Sprint Reportedly Bowing Out of T-Mobile Bid (was "Sprint offer" and "Iliad" threads)

[JWMaloney]

Sorry but what many of you seems to forget that Sprint has burned customers twice, not once but twice and technically 3 times.

1. The Nextel merger..nuff said on that

 

2. the Xohm/Clearwire 4g non roll-out. The premium data charge and the promise of Wimax coming to cities that never happened. Plus Wimax service that didn't even work indoors and murdered your battery.

 

3. The slow pace of the LTE roll-out because Sprint network had to be rebuilt because it was neglected for over decade in some parts. Now towers are being updated and it's knocking subscribers offline for days to week with no data access. In addition even if you own a LTE smartphone unless it one that came out recently your LTE  experience will still be bad. Telling a subscriber to buy another Smartphone for another upgrade to your LTE network, because the LTE Smartphone you bought won't get the better LTE signal, even though you never had LTE service in you city to begin with is another slap in someone face.

 

You guy need to learn the word empathy. I see it on all other web sites(androidcentral,The verge, DSL reports) when people vent about their Sprint experience. Normally it's not good. Some Sprint apologist goes ape @#@ and tries to discredit them or brag that they get Spark in their area. People have a right to vent. the paid for good or service and it didn't meet their expectation.

 

Sprint situation is like BlackBerry's, the name is toxic right now to many people, regular people. Once the network is complete than maybe it will be the time to shout to the heavens, but right now past subs and present subs are not to cool with the idea regardless who is in charge because the only name they know on the bills is "pay to Sprint".

 

That's a nice rant, and I hope you can find a better site to air it since it's unconstructive and won't be tolerated here, but how does any of that discount the fact that MUCH OF THE USER EQUIPMENT ON SALE AND IN THE FIELD, RIGHT NOW, TODAY, WILL ABSOLUTELY WORK ON LTE ACROSS BOTH NETWORKS AND BRING AN IMMEDIATE AND OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO CUSTOMERS OF BOTH COMPANIES if the merger goes through, with no negative effects?

 

I won't apologize for Sprint's awful past mistakes, but I won't pretend that they have any bearing on the merits of this merger.

[Hurrcayne_dre]

That's a nice rant, and I hope you can find a better site to air it since it's unconstructive and won't be tolerated here, but how does any of that discount the fact that MUCH OF THE USER EQUIPMENT ON SALE AND IN THE FIELD, RIGHT NOW, TODAY, WILL ABSOLUTELY WORK ON LTE ACROSS BOTH NETWORKS AND BRING AN IMMEDIATE AND OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO CUSTOMERS OF BOTH COMPANIES if the merger goes through, with no negative effects?

 

I won't apologize for Sprint's awful past mistakes, but I won't pretend that they have any bearing on the merits of this merger.

 

 

That hardly a rant but a counter argument. I've been lurking here for well over a year so I know the difference. My point was you use I the line people always bring up Sprint past when all people have to go by is WHAT they experienced in the PAST.

I moved past my negative experience with Sprint and came back perhaps more people will.

[utiz4321]

That hardly a rant but a counter argument. I've been lurking here for well over a year so I know the difference. My point was you use I the line people always bring up Sprint past when all people have to go by is WHAT they experienced in the PAST.

I moved past my negative experience with Sprint and came back perhaps more people will.

Not really it is a rant. Sprint doesn't fit tor needs leave and stop commenting on forums about Sprint, it's network upgrades or any other related topic. If Sprint has burned you then there are other companies in the market place, move on with your life. I have been a Sprint customer for over 10 years , never lived in a wimax area and can say I was never burned by them. I had choices and I made mine, make yours and leave people interested in the topics discussed here alone.

[Paynefanbro]

That hardly a rant but a counter argument. I've been lurking here for well over a year so I know the difference. My point was you use I the line people always bring up Sprint past when all people have to go by is WHAT they experienced in the PAST.

I moved past my negative experience with Sprint and came back perhaps more people will.

I don't see how your previous comment was helpful to the topic at all. I understand that bit was a counterargument to the previous post but it was still very much a rant. It had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[Hurrcayne_dre]

So basically anyone who is not for the merger ain't welcome here

[JWMaloney]

That hardly a rant but a counter argument. I've been lurking here for well over a year so I know the difference. My point was you use I the line people always bring up Sprint past when all people have to go by is WHAT they experienced in the PAST.

I moved past my negative experience with Sprint and came back perhaps more people will.

 

To what exactly would it be a counter argument?

 

Here's your original post again:

 

they aren't using LTE for Voice AND data..so you still ahve two networks you have to manage because voice and data are on two incompatible technologies...sprint+tmob=nextel disaster again.

 

I made a counter-argument to that post saying that both their LTE data networks and their IMS core voice networks are compatible, and that current user equipment will work across both networks today. Now you're ranting about all of Sprint's past business endeavors (which again, I will not apologize for).

 

Please explain to me, in a clear, constructive manner, why you believe the Nextel merger, the Clearwire bankruptcy, or the pace of the Network Vision rollout have ANY bearing whatsoever on the technical compatibility of the two carrier's LTE data networks or IMS core networks, the ability for Network Vision to accommodate hosted spectrum, or anything else technology-related between the two carriers. Because once again, the fact is that today, right now, I could take a Nexus 5, or an HTC One M8, or a Samsung Galaxy S5, or any number of other devices, and use them on both carrier's LTE networks with zero compatibility issues. And there's zero reason e/CSFB can't throw you back down to the appropriate voice technology when a call comes in.

[Paynefanbro]

So basically anyone who is not for the merger ain't welcome here

There are people who aren't for the merger in this thread and they have explained why and have given valid reason. However, you never stated your position on the merger. You just ranted and said that you're on Sprint as if that would cover up your rant. It doesn't work like that.

[WiWavelength]

Remember what happened to all T-Mobile threads a few months ago? It can happen again. So, take that to heart, everyone.

 

AJ

[JWMaloney]

Remember what happened to all T-Mobile threads a few months ago? It can happen again. So, take that to heart, everyone.

 

AJ

 

Hey AJ, I was hoping you could shed some light on this.

 

I was doing a bunch of reading on 3GPP standards today, including Voice Call Continuity, IMS, and CSFB. My understanding of the technologies is that an IMS core call can be arbitrarily moved across Wi-Fi, LTE, and traditional voice technologies without being disconnected. Do you know of any technical limitations which would prevent a common IMS core network from handing off to both UMTS and CDMA2000 voice networks? I know there's probably a limitation in that it wouldn't allow calls to cross the two technologies directly, but since IMS is actually at a lower level than points like the MSCs, I don't see where there would be an absolute limitation that a VoLTE call couldn't hand off to whichever technology were more convenient at the moment depending on UE location.

 

I was also giving thought to how it would work with CSFB/eCSFB. I know there are two slightly different 3GPP standards depending on the relevant circuit-switching technology, but when a device is parked on LTE and a call comes through, is there any technical reason the cell site can't tell the device to pick up the call on either voice technology? Do you think there will be a unifying CSFB standard from 3GPP to allow both?

 

Lastly, am I correct in thinking that a device like a Nexus 5 could successfully use a UMTS carrier's LTE as long as CSFB is set up? Or would it refuse to connect like it does on Sprint sites which don't have the eCSFB patch?

 

This stuff is so confusing.

[lilotimz]

Hey AJ, I was hoping you could shed some light on this.

 

I was doing a bunch of reading on 3GPP standards today, including Voice Call Continuity, IMS, and CSFB. My understanding of the technologies is that an IMS core call can be arbitrarily moved across Wi-Fi, LTE, and traditional voice technologies without being disconnected. Do you know of any technical limitations which would prevent a common IMS core network from handing off to both UMTS and CDMA2000 voice networks? I know there's probably a limitation in that it wouldn't allow calls to cross the two technologies directly, but since IMS is actually at a lower level than points like the MSCs, I don't see where there would be an absolute limitation that a VoLTE call couldn't hand off to whichever technology were more convenient at the moment depending on UE location.

 

I was also giving thought to how it would work with CSFB/eCSFB. I know there are two slightly different 3GPP standards depending on the relevant circuit-switching technology, but when a device is parked on LTE and a call comes through, is there any technical reason the cell site can't tell the device to pick up the call on either voice technology? Do you think there will be a unifying CSFB standard from 3GPP to allow both?

 

Lastly, am I correct in thinking that a device like a Nexus 5 could successfully use a UMTS carrier's LTE as long as CSFB is set up? Or would it refuse to connect like it does on Sprint sites which don't have the eCSFB patch?

 

This stuff is so confusing.

Any sprint spark device can utilize tmobile or Att because they have implemented release 8 csfb years ago for their lte to WCDMA hand downs and up. Sprint utilizes release 9 ecsfb as that included support for TDD LTE handoffs and additional goodies but at their core both setups are in essence mostly the same.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[JWMaloney]

Any sprint spark device can utilize tmobile or Att because they have implemented release 8 csfb years ago for their lte to WCDMA hand downs and up. Sprint utilizes release 9 ecsfb as that included support for TDD LTE handoffs but at their core both setups are in essence the same.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

So in that case, would T-Mobile's CSFB automatically tell the phone to pick up an incoming call on a CDMA band? Or could it possibly tell it to pick up the call on WCDMA if the UE can handle it?

[lilotimz]

So in that case, would T-Mobile's CSFB automatically tell the phone to pick up an incoming call on a CDMA band? Or could it possibly tell it to pick up the call on WCDMA if the UE can handle it?

I will need to consult a few ecsfb/CSFB technical documents but I believe you theoretically can but the implementation is the hard part.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Well...here's the endgame...

 

 

Edit 2:... Well..

 

 

1xCSFB with LTE RAN sharing

 

The LTE architecture allows operators to share eNodeBs

and reduce the cost of providing LTE services to users.

One use case of considerable interest is a wholesale

operator deploying an LTE network and providing services

to other mobile operators that have 3G-only networks in

a specific coverage area. Each mobile operator may want

its users to fall back from this common LTE network to

its own 3G core network during the e1xCSFB procedure.

Since many operators are interested in this feature, the

3GPP standards are being enhanced to enable 1xCSFB

with RAN sharing. These changes are being targeted

for Release 12, with these fundamental solution

building blocks:

 

• Existing feature: The SIB-1 contains the PLMN-IDs

of the different operators sharing the LTE eNodeB

 

• Existing feature: The UE selects the best PLMN-ID

among the ones contained in SIB-1, based on PLMN

selection rules [3GPP TS 23.122] and indicates the

selected PLMN-ID to the LTE network in RRC signaling

 

• Existing feature enhanced: The eNodeB selects the

MME based on the PLMN-ID provided by the user’s

device and 1x registration parameters transmitted in

the default block of the SIB-8

 

• Existing feature enhanced: The MME selects the IWS

based on the PLMN-ID provided by the user’s device

or subscription

 

• New feature: The SIB-8 is enhanced to transmit

the multiple instances of the 1x registration related

parameters, one for each 3G operator connected

to the shared LTE network. The S102 registration

is routed to the appropriate IWS selected.

Using this approach, each operator can have its users

fall back to its 3G core network during the e1xCSFB

procedure while sharing access to a common or third

party LTE RAN.

 

Edit 4: Hmm...

 

[bigsnake49]

I am not sure that a call could be continue between CDMA and W-CDMA.

[centermedic]

Sorry but what many of you seems to forget that Sprint has burned customers twice, not once but twice and technically 3 times.

1. The Nextel merger..nuff said on that

 

2. the Xohm/Clearwire 4g non roll-out. The premium data charge and the promise of Wimax coming to cities that never happened. Plus Wimax service that didn't even work indoors and murdered your battery.

 

3. The slow pace of the LTE roll-out because Sprint network had to be rebuilt because it was neglected for over decade in some parts. Now towers are being updated and it's knocking subscribers offline for days to week with no data access. In addition even if you own a LTE smartphone unless it one that came out recently your LTE  experience will still be bad. Telling a subscriber to buy another Smartphone for another upgrade to your LTE network, because the LTE Smartphone you bought won't get the better LTE signal, even though you never had LTE service in you city to begin with is another slap in someone face.

 

You guy need to learn the word empathy. I see it on all other web sites(androidcentral,The verge, DSL reports) when people vent about their Sprint experience. Normally it's not good. Some Sprint apologist goes ape @#@ and tries to discredit them or brag that they get Spark in their area. People have a right to vent. the paid for good or service and it didn't meet their expectation.

 

Sprint situation is like BlackBerry's, the name is toxic right now to many people, regular people. Once the network is complete than maybe it will be the time to shout to the heavens, but right now past subs and present subs are not to cool with the idea regardless who is in charge because the only name they know on the bills is "pay to Sprint".

All other websites allow for ranting and venting. This one does not. What you need to realize is that this website is populated with longtime Sprint customers. There is no other single group of people who have experienced the ups and downs of Sprint. There is nothing that you can add to that conversation so don't bother.

[bigsnake49]

All other websites allow for ranting and venting. This one does not. What you need to realize is that his website is populated with longtime Sprint customers. There is no other single group of people who have experienced the ups and downs of Sprint. There is nothing that you can add to that conversation so don't bother.

 

Well said ...medic . We have been through all the ups and downs, we have rehashed their foibles and we are anxiously waiting for their network to be complete. There might be disagreement between us on whether the merger will be good or bad for Sprint or T-Mobile or the consumers, but that's what this thread is all about. So people can express their opinion about it on technical, economic or other grounds and to speculate about the breakup fee if any, the management structure, etc. 

[milan03]

I am not sure that a call could be continue between CDMA and W-CDMA.

Pretty sure it can't.

 

The first slide above displaying the proposed path to convergence is way behind as we are still without VoLTE networks and UE, and Sprint doesn't necessarily have an aggressive strategy for VoLTE. Also under that slide, the article displaying proposed eNodeB sharing is targeted for LTE Release 12 which is still being finalized by 3GPP administration. The infrastructure is probably ~2years away...

 

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but at the moment that is the reality. From the consumer standpoint, merging two operators won't provide us any short to mid term benefits. I'm sure executives and stock holders will be happy with the scale, but this is only going to slow down the disruption in the market. And with insane amount of spectrum, going into the 600MHz auction is going to be a bitch.

[Conan Kudo]

There are several important flaws here:

• On CDMA/WCDMA CS/PS Handover: The amount of effort required to make the necessary shims to bridge the 3GPP2 and 3GPP network systems is ridiculous. Over 100 operators worldwide have switched from CDMA to WCDMA in the last five years alone. Not a single one of them even considered doing such a thing because the two networks are extremely incompatible at the core. The interoperability shim that is part of eHRPD for CDMA/LTE isn't a very stable solution and is expected to be retired as soon as possible, due to the complexity of maintaining the shim.
• On Sprint/T-Mobile network integration: Based on my research, a little over 60% of all Sprint devices are capable of GSM/UMTS on the PCS band today. That said, it does Sprint very little good to use that as a reason for easy integration of the T-Mobile network, since the T-Mobile network is AWS-based, not PCS-based. As the network continues to evolve to a UMTS/LTE platform, T-Mobile will shift UMTS from AWS to PCS if there's room. Otherwise, UMTS will remain on AWS. While it is true that Sprint has the room now to deploy at least one UMTS carrier in every single market on PCS without cutting CDMA or LTE capacity at all, the challenge is reorganizing the blocks of spectrum so that HSPA+42 can be shifted entirely to PCS, CDMA can be cut away for additional UMTS or LTE carriers, and neither operator suffers. This point only makes sense if Sprint transitions to UMTS before proposing to merge with T-Mobile US.
• On future spectrum: Sprint has 6+6 MHz of ESMR in virtually all markets (except Puerto Rico). Sprint is practically guaranteed 7+7 MHz at the end of rebanding, and has an opportunity to expand to 9+9 MHz. Because of this, I doubt Sprint is going to consider 600MHz a headache worth dealing with. If I were Sprint, I'd focus on AWS-3 rather than 600MHz, because that would be less of a nightmare. And given that the FCC's new spectrum screen is basically a signal to Sprint that regulators will absolutely block a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, it's better for Sprint to focus on auctions (where the screen won't apply) rather than M&A.
• On culture integration: Sprint is historically quite bad at integrating with companies post-acquisition. Nextel/Sprint and Clearwire/Sprint were not easy for Sprint to digest. I imagine it would be even worse for a T-Mobile/Sprint merger.
• On Un-Carrier: SoftBank and Sprint cannot support several of the initiatives that T-Mobile is doing publicly and semi-privately. For example, T-Mobile's Simple Global roaming is only possible because Deutsche Telekom is part of the FreeMove Alliance. Additionally, T-Mobile US has elected for many years to have roaming agreements negotiated by Deutsche Telekom on its behalf as part of Group-wide roaming agreements. This has allowed T-Mobile US to have much more affordable roaming agreements than what any other player in the US has. Even Verizon Wireless didn't have this advantage, because Vodafone refused to allow them this without converting to GSM/UMTS first. You can bet that if Sprint takes over T-Mobile, Un-Carrier will die, as will virtually all of the unique offerings T-Mobile has today because SoftBank can't support it.

 

With the amount of money that Sprint raising to attempt to finance a deal to acquire T-Mobile, the company could overhaul its network all over again, twice! To me, the cost/benefit equation doesn't work out. Sprint is better off working within itself to better its network and brand. If it wants to speed things up with a network sharing deal (involving GSM/UMTS/LTE), that's fine with me. I can see that working out quite well for the both of them, and not being a problem with the regulators (the FCC and the DOJ had no problem with the formation of the AWN NetCo that merged GCI and ACS' LTE networks, and moved the two companies firmly to GSM/UMTS). But acquiring T-Mobile is likely a waste of time, effort, and money.

[bigsnake49]

There are several important flaws here:

• On CDMA/WCDMA CS/PS Handover: The amount of effort required to make the necessary shims to bridge the 3GPP2 and 3GPP network systems is ridiculous. Over 100 operators worldwide have switched from CDMA to WCDMA in the last five years alone. Not a single one of them even considered doing such a thing because the two networks are extremely incompatible at the core. The interoperability shim that is part of eHRPD for CDMA/LTE isn't a very stable solution and is expected to be retired as soon as possible, due to the complexity of maintaining the shim.
• On Sprint/T-Mobile network integration: Based on my research, a little over 60% of all Sprint devices are capable of GSM/UMTS on the PCS band today. That said, it does Sprint very little good to use that as a reason for easy integration of the T-Mobile network, since the T-Mobile network is AWS-based, not PCS-based. As the network continues to evolve to a UMTS/LTE platform, T-Mobile will shift UMTS from AWS to PCS if there's room. Otherwise, UMTS will remain on AWS. While it is true that Sprint has the room now to deploy at least one UMTS carrier in every single market on PCS without cutting CDMA or LTE capacity at all, the challenge is reorganizing the blocks of spectrum so that HSPA+42 can be shifted entirely to PCS, CDMA can be cut away for additional UMTS or LTE carriers, and neither operator suffers. This point only makes sense if Sprint transitions to UMTS before proposing to merge with T-Mobile US.
• On future spectrum: Sprint has 6+6 MHz of ESMR in virtually all markets (except Puerto Rico). Sprint is practically guaranteed 7+7 MHz at the end of rebanding, and has an opportunity to expand to 9+9 MHz. Because of this, I doubt Sprint is going to consider 600MHz a headache worth dealing with. If I were Sprint, I'd focus on AWS-3 rather than 600MHz, because that would be less of a nightmare. And given that the FCC's new spectrum screen is basically a signal to Sprint that regulators will absolutely block a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, it's better for Sprint to focus on auctions (where the screen won't apply) rather than M&A.
• On culture integration: Sprint is historically quite bad at integrating with companies post-acquisition. Nextel/Sprint and Clearwire/Sprint were not easy for Sprint to digest. I imagine it would be even worse for a T-Mobile/Sprint merger.
• On Un-Carrier: SoftBank and Sprint cannot support several of the initiatives that T-Mobile is doing publicly and semi-privately. For example, T-Mobile's Simple Global roaming is only possible because Deutsche Telekom is part of the FreeMove Alliance. Additionally, T-Mobile US has elected for many years to have roaming agreements negotiated by Deutsche Telekom on its behalf as part of Group-wide roaming agreements. This has allowed T-Mobile US to have much more affordable roaming agreements than what any other player in the US has. Even Verizon Wireless didn't have this advantage, because Vodafone refused to allow them this without converting to GSM/UMTS first. You can bet that if Sprint takes over T-Mobile, Un-Carrier will die, as will virtually all of the unique offerings T-Mobile has today because SoftBank can't support it.

 

With the amount of money that Sprint raising to attempt to finance a deal to acquire T-Mobile, the company could overhaul its network all over again, twice! To me, the cost/benefit equation doesn't work out. Sprint is better off working within itself to better its network and brand. If it wants to speed things up with a network sharing deal (involving GSM/UMTS/LTE), that's fine with me. I can see that working out quite well for the both of them, and not being a problem with the regulators (the FCC and the DOJ had no problem with the formation of the AWN NetCo that merged GCI and ACS' LTE networks, and moved the two companies firmly to GSM/UMTS). But acquiring T-Mobile is likely a waste of time, effort, and money.

 

Call continuity between CDMA and WCDMA is not strictly necessary. It will be great if it can be continued from one network to the other, but lets' face it, both voice networks will be phased out in favor of VoLTE.

 

There will be plenty of PCS spectrum for not just 1 but 2 or 3 WCDMA PCS channels on the combined network. I would like to see the layout of T-Mobile/Sprint holdings in the PCS band. HSPA+42 is no longer necessary since the advent of LTE. 

 

Sprint is already going to use 700MHz for roaming purposes. They will bid on 600MHz but by all indications they will bypass AWS-3.

 

Which brings up what is the Feds's great fear that if Sprint and T-Mobile combine, the combined company will not bid on AWS-3, thereby reducing the auction proceeds considerably.

 

Sprint is paying for T-Mobile's customers and spectrum, not their network. I am sure certain network elements will be reused, certain T-Mobile sites will become NV sites.

Edited May 3, 2014 by bigsnake49

[JThorson]

Sprint is paying for T-Mobile's customers and spectrum, not their network. I am sure certain network elements will be reused, certain T-Mobile sites will become NV sites.

I agree, I think Sprint and Son in general want their spectrum, customers and more towers to have a bigger scale. I think with the added towers, it would provide them a larger footprint in the US.

[Rawvega]

• Because of this, I doubt Sprint is going to consider 600MHz a headache worth dealing with. If I were Sprint, I'd focus on AWS-3 rather than 600MHz, because that would be less of a nightmare. And given that the FCC's new spectrum screen is basically a signal to Sprint that regulators will absolutely block a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, it's better for Sprint to focus on auctions (where the screen won't apply) rather than M&A.

 

I don't know that there's anything inherently wrong in looking at AWS-3 despite the consternation that others here have expressed about the subject. However, to bypass the 600MHz auction would be an abject disaster, especially if the FCC follows through with putting their proposed restrictions in place. While I'm sure the magenta contingent would love for Sprint to skip the 600MHz auction and allow them to gobble up most of the restricted spectrum unopposed, that doesn't seem very probable. This is likely to be the last auction for beachfront, low band spectrum for quite some time. Sprint must to be a buyer here.

 

 

 

 

• On culture integration: Sprint is historically quite bad at integrating with companies post-acquisition. Nextel/Sprint and Clearwire/Sprint were not easy for Sprint to digest.

 

 

 

What specific problems are you referring to with the Clearwire acquisition?

[SF SOMA]

 

With the amount of money that Sprint raising to attempt to finance a deal to acquire T-Mobile, the company could overhaul its network all over again, twice! To me, the cost/benefit equation doesn't work out. Sprint is better off working within itself to better its network and brand. If it wants to speed things up with a network sharing deal (involving GSM/UMTS/LTE), that's fine with me. I can see that working out quite well for the both of them, and not being a problem with the regulators (the FCC and the DOJ had no problem with the formation of the AWN NetCo that merged GCI and ACS' LTE networks, and moved the two companies firmly to GSM/UMTS). But acquiring T-Mobile is likely a waste of time, effort, and money.

Couldn't agree more.  Unfortunately, I think Sprint's biggest weakness is its ability to execute.  Whether it is Nextel, Wimax, etc.  Merging these two companies together from a company that lacks execution skills spells for a big disaster.  I would focus on growing from the ground up.  Seems like they have a lot of spectrum and are heading in the right (albeit very slow) path with respect to upgrading their towers.  The downside is you have another Nextel fiasco and make Verizon and ATT much stronger, with even less competition.  I don't know the stats but most mergers of this size fail.  Always easier said than done when actually executing.  Plus, I like that little TMUS is shaking up the industry right now.

[Conan Kudo]

I don't know that there's anything inherently wrong in looking at AWS-3 despite the consternation that others here have expressed about the subject. However, to bypass the 600MHz auction would be an abject disaster, especially if the FCC follows through with putting their proposed restrictions in place. While I'm sure the magenta contingent would love for Sprint to skip the 600MHz auction and allow them to gobble up most of the restricted spectrum unopposed, that doesn't seem very probable. This is likely to be the last auction for beachfront, low band spectrum for quite some time. Sprint must to be a buyer here.

It depends on whether the cost/benefit works out. The "magenta contingent" doesn't care whether or not Sprint participates. Regardless of its participation, there will be at least 2x15MHz reserved for Sprint and T-Mobile (though there are efforts underway to expand this to 2x20MHz or 2x25MHz as the minimum). T-Mobile is likely to only grab 2x10MHz at most. That leaves plenty for Sprint. Personally, I want Sprint to bid for both. But from a utilitarian perspective, 600MHz doesn't look that great for Sprint compared to working to expand to up to 2x9MHz of ESMR.

 

What specific problems are you referring to with the Clearwire acquisition?

There were many people in the Clearwire side and the Sprint side that couldn't get along, and now the only people left from Clearwire at Sprint were the particularly unmotivated ones, like John Saw (the Chief Network Officer). I'm rather concerned about the effect that will have on Sprint in the future.

[lilotimz]

There were many people in the Clearwire side and the Sprint side that couldn't get along, and now the only people left from Clearwire at Sprint were the particularly unmotivated ones, like John Saw (the Chief Network Officer). I'm rather concerned about the effect that will have on Sprint in the future.

 

And you have proof that John Saw is "unmotivated" right considering the good friends and fellow network executives of Hesse was fired by Son and replaced by Saw. 

[Conan Kudo]

And you have proof that John Saw is "unmotivated" right considering the good friends and fellow network executives of Hesse was fired by Son and replaced by Saw. 

I do not know if he's "unmotivated" now. But he sure seemed like it when he was at Clearwire directing network management. But plenty of Clearwire folks jumped the ship when the deal closed, and several Sprint folks did, too. Senior people, even!

[milan03]

Call continuity between CDMA and WCDMA is not strictly necessary. It will be great if it can be continued from one network to the other, but lets' face it, both voice networks will be phased out in favor of VoLTE.

 

There will be plenty of PCS spectrum for not just 1 but 2 or 3 WCDMA PCS channels on the combined network. I would like to see the layout of T-Mobile/Sprint holdings in the PCS band. HSPA+42 is no longer necessary since the advent of LTE. 

 

Sprint is already going to use 700MHz for roaming purposes. They will bid on 600MHz but by all indications they will bypass AWS-3.

 

Which brings up what is the Feds's great fear that if Sprint and T-Mobile combine, the combined company will not bid on AWS-3, thereby reducing the auction proceeds considerably.

 

Sprint is paying for T-Mobile's customers and spectrum, not their network. I am sure certain network elements will be reused, certain T-Mobile sites will become NV sites.

I haven't seen any aggressiveness in Sprint's action plan to deploy VoLTE as of late. And considering a push towards EVRC-NW while everyone else is using W-AMR, I'd love to see that Multi-Operator VoLTE integration in action. May not be as seamless as we think.

 

HSPA+42 is still a viable airlink for data, voice and roamers. And it's being migrated to PCS which widens up contiguity for LTE in the AWS. Since T-Mobile has enough contiguous spectrum for two W-CDMA carriers, there is no reason not to have HSPA+42.

 

Worth saying that T-Mobile subs don't have CDMA capable handsets, and can't necessarily utilize Sprint's voice in the short term. Moving everyone to HSPA/LTE significantly cuts the manufacturing and licensing cost.