally shut it down. .. Not saying it would take THAT long again but it isnt gonna be some chaos this coming summer. 

take the best of sprint and tmo put it together .... sprint spark and fall back to "regular" lte or hspa+? how would sprint people lose on out on that?  with unlimited data????? 

There are pros and cons of course but 2-3/4 years down the road ..... wow!

I think it's more a case of does Sprint need it anyway with NV and the 600mhz auction it could find itself sitting pretty without tmo in a few years time anyway. I think  Tmo needs this more than Sprint does. If the price reflects that then maybe it makes sense for Sprint, still not sure it makes sense for customers. Dtelekom needs to get serious about tmobile USA. It's like they got bored of it for 5 years and now they are making an effort but you get the feeling it's only enough to make it attractive enough to sell. Sprint would love the spectrum and the customers, but there is a price AND the effort of merging. 20bn would buy a lot of sites and spectrum and the customers would come anyway. 

[ChadBroChillz]

Well my statement was that industrialize nations tend to have four major carriers. France: orange sfr Bouygues and free mobile, uk: EE voda o2 3 Spain: movestar voda orange yoig Italy TIM voda wind 3 and it keeps going, almost all western European countries have 4 major carriers. Luxembourg has two. If your going to through in regional carriers in to them mix to argue that the US will still be competitive after a sprint tmobile merger, the thing you have to remember is regional carriers generally serve areas that don't have all of the national carriers competing in them. Japan has 4 also.

 

What is the fourth for Japan? I thought they only had three( Docomo, KDDI, and Softbank)

[richy]

 

What is the fourth for Japan? I thought they only had three( Docomo, KDDI, and Softbank)

 

True but doesn't softbank have three totally distinct networks? (hey why not lol)

[z250kid]

just steal there towers use there fiber back haul throw up nv panels!!!

[ChadBroChillz]

True but doesn't softbank have three totally distinct networks? (hey why not lol)

 

They own WillCom, Softbank Mobile, and E-Mobile/E-access. WillCom uses the PHS network, which is collocated with their AXGP(TD-LTE) network, if my memory is correct. I think e-mobile is just standard 3GPP carrier like Softbank Mobile. 

[S4GRU]

Well my statement was that industrialize nations tend to have four major carriers. France: orange sfr Bouygues and free mobile, uk: EE voda o2 3 Spain: movestar voda orange yoig Italy TIM voda wind 3 and it keeps going, almost all western European countries have 4 major carriers. Luxembourg has two. If your going to through in regional carriers in to them mix to argue that the US will still be competitive after a sprint tmobile merger, the thing you have to remember is regional carriers generally serve areas that don't have all of the national carriers competing in them. Japan has 4 also.

My point is a nationwide carrier in Europe is akin to a regional carrier in the US. It is much easier to be a national carrier in Europe than the US. You have to compare continent wide carriers in Europe to nationwide carriers in the US. And national carriers to regional carriers here to get closer to apples to apples, in my opinion. But I get it that you disagree. That's fine.

 

I stand behind my point that three strong national carriers with healthy regulation leveling the playing field for regionals is plenty fine for competition. I just don't see any government entity denying a Sprint purchase of Tmo outright. It would just likely be highly conditional.

 

AT&T probably could have closed the deal with Tmo if it were willing to make a lot of concessions. But they wanted Tmo specifically to screw consumers. And the FCC knows that. SoftBank's motive is not to screw consumers, but to have a better position to compete. Scale is huge when negotiating contracts. Including backhaul.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

My point is a nationwide carrier in Europe is akin to a regional carrier in the US. It is much easier to be a national carrier in Europe than the US. You have to compare continent wide carriers in Europe to nationwide carriers in the US. And national carriers to regional carriers here to get closer to apples to apples, in my opinion. But I get it that you disagree. That's fine.

 

I stand behind my point that three strong national carriers with healthy regulation leveling the playing field for regionals is plenty fine for competition. I just don't see any government entity denying a Sprint purchase of Tmo outright. It would just likely be highly conditional.

 

AT&T probably could have closed the deal with Tmo if it were willing to make a lot of concessions. But they wanted Tmo specifically to screw consumers. And the FCC knows that. SoftBank's motive is not to screw consumers, but to have a better position to compete. Scale is huge when negotiating contracts. Including backhaul.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

We're afraid it'll start being like in Canada: 3 carriers, horrible pricing.

Without Tmobile, that's one less reason for Sprint to keep unlimited. And regarding the "unlimited for life ..." whats to stop Sprint from pulling an ATT and interpreting that to mean "throttles after 3 GB"? Definitely not the "arbitration is mandatory" contracts all carriers use.

[maximus1987/lou99]

ATT's viability never depended on such a guarantee.

[milan03]

I can see how this merger would benefit "SprinT-Mobile" on the corporate level. They'd have similar subs base as the big two, by far largest spectrum portfolio, more revenue, etc. But I can't see how's this going to benefit us consumers short to mid term?

 

Sprint is in the middle of lengthy NV process deploying 800Mhz voice and LTE to every single cell site, ripping the old infrastructure and replacing it with the latest and greatest, upgrading the backhaul. They're serious about fortifying and expanding the existing CDMA footprint, and of course supporting the existing CDMA subs base for years to come.

 

T-Mobile is putting finishing touches on their network modernization, migrating MetroPCS subs to GSM/WCDMA/LTE handsets, will sunset their CDMA network and repurpose the spectrum by mid 2015. They're also disruptive with their plans and aggressive network strategy, causing other wireless providers to react, driving the overall prices down for all of us.

 

If they merge, "SprinT-Mobile" may benefit from shared collocated site bills in some instances, but two network have a very different coverage and strategic site footprint at least in my area, which isn't gonna change overnight as that would be a nightmare for engineers. Two networks are fully matured, finely tuned, and any kind of shift in cell site placement especially in topographically challenged urban areas can cause a ton of headache. It's already been mentioned that they'll be running two different technologies for a while, which is redundant. Over time they could eventually all meet at the VoLTE, and consolidate, but near term that's not happening.

 

By eliminating a Tier-1 provider, consumers definitely aren't benefitting in terms of user experience short-to-mid term, and since Legere is most likely going to be demoted we may not have that consumer friendly disruption in the industry, driving the prices down causing others to react. 

[IamMrFamous07]

Wonder what softbank is planning? Hmm I honestly want them to merge but I hope they have a plan in place if they do merge

[maximus1987/lou99]

Amen.

Look at what TMO has done and the reactions they've FORCED from the big 3.

1) decoupled phone from service - ATT followed suit (though they didn't give consumers ALL the savings given that $450/24 = $18.75 for the iphone subsidy)

 

2) JUMP! - EVERYONE responded even though Sprint's response is most appealing. Though when you combine ATT's response to (1) with their NEXT, it's not as bad a deal.

 

3) international - fell flat and they'll probably rescind this if the roaming costs are not at least offset by new subs' revenue.

But at least they did SOMETHING.

 

The FCC can just trot out the same argument against Sprint+TMUS as the first time: TMUS is the challenger forcing everyone else to innovate. And if TMUS goes away, hello tri-opoly.

[WiWavelength]

People, the constant references to the Canadian wireless industry troika are growing tiresome.  You need to respect the difference between correlation and causation.

 

If the domestic wireless industry were to consolidate to three national operators, would that lead to the same conditions as in the Canadian wireless industry?  Okay, if you think so, provide some substantive analysis!  Your simplistic assessments are not sufficient.  Again, correlation versus causation.

 

Also, how is competition in the domestic wireless industry with four national operators that great?  If four is so much better than three, why are Sprint and T-Mobile both so far behind and scrambling to keep up with the dominant duopoly?

 

AJ

[richy]

So Pluses:

You get a bucket load of spectrum nation wide

You get customers and revenue (and profit)

You have one less big company to bid against in auctions.

You get potential synergies allowing for expansion of coverage in the long term

LTE (edit: meant to say LTE makes merging easier, sure different bands but same tech and newer phones won't have issues with multiple bands).

 

Cons

The spectrum is populated

The cost may be higher than buying 'virgin' spectrum and building out

There is the possibility of less competition for consumers having an impact.

You have to merge networks to realize many of the benefits which could potentially make the deal less valuable or at least add costs and time

There may be significant concessions required which would impact the benefits.

 

So it could be good, it could be bad, it depends on how much money is involved and what concessions may be demanded? My biggest fear is them putting justin biebers granddad in charge of the combined company. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Because they don't have low band spectrum. Give TMO 10x10 600 MHz and watch the duopoly crumble.

[utiz4321]

My point is a nationwide carrier in Europe is akin to a regional carrier in the US. It is much easier to be a national carrier in Europe than the US. You have to compare continent wide carriers in Europe to nationwide carriers in the US. And national carriers to regional carriers here to get closer to apples to apples, in my opinion. But I get it that you disagree. That's fine.

 

I stand behind my point that three strong national carriers with healthy regulation leveling the playing field for regionals is plenty fine for competition. I just don't see any government entity denying a Sprint purchase of Tmo outright. It would just likely be highly conditional.

 

AT&T probably could have closed the deal with Tmo if it were willing to make a lot of concessions. But they wanted Tmo specifically to screw consumers. And the FCC knows that. SoftBank's motive is not to screw consumers, but to have a better position to compete. Scale is huge when negotiating contracts. Including backhaul.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Size wise you may have a point and I think I mention in my original post that the physical size differences between the US and European nations make the return to scale a totally different animal, but this is some what off set by the larger US market. As far as comparing Europe as a whole to the US as a whole this is no where near comparing apples to apples. There are not barriers to trade or language barriers or vast differences in law codes with in the US and there is in Europe. While the union and common currency do a great deal to make Europe more integrated it is in no way comparable to the integration of the US. My main point is you are taking an industry that until metro and leap where gobbled up, there where 5-6 firms serving most markets and nearly all major markets down to 2-3 after a tmobile sprint merge ( some rural markets are serviced by one Regional and one national carrier). 5-6 where probably to many three will be to few. Tmobile is the disrupters in the industry right now, they are the ones making the moves that are changing the industry and all the other carriers, including sprint are following their lead. Take them out and I think we will see the industry petrify (pr at lest slow) which would be sad I such a dynamic industry.

[maximus1987/lou99]

People, the constant references to the Canadian wireless industry troika are growing tiresome. You need to respect the difference between correlation and causation.

 

If the domestic wireless industry were to consolidate to three national operators, would that lead to the same conditions as in the Canadian wireless industry? Okay, if you think so, provide some substantive analysis! Your simplistic assessments are not sufficient. Again, correlation versus causation.

 

Also, how is competition in the domestic wireless industry with four national operators that great? If four is so much better than three, why are Sprint and T-Mobile both so far behind and scrambling to keep up with the dominant duopoly?

 

AJ

I personally have no knowledge of the history of Canadian carriers. Why wouldn't it lead to Canadian situation?

[maximus1987/lou99]

How about a compromise: network sharing. All the cool carriers in Europe are doing it lol.

 

NV on steroids. Imagine the cost savings there! TMO's entire LTE footprint could be transferred to NV towers.

However, TMO just spent billions on new basestations and I don't think NSN and Ericsson accept returns but can't those run CDMA also? TMO could run CDMA on sprint's spectrum using TMO's base stations and the increased CDMA tower density - i.e. cdma capacity -would allow sprint to refarm A-F block for LTE sooner.

 

But long term and going forward, they could share base stations and whatnot.

 

I'd be interested to hear Sprint's response to network sharing.

 

If they're truly interested in saving capex and opex, then they should agree to this.

If not, they simply want to take out tmo to secure the low-end so they can go after the high-end.

Edited December 14, 2013 by jlevian

[dstar2002]

I have a simple thought on all this, and maybe I am dead wrong.

 

You have one loaf of bread, and everyone wants it.

 

Pick a winner, you have 2 Giant mma fighters and 2 high school wrestlers.

 

Now, make it 3 Giants and pick.

 

A lot easier to pick a winner when most of your competition is half your size. Let the 3 be equals and fight for you to pick them to win. You are that loaf of bread.

 

I am for this with the new Sprint regime.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[hescominsoon]

A Sprint T-Mobile combo could just raise their prices to line up with the big two and we all lose as consumers.

pricing isn't really materially different between Sprint and the others these days.

[S4GRU]

So Pluses:

You get a bucket load of spectrum nation wide

You get customers and revenue (and profit)

You have one less big company to bid against in auctions.

You get potential synergies allowing for expansion of coverage in the long term

LTE

 

Cons

The spectrum is populated

The cost may be higher than buying 'virgin' spectrum and building out

There is the possibility of less competition for consumers having an impact.

You have to merge networks to realize many of the benefits which could potentially make the deal less valuable or at least add costs and time

There may be significant concessions required which would impact the benefits.

 

So it could be good, it could be bad, it depends on how much money is involved and what concessions may be demanded? My biggest fear is them putting justin biebers granddad in charge of the combined company.

Good points. However, just the speculation about Bieber anything now makes me against the merger.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[richy]

I have a simple thought on all this, and maybe I am dead wrong.

 

You have one loaf of bread, and everyone wants it.

 

Pick a winner, you have 2 Giant mma fighters and 2 high school wrestlers.

 

Now, make it 3 Giants and pick.

 

A lot easier to pick a winner when most of your competition is half your size.

 

I am for this with the new Sprint regime.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Then the 3 giants get sick of having to train so they agree to take turns to win and get old and fat instead of lean and mean. The exact number involved is debatable but that is peoples worry. We may be perfectly fine with 3, we may not. Your analogy reflects my original thoughts on the matter but many posters on here changed my mind last time it was discussed. 

[dstar2002]

These businesses don't want to take turns, they want your cash, and also want nothing more than the other guy to not get it.

 

They won't buddy up and beat up their customers, they will try to beat up each other.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

 

[richy]

Good points. However, just the speculation about Bieber anything now makes me against the merger.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I know, but theres no way they would put Legere in charge right? I mean he has done a good job of getting tmobile attractive for a sale but not for long term health of a company. ARPU is low, the spectrum is fairly loaded and LTE is not heavily built out. It's all been short term attractiveness.

 

Sprint is the company with the long term plan, I'd take their CEO because I want a Sprint that is healthy in the long run. Tmobiles short term plan is get bought, their medium & long term plan is 'let someone else deal with it'. I'm not carrier bashing (I like a lot of his ideas), DT made it very clear they wanted a sale, they didn't get at&t and Legere is there to make the books look attractive enough to make a sale or a spin off happen, not to grow a long term success.

[richy]

These businesses don't want to take turns, they want your cash, and also want nothing more than the other guy to not get it.

 

They won't buddy up and beat up their customers, they will try to beat up each other.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

Like vzw and at&t do? Their job is to deliver the most returns to their shareholders. If the way to do that is dancing a little too closely with each other what makes you think they wouldn't do that Am I the only one that was amused by how closely the big two priced their plans? There was a little difference in how much bandwidth in each tier but the prices reflected that. Given two completely different companies with differing networks, they cost basically exactly the same? Seriously, just google for companies that have been caught price fixing, it's rampant. Car companies, chip makers, detergent, computer displays, banks, credit card processing companies.... 

 

Not trying to be mean, it's a rude awakening but companies will cheat you to make a buck. I would love for the world to be different but it seems the second you lower your guard you find them schtupping your wife. One thing that is surprising is the number of companies involved, often it is quite a few so that leads me to think that effective regulation is more important than the number of companies in the market. 

 

Maybe you are right and I'm just too cynical