Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[itsrobert]

Hoping the Sprint Tower closest to my home is kept and T-Moible equipment is added.  

 

I hear if the deal falls through, the only penalty T-Mobile will pay is that  Sprint customers will still be able to roam on T-Mobile.    That will be huge for rural Sprint Customers with T-Mobile's 600mhz. 

[2fastkuztoms]

The question is, Robert do you bougth T4GRU.com domain?

[Trip]

Just now, Arysyn said:

Thanks, Terrell. That makes more sense... I couldn't imagine the company getting rid of 85,000 sites, though still the 35,000 going away is quite alot too, the closely by sites to T-Mobile's towers.

There are an absolute boatload of sites shared by both Sprint and T-Mobile.  There are additional sites that are at adjacent locations.  I wouldn't be surprised if that number added up to 35,000.

- Trip

[IamMrFamous07]

Keep in mind “New T-Mobile” has Altice, Cox, One Web and  Gilat for partnerships.

[itsrobert]

My prediction is TMobile will buy the naming rights to the Raiders new Las Vegas Stadium and call it The New T-Mobile Coliseum to go along with T-Mobile Arena they already have rights for. 

[bigsnake49]

28 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

I don't really think that would be a smart idea...

I think the ideal network configuration for a combined company would probably be:

• ~20x20 NR600
• 5x5 L700
• 5x5 L800
• A single 1x800 carrier
• 20x20 L1900
• A single U1900 carrier
• 20x20 L2100
• LTE/NR on 2.5 GHz

There isn't much benefit to shutting down 1x800 because not much else can be done with that 1.25 MHz FDD slice of spectrum.  Additionally, 1x800 provides far greater range than LTE or NR will ever be capable of and would be very useful to keep for edge-of-cell rural cases.  

Too many bands to be supported on the towers. RRHs would be really complicated or they would have to double them. T-Mobile has both AWS-1 and AWS-3. I think they will try to consolidate their spectrum holdings. Look out for a lot of horse trading after the merger closes.

[Arysyn]

12 minutes ago, itsrobert said:

My prediction is TMobile will buy the naming rights to the Raiders new Las Vegas Stadium and call it The New T-Mobile Coliseum to go along with T-Mobile Arena they already have right for. 

This is why I think eventually they'll co-locate the combined companies to Las Vegas by building a huge stunning new headquarters there Des will get to show off in an opening video.

[RAvirani]

4 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Too many bands to be supported on the towers. RRHs would be really complicated or they would have to double them. T-Mobile has both AWS-1 and AWS-3. I think they will try to consolidate their spectrum holdings. Look out for a lot of horse trading after the merger closes.

Three antennas per tower easily: Sprint 800/1900/2500, T-Mobile 600/700, T-Mobile 1900/2100. RRHs can be doubled up and reused across both network. 

[Arysyn]

20 minutes ago, 2fastkuztoms said:

The question is, Robert do you bougth T4GRU.com domain?

That reminds me of a good question... What will the new name of S4GRU be? I doubt it'll be T4GRU though, especially with the 5G push? T5GRU perhaps?

[bigsnake49]

33 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

In the video that John and Marcelo made together, they mentioned that Comcast is growing extremely fast despite only being an MVNO on Verizon's network. Xfinity Mobile was announced in April 2017 and by March 2018, they had 577,000 postpaid subscribers.

Not to mention Charter MVNO. I think between the two, Comcast and Charter they might cause some damage with strand and pole mounted small cells. I just might join the Charter MVNO when they offer it here if the deals are good.

Edited April 29, 2018 by bigsnake49

[derrph]

Wait so the company is going to be called “New T-Mobile” or just T-Mobile? 

[Arysyn]

Just now, derrph said:

Wait so the company is going to be called “New T-Mobile” or just T-Mobile? 

T-Mobile XL ?

[IamMrFamous07]

1 minute ago, derrph said:

Wait so the company is going to be called “New T-Mobile” or just T-Mobile? 

 

1 minute ago, derrph said:

Wait so the company is going to be called “New T-Mobile” or just T-Mobile? 

T-Mobile 

[bigsnake49]

4 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

Three antennas per tower easily: Sprint 800/1900/2500, T-Mobile 600/700, T-Mobile 1900/2100. 

Per sector, you mean. They might run against weight limits. I expect that would be the initial configuration but they probably want to save money on rent and the more antennas/RRHs the more your rent.

Edited April 29, 2018 by bigsnake49

[RAvirani]

8 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Per sector, you mean. They might run against weight limits. I expect that would be the initial configuration but they probably want to save money on rent and the more antennas/RRHs the more your rent.

Yes, I did mean per sector, which is not too bad. Almost all Verizon setups in Seattle use 3-4 antennas per sector and almost all AT&T setups use 2-4.

Since we are seeing 4x4 800 RRHs coming out soon, I’d guess most future deployments on 800/1900/2500 will only utilize 3 RRHs per sector. Additionally, T-Mobile heavily utilizes active antennas today (antennas with an RRU integrated), so that ought to help a lot too. I’d estimate a full joint T-Mobile and Sprint setup would only require 4-5 RRUs and 3 antennas per sector today.

If we see 2100 integrated into T-Mobile 600/700 antennas in the future, we could get all 6 bands into 2 antennas and 4 RRUs per sectors — that’s pretty manageable if you ask me. 

[bigsnake49]

19 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

Yes, I did mean per sector, which is not too bad. Almost all Verizon setups in Seattle use 3-4 antennas per sector and almost all AT&T setups use 2-4.

Since we are seeing 4x4 800 RRHs coming out soon, I’d guess most future deployments on 800/1900/2500 will only utilize 3 RRHs per sector. Additionally, T-Mobile heavily utilizes active antennas today (antennas with an RRU integrated), so that ought to help a lot too. I’d estimate a full joint T-Mobile and Sprint setup would only require 4-5 RRUs and 3 antennas per sector today.

If we see 2100 integrated into T-Mobile 600/700 antennas in the future, we could get all 6 bands into 2 antennas and 4 RRUs per sectors — that’s pretty manageable if you ask me. 

Why can't T-mobile's 1900 be served by Sprint's 800/1900/2500? Also in certain areas Sprint has 20MHz band 25 spectrum all by itself.

The other thing that the resulting company should look at is to deploy C-RAN (Centralized RAN) so they can centralize the base station functionality into a central facility per area. Of course that would require additional fiber bandwidth but it provides many pros than cons (fault tolerance/generic hardware/UPS)

Edited April 29, 2018 by bigsnake49

[Thomas L.]

3 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Why can't T-mobile's 1900 be served by Sprint's 800/1900/2500?

Good question. The antennas are technology agnostic aren't they? 

[utiz4321]

6 hours ago, SprintNYC said:

Hey let’s announce dual headquarters just to trick the DOJ that we won’t kill high paying jobs when in reality one of the reasons of this merger is to save billions on labor. 

This thing will happen unless the DOJ shot it down but it will be a win win to T-Mobile regarless because Sprint management will halt all deployments as soon this transaction is announced. Massa Son is the ultimate vulture capitalist. Having said that all the signs were there from the start. Marcelo was brought in to cut the fat and get the company ready for a merger.

Mass should have been able to buy T mobile right from the start. Sprint wasted years producing a network that was inferior to the competition. 

[Rawvega]

53 minutes ago, itsrobert said:

My prediction is TMobile will buy the naming rights to the Raiders new Las Vegas Stadium and call it The New T-Mobile Coliseum to go along with T-Mobile Arena they already have rights for. 

I sort of doubt that unless the merged company eventually were to eventually relocate their combined headquarters to Las Vegas (which I personally wouldn't mind). A corporation with co-headquarters in the Kansas City and Seattle areas purchasing naming rights to a football stadium in Las Vegas doesn't necessarily make sense as both of those areas already have professional football stadiums. It would just be...odd imo. When T-mobile purchased the naming rights to T-mobile Arena in Las Vegas, Seattle didn't have an NHL team (though that likely will be changing in the next few years).

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, jamesinclair said:

I hope the government shuts this down again

 

LOL, thats not how mergers work.

 

(laughing at the corporate line, not the messenger)

 

 

Yup we should have keep 8 wireless carriers with an average of 40 MHz of specturm each because of the job lose the mergers created. Those poor people, they never got another job again. Can you imagine how terrible that world would be? 

[derrph]

50 minutes ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

 

T-Mobile 

Thanks. I just keep seeing new tmo and just took it as “well is this the new name? It’s ugly and might as well call it Joggers instead lol” 

[danlodish345]

Just now, derrph said:

Thanks. I just keep seeing new tmo and just took it as “well is this the new name? It’s ugly and might as well call it Joggers instead lol” 

Well I really hope it produces some type of tangible results in terms of the actual merger. Like I want to see a network that can keep up with Verizon let alone AT&T.

[bigsnake49]

Even with the merger, the resulting company only will have 59M postpaid customers out of 127M. The new company will still have to compete on price for a while to snitch some postpaid customers.

[derrph]

5 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

Well I really hope it produces some type of tangible results in terms of the actual merger. Like I want to see a network that can keep up with Verizon let alone AT&T.

Hell it better. That I can agree on. 

 

3 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Even with the merger, the resulting company only will have 59M postpaid customers out of 127M. The new company will still have to compete on price for a while to snitch some postpaid customers.

Wow! 

[danlodish345]

2 minutes ago, derrph said:

Hell it better. That I can agree on. 

 

Wow! 

It definitely should. Because I want to have a carrier that's good on price but also good on the network. But obviously in some cases we can't have both. So I really hope the doj And FCC scrutinize this very carefully.